Professor advocates heroin use

[marshwiggle]

Price in the legal market for cannabis in Canada is indeed higher than in the illegal market. Oh my god!

Turns out Canada is a special case. Shows how not to legalize.

This is decriminalization + regulation, not legalization plus taxation.

According to this:

Decriminalization is a loosening of criminal penalties imposed for personal marijuana use even though the manufacturing and sale of the substance remain illegal.

Legalization, on the other hand, is the lifting or abolishment of laws banning the possession and personal use of marijuana. More importantly, legalization allows the government to regulate and tax marijuana use and sales.

So, in Canada it is definitely legalization, not decriminalization.

Definitions are never right or wrong, just more or less useful, Marsh. My use is ... well, more useful! :-)

In what way?

When Trudeau was campaigning to legalize weed, and trying to be all cool about it, the ONLY way it was going to fly politically is if there were severe restrictions. For instance:

• No sales to minors (with a LOT more penalties for doing so than for tobacco)
• Impaired driving enforcement measures as strong as for alcohol. This was made especially difficult since there's not a simple breath test for cannabis since there are a whole bunch of volatiles.

Given all of the carnage due to drunk drivers, NO-ONE would let politicians off the hook for shrugging and saying"OOPS!" when people are killed by stoned drivers. So the restrictions reflect that. Still I think there are at least a couple of weed stores within a couple of blocks of my home, (one for sure), so it's readily available.

[dismalist]

Price in the legal market for cannabis in Canada is indeed higher than in the illegal market. Oh my god!

Turns out Canada is a special case. Shows how not to legalize.

This is decriminalization + regulation, not legalization plus taxation.

According to this:

Decriminalization is a loosening of criminal penalties imposed for personal marijuana use even though the manufacturing and sale of the substance remain illegal.

Legalization, on the other hand, is the lifting or abolishment of laws banning the possession and personal use of marijuana. More importantly, legalization allows the government to regulate and tax marijuana use and sales.

So, in Canada it is definitely legalization, not decriminalization.

Definitions are never right or wrong, just more or less useful, Marsh. My use is ... well, more useful! :-)

In what way?

When Trudeau was campaigning to legalize weed, and trying to be all cool about it, the ONLY way it was going to fly politically is if there were severe restrictions. For instance:

• No sales to minors (with a LOT more penalties for doing so than for tobacco)
• Impaired driving enforcement measures as strong as for alcohol. This was made especially difficult since there's not a simple breath test for cannabis since there are a whole bunch of volatiles.

Given all of the carnage due to drunk drivers, NO-ONE would let politicians off the hook for shrugging and saying"OOPS!" when people are killed by stoned drivers. So the restrictions reflect that. Still I think there are at least a couple of weed stores within a couple of blocks of my home, (one for sure), so it's readily available.

Never said anything against that, Marsh. I just mentioned stuff that prevents this from working properly. I used words for that that some others would not. No biggy.

Anyway, we have to stop meeting like this. :-)

[marshwiggle]

Price in the legal market for cannabis in Canada is indeed higher than in the illegal market. Oh my god!

Turns out Canada is a special case. Shows how not to legalize.

This is decriminalization + regulation, not legalization plus taxation.

According to this:

Decriminalization is a loosening of criminal penalties imposed for personal marijuana use even though the manufacturing and sale of the substance remain illegal.

Legalization, on the other hand, is the lifting or abolishment of laws banning the possession and personal use of marijuana. More importantly, legalization allows the government to regulate and tax marijuana use and sales.

So, in Canada it is definitely legalization, not decriminalization.

Definitions are never right or wrong, just more or less useful, Marsh. My use is ... well, more useful! :-)

In what way?

When Trudeau was campaigning to legalize weed, and trying to be all cool about it, the ONLY way it was going to fly politically is if there were severe restrictions. For instance:

• No sales to minors (with a LOT more penalties for doing so than for tobacco)
• Impaired driving enforcement measures as strong as for alcohol. This was made especially difficult since there's not a simple breath test for cannabis since there are a whole bunch of volatiles.

Given all of the carnage due to drunk drivers, NO-ONE would let politicians off the hook for shrugging and saying"OOPS!" when people are killed by stoned drivers. So the restrictions reflect that. Still I think there are at least a couple of weed stores within a couple of blocks of my home, (one for sure), so it's readily available.

Never said anything against that, Marsh. I just mentioned stuff that prevents this from working properly. I used words for that that some others would not. No biggy.

Anyway, we have to stop meeting like this. :-)

But I still don't get what makes this more expensive in Canada then it needs to be. From the product safety measures someone else mentioned, to the restrictions on sales (like for alcohol and tobacco), what measures are unnecessary and prevent it from "working properly"?

[dismalist]

Price controls and speed of licensing retail establishments, probably also producers.

[Kron3007]

Price in the legal market for cannabis in Canada is indeed higher than in the illegal market. Oh my god!

Turns out Canada is a special case. Shows how not to legalize.

This is decriminalization + regulation, not legalization plus taxation.

According to this:

Decriminalization is a loosening of criminal penalties imposed for personal marijuana use even though the manufacturing and sale of the substance remain illegal.

Legalization, on the other hand, is the lifting or abolishment of laws banning the possession and personal use of marijuana. More importantly, legalization allows the government to regulate and tax marijuana use and sales.

So, in Canada it is definitely legalization, not decriminalization.

Definitions are never right or wrong, just more or less useful, Marsh. My use is ... well, more useful! :-)

In what way?

When Trudeau was campaigning to legalize weed, and trying to be all cool about it, the ONLY way it was going to fly politically is if there were severe restrictions. For instance:

• No sales to minors (with a LOT more penalties for doing so than for tobacco)
• Impaired driving enforcement measures as strong as for alcohol. This was made especially difficult since there's not a simple breath test for cannabis since there are a whole bunch of volatiles.

Given all of the carnage due to drunk drivers, NO-ONE would let politicians off the hook for shrugging and saying"OOPS!" when people are killed by stoned drivers. So the restrictions reflect that. Still I think there are at least a couple of weed stores within a couple of blocks of my home, (one for sure), so it's readily available.

Never said anything against that, Marsh. I just mentioned stuff that prevents this from working properly. I used words for that that some others would not. No biggy.

Anyway, we have to stop meeting like this. :-)

But I still don't get what makes this more expensive in Canada then it needs to be. From the product safety measures someone else mentioned, to the restrictions on sales (like for alcohol and tobacco), what measures are unnecessary and prevent it from "working properly"?

Legal cannabis starts at about $4/g CAD ($112/OZ).  This is pretty competitive with the black market.  Initially this was not the case, but now there is very little price differential and quality within the legal system has improved.  Over the next several years, I dont think there will be too much black market left.

[kaysixteen]

Explain the logic behind the assertion that legalized heroin will mean fewer user deaths.   If you legalize it, you will get more people using it, more people addicted to it, and more people committing crime to finance their habits, as well as more crime associated with wasted junkies, even if these wasted junkies are acting in accordance with legal underlying drug use.

[dismalist]

Explain the logic behind the assertion that legalized heroin will mean fewer user deaths.   If you legalize it, you will get more people using it, more people addicted to it, and more people committing crime to finance their habits, as well as more crime associated with wasted junkies, even if these wasted junkies are acting in accordance with legal underlying drug use.

Tax equal to illegal markup to maintain street price. No additional users. For the umpteenth time.

[Kron3007]

Random thoughts:

1) obviously I attempt to act and legislate in accordance with my religious views.   Everyone does, even if those religious  views are irreligious atheism.   My right to try to make my beliefs normative practice in our society is just as strong as Prof. Pothead's right to try to make his views normative and indeed legal.  I am not going to apologize for this, as I stand firmly by my thinking regarding why I think narcotics, even weed, are awful cancers on society that should not be allowed (and more or less everything we are now learning about weed's actual effects, esp on teenagers, is on my side).  The fact that the war on drugs has not been run well, mistakes have been made, etc., does not alter this.   The fact that booze prohibition did not work well does not mean it was necessarily a bad idea, despite the points mentioned here that a) many people drink without intending to get wasted, or even buzzed, b) booze has been part of our culture forever c) illegal booze purveyors produce crime, bad boozes, etc., ought not mean we should celebrate drinking, or even not try to restrict it (we have strong drinking ages, active and rather stringent policies against drunk driving, alcohol advertising, and social pressures against its use (look at 1960s-70s TV shows and compare them to now, with regards to people then regularly drinking hsrd liquor, having 'liquor cabinets' even if they themselves did not drink, etc.

2)Let's just ask this plainly, for anyone who thinks heroin ought to be legalized-- what benefits of such legalization are you thinking would occur, and how would such bennies counteract the vast increase in opioid addiction it would create (and remember that things like 'oxycontin'  are essentially legalized heroin.   I get the point regarding the great socioeconomic underpinnings of the opioid and meth crises (and many weed users, legal or illegal, are similarly despairing people who are trying to deal with their own bad circumstances by forceably forgetting it away), but this is an argument for doing something about these problems, not for surrendering to them and making the poison legal, more or less conceding endemic underclass status to the users and many others in their communities.

1) Yes, you are free to hold your beliefs and even call names to denigrate me rather than addressing comments if you wish.   Basically, you are saying that despite all of the evidence showing that the war on drugs and prohibition failed, we should double down on this approach because it aligns with your inherently superior morality.  I am saying that we should make policy decisions that minimize social harm based on empirical data.  No one has argued against age of consumption laws, driving under the influence penalties, or anything else of that nature, those are all part and parcel of a legal framework.  There are no age restrictions on the black market....

2) You are operating under the assumption that legalization would result in a vast increase in heroine use.  This is not based on evidence, and actually goes against what we do know from the limited examples.  Criminalization is what has created and perpetuates the "underclass status" of users and leads to all sorts of problems.  If you find someone using heroine you would want to put them in jail (often leading to recidivism and escalated crimes), whereas I would want to offer them support and treatment to help get their life together.  Which approach is more Christ like?

     

[marshwiggle]

Explain the logic behind the assertion that legalized heroin will mean fewer user deaths.   If you legalize it, you will get more people using it, more people addicted to it, and more people committing crime to finance their habits, as well as more crime associated with wasted junkies, even if these wasted junkies are acting in accordance with legal underlying drug use.

Tax equal to illegal markup to maintain street price. No additional users. For the umpteenth time.

This assumes it has been absolutely established that the legal production and distribution cost will be below the street price. If it isn't then this will be impossible, unless the government actually *subsidizes the sale of drugs. (And at the very least, the production cost is going to vary for different drugs. It is highly unlikely that the legal production cost for every drug will be below the street price. It certainly would require some evidence.)

*And let's see you get voter support for the government subsidizing recreational drug sales, and then paying for treatment programs as well. It's not only irrational, it's an obvious waste of their money.

[dismalist]

Explain the logic behind the assertion that legalized heroin will mean fewer user deaths.   If you legalize it, you will get more people using it, more people addicted to it, and more people committing crime to finance their habits, as well as more crime associated with wasted junkies, even if these wasted junkies are acting in accordance with legal underlying drug use.

Tax equal to illegal markup to maintain street price. No additional users. For the umpteenth time.

This assumes it has been absolutely established that the legal production and distribution cost will be below the street price. If it isn't then this will be impossible, unless the government actually *subsidizes the sale of drugs. (And at the very least, the production cost is going to vary for different drugs. It is highly unlikely that the legal production cost for every drug will be below the street price. It certainly would require some evidence.)

*And let's see you get voter support for the government subsidizing recreational drug sales, and then paying for treatment programs as well. It's not only irrational, it's an obvious waste of their money.

You work on the evidence, Marsh.

[Diogenes]

Explain the logic behind the assertion that legalized heroin will mean fewer user deaths.   If you legalize it, you will get more people using it, more people addicted to it, and more people committing crime to finance their habits, as well as more crime associated with wasted junkies, even if these wasted junkies are acting in accordance with legal underlying drug use.

The science shows otherwise. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/portugal-drug-decriminalization/

[Wahoo Redux]

what benefits of such legalization are you thinking would occur

Whatever we have been doing is not working.

It seems like it is time to try something else.

[mahagonny]

what benefits of such legalization are you thinking would occur

Whatever we have been doing is not working.

It seems like it is time to try something else.

Drinking more than we should? It's working fine if you go by George Carlin's Bill of Rights:

1. the right to do anything you please.
2. The right to take the consequences.

[Caracal]

During prohibition, people did not stop drinking.  Prohibition simply pushed it underground and increased the associated risks (ie. poisoning from impurities in unregulated alcohol).  I currently have a student from Iran, where alcohol and drugs are all banned, but he tells me that this has not stopped people from consuming alcohol or using drugs, it has just moved underground. 

   

A bit more complicated than that. As you might imagine, it's a little hard to compare consumption numbers of an illegal and a legal substance, but the evidence mostly suggests that in the United States prohibition did result in a drop in consumption of alcohol. Perhaps by 25-30 percent, although it rose by the end of the period.

I would imagine legalization of marijuana would result in somewhat higher consumption. I was never particularly interested in weed, but smoked it a handful of times with friends. The last time was years ago and my throat hurt for a week afterwards. I never bought it and there's no way I would illegally. That isn't a moral decision, I'm just not really interested. That said, if it was legalized and I could just go to a store, I could imagine buying an edible or something just to see what it was like. I don't know if I actually would, but it would be more likely than me going through the trouble to buy it illegally.

[Kron3007]

During prohibition, people did not stop drinking.  Prohibition simply pushed it underground and increased the associated risks (ie. poisoning from impurities in unregulated alcohol).  I currently have a student from Iran, where alcohol and drugs are all banned, but he tells me that this has not stopped people from consuming alcohol or using drugs, it has just moved underground. 

   

A bit more complicated than that. As you might imagine, it's a little hard to compare consumption numbers of an illegal and a legal substance, but the evidence mostly suggests that in the United States prohibition did result in a drop in consumption of alcohol. Perhaps by 25-30 percent, although it rose by the end of the period.

I would imagine legalization of marijuana would result in somewhat higher consumption. I was never particularly interested in weed, but smoked it a handful of times with friends. The last time was years ago and my throat hurt for a week afterwards. I never bought it and there's no way I would illegally. That isn't a moral decision, I'm just not really interested. That said, if it was legalized and I could just go to a store, I could imagine buying an edible or something just to see what it was like. I don't know if I actually would, but it would be more likely than me going through the trouble to buy it illegally.

Yes, it is definitely more nuanced.  The important question to me is not how many people consumed alcohol during or after that period (or drugs in this case), it is who consumes it, how much they consume, and most importantly what the effect on adverse events is.

In the case of cannabis, there are those who would go out and try it if it were legal as you suggest.  Based on the data coming out of Canada, there is increased usage post legalization in some groups, but not in the number of regular users or problem users.  More importantly, there has been a decline in teen use which is likely more important when considering the greater social implications.  So, in this case, you may see a modest increase in overall consumption, but that dosnt mean that there is increased abuse or negative outcomes. 

I would also mention that all of these data are based on survey results and once a product is legal people will be more apt to admit using it (I likely would not have been this open online prior to legalization), so if anything the increase is overestimated.