Well, this is a fair point. It wouldn’t be easy to have everything sold legally, but it could be possible. An interim and IMO acceptable half-step would be to decriminalize possession of small amounts of all substances that constitute “personal use”, while keeping the manufacturing/trafficking side criminalized (though I realize this wouldn’t help accomplish what the OP is suggesting). But that’s roughly what they’re doing in Portugal and from what I’ve read, it works.
As far as allowing the harder/dangerous stuff to be distributed legally, in the long-term, the only way I can see it really working is if it were handled exclusively by the state. You’d have to go to a designated state-run place, listen to every warning and disclaimer and sign every waiver, and then you could buy your pharmaceutical grade heroin/meth/coke/LSD/whatever. If you die it’s on you. No refunds, no lawsuits allowed.
(and I am also aware this is a fairly extremist viewpoint that’s not likely to ever come to fruition)
My current PCP wants to get out of the narcotic business altogether.
She gave me a list of all “Pain Doctors” in the area.
The first one looked at the referral and concluded that I was a “Medication Management” patient.
IOW: I’m looking for someone to give me the damned pills,
I’ll be dead within 10 years, so long-term addiction is NOT an issue.
That practice is not accepting new “medication management” patients.
If Trump wants to tell DEA to back the fuck off this blanket “No opioids for ANYBODY” crap, I’ll let him start a trade war with China, get in bed with Putin, and build a damned wall.
Yeah, I was a coughing wreck today, took another half-pill, felt fine and actually got some sleep. It was again an amazing transformation: one minute feeling like warmed over dogshit, within 5 minutes basically feeling normal.
One could have put up with a lot of 19th century-style pain with some laudanum.
Yeah, a beer bomber is 22 oz., so that was one huge bottle!
ODs per user would almost certainly decrease. One big cause of ODs is people suddenly getting very pure drug after have using diluted stuff. Or getting bad stuff that just poisons them.
Pharma grade heroin could also be taken orally, which could also help reduce ODs.
I didn’t say that. I said that prohibition isn’t working, and anyone who wants heroin can get it today. If there’s nothing stopping people from getting all the drugs they want now, why would use go up if the restrictions that are currently not working at all are removed?
I’m not claiming abuse and overdoses will go down. You’re the one claiming they will go up. Got a cite for that?
Assuming you understand the difference between heroin and pharmaceutical opiates, and the well-documented trend starting when re-scheduling the opiate pharmaceuticals took place is no anomaly, that would be correct.
The error in your line of reasoning is the notion that the restriction have no effectiveness whatsoever. The restrictions and laws means variety of inconveniences from locating a source, higher prices, and legal/social complications if you get caught.
During Prohibition overall alcohol use went down. Post-Prohibition it went up. Prohibition really did reduce the alcohol consumption in the US, the reasons for repealing it were not that it worked but the side effects (such as organized crime and harm from bathrub gin) outweighed the benefits.
Your argument that current regulations are “not working at all” is a false premise - removing them would make access easier, drive down prices, and remove some of the legal and social stigma and based on past experience use and abuse would rise. A better route is to argue that the side effects of those restrictions outweigh the benefits.
I’m not sure how accessible opiates should be but Naloxone ought to be waaaaay easier and cheaper to come by in the US.
Needle exchanges seem harmless. Even safe injection sites.
And take Tylenol for example. Everybody in the world has a giant bottle of tylenol in their dresser. So when the ER gives you codeine, why is it combined with a huge dose of bonus APAP? Part of it is that potential hepatoxicity discourages misuse.
So I think that the US would rather see junkies falling out than put in what it takes to build them back up.
This argument would be more persuasive if it were about abuse rather than just use. Did alcohol poisoning go up when prohibition ended? If not, the only argument left for the prohie is that people are having fun in ways he doesn’t like.
Then you have to worry about the cost of prohibition. If it takes a billion dollars a year to maintain the drug war, and it “saves” 100 lives, or even 1000, is that the best use of our tax money?
Then you have the personal freedom angle. If people choose to kill themselves, that’s not really a bad thing. The bad thing would be coercing someone into living an “approved” lifestyle in order to save them from their own decisions. That way lies blatant authoritarianism.
And that’s all before you get into the horrible “side effects” of prohibition, which are actually the whole point.
Not what I said at all. I cited stats that say the problem is bad today and growing quickly. The word “epidemic” is being thrown around with regularity. That being the case, how do you think that easier access will help?
Several ways. One of which is that people – no longer considered criminals by their recreational activities – will be more likely to seek help for their addiction. I’ve been smoking pot almost daily for over a decade. My doctor should know that information, but he doesn’t. Know why? Because I don’t like to tell strangers and authority figures that I’m a criminal.
Another way is that they’ll have access to better drugs. Sounds silly, but Keith Richards has been a functional junky for over fifty years now. It’s a lot harder to OD on a consistent supply of very pure heroin than the severely adulterated (but not always!) junk on the streets. When you’re used to shooting up 50% baking soda and one day get a batch that’s only 5% baking soda, you’re going to OD.
Another way is that you don’t usually start with heroin. Make vicodin or codeine (or even pot) available over the counter and all the sudden buying some suspicious brown powder from a mentally ill dude behind a dumpster stops being an option for most people.
Let’s stop driving people with addiction into the arms of violent criminals who have zero pharmaceutical skills. Black markets are dangerous. Mallinckrodt is beholden to its customers and the FDA. Li’l Wheezy is not. That doesn’t guarantee a safer product, but it certainly raises the odds considerably.
But hey, let’s throw these people (the few that we can catch, at least) in jail for years instead. That’ll stop the overdoses!
Very little change. The article suggests that it’s not the legality that would make a difference, but the price. I know weed<>heroin but it’s probably the best recent example we have about what happens after large-scale decriminalization.
I wholly concur with the OP. It is not the business of governments to tell people which substances they may or may not ingest. By doing so they have created probably the largest criminal enterprise in history. The inane ‘war on drugs’ as if they were some animate entity evilly plotting to overthrow mankind has been as unsuccessful as it is ruinously expensive. History, I sincerely trust, will look back on this era in disbelief and amazement.
The sooner we put an end to this stupidity (which has certainly ruined many more lives than any drug by needlessly imprisoning people) the better.