Decriminalization is a fairly marginal step away from the status quo and is nothing like true legalization with the inherent distribution, social acceptance etc..
I guess the question I would have is - and this isn't meant to come across as though I have a preconceived answer - what evidence do we have that legalization (plus, for instance, a ban on marketing) would actually increase usage? I know it's intuitive to think it would, but is there data? We do know for a fact that usage of many hard drugs is increasing when illegal. And this is on top of all the negative outcomes associated with making it illegal - guns, gangs, prison, felony convictions. Is making it illegal slowing the uptake? By how much? Is it making the problem worse?
I'm not so sure about that, it's illegal indoors (publicly) in the UK since 2005 iirc, my impression is that it's less 'socially acceptable', to the extent that can be quantified, now than it was when smokers and non-smokers shared a pub.
>I'm not so sure about that, it's illegal indoors (publicly) in the UK since 2005 iirc, my impression is that it's less 'socially acceptable', to the extent that can be quantified, now than it was when smokers and non-smokers shared a pub.
A reasonable point.
However, smoking indoors is illegal because smoking is less 'socially acceptable', not the other way around.
There has been, over the last 30 years or so, a concerted effort (with warnings on US cigarette packs, more dire ones on UK packs, and disgusting photos on packs elsewhere in Europe), as well as marketing/advertising pushes to make smoking less acceptable.
And (in the US, at least, not sure about elsewhere), many fewer people smoke and those who do are often harassed/berated even when they smoke where it's legal to do so.
As such, I'd expect similar results (given similar efforts) for other drugs.
Before/after photos of meth heads/heroin addicts on packaging, marketing/advertising efforts, etc. would likely have a similar effect.
What's more (again, at least in the US, although I'd expect it'd be true wherever such drugs are criminalized), the costs associated with such efforts, as well as treatment programs for those who need them, would be significantly less costly than the monies spent on interdiction, enforcement and incarceration.
"smoking indoors is illegal because smoking is less 'socially acceptable'"
No - this is false.
It's illegal because it's harmful to others - and - it's generally a nuisance i.e. it really smells quite a lot.
Chewing tobacco is completely legal 'indoors' and it has many of the same negative effects. It's not even up for consideration in terms of banning. You can chew it on the Subway, at the Office.
"Perhaps I'm missing something important here?"
Yes, you're missing the fact that we already do heavy suppression of Meth/Heroin i.e. teaching kids how terrible it is, featuring it in films as extremely negative, positioning it as 'totally socially taboo and unacceptable behaviour'.
Selling it in stores legally is both an increase in availability, and a significant reduction in social taboo.
This is not even an argument.
Widespread availability and lessening of social taboos of an extremely addictive substance, which addicts develop a tolerance for and quickly move onto more powerful substances (Fentanyl) would yield a major public health crisis. We already have on on our hands.
70 000 dead from OD in the USA in 2019 - and rising
32 000 car accident deaths in the USA 2019 - and going down
>"smoking indoors is illegal because smoking is less 'socially acceptable'"
>No - this is false.
>It's illegal because it's harmful to others - and - it's generally a nuisance i.e. it really smells quite a lot.
And it was less harmful or a nuisance before it became illegal? And it smelled less too? Please.
Smoking indoors was banned because of the effort to make it less socially acceptable.
If it were otherwise, those bans would have been in place 40 years ago. We knew it was harmful in the 1960s (actually, even before that, but various societies didn't start trying to make it less socially acceptable until the 1970s).
It wasn't until the 1990s/2000s when such bans went into effect. Why? Because smoking had become less socially acceptable -- through conscious efforts[0][1] over decades to make it so.
>Chewing tobacco is completely legal 'indoors' and it has many of the same negative effects. It's not even up for consideration in terms of banning. You can chew it on the Subway, at the Office.
So what? I was (and explicitly said so) talking about smoking, not chew.
You are apparently ignorant of history. Which makes it hard to have a conversation that, for obvious reasons, needs to take that history into account. So let's not.
>Yes, you're missing the fact that we already do heavy suppression of Meth/Heroin i.e. teaching kids how terrible it is, featuring it in films as extremely negative, positioning it as 'totally socially taboo and unacceptable behaviour'.
>Selling it in stores legally is both an increase in availability, and a significant reduction in social taboo.
Who, exactly are you responding to here? Because it isn't me.
I never even implied that such drugs should be fully legalized/commercialized.
Go and build, then knock down your straw man somewhere else. I'm not interested.
It's only anecdotal, but my point is that I think it's considerably less socially acceptable (indoors or out) now than it was when it came in. And I think as a result. I think a lot of people smoked less and less and many gave up altogether, and the fewer people do something the less acceptable it seems.
Something that is illegal, is by definition a social taboo. The removal of that taboo implies more acceptance. The fact that more people use it will only increase acceptance by word of mouth etc. and that's at minimum.
The only question is by how much will usage increase?
Already, with severe legal restrictions and controls, opioid use is rapidly increasing the US, which is what we call 'extreme product market fit' (i.e. the drugs 'fits' our dopamine pathways) see [1]
The other major factors are 1) addiction / tolerance and 2) self-medication 3) money, i.e. capitalism.
As for 1)
"Roughly 21 to 29 percent of patients prescribed Opioids for chronic pain misuse them"
"An estimated 4 to 6 percent who misuse prescription Opioids transition to heroin." [2]
Those are just simple, top line numbers, and very potent at that.
Even with limited marketing and 'soft non-acceptance / promotion' - I believe it's something that vast numbers of people will seek it out 'just to party' or for 'the Vegas' trip etc. and especially for 2) i.e. as an easy painkiller/mood moderator which will leave a lot of people addicted.
As for 3)
If it's legal and profits can be made, they will be made. Investors at large may be 'moral' but there is always plenty of 'highly amoral' capital to do whatever, and in this case, it'd be producing the product with the most 'product market fit' in existence.
Increased use of opiods etc. will have no upside, only downside. It has to be regulated and controlled, it's best to keep it at a minimum.
In Canada they prescribe them by the pill, not the 1/2 bottle, i.e. you get a single pill for toot surgery because its just so addictive.
> Something that is illegal, is by definition a social taboo. The removal of that taboo implies more acceptance.
They're correlated, but it's not a causative relationship. It's not illegal for a dominatrix to step on your genitals and make you call her mommy. That's taboo, and legal. On the other hand, jaywalking is illegal - and not a taboo.
> The only question is by how much will usage increase?
That is the question, but I think we should be open to the answer being zero or even negative - just as we are open to the answer being positive. How much drug addiction and usage is furthered by throwing addicts into prison where the only escape is more drugs?
How about the folks who make it out of prison but cannot get jobs because of their felony possession charges, who then lose their friends and family, and once again escape into drugs?
"I think we should be open to the answer being zero or even negative - just as we are open to the answer being positive"
Not really, and this is the problem with this thread and issue in general.
Sure, we should be open to the possibility of certain things, but that doesn't mean they are reasonable or even likely, and it distracts from more obvious and likely scenarios.
When debating issues, people have a tendency to be rhetorical and not pragmatic.
Opiods are not like meth or coke: there is a big, legal market for them (!) so we have lots of exposure to what happens when we prescribe 1/2 a bottle for patients, vs only the 1 or 2 pills for post-surgery.
In those 'mini cases' of increased access i.e. where you have a leftover bottle of Oxycodone, problems are much more likely than otherwise.
It's ridiculous to suggest that someone having a bottle of Oxycodone available (i.e. greater access) is somehow going to be 'less likely' to develop problems than someone who does.
We already have a lot of behavioural science, and the laws of supply and demand to help us out, but even that is pedantic in the face of anyone with exposure to this issue.
To imply that legalization and widespread availability of a highly addictive substance would 'reduce' usage would be to deny everything we understand.
If you lower the cost of something, consumption increases.
There isn't even a decent rhetorical argument for why 'consumption would decrease' in the face of easy access. I suppose that some behaviours that are 'social taboos' make them more attractive, but that's not a strong argument.
Ask a regular doctor or pharmacist who has to prescribe Opioids what they think would happen if we just made them 'over the counter' like Tylenol.
The only group of people who would condone expansion of access, are some healthcare professionals who support harm reduction policies, and even then, that would be very limited access.
We are where we are for the next few decades at least until either powerful new technologies change the game, we develop much more powerful social abilities, or for some reason the substances are just eradicated from common awareness.
In the US, it is pretty taboo to have occult practices, yet it is legal. Having an open marital relationship is pretty taboo to a lot of folks, yet - legal.
Pot isn't all that taboo, yet it is very illegal in some states and illegal at the federal level.
And fwiw: I don't have the article now, but perhaps part of the reason you don't get a bottle for tooth surgery is because a combination of ibuprofen and paracet (tylenol) is generally enough especially if you have time off work to rest.
Norway gives a pre-counted package of 20 that are in blister packs, even though it is addictive.
Even with limited marketing and 'soft non-acceptance / promotion' - I believe it's something that vast numbers of people will seek it out 'just to party' or for 'the Vegas' trip etc. and especially for 2) i.e. as an easy painkiller/mood moderator which will leave a lot of people addicted.
If you say so. I mean, you are acting like we are just going to give folks as many drugs as they want, in an uncontrolled fashion - and it doesn't have to be like that at all. You don't need investors to be 'moral' - because obviously, they probably aren't going to be considering how businesses treat folks now - you just need laws and enforcement to look out for people.
By the way: Upsides are things like being able to have a professional give you a single, proper dose for partying and give folks information - actual, truthful information that isn't a DARE-esque scare tactic ("Its just so addictive..."). A professional does screening. ID required. If we log prescriptions and sudafed, we can do this. We can give information. Folks that are addicted can get maintenance doses and get actual help.
Edit: FWIW: The crisis in the US is more than just drug availability. Being able to get help if you find yourself addicted would help lots. At the same time, things like paid time off to rest after surgeries would help as well.
Heroin doesn't make folks immediately addicted, neither do pills. And with things being illegal, we realistically have no clue how many people take them as a party drug occasionally without ever getting addicted.
There are some old studies on opioid (prescription type meds) use in rest homes.
They found that most patients did not want to increase their dose of the opioid. They just didn't want to be cut off the meds they were given. It makes so much sence.
I'm to lazy to look it up.
I don't understand this all, or nothing mentality when it comes to drugs.
I truly feel the American Opioid crisis could have been less devastating if government provided patients/addicts with with access to the medication with limits.
Actually, bupenorpine would probally be the better drug to make available to anyone that wanted it.
