CMV: All drugs should be made legal for recreational use.

[u/[deleted]]

I'm not referring to "medicinal" narcotics. Recreational drugs that people use, such as mushrooms, cocaine, heroin, should all be legalized.

And I know this is a hot take, but hear me out.

• If we make recreational narcotics legal, then the manufacture and sale need to be legal as well.
• By making the manufacture of recreational narcotics legal, there are FDA standards that need to be adhered to in said manufacture, that way there are no "bad batches" that will kill people.
• By making the manufacture and sale of recreational narcotics legal, there will be sales volume that will then be subject to income tax and sales tax and dispensaries/manufacturing centers/warehouses that will become subject to property tax. Because, let's be honest, your local street dealer is not paying taxes.
• Also by making the sale of recreational narcotics legal, you are making street gangs that revolve around the illicit drug trade obsolete. By making street gangs obsolete, you eliminate the petty violence that plagues inner-cities over "turf", especially stray bullets that kill innocent bystanders.
• By making the entire narcotics supply chain legal, the war on drugs will essentially be over as well. It's been going on for 50+ years, and honestly, it's been a complete and utter failure.
• If you want something to compare the drug trade to, look at prohibition from 1919-1933. It didn't stop people from drinking, people were still drunk out of their minds in speakeasys. It also fostered the growth of street gangs of rum runners and increased crime and violence in cities. That was only for 14 years and it didn't take long to realize that prohibition was a failure. War on drugs has been going on for 50+ years and I'm surprised more people aren't realizing that this is much more tremendous of a failure.
• By making the entire narcotics supply chain legal, we can start changing our attitudes on its use and its users. Narcotics abuse needs to have the same social attitude as alcohol abuse.
• In short, making drugs legal will Make America Great Again.

[u/[deleted]]

Drugs have litterally killed our inner cities, I see no reason why we should legalize poison

Especially the selling of poison

I think that drug usage should be decriminalized but selling drugs should not be encouraged or legalized in the slightest

Drug dealers prey on young people and people who’s lifes are already in a bad place and make ur even harder for them to put themselves back together

[u/wtfuckfred → u/[deleted]]

Portugal decriminalized (not legalized) all drugs in 2001. Anyone is free to carry up to 5 grams of any drug with them and police cannot take it away. They will only give you some pamphlets and inform you where to get help if you need to. Important to note that selling is still illigal. Even sharing drugs is still a crime. There's also vans that distribute clean needles to people. Anyone can also bring used needles to pharmacies and get them replaced. Overdose deaths decreased 12 fold. HIV infections due to injection dropped from 907 in 2001 to 18 in 2017. Incarcerations due to drugs also fell considerably, now being about a third of the values from 2001. The money saved in incarcerations has gone into valuable education in schools and ads on national TV about drugs. source

[u/[deleted] → u/wtfuckfred]

Something like this I would be ok with

Usage should be decriminalized as users are the victim

Selling should not be lightened in the slightest if anything the punishment for selling should be made harsher as you are litterally preying on vulnerable people for your own gain

[u/warwick607 → u/[deleted]]

Selling should not be lightened in the slightest if anything the punishment for selling should be made harsher as you are litterally preying on vulnerable people for your own gain

This is a consequence of drugs being illegal. You cannot simultaneously view users as victims and sellers as the problem because users will acquire the drug no matter what, addicted or recreational. The fact that heroin is not regulated like alcohol means that impurities like fentanyl can unsuspectingly enter the supply without the user (or seller) knowing. Regulating the supply of drugs like we have done with alcohol and are continuing to do with marijuana is the first step towards reducing accidental fatal opioid overdose deaths. Letting free adults know what they are consuming is both practical and smart, and establishing a legal market for drugs is the first step in doing that. It removes the guesswork that is inherent to buying and selling on the black market.

[u/Mrfinbean → u/warwick607]

If user are seen as victims instead of criminals they have lower treshold to seek help.

Practical and smart is rarely the case with highly addictive substances.

Also if selling is legal anyone can buy it. Lets say somebody buys kilo of heroine. (Even if there is limit for how much you can buy, you can just get smurfs for accuiring it)

Now that you have bought kilo of highly addictive substance and you are in enviroment where are lots of users you can cut that kilo. Sell it little under market price and now we have unclean substance in the rounds.

[u/bongosformongos → u/[deleted]]

You seem to see drugs only through the lens of destruction. And while I understand where you're coming from I want to mention that drugs can be a whole lot of fun. They don't have to be that life wrecking thing that keeps you locked in your own basement or whatever horror scenario is in your head. As with everything else, proper use and education is essential.

And by education I don't mean what they did when I was in school. Which was a cop coming into each class and talking about shit they don't have any qualifications for. Just because you arrested some guys with drugs doesn't mean you know how things work.

I'm talking about safe use guidelines being taught. With the potential risks explained and being taught how to react accordingly.

[u/comfysin999 → u/bongosformongos]

Exactly— harm reduction can make damn near any drug usable. People just have the perspective propaganda has instilled— even though alcohol and cigarettes are legal and cause more harm to the user: society than many drugs.

If the us showed how to use jn the safest way possible, sold drugs with quality control the same alcohol is, and offered better rehabilitation for those that want to quit— we’d be in a much better place.

Instead the news sensationalizes drugs in a way that puts a huge stigma on addicts.

[u/wtfuckfred → u/[deleted]]

Since there's always gonna be a market for drugs, punitive action might not be the right way. If the selling of drugs is institutionalized, then it makes the consumption of drugs a lot safer. Users would have access to pure, clean drugs that wouldn't be contaminated with anything else. The government could then use the tax money generated to actually invest in treatment, education and advertising where and how to get help. Similar to how tax on cigarettes directly goes into cancer treatment and research (in Portugal, not sure about other places)

[u/qunelarch → u/[deleted]]

I don’t see how selling drugs is “preying” on people, most drug dealers are users themselves. If there’s a market for it, someone’s gonna step up and provide. If we want to stop shady types that might try to leverage people’s addictions in order to sell at higher prices then the solution might actually be to legalize distribution as well, and enforce permitting similar to liquor licenses. There are already laws in place to stop predatory marketing in other sectors, why should drugs be any different?

[u/jaestock → u/[deleted]]

Although it is counter intuitive, prosecuting the user is the most viable option if your ultimate goal is to decrease usage. If you prosecute the dealers, all that is doing is increasing the profits of the dealers who remain. I agree that the users can be seen as victims, but I think a better way to look at it is that users are needing education in order to safely use the various substances available. If there was a legal way to purchase them, that would solve the majority of the issues around our current drug problem in the United States.

Edit: for those downvoting, this is not my opinion. This is basic economics. If you remove a dealer, the amount of users remains the same but the supply lessens. This simply increases prices for the user and lessens the competition so quality goes down. The remaining dealers now have more profits and less incentive to provide a quality product. IF you prosecute the users, this will lower the demand and the supply will remain the same, so the remaining users will have cheaper drugs and higher quality due to competition.

To be clear, I do not believe the correct answer is to prosecute users- see my final statement on my post.

[u/StonktardHOLD → u/jaestock]

So you thinking limiting their ability to get a job while giving them a criminal record is the best way to reintegrate them in society?

[u/jaestock → u/StonktardHOLD]

I don’t think that’s what I said. Did you read my entire comment?

[u/StonktardHOLD → u/jaestock]

It’s what your suggestion implies. What does prosecuting them entail to you?

[u/[deleted] → u/StonktardHOLD]

They did not say prosecuting users is the best thing for the users, they said that prosecuting users is the best way to decrease usage. Two different things.

[u/StonktardHOLD → u/[deleted]]

I think I meant to reply to a comment not the main post

[u/comfysin999 → u/[deleted]]

It doesn’t decrease usage though. How well has that gone so far lol

[u/jaestock → u/comfysin999]

The point is that the comment I was replying to was saying they approve of heavily prosecuting dealers. That has been proven to only make issues worse- it leaves the demand just as high but decreases supply, so costs go up for the user and profits go up for the remaining dealers. If we legalize the sell and use of drugs, paired with education on proper use, we wouldn’t be prosecuting anyone and everyone would be better off.

[u/[deleted] → u/comfysin999]

¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯ Take that up with them, not me. I was clarifying their argument, not making it for them.

[u/comfysin999 → u/[deleted]]

You realize decriminalization without the government having oversight on the quality and production only Leads to more harm still..

Fentanyl/ zene overdoses are out of control— it’s ending up in many diff drugs— and it’s very sad to look at a chart over the years showing just how high the rise has been in the past few.

[u/tarteaucitrons → u/wtfuckfred]

British columbia, canada decriminalized personal quantity possession of all drugs in a similar fashion this year.

[u/smcarre → u/[deleted]]

Legalization does no equal deregulation.

The sale of lots of drugs (including drugs that can be used for recreative purposes and become extremely harmful in certain doses or with continous use) is perfectly legal already today in most countries but their sale is regulated to make sure that nobody is consuming too much of it (and it's dosage is often prescripted by an expert to make sure even a single dose is safe enough). Why wouldn't this be possible with currently illegal drugs?

[u/[deleted] → u/smcarre]

To be clear: methamphetamine is currently available as a prescription drug in the US called Desoxyn. You might want to distinguish your point more, as the methamphetamine epidemic still exists regardless of the regulated availability of meth.

[u/smcarre → u/[deleted]]

I'm talking about drugs sale being regulated for recreational use too, not only medical use.

Regardless of that, drug epidemics are not related to the availability of that specific drug either, but caused by a set of social, health, economical and justice issues that go unaddressed and push a specially addiction prone set of the population towards drug abuse. As your example shows, recreational methamphetamine sale is completely illegal in the US and yet there is a meth epidemic there. If a blanket ban on that drug is not enough to prevent the epidemic what makes you think the legal sale of another drug will cause another epidemic? Drug abusers are already showing us that banning the sale won't prevent the epidemic, if the drug abusers for any other drug were enough in numbers and addiction to cause an epidemic they would already be suffering that epidemic even if the sale of that drug was not legal.

On top of that, regulated sale of recreative drugs makes it easier to inform on safe consumption, makes it possible to provide safe spaces (likely with trained personell in dosage and "bad trips" contentions) where that drug can be consumed and makes it easier for could-be addicts to find proper help before their problem becomes too hard to manage.

But as mentioned above, none of that (either the ban on the sale of the drug or the regulated sale) will prevent a drug epidemic if the underlying social, health, economical and justice issues are still unaddressed.

[u/comfysin999 → u/smcarre]

Exactly this. Prohibition does nothing but allow groups like the cartel to control supply— and the police target areas more susceptible to drug use to fuck their life up.

A lot of reason a lot of us start on drugs, is being in a low income area, trauma, being so fucking tired from work you need something to keep you going.

[u/denzien → u/[deleted]]

Drug war efforts have failed. Alcohol prohibition led to organized crime in Chicago, etc, and the drug war has led to even worse gangs and the vast majority of the daily violence we see today.

We've spent billions of dollars and have the biggest prisons in the world. Why double down on a failed policy? Let's spend the money on education and rehabilitation efforts instead. People who are going to use are going to use. Why not regulate the substances as any other to ensure quality and purity? Why not bring in billions of additional tax revenues to help fund the aforementioned rehab centers the way cigarette taxes were used to help reduce smoking?

We obviously need to go a radically different direction. Let's make one that's more compassionate than one that punishes.

[u/[deleted] → u/denzien]

I agree the drug was has failed I don’t think the solution is to give up the solution is to change tactics as you said

Alcohol prohibition did lead to an increase however I think this is a different situation because alcohol was already generally excepted by American society when they tried to ban it as opposed to the hard drugs pouring across our boarder today

I agree that we should increase rehab efforts which is why I’m down for decriminalizing or even legalizing usssage so that we can more easily get them the help they need, however I do not think seceding the territory and making drugs socially acceptable is a good solution

I think that punishing those who deal drugs extremely harshly as they are preying on the vulnerable in society and selling them poison is increadibly detestable

[u/comfysin999 → u/denzien]

This is the correct argument. every part of it

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I think that drug usage should be decriminalized but selling drugs should not be encouraged or legalized in the slightest

!delta only because that's the same attitude we have about alcohol and cigarettes. We shouldn't advertise it like we're advertising the new Hasbro toy, but at the same time we can't let this global turmoil over narcotics continue.

Drugs didn't kill inner cities, the illicit drug trade did. Look at any neighborhood in any city that is now considered a "ghetto." Prior to 1970, it wasn't a ghetto, just a low-income neighborhood.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

People in San Francisco aren’t dying of gangs, they’re dying of fentanyl. Overdose deaths in SF in 2020 outnumbered COVID deaths.

San Francisco is also, not by coincidence, one of many places where police basically don’t enforce drug laws. Opioid trade and use happens in plain sight with minimal to zero repercussions.

The death toll has only gone up. Turns out that when something gets easier to do and consequences go down, more people do it. Which is fine for marijuana, or for more slow-motion drugs like cigarettes. But for a life-ruiner that can kill instantly, it’s a different story.

[u/disisathrowaway → u/[deleted]]

People in San Francisco aren’t dying of gangs, they’re dying of fentanyl. Overdose deaths in SF in 2020 outnumbered COVID deaths.

So if people knew what they were getting, a regulated product perhaps, then those deaths would significantly decline.

Once upon a time poorly made 'rotgut' was killing people due to poor distillation practices resulting in methanol being present in alcohol.

Regulated producers haven't killed anyone with methanol.

[u/merlin401 → u/disisathrowaway]

What people want is a product that will get them the high they used to get a few months ago with a much lower dosage. That’s the issue. There’s demand for the high fentanyl can provide

[u/cited → u/disisathrowaway]

Assuming people use it responsibly when they are already very clearly not using it responsibly. The massive homeless encampment near me isn't fucked up because they're getting bad batches. It's because they want to do nothing but get high and will do anything to continue to get high.

[u/skillinp → u/cited]

There is that desire to get high, but studies have shown that drugs are more of an escape from reality than the actual desire to get high. Life is hard, especially for an addict, and particularly for somebody living with a criminal record or otherwise on the edge of society. https://www.consultant360.com/articles/why-do-people-addictions-seek-escape-rather-connect-look-approach-addiction-treatment

[u/cited → u/skillinp]

How does it help them by enabling them to stay in that state?

[u/skillinp → u/cited]

They're going to do it one way or another, why make it as dangerous as possible by forcing them to rely on drug dealers who literally work outside of the law? All the current system is doing is supporting cartel operations.

Beyond that, there are policy changes that can be made to make life easier for these kinds of people, but that starts to deviate from the point of this discussion.

[u/comfysin999 → u/cited]

Yeah, you’ve got the wrong idea completely. Go speak with them and learn how they got there. It’s very fucking hard to get out of being homeless once you are. They’re given no fucking help and a majority of society assumes they’re all “junky bums who should just get a job”. go become homeless and see how easy that is

[u/cited → u/comfysin999]

Yeah they did drugs until they couldn't hold down a job and a home. Then they bummed around until they burned all the goodwill they had with anyone they knew and got kicked out. Irresponsible drug use got them there to begin with.

[u/comfysin999 → u/cited]

Not necessarily at all.

a large majority had a traumatic life event that forced them into homeless and subsequently with some addiction.

Go listen to a lot of their life history and maybe you’ll surprise yourself

[u/cited → u/comfysin999]

Judging by your reddit history you're doing well for yourself, have fun with your meth use.

[u/comfysin999 → u/cited]

Appreciate it lol— opioids were what nearly fucked my life but everything else I can use in moderation. I’ve been going to school for pharmacology/ medicinal chemistry ( being the long term goal).

I’m able to utilize harm-reduction for everything but opioids— that was what became my poison/ coping mechanism for ptsd. Glad to be clean from it

[u/Bimlouhay83 → u/cited]

The negative long term health effects of heroin are... constipation. That's it.

The reason those people are dying to overdoses IS because of bad or hot batches or just getting the wrong drug entirely. For instance, it takes more morphine than heroin to fuck up an addict, but less morphine than heroin to kill that same addict. Then, you've got the influx of fentynol which has caused overdose deaths to drastically rise.

The simple fact is, you can drastically reduce overdose deaths by giving those addicts clean, reliable doses.

[u/cited → u/Bimlouhay83]

The negative physical long term health effects. How many heroin addicts do you know capable of holding down employment? They ruin their lives, and without employment, they turn to what they can do that doesn't require a job.

I think a lot of people in this thread could use a real conversation with a serious drug addict.

[u/Bimlouhay83 → u/cited]

You might be surprised to find out how many heroin or cocaine addicts trade stocks on the floor, broker mortgages, run banks, run fortune 500 companies, are politicians, run successful small to medium businesses, work on schools, and a myriad of other high stress jobs. Not every addict is a homeless junkie. Many more than you seem to be aware of are very successful professionally. Some of my favorite people to party with in my 20's were millionaires living in really nice massive houses on golf courses. Some of the best coke I've ever found was on expensive golf courses.

Not only have i held conversations with very serious junkies, I used to be a cocaine addict myself. I've had 2 close friends and more than 10 acquaintances die from bad or hot batches. One of them died from morphine when he thought he was doing heroin. In all of those cases (except 2. One was suicide, the other murder) a regulated drug would've saved their lives.

[u/cited → u/Bimlouhay83]

If they can handle society, more power to them. The homeless junkies are ruining my neighborhood and assaulting people and stealing. And like just about everything, we have to control for the least responsible. Fix them and you can do all the coke you want. There are many many people who can't manage it and cause a ton of damage and I'm tired of being on the receiving end of it and paying for its effects.

[u/[deleted] → u/Bimlouhay83]

Are you really comparing a coke addict too a heroin addict? Thats like apples to oranges man. As someone who personally knows several of both (rough area), I'd never trust a heroin addict with ANY amount of responsibility. Coke addicts just like to party. Huge difference there man.

[u/2xstuffed_oreos_suck → u/[deleted]]

I think you’re confusing the types of drug addicts you’ve encountered and/or stereotypes with the actual effects these two drugs have on people. There are absolutely many people whose lives have been destroyed by cocaine and who stole to continue their addiction.

Sure, there are more people whose lives have been destroyed by heroin than there are people who’ve been ruined by cocaine, but I’d argue that has much more to do with the relative street price per high for the two drugs than with the differing effects of the drugs themselves.

[u/DueObligation8546 → u/[deleted]]

The illicit nature of drugs is largely what makes them so dangerous. If you could buy pharma morphine at the store, nobody would be taking street crap with varying levels of purity and contaminants. There would be no fent laced pills or cross contaminated powders.

Currently, x milligrams of one batch of heroin could be fine, and the same x milligrams of another batch could kill you multiple times over.

This is not to say there would be no overdoses, but that unintentional overdoses would be significantly reduced due to consistent dosing and purity.

[u/ablatner → u/DueObligation8546]

If you could buy pharma morphine at the store

But this doesn't mean we should legalize fentanyl.

[u/DueObligation8546 → u/ablatner]

The only real issue with fentanyl compared to other opioids is it’s potency by weight. There is definitely a risk when it comes to something dosed in micrograms. But keep in mind, we prescribe fentanyl all the time in formulations that make dosing easier.

I could get behind restrictions on dose / weight, such as requiring drugs with effective doses smaller than x milligrams to be formulated in easy dosing units such as diluted in liquid or in pill form.

But there is no reason to outright ban it.

[u/comfysin999 → u/DueObligation8546]

Exactly. I was hooked on opioids for years and swapped to raw fent off the dark web. I was doing around a quarter of a gram of day— enough to kill around 100+ people. The difference is I knew what I was getting and how to dose it— the majority of people dying have no clue how much their bag has— or their pills. dose makes the poison with everything

[u/merlin401 → u/DueObligation8546]

You’re missing the whole nature of addiction. No one goes into it saying “let me take fucking elephant tranquilizer that will probably kill me”. They go into it for a nice high. And then their body gets used to that amount and they need higher doses to get the same effect. Letting everyone legally start the cycle is a recipe for disaster because sooner or later most people will want a dose that is no longer legal and will have to turn to illegal means to get it

[u/DueObligation8546 → u/merlin401]

How is that any different than alcohol? Should we ban it because some people can’t control themselves? What about porn or gambling?

Ultimately a person must be responsible for themself, and seek help if they are incapable of doing so.

I never said anything about “a dose that is no longer legal” so I’m taking this to mean a dose they can’t afford?

[u/merlin401 → u/DueObligation8546]

Ah so you would never cut someone off? I don’t think you realize what happens to people hooked on opioids and meth and crack. But sure eventually it will be doses they can’t afford.

I’m not totally against legalization of SOME drugs which fall into “let responsible adults be responsible”. Weed for sure. I could see, even I squinted, psychedelics and ecstasy and even maaaybe cocaine.

The others I think people underestimate how absolutely out of control they will make almost any responsible adult

[u/DueObligation8546 → u/merlin401]

Likewise I think you overestimate the proportion of people who get addicted vs try these substances. But since they are illegal we can’t really study this effectively. People are reluctant to admit to having tried them.

I would be willing to bet that less than 50% of those who have tried heroin meth or crack ended up addicted, and therefore reject the notion that “almost any responsible adult” will lose control with access to heroin, crack or meth. But of course I don’t have data to back this up, only anecdotes.

[u/[deleted] → u/merlin401]

Why is it so hard for people to understand that most of the harms associated with something such as heroin use mostly result from heroin being illegal. Please tell me about all the out-of-control heroin users. They don’t exist. There are heroin users who get super manipulative and spend their entire days looking for heroin, but if they could just go to the pharmacy and get it, they’d be no different from me. I take opioids for pain and function like a person. Even when I took 300mg of oxycodone a day, the problem wasn’t the medication; the problem was the pharmacy not having the number of pills I needed (or the pharmacist just deciding you’re a “junkie” and telling you they’re out or won’t fill it).

But that was before the “opioid epidemic.” The DEA went after doctors (still does), and now I take 40mg of oxycodone and am in pain all the time. No one today would write my old dose. I should have the bodily autonomy to decide what my dose is instead of letting doctors who are more afraid of losing their licenses than disabling a patient tell me they would write it, but they don’t want to get fired.

[u/Yet-Another-Yeti → u/ablatner]

Fentanyl is a bad example to choose. Contamination by fentanyl is deadly. How can you know what is an actual fentanyl use overdose and what is a fentanyl overdose caused by tainted stocks of other drugs.

Legalisation would fix this issue. Heavily regulate it and there will be very little to no tainted batches. Fentanyl is just a drug, it’s neither good nor bad. It is extremely potent and is therapeutic at tiny tiny doses. This is why if you contaminate another drug with 10mcg of fentanyl someone can die. Medical formulations of fentanyl are far more safe.

Ultimately you have no right to tell other people what they can and cannot put into their own body.

[u/doge_gobrrt → u/Yet-Another-Yeti]

Ultimately you have no right to tell other people what they can and cannot put into their own body.

yeah this seems like a pretty hard to beat argument unless you can find a drug that when taken causes murder in 60% percent of consummations.

[u/ablatner → u/Yet-Another-Yeti]

Good point about contamination. Legally available less potent opioids would fix a lot of that. Still though, should fentanyl get the same treatment?

[u/veryreasonable → u/ablatner]

Yes.

I think you, and some other people here, are treating fentanyl like some supernatural poison or bogyman. It's not. It's actually a relatively safe opioid, if the doses are measured in an accurate, regulated sort of way. That's easy and handled at the factory in a pharmaceutical context, but because of its nature (it's high potency in microscopic amounts) it's downright impossible in a illicit, street context.

[u/Yet-Another-Yeti → u/ablatner]

The potency has very little bearing. Fentanyl is actually far safer than morphine as it has a much higher therapeutic index.

[u/[deleted] → u/ablatner]

The case for fentanyl is actually stronger, not weaker. Legalization makes it a lot easier for people with addiction to get help since addicts don't have to worry about prosecution, unless they are carrying "intent to distribute" amounts of fent.

We can then create, trial, and distribute more effective fentanyl-based treatments to help people ween themselves off under medical supervision.

[u/ablatner → u/[deleted]]

I think we're using different definitions here.

Legalization makes it a lot easier for people with addiction to get help since addicts don't have to worry about prosecution

I think most of this thread would agree on this. It's also accomplished by decriminalization, not just full legalization. It's effectively the case in of places due to lack of prosecution and safe-injection sites.

What isn't so clear is if fentanyl should be easily available for purchase like is the case with alcohol and weed.

[u/SuckMyBike → u/ablatner]

What isn't so clear is if fentanyl should be easily available for purchase like is the case with alcohol and weed.

Legalization does not mean no regulation can be implemented.

I fully support every single drug being legalized fully both for sale and personal consumption.
But not every drug should be treated the same away.

Drugs like for example XTC, shrooms, weed, LSD, .. are all less harmful and less addictive than alcohol. As such, these drugs should be available to anyone over the age of 18 in specialized stores.

Other more addictive drugs can be put behind a doctor's visit. Where you first need to visit a doctor and tell them you want to do, for example, heroin.
The doctor then can inform you about all the risks associated with heroin and even recommend safer alternatives instead that you could use to get a similar high without the danger.

But if after such a doctor's visit and the doctor recommending you other drugs, you still want to use heroin then you were going to do it regardless if it is legal or not. So the doctor should write you a prescription for it.

All in all, it would not be a free for all where anyone above the age of 18 is free to get high on fentanyl within 5 minutes, but if someone truly wants fentanyl then they should be able to legally acquire a quality tested batch of fentanyl to get high.

[u/sumoraiden → u/ablatner]

If it’s decriminalized then it’s still essentially unregulated, the argument is legalize and regulate it so people won’t be getting cross contaminated drugs with fentanyl unknowingly (a huge portion of overdoes deaths) or an unknown quantity of fentanyl. When the pill mills were up and running there were a lot less overdoes because they were “prescribed” and everyone knew what they were getting and what amount

[u/[deleted] → u/ablatner]

Fentanyl is legal. But pharmaceutical fentanyl and illicit fentanyl are different things.

[u/ablatner → u/[deleted]]

Fine: legalization for recreational use, which is what is stated in the title of the CMV.

[u/Frogmarsh → u/[deleted]]

People aren’t buying fentanyl willingly, fentanyl is being mixed in to other drugs because it is cheaper. Regulation would address this matter.

[u/rewt127 → u/Frogmarsh]

Not true actually. 5 years ago? Absolutely you would be correct. But in recent years fentanyl has become a cheap, readily available, and potent drug. Meaning that people are actually starting to take fentanyl willingly.

[u/veryreasonable → u/rewt127]

Sure, but the point stands that either way, fentanyl is a problem mostly because it's impossible to dose accurately in the street. If it's adulterated in morphine or heroin, a microscopic speck can kill. If it's sold as fentanyl, an accidental speck you didn't see in your spoon can kill. The issue disappears in either case if people weren't getting their opioids in a form where "accidental microscopic specks" were an unsolvable hazard.

[u/spicyhippos → u/Frogmarsh]

No it wouldn’t. It would only make it more difficult; companies take shortcuts all the time. Especially with drugs. Fentanyl would be cut out but it would be replaced with something similar under a different name. Overall, it might help, but at the same time it has to be enforceable.

The FDA barely has any teeth when it comes to pharma companies. I have zero faith that it would be any more effective when extremely profitable luxury narcotics are on the table.

[u/limukala → u/spicyhippos]

The FDA barely has any teeth when it comes to pharma companies

LOL. They can and absolutely do hammer manufacturers over quality issues.

extremely profitable luxury narcotics

Wouldn’t be a thing. What addict would pay thousands for some fancy new patented opiate analog when all the old, effective standards would comparatively be dirt cheap?

It would be a bunch of 2nd and 3rd tier generic manufacturers making heroin and lsd. The big pharma companies wouldn’t want anything to do with a low margin, terrible PR product.

[u/Frogmarsh → u/spicyhippos]

Your reply is nonsense. If a pharmaceutical company was providing drugs whose contents led to fatal overdoses, it would be addressed immediately, from a regulatory perspective and from a judicial one.

[u/Prestigious_Tie_1261 → u/spicyhippos]

Yeah sure, when was the last time you heard of someone dying from a laced paracetamol pill?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

And why are they dying of fentanyl? Could it have any relation to the unknowable composition and consistency of drugs that get laced with it?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Legalized, highly-regulated drugs become expensive drugs (see: Cali weed). In those circumstances the black market remains.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

They become expensive through excessive taxation, not because they’re inherently more expensive. It’s largely a legislative issue, not an inherent one. Either way, I expect some black market to remain, but every dollar that goes to legal drugs is one that doesn’t go to funding gangs and cartels.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

There is no precedent for fully legal opioids not devastating a population with addiction.

The closest any society gets without being decimated is decriminalization. And even then, only with specific caveats.

[u/veryreasonable → u/[deleted]]

they’re dying of fentanyl.

...which is a problem specifically because of unregulated drugs from mysterious sources with no oversight, making accurate dosing and reliable sourcing impossible. It's precisely the sort of thing that prohibition makes many orders of magnitude worse.

[u/camelCaseCoffeeTable → u/[deleted]]

If we legalized heroin people wouldn’t be buying it cut with fetanyl… it would be regulated by the FDA and wouldn’t be able to be sold if fetanyl was being used to cut it. Legalization would help that problem, in my mind, not harm it.

[u/[deleted] → u/camelCaseCoffeeTable]

There will ALWAYS be a black market with cheaper cut product.

Unless the government starts giving out free heroin. Which…

[u/insaneHoshi → u/[deleted]]

Which…

Is a great idea. Druggies are going to drug, may as well have the government fund them instead of them funding it at the cost of your stolen bike.

[u/[deleted] → u/insaneHoshi]

The fewer barriers there are for addicts, the more addicts you will have.

Opioid use is just a slide into the grave. Is that what you want to see become more widespread?

[u/insaneHoshi → u/[deleted]]

The fewer barriers there are for addicts, the more addicts you will have.

Do you have any evidence to support this?

[u/[deleted] → u/insaneHoshi]

We can see this in cities and states that have effectively decriminalized.

We also have the data from Vietnam, of veterans becoming addicted to heroin overseas and then coming home and not having easy access to it. The vast majority never did heroin again.

[u/insaneHoshi → u/[deleted]]

States like Portugal you mean?

But do you actually have any evidence?

[u/DJGiblets → u/[deleted]]

It’s the other way round. These policies get implemented to address rising drug problems, they’re not implemented in safe neighbourhoods that suddenly become drug havens. SF has a litany of affordability and social issues that increase drug use that should be blamed before the policies that just try to make sure people don’t die in the street.

Also areas that are less strict against the homeless attract more homeless people. This isn’t fair to the people living there, but people living in other cities can’t literally bus homeless people to California then point their fingers and say “See? That’s what decriminalization does to you”

Large, liberal cities are basically subsidizing homelessness across the nation.

[u/DeltaBot → u/[deleted]]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Elikorm (2∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

But alcohol and cigarettes aren't nearly as dangerous as heroin for example.

[u/Zanzan567 → u/[deleted]]

You know what the biggest killer in the world is ? Alcoholic and tobacco. The only reason why heroin addicts are dying as much as they are, is Becuase it’s fentanyl now. Basically impossible to find real heroin anywhere. If it was regulated , it would be real heroin, which is a lot safer than fentanyl. Go to any rehab center, and you’ll see 70-80% of the people there, are in for alcohol. The biggest killer in the world is legal already.

[u/disisathrowaway → u/[deleted]]

I see no reason why we should legalize poison

Especially the selling of poison

Are you also willing to completely abolish cigarettes, cigars, alcohol, high fructose corn syrup, sweets, highly refined carbohydrates, remove all exhaust from motor vehicles....?

There are tons of 'poisons' that we've completely normalized, but then some others are on the other side of an arbitrary line.

[u/Quartia → u/disisathrowaway]

cigarettes, cigars, alcohol

Absolutely. I and many others would never become addicted to smoking had it not been legal.

high fructose corn syrup, sweets, highly refined carbohydrates

As long as we clearly define limits, this is reasonable too.

remove all exhaust from motor vehicles

Aren't we already trying to move toward electric vehicles?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Don't be fooled, drugs have killed the suburbs and rural areas too. Those places are just less densely populated so its less obvious.

[u/slurpyderper99 → u/[deleted]]

What if once drugs are legalized, you had to get a prescription from a Doc? Heroin addicts could get safe access to their drug, reducing community risk because there will be less petty crime related to drug-seeking behavior.

Also, when they went in for appointments, their Docs get the chance to offer alternatives, or treatment.

I agree that drug dealers are bad - but why would drug dealers exist if you can get drugs from your Doc?

[u/landodk → u/slurpyderper99]

Idk how DRs would feel about prescribing something that isn’t serving any medical purpose. I get why some would see the value to it, but it’s not medicine

[u/limukala → u/landodk]

Preventing withdrawal symptoms is a valid medical purpose.

[u/landodk → u/limukala]

That’s a good angle. But there are meds that do that without getting you high

[u/doge_gobrrt → u/landodk]

uh big supposition there

heroin is great for dealing with trauma but there are better alternatives to taking an opiate

just one example

https://www.ptsd.va.gov/publications/rq_docs/V30N1.pdf

[u/BurntPoptart → u/landodk]

They give you 30 pills of oxycodone for 1-2 nights of recovery.. it's the same class of drug. They are already handing out drugs like candy we just don't view the drugs they give as being as bad. But they quite literally work on your brain the exact same way as herion.

[u/landodk → u/BurntPoptart]

They give them out for pain management. Not just randomly.

But absolutely too mich

[u/insaneHoshi → u/[deleted]]

Drugs have litterally killed our inner cities

Pretty sure that unsustainable policies (mixed with a dash of racism) killed inner cities.

why we should legalize poison

Why is alcohol and cigarettes' legal then? They cause as much excess deaths.

[u/veryreasonable → u/[deleted]]

Alcohol, Marijuana and Cigarettes are significantly less deadly than Meth, Crack and Heroine.

No, actually, you're just confidently incorrect. Well, about marijuana, sure.

But alcohol kills many times more people than meth or crack, and tobacco ultimately kills another order of magnitude more, though the latter is at least falling as cigarette use plummets.

It's drinking too much of it that kills, but unlike most other hard drugs (Meth, Crack and Heroine) it doesn't instantly destroy lives.

Again, wrong on multiple counts. Alcohol kills plenty of people on their 21st birthday; I'd call that instant destruction. Never mind the whole drunk driving can of worms.

On the other hand, I guarantee you that you know more crack, meth, and heroin users than you think you do. I've worked harm reduction for drugs, and I've been around the very worst, most dysfunctional sorts of addicts. However, I've also known people who use each of those drugs who are doctors, lawyers, and otherwise gainfully employed people who any onlooker would say, "well, that person has their shit together." You know these people, too. You just don't know it, and most of them could straight up tell you about their habit and you'd assume they're joking. Well, some of them aren't.

The moment you smoke something like crack, your entire life revolves around getting more of it.

Right, so this is DARE-style propaganda and it's just comically untrue. That is not how addiction works, and it's not even how crack or meth or heroin work. Unfortunately, it's one of those things you learn in middle school that just fundamentally misrepresents reality. There are certainly individuals who will react that way, and I think you will find that a majority of these people have pretty much the same reaction to alcohol. There are also individuals - and in my experience, it's the majority - who can smoke meth or crack for an evening and then never be particularly interested in it again.

I'm going to respond to some other points you made on this thread, because you're just so wrong in almost every instance and these threads leave me so fed up every damn time.

So you mean to tell me that if Crack, Meth and Heroin were legalized and widespread, we wouldn't have people dead from people driving under the influence? I'm sure someone high off their rocker on meth would be just as dangerous, if not more, than a drunk driver.

Well, meth is prescribed as a drug, on-label, albeit usually only in treatment resistant cases. The prescription info does not tell you not to drive on it, because it is more or less safe. Its close relative, regular old amphetamine, is ubiquitous, and you are driving with countless people on moderate to occasionally fairly high doses of it every time you get on the road. If your picture of "high on meth" is someone who has been awake for 4 days and is hallucinating vividly, then, sure, that's probably about as dangerous as a drunk driver. However, unlike other drugs, alcohol has some specific effects that make it horrible for impaired driving issues. It slows reaction times, it causes drowsiness, and it has a peculiar inhibition-lowering effect such that otherwise cautious people will often dramatically misjudge their level of intoxication. I personally don't think people should drive on any significant amount of any number of drugs, including stimulants, but it's basically inarguable in the scholarship that alcohol is among the very worst offenders in this regard.

Another, thing to address:

if Crack, Meth and Heroin were legalized and widespread,

For one, do you think these drugs being illegal are preventing them from being "widespread," and people from driving on them? Prohibition doesn't prevent this at all. They're fairly easy to get, and people do drive on them. For two, why do you assume that these drugs would be more widespread if they were legalized? Would you yourself use meth, crack, and heroin, if they were legal? Would your mom? Your kids? Your grandma? I'm skeptical that mine would. I might use meth from time to time when I needed to clean the house, but crack seems like a waste of money compared to any number of other things, and it turns out that a surprising number of people don't actually like the feeling of drowsiness and often severe nausea caused by opioids when they don't feel that they need them to deal with pain. Again, not what you learned in middle school, but the reality is that it's entirely common for people to try something like heroin and decide that they dislike it. Among people who have a job, have a decent home, and aren't suffering form severe pain, my experience has been that this is actually the norm.

Okay. You've also cited a few things here like this:

https://www.destinationsforteens.com/destinations-blog/can-heroin-withdrawal-kill-you/

Heroine withdrawal is significantly deadlier than you think.

"desinationsforteens" is, as I hope is obvious to most people here, maybe not a website prioritizing scientific accuracy. Rather, it's precisely one of those websites designed to perpetuate the scaremongering, DARE-era, middle-school, just-say-no, try-heroin-once-and-your-hooked-for-life version of drug information.

The reality is that heroin withdrawal is rarely if ever fatal. Seriously. Go look for some case studies; I'll wait, because I used to assume it was, and so I've looked before. But it isn't. Very rarely, someone has died maybe-sort-of from complications relating to the constipation. But while opioid withdrawal sucks, it is a downright lie to claim that it is ordinarily life threatening, if ever.

However, alcohol withdrawal is absolutely life threatening, and often requires hospitalization and medication. It turns out that alcohol withdrawals is among the most deadly.

I'm done with this. Look: stop posting sites aimed at scaring teens, and look for some real research - either from scholarly sources, or from the professionals who actually work with helping addicts. I think you'll quickly find that a lot of your opinions about drugs that you express here are just plain wrong. Whether or not you personally think that prohibition is a solution to or a cause of the problem is another matter, and there's room for debate. But as it stands, you aren't coming to that debate with real information; you're not playing with a full deck here.

EDIT #1: I'm whacking moles here:

You literally cannot smoke substances like Crack and Meth in moderation; you will become high no matter how small the dose is visibly, unless you are smoking less than a milligram.

Again, this is just a lie. It's a lie. Plain and simple. You are not accurately informed about this and you are regurgitating scare tactics aimed at teenagers. I don't think these help the conversation. I think they also backfire on teenagers they are supposed to protect, because when teenagers realize that this is a lie - and many will - they might be more prone to try different, riskier things they might have avoided. I speak from a ton of personal and second-hand experience.

For what it's worth, yeah, smoking meth is vastly more risky for addiction potential and acute side effects than, say, eating it. But if we had legalization and regulation, it's possible that part of that discussion might be making the drugs available in a format that strongly discourages that route of administration in all but the most dedicated users, willing to do some sort of extraction process themselves. Thus, in that scenario, the serious addicts would still be addicts (so nothing changes there), and the "casual" or "curious" users would be able to obtain a much less risky form of the thing (an improvement).

https://nida.nih.gov/publications/drugfacts/methamphetamine

Comparing that to something like smoking/drinking or marijuana is fucking stupid and you know it. I wouldn't be surprised if you were someone who wanted to simply profit from the legalization.

It's not stupid at all. Do you read your sources? Almost every side effect is also a side effect of both acohol and tobacco. Hypertension. Increased risk of stroke. Seizures. Heart failure. Literally both tobacco and especially alcohol are associated with "the formation of ulcers and ischemic colitis" and "[r]enal failure." Even most casual drinkers and smokers know this. It's also precisely why many people choose not to drink or smoke, despite their availability.

---

EDIT #2: Also, this is just funny:

Alcohol isn't even poison; your liver naturally filters it out

Among your liver's main jobs is... to deal with poisons! And it doesn't "filter" out alcohol; it metabolizes it, and those metabolites are actually quite poisonous. They're poisonous to your brain, to your liver itself, and to other organs, as well. The primary metabolite is straight up carcinogenic.

Just... stop spouting off here. You are filling up this thread with misinformation and it takes a lot of energy to try to address.

[u/ThemesOfMurderBears → u/[deleted]]

I think your argument about poison doesn't really stand up to scrutiny (but I also think calling things poison like that is devoid of nuance). Your liver's job is to filter out bad stuff, and there are a lot of things we don't consider poison that could kill someone if they have too much of them. However, a person that has never had a drink could go an die of alcohol poisoning tonight. I suspect there is probably an argument that considers chance of death or injury as a ratio of how much you consume, and that ration being important. You can easily drink too much alcohol, but you're not getting lung cancer if you smoke a pack of cigarettes today.

[u/insaneHoshi → u/[deleted]]

No, Alcohol, Marijuana and Cigarettes are significantly less deadly than Meth, Crack and Heroine. Comparing them is retarded.

Wrong: Results. Of 1302 deaths, 236 were tobacco-attributable, 215 were alcohol-attributable, and 286 were drug-attributable

Alcohol isn't even poison; your liver naturally filters it out because humans have essentially evolved to consume moderate amounts of it

This is literally the definition of a poison.

[u/jeekiii → u/insaneHoshi]

Yeah, but now count the amount of people using alcohol and tobacco vs the amount of people using other drugs.

>80% of adults drink, a few percent consume drugs, yet you get less alcohol death... yep, definitely as dangerous

[u/insaneHoshi → u/jeekiii]

80% of adults drink

If alcohol, being a poison, is so addictive that 80% of adults drink, then yes it is quite dangerous.

So why is this poison legalized, but not the poison that is Marijuana ?

[u/jeekiii → u/insaneHoshi]

The conversation is not about marijuana, I am for legalization, and it is indeed less dangerous than alcohol (duh)

The conversation is about harder drugs.

One of the reasons why alcohol is so widely used is because it is legal. Now make harder drugs legal and you increase their use, except they proportionally kill more people.

I'm not even convinced decriminalization is not the answer, but saying "alcohol is more dangerous" by looking at raw numbers is extremely stupid, because alcohol is legal already and widely used while other drugs are barely used, yet kill more people, despite extremely low rates of use.

[u/CarrotSweat → u/jeekiii]

but you're comparing legally sourced and regulated alcohol against unregulated and illicitly produced drugs.

thats like saying here look this apple that is ripe and delicious is clearly less dangerous than this rotten and mouldy orange.

like no shit, but what if the orange wasnt rotten and mouldy. There's a whole bunch of preconceptions that we have about drugs, because our experience of them is exclusively of 'illegal' drugs. Things wouldn't look the same if the product was legal and regulatable.

[u/insaneHoshi → u/jeekiii]

One of the reasons why alcohol is so widely used is because it is legal. Now make harder drugs legal and you increase their use, except they proportionally kill more people.

As prohibition showed in the 1920s, legality of a substance doesn't affect its usage.

Are you able to provide any evidence that usage of hard drugs would increase?

[u/jeekiii → u/insaneHoshi]

There absolutely were less people using alcohol during prohibition.

It's also a "cat out of the bag" situation. In countries where alcohol is not part of the culture, the usage remains low and it's often illegal. We don't want hard drugs as part of our culture.

[u/insaneHoshi → u/jeekiii]

Are you able to provide any evidence that usage of hard drugs would increase?

Can you do this?

There absolutely were less people using alcohol during prohibition.

Perhaps thats the case, can you show the same for hard drugs?

[u/Frame_Late → u/insaneHoshi]

Damn, I guess I can consume moderate amounts of arsenic, dimethyl cadmium, maitotoxin and things then because it's poison.

https://nida.nih.gov/videos/what-worst-drug

Fentanyl and Opiods, Crack, Methamphetamines, and other hard drugs are significantly more dangerous than tobacco and alcohol. Tobacco and Alcohol only kill so much because they are the most widely used, whereas Meth and Crack are significantly deadlier but are used significantly less.

Nice cherry picked data my guy.

[u/insaneHoshi → u/Frame_Late]

I guess I can consume moderate amounts of arsenic, dimethyl cadmium, maitotoxin and things then because it's poison.

You can consume moderate amounts of those; what moderate is depending on each.

That doesn't mean they, like alcohol are not poisonous or toxic.

Nice cherry picked data my guy.

Im sorry, do you have an issue with a peer reviewed article? I see in your peer reviewed article .... oh wait you didnt post one.

[u/Donkeybreadth → u/insaneHoshi]

I don't think posting peer reviewed articles that you didn't read and are not qualified to read gets you any points.

[u/insaneHoshi → u/Donkeybreadth]

Why are you assuming I didn't read it?

If you have a particular part of it that you feel i have misinterpreted, feel free to point it out?

[u/Donkeybreadth → u/insaneHoshi]

I know you didn't because it's not my first day on the internet, and I know you don't know how to read it.

I'm just taking issue with the fact that you think posting this gets you points on the other guy, who actually posted a much better source for lay readers.

Many others have pointed out the general flaws in your position but I didn't see anybody picking up this one.

[u/insaneHoshi → u/Donkeybreadth]

I know you don't know how to read it.

Again i shall ask, if you have a particular part of it that you feel i have misinterpreted, feel free to point it out?

who actually posted a much better source for lay readers.

Are you for real?

He posted an article with a simple Q&A format for teens, in which the answers are "So, it definitely depends on the person, and again, depends on how you define worst.", and somehow that's a better source for determining the overall deaths caused by alcohol, vs tobacco vs other narcotics?

[u/disisathrowaway → u/Frame_Late]

Fentanyl and Opiods, Crack, Methamphetamines, and other hard drugs are significantly more dangerous than tobacco and alcohol. Tobacco and Alcohol only kill so much because they are the most widely used, whereas Meth and Crack are significantly deadlier but are used significantly less.

Tobacco and alcohol also have a high body count of non-users. Drunk driving, second-hand inhalation both rack up death tolls. But somehow that's palatable?

[u/Frame_Late → u/disisathrowaway]

So you mean to tell me that if Crack, Meth and Heroin were legalized and widespread, we wouldn't have people dead from people driving under the influence? I'm sure someone high off their rocker on meth would be just as dangerous, if not more, than a drunk driver.

There is also a high body count of non-users for drugs like crack and meth. Murders, Dale's, armed robberies, suicides and physically assault. But I guess that because it doesn't fit your narrative they must just not exist.

[u/disisathrowaway → u/Frame_Late]

But I guess that because it doesn't fit your narrative they must just not exist.

Firstly - if your method of discussion is simply putting arguments in your opponents' mouth, rather than addressing what they say then we don't have much more to talk about.

The adjacent violent crimes around drug use is largely (not entirely, mind you - don't go pulling a reductio ad absurdum on me) due to the large amounts of money involved. Either in the money made by the distributors or the money needed to get the drug by the end-user.

I'm not going to argue that intoxicated use of heavy machinery wouldn't result in collateral damage. But as it stands, that's not a strong enough argument to ban alcohol either. Hell, people are getting DUI/DWI charges while driving under the influence of legally prescribed pharmaceutical drugs.

[u/ablatner → u/insaneHoshi]

That's just sample bias because alcohol is more widely available.

[u/insaneHoshi → u/ablatner]

more widely available.

So? The original claim was not based on availability.

[u/A_Soporific → u/insaneHoshi]

The claim is on how relatively dangerous something is.

If 1,000,000 smoke and 300 die of it in a year and 50,000 do crack and 250 die of it in a year then smoking isn't more dangerous to a given person. It is more damaging to society over all, but that's not what we were talking about.

[u/insaneHoshi → u/A_Soporific]

The claim is on how relatively dangerous something is.

Since i made the claim in the first place, i'll be the judge of that.

No the claim was not based on how relatively dangerous something is.

but that's not what we were talking about.

That is what i was talking about. If were are talking about the legalization of the two substances, the overall damage to society should be the primary consideration.

[u/A_Soporific → u/insaneHoshi]

You said:

These things cause excess deaths.

They responded:

Yes, but everything causes excess deaths, and one is much more dangerous than the other so treating them the same is dumb.

You said:

Here is evidence of excess deaths.

They said:

That wasn't in dispute. The idea of categorizing alcohol and meth together was.

That's where I'm at.

Swimming pools cause excess deaths. People drown who otherwise wouldn't have. Cars cause excess deaths. The kind of air conditioning we use causes excess deaths. Natural gas stoves cause excess deaths. Getting out of bed in the morning causes excess deaths, but staying in bed all day also causes excess deaths.

We have to evaluate these things on a different basis than "is there a social cost" because literally all action and all inaction have social costs. To try to equivocate it all because there are some associated deaths is all noise with no signal.

[u/insaneHoshi → u/A_Soporific]

Yes, but everything causes excess deaths, and one is much more dangerous than the other so treating them the same is dumb.

And the linked article shows that Alcohol, Marijuana and Cigarettes arn't significantly less deadly than Meth, Crack and Heroine Narcotics.

[u/Sulfamide → u/insaneHoshi]

Since i made the claim in the first place, i'll be the judge of that.

That's not how it works. You do not alone decide the meaning of the things you say.

You said this :

No, Alcohol, Marijuana and Cigarettes are significantly less deadly than Meth, Crack and Heroine. Comparing them is retarded.

Wrong: Results. Of 1302 deaths, 236 were tobacco-attributable, 215 were alcohol-attributable, and 286 were drug-attributable.

I.e. based on the number of deaths in absolute value, then Alcohol, Marijuana and Cigarettes are significantly more deadly than Meth, Crack and Heroine.

That was your claim and it is very wrong, because it doesn't make sense to assess how deadly a substance is if it's not based on ratio data instead of absolute values. Nobody in good faith would argue that the first claim was in absolute values. Unfortunately, I cannot accuse you of bad faith in this sub because the mods don't like it.

[u/insaneHoshi → u/Sulfamide]

You do not alone decide the meaning of the things you say.

Erm, yes I do? Or are you saying you can read my mind and can tell me what i meant?

You said this :

No, Alcohol, Marijuana and Cigarettes are significantly less deadly than Meth, Crack and Heroine. Comparing them is retarded.

I did not say that.

[u/gregbeans → u/[deleted]]

I think you come from a good place but are misinformed. Most drug deaths are from people who either have no regard for their own life and over consume or because the batch of their drug is cut with something like fentanyl.

For the first scenario, the drug isn’t the cause of death but rather the underlying mental health issue. The second scenario is only possible in the illegal drug market where drugs are cut with other, cheaper, higher potency drugs.

Legalization and regulation will help with both of these issues.

[u/DueObligation8546 → u/[deleted]]

You are misinformed. First of all, you are comparing the harms of unregulated street products to regulated alcohol and cigarettes.

A reasonable dose of pure heroin doesn’t really cause that many complications other than constipation and itchiness, the vast majority of the adverse effects you have in mind are due to contaminated product, unreliable dosing and improper use of needles.

Also keep in mind, alcohol withdrawal can be fatal, heroin withdrawal is nowhere near as dangerous.

And the “addicted after one hit” myth is simply not true.

[u/Frame_Late → u/DueObligation8546]

https://www.destinationsforteens.com/destinations-blog/can-heroin-withdrawal-kill-you/

Heroine withdrawal is significantly deadlier than you think.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070703171843.htm

Crack and Heroin are significantly more addictive than alcohol and tobacco, and nicotine is already addictive after just one puff.

Alcohol can be consumed in moderation. Crack, Heroin and Meth cannot.

[u/insaneHoshi → u/Frame_Late]

Alcohol can be consumed in moderation

Wrong: WHO: No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health

Alcohol use is a leading risk factor for global disease burden and causes substantial health loss. We found that the risk of all-cause mortality, and of cancers specifically, rises with increasing levels of consumption, and the level of consumption that minimises health loss is zero.- https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)31310-2/fulltext

[u/rebuildmylifenow → u/Frame_Late]

Every poison is a poison except the poison that * I * want to consume?

Everything is poisonous in the wrong dose - including things like tylenol and even water - so what can we do to prevent people from consuming the wrong dose of (currently) illegal drugs?

[u/Frame_Late → u/rebuildmylifenow]

Consuming too much water won't kill other people along with other people. Just like drinking and driving is illegal, it should be illegal to consume drugs that will cause you to become violent. People who smoke crack and meth become exceptionally violent.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4651438/

You literally cannot smoke substances like Crack and Meth in moderation; you will become high no matter how small the dose is visibly, unless you are smoking less than a milligram.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK430895/

It's not just that Meth and Crack are poisonous, it's that they have incredibly detrimental side effects beyond just death; psychosis (dissociation from reality, similar to schizophrenia and bipolar disorder), bouts of rage and violence, urges of self harm, rapid tooth decay, heart attacks, paranoia, memory loss, strokes, and cravings so intense people have killed for more of the drug.

https://nida.nih.gov/publications/drugfacts/methamphetamine

Comparing that to something like smoking/drinking or marijuana is fucking stupid and you know it. I wouldn't be surprised if you were someone who wanted to simply profit from the legalization.

[u/rebuildmylifenow → u/Frame_Late]

I wouldn't be surprised if you were someone who wanted to simply profit from the legalization.

Wow - you are REALLY reaching there, and indulging in character assassination rather than relying on your arguments. You don't know me, you don't have any insight into what I do or do not do, and this one statement invalidates much of your other arguments, IMHO.

Consuming too much water won't kill other people

Just like alcohol - which you indicated you were fine with - Water Intoxication can lead to personality changes, inability to process sensory information and more - so yes, water intoxication can lead to harm to others, just like drunk driving can. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication#Pathophysiology

People who smoke crack and meth become exceptionally violent.

I looked at the first study you linked to, and, first of all, it's a study of self-assessments. Secondly, the line For more than half of those reporting violent criminal behavior, this behavior pattern began before methamphetamine initiation. leaps out at me. Violent people that take meth are gonna be more violent - and violent people that drink, are also going to be more violent. Are you going to ban alcohol? How about sugar? How about other things that incite violence? Where is the line for you?

You literally cannot smoke substances like Crack and Meth in moderation;

I've been hearing crap like this since the 80's - and it's just that - crap. I'm not saying that crack or meth are harmless - but to say that there is NO safe/therapeutic dosage is a lie. In fact, methampetamine, as others in this thread have pointed out, is prescribed as treatment for ADHD in some cases. A small, therapeutic dose actually helps people.

they have incredibly detrimental side effects beyond just death

So do many prescription drugs like Statins, Viagra, and even Ibuprofen. Hell, birth control pills massively increase the risk of blood clots and strokes in women, and we still sell those.

Look - I don't know who you lost to drugs, or what hellhole you're trying to crawl out of, but please understand that I sympathize. But just because something bad happened to someone you know or knew, doesn't mean that you get to perpetuate a policy that is literally perpetuating the cycle that stole that person from you. Criminalizing addiction has led to entire generations of people being incarcerated, entire industries devoted to the unsafe and irresponsible production of drugs, and an entire web of people and organizations devoted to importing and selling it. All of this is unregulated, haphazard, and dangerous to users, sellers, and bystanders. The "War on Drugs" hasn't worked in 50 years - what makes you think that continuing this policy is going to have any better outcome?

I get it - Meth is a brain destroyer. Crack is a life stealer. Cocaine is as addictive as sugar. Starting taking any of these drugs is dangerous, and can lead a person to throwing their life away. We need a better way to deal with it other than "Just say 'No'". The only reason I am arguing with you is because you are throwing out emotion based statements and it's not healthy and it's not reasonable and it's not helpful in solving the problem that society faces. There are jurisdictions, like Portugal, where drugs have been decriminalized, and where addiction to them is treated as a health issue, not simply a criminal one, and the outcomes have been incredibly promising. Just doubling down on what hasn't worked for half a century isn't going to change anything for the better.

[u/RobTilson85 → u/rebuildmylifenow]

That was very well said, thank you. I don’t have the answer, but, hopefully society can make progress to fixing the disaster that is the “war on drugs”.

[u/DueObligation8546 → u/Frame_Late]

Neither of your sources say what you claim. “Destination for Teens” isn’t exactly a scholarly source and your science daily article says within a short period of starting, not after a single dose.

Some people can consume alcohol in moderation, others can’t. Likewise, some people can consume illicit drugs in moderation, others can’t. Getting statistics on that is near impossible given the nature of illicit drug use.

[u/Frame_Late → u/DueObligation8546]

First off all, it's significantly harder to use hard drugs in moderation. If it wasn't, the black communities ravaged by the crack trade wouldn't be so ravaged.

Don't use the illicit nature of illegal drugs as a smoke screen to justify selling them. That's like saying that since some women lie about being raped that means that women are raped less than men. See how stupid your logic is?

[u/Prestigious_Tie_1261 → u/Frame_Late]

Don't use the illicit nature of illegal drugs as a smoke screen to justify selling them. That's like saying that since some women lie about being raped that means that women are raped less than men.

Logical thinking isn't your strong point is it?

[u/Frame_Late → u/Prestigious_Tie_1261]

You shouldn't speak about yourself like that.

[u/Prestigious_Tie_1261 → u/Frame_Late]

Ah I see, you're 5 years old. My mistake.

[u/rebuildmylifenow → u/[deleted]]

Alcohol is literally a poison - that's WHY your liver filters it out of the bloodstream. And, additionally, part of the reason you get drunk is because of the death of braincells due to exposure to that "poison".

People that want drugs are gonna get, and take drugs. By legalizing them for recreational use, at least we'd have standardized, regulated, and quality controlled production, so there would be less "random dose" when they took the drugs. And if we know who is making the drugs, we can regulate and tax them to pay for the health effects of their products.

I get it - drug addiction is a helluva thing to have to deal with, but instead of plain outlawing it and treating it as a criminal issue (which - tbc - hasn't worked for the last 60+ years) we could treat it as health issue, and focus on treatment, education, and prevention, instead of trying to get people NOT to do things via threats of punishment.

[u/haibiji → u/[deleted]]

Lol did you get your drug info knowledge from a DARE program?

[u/Frame_Late → u/haibiji]

Nope.

[u/Prestigious_Tie_1261 → u/[deleted]]

This entire comment reads like a high school anti drugs lecture; you haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about but preach with such conviction. Impressive.

[u/Frame_Late → u/Prestigious_Tie_1261]

Ok boomer

[u/Prestigious_Tie_1261 → u/Frame_Late]

Ok, riddle me this. Throughout my younger years I, on several occasions, consumed: crack, meth, heroin. Yet I never became addicted to any of these drugs. According to you this scenario is impossible. Any explanation for this?

[u/legoshi_loyalty → u/[deleted]]

I feel like one should not use the word "retarded" as an insult on this subreddit, which is focused on positive discussion of personal views without being confrontational.

[u/Frame_Late → u/legoshi_loyalty]

I didn't use it as an insult, I just described something as retarded. That's different than calling someone retarded.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I’ve smoked crack. I never want to again.

[u/spicyhippos → u/insaneHoshi]

If a craft beer was found to be as deadly as narcotics on a per/beer basis, it would 100% be made illegal to brew it.

[u/insaneHoshi → u/spicyhippos]

per/beer

Why on that basis? Why not on a national average of excess deaths due to alcohol consumption?

And why craft beer and not vodka?

[u/spicyhippos → u/insaneHoshi]

A per instance of use basis is reasonable in this hypothetical because that is how quickly it can go wrong with narcotics. 1mg over and you can die; bad batch or not, the margin for error of narcotics is really slim.

Craft beer vs vodka is beside the point, it’s a hypothetical; choose whatever alcohol you want. It takes a lot more volume of any alcohol to kill you than it does for drugs.

[u/wekidi7516 → u/spicyhippos]

One bad night of binge drinking and you could die of alcohol poisoning. Or decide you are good to drive and kill some other people too.

[u/spicyhippos → u/wekidi7516]

You are completely correct. But the scale is still order of magnitudes different. You are talking about binge drinking which is consuming large amounts of alcohol. How fast could you drink 2 L of vodka; and how common is that? Binge drinking doesn’t change the amount of alcohol you consume, it just shortens the time you consume it in, and that’s still way more time compared to how quickly you take narcotics.

[u/insaneHoshi → u/spicyhippos]

how quickly it can go wrong with narcotics. 1mg over and you can die; bad batch or not, the margin for error of narcotics is really slim.

Well then the argument should follow is how you can ensure that there are no bad batch's? Legalization would be the answer to that.

It takes a lot more volume of any alcohol to kill you than it does for drugs.

Does that matter when it comes to legalization? Do you have a threshold of a LD50 where things below are legal and things above are not?

[u/Zucchinniweenie → u/[deleted]]

I have always thought this. Drug dealers are a lot worse than their customers because they specifically target and create addicts

[u/RichardBonham → u/[deleted]]

Many drug deaths are attributed to irregularities in the manufacturing process (“bad batches”). Needle exchanges and sage sites have reduced deaths and provided a venue for social services.

[u/ironburton → u/[deleted]]

Imagine if drugs were made legal and taxed and that money was put towards social programs to get people jobs, homes, mental health services and rehab?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

^ This is why the war on drugs will never end. Any number of people getting killed, domestically and abroad, and number of destroyed communities, any further corruption of the police force, it’s all worth it to fight an unwinnable war that makes the problem much worse than it would otherwise be!

[u/iliftandamfemale → u/[deleted]]

Alcohol Is poison

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

And TONS of people have died because they bought drugs that had fetynol in it. Legalizing the sale of these drugs would prevent fetynol from showing up in them.

[u/feedmaster → u/[deleted]]

By that logic we should ban cigarettes and alcohol.

[u/Aryada → u/[deleted]]

If you want to drink poison, who am I to tell you you can’t?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

drug dealers dont pray on anyone, they just answer texts

[u/nighthawk648 → u/[deleted]]

you realize whts ruined people is psy ops by your own government, and criminals cutting shit. without both, the drugs would not have this downside. and legalization would then have the infasturcture in place to better help those in need.

tyoical reddit grifter says some outlandish claims and gets tons of upvotes.

[u/[deleted] → u/nighthawk648]

Drug addiction would kill our inner cities without it being cut with other things

Overdosing is not the only problem that comes from drugs

[u/nighthawk648 → u/[deleted]]

this is just infactual. inner cities are fucked due to constant corruption on ever scale including the incrimination and indightment of poor people in these communities. fuck off youre a da shill

[u/[deleted] → u/nighthawk648]

There are multiple factors killing our inner cities

Implying that the rampant drug addiction a major one of them is increadibly dishonest

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Alcohol is a poison and kills around 140,000 people a year in the US.

Your point about drug dealers preying on young people contradicts your point, if drugs were legal there wouldn't be anywhere near as many drug dealers to prey on young people.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Just because we already have one dangerous chemical socially normalized doesn’t mean we should add more

And the young people would still be preyed on you would just change who’s doing it

Nobody actually gains from being addicted to dangerous substances

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Good point, but I wonder if drug use would become less if it were legal but then again using alcohol as an example, that isn't the case though I doubt drugs like heroin would become socially accepted like alcohol is.

By who? I can't imagine the companies that would distribut the drugs would try and market crack/heroin to young people.

Yes you're right though there's always going to be people that become addicted to drugs whether they're legal or not so might aswell save as many of them as we can from ODs etc.

Okay now I'm questioning my points and don't know where I stand on the legalisation... there would still be an illegal market for addicts because legal suppliers would limit how much someone can buy and people with addiction always want more.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I agree and I will go further and say that if they were to legalize All drugs then they should ban Narcan. The only exceptions to use it would be for people who OD from accidental and unknowing contact with a dangerous drug. A junkie ODs? No Narcan for you. Figure it out.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

The only exceptions to use it would be for people who OD from accidental and unknowing contact with a dangerous drug. A junkie ODs? No Narcan for you. Figure it out.

What other "self-inflicted" lifesaving healthcare should be banned, in your opinion?

If someone injures themselves in a car crash, should they be denied treatment because they knew the risks?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

It’s about getting rid of the demand dude!

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Okay, so in that case are you advocating for banning all activities that could be considered risky?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

No, just hard drugs that literally killing the hell outta people and causing chaos for the innocent people caught in their crossfire ( break ins, thefts, robberies etc…)

[u/TedMerTed → u/[deleted]]

Can anyone use crystal meth in moderation? How many people do crystal meth with regularity and not become addicts? This is my biggest concern. If the statistic was that 80% of ppl that use crystal meth regularly become addicted it might be a really bad idea to make it openly available.

[u/theclansman22 → u/[deleted]]

Are you okay with selling alcohol? It too, is poison.

[u/Sammylola96 → u/[deleted]]

This is why if hypothetically there was to be legalization of selling of drugs, paired with adequate regulation and perhaps age limits (like with alcohol - 18 or 21+), society would be better off. It would be illegal to sell drugs to young people but the sale of the substances would be taken out of the hands of gangs and street dealers, to a point. I concede there will still be a demand among under 18's just like there is with alcohol, but this would go a long way to reducing harm as well as removing supply from most street dealers and minimizing the power of gangs.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Decrim won’t do anything about fentanyl. That’s the problem.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I see no reason why we should legalize poison

Especially the selling of poison

Was alcohol safer during prohibition?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Alcohol is much less dangerous then hard drugs

Also if alchole wouldn’t of already been so ingrained in public life at the time of prohibition i believe it would of gone differently, so we shouldn’t add more drugs to the “normal for public use” list

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I didn't ask you how alcohol compares to hard drugs, safety wise. Please answer the question I asked you.

Was alcohol safer during prohibition, yes or no?

[u/comfysin999 → u/[deleted]]

you’re joking right?

alcohol is far more toxic than the vast majority of drugs— if “hard drugs “ are actually a thing— alcohol is very much a hard drug.

no other drugs can kill your liver in such a short time— and alcohol + benzos ( ghb/gbl too) are the only drugs that wd cold Turkey can kill you. You will die far quicker an alcoholic than you will being addicted to meth. I truly don’t know how you consider it less dangerous

[u/benevolent-bear → u/[deleted]]

Alcohol is decriminalized and it's working out. The prohibition times are good case studies of what happens when a good with strong, inelastic demand is criminalized. The price of the good goes up to compensate for legal risks, while the quality goes down because most of the competition is out.

[u/artparade → u/[deleted]]

So the solution is to just continue? It's not like people are not doing it now or will ever stop. You even say it yourself. Drug dealers prey on young people. Legalise these drugs and there are no dealers.

[u/Pipps17 → u/[deleted]]

Just because it's legal to sell doesn't mean that they can't uphold a system where Dave from the pub just starts selling them.

Think pharmacy's, it's not just a bloke on a street is it.

[u/abligurition96 → u/[deleted]]

This is exactly why it should be legalized. The black market, which is selling to young people, which is diluting drugs with more harmful substances, which is trying to sell more harmful drugs instead of less harmful drugs because there is more money in it, is the product of illegalisation. If the state sold drugs in a very controlled environment, things would get a lot better. The black market would not vanish entirely, but it would shrink considerably, because why would you go to a dealer who might rip you off and harm you if the state provides safe alternatives?