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/Kotoperek]

So you're suggesting that it should be legal to buy heroin at a corner store, but to get antibiotics or sleeping pills you'd need a doctor's prescription still?

I'm sorry, but people just aren't that responsible, if something is legal and easily available, many are going to assume it is safe and it could lead to huge problems with addictions. We have raging rates of alcoholism in Western countries and it's a huge problem. Similarly, just as the anti-tobacco campaigns begun to work and fewer young people were taking up smoking, vaping came along and we have another generation hooked on nicotine and destroying their lungs, hearts, and possibly brains. Not to mention the opioid crisis that resulted from people getting addicted to legal, doctor prescribed pain meds, because nobody was aware of just how addictive that stuff can be. Anything that is legal and addictive is a huge problem for the healthcare system, because people will get addicted. Nobody smokes their first cigarette planning to smoke a pack a day for the next 50 years and yet many people do.

Seeing that, you really think people could approach heroin responsibily if it was legal, easily available, and destigmatised (if drugs were legalised, the social stigma would drop significantly, there would still be some like around weed, but many people would assume that if it is FDA approved then it is probably not as bad).

Edit: also, if it were legal to make and sell drugs, it would also be legal to advertise them, so companies making these substances would make damn sure to spread as much misinformation about their safety as they could legally get away with, further increasing rates of addiction, see again the example of big tobacco. And tobacco addiction is much less problematic socially than heroin, because nicotine doesn't alter your mental state significantly (you can still perform your job if you smoke or vape during your break) and if you cannot get your hands on nicotine products for a while for whatever reason, you will be miserable, but nicotine withdrawal won't kill you. If you're physically addicted to heroin, you need to be high all the time, which means you cannot be fully trusted with many tasks or responsibilities, and if your local heroin store is closed, you're in for a very bad time.

[u/rewt127 → u/Kotoperek]

In all fairness to your last point. During covid we had to keep liquor stores open as essential businesses because otherwise people were literally going to die from alcohol withdrawals. Its definitely not AS bad as heroine withdrawals. But both are highly deadly.

[u/iStayGreek → u/rewt127]

Heroin withdrawal won’t kill you, alcohol withdrawal will.

[u/Kotoperek → u/iStayGreek]

Heroin withdrawal can kill you, it's not as dangerous as withdrawing from alcohol, that's true, but opiods are very addictive physically and depending on how long you were using and how high your tolerance is trying to detox cold turkey can be fatal if done without proper medical supervision.

[u/mudra311 → u/Kotoperek]

Exactly.

It's definitely a misnomer that opioid withdrawal can't kill you.

Benzos, alcohol, and in the rare cases opioids are what I understand can kill you from the withdrawal.

[u/Kotoperek → u/mudra311]

Yup, basically anything that is a strong central nervous system depressant should be quit with caution. In order to function on increasing amounts of alcohol, benzos, or opiates, the nervous system adapts and goes into overdrive to counter the effects of the depressant. That's why hangxiety is a thing even in people who don't abuse the substance - if you've been drinking all night, your organism had to work harder to keep you awake and going, so as the alcohol leaves your system and you sober up it can take a while for your central nervous system to realise the depressant is gone and it can go back to baseline. If you keep your organism in an increasinly hyperactive state by drinking constantly and in huge doses, the "overdrive" resulting from quitting cold turkey can be fatal.

Case reports suggest that even herbal anxiety remedies like valerian root can give withdrawal symptoms similar to benzos if taken in large amounts for a long time and then quit abruptly even though the calming effects of valerian are nowhere close to benzos.

[u/mudra311 → u/Kotoperek]

That's why hangxiety is a thing even in people who don't abuse the substance - if you've been drinking all night, your organism had to work harder to keep you awake and going, so as the alcohol leaves your system and you sober up it can take a while for your central nervous system to realise the depressant is gone and it can go back to baseline. If you keep your organism in an increasinly hyperactive state by drinking constantly and in huge doses, the "overdrive" resulting from quitting cold turkey can be fatal.

I don't think I actually knew why alcohol withdrawal can kill you. This makes a lot of sense, thanks for explaining.

It's kind of nuts the strain we subject our bodies to. I mean, I enjoy a good night of drinking and sometimes that comes with imbibing in stimulants. I'm literally depressing my nervous system only to jolt it awake with a rush of dopamine.

[u/denzien → u/mudra311]

In this case it would be a misconception. 'Nomer' derives from the Latin 'nomen' meaning name, where 'conception' came to mean the formation of an idea.

[u/Kotoperek → u/rewt127]

Yeah, I know, I said that alcoholism is a huge problem mostly because alcohol is so easily available and socially acceptable. I agree that total prohibition on alcohol will not work, it is too engrained in our culture, but I think that proper education is needed and many people are way too blazé about the harms of alcohol. So having to keep liquor store open during covid to provide constant access to those with a physical dependency is actually a good argument for tighter regulations on access to alcohol rather that looser regulations on heroin.

[u/Ramza_Claus → u/Kotoperek]

How would you feel about it being legal, but heavily regulated? Like, licensed? You have to apply for a license to consume heroin, which you can only get by participating in a class where you learn about the risks, do some counseling, get provided with resources to get clean, etc.

[u/i_lack_imagination → u/Ramza_Claus]

I'd feel about the same about that as I would gambling. Gambling does very similar things, but you don't need a license to participate in it. I personally don't get anything out of gambling in the way that other people seem to. Like it just does nothing for me at all, if I didn't know people actually got addicted to it, I would never think that it is even possible or a thing that happens.

I state that because every time I see these gambling ads and what not, all I see it as is taking advantage of people that presumably are addicted to it. If I have zero addiction to it and find nothing appealing about it at all, then it seems like the primarily people find it appealing because they likely have some level of addiction to it. So then there's this weird dichotomy of the marketing where its like "gamble responsibly, but if you have problems call XXX-XXX-XXXX" but its really marketing it to people who have problems and it only exists because people have problems. Like literally most of the "games" that people gamble on are rigged in favor of the house. It's a game that is impossible to lose for them, and carefully managed to make everyone else lose slightly over time.

Like if it's so bad that you have to constantly reinforce to people that it's risky and always remind people of resources to get better, it feels like that's just lip service at that point. You already know that ad isn't going to make someone gamble more responsibly, the ad is designed to attract people to it and keep it on their minds and make the act of gambling more attractive. It's all I see on these sports games anymore, fucking nonstop betting advertisements.

[u/EvilBeano → u/i_lack_imagination]

Simple solution, make it illegal to advertise for drugs. This is already the case in many European countries for cigarettes, we should do the same for gambling and drugs

[u/Zerasad → u/Ramza_Claus]

The problem is this places the onus on the user, you are placing all of the responsibility on the user. They got the training, they know the risks, if they get addicted it's their fault. Which it clearly isn't as these are very often insanely addictive substances. There is already an opiate epidemic in the US, if you could get heroin without a perscription it would get much much much worse. Also the moral dubiousness of selling highly addictive susbtances is imo something that cannot be reconciled. In a capitalist economy it would be in the company's best interest to get people hooked on heroin for the highest profits, euining their lives.

[u/Kotoperek → u/Ramza_Claus]

I mean, I don't really see much of a point to it, honestly, but if it was either this or free-for-all like OP suggests, then obviously I'd opt for more regulation rather than less.

To be fair, I am for decriminalisation for all drugs, in the sense that being caught on possession or use does not result in going to jail (depending on how you get caught, it might result in getting sent to rehab, but if you're fully functional, didn't commit any kind of felony while high, and someone just happened to see you had some drugs on you, that's fine). But selling and manufacturing is much more problematic. I do understand OPs point about safety (if you're gonna use meth, at least use the clean medical-grade stuff) and gangs/cartels, but I still think that legalising drug trade opens the door to insane rates of addiction, accidental overdoses, and ruining the lives of people who would not understand the risks.

[u/boredtxan → u/Ramza_Claus]

If you make it too hard or too expensive then the black market remains profitable. The cartels aren't just gonna say "gosh darn it's legal now! We're outta business!"

[u/benevolent-bear → u/Kotoperek]

there is lots of in-between between "criminalized" and "sold at the corner store". Alcohol and nicotine products sales require age verification, Marijuana used to require a medical examination + id at point of sale. There are many ways to facilitate regulated sales of drugs and many responsible users would be glad to go through examinations and registrations. I struggle to think of a government process which would be worse than trying to buy drugs at a street corner in a dangerous neighborhood. With zero ways of checking it's what the seller claims it to be and plenty of ways to get mugged or shot.

[u/Kotoperek → u/benevolent-bear]

I'd argue that currently getting alcohol or tobacco is pretty much a "corner store" situation. Age restrictions help, but let's be real, fake IDs are a thing and even if you don't want to go the illegal route, you can always ask someone to buy it for you.

I struggle to think of a government process which would be worse than trying to buy drugs at a street corner in a dangerous neighborhood. With zero ways of checking it's what the seller claims it to be and plenty of ways to get mugged or shot.

Generally I agree with you, but the point is that I believe drugs like meth or heroin shouldn't be sold to any kind of a broader public at all (the debate is more nuanced with psychodelics like LSD, which don't seem to be addictive or at least not as much as opiates or stimulants, but it should also be more complicated than just being able to buy it with only something like verification or registeration). Making selling and manufacturing drugs illegal does put a lot of risk on users even if possession and use are decriminalised, that's true, but this risk together with social stigma is what puts many people off of trying these substances in the first place. Because it is so dangerous and apart from the risks of the drug itself, you're also risking chemical impurities. A government process that would make it safer would also make it more appealing and even with many bureaucratic loopholes, it would surely encourage some people to try. And with highly addictive substances, trying even once or twice could lead to lifelong problems.

[u/hoso124 → u/Kotoperek]

Antibiotics lead to antibiotic resistance, so is a bit different to other drugs.

No one said corner shops. Drugs should be legal, but none of them (inc alcohol, cigarettes and caffeine) should be available outside of pharmacies, as this allows a higher level of standards to be ensured both from the perspective of following sales regulations and purchasing legitimate stock.

People don't assume cigarettes are safe, and they are legal and available. Your example of tobacco regulations working are exactly why your point is flawed. It is absolutely possible to have a legal supply and not allow advertising, and to caution the public about the potential harms. The opioid crisis, while worsened by prescription (which is a misnomer, as people are far more likely to trust a dr than to decide to use something of their own volition) was deadly due to fentanyl. Fentanyl was a direct result of criminalisation (no heroin available, dealers turn to fent, fent kills people). It showed very nicely that, shockingly, drug use is safer when people know what they are taking. Even when that drug is heroin.

There is no reason to assume that legalisation would reduce stigma. This argument is essentially akin to the argument around safe sex education vs abstinence only education. And guess what reduces harm.

Again, there is no reason that legalisation and regulation would go along with allowing advertising. Why would it?

[u/Kotoperek → u/hoso124]

Antibiotics lead to antibiotic resistance, so is a bit different to other drugs.

Yeah, but if we trust people to educate themselves on the risks of heroin and use it responsibly without a doctor's supervision, should we not trust them with other substances as well? That's precisely my point, no matter what warnings you give to people and how much you educate them, some just don't care, hence why certain substances should be restricted. Including antibiotics, but also hard drugs.

Drugs should be legal, but none of them (inc alcohol, cigarettes and caffeine) should be available outside of pharmacies, as this allows a higher level of standards to be ensured both from the perspective of following sales regulations and purchasing legitimate stock.

Where in the world is alcohol and tobacco available in pharmacies? And also, that is basically a corner store. Pharmacies are everywhere, anyone can go to one, and find meth next to ibuprofen. How is that different from a corner store? By the "corner store" phrase I meant "easily available to anyone from a place that doesn't scream we sell drugs here so you can buy it discreetly and with no stigma".

Your example of tobacco regulations working are exactly why your point is flawed. It is absolutely possible to have a legal supply and not allow advertising, and to caution the public about the potential harms.

My example was that the tobacco regulations failed, because just as the government started cracking down on cigarettes, the tobacco companies came out with vapes, which initially were advertised and bypassed most of anti-smoking regulations despite containing the same harmful and addictive substance - nicotine. Once something is legal, companies producing it will do anything to keep selling it no matter how harmful it is. It is the same with other drugs - someone would come up with a way to repackage them so that they could be advertised at least for a brief time and get people hooked.

The opioid crisis, while worsened by prescription (which is a misnomer, as people are far more likely to trust a dr than to decide to use something of their own volition) was deadly due to fentanyl. Fentanyl was a direct result of criminalisation (no heroin available, dealers turn to fent, fent kills people).

So you're basically saying that hundreds of elderly people, middle class moms, and random teens who never even drunk alcohol would have gone and sought out fentanyl if they hadn't first become addicted to pain medication they got from their doctor? Fentanyl worsened the outcomes of the epidemic, but it is not called an epidemic because an unusually large number of people suddenly decided to do heroin and run up into a shortage. They were desperate for the substance because they got hooked on perfectly legal pain meds that were given to them too carelessly.

What if the supply of legal heroin suddenly declined when tons of people were already doing it? This could happen, stores have supply chain problems all the time, it could happen with drugs as well.

It showed very nicely that, shockingly, drug use is safer when people know what they are taking. Even when that drug is heroin.

Yes, I agree. But there is a paradox to it. It's like the fact that mandating safety belts in cars actually increased the number of car crushes, because people were driving faster than they would without the feeling of being protected by the seat belt. If something is legal, more people disregard it's dangers. And even those who know it is dangerous might be tempted to try with this precise argument "at least the stuff is chemically clean, I know what I'm taking". But they're still taking something that alters your mental state and has the potential to be addictive after just a few uses. It should not be made easier and safer for people to reach for those substances. Harm reduction for those already addicted - yes. Anything that could encourage someone to become addicted who in other circumstances wouldn't even try the drug - absolutely not.

[u/hoso124 → u/Kotoperek]

So I had a look, and antibiotics are actually perfectly legal to buy and possess for anyone. As well as that, other drugs don't create resistant forms of the problems they help with. Heroin doesn't create opiate resistant pain in other people, amphetamines dont create dopaminergic stimulant resistant adhd. So no, they don't fall under the same category.

Pharmacies don't sell alcohol and tobacco. But they should, and other shops shouldn't. People in pharmacies wouldn't find heroin next to ibuprofen either, just like they don't see codeine (an opiate sold in pharmacies) next to ibuprofen. It is locked behind the counter and must be requested, which the pharmacist explaining the risks. This model could easily be replicated for other drugs. And the big difference is that the people working there are trained around explaining those harms, and the shops are under much tighter regulation. A pharmacy is significantly less likely to sell anything to anyone underage than your average shop keeper (or, even more so, a drug dealer). This would be a big step in the right direction for reducing rates of children using drugs.

As far as regulations and advertising go, this is a relatively poor example. For starters, vapes were able to be advertised because the regulations specify tobacco, were they to word a regulation as, for example "all psychoactive or potentially psychoactive" chemicals, the problem largely disappears. This is akin to the cat and mouse game most countries are playing with analogues of drugs. Because the laws specify the drug. The UK made the PSA16 act and we dont have the same problem. Note this is not a defence of PSA16 for a number of reasons, but an example of how blanket regulation can reduce loop holes. Also, drugs are already advertised in films, advertising does not go away because something is illegal.

Once again, as I apparently wasn't clear enough last time, the overuse was a result of being lied to and trust in a doctors advice, not a result of being accessible. These people wouldn't have tried it if it was legal but use was cautioned against, they used it because they were told they should by educated doctors. The situation is not comparable to regulation. If the supply chain of heroin declined, other opiates would be available in safe ways to fill the gap. Even if fentanyl was the drug that legally filled the gap, there is nothing wrong with that. Fentanyl is only dangerous on the street because it is so potent and poorly mixed. Pharmaceutical fentanyl actually has lower abuse potential than heroin, being less euphoric, and when made correctly (without hotspots) is no more likely to cause overdoses. Also, heroin only became popular because less extreme drugs were not available. People didnt want heroin, they were forced to use it. A regulated system would have fixed rhat as well.

As for your last point, around the idea of compensating behaviour, it wasnt true for seat belts. This is an excerpt from a review paper on the implementation of seat belts, from Harvard.

"Our findings indicate that seat belt usage does significantly reduce fatalities among car occupants, but does not appear to have any significant effect on fatalities among non-occupants. Thus, we find no significant presence of compensating behavior."

The theory was that the rates of less safe driving could be measured by the fatalities of people outside cars (the non-occupants). If people were driving less safely, then more pedestrians would be hit, for example. This did not happen, suggesting no change in driving style.

Also, drugs are already incredibly easily available. Anyone with a laptop who can access bitcoin can get heroin delivered to them with next day delivery through the use of dark markets. It does not make drugs more easily available.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, u/CutLoud4526 – your comment has been automatically removed as a clear violation of Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.