Alcohol and tobacco are by far the biggest threat to human welfare of all addictive drugs

[Ruprecht]

I'm speaking in terms of the target population within the same legal/economic system, not across different countries. Legalizing in Papua New Guinea would increase access and increase its effect in Papua New Guinea. Making it illegal in the U.S. would restrict access and decrease effect in the U.S.

I doubt it. Criminalising it in PNG (2009) had no measurable effect on supply or demand (it's impossible to police in most of the country), whereas the trend towards viewing it as something only done by those that are poor, ignorant and rural in most of SE Asia has seen the use drop dramatically regardless of legality.
Social/cultural changes have a greater impact than legality, although they often go hand in hand.

 

[panamaican]

Why? They're both products.

Do you think apples are harder to buy than oranges? They're different products.

Obtaining any substance is dictated by legislation. You stated that it's easier to buy legal drugs than illegal ones when the distinction you claim is there isn't. Saying it's apples and oranges doesn't really change that.

Legality vs. illegality of the same product.

If you are measuring the impact of a product on your society based on its legality vs. its illegality then the legality or illegality of some other product is irrelevant.

And yes, it's easier to buy legal drugs than illegal ones - legal drugs can be obtained in regular retail environments which are proliferated all over the country as well as from illegal providers, illegal drugs can only be obtained via the illegal providers which are less numerous and require additional steps to procure.

Talking about buying guns, legal or illegal, has nothing to do with the purchasing of drugs, legal or illegal.

 

[Andy Capp]

Links:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/add.14234

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...is-cocaine-amphetamines-opioids-a8345741.html

Perhaps we should wage war on tobacco and alcohol instead of illegal drugs...

Also in before someone claims that the war on drugs is the reason for the above findings.

I have had no doubt about this for at least a couple of decades. How come they didn't just ask me?

 

[Ruprecht]

No thank you. Even if it gave you a 6 foot erection I'd still pass. That bloody mouth look is disgusting.

It's too "hick" for most of S E Asia now, although sadly the same thing is happening with eating durian.

Edit: Actually there must be plenty of rural chewers still at it, because it was still the fourth most commonly used drug as of 2014 (after caffeine, alcohol and nicotine) .

 

[Son of Jamin]

I like you, dude. Don't make me do this.

You're straight up wrong. You can't make a thread saying the last legal drug is ruining society, then 1 sentence later claim the solution is legalizing more drugs.

I'm gonna go easy on you, but you are wrong.

I see your criticism and concedes! It spun off with comparisons with illegal drugs!

 

[panamaican]

I doubt it. Criminalising it in PNG (2009) had no measurable effect on supply or demand (it's impossible to police in most of the country), whereas the trend towards viewing it as something only done by those that are poor, ignorant and rural in most of SE Asia has seen the use drop dramatically regardless of legality.
Social/cultural changes have a greater impact than legality, although they often go hand in hand.

My limited reading on that subject did say that, even though people kept chewing, the presence of betel nut spit stains on the street was noticeably reduced as a result of the ban.

Which is more analogous to what I had said - the legal substance has more impact on society than the illegal one. No, the ban hasn't reduced the number of people who chew but it did reduce one area where society had to clean up after the users.

 

[Mr. Shickadance]

I think it is also important to highlight that when it comes to heroin, the road to heroin usage is generally paved with a severely troubled life.

If you have clean heroin and clean needles, the pressure on the body is not as bad as generally believed. I'm not claiming that it's something healthy but its effects is generally used for scaremongering. The problem for many heroin addicts are that they are not taking care of themselves, they use dirty instruments and dirty heroin and live on the streets.

A healthy person that lives a productive way could use heroin sporadic without it being very toxic.

This is absolutely true. The actual physical effects other than withdrawal are not that bad for you. Its the lifestyle that leads to the most problem with heroin .
Now with that said fuck heroin.

 

[superpunch]

Thanks for informing me what my thread is about, I’m getting up there in age and could need a reminder!

Harm reduction, many drug addicts receive less harmful alternatives to help them break free from their addiction!

Legalizing drugs removes stigma, which in turn makes it easier for addicts to seek out help!

Law-enforcement can be used for better purposes than targeting users!

Taxation of drugs can be used to combat addiction, rehabilitation, information!

The alternative is that criminals get the money.

Users should be targeted. Not targeting users is how you end up with people shooting up in public, dirty and crazy hobos everywhere, strung out people walking around cities, and dirty needles littering sidewalks and playgrounds. There should be a stigma against users and laws against them so that they can be prosecuted and removed from public view. I've lived in cities that don't enforce drug possession laws and they end up with terrible homeless -- the crazy, non-showering kind -- problems and people not hiding their drug use and their drugs.

You're worried about the drug users. I'm worried about the drugs' effects on the public non-users and cities. That effect isn't dependent on how many drug users there are. That effect is dependent on how visible the drug users make their drug use.

 

[Cid]

Legality vs. illegality of the same product.

If you are measuring the impact of a product on your society based on its legality vs. its illegality then the legality or illegality of some other product is irrelevant.

And yes, it's easier to buy legal drugs than illegal ones - legal drugs can be obtained in regular retail environments which are proliferated all over the country as well as from illegal providers, illegal drugs can only be obtained via the illegal providers which are less numerous and require additional steps to procure.

Talking about buying guns, legal or illegal, has nothing to do with the purchasing of drugs, legal or illegal.

I'm talking about exactly what you were talking about in your first post. Restrictions and accessibility. Just because people are saying legal doesn't mean it's not restricted.

Actually before I start this conversation...

Have you ever bought an illegal substance?

Because if you're talking about the ease of which people buy illegal substances vs legal ones it would really help to have even the tiniest bit of experience in obtaining illegal substances.

I just get the feeling that you're talking about something (the ease of obtaining illegal substances) with absolutely 0 experience in actually obtaining illegal substances.

Anyway.

Effective legislation can make obtaining legal substances every bit as difficult as it is to obtain illegal substances. Governments can easily mandate where and how substances are sold to effect the ease of sale. Saying otherwise is an outright lie especially when moving from a market that is illegal to an legal one.

There is no future where Heroin is legal and is available at your local convenience store.

It may be legalized but it will also be heavily restricted because not only would people like yourself who are prohibitionists demand it but it would also be something that people like myself who are legal advocates would demand.

Heroin/crack/meth might be legal one day but they will never be unrestricted. They will never be sold in supermarkets. You will never be able to open up a heroin store as easily as you can a deli, coffee shop etc.

The only way we have a system that allows people to chose what drugs they take is one where the ease of obtainment is highly influenced by government. There will be limits on who, how and where establishments will be able to sell these substances if not an outright government controlled method.

If the government choses to open 10 stores per state where these drugs are made available legally that's where they will be available legally and if they do so geographically speaking they'll just about always be much more difficult to obtain legally than illegally. Unless of course you're part of the minor % of the population that happens to reside in an area close to these stores.

Vast majority of these people will jump through those hurdles even though it's more difficult for the sole reason of not being branded a criminal.

My drug dealer is about 5 blocks away from me. It's not a long travel, I can get there without going through a single set of traffic lights.

The local knock shop (prostitutes)is legal in my country but on a personal level would be every bit if not more of a pain in the ass to go to than my dealer just because the government has a mandated control on where prostitutes can do their business (brothels) mainly not near schools.

It's a 5 min drive compared to a 10 minute drive.

The assertion that legality is the only or even the largest factor in the ease of which a person can buy a product or service is wrong and there are countless steps governments can institute that make a service or object difficult to obtain while keeping the practice still legal.

 

[superpunch]

That is true, but like I said there are probably to many factors to consider. Legalizing weed in US states has not created 1000s of new potheads.

Lmao, yes it has. I don't care what the numbers say. I've lived in places where it's legal. There's an obvious and gigantic uptick in pot users. If the numbers say there aren't then the numbers are bullshit.

 

[panamaican]

I'm talking about exactly what you were talking about in your first post. Restrictions and accessibility. Just because people are saying legal doesn't mean it's not restricted.

Actually before I start this conversation...

Have you ever bought an illegal substance?

Because if you're talking about the ease of which people buy illegal substances vs legal ones it would really help to have even the tiniest bit of experience in obtaining illegal substances.

I just get the feeling that you're talking about something (the ease of obtaining illegal substances) with absolutely 0 experience in actually obtaining illegal substances.

Anyway.

Effective legislation can make obtaining legal substances every bit as difficult as it is to obtain illegal substances. Governments can easily mandate where and how substances are sold to effect the ease of sale. Saying otherwise is an outright lie especially when moving from a market that is illegal to an legal one.

There is no future where Heroin is legal and is available at your local convenience store.

It may be legalized but it will also be heavily restricted because not only would people like yourself who are prohibitionists demand it but it would also be something that people like myself who are legal advocates would demand.

Heroin/crack/meth might be legal one day but they will never be unrestricted. They will never be sold in supermarkets. You will never be able to open up a heroin store as easily as you can a deli, coffee shop etc.

The only way we have a system that allows people to chose what drugs they take is one where the ease of obtainment is highly influenced by government. There will be limits on who, how and where establishments will be able to sell these substances if not an outright government controlled method.

If the government choses to open 10 stores per state where these drugs are made available legally that's where they will be available legally and if they do so geographically speaking they'll just about always be much more difficult to obtain legally than illegally. Unless of course you're part of the minor % of the population that happens to reside in an area close to these stores.

Vast majority of these people will jump through those hurdles even though it's more difficult for the sole reason of not being branded a criminal.

My drug dealer is about 5 blocks away from me. It's not a long travel, I can get there without going through a single set of traffic lights.

The local knock shop (prostitutes)is legal in my country but on a personal level would be every bit if not more of a pain in the ass to go to than my dealer just because the government has a mandated control on where prostitutes can do their business (brothels) mainly not near schools.

It's a 5 min drive compared to a 10 minute drive.

The assertion that legality is the only or even the largest factor in the ease of which a person can buy a product or service is wrong and there are countless steps governments can institute that make a service or object difficult to obtain while keeping the practice still legal.

You are not talking about what i'm talking about. I'm talking about legality vs. illegality and how legality vs. illegality of the same product impacts access to the same product.

You keep referencing "people like me" but you have yet to actually address what I've said and instead seem to arguing against what other people have said in the past. You're not addressing me, you're addressing some fictional group of people who you think I'm part of.

So, I'll repeat myself and maybe you'll address me and not that irrelevant group of people like me.

1) The legal version of a product is more accessible than the illegal version of that same product.

More accessible does not mean unrestricted. It does not mean more/less users. It simply means easier to access vs. the illegal version of the same product.​

2) The effects on society of a legal product is greater than the effects of the illegal version of that same product.

This does not mean that the discussed effects remain the same pre- and post- illegality. It means that the overall impact is greater, even if takes a different form.
​

 

[Prutfis]

Lmao, yes it has. I don't care what the numbers say. I've lived in places where it's legal. There's an obvious and gigantic uptick in pot users. If the numbers say there aren't then the numbers are bullshit.

Or maybe they are just more visible.

Numbers also don't give a fuck about your anecdotes. So there is that

 

[superpunch]

Or maybe they are just more visible.

Numbers also don't give a fuck about your anecdotes. So there is that

I'm glad you agree that legalizing pot made it more visible. I agree as well. That is also a great reason not to legalize drugs. Increased visibility of things like heroin and crack -- please, no. And I know it'll happen. I've lived in cities that don't enforce harder drug laws on their homeless people. The result is that the homeless people are brazen with their drug use. You see them shooting up, they leave dirty needles lying around, they hold their drugs up in public visibility since posession isn't enforced, etc. It's not cool.

 

[nostradumbass]

I see your criticism and concedes! It spun off with comparisons with illegal drugs!

It wasn't a poor conclusion, it was just not correct. The convo went off the rails, as it usually does here. I drink more than is healthy, and was a smoker for like 10 years, so it still irks me that I got away with smoking as long as I did with really no lasting effects. You're not wrong that booze is a net negative, just wrong in the same way most people are when saying legalizing more is a solution.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

I don't drink alcohol, but I have a terrible Pepsi addiction.

 

[Ruprecht]

Or maybe they are just more visible.

Numbers also don't give a fuck about your anecdotes. So there is that

Marijuana use has gone up across the US, regardless of local laws apparently.
In fact it seems likely that increased use has lead to liberalisation of the law in some states, rather than the other way around.

 

[HomerThompson]

Drinking in moderation is less harmful than drugs and can even be healthy.

What drugs?

 

[HomerThompson]

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61462-6/fulltext

Sign me up for some LSD, and Steroids. Thanks!!!

 

[HomerThompson]

Long-term Effects of LSD on the Brain
According to the Cleveland Clinic, the exact effect of LSD on the brain remains unknown. But the drug is believed to affect your brain’s response to serotonin – a neurotransmitter that involves your emotions, moods and perceptions.3

While immediate LSD use causes a variety of disorienting, distorted and emotional effects, there are also some potentially troublesome longer-term effects of LSD abuse:

• Persistent psychosis – there are reports of lingering symptoms of psychosis (more below).
• Recurrent hallucinations – even after you’ve stopped taking the drug.

Some users report having mind-expanding, mystical experiences while they’re under the influence of LSD. However, because it’s impossible to control the type of experiences you’ll have, the length of your experience or your reactions to the drug – you cannot predict if you are likely to have terrifying hallucinations or pleasant ones. Even worse, these episodes may continue after you’ve stopped using LSD, interfering with your social and professional life and putting you at risk of anxiety, depression and suicide.

Persistent Psychosis
“Psychosis” is defined as a condition of dissociation from the real world.4 It is characterized by:

1. Hallucinations – or perceiving things that aren’t actually there.
2. Delusions – or false beliefs.

Those with a history of long-term LSD use may experience psychotic episodes similar to people who suffer from schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, borderline personality disorder and other serious mental conditions.

Even after quitting LSD, the drug-induced psychosis that may continue to persist can include:

• Radically disorganized thought patterns.
• Distortions of perceived reality.
• Dramatic mood swings.

Not everyone who uses hallucinogenic drugs experiences persistent psychosis, but it appears to still be a risk for some.

Whether these episodes occur regularly or happen only occasionally, they can be terrifying and profoundly disturbing. Persistent psychosis can make it difficult to hold down a job, maintain a normal social life and form lasting personal relationships. During a psychotic episode, you may suffer a serious or fatal injury if your delusional experiences drive you to take life-threatening risks.

Flashbacks vs. HPPD
LSD flashbacks are often the subject of jokes in the media. Psychedelic drugs were widely abused in the 1960s by those looking to achieve an expanded state of consciousness. Some psychiatrists even prescribed LSD to their patients on a therapeutic or experimental basis.

Today’s references to flashbacks frequently poke fun at these visionary explorations. But while some flashbacks may be amusing, colorful and even pleasant – hallucinogen persisting perception disorder (HPPD) can be a dangerous and frightening condition. While flashbacks are usually infrequent, reversible and harmless – episodes of HPPD can be:

• A long-term, chronic side effect of LSD use.
• Extremely disturbing.
• Recurrent, reappearing over and over again.
• Accompanied by dysphoria, or a sense of depression and malaise.
• Irreversible – despite avoiding hallucinogenic drugs.

Nah.

 

[HomerThompson]

Nobody uses heroin or coke in moderation.