Comment by omegaham | Hacker News Reader

Comment by omegaham | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I get legalizing drugs that don't have addiction potential, but drugs like meth and heroin have the effect of placing a large portion of the population under the control of their suppliers.

We found this problem very quickly with legal opioid manufacturers - in the 90s, we had very lax rules on prescription painkillers, and the results were predictable. These companies bribed doctors into prescribing them to as many people as possible, lobbying resulted in a refusal to look at the problem, and now we face the fact that these pharmaceutical companies are effectively legal drug dealers to a large portion of the population. Same thing with overprescribing amphetamines to kids for ADHD.

Predictably, we've clamped down harshly on these drugs, and now addicts are turning to heroin because it's cheaper and easier to get. It's just a massive clusterfuck, and it's all due to the fact that slick-talking marketers basically said, "No, don't worry - it's just medicine. No one's going to get addicted from this. Here's a fantastic vacation package while you think it over!"

Addicts make good customers. They'll pay whatever you want, and they'll be with you for life as long as you make the product easily available to them. There's just way too much money at stake to keep companies from acting in a predatory manner, which is why we ended up with Joe Camel and other ads aimed at kids.

I don't like bringing up the "Won't someone please think of the children" argument because it's usually fallacious, but the fact is that tobacco companies have known for a long time that children are very susceptible to advertising and very likely to sustain long-term addiction if they're hooked early. I'm sure that the same is true for harder drugs than nicotine.

The only real question is "Is that state of affairs preferable to the current serious problems of the War On Drugs?" I think that there should be a middle ground. Decriminalize possession totally, go after dealers. This avoids the typical junkies getting busted and sent to long prison terms for having a dime bag, but it prevents regular business from hooking people by the millions.

All I can say is that if we totally legalize drugs, I'm investing heavily in whoever's marketing heroin. One cubic centimeter cures ten gloomy sentiments and all that.

Alcohol has been socially acceptable for so long that we often forget how harmful it is to our society, much more so than other hard drugs [0]

All these problems that you state about overprescription and users turning to unsafe harder drugs is all due to the fact that these drugs are illegal. The same concerns were voiced about alcohol during prohibition. Now no one treats alcohol like a medicine and they understand it is a drug. Alcohol is a "hard drug" by any definition as it causes dependence and can have a very negative impact on your life. It was even more dangerous when it was illegal.

The choice isn't between making drugs legal and having a drug free world. The choice is between making it legal or spending resources throwing those who choose to use drugs in jail.

[0] http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_caus...

> The choice isn't between making drugs legal and having a drug free world. The choice is between making it legal or spending resources throwing those who choose to use drugs in jail.

That's a legitimate way to look at it, but there are other points of view too eg. the choice is also between a rather limited user base and widespread usage once it becomes legal. I guess it could be argued that marijuana is already everywhere, but what about 'stronger' stuff.

1) Do we know if it will be more widespread? Although the stronger stuff is also illegal in the Netherlands, it's very easy to find and I don't think the Netherlands have more drug addicts then another country (no source for this, just my opinion how I know the country).

2) Is it a problem if it's more widespread? Some stronger stuff can be used responsibly (for example MDMA). Just like only a small portion of alcohol users have alcohol problems. You also got stronger stuff like heroin which is very addictive, but then there's still common sense. Whether it's legal or illegal, I can get it very easily where I live. Yet, I don't take it because I know it's not good for me.

The Netherlands have quite a bit of "drug tourism", with people from across Europe going there to party and/or bring some stuff back home--so small wonder that it's quite easy to find pretty much anything there.

As for whether usage would get more widespread, I believe it's to be expected, since legalization means more resellers, more legit businesses that you are not reluctant to deal with, and a de facto approval from governement that the stuff is clean, so less fear of poisoning.

> Whether it's legal or illegal, I can get it very easily where I live. Yet, I don't take it because I know it's not good for me.

Not everyone got the connections, and not everyone use good judgment. That's the whole point: to what extent can society decide what to authorize and what to forbid.

In most places it's much easier to get some heroin than psychedelics, in some places about as easy as getting weed. There are delivery services in major cities. People don't see its ubiquity but from personal experience, it's there.

>link

How can methamphetamine be 3 times more harmful than ecstasy (a.k.a. MDMA a.k.a. 3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine)?

MDMA has strikingly different effects on the body than meth.

NaCl is salty. Na will literally set your mouth on fire.

The problem with all this is that there _are_ legitimate medical uses for both of the substances you list. Methamphetamine is a proven and effective treatment for people suffering from severe attention deficits and concentration-related disorders. It's also an effective treatment for people suffering from severe obesity. Opiates are the most effective treatment out there for pain management.

These are legitimate medical concerns that need to be addressed. I'm sure we can agree on that, just as well as we can agree that today's solution doesn't work. The rational course of action is to set policy that doesn't unnecessarily increase the incidence rates of addiction, while also extending our personal liberties to a place where they ought to be. I am in favor of full legalization, because addicts tend to have a problematic history before drug abuse becomes their main challenge. Changing the laws won't change that natural fact. But changing the laws may, as pointed out in another poster's Penn Jilette quote, remove the needless suffering of millions of people throughout the world - perhaps even billions. It would end the cartel violence, the ruthless murdering, the poverty, and the ruined lives that are caused by the War on Drugs every day.

Why give a monopoly on drugs to the black market? Drugs are a public health safety issue. They should be sold by the state, in a controlled way. Sure, black market will continue to exist, but they won't have a monopoly, and we will have more tools to help people consume in a responsible way.

Lots of places in the world ban advertising, control the packaging marketing, control the display of cigarettes in stores, control where you can smoke in public, etc etc. Alcohol is also heavily regulated.

Heck, in Canada, the purchasing and distribution of wine is mostly done by the state. Then, depending on the province, it might be sold by a private or state store, but it's always very regulated. I'm sure heroin producers would have much less options if their only client was the state. (btw: same for medecine, usually purchased by the provincial governments, then sold to pharmacies, hence lower prices)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com