Probably legalizing weed would stop most of that more effectively than all those police operations after month of preparation.
They'd have to legalize all the club/party drugs to make a dent; pills and powders, lsd.
As a German, I can, with no problem whatsoever, go into the next supermarket and buy enough alcohol and cigarettes to severly hurt myself. No one gives a shit, probably because the state earns money when I do so.
Either we find (all) drugs bad, or we stop being such liars in regards to this.
Same logic as... "let us not legally force face masks on people, but trust in their responsibility. Let us not control social distancing, but trust that people, especially young people, will be responsible"
... booooom, over 9000 covid cases.
Democracy assumes rational people and people with responsibility. We see now how well it all works.
Same "responsibility" applies to the free internet. It is amazing, when people are responsible and are not pushing fake news to allow demagogues and populists to rise to power.
Was it Sokrates who once said that Democracy fails because of Unmündigkeit?
I cannot find the English translation of this word.
That's got nothing to do with whether people are in a Democracy at all. It's not even to do with whether the society is individualistic or collectivist. It's more to do populist messaging and how they are spread.
Now, banning smoking in public, that I can get behind. I don't want none of that nasty second-hand smoke.
I do not want to finance health insurance for drug addicts, for example. And yes, I agree, also smoking should be banned and the health insurance limited.
Sorry, but not sorry for having a conservative stand. You _must_ accept my opinion instead of downvoting... I thought that Pluralism of Opinions is a valued concept in democracies...
Rehabilitation of drug addicts is, iirc, cheaper than the policing and economic (inc. opportunity) costs they tend to otherwise cause. The health insurance system can't natively deal with this kind of thing, but a decent healthcare system supporting drug addicts would cost you less.
Also, I do not have to accept your opinion. Not every opinion is valid nor should every opinion be considered. For example, I can ignore anti-vaccine sentiments, white nationalism, and serious flat earth bs without investigating further.
I do not want to finance health insurance for you. But I have a healthy understanding of risk sharing and know I am better off with more people, yourself included, in my risk pool, than with less.
... booooom, millions of people dead.
... or we could look at countries that did indeed legalize drug use completely and are successful with it.
Weed is considered less of a problem by the scientific community.
The logical conclusion: Increase taxes on alcohol and legalize weed.
--
Can you really say in good conscience that other drugs wouldn't be worse if they became equally ubiquitous?
Knowing and doing are two different things. Yes, you'd get fewer accidental overdoses from people getting stronger stuff than they thought. But you'd get more (possibly a lot more) people overdosing from chasing a high despite having built a tolerance, or from doing crazy shit while high, and drug psychoses.
> Having drugs being illegal make them stronger, as they have to be transported in secret, and create derivative drugs to fill lower price ranges for long term addicts, such as crack and oxy.
And with full legalization, you'd have billions of advertizing dollars invested into marketing and research departments by companies trying to convince people to get high from their brand.
Remember, I am not arguing for the status quo or against some degree of decriminalization. I am arguing that the larger observed harm caused by alcohol is not useful evidence that illegal drugs are inherently less dangerous than alcohol.
Ie I am pro legalization, and I can't imagine if society had proper education and precise dosing people would go and overdose frequently. Do you often see people who decide to drink 2 litres of vodka in one setting? We all know how bad idea it is without the need to walk that path. Also alcohol is one of few (if not the only) drug that actively increases aggressiveness in consumers.
Its proven numerous times all over the world that legal marihuana pushes away worse addictions, lowers the crime. Even ignoring the tiny details of bringing benefits to consumers (select of various strengths and non-harmful methods of application), bringing benefits to the state (taxation, control over what folks consume) and overall society - taking away massive source of income for organized crime.
At this point it just doesn't make any sense for a rational society to have weed illegal. Shooting in its own foot, ignoring reality of humans and all that.
Psychedelics is another group where at least active research in treatment of various psychiatric disorders should be actively encouraged by state. Potential is massive, by far the best area for improvement in otherwise pretty stale domain of medical drugs development (unless you consider drugging into oblivion anybody with issues with valium et co, which basically no expert does).
Why would you write something like this?
Have you seen someone on meth, or any kind of amphetamines?
It's a whole different degree of bad. Not to mention in combinations where someone can be horrendously violent and completely indifferent to it.
Legal competition is also pushing the THC levels up. The THC levels are definitely not going in a downward trend in legalized states like Oregon, Washington or California. Flower you can easily find 30+% levels of THC and with things like hash and other derivative concentrates you can find over 90% purity.
That is a very ridiculously wrong statement.
> Despite being illegal they are still so very easy to access in almost all countries
You apparently have a pretty wide definition of "Very easy". I wouldn't have the faintest clue how to lay my hands on some heroin. Yes, I might start asking around in the vicinity of nightclubs based on hearsay that party drugs are supposedly sold there and the dealers might know someone who sells heroin. That would require navigating some scary situations quite outside my comfort zone. That's a completely different level of availability than alcohol, of which there are shelves full in every supermarket and ads plastered all over telling me how it will make me hip and attractive.
> Legalising them would bring users/abusers into a more public sphere where it is far easier to access harm reduction and the state can provide it without legal complications
You don't need legalization for that, merely decriminalization of use and possession.
If you make something easier to access - either by reduced price, more contact, reduced social stigma - people will consume more of it, straight up.
Think of it like a social disease that has an R0/R1 that communicates itself much like COVID.
Kids how absolutely don't know anyone who's ever done Heroin, are unlikely to ever even have the thought, let alone, try to find out 'where on earth' to buy.
If you have a group of 3 kids in school who are starting to use, the likelihood that they 'infect' other students is very high.
We force people to isolate and take certain precautions when they threaten the community with COVID, why on earth we wouldn't do the same with heroin addiction?
And of course, it's not illegal to 'have' COVID and we are sympathetic to those that have it, so there's that as well ...
If you go out of your way to tell people that "drugs are bad and will kill you", and then those people find out you lied (see: every drug PSA ever), they may be inclined to seek proof, whereas they wouldn't have bothered if it weren't taboo
access isn't the only issue. There is a high risk with obtaining and possessing an illegal drug.
plus there's no guarantee anything you obtain is safe (mixed with shit) or the correct strength, so there's further risk in putting it in your veins.
And maybe the original researcher of Rat Park just wanted it to be true too.
That is in itself an extremely bad faith statement.
> Just look at relative harm numbers, the stats (especially at something like the EU level) are available publicly.
Yes, look at them. They do not support your statement because you are asserting that the corellation is basically linear, but I was talking about an (entirely hypothetical) scenario that is completely outside the data, namely full legalization.
No EU state has legalized heroin or cocaine. The poster boy for decriminalization is Portugal, but they haven't even legalized use, let alone production or distribution. They have merely turned use into an administrative offense rather than a criminal one and are providing a lot of harm-reduction services.
There is a huge difference between that and full legalization where big business spends billions on advertising to market addictive substances - which is the situation we have with alcohol that leads to a lot of harm.
In 2001, Portugal became the first European country to abolish all criminal penalties for personal drug possession
Which is what I meant with "not fully decriminalized".
Wow, you're not using your imagination well enough to recognize how ubiquitously widespread opioid addiction would be were it integrated into our coffee, soft-drinks, an aperatif with dinner etc.. It would be a massive, ongoing public health crisis.
Combined with the fact that the effect quickly erodes, that users want ever more aggressive substitutes like Fentanyl, it almost guarantees the inevitable OD.
Blaming the 'harm' on systems literally trying to stop the promulgation of what arguably is actually poison ... is a leap in logic.
Tobacco is similarly additive, but it obviously has a completely different set of health effects.
Finally - if Tobacco is really in the same category of addictivity, then ironically, you've made an argument that we really should shut down the opioid industry hard, because while quitting smoking is difficult, it's not existentially hard and the resulting withdrawal does not require medical attention or anything on the scale of 'Trainspotting withdrawal'.
An acquaintance in Prison indicated they call the heroin addicts zombies, because they bang on the doors and yell 3 times a day as they receive their poison, which is slowly killing them. I'd argue that incarcerating people and slowly killing them is a strange punishment for those wanting to 'reduce harm' whereupon the logical thing for their health would be to make sure they had absolutely no access and an opportunity to dry out. I hope that in 50 year we look back on 'free heroin' like lobotomies or shock therapy.
Humans have some control of our faculties and must overcome impulses of all kind - facilitating the total degradation of that control system by administering poison is definitely a form of torture. I'd rather be waterboarded.
That would never happen. People literally wouldn't buy the products enmass because they don't want to sit around drooping all day.
> Finally - if Tobacco is really in the same category of addictivity, then ironically, you've made an argument that we really should shut down the opioid industry hard, because while quitting smoking is difficult, it's not existentially hard and the resulting withdrawal does not require medical attention or anything on the scale of 'Trainspotting withdrawal'.
Everyone seems to be thinking about how bad the withdrawal is and not how long the addiction lasts. The addiction to heroin and many other substances is over in days and weeks. Tobacco as any former smoker who has successful quit will tell you, you have cravings for months, not constant but enough that it's a thing for quite a while.
> An acquaintance in Prison indicated they call the heroin addicts zombies, because they bang on the doors and yell 3 times a day as they receive their poison, which is slowly killing them. I'd argue that incarcerating people and slowly killing them is a strange punishment for those wanting to 'reduce harm' whereupon the logical thing for their health would be to make sure they had absolutely no access and an opportunity to dry out. I hope that in 50 year we look back on 'free heroin' like lobotomies or shock therapy.
You should look into how Portugal has dealt with the drug problem. The free heroin isn't the issue, it's the lack of other support systems to get them off the heroin. Prison is not a place for support.
Yes they would (!) and we already know why: it's extremely addictive.
We have ample evidence from the ongoing Opioid Crisis that people who get 'too many pills' from an operation can and do become very addicted and 'do it all day'.
Have a look here [1] from the Economist.
What does that look like? It looks like 'COVID explosion' doesn't it?
And consider that we already have restrictions in place for Heroin, what would that 'R0/R1' (aka transmissible social disease) look like without restrictions? It would look like COVID 'without social distancing' aka disaster.
This is happening to Soccer Moms and Patent Lawyers.
And you must be aware that this isn't about 'being high' it's 'addiction servicing' whereby they need the fix to maintain a degree of normalcy.
'Opioids at the Gas Station Checkout' would devolve any society into 'World War Z' within a few months. Only a small fraction of the population affected would overwhelm the medical system.
[1] https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/10/07/america-...
That's kind of different. So that's people who start taking them for medical reasons and become addicted during the course of taking them for medical reasons. This wasn't they decided to start taking them for fun. This also seems to be mainly an issue in the US as other countries doctors don't hand out these pills that often due to nature of them.
To understand what heroin usage is like you can watch a few seconds of this video that I have at the correct time https://youtu.be/17TbF6n4jI0?t=459. While it's Valium and not heroin trust me that is how heroin addicts act while on heoroin too.
Heroin has been legal repeatedly throughout time. It never brought the world down before.
Wouldn’t stop overdoses entirely obviously.
Yet dangerous drinking is still very common, and alcohol causes significant strains on our society, perhaps more than any other drug. Why do we think that the situation would be different with legalizing other drugs? A major decline in the risk per use massively outweighed by a huge increase in use over time due to legalization.
>I don't think this really address the point though. Alcohol is sold with known purity, quality, and quantity. You aren't going to overdose due to an impurity.
Their argument was never that it would stop everything, only that it would help (and I agree).
How many people have you met that have gone blind from drinking "bad" alcohol? During the prohibition era, this was an actual issue people faced.
https://www.pastemagazine.com/drink/alcohol-history/prohibit...
>A major decline in the risk per use massively outweighed by a huge increase in use over time due to legalization.
There is evidence that decriminalization when paired with other policies can potentially cause decreases in usage as well as a decrease in negative outcomes such as HIV transmission rates and drug deaths.
https://transformdrugs.org/drug-decriminalisation-in-portuga....
https://www.statista.com/statistics/632372/total-number-of-d...
https://transformdrugs.org/drug-decriminalisation-in-portuga...
No.
> Lots of the harm comes from the fact they're not legal and cheaply available.
I fully agree with this.
> For example, heroin, I would say nearly all the harm comes from the fact it's not legal. Overdoses are prevented because they can happen in safe places where people will notice.
Even if that is true, the harm that does not come from the fact that it's illegal would be magnified a hundredfold if it became as widespread as alcohol (which is, please keep that in mind, the scenario I was talking about). That's not hyperbole: Accodding to the European Drug Report 2018 (https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/system/files/publications/8585/...), the prevalence of injecting drugs (chiefly heroin) is between 0 and 0.9%, which consumption of alcohol is pretty damn near 100%.
> Considering tobacco is more addictive, and we have way less crime to buy tobacco, it seems logical to assume crime would drop if drug addicts didn't have to spend 20-30 a day on drugs. Then you have the violence and anti-social behaviour which for most drugs is non-existent.
Even if that is not exaggerated (which I strongly supect it is), those are not the only kinds of harm: https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/hero...
With heroin specifically the increase would be nowhere near what alcohol is. Heroin is not a party drug while alcohol is. Cocaine, Meth, and MDMA I would expect to see increase in usage for the party scene but heroin specifically wouldn't see that increase, it would a small increase at first but overall that would go down. Portugal has shown that if you legalise the drug and make it a health issue you then get access to the addicts and you can help them. This means while more people will take it, the number of concurrent users will be lower because the number of people coming off it will be higher.
> Even if that is not exaggerated (which I strongly supect it is)
I'm pretty sure there was a study somewhere but I am lazy. But 1 thing I can tell you, every heroin addict I've met and talked with about the addiction of different things, I've met lots, has said they found tobacco harder to give up than heroin. Heroin it seems has a shorter withdrawal period than tobacco, so once you're over the hump you're for the most part fine. With tobacco from experience, it took weeks to stop taking nicotine gum and months for the cravings to go away.
> those are not the only kinds of harm: https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/hero...
Those are envoirmental harm. I've heard heroin is healthier than alcohol but that's just some random heroin addicts so I take that with a grain of salt.
Given how strong the heroin high is and how quickly and strongly physical addiction is, I would not be so sure about that.
> Portugal has shown that if you legalise the drug and make it a health issue
Portugal has not, in fact, legalised any previously illegal drug, or even fully decriminalized it. Not even cannabis.
Have taken the drug and seen countless addicts, I can be sure on that.
> Portugal has not, in fact, legalised any previously illegal drug, or even fully decriminalized it. Not even cannabis.
OK, but they did make it a health matter instead of criminal matter. The fact the power is no longer in the criminal justice system means it's decriminalised.
> Overdoses are prevented because they can happen in safe places where people will notice
what kind of places? If you become so addicted that overdose is likely, where would you be welcome? Making something illegal doesn't mean it automatically becomes socially acceptable; piss-stained street drunks don't attract lots of caretakers.
It feels like your assuming that people will be able to manage their addictions, and remain functional - I'm not sure this is realistic. Even mildly addictive substances can really wreck peoples ability to function.
Can you provide a source that suggests: "tobacco is more addictive [than heroin]"?
But it's a bit of an outlier in that regard, among illegal drugs.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-11660210
A UK study led by a panel of experts analyzed a number of recreational drugs and evaluated them across 16 different criteria.
Alcohol was one of the most dangerous drugs and was unique in that it was the only drug that posed more risk to society than it did for the actual user.
This is of course, not definitive proof of the parents assertions but the findings do lend evidence to it.
I'm sure that in general people on weed, shrooms, DMT or MDMA are much much less prone to violent aggression and destructive behaviour than drunk people. I'm also sure all of these but the last do much less (if any) harm to your health than alcohol does.
The only drugs I know which can be considered as or more dangerous than alcohol are opioids (except kratom - it's considered opioid but is harmless unless you consume huge amounts regularly for too long), cocaine (if taken chronically), meth (if abused, can change life for good if used properly to treat severe ADHD cases) and bromo-dragonfly. LSD probably is dangerous for people who are borderline crazy - psychos may become more violent after taking it.
Generally, though, you're kind of on the right track. Alcohol is the absolute worst. I might also add to the conversation that making something illegal doesn't reduce it's use.
IIRC it permanently increases the big-5 personality trait Openness
[1] https://transformdrugs.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/CTC-Ec...
https://amp.reddit.com/r/tooktoomuch/comments/kjnisn/going_t...
And still let people do drugs if they want;
Illegal production of homebrewn alcohol is a thing and has been for centuries. Raising taxes at will does not mean that everyone will, unhappily, continue to buy expensive alcohol in the store. There is a limit after which people will start to produce their own moonshine, which is less safe than whatever you buy legally. Or start drinking various chemicals that resemble alcohol. (Window cleaner is a big hit.)
The problems with War on Drugs translate neatly to any possible War on Alcohol as well: the black market will kick in once it has a good business case to exist, and all sort of problems will come with its emergence.
If taxes were really high, I suspect that home brewing would be become far more popular, too.
You can read about the taxation and the effects of a tax cut in this paper from 2018, https://www.alko.fi/INTERSHOP/static/WFS/Alko-OnlineShop-Sit...
Everclear already exists. Not going to get much cheaper than that w/regards to diluting it in fruit juice or whatever else.
40's also quite affordably exist.
As much as I enjoy my beer every other day it's crazy. Double that and pay for rehab/hospital costs with that money.
I think this is similar to some UX patterns we see in software: most people will go with the default option because it is easier. Raising the amount of effort needed for something means fewer people will end up doing it.
There were some additional effects to this as well. Food is also cheaper in Latvia. Some people ended up doing a lot of their grocery shopping in Latvia as, because they were already there for be alcohol.
Politically, the Social Democrats got most of the blame for the tax increase. They had a large drop in votes in the most recent parliamentary election.
Seems like people in Nordic countries (especially when not considering Denmark) consume less alcohol than their neighbours, although the difference has been decreasing.
Nordic countries: https://www.statista.com/statistics/693505/per-capita-consum...
Great success?
1. People there still buy a lot, even at expensive prices.
2. I have never seen so much heavy consumption and problems in Southern Europe than what I saw living in Finland.
3. I had never seen people brewing their own wine in their flat in my country (not counting real wine in farms when I was a kid, of course). Youngsters wouldn't even use berries like their elders, but just sugar & yeast (bearing the suiting name of 'kilju').
4. You could sometimes illicitly buy moonshine alcohol from a car trunk on a car park, in plastic water bottles. Classy.
5. Anecdote: I remember vodka was smuggled from Russia in timber lorries (trunks were hollowed out and filled with bottles) :-D
Maybe it is in the wine vs. vodka difference; vodka, being much more concentrated, will wreak havoc on internal organs sooner. Including brain and liver.
The wealthy won't be concerned if they're spending twice as much on booze, as it's such a small fraction of their income. But the working class may be denied one of their few pleasures - even if they were perfectly capable of keeping their consumption at reasonably healthy level.
Even worse than taxing alcohol is trying reduce car use by taxing people off the roads (without significantly improving alternatives). That's taking away vast numbers of opportunities from those who need them the most.
I would expect weed to be the same. As such, I don't just want to know the net negative effect, I also want to know the distribution. AFAIK weed can agitate certain mental conditions - the average joe can enjoy weed, just the expense of a minority losing their mind. I might not find that acceptable.
There's also an argument that society should seek to decrease chemical over-indulgence in general, including alcohol, and maybe fat/sugar too; legalising another drug just increases the battlefront perimeter.
That's a bit shortsighted though. Because if you end up in the hospital or with lung cancer, you will cost the public insurance lots of money.
What they found was that smokers, on average, died early so they collected a decade or two less in pension payments. They paid tens of thousands in tobacco taxes. And when they did die, it was relatively quick and not that expensive to treat (chemotherapy). Overall, smokers were a net benefit to society.
That equation might have changed today with expensive lung cancer drugs and longer life.
Like for alcohol, I doubt that would work. Some substances are simply hard to use responsibly, some offer unique ways of escapism (especially during a lockdown), many people lack restraint. I don’t imagine the number of people dependent on substances would go down, it would probably just diversify. In the end, I think it’s very hard to predict societal outcome of such a big decision. To name a few – confused parents, drug tourism, self-medication instead of going to doctors.
In any case, we don’t have to go fully legal-as-broccoli drugs. We could start by decriminalization for well-defined amounts, by legalizing drug checking, by educating instead of fearmongering. But since we replaced the worst imaginable state representative for drugs with the second worst imaginable state representative for drugs, I doubt anything will happen here soon.
| Either we find (all) drugs bad, or we stop being such liars in regards to this.
It’s not that people are liars, most just don’t know that alcohol is among the hardest drugs out there, and fear the unknown.
Despite this, and a social culture that revolves around drinking, the vast majority manage to avoid serious alcohol problems.
This essentially shows how responsible people are - even with a culture that makes it very easy to start, and very difficult to quit, most people manage to maintain a reasonable distance from an extremely addictive drug.
If you follow this argument along, I think if you legalized drugs, but also put some restrictions on their use (for instance, not allowing supermarkets to sell them, not allowing child-branded stuff, etc) - there's no reason to imagine the situation would not improve vis-a-vis the current one.
All this said, my preferred drug policy (for all drugs, including alcohol) would be something like a ban on their public use and sale. As somebody who used to take a lot of drugs, I have no illusions about the destabilizing influence they can have on people's lives. Alcohol is well known for being a force multiplier for pre-existing misery or mental instabillity, and I think even mild drugs, like weed, work in the same way.
I do not KNOW this to be the correct I am simply asking you to consider that it could be the case that some drugs are more dangerous to people/society than others.
I do however agree that alcohol is likely extremely bad for people/societies but its sort of a cat that can't be put back in the bag as the USA showed. It escaped thousands of years ago.
Not really a recreational drug, but for instance paracetamol is mostly free of access while having a potential for severe damage on overuse, and it kinda works thanks to having someone hand over the goods with a kind warning (and not being able to buy it willy-nilly at night when you're drunk for instance)
In the US methamphetamines are already available legally as Desoxyn.
When you look at something like Meth, you may not realize it's a schedule 2 drug in the US (so are cocaine, and pcp). While weed is a schedule 1.
We really need to look at how this scheduling works, and consider lowering the bar for certain substances, and raising it for other.
Criminalization can work. Portugal decriminalized in 2001 and overdose deaths dropped 80%. People weren't as afraid to get help.
What we need to decouple are costs on society for people that decide to endanger themselves by shifting socialised health care to a voluntary basis.
[0] https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/system/files/publications/13042...
I can only agree on this.
Sure different parts of Germany differ in their handling of weed but I don't think anyone in Berlin bothers buying weeds from the dark web. I mean it's just way to easy to get weed from other sources, which don't require any online payment and by asking frequent weed consumers in your environment you have a better shot at getting good quality weed.
But while this is the case for weed it's much less so for other drugs, mainly due to the police being very lax on weed but less so on many other drugs.
Cocaine trafficking is (unfortunately) a very murderous industry. Legalizing that alone would probably save thousands of lives every year.
Agree on the legalisation though. In the Netherlands at least, I find it hard to name more than a few individuals in my social group (university students from a range of studies) that aren’t recreational users of XTC/psychedelics. Having visited festivals and clubs in other European countries, I think the situation is not much different there.
It seems a bit pointless to keep spending money on hunting these markets when the market consists of such a large percentage of the population. Most people still get it through dealers aswell, delivery is quicker than ordering pizza.
More concerning are obviously the weapons, credit cards, etc. sold on these markets. Taking away the sales of drugs would probably help in that fight.
We won't stop drugs because people don't want to.
This isn't the case, it's been a loong time since the last big market takedown. LE takedowns are rare, exit scams are not.
If they're not selling guns, child abuse imagery or other extreme stuff maybe treat it as a source of intelligence rather than keep playing whack a mole?
Weed is extremely difficult to send by mail, relative to most other drugs. It's large in volume, and it produces a distinct smell. You can combat that, but it's a pain, and I'm not sure how effective it is.
Compared to something like LSD, which you could easily slip into the pages of a book, and produces no recognizable smell. At least on the human spectrum, and I severely doubt drug dogs can smell it.
Most of the weed vendors aren’t shipping internationally so they don’t need to worry about dogs.
So pharmaceutical companies and other medical product manufacturers manage their risk by only selling to approved suppliers, so that they don't have people randomly putting themselves at risk using their products.
Medical products have risk assessments a mile long for every scenario the manufacture can think of, and the mitigation for being administered on the wrong patient is often "Don't sell to non ISO-13485 approved clients"
If enough people get injured because of your product, the FDA or MHRA is going to investigate you, no matter how many disclaimers you put on your products.
Antibiotics are an obvious one. Antibiotic resistance is a real, and growing, issue. If people start popping them every time they get a sniffle, that's going to get a lot worse.
Some medications have very serious side effects, and a doctor really should vet that you're healthy enough to withstand those.
Some medications can have very severe interactions. Part of the prescription process is that their computer is supposed to alert the pharmacist if some combination of the meds you're on creates an issue.
Honestly, those few categories knock out most of the useful medications. Mental health drugs are generally safe, but self-medication isn't usually effective in those scenarios.
So even if legalising it would make those markets lose profits, they still have a lot of nasty things to sell -- so taking them down is still the best thing to do for the moment, IMHO.
Further, the costs of these LE operations is very high to catch some small fries. These are extremely counterproductive.
I think that's the point. As far as I understand their reasoning (although I don't agree with it), is that some people buy drugs when they are easily accessible over the internet, but wouldn't do so if they have to meet risky people in person AFK. Of course, people who want drugs will get drugs, somehow, and if it's safer, that'd be better. But they want people to move into the riskier meat-space as it's easier to keep track on people and eventually arrest them then.
People need promotion.