Hacker News Reader

Comment by sandworm101 | Hacker News Reader

>> bringing all drugs into a regulatory framework that is guided by health outcomes

Outcomes for who? The individual or the population? Seriously. Ask a doctor and they would probably agree that, for a particular patient, having access to legal safe alternatives is a good thing. But ask them about drugs as a whole, for the entire population, and the answer will always be "less is better but zero is best." Stemming the supply will damage current users, but illegality also suppresses uptake by new users.

Opioids are different than pot. LSD is different than rohypnol. Cocaine is not the same as ketamine. Balling all "drugs" into one category and declaring them legal for traffic and sale is a horrible idea. I don't want to see GHB to ever be sold or transported openly.

View on HN

illegality also suppresses uptake by new users.

Clearly that's not true, as evidenced by the enormous illegal drug trade. Highly regulated availability of safer substitutes for the worst drugs might reduce uptake of those worse drugs.

Balling all "drugs" into one category and declaring them legal for traffic and sale is a horrible idea.

That's not what the parent comment said. They specifically said based on health.

> Clearly that's not true, as evidenced by the enormous illegal drug trade. Highly regulated availability of safer substitutes for the worst drugs might reduce uptake of those worse drugs.

Hold on, that logic isn't sound. You are saying because the illegal drug trade is enormous, therefore the illegal status of drugs has no suppressive effect on new user uptake? Why can't both statements be true? "The illegal trade is enormous and making drugs legal would make the drug user base even more enormous"

Illegality status might suppress 50% of new users and impulse buyers, who knows. You can claim illegality does not suppress 100% (that much is clear), but I guarantee illegality has suppressed some non-zero % of potential users from trying it.

Legalization probably increases the user base somewhat. But does it increase negative outcomes? The evidence is already in: the legalization of alcohol after the 1930s definitely improved outcomes.

I'm not advocating selling heroin at the corner store. Perhaps it should be sold over the counter at pharmacies? A licensed pharmacist can advice the buyer of the risks and can connect them with resources to help with addiction if there is a desire for that.

We already massively promote and sell alcohol nearly everywhere. It's a deadly drug that is more dangerous to use than many illegal drugs. Tobacco is similarly broadly distributed, yet causes cancer and early death in millions of people.

If drugs were regulated based on their risk level, then it's likely that tobacco would be sold in plain packaging at pharmacies and MDMA would be available in a vending machine...

> We already massively promote and sell alcohol nearly everywhere.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Alcohol and tobacco are "grandfathered in" to the current system due to widespread usage for centuries. If I were king for a day, alcoholic beverage marketing would be made immediately illegal, but in our current democracy there's no way the alcohol lobby would allow that.

Most people wouldn't need heroin if big pharma, doctors, and pharmacists didn't flood the country with oxycodone in the first place.

> Ask a doctor and they would probably agree that, for a particular patient, having access to legal safe alternatives is a good thing. But ask them about drugs as a whole, for the entire population, and the answer will always be "less is better but zero is best."

I guess doctors would say the same about alcohol. However, I would prefer to have my glass of beer once or twice a month and I don't want to go to jail for it, thank you very much.

Why would you ask a doctor? Ask a pharmacologist, the person who researches it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com