Hacker News Reader

> Something that is illegal, is by definition a social taboo. The removal of that taboo implies more acceptance.

They're correlated, but it's not a causative relationship. It's not illegal for a dominatrix to step on your genitals and make you call her mommy. That's taboo, and legal. On the other hand, jaywalking is illegal - and not a taboo.

> The only question is by how much will usage increase?

That is the question, but I think we should be open to the answer being zero or even negative - just as we are open to the answer being positive. How much drug addiction and usage is furthered by throwing addicts into prison where the only escape is more drugs?

How about the folks who make it out of prison but cannot get jobs because of their felony possession charges, who then lose their friends and family, and once again escape into drugs?

This is a multifaceted challenge.

"I think we should be open to the answer being zero or even negative - just as we are open to the answer being positive"

Not really, and this is the problem with this thread and issue in general.

Sure, we should be open to the possibility of certain things, but that doesn't mean they are reasonable or even likely, and it distracts from more obvious and likely scenarios.

When debating issues, people have a tendency to be rhetorical and not pragmatic.

Opiods are not like meth or coke: there is a big, legal market for them (!) so we have lots of exposure to what happens when we prescribe 1/2 a bottle for patients, vs only the 1 or 2 pills for post-surgery.

In those 'mini cases' of increased access i.e. where you have a leftover bottle of Oxycodone, problems are much more likely than otherwise.

It's ridiculous to suggest that someone having a bottle of Oxycodone available (i.e. greater access) is somehow going to be 'less likely' to develop problems than someone who does.

We already have a lot of behavioural science, and the laws of supply and demand to help us out, but even that is pedantic in the face of anyone with exposure to this issue.

To imply that legalization and widespread availability of a highly addictive substance would 'reduce' usage would be to deny everything we understand.

If you lower the cost of something, consumption increases.

There isn't even a decent rhetorical argument for why 'consumption would decrease' in the face of easy access. I suppose that some behaviours that are 'social taboos' make them more attractive, but that's not a strong argument.

Ask a regular doctor or pharmacist who has to prescribe Opioids what they think would happen if we just made them 'over the counter' like Tylenol.

The only group of people who would condone expansion of access, are some healthcare professionals who support harm reduction policies, and even then, that would be very limited access.

We are where we are for the next few decades at least until either powerful new technologies change the game, we develop much more powerful social abilities, or for some reason the substances are just eradicated from common awareness.

In the US, it is pretty taboo to have occult practices, yet it is legal. Having an open marital relationship is pretty taboo to a lot of folks, yet - legal.

Pot isn't all that taboo, yet it is very illegal in some states and illegal at the federal level.

And fwiw: I don't have the article now, but perhaps part of the reason you don't get a bottle for tooth surgery is because a combination of ibuprofen and paracet (tylenol) is generally enough especially if you have time off work to rest.

Norway gives a pre-counted package of 20 that are in blister packs, even though it is addictive.

Even with limited marketing and 'soft non-acceptance / promotion' - I believe it's something that vast numbers of people will seek it out 'just to party' or for 'the Vegas' trip etc. and especially for 2) i.e. as an easy painkiller/mood moderator which will leave a lot of people addicted.

If you say so. I mean, you are acting like we are just going to give folks as many drugs as they want, in an uncontrolled fashion - and it doesn't have to be like that at all. You don't need investors to be 'moral' - because obviously, they probably aren't going to be considering how businesses treat folks now - you just need laws and enforcement to look out for people.

By the way: Upsides are things like being able to have a professional give you a single, proper dose for partying and give folks information - actual, truthful information that isn't a DARE-esque scare tactic ("Its just so addictive..."). A professional does screening. ID required. If we log prescriptions and sudafed, we can do this. We can give information. Folks that are addicted can get maintenance doses and get actual help.

Edit: FWIW: The crisis in the US is more than just drug availability. Being able to get help if you find yourself addicted would help lots. At the same time, things like paid time off to rest after surgeries would help as well.

Heroin doesn't make folks immediately addicted, neither do pills. And with things being illegal, we realistically have no clue how many people take them as a party drug occasionally without ever getting addicted.

There are some old studies on opioid (prescription type meds) use in rest homes.

They found that most patients did not want to increase their dose of the opioid. They just didn't want to be cut off the meds they were given. It makes so much sence.

I'm to lazy to look it up.

I don't understand this all, or nothing mentality when it comes to drugs.

I truly feel the American Opioid crisis could have been less devastating if government provided patients/addicts with with access to the medication with limits.

Actually, bupenorpine would probally be the better drug to make available to anyone that wanted it.