If you made the same assumptions about me based on what I did in my 20s, you’d actually be assuming the direct opposite of what I believe in and how I work today. We’re all shaped by our experiences, but that shaping doesn’t always mean we grow into the behaviors that we experienced during our formative early career. Maybe this guy looks on that experience and knows exactly what he doesn’t want to see happen.
I'd like to think that most of those decisions are coming from datasets that suggest, on average, certain medications tend to lead to abuse, including from people with no prior history of abuse.
I'm quite libertarian in a lot of my views, but this particular one on lax drug controls I've never really been able to buy into.
Ok, I'll bite ;)
Let's agree that the "liberal" approach is harm-reduction -- safe injection sites, needle exchanges, free filters, test sites, community disease screening, etc.
In places where this has been tried (see: SF), it seems to provide some relief to people on the ground, but it's done nothing to address in the inflow of addicts against ever more dangerous supply.
What if the correct liberal position was actually "free pain pills for anyone that needs them, with compassion for all users", and what we think of as "liberal" policies even in SF are actually appeasement of a puritanical system?
That would make the libertarian position "you can't be giving out free pills with government money, make them buy them when they need them like the rest of us" and the world would return to order.
The right-wing position would remain "the government should use force to prevent people from doing immoral things".
As for the addicts, they will now be using a safer route of administration with controlled dosing and not be economically hindered.
As for the cartels, they will no longer find money in the drug trade.
For a while I thought I understood the dynamics of how things got the way they are, but it seems like everyone else has forgotten, so maybe we could try a new approach soon.
Now, my experience is not representative as a whole, but it's generally what fuels my thoughts on this subject. If this is the story I hear quite frequently, why would I want these drugs to be introduced legally into people's lives? That's why I've always had issues understanding people pushing for legalization.
I understand how it can come across as puritanical ("I know what's best for you"). However, when all data suggests that engaging in drug use almost universally results in poverty, why would we as a society want to unleash such a thing upon people? It's for the betterment of humanity that life-ruining drugs are illegal.
At least those are my thoughts.
The poverty is quite related to the costs, and I think that's where I challenge your take.
That said, the most compelling take i have heard in the first half of 'In the realm of hungry ghosts' by Gabor Mate`. He points out that we need to consider the fact that some people may be much more predisposed to opioid addiction, by either default wiring or by life experiences. In this case, is the freedom of the majority of folks to take what they want worth the risk to those who would suffer from it? I don't believe he supports the criminalization of the drug use, but he makes a good point that we need to think about this reality of different-risks.
The reason why I come back to legalization is that I cannot tolerate the fact we have such massive funding sources for the cartels (and police) in the illegal trade. It is deeply compelling to me that we would be better off without funding that society destroying business.
Yeah, I'm certainly not talking about this class of drugs. The context of the discussion is opioids, and I'm mainly referring to the more destructive ones. I had no issue when marijuana was legalized in my state.
> The poverty is quite related to the costs, and I think that's where I challenge your take.
I'm not sure that represents the whole picture. Beyond relationships, the main thing most people I've met in this situation lost was their job. Followed by whatever housing situation they had. Sure, cost doesn't make it any easier on them, but from my perspective, it was the drug abuse and the resulting cycles of high/low that led to their financial demise.
> The reason why I come back to legalization is that I cannot tolerate the fact we have such massive funding sources for the cartels (and police) in the illegal trade
Yeah, I agree, and I have the same feelings. I just can't, in good faith, support legalization with all I've seen. It's a complicated problem.
It isn't that they lead to abuse, it is that people who are using heroin will abuse them, and will go to doctors who facilitate that.
I had a spinal fusion in my early 20s. I was discharged from the hospital with a script for 90 days of opioid painkillers, 3x a day. $10 copay… I took like 4-5 and was done. I had a extensive support network between my lovely wife and family… people who do not develop a opioid problem like 60% of the time.
The standard of care changed because of Perdue. Dentists were handing out 30 day scripts, people were getting opioids for minor ortho issues, etc.
As abuse became more prevalent, sourcing prescription pills got expensive. Heroin was more available and cheaper - the use of this stuff became way broader than the stereotype of hypes selling plasma, etc.
It's a massively common procedure and defaulting to "here's some addictive painkillers just in case you want them" was an insane thing to do, even if only 1% of cases turn out badly.
Interesting experience was signing a form in triplicate (white copy me, yellow copy walgreens, pink copy DEA) to pick it up.
Never took any.
include me out of your of your assumptions, please. I knew the Purdue pharma stuff was bad from the get-go, and it's not because I'm prudish about drugs or a huge believer in regulating everything to the point of paralysis. It was because the combination of high physical potential for abuse + strong economic incentives to monetize that leads to bad results. Wars have literally been fought over this in the past.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars
You might be familiar with Adam Smith's famous economic example of the pin factory. Here's Rudyard Kipling's description of an opium factory operated by the British colonial power in 19th century India, an equally brilliant illustration of commercial logic but applied in service of perverse incentives.
https://ota.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/repository/xmlui/handle/20.500...
Would that be user error, or would it be the doctor’s fault for not telling me how addictive the benzos were? I was mentally ill. He told me to take them every day. I didn’t take them excessively. I took them as prescribed. It was only after the addiction got out of control that I started drinking again. Mentally ill people make bad decisions. The doctor made no effort to ensure I was safe. He kept upping my dose.
It’s worth watching the documentary “As Prescribed”[0], which is about benzo addiction. A lot of people go through what I went through. Some don’t survive. We blame drug dealers for ODs but not psychiatrists. Why?
I think the ADHD drugs are probably next. My conspiracy theory is too much of the professional class (including doctors) is using them regularly, so it's much hard to crack down on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_den
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars
I’m still struck by how deeply immoral it is to start a war and say “You WILL allow us to sell you opium!”