[ocdtrekkie]

And strangely, a lot of people think we should both do that for free (at everyone else's expense) and that we should legalize the drugs that put them there.

I admit I am still a bit torn on the former. I do consider addiction to be a medical condition, and drug users in need of treatment. The question is where personal responsibility should factor in. At some point, if you do drugs, there was a good chance you were dumb enough to start doing them.

[cortesoft]

The drugs didn't put them there, the abuse of them did.

Should we make sugary drinks illegal, since we spend millions treating people for obesity related diseases? Or should we put speed limiters on cars, because of the cost of treating people injured in high speed accidents?

[kazinator]

Legalization would help with the problem.

Let's make an analogy with alcohol. When alcohol isn't illegal, there is a quality supply of it. When you buy a bottle of 40% whisky, you're not getting something that might be 25% methanol due to some criminal doing an improper job with the distilling, because he only cares about money, wiping out his competitors, and evading the cops, with your health being at the bottom of his priorities.

(Which is not to say, of course, that legal alcohol eliminates the public health problem of alcoholism.)

[ocdtrekkie]

You are assuming the problem is "bad drugs" rather than the problem just being the drugs.

[vkou]

Bad drugs are a huge problem, that kills many, many people. Fentanyl, anyone?

[DanBC]

In the US, in 2012, less than 1% of the population tried opiates in the previous year. More than 5% tried opioids.

Most of the US opioid problem is from legally obtained doctor prescribed meds.

In general following medical advice is not usually seen as irresponsible.

[jchendy]

> And strangely, a lot of people think we should both do that for free (at everyone else's expense) and that we should legalize the drugs that put them there.

Why do you consider that strange?

[zkms]

> And strangely, a lot of people think we should both do that for free (at everyone else's expense) and that we should legalize the drugs that put them there.

Why should we pay money to enforce a legal regime of prohibition that subsidises the most dangerous and ruthless transnational criminal organisations -- to the point that entire fucking countries get destabilised from cartels and US military intervention? Why should my tax dollars pay to enforce criminal laws that turn the crank of the "iron law of prohibition" and cause drug use to be more and more deadly (which we all end up paying for, via taxes and medical costs)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_prohibition

Why do people think it's fine to enforce a legal regime that immiserates drug users to the point that they're willing to risk their life (I don't own guns, but lots of USians do) kicking in my door and stealing my old laptop to pawn for some overpriced fentanyl-laced drugs (sold by criminals) that might overdose them in the street? There'd be less laptops stolen out of cars and houses and less people keeling over in the streets and less "gang-related shootings" if addicts could just buy some fucking precisely-dosed pharmaceutical-grade opioids at-cost from a pharmacy.

Didn't we already try this? Murder done by organised crime combined with ineffective/corrupt police and low homicide clearance rates, along with along with severe increases in incarceration rates, increases in overdose deaths from alcohol/drug consumption (caused by higher potency and more impurities) isn't a new syndrome, it also cropped up during the 1920-1933 alcohol prohibition. Ending that prohibition slashed the murder rate. Why can't we do the same thing for drugs?

Where's the "personal responsibility" that prohibitionists need to own up to? Will they take responsibility for how their policies helped trash the US's homicide clearance rate? Is "less solved murders" worth the wondrous results that drug prohibition has given us?

The harm that drug use/manufacture causes is a lot more a function of the relevant policies/laws than the actual chemicals themselves. Indeed, most of the harm from illicit drug use comes from:

1. dose/concentration uncertainty or potential contamination with higher-potency drugs -- like unexpected fentanyl inside heroin

2. contamination with unwanted or dangerous chemicals (from manufacturing / distribution processes) -- such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPTP or cutting agents

3. Poly-drug use: combining any two of {opioids, benzos, alcohol} to exploit synergistic effects -- which can easily result in respiratory depression

4. Designer drugs: using a less tested / more dangerous compound because the better tested and safer one is prohibited.

All of these are either caused or significantly worsened by prohibition and can be much more readily avoided without prohibition. Those harms are not inherent to drug use; indeed, people who have adequate access to pharmaceutical-grade opioids can safely use them for decades without any major medical complications.