[rafi_kamal]

I don't, and that's a good point - if the number of users remain the same (or even increases slightly) than I do see how legalizing can be beneficial. However, in my mind legalizing drugs also means easier access, and that can lead to an increasing number of people using drugs.

[hitpointdrew]

>However, in my mind legalizing drugs also means easier access, and that can lead to an increasing number of people using drugs.

How many adults do you know that have never done, or tried, heroin would suddenly do so if was legal? I think the amount of people that would try heroin because it became legal would be staggering low. I don't think there are many people out there going "Man, if heroin was just legal then I would totally try it!". People that want to do heroin are already doing so, it being illegal isn't stopping anyone.

[yborg]

So the counterargument is hydrocodone. It is legal, and people that would never in their lives think of shooting smack now had doctors, many of whom knew better, prescribing them a highly addictive narcotic in order to get compensated by the manufacturer. Purdue Pharma was a wholly legal cartel with thousands of dealers worldwide moving their product for them.

"Heroin" has a bad name, so your legalized version would have some innocuous made-up marketing name, backed by tens of millions of dollars of advertising and it would sell like hotcakes.

[LyndsySimon]

My response to that is to assert that most of the negative impact of the opiate crisis is due to the fact that people become addicted to them and are then unable to obtain them through legal means, which effectively forces them into criminal activity.

I'm certainly not saying opiate addiction is a neutral/good thing, but I don't think it would cause the societal harm that we see today with them being tightly regulated.

Potential case in point: illegal methamphetamine usage/addiction is a huge issue today in the US. I qualify that as "illegal", because meth is available by prescription under the trade name Desoxyn. Many drugs with similar effects are likewise available and much more commonly prescribed - but I'm not aware of anyone calling for them to be banned. If anything, I suspect in that case the overall societal impact is positive: I know I would be much less effective as a developer if I were to lose access to ADHD medication.

[noir_lord]

Not to mention the way the opiates where marketed at doctors with claims they where less addictive.

Meaning doctors where more likely to prescribe them, that whole episode was one of multiple fuck ups at every level backed by some unscrupulous fuckers.

[hitpointdrew]

>So the counterargument is hydrocodone. It is legal, and people that would never in their lives think of shooting smack now had doctors,many of whom knew better, prescribing them a highly addictive narcotic in order to get compensated by the manufacturer.

How is that a counter argument? This is a breakdown/fault of the medical community and has no relation to making drugs legal. To be clear, I am arguing that all drugs should be legal for recreational use (not require a prescription).

No question, doctors need to vet information on drugs better (they should not be taking literature/studies that come from the drug manufacturers as a reputable sources of truth). No question doctors should be extremely hesitant prescribing any opioid at all. No doubt that a lot of the current opioid epidemic stems from doctors (either unwittingly or not) prescribing things that they shouldn't be. Those are all medical industry issues that need to be solved (regardless if things like heroin are legal).

I don't suppose, and don't recommend, doing a self diagnosis and getting whatever drugs you feel will help. The medical community is supposed to be the experts on that subject matter.

That said, people need to be free to determine their own risk tolerance level regarding what to put in, or use on their bodies.

Me personally? I am not going to stop going to the doctors to get medicines when I am sick, even if I could buy any and all drugs over-the-counter. Also I am sure prescriptions aren't going away even if all drugs could be bought over the counter, there is no way insurance would pay for drugs that weren't prescribed by a medical professional.

[perl4ever]

You are using "legal" in a way that implies unregulated. Regulations have a large value, at least to some people. For instance, I would like to try CBD, but I don't trust that some random product will be safe and effective and have the right amount of the active ingredient. Unless it's an approved drug.

If you have regulations on drugs, then you have all the problems, to some extent, that people attribute to their illegality.

I am afraid of opioids, and I don't trust even doctors, so I never took the ones I was offered and didn't get addicted. But there must be millions of people who wouldn't trust a heroin dealer and would trust their doctor, so legality makes a big difference.

[luka-birsa]

Why would a doctor promote Heroin? If they would, especially for recreative purposes, would be very much at odds with any medical ethics. What is clear via Oxy example is that medical ethics really need to be upheld and profit taken out of the equation.

Do you see doctors promoting cigarettes? Alcohol?

I would say that your reasoning why you aren't doing CBD is highly rational. Do you really think that even if you wanted to try heroin and if you did it, it would automatically addict you? Like you're instantly gone in to the abyss?

People try heroin and nothing happens to them. Some even hate the experience. People use heroin for prolonged periods and then simply stop (non unusual in the late teens, with some kind of a trigger in the mid 20).

If there was not so much stigma involved and so much risk taking the stuff, we might see people coming out of this juvenile experimenting phase in a much much better state.

Also, do you really think that people that lifelong addicts, don't have some kind of deeper psychological reasons to go down that path?

[perl4ever]

>if you wanted to try heroin and if you did it, it would automatically addict you

I have no idea. Lots of people experiment with things and it's no big deal and they insist that must be a universal experience. There's a selection effect. If you try something at 20 and don't survive, you're not around at 40 or 80 to tell people it's no big deal.

When I was young, I enjoyed alcohol a lot, but didn't really struggle giving it up when I had to. Nor did I ever drink until blackout or vomiting, which you know, whether or not it's pathological/alcoholism, is common. I am certain that the level of compulsion is very different for some people.

I have a sibling, who I believe smoked cigarettes off and on but it never became a permanent habit. But a lot of people find them extremely addictive. I never smoked my first one, just because there was never an anticipated reward that seemed worth it. I might have been wrong, or right. Some people seem to get substantial cognitive benefits from nicotine.

Occasionally having a negative reaction to a prescription drug makes me wary of recreational or unregulated stuff, too. Seeing homeopathic stuff in the drug store makes me fearful that a CBD product might be fake too. So when I had wisdom teeth pulled and I was given a bottle of big pink pills (I think it must have been oxycodone/paracetamol based on a quick google) I didn't use a single one.

[LyndsySimon]

For what it's worth, I think you're at least mostly correct - I would also expect legalization to lead to increased usage, at least in the short term. I'm just the type of person who challenges those sorts of expectations, including when I'm the one holding them.

Along with wondering if "legalization leads to increased rate of usage" holds true, I also wonder if the following is true:

> legalizing drugs also means easier access

Criminality is a "barrier to entry", surely, but I'm not at all sure that ease of access changes because of it. In Arkansas, where I live, cannabis is illegal. Even though I don't consume it (the risk isn't worth the benefit to me), I'm extremely confident I could make a couple of phone calls and have some delivered to me if I wanted to. That's really no different from my experience in the LA area.

In fact, it might actually be more difficult to obtain it in LA through legal means. Generally you have to seek out a dispensary (physically, or via phone/app) and provide identification. I wouldn't need ID to get it illegally in Arkansas. If an ID requirement has a negative participation impact on other things (like voting) then I would expect that to hold true for this as well.

[shkkmo]

I don't believe that drug addicts face any real difficulty obtaining their drugs; they do face hazards to their safety and economic security.

The risk of legalization isn't so much ease of access as it is the normalization of drug abuse. We have shown with cigarette usage that education, propaganda and marketing laws can de-normalize drug use.

If anything, by making high risk drugs safely available through official venues, you can provide social services better access to those who need help.

I would say that you would likely see an initial increase in users but that a well run program would lead to both a overall decrease in users and more importantly a reduction of average harm per user.

[blamestross]

I think that is a common misunderstanding. Access is there and not much more difficult than deciding you are curious and going to a specialty shop. Look at marijuana legalization, not a big uptick in consumption by most approximations.