[seibelj]

The only arguments against legalizing heroin are paternalistic - not trusting people to be responsible. In a bygone era I was prescribed Percocet for a dental procedure, which I have been told is an extremely strong opioid, and I did not like the numb feeling and eventually threw them away. So I have 100% proof that not everyone who takes opioids gets addicted and winds up in the gutter.

The absolute truth is that drug use is a victimless crime and banning it doesn’t make it go away. I would argue the death of legendary actor Philip Seymour Hoffman was a direct result of this - he purchased heroin off the black market, was an experienced heroin user, but the potency of the drug is unpredictable and he accidentally overdosed https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Seymour_Hoffman

America is finally legalizing marijuana and soon magic mushrooms. I would argue LSD and MDMA are not far behind. Why stop there? Cocaine and heroin are not the devil incarnate - I don’t see why we continually move the goal posts for “good” drugs but say others are beyond the pale. I don’t care what your anecdata says as an “experienced” drug user - I have had several friends become marijuana burnouts who still work shit jobs, if you want to argue heroin is simply too dangerous for society then alcohol and weed should get the ban as well.

The push for individual rights continues. I guarantee you within 10 years prostitution will be fully legalized in progressive coastal states. I don’t see why we can’t accept vice as a natural human past time (people like pleasure) and try to manage the down-sides of legalization the same way we do with all other legalized vice like gambling (state lotteries(!)) and alcohol. Better this than a bunch of criminals providing it anyway.

[solipsism]

drug use is a victimless crime

That's not remotely true. Use of certain drugs (such as heroin) leads to horrible expectations for children of addicts. These children can only be thought of as victims of heroin use.

Now I'm not saying that should be used to curtail the freedom of non-parents. But the experience of children shouldn't be ignored either.

And I'm the first person who will agree that alcohol abuse in the home leads to horrible expectations for children as well.

try to manage the down-sides of legalization the same way we do with all other legalized vice like gambling (state lotteries(!)) and alcohol

Well, we don't do a good job of this. Alcohol has a devastating effect on lives (but of course not all lives, save your down votes recreational drinkers)

[eyelidlessness]

I was raised by an alcoholic. You’re not wrong that drug abuse affects others, and yes kids. But prohibition not only doesn’t address that, it amplifies it.

I wasn’t just raised by an alcoholic. I was raised by an addict. Being dragged bar to bar, party to party, neglected and abused while my mom was drinking was one thing.

Being loaded up in a car to far flung places up and down the mid-Atlantic in the middle of the night for god knows what was another thing.

I have more specific reasons I favor full legalization of drugs, but “think of the children” definitely falls flat for my experience. If drugs were legal I sincerely doubt I would have spent a considerable amount of my childhood waking up 100s of miles from home, people I cared about in jail, probably a great deal of risk I was put in and many others as well.

[scaramanga]

The question here is whether drug prohibition is a victimless crime. And it's clearly not.

Besides, many _users_ of heroin are medicinal users who do not have victims (elderly patients on the NHS for example). You are conflating drug use with problematic drug use and concluding that problematic drug use is problematic, which is a tautology.

[solipsism]

You are conflating drug use with problematic drug use

Is this like conflating speeding with problematic speeding? Some things are worth making illegal because of their potential effect on society.

That said.. in what way did I conflate those things? I specifically said Now I'm not saying that should be used to curtail the freedom of non-parents. Which clearly leaves open the possibility of carving out reasonable uses of a drug.

[Perenti]

I struck this paternalistic attitude just the other day. I have pretty complex health problems, which include CRPS/RSD. Opiods are not the best for neuropathic pain, and only things like fentanyl have any impact. I'm also recovering from recent surgery (4th chest wall surgery in 5 years), so to prevent spread of my CRPS it's vital that post-surgical pain is managed.

I went to the pharmacy with a script for 80 30mg codiene tablets, and 1 box of 5 12ug/hr fentanyl patches. I couldn't get the patches, although I've been using 1 box a year for years. It was out of stock, none available for back order.

Another pharmacy had it in the next day.

Patients are not addicts. Just because some people need to take opioids or opiates does not mean they are addicts.