[alpineidyll3]

Flip that. What's the social value of criminalizing any drug consumption?

Profit and advertisement of these products should be banned, and the state should provide addicts with clean supplies at-cost to out compete criminal enterprises.

The amount of violence this would avoid in the Americas is staggering, and clearly desirable.

[grphtrdr]

I think we are at the point in the United States that we almost have a moral responsibility to decriminalize all drugs just to assist with defunding the Mexican cartels.

When you add that in with what it would do to violence in the US directly, I don't see how someone can argue the other side from a moral perspective.

[ianai]

Agreed. Want to make serious strides on illegal immigration to the US? Remove the funding of the cartels.

[randompwd]

...or force them to quadruple down on alternative income streams such as human smuggling instead of drug smuggling.

[Scoundreller]

Are the cartels facing a labour shortage or something and sticking to their core competency and opting-out of other industries?

[Gravey]

Could you explain how decriminalization helps to defund the cartels?

With legalization comes regulation and better control over the supply chain. I don’t see how decriminalization accomplishes anything other than saving court costs/costs of imprisonment.

[Scoundreller]

Canada’s marijuana legalization has lead to 2 things:

1. A big (and increasing) shift into purchasing from the legal market

2. A price crash on the illegal market. Like half the dollars per ounce going into the black market.

No real sign of increased consumption. And marijuana isn’t this cool and exciting thing anymore. It’s just there if you want it, otherwise carryon.

[Gravey]

So there is a big difference between legalization and decriminalization. I was asking about the latter.

While I can see some of the benefits of decriminalization (easier to provide help to those who need it, enforcement can target distributors rather than users, etc), it really just seems like a political half measure to me.

[Scoundreller]

Yes, and I fear when decriminalization leads to civil penalties instead, it leads to wonky enforcement because it becomes about revenue (fines).

[awillen]

At the very minimum we should immediately legalize anything that's clearly less dangerous than alcohol (which is a lot of stuff given that alcohol is very dangerous/destructive). Marijuana, most hallucinogens, etc.

Anyone who is arguing that marijuana, MDMA, etc. should not be legalized is an absolute hypocrite unless they're also campaigning to bring back prohibition of alcohol.

[contradict]

I agree but MDMA is not comparable to marijuana or hallucinogens. It is structurally similar to amphetamine and there are studies suggesting that it causes brain damage even after a single use.

[Perenti]

People have been known to commit terribly violent crimes due to MDMA. It's not the standard effect it has, but it happens enough to remind me that it's an amphetamine.

[awillen]

No, you're confusing correlation and causation. MDMA users have been known to commit terribly violent crimes.

Besides, alcohol users have also been known to commit terribly violent crimes (and unlike MDMA, which is near impossible to study in the US, we've studied alcohol enough to know that it is in fact a contributing cause of violence). The point is that it's hypocrisy to allow one clearly dangerous substance to be used by the population and to make another one illegal.

[awillen]

The point is it's clearly less dangerous than alcohol, so it should be legal or alcohol should be illegal.

[dTal]

Devil's advocate - it is not necessarily the case that the social harm of a drug is matched by the personal harm. Arguably, the law has more business policing the social harm than the personal harm. Maybe it happens to be that alcohol - while poisonous - strengthens social bonds and is an overall net good, while cannabis - though relatively harmless - causes people to space out uselessly in front of the TV. Indeed, I believe this is a popular counterculture "conspiracy theory" - that the drugs that are illegal are the ones that cause the user to question the structure of society, in particular competitive capitalism.

I'm not endorsing any of the above - just pointing out that there are other reasons one might want a drug to be illegal than mere medical danger.

[meowface]

Sure, and those are valid arguments to make to encourage or discourage use. I know you're just Devil's advocating, but to kind of one-up it: similar or stronger arguments could potentially be made for criminalizing things like gambling, pornography, watching Twitch for more than an hour per day, etc.

There are a lot of things that carry potential for social harm. It's the job of a nation's citizens to decide which are socially harmful enough to warrant fines or imprisonment. Ranged weapons certainly carry potential for social harm, but the US has decided they don't cross that threshold as long as they aren't fully automatic or explosive.

I think the social harm of even the most "notorious" drugs, like PCP and methamphetamine, don't cross that threshold, personally. There's a lot of pushback now, but I suspect within a century or so most or all drugs will be decriminalized in the US and many other places, even if mostly for practical rather than philosophical reasons.

Focusing solely on the personal harm arguments can be interesting to think about, too. Can a case be made for legalizing fentanyl, despite it often causing personal harm (death)? I think I lean towards legalizing both buying and selling of it as long as failure to disclosure it's contained in something is illegal; though in practice that might be too hard to enforce, in which case maybe selling should be illegal as long as there's some safe government-sanctioned source of it.

[dTal]

The problem is that the government is very limited in its levers over society. There's the financial - taxes, subsidies, fines, grants. There's freedom curtailment - prison, compulsory community service, restraining orders, use of military force. There's "soft marketing" - PSAs, presidential speeches, all forms of information war.

These sound big and scary but they are blunt. There is no government equivalent of the kind of precise, directed, powerful social pressure that your friends and family can apply. The government can't sit down and tell you, in a serious tone, that you acted like a complete turd when you got too drunk last night and if it happens again you won't be invited over anymore. There's no substitute for social fabric.

But social fabric doesn't scale. It doesn't scale with the intensity of the problem - once someone's hooked on heroin, you can't shame them back out of it. And it doesn't scale with size, either - community identity doesn't work at city sizes. Why should someone care what you think, if they'll never see you again?

So this leaves us in a position where people see drug-related problems and feel powerless to stop them. Something must be done. And the only available thing - it seems - is the blunt instrument of the law. And hey, maybe that causes other problems - worse problems, even! But something is being done, at least.

[wmichelin]

> cannabis - though relatively harmless - causes people to space out uselessly in front of the TV

You sound like your knowledge of cannabis is from anti-drug TV commercials. Speak for yourself, cannabis can definitely be a social drug. People are just forced to do it in the privacy of their own homes due to prohibition.

[meowface]

That's not the point they're trying to make. You should re-read their post in full. It's a meta-level discussion, not an object-level one.

[alpineidyll3]

I agree you're onto something. There must be some reason society loves the war on drugs. I've always felt it was a tribal ritual of control and denial. Similar to food prohibitions that exist in many religions (kosher food, haram