[pstuart]

I care what the law has to say regarding heroin. Legalize it, regulate it just like alcohol.

Being illegal didn't keep my brother from becoming addicted and dying from it. If it was legal and pure he might have had a chance.

But on the other hand, nobody is trying to outlaw tobacco and alcohol, which are the biggest killers of all. Thats what did my mom in.

So yes, legalize it and keep it pure. Educate people on proper drug use and spend money on health resources for those who need it rather than jail.

[ambler0]

I'm sorry to hear about your brother. My younger brother is also a heroin addict. I watched him change from one of the sweetest people I knew and the best man at my wedding into an awful excuse for a human being.

I am not so sure I would support the legalization of heroin. At times I have expressed support for the Gore Vidal approach, i.e. legalize all drugs and provide them at cost. In any case, I fully agree that drugs ought to be decriminalized and treated as a public health, not a criminal, issue.

I just think it's intellectually dishonest to pretend that all drugs are the same. Consider, for example, the ratio of the therapeutic dose (or, I guess, recreational dose) to the lethal dose. A very small amount of marijuana or LSD causes the intended effect, yet it's virtually impossible to die from overdosing on these substances. Clearly this is not the case with alcohol, cocaine, heroin, etc.

I'm not trying to argue strongly for tiered classification of drugs, but I am saying that it's not obvious to me that we should just treat them all the same. There are more-or-less objective measures that we can use to establish their risk to the individual and society.

[girvo]

I'm an ex heroin addict. Have been on Suboxone for a year and a half (nearly off it, only two months to go yay!) after being addicted from 16-22 years old.

Would I still be where I am if heroin was legal and I was on that for ORT instead of Suboxone? I think I would -- as it stands, I'm still on an extremely strong opiate daily, but it is pure and legal, so a lot of the issues fall away from it.

The problem is: that's just me! Your brother might be completely different, and that sucks :( An argument can be made, however, that because one person might not benefit (I'd argue that it won't make his situation worse: he's already an addict, like I was, if it's now clean and doesn't require breaking the law to get..) does that mean that those who can should miss out?

It's a complex issue, and you raised some great points about how people conflate "drugs" as if they were all the same. I'm still not sure where the answer lies, but I'm pretty certain what we have now isn't working.

[ambler0]

Totally agree that the current approach is not working, and that's why I say that, regardless of which drugs we choose to fully legalize, all of them should be decriminalized. Most people who become addicts are already traumatized in some way and throwing them into the machinery of the criminal justice system only compounds the problem.

The healthcare situation also makes it worse. My brother had considerable difficulty obtaining Suboxone, and even after establishing a relationship with the only doctor in our area who prescribes it, was not able to afford the enormous expense. It's just pathetic that he had a much easier time acquiring this legal drug illegally from fellow addicts.

I wish you the very best with your recovery.

[girvo]

Agreed wholeheartedly.

I'm lucky, it took literally one week for me to get on the program, and costs me $5 a day here in Australia. I have nothing but sympathy for those who aren't as lucky.

Thanks for the support :)

[k-mcgrady]

>> "nobody is trying to outlaw tobacco"

They aren't trying to outlaw tobacco but they are trying to stop it's use in a different way. Banning smoking in public places (which I agree with), health warnings on packaging, and the latest thing they are trying to do is ban branding on packaging (i.e. cigarettes can only be sold in plain white boxes). In many places they also can't be on display (displays are covered) and the age at which it's legal to buy cigarettes has risen in many places over the last 5 years or so.

I agree with your main point. Recently where I'm from there were news reports about several deaths from a 'bad' batch of ecstasy. Police informed people what to look out for on the news (what the bad pills looked like) but the main message was drugs kill, don't use them. The problem wasn't the drugs it was a poison being cut with them. If they were legal and regulated we wouldn't have this problem.

[declan]

"They aren't trying to outlaw tobacco but they are trying to stop it's use in a different way"

Yep. Also through taxes. In the U.S., taxes on a single pack of cigarettes can be as high as $5.36, depending on where you live.

[hfsktr]

I might be completely off here but it almost seems like they don't actually want people to quit. They just want the tax money. I know when I smoked I could get a 2 week supply of patches OR gum (at the time) but that just wasn't enough to actually get to the point I needed. Maybe for some people it works but the success rates aren't that great, if I recall.

EDIT: I just wanted to mention that, I feel this, is completely the wrong use for taxes. They should be for raising revenue not for changing behavior. I don't have a great solution so I won't even attempt to go there.

[k-mcgrady]

Raising the price through taxes is likely to put off new young smokers who will find it incredibly difficult to afford. It probably won't deter as many adults who can afford the price increase even if it does piss them off. I've also known some people who have switched to cheaper, lower quality cigarettes because of the price increases rather than quitting. In other words raising the prices has caused them to seek a worse alternative for their health.

[Shivetya]

and through the ACA, it is expressly legal to charge smokers more for insurance. As in, up to 50 (FIFTY) percent more.

[k-mcgrady]

Although I am a supporter of (and user of) free public health care, doesn't it make sense to charge people more for insurance if they are doing something that is proven to seriously damage their health?

[mildtrepidation]

Without judging the sentiment, "legalize it and keep it pure" does not mesh at all with tobacco and alcohol, which are legal (and 'pure,' at least in the case of alcohol), being "the biggest killers of all" as an argument for legalization.

Discussion on legalization of controlled substances like heroin is fraught with bias and misinformation. It's a discussion worth having, but clouding it with contradictions makes an already difficult topic that much harder to address.

[icebraining]

Uh, pure alcohol does kill, but poisoned alcohol is worse and much more effective (as the US government knew[1]). There's nothing contradictory about it.

pstuart didn't say if heroin had been pure that everything would be fine, just that the user might have a chance. And you definitively have a greater chance of surviving alcohol addition if you don't die from a single bottle[2].

[1] http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_exa...

[2] http://www.ibtimes.com/last-call-poor-indians-continue-die-a...

[MichaelGG]

Alcohol and tobacco are bigger killers than heroin because A: They're obviously much more widely used and B: heroin has very little health side effects.

While alcohol and tobacco might have a larger "therapeutic index" then heroin, regular use can and does damage many peoples' bodies. Regular use of opiates causes constipation and a few other minor side effects. They aren't really comparable.

The main reason for overdoses on opiates is related to mixing with other drugs (alcohol and benzos). After that is the dosage amount. If patients always knew exactly how much they were using, like they would less likely accidentally use too much.

Another cause for overdoses is when a patient discontinues the medication, then resumes usage assuming their previous tolerance levels. If these medicines were legal, far fewer people would need to stop using in the first place, further reducing accidents.

The other health issues with opiates are a result of unhygienic IV use. If needles were readily available, and medicines pure, there would be less health issues arising. Instead, people reuse their needles many, many times, and users may often end up injecting all sorts of materials into their blood.

[lewaldman]

The best and maybe the only approach for drugs like Heroin or Crack is (IMHO) the Swiss one:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-12-19/swiss-drug-addicts-giv...

[lukifer]

We have an existing infrastructure to handle dangerous drugs: prescriptions.

While I believe that making choices about one's own biology and consciousness is a fundamental right, there are realities of addiction and drug-seeking behavior that can't be ignored. Ensuring that a medical professional is in the loop regarding a user's drug choices (in my perfect world, even for alcohol and cigarettes) could lead to real harm reduction while respecting personal freedom.

[7952]

A concern is that the practicalities of such a legalization would just make things worse. It could make it much easier for children to get hold of. You would also need to define what is "pure" and police that for an endless list of possible products. It is difficult enough to keep salmonella out of food, effective regulation of cannabis sounds impossible. Any regulation would need to be sufficiently loose that you do not need a black market.

I would argue that the most important impact of drug use is to people who are not drug users. Any legislation should put the interests of those people first.

[Bsharp]

> It could make it much easier for children to get hold of.

There are currently no age restrictions on heroin. All a child needs is a morally-bankrupt drug dealer, which imo is easier than finding a morally-bankrupt store clerk if it were legal.

> You would also need to define what is "pure" and police that for an endless list of possible products.

'Pure' can be easily defined, and it doesn't have to be 'pure' anyway, just not increasingly harmful - beer isn't pure alcohol, McDonald's burgers aren't pure beef, etc.

> It is difficult enough to keep salmonella out of food, effective regulation of cannabis sounds impossible. Any regulation would need to be sufficiently loose that you do not need a black market.

Comparing keeping salmonella out of food to keeping drugs clean is apples and oranges - they're entirely different problems. Also, given the insane markup drugs are subject to today, primarily due to the risk of distribution, prices would fall with regulation, and imo enough to undercut any current black market. Also, the quality could be better or worse, but you know it would be safe.

[girvo]

I got addicted at 16. Was easier than convincing someone at a bottle shop to sell alcohol to me.

[7952]

> There are currently no age restrictions on heroin. All a child needs is a morally-bankrupt drug dealer, which imo is easier than finding a morally-bankrupt store clerk if it were legal.

It is very easy for underage people to get hold of alcohol. It is ridiculous to suggest that drugs would be any different. It would make it much easier to buy.

> Beer isn't pure alcohol, McDonald's burgers aren't pure beef, etc.

I still don't understand how you can regulate that. How exactly do you define "not increasingly harmful"? Presumably whatever the definition it risks creating a black market, or being very cheap; both outcomes would be negative.

> Comparing keeping salmonella out of food to keeping drugs clean is apples and oranges - they're entirely different problems.

Why? It would presumably need a similar system of inspection and rules. It doesn't just need to be safe for current drug users, but all the other people that may decide to give it a go. Why would people give up basic consumer rights?

[ahlatimer]

> It is very easy for underage people to get hold of alcohol. It is ridiculous to suggest that drugs would be any different. It would make it much easier to buy.

While I was underage (I'm 24 now, so not long ago), it was easier to find weed than it was to find alcohol. The repercussions for selling weed to a 16 year old are the same as selling weed to an 18 year old are the same as selling to a 21 year old and so on. The repercussions for selling alcohol to a 21 year old versus an 18 year old or cigarettes to an 18 year old versus a 16 year old are entirely different, in that there are none if you sell to someone of legal age.

If you're already selling an illegal substance, there's no legal reason not to sell to someone who would otherwise be under age if the substance was legalized. What you're doing is illegal either way. With alcohol and tobacco, you're asking a store clerk likely making minimum wage to take a risk so you can buy alcohol. It's just way less likely to fly.

[cdash]

As a kid, weed is easier to get than alcohol. Heroin might be less common but only because its not as popular.

[eitland]

Where I live McDonalds are the only fast food chain to hammer the fact that their burgers are 100% pure beef (produced inside the borders of my country even).

Don't know if it is correct but repeating it on tv for months sounds risky if they are lying.

[vidarh]

It is correct some places, and may now finally be correct everywhere, but especially in the US it is not all that obvious whether or not your meat is "pure" in any meaningful sense:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_slime

[mseebach]

I assume that what the GP referred to is that even though it's all "beef" (part of a cow's body), one beef product might be mostly tendons, bonemeal and fat, while another is a cut of fillet, almost 100% muscle tissue. Colloquially, I think most people would agree that the latter is more pure than the former.

[jlgreco]

When I was a teenager, it was easier for me to buy pot than beer because pot was illegal in general while beer was legally available for most of the population.

From what I have heard, this situation was not atypical.

[7952]

I think this would vary hugely by location (Europe will be different). In some places underage drinking is accepted by adults where drug use is not.

[jlgreco]

Drinking was by no means less acceptable at the time than smoking pot; the relative ease of getting pot was despite it being frowned upon much more.

Think of it this way: who requires a black market for pot? Every single person who wants pot. Who requires a black market for booze? Not everyone who wants booze... just a narrow band of people spanning 5 or 6 birth years. A group of people who tend to be rather broke.

You can find an adult or two that is willing to buy you a sixpack once in a while fairly easily, but that isn't their job, they couldn't make it their job (since the market is limited and poor), and they probably have more interesting people to hang out with. Pot though? The guy that sells the pot does it for a living. He's going to be far less flaky.

If you, as an adult in an area where medical pot is legal, try to buy pot regularly from somebody who has a medical card, you will likely find that they are less reliable than somebody who does it fulltime. As pot becomes legal to a greater portion of adults, this effect will only increase.

[7952]

Thank's that's interesting.

[dragonwriter]

> Any regulation would need to be sufficiently loose that you do not need a black market.

No, it wouldn't. There are black markets in many legal goods to evade taxes and other elements of regulation, and yet the social harms associated with such black markets tend to be much less than for similar goods that are prohibited (compare alcohol before and after Prohibition).

You mostly seem to be arguing if we can't have a perfect scheme for legalization and regulation, we should instead keep the status quo prohibition, but a legal-and-regulated scheme can be far from perfect (indeed, can even be quite bad) and be a marked improvement from the status quo.

> I would argue that the most important impact of drug use is to people who are not drug users.

I'd like to see that argument (and note that "argue" and "assert" are not the same thing.)

[7952]

> I'd like to see that argument (and note that "argue" and "assert" are not the same thing.)

Except that drugs are such a culturally charged issue that "argue" and "assert" become the same thing. Fundamentally I find the culture distasteful so I reject it. The arguments in favor seem to crassly exploit the illness of a few addicts to justify more convenient access for recreational users. This completely ignores treatment, or drug prevention in favor of a faith based approach based on barely though out laws.

[dragonwriter]

> Except that drugs are such a culturally charged issue that "argue" and "assert" become the same thing.

No, the fact that some people are emotionally invested in an issue doesn't mean that "argue" and "assert" become the same thing, its just means that "assert" becomes a lot more common than arguing.

> Fundamentally I find the culture distasteful so I reject it.

What culture?

> The arguments in favor seem to crassly exploit the illness of a few addicts to justify more convenient access for recreational users.

The arguments in favor of what?

[jack-r-abbit]

We already have two very good examples of regulating a legal drug with little or no black market: Tobacco & Alcohol

I think many of the things we've learned with regulating those drugs could be applied to a lot of other drugs.

[7952]

Both tobacco and alcohol have sizable black markets, mostly as a way to avoid tax.

[girvo]

The major impact to society is because of peripheral crime, not the use itself.