A new way to deal with ilicit drug use

This video by kurtzeght in a nutshell demonstrates the failure of the war on drugs.



Unlike most people complaining about the war on drugs, he does provide a solution, one that Switzerland did back in the 80s when the war on drugs in the US was at its height. You see, heroin usage in Switzerland was leading to Aids so they resorted to almost the opposite strategy of the US. They constructed heroin assisted treatment centers where patients were assisted with their addiction. They were given the drug all while receiving medical attention and being assisted with settling down. It reduced heroin usage by 70% and reduced heroin overdosage by at least 50%. Switzerland was far more successful in reducing drug usage than the US and it didn't need harsh sentences or drug raids to do it.

What this video doesn't mention is Portugal which heavily decriminalized drug usage and saw it drop.
This Country Cut Drug Addiction Rates in Half by Rejecting Criminalization | Alternet

Another video of theirs suggests that social interaction may help reduce drug usage



So maybe the best way to reduce drug use is to establish effective rehabilitation where people dealing with the same problem are allowed to interact.

If you're interested in the topic, I recommend this book.

Chasing the Scream | The First and Last Days of the War on Drugs

Masterhawk said:

This video by kurtzeght in a nutshell demonstrates the failure of the war on drugs.



Unlike most people complaining about the war on drugs, he does provide a solution, one that Switzerland did back in the 80s when the war on drugs in the US was at its height. You see, heroin usage in Switzerland was leading to Aids so they resorted to almost the opposite strategy of the US. They constructed heroin assisted treatment centers where patients were assisted with their addiction. They were given the drug all while receiving medical attention and being assisted with settling down. It reduced heroin usage by 70% and reduced heroin overdosage by at least 50%. Switzerland was far more successful in reducing drug usage than the US and it didn't need harsh sentences or drug raids to do it.

What this video doesn't mention is Portugal which heavily decriminalized drug usage and saw it drop.
This Country Cut Drug Addiction Rates in Half by Rejecting Criminalization | Alternet

Another video of theirs suggests that social interaction may help reduce drug usage



So maybe the best way to reduce drug use is to establish effective rehabilitation where people dealing with the same problem are allowed to interact.

Click to expand...

You don't get it. Without the war on drugs, the CIA has no way to finance their secret wars and clandestine operations that Congress will not fund. The governments both State and Federal make billions off the war on drugs and they are not about to lose their golden goose.

My stance on this has always been to illegalize the hard, purified forms of drugs while legalizing the softer ones. For example, the leaves of the coca bush were traditionally chewed by workers for energy, alcohol has long been ritualized by humans, and caffeine is a popular stimulant. Look at the ones which are partially legalized. When it comes to booze and caffeine, you can make lower strength stuff and distribute it with regulations, and things like the sale of distilled high proof liquor are banned. If liquor is controlled to reduce consumption, and the hard stuff is outright suppressed, people are likely to get their fix more safely in a less societally disruptive way. When it comes to cocaine, for example, if lesser strength, slower-acting coca-derived products were legalized, and purified cocaine strictly prohibited and its distribution punished, instead of a vibrant black market you would have a vibrant legal market which made the risks of illegal circulation much less appealing. Probably the only exception is opiates, the mode of action of which makes it a societal poison. All you have to do is to study Chinese history to see that its use must be suppressed and its distribution brutally punished. Imagine if all of the focus of the war on drugs were focused on one front: heroin. Imagine if a comprehensive solution to one specific, dire problem which incorporated treatment, pharmaceutical practice reform, the absolute suppression of distribution and a concerted assault on any criminal organization which touches opiates with a ten foot pole. It would actually do some good.

Atosaras said:

My stance on this has always been to illegalize the hard, purified forms of drugs while legalizing the softer ones. For example, the leaves of the coca bush were traditionally chewed by workers for energy, alcohol has long been ritualized by humans, and caffeine is a popular stimulant. Look at the ones which are partially legalized. When it comes to booze and caffeine, you can make lower strength stuff and distribute it with regulations, and things like the sale of distilled high proof liquor are banned. If liquor is controlled to reduce consumption, and the hard stuff is outright suppressed, people are likely to get their fix more safely in a less societally disruptive way. When it comes to cocaine, for example, if lesser strength, slower-acting coca-derived products were legalized, and purified cocaine strictly prohibited and its distribution punished, instead of a vibrant black market you would have a vibrant legal market which made the risks of illegal circulation much less appealing. Probably the only exception is opiates, the mode of action of which makes it a societal poison. All you have to do is to study Chinese history to see that its use must be suppressed and its distribution brutally punished. Imagine if all of the focus of the war on drugs were focused on one front: heroin. Imagine if a comprehensive solution to one specific, dire problem which incorporated treatment, pharmaceutical practice reform, the absolute suppression of distribution and a concerted assault on any criminal organization which touches opiates with a ten foot pole. It would actually do some good.

Click to expand...

Yours is a variation on a theme--prohibition--that has not worked EVER unless one happens to be employed by a government agency or bureau that profits from prohibition. With what comes across as a reasonable idea, you are really just putting lipstick on a pig. eace

Thoreau72 said:

Yours is a variation on a theme--prohibition--that has not worked EVER unless one happens to be employed by a government agency or bureau that profits from prohibition. With what comes across as a reasonable idea, you are really just putting lipstick on a pig. eace

Click to expand...

So our current liquor laws 'don't work', and the British market-based approach to the opium trade led to a golden age for China? The fact that countries in the far east had such first hand exposure to the ever-beneficent hand of the free market must be why they're so keen on deregulating drug use...

Atosaras said:

So our current liquor laws 'don't work', and the British market-based approach to the opium trade led to a golden age for China? The fact that countries in the far east had such first hand exposure to the ever-beneficent hand of the free market must be why they're so keen on deregulating drug use...

View attachment 67212529

Click to expand...

FYI, we (the US) had a liquor policy of prohibition with the Volstead Act and the 18th Amendment nearly a century ago. It took only a few years for the country to understand the folly and harm of prohibition, and the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th.

Prohibition is harmful to the entire country, but beneficial to the government agencies.

LEAP | Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

Thoreau72 said:

FYI, we (the US) had a liquor policy of prohibition with the Volstead Act and the 18th Amendment nearly a century ago. It took only a few years for the country to understand the folly and harm of prohibition, and the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th.

Prohibition is harmful to the entire country, but beneficial to the government agencies.

LEAP | Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

Click to expand...

I agree that ABSOLUTE prohibition is harmful, in most cases. That's why I specifically did not advocate it, instead opting for regulations which limit the scope of the market in each drug class. The solution which I advocate is to extend the current system used to regulate alcohol to other drugs.

The exception which I made was for opiates. As you are no doubt aware, the philosophy which supports the forces of the market is founded on the idea of Homo Economicus. And a drug which actually modifies the neural pathways of its users among your populace to destroy the 'rational human being' on which the assumption of every market based argument rests cannot be managed by the market. It would be like trying to manage the symptoms of rabidity through psychotherapy; at some point you have to stop the spread of the disease, if the disease by its own nature renders the standard treatment ineffective by destroying its assumption that the patient is rational.

Atosaras said:

I agree that ABSOLUTE prohibition is harmful, in most cases. That's why I specifically did not advocate it, instead opting for regulations which limit the scope of the market in each drug class. The solution which I advocate is to extend the current system used to regulate alcohol to other drugs.

The exception which I made was for opiates. As you are no doubt aware, the philosophy which supports the forces of the market is founded on the idea of Homo Economicus. And a drug which actually modifies the neural pathways of its users among your populace to destroy the 'rational human being' on which the assumption of every market based argument rests cannot be managed by the market. It would be like trying to manage the symptoms of rabidity through psychotherapy; at some point you have to stop the spread of the disease, if the disease by its own nature renders the standard treatment ineffective by destroying its assumption that the patient is rational.

Click to expand...

Under prohibition there is no regulation. For example, any given drug dealer on the street sells a bag with a white powder in it, claiming it to be heroin, for example. Close examination reveals it NOT to be heroin, but rather some toxic chemical. Buyer injects it, and dies.

Under legalization, as was practiced in this country prior to 1914, a licensed pharmacist or physician sells the powder, and it is a known quality and quantity. It is of known and regulated purity and strength, and the taxes are collected during the sale. The buyer has pure drugs with known strength.

To claim that a policy of prohibition offers regulated drugs is incorrect. It sounds nice, but it is an inaccurate statement.

And in the meantime, as LEAP points out, society at large, including tax payers, suffers greatly under prohibition.

IMO, opiates have legitimate medical uses.

Opioids on the other hand, cause far more harm than good, just like prohibition.

Thoreau72 said:

Under prohibition there is no regulation. For example, any given drug dealer on the street sells a bag with a white powder in it, claiming it to be heroin, for example. Close examination reveals it NOT to be heroin, but rather some toxic chemical. Buyer injects it, and dies.

Under legalization, as was practiced in this country prior to 1914, a licensed pharmacist or physician sells the powder, and it is a known quality and quantity. It is of known and regulated purity and strength, and the taxes are collected during the sale. The buyer has pure drugs with known strength.

To claim that a policy of prohibition offers regulated drugs is incorrect. It sounds nice, but it is an inaccurate statement.

And in the meantime, as LEAP points out, society at large, including tax payers, suffers greatly under prohibition.

Click to expand...

Just read my first post again. I advocated the system currently used for liquor, whereby you can often buy alcohol up to 151 proof legally, but there are also often restrictions placed on higher proofs. We don't have the problems observed during absolute prohibition because the incentive to form a black market is drastically reduced because you would only be selling to a tiny fringe market, which minimizes profit to a negligible point. In this analogy, people would be able to buy coke up to a certain purity level, but not beyond, with very strict penalties for violating this regulation.

Thoreau72 said:

IMO, opiates have legitimate medical uses.

Click to expand...

I agree, though in my opinion they are incredibly overprescribed.

Thoreau72 said:

Opioids on the other hand, cause far more harm than good, just like prohibition.

Click to expand...

Opiates are opioids. The mode of action applies to them as well.

Atosaras said:

Just read my first post again. I advocated the system currently used for liquor, whereby you can often buy alcohol up to 151 proof legally, but there are also often restrictions placed on higher proofs. We don't have the problems observed during absolute prohibition because the incentive to form a black market is drastically reduced because you would only be selling to a tiny fringe market, which minimizes profit to a negligible point. In this analogy, people would be able to buy coke up to a certain purity level, but not beyond, with very strict penalties for violating this regulation.



I agree, though in my opinion they are incredibly overprescribed.



Opiates are opioids. The mode of action applies to them as well.

Click to expand...

There is a difference between opiates and opioids. That's why they are 2 different words. The former are essentially natural, the latter are chemically engineered and synthetic. Having used both under prescription, and having seen too many youngsters die under the latter (despite a prescription system that basically applies your idea), the former are much safer. Still addicting, but much safer.

I'm not aware of any liquor sales models incorporating what you say above. It's not that way in Florida anyway. No, we don't have any prohibition related problems because alcohol is not prohibited. Nonetheless, we have a significant problem with DUI, but no system is perfect. Harm minimization is the goal.

I love Kurzgesagt and CGP Grey's infographic presentations, so informative. But in this case he's preaching to the choir.

Anyone who favors the effects of prohibition over the harms legal recreational use of any substance, is either ignorant of the statistics & history or lacks empathy for the suffering caused by criminals and lives ruined by enforcement.

Thoreau72 said:

There is a difference between opiates and opioids. That's why they are 2 different words. The former are essentially natural, the latter are chemically engineered and synthetic. Having used both under prescription, and having seen too many youngsters die under the latter (despite a prescription system that basically applies your idea), the former are much safer. Still addicting, but much safer.

Click to expand...

It's a nested classification. Opioids are defined by their mode of action/chemistry, opiates are a naturally derived sub-class of opioids. It's an 'all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares' sort of deal. And the reason that I don't want my system applied in this case is because only an absolute focus on the issue will work. This requires a multi-pronged approach of treatment, prescription control, and surgical strikes at cartels/distributors.

Thoreau72 said:

I'm not aware of any liquor sales models incorporating what you say above. It's not that way in Florida anyway. No, we don't have any prohibition related problems because alcohol is not prohibited. Nonetheless, we have a significant problem with DUI, but no system is perfect. Harm minimization is the goal.

Click to expand...

You can legally sell high proof (>190) liquor out of a homemade still in Florida? If so, I am surprised, as that's banned in most states in the northeast. You also need a special permit to buy it from a manufacturer in some places, and it's outright banned in others.

Atosaras said:

It's a nested classification. Opioids are defined by their mode of action/chemistry, opiates are a naturally derived sub-class of opioids. It's an 'all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares' sort of deal. And the reason that I don't want my system applied in this case is because only an absolute focus on the issue will work. This requires a multi-pronged approach of treatment, prescription control, and surgical strikes at cartels/distributors.



You can legally sell high proof (>190) liquor out of a homemade still in Florida? If so, I am surprised, as that's banned in most states in the northeast. You also need a special permit to buy it from a manufacturer in some places, and it's outright banned in others.

Click to expand...

I worked as a pharmacist assistant from about 1963 until about 1975, and became very educated under my tutor regarding drugs. Though I never attended, I was accepted at pharmacy school. I never heard the term 'opioid' until fairly recently, essentially with the advent of oxycodone.

Checking 2 older dictionaries I have, one from 1970 and another from 1984, neither of them contain the term 'opioid', though both contain the term 'opiate'. Your claim that its a nested classification sounds a bit like sophistry right now. Yes, their chemistry and mode of action are different from opiates, which I suggested in an earlier post. Opiates are basically older forms of opium, and work very well. Opioids are synthetic and chemically engineered, and their potential for abuse is well documented. In a society with a conscientious government and conscientious pharmaceutical industry, they would be abolished and abandoned. Alas, we have neither in our society.

Are we through chasing our collective tail here? Your proposal sounds good, but fails close examination. Your proposal is simply a variation on a theme, a theme of prohibition, and that has been proved a miserable failure through much of mankind's history.

Thoreau72 said:

I worked as a pharmacist assistant from about 1963 until about 1975, and became very educated under my tutor regarding drugs. Though I never attended, I was accepted at pharmacy school. I never heard the term 'opioid' until fairly recently, essentially with the advent of oxycodone.

Checking 2 older dictionaries I have, one from 1970 and another from 1984, neither of them contain the term 'opioid', though both contain the term 'opiate'. Your claim that its a nested classification sounds a bit like sophistry right now. Yes, their chemistry and mode of action are different from opiates, which I suggested in an earlier post. Opiates are basically older forms of opium, and work very well. Opioids are synthetic and chemically engineered, and their potential for abuse is well documented. In a society with a conscientious government and conscientious pharmaceutical industry, they would be abolished and abandoned. Alas, we have neither in our society.

Click to expand...

How is the mode of action different? Specifics. My training is in biology, I've done work in toxicology, so I am familiar with the literature as well. Opioids are agonists to opioid receptors, that's what defines the group. Opiates are a type of alkaloid naturally derived from the opium poppy which are also opioids, while other opioids can be either modified from naturally occurring substances or synthesized entirely. What generally varies from chemical to chemical is the method of delivery, metabolism, and side effects, but the specific receptor agonism is what ultimately causes the neurological degeneration and the strong physical addiction.

The term 'opiate' is what we use to classify the alkaloids derived from the opium poppy, it is a biochemical term carried into pharmacology. Opioid, on the other hand, is a term which describes the effects of the chemicals on the human body. All opiates are opioid receptor agonists, and therefore opioids, but not all opioid receptor agonists are naturally derived. I know it seems like hair-splitting, but accurate terminology is important if we want to communicate our points. I wouldn't expect that term to be in most dictionaries; it's a rather specific scientific one that originated and was refined mid-century.

Thoreau72 said:

Are we through chasing our collective tail here? Your proposal sounds good, but fails close examination. Your proposal is simply a variation on a theme, a theme of prohibition, and that has been proved a miserable failure through much of mankind's history.

Click to expand...

Really? Did China's prospects improve or decrease after they wrested control of the opium trade from Britain and suppressed it? You keep engaging the same line: that prohibition is always bad, and that my source is a 'variation on a theme', but we do have a historical precedent which you are not examining. Opium poppies in China today are grown and processed licitly, for limited domestic pharmaceutical consumption, and a deeply entrenched problem was rooted out through a program very similar to mine in the mid twentieth century: support, treatment, and job placement for addicts, and a hard crackdown on smugglers and illicit producers after a brief offer of clemency, coupled with a legalization and regulation of production and distribution that took in mind modest pharmaceutical needs. From 20 million addicts to less than 100,000, with a focus on the rehabilitation of addicts, public education, and the replacement of most of the cash crops with more traditional agricultural crops. That doesn't sound like miserable failure to me. Clearly, prohibition can work when not hamfisted. Just because we have a few examples of people being dismembered by cleavers, that doesn't mean that we ought to shrink away from a skilled surgeon with scalpel in hand on account of their tools bearing some passing resemblance to one another.

You may be right on the biological or chemical fine points, or you may be wrong. If you see opiates as just a class of opioids, I'm curious as to why the term 'opioid' did not arise until fairly recently, was not in a dictionary as late as 1984. Any thoughts? The first time I ever heard the term was in describing that new class of drugs, savior to mankind, represented by oxycodone. Having taken both, the opiates work for me, but the opioids are noxious.

Back on topic, your idea posted is but a variation on the theme of prohibition, and your argument for it is most unpersuasive, not compelling in the least.

Atosaras said:

You can legally sell high proof (>190) liquor out of a homemade still in Florida? If so, I am surprised, as that's banned in most states in the northeast. You also need a special permit to buy it from a manufacturer in some places, and it's outright banned in others.

Click to expand...

First of all, prohibition always results in black markets and more violence since those participating in black markets cannot use the government justice system. I have no doubt in states where high proof liquor is illegal that there is a black market for it.

Second of all, the federal government's job should not be to ban any drugs. That is a state issue at best.

Third of all, the government's job should not be to ban any drugs. Adults can make their own choices for themselves and their children. Also, banning drugs results in a police state since the only way to catch perpetrators is to go undercover and violate people's privacy and make more onerous laws to catch law breakers.