51–60 of 110 posts
Why not make trafficking the big F an offense punishable with lethal injection? Seems just.
But I don't trust our governments to administer such a policy justly. I think the false-positive execution rate would be more than I could stomach.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More drugs? Why is that bad?
Because we simultaneously give people the freedom to do whatever they want to do, and also catch them when they suffer the consequences of their actions. IMO, you either have freedom and responsibility, or control and care. I'd be ok legalizing drugs tomorrow if non-drug users do not need to subsidize the care for drug users.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cigarettes are already legal despite killing 7x as many in the US as all opioids combined every day, week, month, and year. US drug policy is not about harm reduction or life saving, and never has been.
> Cigarettes are already legal despite killing 7x as many in the US as all opioids combined Is that true? I am not denying it, but the opiate overdose rate is staggering.
Whether they are a fair comparison I'm not sure. It might be more accurate to say that while fentanyl can kill you, cigarettes make you live less long, rather than to say they kill you. No one drops dead from lighting a cigarette. Meanwhile, if it weren't for unreliable dosing due to black market pressures, I'm not sure regular, reliably dosed opiate usage would kill you slow the way cigarettes do.[citation needed] Anecdotally, I've noticed that ex junkies often look ten years younger than they have any right to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oregon tried it, and it failed. So no, not they way they did it. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/oregon-governor-signs-...
Oregon legalized it and then skipped doing any of the other stuff that was advertised as coming with it, like free addiction treatment, social programs, etc. It's a 'we've done nothing and we're all out of ideas' approach consistent with the state's approach to homelessness at various levels, where agencies won't even spend the money they already have because they don't even know roughly how many homeless people ther…
The problem with local approaches to dealing with the homeless crisis is that the better you do, the worse your problem becomes. Portland doesn’t just grow homeless on trees, they have one of the busiest greyhound stations in the country, and everyone else is just so much at dealing with the problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oregon tried it, and it failed. So no, not they way they did it. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/oregon-governor-signs-...
Oregon decriminalized simple possession by end users. You would still need to purchase the drugs from the exact illicit supply chain the DEA is profiling here, so it's no surprise it didn't solve the overdose crisis. Under legalization you could buy an exact dose from a licensed supplier.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Opiates, and many classes of illegal drugs, do very little harm. Addiction is the main feature, and if the substance has no artificial scarcity, addiction is easy to manage. There is no basis on harm reduction for the drug policies being pursued in most of the world
Tell this to the addicts who live on my sidewalk. Many of them got started on pain killers, and now they're permanently bent over in the fentanyl flop; I'd be astounded if any of them ever get better.
So maybe start with a quarter tablet? .. Genuine question: How does it make fiscal business sense to kill your customers after one hit? Edit: thank you all for your informative replies
Towards the end, he was on Actiq, a lozenge form of fentanyl citrate iirc. Supposedly it was strong enough to be fatal for someone without any opioid tolerance.
These pills are probably much the same. Strong enough to get someone high who has built up a tolerance to everything else, but also strong enough to kill the uninitiated.