51–60 of 104 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a good point. Only prohibition works, which is why the number of opioid deaths have been going down since its inception. It is mystifying why anyone would question the efficacy of the current system
Treatment works. Partial enforcement and pandering don't work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can safely have a few drinks (or more) and feel normal the next day and go to work. You can't do that with fentanyl.
No body wants to do fentanyl though. People want to safely do Cocaine or MDMA without dying from fentanyl.
Lol people still talking about Fent but then you have Tranq which is even worse, 5 years from now you'll have the streets filled with limbless people from tranq, horrifying
Probably fair to say that neither are any good.
[flagged]
While it doesn't encompass the entire issue, China's involvement in the fentanyl (and other US drug crises) should be mentioned more often. America needs to wake up and do something—anything—about this asymmetrical warfare attack.
Heroin is close to fent in lethality, and oxycodone is next in line [2].
[1] https://nida.nih.gov/publications/research-reports/prescript...
[2] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr67/nvsr67_09-508.pdf - Figure 1.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Legalization of hard drugs doesn't work long term. If you provide all resources to people to enjoy opiates - they will have no incentive to quit. Why is this utopian view so persistent?
> If you provide all resources to people to enjoy opiates - they will have no incentive to quit. Many people, including myself, quit smoking normal cigarettes although it was highly addictive, because it was bad for health, not because of legality or cost. Of course opiates are a very different beast, but the point is that if someone wants to get drugs they will succeed, period. Expecting them to disappear just becau…
And alcohol can be used in quite a benign way. Good reason to think opioids would see an even larger decline as they are high impact and unlikely to be openly consumed for group socialization the way alcohol is.
You can argue for legalization but it is a fallacy to believe that prohibiting something is bad if you can't eliminate it 100%.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Treatment works. Partial enforcement and pandering don't work.
Exactly. Prohibition puts people into prisons (another word for treatment), where they are rehabilitated in a drug-free environment and emerge productive members of society. This is obvious because
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If you provide all resources to people to enjoy opiates - they will have no incentive to quit. Why is that a problem exactly? Also people quit smoking and drinking all the time, has nothing to do with it being legal.
The more we have to pay for each other's healthcare (insurance costs going up, ACA subsidies, maybe a future "single payer" situation), the more other people's health decisions are going to be our business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you provide all resources to people to enjoy opiates - they will have no incentive to quit. Many people, including myself, quit smoking normal cigarettes although it was highly addictive, because it was bad for health, not because of legality or cost. Of course opiates are a very different beast, but the point is that if someone wants to get drugs they will succeed, period. Expecting them to disappear just becau…
> Of course opiates are a very different beast, but the point is that if someone wants to get drugs they will succeed, period. Are you suggesting there should be no controlled chemicals? No pharmacist? >Expecting them to disappear just because they are made illegal is 100% fantasy. What if the expectation is for fewer people to use less of them due to higher hurdles?
No, that was not my point.
> What if the expectation is for fewer people to use less of them due to higher hurdles?
That's the very reason why "first dose is free". Many people are sucked into drugs consumption either for fun at parties or because they're lured into substances by "friends". Unfortunately, once they're dependent it's too late to put obstacles on their way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you provide all resources to people to enjoy opiates - they will have no incentive to quit. Many people, including myself, quit smoking normal cigarettes although it was highly addictive, because it was bad for health, not because of legality or cost. Of course opiates are a very different beast, but the point is that if someone wants to get drugs they will succeed, period. Expecting them to disappear just becau…
> Of course opiates are a very different beast, but the point is that if someone wants to get drugs they will succeed, period. Are you suggesting there should be no controlled chemicals? No pharmacist? >Expecting them to disappear just because they are made illegal is 100% fantasy. What if the expectation is for fewer people to use less of them due to higher hurdles?
This is what I advocate for. Probably way more killed by regulation here than saved. I recall accompanying someone in Mexico who had to get their life saving asthma medication in one of those unregulated pharmacies that don't ask questions, because they can't afford to see a doctor to get a prescription.