
Kofi Annan on Why It's Time to Legalize Drugs - citizensixteen
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/kofi-annan-on-why-drug-bans-are-ineffective-a-1078402.html
======
Synaesthesia
The drug problem was studied years ago by the RAND corporation and the US
Military - a pure cost-benefit analysis. They found that treatment and
education are the most cost effective way to deal with the drug problem, and
that prohibition was the most costly and ineffective means of dealing with it.

Therefore the government understands that the war on drugs is likely to be
unsuccessful, and we have to ask ourselves, why do they persist with it? A few
reasons present themselves: Ideological motivations, they just don't like the
drugs. The fact that if you terrify the population you can use that as means
for greater political control and discipline. And the fact that Tobacco and
Alcohol companies would likely suffer as a result of drug legalisation, like
cannabis.

Lastly the CIA has been found to be involved in the drug trade on a vast
scale. This is not a conspiracy, there are many well-documented books on this.
They need large sums of untraceable money for clandestine operations, and
drugs are an ideal source of this.

[http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR331.html](http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR331.html)

Noam Chomsky on the War on Drugs:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-JX0yXDlh8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-JX0yXDlh8)

~~~
puranjay
I always wonder what would happen to drug use if it was widely and easily
available. Would usage drop because it wouldn't be "rebellious" to get drugs?

That was at least the motivation for a lot of younger drug users I know.

In my country (India), there is a region in the Himalayas - Kasaul - where
marijuana grows in the wild. It is so easily accessible that you can literally
pluck some on a walk through the forest.

You'd expect with such easy availability, the locals would be all addled on
weed/hashish all the time. Yet, most locals tend to be non-users. Most users
tend to be tourists and outsiders who come solely for the purportedly "best in
the world" hashish

~~~
analog31
In the US culture, I think a lot would depend on marketing and advertising.
Consider the marketing of high fructose corn syrup, which is cheap, legal,
hardly "rebellious," possibly a sort of low-grade high, and consumed in toxic
quantities.

I'm not arguing against legalization. But I had a similar conversation with my
kids about legalizing pot. I told them that whatever the health aspects of pot
use are, the pot industry would use all of the tactics of the tobacco
industry, to market pot as "cool" and perfectly safe.

~~~
drumdance
High fructose corn syrup isn't marketed to consumers. It's marketed to
corporations that otherwise would use sugar. Sugar is much more expensive in
the US than elsewhere because of BS tariffs advocated for by Florida sugar
barons.

~~~
analog31
True, the analogy isn't perfect, but I think it serves as a model for
designing and marketing substances that are cheap, addictive, and ultimately
toxic.

------
atemerev
Here's what we have in Switzerland:

[http://www.premiereligne.ch/quai9/](http://www.premiereligne.ch/quai9/)

(basically, a drug user's paradise: a "consumption space" injection rooms,
clean drugs available, medical attention and reanimation in case of overdose,
therapy programs and support programs with the intention to help people quit
drugs without stigmatizing them and pushing them to it).

It is immensely successful. Drug crime becoming nonexistent here. The number
of drug users is also decreasing, as drugs are now decriminalized, uncool,
readily available and coming with friendly doctors and therapists.

~~~
saiya-jin
Wait, you are talking maybe about heroin addicts beyond saving. But if you
just want to buy some weed, you definitely must go to shady characters
standing on corners of dark streets in the night, and buy overpriced at-best-
mediocre-quality stuff from there (I am not racist or anything, but 100% of
them in Geneva are black - that's 5 years of experience). Police guys are
constantly patrolling these areas (often with dogs), dealers are super
suspicious that you are an undercover cop etc.

if you get caught with tiny amount (< 1g) at the border, you will face harsh
fine, full body cavity inspection etc.

Nah, this country is definitely not a paradise, just there are worse places.

~~~
kerryfalk
"I am not racist or anything, but 100% of them in Geneva are black - that's 5
years of experience"

...it doesn't seem far of a stretch to make the leap to using your statement
here to indicate that you may in fact be racist.

There was no reason to indicate their race, so why do it? Did they have blue
eyes, too? What can I infer from shady blue-eyed people on street corners
selling me drugs?

~~~
RIMR
Geneva is something like 0.1% black. If in 5 years of buying drugs, you find
that ~80% of your dealers are black, then I think you can make the assumption
that most drug dealers in Geneva are black. I don't see that as racism -
that's just a statement of fact.

Now, if you carried that one step further and said that black people in Geneva
are probably drug dealers, then yeah, that's racist...

~~~
morninj
I think the idea is that the racial parenthetical is completely irrelevant. It
adds no meaning except to underline the point about "shady characters."

~~~
saiya-jin
that was not the intent... those guys have probably some tough lives behind
them and no future here, living often without permit on the fringe of society.
it's just that meeting them in dark alleys after dark, being surrounded by
suspicion etc. ain't activity I do for pleasure or some weird kick out of it;
just a necessary evil.

~~~
morninj
OK, but their race is still irrelevant.

~~~
hansihe
But there is no reason not to point it out. He made an observation about the
drug dealers in his area, and mentioned it. I don't see why there would be
anything more to it than that.

------
iDemonix
Portugal seems to be doing better from decriminalising (obviously not the same
as legalisation).

Source: [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-
decr...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-
decriminalised-drugs-14-years-ago-and-now-hardly-anyone-dies-from-
overdosing-10301780.html)

Source: [http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blog/drug-decriminalisation-
portugal-...](http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blog/drug-decriminalisation-portugal-
setting-record-straight)

Wiki:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal)

~~~
sergiosgc
I'm Portuguese, so let me give a local perspective. It is important to note
that Portugal had a very low crime rate to begin with and, in comparison, drug
problems smaller than the US. The experience may not translate directly.

Nevertheless, decriminalization of consumption (not traffic), has allowed drug
users to reach out for treatment, which led to better statistics on drug use,
better approaches to treatment and an overall decrease in hard-core drug use
(cocaine, meth and such). Cannabis use is up from then, but that is perhaps an
observation bias (better statistics).

The result of lower hard drug use is a lower crime rate. That effect is clear
as water. It is now obvious that most crime had drug use as its cause.

Interestingly, there was a social effect that may be hard to reproduce. Hard
drugs fell out of fashion. While cannabis is widespread in youth events, hard
drug use is socially shunned. Perhaps the visibility of its effects hit the
population, perhaps the relative personal cost became obvious, but it is
certainly uncool to be a hard drug user.

------
cubano
I've always thought that, in the US, that States could provide a perfect
market testing platform for various social ideas.

You don't want abortion? Make Kansas, say, a no abortion state.

Legalized drugs? Head your head to Colorado.

Socialism? Sure New Hampshire is almost there already anyway.

Well, you get the point. It's been proven that actual markets almost always
work as well if not better than diktat, so these "experiments" could be
monitored and all the rest.

I mean, why not give something totally new a try?

What we have now is killing people and ruining their lives as I personally
live through its failings everyday.

~~~
hackerboos
The US works well because it's united at the federal level. What you are
suggesting would only work if that level didn't exist.

~~~
existencebox
This is a funny statement to me, since the initial federalization was supposed
to exist without predisposing a much greater exercise in states rights than
what we see today. (far fewer constraints on state law from federal)

I'd adjust your statement: "What you are suggesting would only work if the
level (of federal power we have NOW) didn't exist"

That all being said, I'm not even sure my full level of pessimism is merited;
certain states had been independently experimenting with e.g. health care
reform 10+ years ago which ended up forming the basis for the ACA. This sort
of state based trial seems like it s exactly what the parent was suggesting,
and what was alluded to in Brandeis's famous "Laboratories of democracy" quote
that seems very apt to this discussion.

~~~
linkregister
This is a funny statement to me, since it ignores everything that happened
after 1789. The evolution of a more centralized government was the result of
conscious decisions by the public and lawmakers to overcome the challenges of
a loose confederation.

Hell, the Constitution itself was drafted to solve the problem of arbitrarily
differing business rules and trade agreements between the several states.

~~~
existencebox
I'm not sure how anything I said "ignores post 1789". In fact, my statement is
precisely calling out that our history is one of incremental codification and
precedent forming which has tended to constrain state vs federal power. In
fact I feel like I'd be "ignoring" more had I argued the opposite point, that
states still had as significant power as they once did, since that power
balance was tested as quickly as 2 years later in 1791.

As you say; it was drafted to solve the problem of differing business
rules/trade, but the scope was originally VERY limited to interstate commerce.
I simply don't see how it can be argued against that the purview has pretty
distinctly expanded from then on.

~~~
linkregister
No you're right; I didn't fully comprehend your post. I thought you were
disagreeing with the parent post but you were in fact qualifying it. I agree
with everything you said.

------
pdkl95
The best argument I know for legalizing drugs is the _market_ argument. As
long as demand exist (obvious, or nobody would care), supply will rise to meet
it. Law enforcement tactics that see rising drug prices as a sign of success
only make the market more profitable.

While many people engage in the popular delusion that people stop an activity
when you pass laws banning, it's patently obvious that banning drugs is about
as successful _de facto_ as banning abortions. This means the real question
isn't about the _existence_ of a market for drugs.

Instead, laws that affect the market for drugs are about who is allowed to be
the "supply" side of the equation. Obviously, some type of regulated market
would be recommended if we want to have any amount of control over the market.
Instead, we pass laws that ban legitimate businesses from entering this
market, which is _by definition_ a _choice_ to turn the drug market over to
criminals. By definition.

I suggest that _choosing_ to give organized crime and violent gangs the
profits from this high-value market. Usually, this is when prohibitionists
claim that they can force the market to not exist by giving the supply side
even _more_ profit with ever stricter enforcement.

~~~
ThrustVectoring
And when the market is more profitable, it becomes more worth your while to
engage in violent crime in order to further your drug-dealing interests. Fast
food franchises generally don't engage in turf wars, and that's because fast
food is a low-margin business. If dealing drugs becomes similarly low-margin,
I suspect that will deal with a lot of drug-related violence.

------
mjw_byrne
There's a strong parallel between drug policy and sex education policy. If you
acknowledge that sex is a thing people are simply going to do and you give
them the information they need to do it safely and throw in a free condom or
two, STDs and unwanted pregnancies are kept under good control. If your policy
is "you don't need education and condoms if you just don't do it!" then STDs
and unwanted pregnancies soar.

In the case of drugs, it is clear that people will use them regardless. So the
question for policymakers can't be "how do we stop people using drugs?", it
has to be "given that people will use drugs, how do we minimise the harm
caused?"

The other interesting parallel is ashtrays in aeroplane toilets. Supposedly
they're there because sometimes, despite the warnings and no-smoking signs,
people light up in the loo anyway. It's better for them to have an ashtray to
put the cigarette out in than to try to improvise and possibly start a fire.
In a situation where a planeload of passenger's lives could be at stake,
there's no room for moral grandstanding - they've done the pragmatic thing and
realised that when total prohibition cannot be enforced, you simply do what
you can to minimise the damage.

~~~
conceit
> how do we minimise the harm caused?"

I know one: we advertise drugs in movies and on billboards and put a liquor
store on every other street corner, Oughta show'em.

------
topsphere
New video on drug war by Kurzgesagt (excellent to get an overview):
[https://youtu.be/wJUXLqNHCaI](https://youtu.be/wJUXLqNHCaI)

~~~
collinmanderson
Kurzgesagt videos are the best. I found this one very helpful.

------
oh_sigh
I love how all these world leaders always come out for drug legalization
_after_ they are out of power. Great timing.

~~~
hackerboos
Actually the UN thinks this already but politics got in the way of a statement
being released:

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11940643/United...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11940643/United-
Nations-denies-global-drug-decriminalisation-claim-by-Sir-Richard-
Branson.html)

------
kazinator
One problem is that some people's careers in law enforcement are built on the
"war on drugs". They need drugs to be illegal in order to justify the
existence of their jobs and the meaning of their entire working lives so far.

------
pigpaws
legalize, standardize, regulate, tax, repeat. Why is this so difficult to
understand?

~~~
lisivka
We have enough problems with already legalized and standardized drugs: alcohol
and tobacco. It is not wise to let smokers to increase burden on society.

~~~
ZenoArrow
You don't reduce usage of drugs by criminalising them. That's what this
article is all about. If you're interested in seeing the negative effects of
drug use decrease, then you should be looking at other approaches other than
criminalisation.

------
talles
> By contrast, there has been a near tripling of American deaths from heroin
> overdoses between 2010 and 2013, even though the law and its severe
> punishments remain unchanged.

But why heroin usage has raised?

I have read an (very convincing) argument that heroin usage is increasing due
to the marijuana legalization. And no, it's not the typical "marijuana is a
door the heavier drugs" thing, is merely supply and demand effect on the
streets. Street dealers don't really sell weed as they used to now that better
and legal weed exist, so they went on heroin. Heroin got a lot cheaper and
widely available due to it (Unfortunately, I lost the article link).

I'm not arguing in favor or against legalization (I'm in favor all the way),
my complain is how one folded the debate is. Numbers are great and they are
definitely needed, but they may trick you into thinking that everything has a
simple cause and effect when reality is much more complicated.

One striking example how lazy is legislation is the case of safer chemicals
such as LSD or MDMA versus designer drugs such as 25i (nbomb). In some places
such designer drugs are even legal (bath salts anyone?) due to how slow or
careless the legislation is. As for LSD it's a long time in prison. The
dealers are coerced to sell more dangerous substances.

~~~
humbleMouse
"Street dealers don't really sell weed as they used to now that better and
legal weed exist, so they went on heroin."

This is an extremely misguided statement. The demand for high quality weed has
never been higher. It doesn't matter if you legalize it, because you are still
taxing it 50%. The individual sellers and producers will keep doing their
thing. I can tell you right now that people who sell weed don't just magically
start selling heroin. The types of people who sell weed are TOTALLY different
that the types of people who sell heroin.

Yes, some people exist who sell both - but those types of dealers have been
selling every kind of drug they can get their hands on and will never stop.

I think you need to take another look at the supply and demand of high quality
marijuana. It is hard to consistently produce high quality marijuana - and
once you do cure it correctly and get it packaged, it flies off the shelf as
fast as you can answer your phone, regardless of if you are in a state where
it is legal or not. Furthermore, there are many people who deliver marijuana
on bikes and in cars and make a very good living. These people are not going
to loose business to legal dispensaries I can guarantee you. There is always
demand for reliable dealers who deliver high quality to you asap. Independent
producers and dealers will be able to consistently undercut dispensary prices
because the government is taxing it 50%. Combined with the value of delivery
and you are not going to see marijuana dealers switch to selling heroin
because weed is legalized.... it doesnt work that way. Two completely
different clientele/lifestyle/risk factors.

~~~
talles
> The demand for high quality weed has never been higher.

That's my point too. And I believe that this increase in demand for high
quality weed made many street dealers that sell shitty weed go for heroin. Now
heroin is a cheap and common option at your local street corner.

> (...) those types of dealers have been selling every kind of drug they can
> get their hands on and will never stop.

Exactly. As you put it, they will never stop. It's time to realize that and
include them on the equation. Why there aren't policies coercing the typical
street dealer to sell safer drugs rather than weird dangerous experimental
stuff (like on LSD vs Nbomb)?

~~~
humbleMouse
I guess to clarify is that what I see (Minneapolis-based) is that weed dealers
tend to deal strictly with weed, and the other type of dealer just sells
anything and everything they can get their hands on.

Furthermore, the weed dealers I know who have been doing it for 10 years+ have
no intentions to stop making money when it is legalized here at some point.
They are not going to start selling heroin.

In Minneapolis all of our high quality weed basically gets driven here from
LA/Colorado/Anywhere people have grow houses. The keyword here is "high
quality". Anybody selling low quality weed is definitely selling coke/heroin
as well. That's just the nature of the market here.

I guess I am kind of rambling but I find the economics of black markets
fascinating. My main point is that I contend your claim that street dealers
who sell shitty weed are now "switching" to heroin. This is just not true, and
doesnt make sense. If you are selling heroin, you are one of those dealers who
will sell ANYTHING you can get your hands on, including shitty weed/good
weed/coke/whaetever. Once a dealer decides to sell things that come with heavy
jail time then they dont give a fuck what they are selling. They are just in
it for the $$$

~~~
talles
> Once a dealer decides to sell things that come with heavy jail time then
> they dont give a fuck what they are selling. They are just in it for the $$$

They just don't care for the penalty (jail time) so they will sell anything
for money, there's nothing we can do about it. This thinking is precisely what
I'm criticizing, this one folded way to analyze the problem.

Let's take LSD vs Nbomb example once again. Making LSD is extremely hard
specially because how hard is to find the ingredients. Nbomb is a piece of
cake. Here's an example which there's nothing to do with addiction or
punishment, it's just the plain practicality of dealing with the substances.

Maybe there's a way to set up an environment where the law breakers would
still do it while causing less harm on society. That's the discussion I'm
missing, how we coerce the bad guys to not be so bad.

------
skyhatch1
We were taught both sides of the story in our "drug diversion impact on public
health" classes. Decriminalisation opens opportunities up to reduce harm to
the public through reduced drug-related crimes, safer injecting (of the hard
stuff) and less blood-borne viruses spreading. Australia has its own version
of decriminalization known as the "harm minimisation policy". While all drug-
related activities are illegal there, the judicial and healthcare systems are
not so black and white about enforcing the laws.

Nonetheless, the other hand always wants its share. In the case of Australia,
harm minimisation has reduced drug-related crimes, but the prevalence of drug
use in the general population continues to rise, especially with regard to
pills and amphetamines. Blood borne viruses are also on the rise, despite the
ubiquity of safe injecting rooms in every major city and availability of
"sharps kits" in every retail pharmacy.

Interestingly, the conservative party temporarily swayed from this stance and
implemented a "tough on drugs" policy for part of the 90s[1]. It was dubbed to
the wider public as a "harm prevention" measure i.e. protecting those yet to
experiment with drugs and the wider community that didn't use illicit drugs
regularly. There was a significant reduction in every measure: drug use, drug
crime and spread of blood-borne viruses. This policy did not cut safe
injecting and drug use services, but increased police activity and ephemeral
"say no to drugs" cut-through education programs. The policy was reversed in
the early 2000s.

[1]
[https://www.unodc.org/documents/ungass2016/Contributions/Civ...](https://www.unodc.org/documents/ungass2016/Contributions/Civil/Dalgarno/30Years_of_HarmMinimisation_FinalUNGASS.pdf)

------
harel
ALL drugs should be legal. At least in the sense that using is not a criminal
offence. Once drugs are legalised, regulated, quality assured by the
government, and of course taxed, a large proportion of crime will be
eradicated. Why would I buy illegal dirty drugs when I can buy the cleaner
official versions?

------
iolothebard
Lots of money in law enforcement, prisons, etc.

Just like getting simple tax code, lots of accountants/lawyers, etc.

------
bunkydoo
I think if drugs themselves were legalized, non-violent drug offenders
pardoned, and then former drug trafficking cartels treated legally as
terrorist organizations - we would get somewhere. I really have no problem
tight packing prisons if it's full of violent thugs. The only problem is how
this could potentially affect the second amendment - because the war on drugs
would no longer be on unarmed drug users, it would be solely on violence.
Using an umbrella term like terrorism to encompass the actions of cartel gang
members could potentially lead to further racial divides. It's tough. But
legalize pot please, ha!

~~~
jernfrost
Treating terrorist organizations like terrorist organizations hasn't really
helped either. The war on terror, is just as failed as the war on drugs.
Basically the hard nosed simple approaches never work. You got to look and
underlying causes and deal with those. But that is too intricate so people
don't want to listen to such solutions.

Problem with tight packing is that lots of the criminals wont be violent but
will become in these prisons, and those who are violent will become even more
so. Unless you plan building prisons only for life sentences these people will
come out of prison more violent and messed up than ever. That hardly a receipt
for a more peaceful society.

As long as people are going to get out at some point, you can't ignore what
happens to them while they are incarcerated.

------
lossolo
What about people that are involved in illegal drug industry after legalizing
drugs? Most of them know only how to deal drugs, know only crime, they will
need to find new way to make money and probably it will not be a legal one. So
i don't know if it's better that someone stay on corner and sell cocaine to
people that WANT cocaine, without (in most cases) hurt anyone else in the
process OR make that person steal, extort etc.

~~~
tomp
The beauty of drug dealing (from a criminal's perspective) is that it's _easy_
and _profitable_ \- there's a high demand from customers willing to spend a
lot of money on drugs, and enforcement is very poor (judging from the ease
end-users can buy drugs). Prostitution is very similar. So, if you legalize
all businesses with which criminals easily earn a lot of money, a lot of them
will be economically incentivised to start participating in legal businesses.

~~~
cm2187
And the alternative ways to make money for a self respecting criminal are
getting harder every day. Cars are more difficult to steal, people use a lot
less cash, you have CCTVs everywhere, now the police even collects DNA for a
robbery. I can't think of an obvious substitute to drug trafficking for these
criminals. I would be also ready to bet that Tinder must have made a dent in
the prostitution trade!

But not all drug traffickers are Tony Montanas, there are legions of petty
criminals, or even workers who make money on the side dealing drugs.

~~~
anon4
They could always open a bank or become a hedge fund manager...

------
frogpelt
Forget questions of legality.

Stop and ask this question: Why do we as a society need more and more and MORE
mind-altering substances to cope with life?

Seriously.

Is society headed in the right direction if almost everyone needs some type of
external chemical influence just to get through the week?

I already have an answer.

~~~
droffel
> Stop and ask this question: Why do we as a society need more and more and
> MORE mind-altering substances to cope with life?

Citation needed.

> Is society headed in the right direction if almost everyone needs some type
> of external chemical influence just to get through the week?

Who are you to decide what the "right direction" is, for anyone but yourself?
Right vs Wrong is a moral judgement, not a legal one. No one should have the
right to tell me what I (or anyone else) can put into my body. On a similar
note, I think assisted suicide should be legal as well, but that's a
discussion for another day.

~~~
frogpelt
Believe me. People everywhere who think just like you have decided what the
right direction is.

------
timwaagh
he did not say this when he still had anything to say. he could have made a
difference.

------
gohrt
nitpick but important: it's time to _decriminalize_ , not _legalize_.

The distinction is that we need to maintain a government force to compel the
non-use of drugs that cause public harm. We need to make drug-use punishable,
on the level of littering, trespass, vandalism, and disturbing the peace.

We need to be able to confine people who lose control of themselves and cause
public harm when they are high, or in service of their high, but that
confinement should be treatment oriented, not punishment oriented.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The distinction is that we need to maintain a government force to compel the
> non-use of drugs that cause public harm. We need to make drug-use
> punishable, on the level of littering, trespass, vandalism, and disturbing
> the peace.

All of those except littering are generally nontrivial crimes (misdemeanors or
felonies, not infractions), so making drug use punishable "on the level of"
those is not only not legalization, its also not decriminalization.

(Actually, since drug _use_ isn't generally criminal now -- possession, which
is usually a prerequisite to use, is -- it would just be plain
_criminalization_ of drug use.)

------
volune
It's cowardly to display these opinions after you have left office. When he
had any kind of power to do anything, he toed the line.

------
robmcm
It will be interesting to see what happens when we reach a position where
virtual drugs are possible, or virtual reality can be as addictive and
detrimental to ones life as being addicted to chemicals.

Can you ban math(s)?

~~~
fredley
In terms of banning mathematics, the UK Government is trying its hardest to
outlaw strong encryption, so...

------
ommunist
Decriminalising ganja will also boost textile industry.

~~~
coldtea
Not really, since the textile plants are of different varieties of canabis,
and already allowed in lots of countries.

~~~
ommunist
I actually tried to make a business plan on that in one country. To my
surprise there is a huge burden of proving what exact varieties are you
growing and your entire textile crops can be destroyed by police raid just out
of suspicion.

------
transfire
No one loves freedom anymore.

------
anon4
What about the fact that drugs are incompatible with the lifestyle we want our
society to have? Isn't it better instead of legalizing them to find the root
cause which is forcing these people to seek escapism from reality in
psychoactive substances?

I don't want to live in a society of drug addicts, I want to live among people
of sound mind, body and spirit, who conduct themselves honestly and honourable
among their peers.

~~~
parenthephobia
> What about the fact that drugs are incompatible with the lifestyle we want
> our society to have? Isn't it better instead of legalizing them to find the
> root cause which is forcing these people to seek escapism from reality in
> psychoactive substances?

Should we be fighting all forms of escapism? Movies, books, comics, computer
games? Daydreaming?

If not, why are "drugs" different?

Does this apply to all psychoactive substances? Tobacco? Alcohol? Chocolate?
Nutmeg?

> I don't want to live in a society of drug addicts, I want to live among
> people of sound mind, body and spirit, who conduct themselves honestly and
> honourable among their peers.

Wouldn't we all? I do not think that eradicating drug use will bring about
this this utopia, though.

~~~
frogpelt
It's ridiculous and juvenile to make these kinds of comparisons.

Do people escape through books and movies? Not usually to the point that they
become dangerous.

Let's be adults here.

------
smegel
It really is a difficult problem. Sweden legalized heroin in the 60s and it
was a disaster. On the other hand, enforcement only has a moderate impact, but
comes at a huge financial and social cost. And while I don't support it, the
only country with a measure of success seems to be Singapore, where you just
hang anyone who has more than single dose in their possession. Maybe the grim
reality is hanging a few hundred people a year would cause less social harm
than letting drugs fester away at society taking how many thousands of lives a
year, not to mention the countless lives destroyed by mass incarceration and
the financial burden to society.

~~~
ghshephard
Singapore is somewhat unique in that it's a country with very restricted
freedoms, which have been given up in exchange for security/safety. It's
extraordinarily rule-bound, and, in many ways, is the antithesis of the United
States, in which freedoms reign. In such a structured, government controlled
and monitored society, all sorts of rules can be laid down, and enforced
through strict punishment. I wouldn't try and use it as a model for other
countries.

But - hey, might be worth executing anybody who uses drugs to see what
happens. But I hope you're going to start with the really destructive ones,
like Alcohol and Nicotine _before_ you start looking at the less harmful ones
such as cannabis.

~~~
user_0001
>in which freedoms reign.

Really? Looking beyond what is drilled in to the population from birth and the
US is very rule bound in my experience compared to Europe. Whilst over there I
got ticketed for parking at the wrong angle, crossing the road in the wrong
place. Granted not a rule, but got questions by police for walking and many
other situations I forget.

Perhaps European countries have this many rules / laws but I have never
experienced them being enforced

~~~
fapjacks
As a habitual rule-breaker since birth, I can confirm that the US is actually
very rule-bound. In fact most rule-breaking is punished, _even in places that
supposedly encourage breaking the rules_. And this has gotten even more so
since 9/11\. Want proof? Just look at the evolution of university computer
networks. I've spent a lot of time in university (doing nothing mostly) and
the networks are _locked down_ compared to the atmosphere of open
experimentation that was prevalent in the 90s. There are many, many examples
to back the claim made by the parent. The US is _not_ as free of a nation as
everyone says.

------
wfunction
Is there evidence to show that legalizing drugs (I don't mean e.g. tobacco
here; I mean the far more dangerous ones) won't significantly increase their
consumption?

I ask because, unless there is, I'm afraid I do not understand why it would be
rational to do so...

~~~
Yaggo
Far more dangerous ones, such as alcohol? Tobacco is already the 6th dangerous
drug in the world.

[http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/whats-most-
dangerous-...](http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/whats-most-dangerous-
drug-world-according-science)

~~~
wfunction
By "dangerous" I meant in the typical, colloquial sense (e.g. more likely to
kill you in a shorter amount of time or what have you)...

~~~
shawabawa3
I think you've taken in too much drug war propaganda.

Heroin, if unadulterated, is incredibly safe.

There are virtually no long-term health effects, and most overdoses/deaths are
caused by it being unknown quality or cut with dangerous substances.[1] The
only reason it's dangerous is prohibition

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin#Adverse_effects](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin#Adverse_effects)

~~~
pbhjpbhj
So heroin isn't clinically addictive and one can't overdose on it?

~~~
adrusi
Heroin isn't significantly more addictive than cigarettes.

You can also easily overdose from nicotine, its just that this is mitigated by
the relatively slow delivery mechanism, which makes it so that you get
terribly sick before you could consume lethal quantities.

If we can come up with an effective delivery method then heroin would be no
more dangerous than cigarettes (sort of, you still can't, for example, drive
on heroin, but also it doesn't destroy your body long term).

Perhaps heroin could be adultrated with a chemical that causes nausea when
consumed in an amount proportional to a dangerous level of heroin. This would
help heroin users build the same negative associations with high doses that
cigarette smokers do, and could make them unable to consume more.

~~~
hvindin
While I enjoy the concept that heroin might be in some way similar to nocotine
beyond both of the substances being tangible psychoactive, it does frighten me
that this is actually an opinion people legitimately have.

Given that when the supply chain of heroin is disrupted the most statistically
significant cause of eratic behaviour in users is that it just _hurts so much_
I suspect its a little different to nicotine.

If you are interested in understanding drivers of addiction I would recommend
looking at cases where people are forced into withdrawals.

For example:
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955395915...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955395915002455)

Although I recall another article published ages ago (early 80s) which had an
interesting economic analysis of the elasticity of heroin prices, to
paraphrase, resulting from what is essentially inflicting pain on users until
they will pay yur asking price.

I would love someone to draw the connections to nictonine withdrawals

~~~
nowrongstop
Absolutely.

Symptoms of nicotine withdrawal - agitation, anxiety, difficulty
concentrating.

Without access to heroin or opiates, you are in for 7 days of anguish, intense
feelings of guilt, shame, darkness, self recrimination, horrible
introspection, and if given the chance to end the suffering you will take more
heroin, putting you back at square one.

If you soldier on, you are in for at least 3 weeks of not feeling yourself.

Best bet is to detox with suboxone, then taper suboxone, do not stay on
suboxone more than 30 days or you will just be addicted to that.

Gabapentin will really help the process, you will feel almost normal after
stopping the suboxone.

If you have friends addicted, this is the most pain free way to get them off.

Heroin -> suboxone 30 days -> gabapentin 30-60 days.

That recipe can get anyone with a habit off heroin almost painlessly.

Depending on the length of your habit, you might still not feel great after
all that. Cannabis and tianeptine are your best friends in that case. That
will get you back in shape.

After this you will see that heroin, while beautifully seductive and glorious,
is a dead end in prohibitionist america.

I believe it only would have a place for someone elderly and infirmed, who
could take it without interruption for the rest of their life. For those cases
I think it is underused.

If you are young and healthy, it will only make your life worse than it was
before you started.

------
jernfrost
One thing I am surprised by is that it is almost never mentioned how China
became drug free after Britain made China into the biggest dope user through
the Opium wars.

They virtually got rid of opium usage in a relatively short time, and they did
it without any sort of war on drugs approach.

They certainly fought the drug usage but they did not imprison or blame drug
users. Rather than told abusers they were victims who needed help. They were
given education to cope with addiction, jobs etc. Even drug dealers were,
except the worst ones who were imprisoned.

It might have helped the narrative that they could blame Britain as the evil
doer.

While not the same as legalization it does have some resemblance to the
Portuguese approach where the focus is on helping people taken for abuse
rather than punishing or imprisoning.

~~~
adrianm
China is virtually drug free?

In that case, Wikipedia could use your help cleaning up this and many related
articles:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_drug_trade_in_China](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_drug_trade_in_China)

Don't forget to cite your sources! They're sticklers about that sort of thing.

~~~
jernfrost
> how China became drug free after Britain made China into the biggest dope
> user through the Opium wars.

I referring to the period following the opium ban. I believe this was the 50s,
not the present day. We are also comparing to an insanely high level were the
claims was that 90% of inhabitants of certain provinces were users.

~~~
alvarosm
If you're referring to the 1850s that's simply false:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_opium_in_China#/med...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_opium_in_China#/media/File:Opium_imports_into_China_1650-1880_EN.svg)

If you're referring to the decades since the 1950s, under a communist regime
the Chinese obviously had better things to worry about (like surviving,
finding a meal or looking commie enough not to be singled out by their own
children and 're-educated' in some hellish camp).

------
ommunist
In the meanwhile NASA found a planet covered with marijuana.
[http://newswatch28.com/nasa-discovers-new-planet-covered-
wit...](http://newswatch28.com/nasa-discovers-new-planet-covered-with-
marijuana/) Can these two agencies be in cahoots?

~~~
StavrosK
That article is obviously fake, yet too unfunny to be a joke. Ouch.

