> Very well aware of that, just replying to the claims of the parent comment specifically.
Fair enough -- if it read as at all speaking down to you, I did not intend for it to be that way.
> All recreational drugs should be legalized.
I very strongly disagree that _all_ recreational drugs should be legalized. To some extent, I agree on the less addictive substances (marijuana, psilocybin), but not on drugs that are surprisingly addictive, such as heroin, methamphetamine, or cocaine.
Besides interpersonal harm (such as overdoses, intoxicated driving and its victims, economic decision making, spread of disease from sharing needles), the societal impact would be non-trivial with increased availability of intoxicants for people that rely on government services or otherwise are not net contributors to society. Legalizing recreational drugs while also believing in a societal "safety net" suggests also a level of comfort of increased taxation to subsidize the increasing numbers of addicted people, as well as providing increased medical and police services to communities.
I did cocaine every day, multiple times a day for over a year. It was easy to stop though, unlike marijuana for me. I've also done heroin and meth, but I never felt compelled to do them often unlike I did with certain psychedelic drugs. Just an anecdote.
As for your other concerns, I disagree. Availability is no issue in any major US city. Overdoses happen more frequently by not knowing the purity of a substance, and when people are terrified to go to the hospital or call an ambulance because they'll be arrested. Intoxicated driving will happen with or without legalization and is a crime in itself. Spread of disease from sharing needles would be drastically reduced with basic harm reduction / needle exchange programs. The police will be plenty available to serve their communities because currently they spend an enormous amount of time policing drug crimes. Harm reduction programs and social services can be funded by taxation on the sale of recreational drugs.
> I did cocaine every day, multiple times a day for over a year. It was easy to stop though, unlike marijuana for me. I've also done heroin and meth, but I never felt compelled to do them often unlike I did with certain psychedelic drugs.
You're an outlier -- your experience does not match addiction patterns in most people.
> Spread of disease from sharing needles would be drastically reduced with basic harm reduction / needle exchange programs.
As you did heroin, you must know that the issue is getting people to _use_ the exchange programs and resources.
> Availability is no issue in any major US city.
I legitimately do not know where to buy drugs in my current city and not wanting to deal obvious drug dealers acts as an effective barrier.
> The police will be plenty available to serve their communities because currently they spend an enormous amount of time policing drug crimes.
I'd like to see some statistics on this -- my understanding is that police typically end up finding drugs as a secondary crime to responding to an existing issue (e.g. noise complaint/erratic behavior/etc).
> As you did heroin, you must know that the issue is getting people to _use_ the exchange programs and resources.
I snorted heroin, I'm not a fricking junkie :) But seriously, do you expect people to use needle exchange programs when doing so is tantamount to admitting to illegal behavior? It is very common for US police to bust drug users and pressure them into becoming confidential informants, and then work their way up the chain.
> I legitimately do not know where to buy drugs in my current city and not wanting to deal obvious drug dealers acts as an effective barrier.
I'm guessing you're not interested in using drugs, right? There's your explanation. If you are though, then I can only ascertain that you feel you have a right to use them, while other people, like the non net contributors to society you mentioned earlier, do not.
> I'd like to see some statistics on this -- my understanding is that police typically end up finding drugs as a secondary crime to responding to an existing issue
Ok, now you must be trolling! You need me to dig up numbers to show that US police spend significant time and resources on drug crimes? By the FBI's own numbers, drug violations account for more arrests than any other crime [1]. Speaking about policing more broadly, there are entire agencies like the DEA that deal exclusively with drug crime, and the NSA participates in efforts to catch drug dealers by coordinating with city police departments. Even Fox News will tell you that we've spent over a trillion dollars fighting the war on drugs [2]. That's not even getting into the money spent in the courts, prisons, probation system, etc.
> But seriously, do you expect people to use needle exchange programs when doing so is tantamount to admitting to illegal behavior?
Yes, and some users do. I used to work in an office with line of sight to one and people would even line up outside (I suspect mostly for treatment/replacement dispensary schedules).
> It is very common for US police to bust drug users and pressure them into becoming confidential informants, and then work their way up the chain.
I don't think it's as common as you think. They're addicts and life isn't a spy novel. Some heroin addict isn't going to lean his way "up the chain."
> I'm guessing you're not interested in using drugs, right? There's your explanation.
I stated that I don't want to deal with obvious drug dealers (e.g. "coke, smoke?" guys). Extrapolate what you want.
> If you are though, then I can only ascertain that you feel you have a right to use them, while other people, like the non net contributors to society you mentioned earlier, do not.
That's accurate. Government services should be used for basic food, shelter, health, not paying for someone's high. Similarly, vodka and soda shouldn't be covered by SNAP -- if I want to burn some money from a paycheck, that's on me, but the nice grandparents that live next door shouldn't be paying for me to roll face or get drunk instead of work.
> Ok, now you must be trolling! You need me to dig up numbers to show that US police spend significant time and resources on drug crimes?
I was speaking about local police, not 3-letter agencies in the US. Have you considered that patrol police will go for a drug charge when they suspect a problem/crime and need probable cause? It's not as if weed is unscented and subtle when smoked. It's not as if police set up outside subways to test for internal possession in people acting normally.
> By the FBI's own numbers, drug violations account for more arrests than any other crime [1]. Speaking about policing more broadly, there are entire agencies like the DEA that deal exclusively with drug crime, and the NSA participates in efforts to catch drug dealers by coordinating with city police departments.
Your suggestion is free flow of drugs into society? You earnestly believe that ready access to heroin and meth production should be legal?
Are there any statistics on cocaine and opiod overdoses from the later 19th and early 20th centuries, when there were essentially no regulations on the substances and you could buy laudanum and patent medicines at your corner druggist?
I think it was hard to recognize it as such, and perhaps difficult as purity lower, but indeed issues surrounding "snake-oil" remedies were the motivation for the first true product label regulations.
Fair enough -- if it read as at all speaking down to you, I did not intend for it to be that way.
> All recreational drugs should be legalized.
I very strongly disagree that _all_ recreational drugs should be legalized. To some extent, I agree on the less addictive substances (marijuana, psilocybin), but not on drugs that are surprisingly addictive, such as heroin, methamphetamine, or cocaine.
Besides interpersonal harm (such as overdoses, intoxicated driving and its victims, economic decision making, spread of disease from sharing needles), the societal impact would be non-trivial with increased availability of intoxicants for people that rely on government services or otherwise are not net contributors to society. Legalizing recreational drugs while also believing in a societal "safety net" suggests also a level of comfort of increased taxation to subsidize the increasing numbers of addicted people, as well as providing increased medical and police services to communities.