I wonder about this sort of thing. Right now it seems to me like there's a philosophy behind this which we could call, for lack of a better term, "Rolling into the problem." That is to say in the case of fentanyl, someone thinks, "People will always be addicted to dangerous drugs. Better to make sure they're safe than to keep them in an …
I wonder about this sort of thing. Right now it seems to me like there's a philosophy behind this which we could call, for lack of a better term, "Rolling into the problem." That is to say in the case of fentanyl, someone thinks, "People will always be addicted to dangerous drugs. Better to make sure they're safe than to keep them in an underground economy where things would be worse." It's a cynical philosophy wearing a compassionate disguise. The obvious trade off which requires total nullification on the part of advocates for this approach is that you can't successfully make it safer without also making it easier, too (after all, why would you get it from the government when you can get it easier on the streets). And that nearly guarantees that the addiction problem itself will get worse.
I should also say, "Rolling into the problem" rears its ugly head in many other sociopolitical contexts as well. I find its correlated to left wing political persuasions. But I think that's outside the scope of this comments section.
Don't you see a few differences with smoking? I do. 1) The government never offered cleaner tobacco products to compete with any market, let alone the black market. And 2) every effort was to make use of tobacco products more difficult to acquire and use - from banning smoking in more and more places to taxing it into a serious expense for addicts, I've mostly only seen it get harder and harder for smokers to maintain their addiction. It seems to me that what Canada is doing with fentanyl is all about making it easier to be an addict, less risky. Perhaps you feel differently?
Sure with tabaco they never made it illegal. They never locked up millions of people or spent over a trillion dollars futility trying to stop people from smoking. And yet smoking rates still came down drastically.
Meanwhile anyone can get any drug they want at any time, even in prison. I'll say that again, they can't keep drugs out of prison. So if you can't keep drugs out of prison, why the frick are we still pretending that prohibition will work in the broader population.
Pretending that prohibition will work? Will work at what? Getting rid of drugs? You're right. Prohibition doesn't work at stopping drug use. But that's not the game. The game is to contain it. And if you want to argue for legalization, you either have to prove it wins the game over prohibition, or abandon the game altogether. Either way, your silver bullet against arguments like mine is going to be an example of a place in North America where drugs were made legal and drug addiction/drug addiction related homelessness gets better or stays equal when legalized. But everywhere they try this, the problems get much, much worse. Widespread drug use of things like meth and fentanyl cause serious societal blight. It's not a victimless crime. Rolling into the problem works even worse than prohibition.
1. Prohibition is just flat our wrong. Adults should be free to what they want even if it's not good for them as long as they aren't committing an actual crime, with a victim (another person).
2. The costs of prohibition are WAY higher than whatever slightly benefits you might get from lower consumption rates.
The war on drugs has cost over a trillion dollars locked up millions of people for years (talk about destroying lives) and anyone can get any drug they want at any time.
That's pretty much the definition of a failed policy.
Also people doing drugs in public places is an entirely different problem than people enjoying them in the privacy of their own homes.
We have laws against public drunkenness too. That doesn't mean we should ban alcohol.
With drugs like meth, heroine and fentanyl in society, trillions will be lost. That’s not prohibition’s fault, that’s the consequence of drugs + humans. There’s no such thing as drugs + humans = nothing lost. No public policy can mitigate that.
My experience leads me to believe you’re nullifying the trade offs, as I said in my first comment. I’ve lived in a community with adults who chose to use, and with certain drugs and certain people, there’s just no such thing as responsible use in the privacy of one’s home. It’s hard to believe until you see it with your own eyes. Yes, prohibition doesn’t end it, but because drug use goes up when legalized, it is empirically and undeniably containing it. The incentives need to be use = difficult, abstinence = easy. What Canada is doing, I fear, is making use = easy.
Rolling into drug use will be swapping a policy that “doesn’t work” for a policy that works so much worse that you’ll realize prohibition was working better than you gave it credit for.
Lastly, I respect that you’re passionate about this, Mathew. I’m calling a stalemate with you. I won’t be replying anymore and that’s out of respect for your time and mine. Take it easy.
The vast majority of people can use drugs (just like alcohol) in a recreational manner without getting addicted.
When I was younger I did just about everything under the sun. I was in the military, then went on to get a BA in accounting and later my CPA and MBA. I would still party on occasion till I got married and settled down.
I knew plenty of other people that did the same. They still went to work, paid taxes raised kids etc. Responsible use is the norm.
And for the VERY small segment of people where addiction is a problem it should be treated medically not criminally.
I wonder about this sort of thing. Right now it seems to me like there's a philosophy behind this which we could call, for lack of a better term, "Rolling into the problem." That is to say in the case of fentanyl, someone thinks, "People will always be addicted to dangerous drugs. Better to make sure they're safe than to keep them in an underground economy where things would be worse." It's a cynical philosophy wearing a compassionate disguise. The obvious trade off which requires total nullification on the part of advocates for this approach is that you can't successfully make it safer without also making it easier, too (after all, why would you get it from the government when you can get it easier on the streets). And that nearly guarantees that the addiction problem itself will get worse.
I should also say, "Rolling into the problem" rears its ugly head in many other sociopolitical contexts as well. I find its correlated to left wing political persuasions. But I think that's outside the scope of this comments section.
Does it really have to make things worse? Smoking rates came down significantly without making it illegal.
Don't you see a few differences with smoking? I do. 1) The government never offered cleaner tobacco products to compete with any market, let alone the black market. And 2) every effort was to make use of tobacco products more difficult to acquire and use - from banning smoking in more and more places to taxing it into a serious expense for addicts, I've mostly only seen it get harder and harder for smokers to maintain their addiction. It seems to me that what Canada is doing with fentanyl is all about making it easier to be an addict, less risky. Perhaps you feel differently?
Sure with tabaco they never made it illegal. They never locked up millions of people or spent over a trillion dollars futility trying to stop people from smoking. And yet smoking rates still came down drastically.
Meanwhile anyone can get any drug they want at any time, even in prison. I'll say that again, they can't keep drugs out of prison. So if you can't keep drugs out of prison, why the frick are we still pretending that prohibition will work in the broader population.
Pretending that prohibition will work? Will work at what? Getting rid of drugs? You're right. Prohibition doesn't work at stopping drug use. But that's not the game. The game is to contain it. And if you want to argue for legalization, you either have to prove it wins the game over prohibition, or abandon the game altogether. Either way, your silver bullet against arguments like mine is going to be an example of a place in North America where drugs were made legal and drug addiction/drug addiction related homelessness gets better or stays equal when legalized. But everywhere they try this, the problems get much, much worse. Widespread drug use of things like meth and fentanyl cause serious societal blight. It's not a victimless crime. Rolling into the problem works even worse than prohibition.
No the justification for ending prohibition is
1. Prohibition is just flat our wrong. Adults should be free to what they want even if it's not good for them as long as they aren't committing an actual crime, with a victim (another person).
2. The costs of prohibition are WAY higher than whatever slightly benefits you might get from lower consumption rates.
The war on drugs has cost over a trillion dollars locked up millions of people for years (talk about destroying lives) and anyone can get any drug they want at any time.
That's pretty much the definition of a failed policy.
Also people doing drugs in public places is an entirely different problem than people enjoying them in the privacy of their own homes.
We have laws against public drunkenness too. That doesn't mean we should ban alcohol.
Just say NO to the nanny state
With drugs like meth, heroine and fentanyl in society, trillions will be lost. That’s not prohibition’s fault, that’s the consequence of drugs + humans. There’s no such thing as drugs + humans = nothing lost. No public policy can mitigate that.
My experience leads me to believe you’re nullifying the trade offs, as I said in my first comment. I’ve lived in a community with adults who chose to use, and with certain drugs and certain people, there’s just no such thing as responsible use in the privacy of one’s home. It’s hard to believe until you see it with your own eyes. Yes, prohibition doesn’t end it, but because drug use goes up when legalized, it is empirically and undeniably containing it. The incentives need to be use = difficult, abstinence = easy. What Canada is doing, I fear, is making use = easy.
Rolling into drug use will be swapping a policy that “doesn’t work” for a policy that works so much worse that you’ll realize prohibition was working better than you gave it credit for.
Lastly, I respect that you’re passionate about this, Mathew. I’m calling a stalemate with you. I won’t be replying anymore and that’s out of respect for your time and mine. Take it easy.
The vast majority of people can use drugs (just like alcohol) in a recreational manner without getting addicted.
When I was younger I did just about everything under the sun. I was in the military, then went on to get a BA in accounting and later my CPA and MBA. I would still party on occasion till I got married and settled down.
I knew plenty of other people that did the same. They still went to work, paid taxes raised kids etc. Responsible use is the norm.
And for the VERY small segment of people where addiction is a problem it should be treated medically not criminally.