Many alcoholics are born that way. They do not have the same liberty with regard to alcohol as others do. Their agency is impaired when confronted with decisions about alcohol.

Alcohol is a potentially dangerous drug that I believe should be regulated more heavily than it currently is, while I also believe that other intoxicants such as marijuana are far milder in their overall impact and should be regulated less.

But in any particular case, I think that we must face the social implications of substance abuse as a real issue. I’ve talked to addicts that say that the intervention of law enforcement saved their lives. Of course this is not generally the experience for poor people or minorities. So if you are going to be more permissive in what people can legally acquire, I think that we have a moral obligation to provide intervention and support services for individuals affected by substance abuse. I don’t see a lot of people actually talking about this aspect of decriminalization in the US. Yes, blanket legalization will cure some ills but it will create many others. I don’t see any way to tell which side the weight comes down on at this point.

I'd really like to see some studies that show this is the case.

Even more, I'd like to see some studies that show this is the case for all the drugs that are currently kept illegal due to reasoning of this sort.

Plenty of drugs that are illegal, like psychedelics, aren't addictive. So such reasoning, even if true for certain other drugs, should not keep the drugs that aren't addictive from being made legal.

As far as alcohol is concerned, are you in favor of going back to Prohibition? Because that's the state that many other drugs are in.

https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-co...

There are genetic components to many people’s drinking disorders, but of course everyone is different and the causes of addiction are complex. Anecdotally though, some people are effectively alcoholics from their first drink. I’ve heard the same thing about meth addiction.

I’m not in favor of outright prohibition of any substance. I’m definitely not in favor of the extreme penalties the US imposes for casual drug use. But I think the general rallying cry of “legalize it” is irresponsible.

Sellers of 'banned' substances -- drug dealers this segment should be the only one prosecuted and jailed.. others should be recommended to rehab if they can afford it (or medicare for all passes - then it's null whether they can afford or not), and if they choose to go. If they don't then they can hurt/maim/kill themselves all they want.

Of course anyone committing other crimes as a result should still be jailed - like drunk driving...etc..

It's a mental health, not a criminal issue. Once we ruin lives via criminal justice system though they're almost guaranteed to remain addicts for life...

Banning substances is a large part of the problem.

In banning specific drugs all we've accomplished is to make the market that still exists dangerous to consumers, by making regulation impossible.

The recent uptick in Fentanyl overdoses is an example, those probably would not have happened if the Fentanyl were coming from a pharmacy in packaging designed for end use, made by a pharmaceutical company, rather than mystery powder from a blackmarket channel.

It happens in very predictable cycles: every so often suppliers flood the market with higher potency or incorrectly "cut" Fentanyl analogs, which can't be used safely, and people who otherwise would have survived instead overdose and die.

Opiates are still dangerous when used incorrectly (and sometimes even when used correctly), but those additional overdoses are largely caused by lack of regulation in the market, because of the ban.

We probably wouldn't even be talking about Fentanyl if it weren't for the ban on Heroin itself. Fentanyl is just easier to illegally manufacture since large poppy fields aren't required, and the potency is extremely high so smuggling large amounts is easier.

Large parts of south and central america are awful places because drugs are illegal in the US. Drug and alcohol prohibition create massive cesspools of corruption that left unchecked eventually destabilize governments.

There's nothing in there about people being born alcoholics. Even if there was, it's not a scientific study, nor does it cite any.

"There are genetic components to many people's drinking disorders"

Where is the scientific evidence for this?

"Anecdotally though, some people are effectively alcoholics from their first drink. I’ve heard the same thing about meth addiction."

There are so many urban myths surrounding drugs and drug addiction. I really would think twice before trusting what I hear through the grapevine.

"I’m not in favor of outright prohibition of any substance. I’m definitely not in favor of the extreme penalties the US imposes for casual drug use. But I think the general rallying cry of "legalize it" is irresponsible."

So if prohibition is not the answer for you, and legalization isn't either, what is? What exactly do you propose?

The trope of "your first dose will get you hooked" is patently false. There's no evidence that this is true. Anecdotal anything, especially with drugs, doesn't mean anything, and all of these outlier anecdotes are actively damaging to the education of the public with regards to drugs.

Genetic polymorphisms that may increase risk of alcohol abuse Wild type ADH1B1 allele and wild type ALDH21 may increase the risk of alcohol use disorder because no acetaldehyde build up is associated with normally-functioning ADH and ALDH enzymes. Several studies have shown association of ADH1B1 and ALDH21 with alcoholism, especially in the Asian population. Kim et al. studied 1032 Korean subjects and concluded alcohol dependence in 86.5% alcoholic subjects could be attributed to ADH1B1 and or ALDH21 [14]. Tolstrup et al., in a large study involving genotyping of 9080 white men and women from the general population and using the brief Michigan Alcoholism Screening test, concluded that men with ADH1B1/1 genotype (wild type homozygous) had a two to fourfold higher risk of developing alcoholism compared to men with ADH1B2/1 or ADH1B2/2 genotype. The authors further commented that because ADH1B1 allele is found in more than 90% Caucasians and less than 10% East Asians, the population attributable risk of alcoholism by ADHB1/*1 homozygous genotype was 62% among Caucasians compared with 24% among the East Asian population [15].

Genetic polymorphisms that may increase risk of alcohol abuse Wild type ADH1B1 allele and wild type ALDH21 may increase the risk of alcohol use disorder because no acetaldehyde build up is associated with normally-functioning ADH and ALDH enzymes. Several studies have shown association of ADH1B1 and ALDH21 with alcoholism, especially in the Asian population. Kim et al. studied 1032 Korean subjects and concluded alcohol dependence in 86.5% alcoholic subjects could be attributed to ADH1B1 and or ALDH21 [14]. Tolstrup et al., in a large study involving genotyping of 9080 white men and women from the general population and using the brief Michigan Alcoholism Screening test, concluded that men with ADH1B1/1 genotype (wild type homozygous) had a two to fourfold higher risk of developing alcoholism compared to men with ADH1B2/1 or ADH1B2/2 genotype. The authors further commented that because ADH1B1 allele is found in more than 90% Caucasians and less than 10% East Asians, the population attributable risk of alcoholism by ADHB1/*1 homozygous genotype was 62% among Caucasians compared with 24% among the East Asian population [15].

Also, I still don't see any studies showing this for any of the other drugs that have actually been made illegal, which would be more to the point.

Genetic polymorphisms that may increase risk of alcohol abuse Wild type ADH1B1 allele and wild type ALDH21 may increase the risk of alcohol use disorder because no acetaldehyde build up is associated with normally-functioning ADH and ALDH enzymes. Several studies have shown association of ADH1B1 and ALDH21 with alcoholism, especially in the Asian population. Kim et al. studied 1032 Korean subjects and concluded alcohol dependence in 86.5% alcoholic subjects could be attributed to ADH1B1 and or ALDH21 [14]. Tolstrup et al., in a large study involving genotyping of 9080 white men and women from the general population and using the brief Michigan Alcoholism Screening test, concluded that men with ADH1B1/1 genotype (wild type homozygous) had a two to fourfold higher risk of developing alcoholism compared to men with ADH1B2/1 or ADH1B2/2 genotype. The authors further commented that because ADH1B1 allele is found in more than 90% Caucasians and less than 10% East Asians, the population attributable risk of alcoholism by ADHB1/*1 homozygous genotype was 62% among Caucasians compared with 24% among the East Asian population [15].

Genetic polymorphisms that may increase risk of alcohol abuse Wild type ADH1B1 allele and wild type ALDH21 may increase the risk of alcohol use disorder because no acetaldehyde build up is associated with normally-functioning ADH and ALDH enzymes. Several studies have shown association of ADH1B1 and ALDH21 with alcoholism, especially in the Asian population. Kim et al. studied 1032 Korean subjects and concluded alcohol dependence in 86.5% alcoholic subjects could be attributed to ADH1B1 and or ALDH21 [14]. Tolstrup et al., in a large study involving genotyping of 9080 white men and women from the general population and using the brief Michigan Alcoholism Screening test, concluded that men with ADH1B1/1 genotype (wild type homozygous) had a two to fourfold higher risk of developing alcoholism compared to men with ADH1B2/1 or ADH1B2/2 genotype. The authors further commented that because ADH1B1 allele is found in more than 90% Caucasians and less than 10% East Asians, the population attributable risk of alcoholism by ADHB1/*1 homozygous genotype was 62% among Caucasians compared with 24% among the East Asian population [15].

People will pay obscenely high taxes on this stuff if it’s made legal.

Dismember the government apparatus setup to deprive so many of their liberties.

People already get sick.

Tax payers already pickup their healthcare bills.

Think about it from an investment perspective. The addict has typically had some semblance of public education. That cost tax payers money. Let’s call it $40k over 18 years (12 grades). That investment needs to be recouped by society for it to pay off.

Now this person has gotten addicted to drugs. We could do nothing and they might commit crimes to fund their habit and hurt innocent people but then we have to imprison them at great cost to society and we lose more potential tax revenue and productivity from the potential loss of life of victims. We could leave the addicts alone and hope they die peacefully from their addiction, knowing we lose the investment (not to mention it calls into question our morality for letting someone die when we have the resources to save them). In reality though addicts get more desperate as they get more addicted and are more likely to turn to crime. We could be proactive and imprison them at great cost to society for being addicts. During which time they gain an education of criminal behavior that helps them fall deeper into criminal activity to support their addiction.

Or we could realize that we just need to treat addicts as medical patients who can be rehabilitated if given proper treatment. This costs society money up front but helps rehabilitate addicts so they can become productive citizens again. This is not revolutionary.

This problem pretty much only exists in America. Because you can literally write fake prescriptions and get them filled, or buy them off gumtree.

The drug war is Jim Crow 2.0 and has failed to do anything than further degrade the economic perspective of minority populations while simultaneously costing tax payers a fortune. It’s a shameful and disgusting set of policy that needs to be terminated.

America is terrible at tracking anything. It doesn't even have a central marriage registry. It is literally the only country in the world where you cannot request for a certificate of impediment for marriage.

Doctor's write prescriptions for non-existent symptoms and get paid under the table by patients to do so. And filling in prescriptions doesn't require additional checks from a pharmacy.

America, like always, fights the wrong battles. Instead of fixing the system, it tries to patch it at either end. No one tries to resolve problems in America. It's no different from the abysmal education system & health care system.

But they'll at least get treatment. Which we can also charge for.

Apparently I've angered the libertarians who can't concieve of Any bad consequences to anything. Look I Live in Seattle and don't see any bad side to the mj legalization currently. I also think we should have heroin treatment in many areas. And opioid. Doesn't mean I think you should be able to buy h when you hit 18. I know plenty of people who use alcohol and mj responsibly. Many who don't. I have anecdotal data on opiods and lots only know one person who used h personally and that didn't go well. More for meth, most had some pretty severe problems before or because of it.

But apparently I can't disagree with you, only the pure ideals are acceptable.

What "intoxicating amount" would that be?

A single beer might get a teetotaler drunk, while it might take a six pack or more to get an alcoholic drunk. The same goes for smoking cannabis. One hit might get someone with no tolerance high, but someone with a high tolerance might need much more. That doesn't even begin to take in to account all of the different varieties of cannabis or different types of alcohol, which could have quite varied potencies.

You can actually kind of compare different alcohols by the percentage of pure ethanol in them, and with cannabis you can compare the percentage of THC, but there are so many other compounds in cannabis that can have an effect on your intoxication that they're really difficult to compare in a standardized way.

Even when sticking to one particular alcohol or cannabis variety prices vary tremendously based on brand and where they're bought (ex: a beer at the grocery store will cost much less than one at some trendy bar, a mass-produced generic beer vs some hand-made microbrew, etc).

When I hear such comparisons I really have to question what they're actually comparing and why they're comparing it and not something completely different. For alcohol vs cannabis prices, I struggle to understand how there can be any comparison.

"So let's get everyone hooked and in debt"

How many people go in to debt buying legal cannabis? If money's such a problem for them, it's trivial to just grow your own for free: it's a weed.

Anyway, if your goal is to keep people from going in to debt, the last thing you should be for is prohibition, which astronomically increases the cost of drugs far past their legal price.

"Doesn't mean I think you should be able to buy h when you hit 18."

Well, whether you think you should be able to or not, you can. Making drugs illegal has flatly failed to stop their availability. Like it or not, if you want them, it's not hard to get them.

The question is whether the state should continue to spend billions ruining people's lives by throwing them in jail or outright killing them during raids, breaking up families, propping up organized crime with illegal drug profits, corrupting the judicial and political system, etc.

To me it doesn't make sense, especially as it's so ineffective or even counterproductive (as people are drawn to the forbidden) in preventing drug use.

I'm a Seattle resident. No way that's correct. The pot is way, way cheaper.

Using fairly "middle class" products, percentage of a $15-20 gram that has intoxicating value is lower in dollar value than a draft beer ($6).

Even focusing strictly on value products, there's no single-unit alcohol product (40oz, tall boy, etc) that can compete against the common $3 preroll.

True. But we must also face up to the costs of regulation. The illegality of recreational drugs delivers $1 trillion into the hands of organized crime per annum, for example. The corruption, the adulterated product, the incentives to hook people, destruction of whole Latin American countries, etc etc.

I am not accusing you of this, but there is often an implicit assumption that regulations can be put in place for no cost. An assumption that is often wildly wrong.

We seem to have reached a middle ground, here in most parts of the US. Alcohol is taxed and regulated, the products are relatively safe (no worries about methanol poisoning), and the black market is quite small.

This is a patronizing and disempowering statement with no scientific basis.

Actually most people involved in the activism and policy front talk about this all the time. Some examples include citing the portugal diversion panels following decriminalization or the safe injection sites and needle exchange sites in the czech republic again following decriminalization there or insite/onsite the colocated safe injection site and rehab center in vancouver as models for the US to follow for harm reduction.

In addition other people in the US are making harm reduction fact based high school drug education curricula as a way to educate people about drugs.

Out of curiosity, would you support a liberalization of drugs if we were able to operate a system of selective prohibition, where alcoholics and drug addicts could have access revoked?

Crime in the pursuit of drug addiction exists, meth- and cocaine-induced paranoia exists. There is a public health problem mixed in there. Anyone who thinks they can disregard the public health issue really needs an alcoholic in the family.

Does that outweigh the whirlpool of violence that the War on Drugs has stirred up by its very existence? All the money funneled in to organized crime by the War on Drugs, enabling and incentivizing them to kill their rivals and corrupt the judicial and political system? All the people killed by police during drug raids? The decades of life wasted in prison by hundreds of thousands of nonviolent drug offenders where they are tortured, raped, killed, or groomed in to far more serious criminals? All the families broken up, devastating them emotionally and financially? All the children left to be raised by just one of the parents or made parentless when their parents are imprisoned or killed?

Crimes committed due to drug addiction are often committed in order to get money for the next fix. It's the illegality of drugs that keeps the prices so incredibly high that they're unaffordable to poor people. That need not be the case if they are made legal.

Cocaine paranoia is a medical issue, and it and other health issues related to drug use should be treated medically, not by throwing people in jail -- which doesn't work anyway. Drug use is rife in prison.

The War on Drugs is an abject failure that makes the failure of Prohibition pale in comparison.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-caravan/b...

Did anyone imply in the slightest that it does? No one defended the War on Drugs. They suggested that some drug use poses a public health problem, and thus that zero regulation is inappropriate. To equate that with support for the War on Drugs is plainly dishonest.

We can still jail people actively distributing/producing highly addictive drugs, while at the same time giving mostly free choice and helping rather than harming (potential) users. Monitoring actual results in the society can affect the thresholds of what's done.

But that doesn't work, and leads to all the abuses and downsides of the War on Drugs, like encouraging and enabling organized crime, etc.

Alcohol and nicotine are some of the most addictive drugs out there, and yet we don't jail people for distributing or producing those.

Food is also highly addictive and there's a huge obesity epidemic in the US, and yet no one is suggesting imposing jail terms on the companies that make food or entice people to eat it.

Skydiving and other extreme sports are often described as highly addictive and are obviously dangerous, yet no one is trying to prohibit them. It's widely recognized that if people want to engage in those risky activities and other people want to provide them, it's a matter best left to the consenting adults engaging in those activities -- with perhaps some regulation to help make them as safe as possible.

They are regulated to an extent. You will get fined for selling to minors, for example. Same for smuggling cigarettes and alcohol. And for misleading advertisements and fake medical research. I don't think those fines go far enough.

> Skydiving and other extreme sports are often described as highly addictive and are obviously dangerous, yet no one is trying to prohibit them.

I'm not sure "highly addictive" works here. Do you have withdrawal symptoms if you stop? Does it make you unable to function and think clearly for a while? Is your judgement affected enough that you'd harm yourself or someone else to participate in the sport again? This is a "fun hobby" that will make you sad if you don't do it again, not addiction.

Legalization does not mean lack of any regulation. Alcohol and nicotine, which are legal, are regulated, as you point out. So are prescription (and even non-prescription) drugs. I am not opposed to forbidding sale of legal drugs to minors, though it's not perfectly clear cut (the age limit is particularly tricky to set, and often minors manage to get their hands on alcohol, nicotine, and other drugs anyway).

"Do you have withdrawal symptoms if you stop [skydiving]?"

Actually, I have read of people who did feel like their depression was alleviated through participation in extreme sports like skydiving,[1] and who feel depressed if they don't go again for extended periods of time. So I think a psychological addiction (much like addiction to food where similar effects are seen) can apply.

"Does it make you unable to function and think clearly for a while? Is your judgement affected enough that you'd harm yourself or someone else to participate in the sport again?"

Depression can affect your thought process, and can lead to harm of self or others, so yes, I think those are real risks of quitting for some people who get relief from depression through participation in extreme sports (or other perfectly legal activities which either help them to cope or alleviate their depression).

[1] - "Skydiving Cured My Depression" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16837748

Heavy addiction: you have X problems, you escape via addiction, now you have X+addiction problems, you stop, you still have X+addiction+withdrawal.

Hobby: you have X problems, you find something that helps you with depression, you have X-1 problems, you stop, you have X problems again.

Most people would not even seriously consider making extreme sports illegal, despite their danger and potential addictiveness, but it's those very same properties of some illegal drugs that are most frequently cited as the primary reasons for making them illegal.

If those are honestly the main reasons that so many drugs are illegal, then why not make extreme sports illegal as well, for those very same reasons?

Nicotine alone is not actually that addictive. I use it as a nootropic and have not seen any signs of getting addicted. Yet years ago I struggled to give up smoking.

With pure nicotine I simply forget to use it for weeks at a time in spite of the large benefits I personally get from using it to aid hard thinking.

Some more here https://www.gwern.net/Nicotine

There are many other substances in tobacco smoke other than nicotine that seem to be far more addictive. Add on the reinforcement from the smell/taste and handling the cigarette and it is a different beast.

As for the public health implications, there's probably way more effective ways of mitigating that than making them criminals. It's a range though, those that cause significant harm to others should certainly be taken out of the system. Alcoholics are frigging annoying, and highly disruptive, but many aren't actually violent criminals.

Since we think certain people are up to no good anyway, drug laws let us put them away, without actually having to prove the bad things they've probably done. It's essentially an end run around "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

Laws criminalizing concealed weapons follow a similar logic.

I don't think it's the drugs that are the problem, but the way people use (or rather abuse) them, and the conditions that drive people to abuse drugs.

Lots of social conditions are bound up in problems for which drugs alone are blamed. Too many people are poor, desperate, lonely, outcast, downtrodden, hopeless.

These and other social ills are what encourage drug addiction (and other types of addiction and destructive behavior), and they are the things that society will have to squarely face and overcome before they can effectively treat addiction.

Merely making drugs illegal hasn't and isn't going to work. Locking people up for seeking a way out of their misery hasn't and isn't going to work. Merely making drugs legal isn't going to work either, but at least it isn't making the problem worse or adding all sorts of other problems to it.

One day you're an addict, the next day you're an addict and shot by the police or in jail and your life is ruined and it's likely to get even worse once you're out. That doesn't help anyone.

Trump being the best example in the US, and other oligarchical systems in all other countr.

Money is the root.

Or as George Carlin puts it best:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kXhZyAOuyhE

It’s completely backwards. You should be free to alter your cognition, but also held responsible for your actions.

Orthogonally, there are also many other mental health and non-mental health related public health issues we should continue to pursue, regardless of the current state of substance legalization.

Why set up the system to amortize the public cost of addiction over long periods in the form of hospital visits, lost productivity (both directly due to addiction and indirectly as a result of former criminals' difficulty rejoining the job market), public assistance, court costs, jail costs, and prison costs, rather than focus on rehab and breaking the addiction itself?

If you look at history, drugs were almost never criminalized because they posed a public health crisis - and when they arguably did (as in alcohol prohibition), criminalization created more problems than it solved. Usually the motivations had something to do with xenophobia, moral panic, or politics. Alcohol prohibition was fueled by general animosity towards immigrants (Irish) and a growing Catholic population, with a smattering of both moralism and public health concerns spearheaded by women's rights groups. Marijuana was criminalized largely due to xenophobia toward mexicans and black people. Crack carried harsher penalties than regular cocaine because black people used it. LSD was cracked down on to quell anti-war sentiment in the Vietnam era.

Talking like this frames the narrative and too many of us let these anti-american rhetorical tricks pass without calling it out.

The government has no right to tell me what I can and can't put in my body, whether that's lettuce, Devils lettuce, a cigar, or a soda... doesn't matter.

It's a matter of individual freedom.

Unless you were a child, woman, native, or a slave, right? It also helped to own land.

Come on, we can be against prohibition for practical reasons without resorting to pining for a history which never existed,

First of all, lets just state the fact that the principles of a government can be different from the reality of it. The two aren't mutually exclusive. It's as if by mentioning the worst affected groups you think you magically negate the foundational principles just because the implementation wasn't (and isn't) perfect. It's also not to say the system is theoretically perfect, because it's not, but to use such a logically weak strawman ("pining for a history which never existed") and not even expanding whatsoever is intellectually lazy at best.

"Come on, we can be against prohibition for practical reasons"

The foundational principles of American individualism is the greatest practical reason to be against prohibition. What the hell do you think enabled us to finally get rid of the shackles around those disaffected groups in the first place? It was the hard work that mostly Madison put into researching all the various forms of government, and the greatest political thinkers from around the world, that established a structure that although imperfect would be able to improve over time.

Before we continue this, my main question is whether you are American or not. I find that my approach to this subject needs variation for my friends across the pond. If you are, you need to brush up on your civics.

Other countries have banned slavery, and have enfranchised women, the poor, and people of colour many years before the United States did.

Those countries were not founded on any such principles, nor have they ever claimed that they were. How could they possibly achieve such progressive feats of emancipation?

It's possible to imagine that perhaps, the founding principles weren't of much help in this endeavor. In fact, there's a strong case to be made that none of these achievements had anything to do with the constitution, or the bill of rights, or anything else that the founding fathers wrote about, but did not actually implement - and everything to do with the zeitgeist of the times.

Yet there isn't the same moral stigma attached to overeating as there is to drug or alcohol addiction, and no one is suggesting throwing obese people in jail or raising the price of food so high that food addicts have to commit crimes in order to feed their addiction.

Obesity and alcoholism are seen as health issues, and treated accordingly. The same should be the case with drug addiction.

This results in a quasi-prohibition which has many of the same downsides as full-on prohibition, such as the enabling and funding of organized crime, people getting killed or thrown in jail, and other types of violence.

Though the profit margin for smuggled soft drinks is likely to remain too low for organized crime to bother getting involved, I'm not convinced it's the right way forward compared to voluntary, education- and health-based approaches.

On the other hand, I am in favor of the $0.10 charge for plastic and paper bags in California, where lots of people often bring their own reusable bags rather than pay the fee for a disposable bag. Perhaps a reasonable surcharge on soft drinks could make a difference to overall public health.

There have been plenty of studies showing poor and minorities get treated much harsher by the "justice" system.

It is widely believed, and I think established by White House recordings, that Nixon established the War on Drugs to attack people he didn't like: Hippies and blacks.

I believe that in public affairs and politics, the way to evaluate and act is to look at the (expected) outcomes and to ignore all the rhetoric. First, the outcomes are what matters and there's not a high correlation with the claims made ahead of time. Second, politicians are sophisticated enough to know what the outcomes will be; I think it's reasonable to assume that they know what is going to happen.

It may be true, but it’s worth considering who the source is, their motivations, and why it took so long for the quote to come out.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16885281

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement#In_t...

A lot of states do restrict the vote for those on parole or probation, but once the supervision ends the vote is restored.

Drugs are artificially highly priced due to their illegality. Legalizing drugs would drive down the price, removing a major motive for crime. People will still be addicts, but in my experience bums who have alcohol as a drug of choice manage to get by without engaging in muggings/robberies to feed their habit.

This view is supported by science. Research has shown that rats housed in isolation, or with stimulus deprived environments compulsively use cocaine when given the option, while rats housed with other rats in enriched environments use it sporadically.

We need to take a long hard look at our society.

We have the means to do all of these things and get much better value for society per dollar than we do now.

https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-co...

It's the 3rd leading cause of death behind tobacco and sedentary lifestyle.

Should people be allowed to do what they want? Sure, as long as no-one else is impacted. Good luck meeting that criteria, though. Do you really expect someone who has OD'd on some substance to have zero impact on what other people are doing?

The other day, a woman at a store lost consciousness due to opioid overdose. Her toddler was wandering around, wondering what was going on. I'm sure the paramedics who showed up had nothing better to do that day.

Legalization and decriminalization are also the sole rational alternatives, broadly, to prohibition. We've tried prohibition every possible way across two generations, and have spent truly vast sums of money attempting it all. It was an extreme and total failure without exception.

Legalization & decriminalization have a minimum of three very strong arguments in their favor. Each of the arguments alone decimates the prohibition argument. These three arguments encompass nearly every spetrum politically, except for most of the very far right traditional wing of old conservatism.

Argument one: it's your body, as an adult liberty means you largely have a right to do with it as you see fit. The government should err to the side of staying out of my life. That's the more libertarian, government leave me alone, argument. Even conservatives should universally go for this one, however they betray the principles they pretend to believe in here.

Argument two: the obvious dollars & cents argument. It's radically more cost effective to treat people with addiction or mental health problems. It's not cost effective to put them in prison at a cost of $40,000 per year (a million dollars over ~25 years). It's also not cost effective to maintain a police state system that costs hundreds of billions of dollars per year. It's like maintaining a second military. That money should be going into healthcare, infrastructure, education, job training. This is another argument on which a lot of conservatives betray their claimed principles: what's more anti small government than a giant bureaucratic police state system? It also destroys the economic value of the person put into prison, making them a non-contributing person and dependent on big government: another thing that should remove conservatives from supporting the prohibition approach.

Argument three: compassion. It's illiberal and very cruel to put a non-violent offender into prison for 15 or 30 years out of their life (drug addicts are often repeatedly arrested), for drug use or drug addiction problems. You know your premise about the opioid lady (or anyone like that in general)? Putting her in prison repeatedly, disappears her from the child's life as well, at a very high cost to society and the child. With the treatment approach, you at least have an opportunity that the parent can be present. It's worth noting here that prohibition does not stop overdoses, it amplifies the lethality of the situation by pushing overdoses into the darkness.

Legalizing drug use and abuse reduces overall crime, drug usage, and damage done by drugs through more help, less stigmatization, clean tools, clean drugs.

It's literally the dream solution, however, politicians are too dumb to understand that.

It's proven scientific evidence, see Portugal.

IMO the government should sell drugs and use the money to treat drug addicts.

However the thing that is less obvious about drug use is how it effects everyone around the user. I'm from a low income rural area in the south and had a close friend, and a sister who both became hooked on metamphetamine and opioids.

My sister absolutely destroyed her life. The drugs cost money, and a drug addict is not stable enough mentally or physically to hold a job. The only option is for them to commit crime. My sister lied to our family constantly, and stole from us.

A serious drug addict is like a tornado destroying everyone in their vicinity.

Maybe for light drugs like marijuana it is a cognitive issue, but for hard addictive drugs it is very much a societal and criminal issue. Drug addiction causes user to commit crime out of desperation. A drug addict will harm the community around them.

You state that as a self-evident fact. It clearly isn't. I can think of no human society where limits and restrictions were not placed on intoxicating substances. Objectively, as all societies have such restrictions, why should I believe your conclusion?

What do you think about the the prevalence of these types of crimes given complete legalization of all drugs?

"PCP makes you feel invincible and violent" is an urban myth -- one that Ketamine somehow doesn't share, despite its great similarity to PCP.

Of all drugs, the one most strongly associated with violence is alcohol. Yet hundreds of millions if not billions of people think nothing of using it at parties, bars, at home with their family, in front of their kids, etc. -- often with disastrous results -- yet it's perfectly legal.

And to what degree is one accountable for the things they do in pursuit of and under the influence of altered consciousness?

Look at prescription opioids problem in US. This is public health issue, you should research how New York looked 50 years ago[1].

Making all drugs are legal would be irresponsible and hurt society as whole.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/1970/02/16/archives/heroin-epidemic-...