> Who decides that someone is a responsible and healthy adult?

You do. It's not up to someone to decide, you're responsible for your own body and your own decisions to improve/harm it.

I don't think they are saying advising governments to setup some sort of screening process for this. It's more for the people who are interested in the drugs themselves. When I first started getting interested in drugs, many pushed the idea that I should be psychologically healthy first (mostly because my first interest was psychedelics and I have good and well-meaning friends). I think that's what the article is trying to signal here.

The problem with that attitude is when the body count gets high enough, there is incredible pressure to 'do something' - because enough people are terrible at judging this (or don't have the right friend group, or whatever) that we end up with huge crime problems, destroyed lives, and other social ills.

The libertarian 'you can do what you want and it's your own responsibility' is great until the people who obviously made the wrong decision stop quietly owning the results of their decisions and start murdering random people for money to fund their habit.

An argument can be made that the answer is free heroin and mental health treatment of course, and maybe it is the right answer. It seems hard for societies to accept however, outside of some very niche locations (Netherlands) though.

You don’t have to murder anyone to fund a legal drug habit. Legal drug habits are easier to treat.

Some might not even have a drug habit if not for illegal drugs laced with addictive substances they didn’t even know were there.

Oxycodone is legal [albeit controlled]. There are plenty of pill doctors that will prescribe oxycodone to anyone that doesn't look like too big of a mess. A cousin of mine stole oxycodone from my grandmother when she couldn't afford the ever increasing costs of her spiraling out of control oxycodone habit. People have murdered and gone bankrupt acquiring oxycodone, and continue to do so. [https://www.pharmacytimes.com/news/pharmacist-killed-after-r...]

If you're saying 'I meant it should be legal to buy over the counter for cheap and/or given away for free', then that might decrease the number of people being robbed for it - but doesn't seem to decrease the number of overdose deaths, area crime rate, or urban decay by as huge an amount (or maybe it just concentrates it?), at least based on the experiment in Vancouver, BC, Canada's lower east side. The Netherlands is also problematic, and not a solved problem. [https://www.areavibes.com/vancouver-bc/downtown+eastside/cri..., and overdose deaths have continued to skyrocket in Vancouver [http://www.vch.ca/Documents/CMHO-report.pdf] despite harm reduction, decriminalization, and other means.

Areas like San Francisco with de-facto decriminalization also have major problems with people, for lack of a better word, rotting of neglect on the street - something that I've also seen first hand in Vancouver. I also have friends who have seen this first hand in Seattle. Resident complaints around muggings, being assaulted unpredictably by unstable mentally ill people (on drugs or not is hard to say, but there is a high correlation with this and these areas in my personal experience) are hard to ignore.

This isn't a solved problem, and I'm not advocating for 'lock them up' policies - but pretending this will all be cool if everyone can walk down to the corner store and buy heroin if they think they're up for it isn't helping anyone either.

Oxycodone was the #1 recent example of patients and even doctors being lied to about the addictivene potential of the drug. For well over a decade, pharmaceutical marketers (from Purdue Pharma especially) straight up falsely claimed that habitual use of Oxycontin would not lead to opioid dependency.

Which is a very near mirror to Heroin, which was created as a less addictive/problematic alternative to Opium.

Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but that doesn’t seem to address my core point?

Legality can reduce some negative effects, but it isn’t a cure-all. There are also a lot of people that should just not use opiates or bad things will happen, and we can’t predict who those people will be reliably until it is too late.

So please don’t use opiates unless you really really need to, and be aware of the dangers.

It’s easy to predict who will have problems with opiates, very few go from 0 to 100 without skipping steps. Just license the users.

Commit any infraction, drive or work heavy machinery while under the influence, your license is suspended until you complete rehab. Do it too many times and it’s suspended permanently. Use while unlicensed, it’s jail time.

This way there is a progression. We don’t have to waste police resources on those who can handle it. The minority who can’t are directed into rehab to deal with their issues first, and only the minority of that group who fail to shake up get jail time.

Meanwhile crime is down because drugs are affordable. New addicts are down because kids aren’t getting laced drugs. Deaths and overdoses are down for same reason.

And it all costs society less, less police, less crime, less hospitalization and less death means less taxes.

People rob and murder people for all sorts of reasons. But drug addicts have to commit fewer crimes if their drugs are cheap and easy to get.

And legal drugs have known potencies, and aren’t mixed with other more addictive drugs.

Don’t compare decriminalization to legalization, they are entire different things. Decriminalization still suffers from higher addiction and death rates because selling the drugs is still illegal.

And it seems to have worked ( source : Dutch and old enough to remember what it seemed like in the 80ies ).

Interestingly enough - all crime (including in the US with it's war on drugs) has dropped dramatically since the 80's. Lots of theories about leaded gasoline phase-outs, etc. but it's a complex multi-variate problem. Merely having the issues about use widely known (and the initial round of people super susceptible to it) can also cause many people to shy away, with significant decreases in abuse.

Dutch coffeeshops keep large amounts of people away from 'regular' drugs dealers who carry coke/heroin besides weed.

Economic tide : the 80ies was a different time with lots of youth unemployment in NL/NWE.

>> Who decides that someone is a responsible and healthy adult?

> You do. It's not up to someone to decide, you're responsible for your own body and your own decisions to improve/harm it.

That's obviously not that black and white. If it was, then breathalyzer interlocks wouldn't be a thing, for instance.

IID/BAIIDs that gets installed in vehicles are often installed to protect other peoples life, not your own.

I was thinking in the context of "Should I be able to use drugs", which we normally leave up to the individual to decide, except for _those_ drugs that we don't leave up to the individual to peruse on their own.

> IID/BAIIDs that gets installed in vehicles are often installed to protect other peoples life, not your own.

Yeah, but that's just an example. If you were about to make a suicide attempt, you could be involuntarily committed, and the only person's life being protected would be your own.

The point that I was trying to get at was that black and white individualist statements like:

>>> You do. It's not up to someone to decide, you're responsible for your own body and your own decisions to improve/harm it.

...paper over some important complexities of real life. There are many, many cases where people have responsibility for others (and I'm not just talking about legal responsibility, even though my examples all intersected with the law in some way).

breathalyzer interlocks are not there for heroin or for your body