It’s weird as fuck to me that decriminalisation is even considered because one of the (or just the?) largest negative effects of people doing illegal drugs is the large crime organisations built to provide them. As well as the then poor quality control resulting in people overdosing because they didn’t know what they were using, although not really a problem with weed specifically.

Decriminalisation keeps the organised crime and dodgy product while removing any sort of demand reducing effect keeping it illegal had.

The idea of decriminalisation is the cops don't focus on end users (and the negative effect of this to them) and the resource goes toward organised crime.

I think makes sense for drugs govt won't legalise like Heroin, while they should legalise lower end drugs like pot.

The problem with decrim is that it forces users to interact with criminals to get their fix.

Sure, but they were doing it already and now they have removed the criminal element of it so the situation has improved. While legalising reduces the criminal element, however potentially adds wider social issues. Illegal/decriminalised/legal all have pros/cons.

And the interaction can't be monitored - the user has no guide through dosages besides the person directly benefiting from the sale.

Who where they interacting before decriminalization to get their fix?

I don’t get the point of this question. Obviously criminals? The expectation is that regulated avenues will serve to divert.

Parent (now GP) said:

> The problem with decrim is that it forces users to interact with criminals to get their fix.

They just left out that context, i.e. decrim doesn't change the fact that you are forced to go through a criminal to obtain them.

lol. here is a crazy idea: make them legal.

also, decriminalization is usually a step towards legalization. because it's too much to straigh-up legalize them.

also, it's beyond me how some people can get on their high horses about what drugs are okay (alcohol? coffee?) and what drugs are not okay. we should have figured this out by now - but seems that we're going to need more time /s

Actually not that crazy an idea and the aspect that decriminalization makes interaction with criminals necessary, should be enough to skip this idea.

So legalization seems to be the way forward, i do wonder what organized crime will do in response.

The most lucrative crimes are Counterfeit goods, drug trafficking and human trafficking according to this source.

https://www.occrp.org/en/daily/6240-ngo-transnational-organi...

anecdotal evidence: in WA state where weed is legal, I have not heard of anyone buying weed on the street. Why would you risk it when you have good quality stuff that you can buy in a safe location?

so you decriminalize it first and after that you make it straight up legal.

Organized crime is going to move to other things in response. There is a risk/reward curve.

Absolutely, and here the reward for legalizing some drugs seems greater than the risk.

I suppose Meth and Crack are not on the list of legalized drugs, which means that half of all drug offenses will not be affected.

Still, halving drug offenses is not a bad result.

Source:

https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-pu...

Why lol?

At least it decreases the number of people sent to prisons for possession and consumption.

This is not a sufficient step, but a likely first step in normalizing the use of weed in the eyes of the public. Abrupt changes scare people (and for a good reason).

when this is selectively enforced and only people of a certain color or ethnic group have to pay the heavy price of possession I call bullshit on the "war on drugs". this is not and has not been about drugs from day one.

It was an anti-Left and anti-Black plot from the beginning, according to some. Unfortunately, hard proofs of that are absent.

In any case, were it about health and well-being, it likely won't look like a war.

It's weird as fuck to me that legalization is even considered because one of the (or just the?) largest negative effects of people doing illegal drugs is the added legal consequences on them and our inability to help them because they are considered criminals.

Allowing businesses to legally sell, develop, and advertise addictive psychoactive substances seems dangerous to me. History has shown that if they come up with a new compound that is 20% more addictive but 15% more dangereous, you can bet that this will be their next best seller. On top of that, we should welcome their "innovation" for tax dollars and give them a legal shelter ?

We already have seen what it leads to with opioids, even when we gate it behind doctors prescriptions: a usage crisis. We need more control, not less.

And we need a legal framework that does allow us to help users instead of putting them to prison, that does not pack the courts with addicts, and that allows the police to focus on more pressing issues. That is what decriminalization is about.

Extreme repression is as bad as extreme indulgence, there is a middle ground.

As someone who used to be against drug (including weed) legalization, I had my opinion changed completely by this article few years ago. I shared it with a few of my right leaning friends and several of them also had their opinions changed:

Legalize It All: How to win the war on drugs

https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/

It's an excellent read which addresses both sides of the drug legalization debate, side effects of the legalization and how to prevent the bad side effects and presents similar actions in other countries.

A significant majority of my conservative friends are also moving in this direction. Conservative leaning Justice Clarence Thomas today said federal laws against marijuana may no longer be necessary: "The federal government's current approach is a half-in, half-out regime that simultaneously tolerates and forbids local use of marijuana,” the conservative Supreme Court justice wrote.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/clarence-thom...

Now, I am for legalizing and pardoning (non-dealing/manufacturing) weed, cocaine and mushrooms. The only reason I am hesitant for heroine, meth and fentanyl is because if I remember right, heroine and meth get laced with fentanyl which is very easy to overdose on. But I am willing to be corrected if that's not the case.

The last month's ban on menthol cigarettes and flavoured tobacco is a step backwards unfortunately. Considering menthols are preferred by 86% blacks and 46% hispanics, it will just create a new black market and put more of them in prison.

With that said, I don't want everywhere to devolve into San Fransisco either where you see needles everywhere and addicts tweaked out everywhere. Most people who are against legalization aren't going to agree with it if they see things like how San Fran is turning out. So the legalization must be done correctly.

If they are legalized and provided via stores which check ID, that would reduce the black market, reduce cartels across the border, reduce gangs, drug dealing and reduce the prison population which had played a major role in wreaking havoc on many families. It would also reduce policing gone wrong / corruption and have less "rebellious" kids doing it.

>Now, I am for legalizing and pardoning (non-dealing/manufacturing) weed, cocaine and mushrooms. The only reason I am hesitant for heroine, meth and fentanyl is because if I remember right, heroine and meth get laced with fentanyl which is very easy to overdose on. But I am willing to be corrected if that's not the case.

The argument you usually hear back is that if those harder drugs were more regulated, there would be no accidental overdoses where the street drug has been cut or consists of unknown quantities, safer places to consume, no drug deals gone wrong, etc... I am still not sold on the solution there. I know other countries have some sort of program that gets pointed to, but I don't know enough to comment. I do only know that those drugs have absolutely wrecked the lives of people I knew. If they were legal they still seem to be so addictive that the user's life is 100% focused on getting high as often as possible. So maybe some regulation so that certain people can get those drugs but without risk of overdose? But isn't that what methadone is for? I am sort of rambling here as I try to form a better opinion - because if we just outlaw those certain, very-addictive drugs, a black market will always exist. But that is also something I would never want my family members to try on a whim.

I like your train of thought and understand the uncertainty that both avenues present. Personally I believe that healthy adults will mostly choose to avoid getting addicted to hard drugs as long as they’re aware of the consequences. To achieve a reduction in the harm that drugs have in society I feel that we need to do everything possible to reduce the number of new people getting addicted while also making it easy for people to receive treatment and bring them into a system designed to get them back to health. Problem is that doctors need to be educated on this as well. That means stopping doctors from pushing pain pills that get people addicted to pain meds in the first place (because who in their right mind would go straight to using heroine if they hadn’t started on prescription pills) and encouraging open discussion with youths that’s focused on education instead of pushing an agenda (admittedly this doesn’t seems possible) while also legalizing methods for people to access hard drugs in order to bring addicts in out of the cold so to speak and expose them to a medical system that encourages them to get their health back.

If manufacturing is still illegal, you'll have unregulated products. Anything that is more restricted than alcohol to manufacture and sell will have a black market. If you want to get rid of overdoses caused by heroin cut with fentanyl, you have to let Johnson & Johnson make it and sell it at CVS and WalMart.

Legal opiates wouldn't be laced with fentanyl. They'd be tightly regulated. And it would probably be packaged in ways that wouldn't require injection. That sort of packaging would probably be part of the regulations. No one wants needles lying around.

If users know exactly how strong & how much they're taking then it should greatly reduce overdoses. Some will still happen but, as a society, we've decided a certain amount of alcohol overdoses are acceptable. Opiate overdoses would get similar consideration.

Agreed. As long as they strictly go after the black market, I am okay with legalizing all drugs including heroine. For weed, there shouldn't be any more money wasted imo.

Isn't injection the more "quicker" way for heroine though?

It is. But people can adapt. Many people these days grind up their oxy and snort it. Probably not a healthy thing to do in many ways, but still safer than injections. And definitely better than having used needles lying around.

Patches would also be a very viable option. My partner once received a fentanyl patch at the hospital for an injury. She later told me it was an instant trip to a very happy place, and she could understand why some would get addicted to it.

Not sure about the snorting part but for injections, maybe this anecdotal experience might help. I have several friends who use performance enhancing steroids and they say injections are better than the orals because the orals have to go through the liver and kidney etc to get processed which ends up hurting those organs more than injections which directly get in the blood stream. Maybe something similar applies for recreational drugs too?

since you brought up the supreme court I am going to assume you are in the US (correct me if I'm wrong).

We in the US like to plaster freedom everywhere. And it's FREEDOM this, FREEDOM that. But I'm sad to report most people don't understand what freedom means. Freedom means that you can do whatever the f you want, anything, as long as you don't impact other people. If I drink alcohol, smoke weed or do heroin or mushrooms, or like to bang my head against the wall - as long as it does not impact you you should not care about it. Period. That's true freedom.

When it comes to legalizing or forming an opinion about something IMHO the question should be: is this going to impact me? If the answer is not I believe that be default we should not put any gates or laws or rules in place.

I think the govn should step in only to regulate the quality of the product (ie: if you're gonna sell weed it better be weed, if you're gonna sell alcohol it better be alcohol etc) not to dictate what is okay to sell and what is not okay to sell.

Unfortunately the hypocrisy you describe regarding "freedom" is not limited to the US. It's more of a "flawed human nature" thing. Most humans try to exert power and control over everything they don't like.

I immigrated from India to Canada and plan on immigrating to US in the future. So I have experienced the ongoing failed "war on drugs" in India which has created a major overdose problem along with worsened the police/government corruption and thrown many people in prison. I have also seen the legalization of weed couple years ago in Canada.

I agree with you about the "Freedom means that you can do whatever the f you want, anything, as long as you don't impact other people." and share the exact same opinion. That's the same standard I apply to everything else too - from gay marriage to freedom of speech. I don't care about what's happening in someone's bedroom or whom they are having sex with as long as it's consensual adults. That's also why I am free speech absolutist. I absolutely hate the smell of weed and have never touched any drugs. But I want it to be legal because I believe the federal government/police needs to stop wasting tax payer resources on shutting down fundamental liberties. Similarly I believe we need to learn to develop a thicker skin and ignore things if they offend us instead of censoring/banning them using governmental or trillion dollar corporations. Just like sunlight is the best disinfectant for free speech, same approach with drugs. Same approach to allowing euthanasia (and even suicide but that can get messy and impacts too many other people so maybe not).

Let drugs be legal and prevent black markets and ensure "proper advertising" like we do in every other industry. Make sure regulations aren't getting in the way of the industry to the point where the government has to step in to subsidize them (Canada and California are having this problem).

It sure as hell impacts me when I am paying for the 10th dose of naloxone to be slammed into you in a row if you are a repeat ODer.

I'm not going to debate. I'm for decriminalization.

That said, nalozone should be stocked in every pharmacy across America.

Just like needles. Needles can be bought in CA.

Hell--I would put it in emergency glass boxes all around SF, and most cities.

(To anyone addicted, bupernorpine works pretty well. Most of you could get down to a very low dose of bupenorpine pretty quick. It really helped me. I was never a bad addict. I just started taking pain pill from a nurse friend. Well, kind of a friend. She meant well. I could have just told her no, but didn't.)

In the nineties, a friend of mine called me up, and asked me what do you do with someone who is overdosed.

I told him there was naxolone, but it's only available at the hospital.

He called back while in transit. She died at the hospital.

He was living next to CVS pharmacy. If it was available, she would still be here. She wasen't even a long term addict. It was her second time using.

IMHO you should debate people that cannot see part their own stupid short-sighted self-interest and tell them about the value of human life compared to their "inconveniences". just like you did here. You should totally debate an push hard on their BS

You clearly didn't read my other comment.

Does it really impact you though?

Is our medical system so well tuned that people receiving a procedure that literally saves their lives is inconvenient for you?

I come from Ohio, so it impacts me that my friends and their friends have lost loved ones to this epidemic (who had been administered naloxone more than once, no doubt). And I've donated to harm reduction programs in New Orleans that provide community administered naloxone and safe needle sites so don't get me twisted. That is not the same as a unionized state apparatus and the overhead involved.

Do you believe that is someone whats to kill themselves is their right to do it?

Do you agree that people that need and want help should receive it?

Where does your personal freedom and where does my personal freedom begin?

When someone does the same thing 10 times like that they owe an explanation to the community whose resources are keeping them alive, even if in principle. I think it's hilarious that you're lecturing me about the value of human life above and totally miss what I said about community administered treatment.

> With that said, I don't want everywhere to devolve into San Fransisco either where you see needles everywhere and addicts tweaked out everywhere. Most people who are against legalization aren't going to agree with it if they see things like how San Fran is turning out. So the legalization must be done correctly.

Stop watching fox news. Only the small areas where homeless people congregate have those homeless problems. The rest of the city is normal. Every major city has sketchy areas filled with all sorts of problems.

I don't watch Fox News nor does this have anything to do with objective facts. I have left leaning friends there who run businesses and it's very well reported even by them.

its not an objective fact to say sf is full of needles. and its not an objective fact to say homeless people are there because of heroine or drugs. your repeating right wing nonsense by saying things like that

> your repeating right wing nonsense by saying things like that

Please refrain from dismissing view points with ad hominem attacks "right wing nonsense". That doesn't further the discussion to anywhere productive and is equivalent to "she's a witch" from 1600s. You are not talking in objective facts. Ignoring the problem by yelling "La la la, I can't hear you!" and gaslighting people by claiming what they are seeing is not real and is some Fox talking point is not going to encourage those who are reluctant to make drugs legal to change their mind. There is a very serious problem with homelessness and needles/feces to the point where they literally have an app to report poop on the streets.

Here's all left leaning sources:

> 2018: Survey of Downtown San Francisco Reveals Trash on Every Block, 303 Piles of Feces and 100 Drug Needles

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/diseased-streets/16660...

> NBC Bay Area Investigative Unit reported a 20m² 153-block downtown area it surveyed was littered with refuse. The team found discarded needles on 41 blocks and piles of feces on 96. In July, a major medical association canceled future events in the Golden Gate City because of its filthy streets.

https://www.newsweek.com/san-francisco-needles-human-feces-1...

> 'It's raining needles': Drug crisis creates pollution threat in San Francisco, across US

https://abc7news.com/needles-found-in-sf-left-on-streets-rep...

> EPA Issues Violation Notice To San Francisco Over Needles, Human Waste

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2019/10/02/epa-issues-viol...

> Business Insider: San Francisco's dirtiest street has an outdoor drug market, discarded heroin needles, and piles of poop on the sidewalk. The block's homeless residents — including drug dealers, addicts, and the mentally ill — leave behind piles of feces and discarded needles.

https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://www.businessinsider.co...

> 'SnapCrap' app invites San Francisco residents to report poop on city streets

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SnapCrap-app-San-Fran...

Even this year's Academy Awards events had to clean up the homeless people before holding the event:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/homeless-ordered-out-of-la...

I don't think you actually live in San Francisco so I don't think you really know what's going on. Homeless people congregate on one area where all these services are and then spill over to the tourist area. so it seems like it's crazy all the time.

No one is going to write an article saying "normal day in Glen Park" witriing articles about needles gets clicks. So I think your confidently uninformed. Maybe listen to people who live there instead on forming opinions based off stuff you don't have experience with. You don't know about drugs and you don't know about sfs homeless situation and you don't know about the city.

Your first article just focuses on the tenderloin. Homeless doesn't equal drug problems. There's way to much to unpack and set straight here.

You clearly didn't read or intentionally ignored all my previous comments. I stated:

> I have left leaning friends there who run businesses and it's very well reported even by them.

CA has been the state which has lost population because people are fleeing the state and one of the reasons is "Filth":

https://travelmedium.com/usa/california/why-are-people-leavi...

I also stated I am very pro legalizing all drugs. I think you are being insincere on purpose because despite me presenting multiple left leaning articles which go against your narrative, you prefer to have blinders on. This discussion isn't worth going forward.

Your muddying up the points, none of those issues are related to drug use. California has a lot of homeless people, a lot of those use drugs. Californias homeless problem is complicated and completely separate from drug use. Now your quoting articles about california as a whole.

What your saying and the conclusions your drawing make no sense. Your also showing a misunderstanding of the nuances of san fransisco. Your own articles show that these problems are concentrated in historically problematic neighborhoods. Go back to the original quote i picked from you, it shows a complete lack of understanding of what is going on, and you cant form a coherent argument.

Show me one article that says, sunset, richmond, bernal heights, glen park, excelsior, pacific heights, presidio, noe valley, balboa park are full of needles.

> and you cant form a coherent argument

Your inability to make ad hominem attacks prevents me from replying further. Have a good day.

i'm very hesitant about legalization of heroin. i think there could be a time in my life, if i'm low or anxious, where i would go buy some. and then it'd be likely i'd get hooked for life. there would be many people like that. i think it should be prescription based if anything.

Legalization doesn't have to mean you can buy packets of heroin at a gas station.

It can mean you have to go to a government-run outlet, and if it's your first time, someone is going to ask you some pointed questions about why you want to buy it, make it very clear to you that heroin addiction is a real risk and no fun, maybe offer some counseling services on the spot as an alternative, and if you're still determined to get some, you can fill out a form and get a card with your face on it to present next time.

Note that this isn't the same thing as a prescription, where a doctor is gatekeeping access to the medicine / drug in question. It's an approach which acknowledges legal drugs as less harmful to users and society than the alternatives, and stresses harm reduction for everyone and ending addictive patterns for users who are able and willing.

Yeah there’s no way hard drugs should ever be easy to access. Putting them behind a prescription that’s required to be administered in a controlled environment seems the obvious choice. Honestly it should be safe, legal, and rare

There's still going to be a black market for prescription hard drugs then just like there is for prescription pills now.

This argument seems moot. I am not under the impression that it's difficult to go buy heroin or meth if you want some. Users seem to have no problem getting it.

I really like your post and only have this small point to add to it.

> The only reason I am hesitant for heroine, meth and fentanyl is because if I remember right, heroine and meth get laced with fentanyl which is very easy to overdose on. But I am willing to be corrected if that's not the case.

When you look at this through the lens of business it doesn’t really make sense. Drug dealing is a financially driven business and there’s not an incentive to cut drugs like heroin and meth with fentanyl. Both are HIGHLY addictive in their own and in the case of meth it’s actually really counterproductive. Neither drug needs assistance from fentanyl to become more addicting. But beyond this, fentanyl is pretty dang valuable by itself on the streets and hard to come by. Why cut heroine with something valuable when you can use baking soda or sugar?

Honestly the whole “laced drugs” thing is a scare tactic that doesn’t pass the smell test in my eyes. I’m willing to change my opinion but it really doesn’t make sense to me.

What? Fentanyl is so so so much cheaper and 100% does get added to heroin all the time. It also gets added, to a lesser extent, to meth, coke, fake xanax pills, ketamine, etc. Especially in many places in the US, it's actually hard to find heroin without at least a trace of fentanyl.

Fentanyl is synthesized in China or Mexico (with precursors from China) extremely cheaply and without the need to maintain large plantations. It can then be imported to the US much more easily than heroin (extremely potent by weight and doesn't smell as much) where it's then diluted/mixed with other drugs. This is easily provable, there's tons and tons and tons of evidence/documentation of all of this.

I don't understand the original posters point either though, because providing addicts with clean drugs and access to treatment is the only real way to curb the current fentanyl epidemic.

> I don't understand the original posters point either though, because providing addicts with clean drugs and access to treatment is the only real way to curb the current fentanyl epidemic.

You are right about that. When I was referring to fentanyl laced heroine, I was talking about black markets. If it's legalized and the production is regulated, then that problem won't occur.

That depends on the implementation, though, doesn’t it? After all, in the Netherlands, it’s only decriminalized, yet there are stores selling it all over the country.

It is also deeply tied with criminals organizations providing them a healthy revenue stream.

Look to the commercialization in US states like Colorado as a better (but not perfect) model.

> Look to the commercialization in US states like Colorado as a better (but not perfect) model. reply

Sounds crazy, but one of the best models in the United States right now is actually the state of Oklahoma's.

It's fairly straight forward, easy to apply, and barrier to entry is low. Fees are low. Not a lot of red tape. It's working well.

Is there somewhere I can read more the criminal organizations being apart of the legal cannabis scene in Holland?

I don't have a source, but as a Dutch person: there is no legal way to actually grow cannabis in this country, nor to sell it to stores ("coffeeshops") that sell it to consumers. Thus all cannabis sold necessarily[0] comes from illegal growth operations, which is the kind of thing that's very lucrative for organized crime.

[0] if you want to be pedantic about it, owning up to 5 cannabis plants is decriminalized, but nobody is under the illusion that such personal use scale agriculture is fueling the commercial trade

The coffeeshops are allowed to sell small quantities for personal use. But growing marijuana in large quantities and supplying those stores is still considered illegal and punishable with fines / jail time.