What if we just had legalization without taxation?

Also if you think people get clean in the country side that would suggest to me you’ve never spent time outside of these urban areas whence you’re trying to banish addicts. Anecdotally, the loneliness of the country side, being away from loved ones and familiar social and cultural institutions, made my own struggles worse.

> What if we just had legalization without taxation?

I'm pretty sure that's what we generally refer to as decriminalization. (lol)

> Also if you think people get clean in the country side that would suggest to me you’ve never spent time outside of these urban areas... (rest of comment redacted)

Alright, so... yes I have actually. And we had one of the rehab centers near our town, and while there was still some heavy drug use by some people in said town, it was never anything close to similar as what would be found in more urban centers. Furthermore, those people had to go to the city to get those drugs, which was my entire point. If you can't even get the drugs, cause you can't even get to the city, then you have to somehow get friendly with those people that everyone knows you shouldn't be hanging out with.

My condolences for your struggles friend, but just because you struggled with a situation that many others find to be a center of peace and comfort for themselves doesn't mean that I am wrong. It just means that my approach wouldn't work for you, possibly. Sad as it may seem, sometimes loved ones are the problem. They can be quite enabling, when they should be disabling. And it's those familiar social and cultural circles you bring up that are also sometimes part of why the harm exists to begin with. For some at least.

So perhaps my solution doesn't work 100% for everyone, but you are not the rule here either. You are an exception to it, in my books.

Finally, the country side is only lonely if you are the type to never interact with other country bumpkins. If that's you, then I am sorry, but that's more of a you problem... Try hanging out with some random people once in a while? Go to a bar and shoot some pool and meet some folk? I dunno, but staying at home itself only will definitely drive anyone nuts. I only suggest it for the severely addicted at all, because they can't really help themselves in regard to not falling back into old bad habits.

But again, there are no 100% fix all solutions. There will always be caveats, like yourself.

> legalization without taxation is decriminalization

No, the latter refers to simply not charging people. You can still confiscate their drugs and subject them to assessments a la Portugal. Decimalization is kind of a dumb, dangerous (ie no constitutionally established recourse) messy term, so think of the other one like food sales: legalization without taxation.

> one must go to the city to source drugs

Cottagecore as a policy idea

> go to a bar to avoid falling back into your addictive habits

I never said what I struggled with. What if it was the world’s deadliest drug: alcohol?

>> > go to a bar to avoid falling back into your addictive habits

> I never said what I struggled with. What if it was the world’s deadliest drug: alcohol? -------------

I realize what you are trying to make a point of here, but note how I never said to drink while there. I said play some pool. Obviously it would be nice to have a drink, but legally they have to serve you water if you ask for it. Etc and so forth.

-------------

>> > one must go to the city to source drugs

> Cottagecore as a policy idea

Ironically, if I understand your terminology correctly; that's precisely what first nations do up here with their healing lodges where they send people instead of going to jail, etc.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/inside-okimaw-oh...

-----------------

>> > legalization without taxation is decriminalization

> No, the latter refers to simply not charging people. You can still confiscate their drugs and subject them to assessments a la Portugal. Decimalization is kind of a dumb, dangerous (ie no constitutionally established recourse) messy term, so think of the other one like food sales: legalization without taxation.

SO in other words, it makes it 'not a crime anymore'. I'm fine with them confiscating many of the drugs out there, because a good large chunk of them are all things no one needs to be taking anyways. Literally, no one.

And besides, I already stated multiple times now why I don't like legalization. It's just like you state yourself, it's more like food sales; which governments also tax. (Unless it's real food, in which case it might depend on where you live. Heavily processed/packaged foods get taxed here in Canada, while 'real food' does not.) I am not in favor of allowing government to tax people for doing things that harm themselves and potentially others.

> never said drink

But you did acknowledge that the environment wherein addiction sprouts makes it easier for it to rebound, rhetorical courtesy of my enabling loved ones. The countryside bar still demands a steady supply of the same, easily exhausted resource that fighting vice under city pressures does: will power. Yet per your prescription, it would be under the duress of exile.

> healing lodges

The example you give seems to be a conflation of social rehabilitation for people who have committed crimes against other people (as exemplified in the opening of that article, describing a woman who killed a child) and medical (mental specifically) rehabilitation as I thought we were discussing in the context of addiction. Art and animal therapies are hardly unique to first nations or indigenous cultures, though tribal jurisdiction certainly allows these groups more latitude in trying to address their community's problematic members. This is one of the benefits of Portugal's decriminalization process in that addicts' individual circumstances and paths to recovery are theoretically (though I can't vouch for the practice) given greater consideration.

> no taxing people for things that harm themselves and/or others

That's an interesting stance. Mitigating externalities is one of the ideas behind, for example, taxing pollution. Addressing second hand smoke, needle waste, etc could be good allocations of such tax dollars, but generally, at least in the US, sin taxes go into funds paying for bridges or school text books, which ironically makes the abstemious life one of civil selfishness.

I would say that the NL model of decrimilisation without legalisation doesn't work. Largely because of it NL has a big gang problem, and one of the highest murder rates in Europe. Now fully legalise drugs, give them out for free for all that I care, that's the only way to kill the organised crime around it.

I would also be interested in which drugs you believe are worth decriminalising and which ones you deem to dangerous. There are generally a lot of misconceptions about the health effects of (especially hard) drugs in particular compared to some legalised ones (alcohol has extremely strong health effects).

Cigarette consumption in the US has been steadily declining for the last 50 years or so. This is while state governments are taxing tobacco products heavily. In fact a 1 pct point increase in tobacco taxes are related to a 0.5 pct point decrease in tobacco consumption. [1]

So I don't buy the argument that the government will encourage harm because they make money off of it.

[1] https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2018/08/10/...

Okay, I'm going to reply to yours as well before calling it for the night. I keep trying to, but people keep on replying and I hate seeming to be rude by ignoring people. Especially when they seem to mean well. (But seriously, this is the last time, lol... I need to sleep.)

I accept the premise of your argument, since it makes sense on the simple side of things. But... I think you forget to include the fact that people just go to a new supplier if they find their smokes getting more and more expensive.

Up here in Canada (Can't speak on the states) people just buy smokes from the reserves instead. And since government and agencies that collect this sort of data are likely getting their numbers from legal sales, but not illegal ones or grey market at the very least; that means they are missing numbers that tell a different story.

Menthol cigs for example are technically not allowed here anymore; but people still manage to get them. From gangs, reserves, random people who managed to smuggle them across the border, etc.

Now, I keep saying I'm going to go to sleep here, but it's starting to feel like a run on joke now.

Sure, government might not always tax things that are harmful; but it also depends on who's running that government. And my experience thus far has been that they will tax harm, if they can get away with it. (I wish I could italicize that last part.)

Now, good night. Maybe... I keep trying to listen to tunes first, and maybe that's the mistake.

Moreover there are increasingly strict restrictions on where it is permissible to smoke. To mirror rhetoric elsewhere in the thread: in many areas the state and local government is successfully cracking down on "open nicotine scenes".

Drug use is rampant in rural areas too, so the "urban centers" thing doesn't come across that well.

If a person is addicted to drugs and needs to be removed from society "for their own good," this can be done without criminalization. Criminalization of drug usage seems entirely ineffective and even counterproductive.