I'm not sure uncle-smearing is necessary.

Well yeah, because enforcement was a joke.

given that addictions still exist even for the most illicit drugs, I don't see that correlation.

enforcement is significantly less 'a joke' for heroin and cocaine, yet addicts still exist for the products.

also : is incarceration/penal-justice really the desired outcome here? Is the punchline here : "Would you rather be surrounded by ex-convicts or addicts?"

Anecdotally, enforcement is a joke for cocaine too. I know several people who use it recreationally, sometimes to slightly disturbing excess, and none have ever been in any legal trouble for it.

Not if you were poor or black or Hispanic it wasn't (and obviously there's huge variation locale-to-locale)

Exactly, OP very clearly didn't live through the Reagan administration and DARE.

I never lived in the U.S., but enforcement is a joke in the west in general.

Countries like The UAE or Saudi Arabia don't seem to have any problems with high/drugged people on the streets for some reason, mainly because they actually enforce the rules, you take drugs, even just for personal use, you will go to jail, it's not a joke.

I've lived in parts of the US where "they actually enforce the rules, you take drugs, even just for personal use, you will go to jail, it's not a joke" and yet there are widespread drug abuse problems.

Curious ain't it

And how do you know they are widespread? Is it because people just casually say I take drugs? If that's it, then it still falls short.

In those countries they actively hunt for drug users, they don't wait for you to get caught high at some kind of street checkpoint.

And the population having an active moral compass helps for sure.

lmfao. UAE and Saudi Arabia have active moral compasses. Sure is active and pointing in some direction.

Would you send your daughter, wife, or mother to live there as a local does -- i.e. without all the special privileges that Westerners get outside of the culture's standard "active moral compass"?

You really have an outdated look about KSA and the UAE.

Have you ever visited Dubai? Riyadh is almost there too.

And yes they do have a moral compass, the population has a more united look on these issues.

No way, theocratic autocracies have “a more united look” on issues than a pluralistic democracy? That’s a feature of pluralism and a bug in theocracy — not the other way around.

Outdated as of… when?

2018 when the morally advanced civilization of Saudi Arabia decided to let women drive?

Or do you mean way back in 2023 in UAE where it’s completely legal for a husband to rape his wife and, if killed for “a good reason” (like being raped), her killer goes unpunished so long as her father acquits?

Not sure there’s much to discuss here, I think we just care about different things. You care about drug addicts not existing and you’re fine with actively “hunting” them to achieve that, I care about everyone in a society having basic legal rights and protections of law.

UAE and KSA are in fact making a lot of progress, but they are making progress against the direction you are holding on high. Even on the drug enforcement issue!

> Or do you mean way back in 2023 in UAE where it’s completely legal for a husband to rape his wife and, if killed for “a good reason” (like being raped), her killer goes unpunished so long as her father acquits?

With all due respect, this sounds BS

> UAE and KSA are in fact making a lot of progress, but they are making progress against the direction you are holding on high. Even on the drug enforcement issue!

No they aren't, and their drug enforcement hasn't changed a bit, probably got stronger.

Ok, tell me, how would you enforce it?

Ask the UAE about that. They don't seem to have any drugged idiots on the streets for some reason.

One could say the same things about tobacco and minors, yet somehow nobody is suggesting that we should let kids buy cigarettes.

That's an argument for regulation vs illegalization, though.

no, the same public health "experts" say cigarettes should be outright banned for people under a certain age. new zealand recently banned ever selling them to anyone born after 2009, at any age

and if you check this article and the charts (from Germany): https://www.dw.com/en/new-zealands-smoking-ban-a-precedent-f...

It is very very obvious that restricting the product works in such case (from 30%+ of active smokers to almost 5%)

Maybe if you're going to go down the road of buying illegal substances you're not going to pick the one that is highly addictive, gives you lung cancer and makes you smell like a chimney in exchange for almost no discernable difference in how you feel? Maybe there are better trade-offs at that point, such as cocaine, mdma, ketamine, lsd, etc?

Yes. Supply reduction works in aggregate in almost all cases. Anyone that says otherwise only came to harm reduction via it being a liberal / progressive political talking point. I say this as someone that’s very left-wing and an overall believer in harm reduction. It’s just the way it’s espoused by Joe Citizen is dumbed down to the point where it’s just plain wrong.

If we legalised heroin, more people would do heroin. Gateway drugs are real. Decades of fighting against stupid Reagan-era drug policy have trained so many people to completely throw the baby out with the bathwater and brush the nuances of addiction under the rug in support of their cause, on both sides.

The argument in reality tends to be more that decriminalisation presents a net benefit literally by virtue of mitigating the criminal aspect.

I’d use drugs more than I do now if there was less of a legal disincentive. People that think they understand the tenants of harm reduction often hate to hear that, which I find absurd. It’s just…the truth. Usually I’m told “but you’re not the one we’re worried about” as if those with ‘serious’ drug addictions are somehow ‘other’. A ridiculously narrow view. There but for the grace of God go I.

I live in an area that saw drastically lower drug importations during COVID travel restrictions. We also had social policy that loaded loads of people up with money that kept everyone paid. We got to see first-hand the effects that supply reduction had on drug use, across the aggregate. There was an inarguable correlation. The issue is usually that policing action is just never that effective.

New Zealand health officials locked down the island earlier and for much longer than anywhere else during covid aside from China and they have increased social problems from it. I'm not sure the world should be following advice from that source.

No one is suggesting we let kids buy weed either. This comparison doesn’t hold up to even slight scrutiny.

Actually, Minnesota's weed legalization law might face a special session because there's concern that the law doesn't add penalties for those who sell to minors. At this point, all anyone could be charged with is a petty misdemeanor, which- like many other crimes in the state- may go uncharged.

You've missed the point. More than "slight" scrutiny is clearly required!

Sample size of one: I never bought weed when it was illegal because I don't associate with the sort of people who'd sell it. Sometimes it would be offered to me and I would try it, but I never had or wanted to have "a dealer". But now that I can just pop into a local store whenever I want, it's no big deal.

Sure, but people like you smoking slightly more often is not actually a real problem. Addiction is a problem, and for people like me who are heavily predisposed to addiction, bans have done nothing to prevent addiction from developing, and done lots to make the lives of those who suffer from it worse, and indeed the drugs themselves more dangerous, even for casual users(it only takes one bad ecstacy pill to kill you...)

> people like you smoking slightly more often

Heh, well.. you give me a bit too much credit. I went from one or two bong rips a year to most days of the week.

To be honest I think my point of view is more common than you may think because admitting to it is tantamount to admitting I'm some sort of uncool uptight square, but also that I now use. Saying it won't win me friends with either side of the issue, so people like me are generally disinclined share our experiences.

I'm confused by the article/headline, which also states:

Washington state and Colorado became the first states to legalize recreational marijuana in 2012, after which marijuana use saw a slight increase among Hispanic and white participants, researchers said.

Makes sense. All the old people in my family are buying gummies now.

> You sound like my uncle.

Your comment was so much better before that point.

> I'm not sure how that flies with this: "An article published in The Journal of the American Medical Association found there was no increase in cannabis use among the general population or among previous users after their states legalized marijuana."

Simple: there is no possible way that's true. It fails every imaginable sniff test. Anecdotally, I never purchased marijuana when it was illegal and I do now. I know many people for whom the same is true. If marijuana were made illegal again tomorrow I would stop using it. I'm a normie middle-aged dad. The only way I'm buying and consuming marijuana is if I can walk into a shop and buy it legally. There must be millions of people like me.

This doesn't require any deep insight. It would be very surprising if ease of access had no effect on consumption.