> It's far easier to reduce consumption by cutting the supply entering your country

So easy. Exactly why Sweden have had a "zero tolerance" policy against drugs, particularly Cannabis, yet usage keeps growing no matter how much resources they keep throwing at stricter border controls and trying to reduce both supply and demand by arresting everyone with even traces of Cannabinoids in their blood. https://www.euda.europa.eu/publications/country-drug-reports...

> People selling drugs such as fentanyl or cocaine have various techniques to hook consumers and keep them addicted regardless of their mental state. Selling hard drugs is criminalized for a good reason.

You're making the argument for why these things should be sold in controlled circumstances, rather than by private individuals who don't care about anything else but themselves, yet you end with "is criminalized for a good reason". Completely opposite, you're making the argument for why it needs to be legalized.

There is a difference between "0 tolerance", which affects mainly users, and "no entry", which prevents the product to reach your border.

In the case of Sweden, it is mainly a symptom of non-european immigration, using their criminal networks to import the product. Netherland is dominated by Moroccan mafia, France by the Algerian mafia, and so on. Remigrating them would likely solve a big part of the problem.

> controlled selling

Yes, that's already the case in most countries: I can get opioids such as morphine in the case of surgical operation. Many ADHD teens get derivatives of amphetamines. No one is against this.

OTBE, if you reduce supply, prices tend to increase. So although you're getting less of the stuff in, you're equally incentivised as a criminal.

OTOH, if demand drops, that's real money out of traffickers pockets. They sell less, and at lower prices.

If you reduce supply, less product is consumed by society, which is the intended effect.

You have to think as a person who does drugs though. You want to get high, and product A is not available, what do you do?

You're not solving any problems, you're moving them around. What's the point?

They will consume less product A as a result. If product A is highly destructive/addictive (e.g, crack), it's a win.

In practice they tend to substitute A with B, and B is often times even more destructive (black market fentanyl rather than medical opioids, or just inhalants).

> It's far easier to reduce consumption by cutting the supply entering your country, than solving the self-actualization issues (is it even one?) of your population.

Stuff like this is hard to believe in 2025 without really compelling evidence.

I gave you an example. You have similar examples in the XXth century, such as post-war amphetamin consumption in Europe.

The reverse is also true: the crack epidemic was caused by a dramatic increase in the supply of cocaine, which allowed even the poorest members of society to afford it. It's happening again now in Europe.

We can discuss about the criminalization of users and its effects on society, but in the case of the sellers I don't really see a case, especially when you know the conditions in which drugs are produced, involving often borderline slavery and wide corruption networks.

Perhaps, if our main goal is to simply reduce consumption of a specific drug. The problem I see is that problem avoidance finds other paths. Get rid of heroine? People will use marijuana. Marijuana gone? People use alcohol. Alcohol gone? People use video games.

I don't think the drugs are inherently the problem, as there's a paper I loved talking about different kinds of escapism: one where people escape to avoid problems and the second where people escape to solve problems.

So I still think the root is problem avoidance, which at an even more root level is emotional avoidance, especially of "bad" feelings, mostly sadness.

So I don't see it as self-actualization for some noble goal, but rather a practical how do I actually solve problems in my life goal.

tldr; banning certain drugs can be whack-a-mole, trying to solve symptoms but not the problem.

This is why it's more effective to focus on the most destructive drugs. Video games don't make you lose your teeth and become a burglar to buy the new CoD season pass (so far!).

If heroin were legal, in my current phase of life, I don't think I'd take it. I don't like even being drunk, and alcohol is very legal in most places I've lived.

But I dunno, I tend to say we should make it harder to get guns, so I want to reflect a little more on my double standard.

> People selling drugs such as fentanyl or cocaine have various techniques to hook consumers and keep them addicted regardless of their mental state. Selling hard drugs is criminalized for a good reason.

You don’t need any special tricks to keep someone buying fentanyl, the withdrawals are your sales pitch.

Drug dealers often text ex-users proposing free products to get back their lost client, for instance.

People selling drugs bit is not true. No one gets addicted bc the sellers. They get addicted because of the conditions of their own lives.

With the exception of medicinally. Like lost op painkillers. But that’s different than what you’re saying.

It really depends on where you live and the repression. In France, drug dealers paint large ads on buildings, advertising coke and weed, flood telegram channels and so on. If alcohol and cigarettes sellers do it on a massive scale, why wouldn't other drug dealers do the same (if the conditions allow it).

Drug users can be found at every stage of the society, either because of psychological/genetic issues making them more prone to consume, or because it's a cultural thing to do it (e.g alcohol), or there is peer pressure leading to consumption. Your living conditions have little to do about it, really.