100,000 dead annually from using would like to have a word. 70k of those are fentanyl by the way. Victimless though right? All those people could quit any time they want, right?
People do it to themselves. It's not like people don't know what hard drugs do to human body. They willingly start taking them. It ultimately is their own choice. Same can be said about alcoholism, btw, yet that is perfectly legal.
Somehow, it's mostly accepted that making it harder to intentionally kill oneself is not the right way to stop people from committing suicide. Yet at the same time, we still consider this total war on drugs the correct approach to preventing people from killing themselves with drug abuse. The sibling comment is right.
> Constraining supply of highly addictive drugs isn't an important factor to you? At all?
Isn't, at all. Something not being easily available makes it more attractive and makes people more curious about it. Such is human psychology.
Prohibition of anything for which there's demand does not work. It can't work. In general, laws only work when the majority of the society is on board with them. If the only people who are willing to enforce a law are police officers, then such a law only works when there's a police officer nearby.
> Alcohol is legal, how does it follow that there should be more iterations of addictive substances that do more damage to the fabric of society?
Again, if there's demand, there will be supply, regardless of legality. And since there will be supply of addictive substances either way, it makes sense to legalize them. The legalization will remove the criminal element from the cost, making it significantly cheaper, and would also ensure high quality/purity. I see no downsides here.
>Something not being easily available makes it more attractive and makes people more curious about it. Such is human psychology.
Can you cite a period when drug enforcement was more successful causing increased consumption?
>Again, if there's demand, there will be supply, regardless of legality. And since there will be supply of addictive substances either way, it makes sense to legalize them. The legalization will remove the criminal element from the cost, making it significantly cheaper, and would also ensure high quality/purity.
What do you think of the results in places that have attempted various versions of this? SF, Denver, parts of Canada, they all meet a similar result. Do you think the British were the good guys in the Opium Wars?
Do you think it's possible that drugs prevent the things on that list from happening? Drugs are more frequently causal of those things than a symptom.
It's more common to find people who start addictions from a financially stable position where they have some discretional income. Rarely do people begin addictions where they have to decide between food or a drug they're not addicted to.
How many dead annually from inactive lifestyles or overeating? Those are all choices that people make that affect them — nobody should be forced to live in a virtuous bubble just because it might extend their life a few years. That's all totally different from choosing to harm another human being.
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but to your point in another comment, I have some sympathy to setting an 'addiction bar' and prohibiting drugs above that bar. Of course, the biggest issue with all these discussions is that, by any objective measure of harm/addiction, alcohol ranks right up there alongside heroin, meth, etc.
But all of this is a tangent to the 'war on drugs' which doesn't even begin to address the issue sensibly.
The vast majority of drug victims are really the victims of war on drugs - that’s what makes clean, safe drugs unavailable and forces people to use dangerous replacements.
From the very beginning the American war on drugs was motivated by racism. It’s just another state-organized genocide in disguise.
