The one difference though between alcohol and some of the drugs is potency and how quickly one can be addicted to it. Therefore, treatment should be much more easily be available and it should be much easier to have an intervention.
In the same way, we should make it illegal to do drugs in situations where you are likely to cause irreparable harm.
If we legalize drugs, let's create safe situations to do so. Many drugs are being legalized under the supervision of a doctor. We could also allow drug use within a safe space where you can't OD, and where you won't leave needles on the ground for kids to step on.
And as far as the legal administration etc., that already exists in SF and it has had a poor track record of helping people.
Not arguing for outright legalization—while I once did, I now think it’s naive. And I’m not sure we could pull off a Portugal style system in the US. But descriminalizariam doesn’t seem to be working that well.
Legalization bankrupts criminal organizations.
Legalization creates tax revenue.
Refusing to prosecute antisocial behavior is the problem.
This is a good point.
If I go to the liquor store, I can buy bottles that are 90% alcohol or bottles as low as 3% alcohol.
If we legalize "hard" drugs like opiates, meth, etc. then we'll get a similar differentiation along with the benefit that the drugs will be checked by Trusted Sources (both government and industry) to effectively eliminate certain adulterants.
And for the folks who become addicts (physically or psychologically), there's no legal risk in telling their doctor or therapist or anyone, and they can better enter treatment.
There are folks who drink 750ml (~24oz) of 40% liquor every day. It's rare but they have an addiction. They can also get treatment, while the rest of us enjoy 5% beers and 13% wines more moderately.
Depends on the state. Some states banned 90%+ hard liquors (eg. Everclear) while other states allow it. Some other states have banned selling hard liquors and wines unless it's from a state run liquor store. Other states just allow open sale at any store. It's all state dependent as the US is federal.
Maybe no LEGAL risks, but if you live in the USA and want to have insurance and/or life insurance, you wouldn’t want to disclose this info since they’ll either deny you or charge you extra.
On that basis, I think it's better if we remove the legal risk even if there are still societal or economic risks.
Literally no matter what we do we are going to have a large number of people who have drugged their way out of society and will not be able to come back. And we need to figure out what to do about that.
IMO this helps highlight the spectrum we're dealing with, where one point is "taking that is a bad choice but I support your freedom of choice and autonomy", and another might be "holy shit this doom-substance so irredeemably anti-freedom that banning it is obviously the best practical choice."
Even if you look at such a drug as a roundabout form of suicide, it's one where the person must be blocked from harming others on their way out.
