Zero Tolerance or Harm Minimisation? (1 Viewer)

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

I find it very hard to believe that the post in question wasn't an argument for the equilibration of drug laws to the more relaxed side.

I want relaxed drug laws. But I'm not arguing for them when I mention drug scheduling; when I mention drug scheduling I'm arguing for consistent drug laws and the intelligent debate about drugs that would follow. I have faith that people would come out on the side of liberty and drug law relaxation if that happened.

You posted in the most argument heavy section of an argument heavy website, after a handful of posts arguing the benefits of harm minimisation.

That still doesn't change the fact that my post was pretty clearly unrelated to harm minimisation; you could make all drugs including tobacco and alcohol illegal and the inconsistency in question would be gone. This thread is big enough for more than one area of the drug debate.

and for the third, fourth or fifth time, i think that advocating the legalisation, or relaxation or whatever you want to call it, simply because other drugs are legal, is fallacious. it might appeal to dullards at first but when one breaks it down there's no meat on that bone.

You're not getting it, are you?

I AM NOT ARGUING FOR LEGALISATION OF ANY DRUGS WHATSOEVER SIMPLY BASED ON THE SCHEDULING OF NICOTINE AND ALCOHOL.

In fact, legalisation is rather low on my agenda in the first place. I want to see strong, holistic harm minimisation techniques in place, which certainly involves decriminalising all drug use, but doesn't necessarily require legalisation.

I do want to see drug laws that aren't contradictory and inconsistent. Even under legalisation, there's bound to be a scheduling system. Well I want that system, legalisation or not, to be based on actual evidence of the social/individual harm + addictive potential of the drug rather than the decades old misinformed opinions of social conservatives in America from the 1930's to 1970's.

So explain to me, instead of repeatedly saying, why there's no 'meat' to that?

I'm still confused as to your point. Are you saying that if we subtracted the pleasure ratings from each then tobacco would be at the top of this graph?

Yes. That's what the data from that study showed. I'm at home now so I don't have access, but you'll be able to check it on a lab computer at ANU, like I said for previous journal articles.

 

[incentivation]

I've though the exact same thing about incentivation. He regurgitates other people's words to give his posts a false air of thoughtfulness and moderation.

Who's words? You do exactly the same thing, except under the guise of being an all wise and committed Libertarian.

Do you honestly believe that the productivity of society would not be adversely affected with complete legalisation? Your rampant libertarianism and idealism clouds any iota of common sense. Sometimes factors beyond the rights and free will of the individual need to have some consideration.

A common argument I've seen on here is that if dosages are controlled and the market free, then the prospect of addiction and overdose would be minimised, and the likelihood of 'impurities' contaminating the drug reduced. The basic premise being that legalisation is the most effective harm minimisation policy.

This may occur in some utopian Nozickian society.

If these premises were all true, then why do alcohol and tobacco, which are both legal, still cause the greatest harm? Everyone is completely aware of the associated health risks of abuse in the case of alcohol, and use, in the case of tobacco. Sure, the addictive nature of these substances is comparatively greater than others, but I believe it is generally individual issues which drive the addiction, particularly when there is a need or desire to escape the reality of everyday life (particularly Ice and Heroin).

It is not as simple as analyising the relative danger of each substance in isolation. Abuse is not derived merely from the dependency level of a drug. Individuals resort to drug use and misuse for very personal reasons. The widespread misuse and abuse of alcohol and tobacco is more than society can already handle. Do we need to add in a further cocktail of opiates and psychostimulants into that equation?

Moreover, what is to stop unscrupulous manufacturers from continuing to cut the substances with other more harmful ones to reduce costs? How heavily would you regulate the market? I would have though that such regulation would be contrary to your libertarian views. You might say people would realise the negative effects and never buy the product again, but how can you be certain.

There are so many more questions that need to be reviewed than those relating to the science of the substances. Thus my original post.

 

[incentivation]

My main problem is the way in which you try to convey an air of reasonableness and moderation.

I don't always intend to come across that way. It's just where I stand. It may not seem that way, but have a strong belief in individual freedom and liberty. However I equally recognise a need for balance.

Do I have to be attached to an ideological standpoint?

They're already a part of the equation, and always will be. Prohibition has failed to stop the proliferation of drug use. Conversely, in Portugal, where drugs have been decriminalized, use has actually decreased, and rates of disease and overdose associated with drug use have decreased dramatically. Why not make them available safely?

As I originally said, if the evidence is there, I wouldn't oppose it. I don't see drug use as intrinsically bad.

 

[Ben Netanyahu]

I wouldn't regulate the market at all. Most drugs are would extremely cheap under complete legalisation. There would be very little incentive to do this, and if companies did do it, they would soon loose customers.

Furthermore, private companies could rate the quality of drugs and provide information to consumers about their safety, just as they currently do with many consumers goods now.

Cigarette comoanies laced cigarettes with harmful compounds, and from what I've heard, addictive substances, until government regulation kicked in. What's to stop this from happening, for example, with MDMA: Lace it with a large amount of methamphetamine which is cheaper on all fronts.

 

[Ben Netanyahu]

Nothing is to stop it from happening. If people want to take the risk and consume dangerous, poorly drugs, that's their choice. However, most people would obviously not choose such drugs, just as most people wouldn't choose drugs at all.

Ok cool, cool.

Would you advocate an ingredients list? Full transparency is what is in these products and some kind of testing watchdog, yes?

I'm not sure what you are referring to re: cigarettes, by definition tobacco itself is a harmful compound and an addictive substance, I don't see why the addition of extra compounds with said harmful properties makes it more sinister.

Oh, what I meant was that I recall from somewhere that cigarette companies tried to put more addictive substances in cigarettes to make them more addictive (or put research into that). Could have been an urban myth, idk, but it was just an example to flesh out the example with MDMA/Ice.

btw,

-The failure of the war on drugs to prevent drug use, with use actually increasing since prohibition.

Does not follow, imo

 

[DavidBenGurion]

They have a right to research but have no right to dishonestly add substances to their products and it's absurd to suggest that they do have that right, as I think you're suggesting. Consumers have a right to know what they're buying and they have a right to know exactly which addictive and harmful products they're buying into. If you don't allow that right then you're advocating a system where companies override the individual. Absurd.

What incentive is there for company X, the MDMA manufacturer that likes to add some cheap crystal meth to their product, to disclose this information to the public if they can keep this informatio from view. They have the potential to get people addicted to an otherwise (somewhat) non-addictive product, to manufacture their "MDMA" more cheaply than they otherwise would, and to make incredible amounts of money from otherwise infrequent customers, and to dishonestly trick the consumer into buying their product.

What monetary incentive would there be for any third party to do expensive and time consuming tests on these products? Are there any companies like this at the moment that function outside the government or without governmental assistance?

 

[SylviaB]

Current illegal drug manafacturers add dangerous shit to drugs all the time, legal companies can only be as bad or better.

 

[DavidBenGurion]

Not quite true. I daresay that big companies like Pfizer pr GlaxoSmithKline with big ass money could research more beneficial agents. They might not lace their MDMA with PMA, but they could do well to find another analogue with similar and more harmful effects under the guise of MDMA. They very well could do worse.

I don't see why we should settle for "as bad or better"

 

[DavidBenGurion]

Pill reports?
Eh...I can see the attractiveness but there's a sizable difference between questionable users testing the quality of pills first hand and an actual scientific analysis. Easy to tell if a pill has no MDMA and is all speed. Not as easy to tell if the content isn't as clear cut. Easy to tell with low quality street pills, and probably not as easy with ones manufactured by Pfizer. etc. I acknowledge the usefulness of that website and marquis tests etc, but something more concrete is needed, because of these scenarios and others which would surely arise (such as in the scenario where companies are researching ways to make their products more addictive). Could testing organisations be created by advertising? Possible but unlikely, imo. Tests to determine composition don't exactly come cheap (unless you use the human guinea pig reporting on the internet route, which I think is questionable). Use of drugs would rise but not by too much, and companies would surely be trusted much more by the average consumer over some shady dealer. Advertising money wouldn't be that inviting, imo.

User pays
With the cigarette example, it didn't exactly happen there. I reckon if people want to get high they really won't give a shit unless, maybe, when it's costing them a tremendous amount of money. How many people out there actually test their pills? How many of them realise how futile it is? How many of them would continue to do so once they start buying their product from Pfizer? With heroin, you've acknowledged several times that overdose is caused by shady levels of purity. Clearly users of heroin aren't too fussed with the purity, as long as they get their fix. I'm not convinced of the merits of user pays testing.

Other companies? In the example before company X was making their product cheaper with a lower quality grade. It seems to me that there's little incentive for company Y to not follow suit, all in secret if it concerns newly discovered compounds. They could offer a premium product for a higher price, but I remain utterly unconvinced that this is acceptable when it comes to addictive drugs, especially if it is done dishonestly. Perhaps it's acceptable with Energiser batteries versus Acme batteries (actually probably not), but not with addictive products. Consumers have the right to absolute transparency, especially when it comes to potentially life and death matters (cigarettes).

They're all pretty inviting ideas and I think they'd work to a small extent, but I still firmly believe that a government watchdog and testing organisation is nessecary. There are too many iffy situations and I honestly don't see the problem with government testing because I, like most, am not some crazy militant psychotic libertarian guy.

All of this business about freak compounds being added and inter-organisational conspiracies is unlikely imo, but I think it's important to discuss the nessecity of governmental drug regulation.

I might create a poll someday idk.

 

[SylviaB]

Aren't the companies going to want to make their products as safe as reasonably possible, to minimise the risk of their customers dying and thus losing profit?

 

[DavidBenGurion]

Yes. But I'd say that addicting a customer is more important than their health. If that weren't the case, I'm sure the cigarette situation would be much, much different.

Fair 'nuff Zimmerman. I've not much else to say.