posted by gut
I think you're way off. A majority of people simply won't risk being arrested, or going to shady areas of town, to seek out drugs to "try". When you legalize it, you take away the risk, the stigma and the inconvenience of getting it. It's "widely available" to the relatively small percentage of people who'll take the effort and risk to get it. Look at the explosion in painkillers - why?, because it was relatively safe and easy to get (but still nothing like going down to the corner store).
A majority of people simply won't risk being arrested, sure. That majority also isn't likely to use it if the threat of being arrested isn't there. The dangers of heroin are widely enough understood that the "risk" of being arrested pales in comparison to the "risks" associated with heroin use.
Even if the odds were even, "I could get arrested," while bad, isn't as bad as, "I could die after one use."
Also, you don't take away the stigma just because it's legal. That's the beauty of social pressure. We're seeing it play out with smoking even now.
As for the explosion of painkillers, let's indeed explore that. What prompts people to start using them in the first place? By an large, it's through medical advice. The fact that a prescription is written is more than just legal availability. It's the admonition of an expert on health after evaluating a person's ailment. It's an imperative statement that compels use, not just a declarative statement expressing availability.
Note that those who do develop addictions to painkillers and who are unable to get ongoing prescriptions are frequently able to sate their addiction through illegally obtaining it ... again, because it's easy to do.
posted by gut
Sure, people who really want to can find it and get it. But you're talking about a relatively small pool of potential users. There's really no reason to think many drugs couldn't have similar usage rates to alcohol, or tobacco for that matter. The other thing you're ignoring is an increase in usage of harder drugs will allow people not only access, but to see it's possible to function with it and not become addicted. There's many more reasons people don't do hard drugs than just being illegal, but the more barriers taken down, the more misconceptions are eroded (or replaced by other misconceptions).
It doesn't take "really" wanting to get it. I was walking down the street a couple weeks ago, and a man selling walked with me for literally a couple hundred feet trying to sell me "party favors." There's no great effort to find it. It's easy to find in nice neighborhoods and poor neighborhoods.
There's really no reason to think drugs couldn't have similar usage rates to alcohol or tobacco? I agree. Many drugs would. Many drugs are also able to be used recreationally without becoming addicted, and one can function at a high level even if they are addicted (similar to alcohol or tobacco).
You seem to say that misconceptions being eroded is a bad thing, and that people being informed on what they put in their bodies is a problem. I assume I'm not reading that correctly. If someone can take a drug without becoming addicted, why shouldn't they be allowed to do so? To use a common comparison, we don't ban steak because a baby can't eat it.
The reasons people have for not doing drugs vary, in many cases, based on the drug. That's not a bad thing.
posted by gut
Cue the "it hasn't led to an increase in other countries". But the US is different. Other countries don't have our problem with alcohol, either. I'm 100% certain the more drugs you legalize, the more people will use and the more people that will become addicted. Maybe that's a reasonable trade-off, or maybe you decide to keep poison out of the reach of children.
That last non sequitur was funny to read.
The more drugs you legalize, the more will be used? Maybe. I mean, if we're talking across all drugs, I'd think so, but I actually don't think that would be the case for every single drug, and I think you're failing to consider that the illegality of drugs is actually potentially a draw for some to begin using.
Drugs that have been plastered all over the news over the last several years because of the number of lives they've claimed aren't exactly going to be sought for the good time they offer, just because they're legal.
During prohibition, alcohol consumption didn't drastically decrease. In the words of John Rockefeller:
"When Prohibition was introduced, I hoped that it would be widely supported by public opinion and the day would soon come when the evil effects of alcohol would be recognized. I have slowly and reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result. Instead, drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before."
It's just one person's observation, and I know the plural for 'anecdote' isn't 'data', but it's a person with a wide reach and a first-hand view of the climate during the time. His impression was an actual increase of using during prohibition. Moreover, he notes that the otherwise 'best citizens' ignored the laws and, thus, became law-breakers, increasing the number of criminals.
For what it's worth, there have also been studies into the Prohibition era which suggest that alcohol consumption didn't increase notably in the post-Prohibition era until the 1960s, by which point it would have been for drastically different reasons.
posted by gut
You're thinking about it totally wrong.
It's not about whether or not someone "wants" to do heroine, much less the the "want" relative to the "effort". It's like walking thru a liquor store.
It's easier than going to the liquor store. Literally. You can have it come to you, wherever you live.
posted by gut
I'm not driving across town, much less an illegal transaction in the 'hood, to try a tequila.
I wouldn't either. But you don't have to do that for nearly anything now, so I'm not sure what bearing that has on the current discussion.
posted by gut
But when it's sitting there on the shelf in front of me? A lot of people who would not otherwise access it have an opportunity to try it.
Who doesn't currently have access to it? I'm curious. It can already be brought to your door. It will walk down the street next to you trying to sell itself in tourist or night life areas.
posted by gut
Also, if something is available on that store shelf, regulated and FD&A approved and all that, the consumer can assume it's "relatively" safe. Not like the risk of a "hot shot" or any number of other issues with buying illegal drugs.
True. Legalizing it would, indeed, decrease the risk of getting laced product. Informed purchase. Not a bad thing.
posted by gut
The "it's easy & widely available" is, honestly, a bunch of horseshit. So how about a little experiment - if I give you $100, will you go buy me $50 worth of heroine? We all know your answer is no, which proves me correct. Or how guns - if guns were illegal would you just go buy them on the black market? Easy and widely available, right, so gun laws would have no impact on gun ownership?!?
The answer is, indeed, no. However, it's not for the reason you think, which is why you're wrong. I won't buy heroin for you or anyone else because I don't believe it has any redeeming value. I think it's dangerous, and I won't contribute to its consumption or its market. As such, if it were made legal tomorrow, my answer would still be 'no' tomorrow.
My reason for saying 'no' is a morality-based one. Not a legality-based one. I have almost no fear of arrest. Change it to adderall or shrooms ... something I have much less problem with ... and sure; I'd oblige.
