@amerika @thor

I think the solution will come from a variety of different ideas, but the agreement is the current idea is simply not working.

@zleap @thor

The best solutions are often the simplest.

Decriminalization avoids endorsing drug use, but also stops penalizing people for being addicted.

It lets nature sort of the issue.

A functional heroin addict would do fine under this order, and at least with morphine, this was once often the case.

@amerika @zleap @thor A/B testing for decriminalization happened recently with the 'white death' of opiate abuse. The people who say that Prohibition worked (because it suppressed alcohol deaths in much of the country, and who cares about any other consequences?) probably would argue that the high death count of opiate abuse shows that it's bad policy. Or more generally, A/B testing for substance abuse is still ongoing with the completely legal sugar and corn epidemic.

If you say that the current policy on heroin "isn't working", and then change it, just be prepared for there being measurably a lot more heroin deaths, and then a lot of people saying that, actually, these deaths mean that the old policy was "working" after all. Drug discussion is always so utopian ("legalize weed! It has NO DOWNSIDES AT ALL"). If you can't harden your heart against a woman's sob story about how sugar legalization led to her fit and handsome son turning himself into a pig and then dying of it, and say that sugar prohibition's consequences were worse and that her son's real vice was a lack of self control, then you're just poisoning the well for other people who would take this position.

@apropos @amerika @thor

I think and the end of the day it comes down to education, we need to start at school and look at the effects of drugs / sugar / alcohol not from a legal perspective but how they actually impact our bodies

Aimed with science backed information make our own informed choices, but knowing that our own choices have consequences. ;

Teach people they are responsible for their actions, what ever those actions are, ride a bike in to someone and injure them, take responsibility rather than blaming the other person, if someone steps right out in front of you and you just collide, then perhaps they need to take some responsibility.

of course at times things are no ones fault, it is just an accident.

@apropos @amerika @thor

From what I understand prohibition just drove alcohol underground,

@zleap @amerika @thor that's the usual understanding but just looking at opiate and sugar abuse, wouldn't you expect some other consequences even without knowing that "Prohibition worked, actually" people exist?

One exchange is:
>Fisher used retail alcohol prices to demonstrate that Prohibition was working by raising the price and decreasing the quantity produced. However, his price quotations also revealed that the Iron Law of Prohibition was at work. The price of beer increased by more than 700 percent, and that of brandies increased by 433 percent, but spirit prices in creased by only 270 percent, which led to an absolute in crease in the consumption of spirits over pre‐​Prohibition levels.
The opposite happened in Britain a few centuries ago: (French) wine was heavily taxed, so the British just moved to beer.

@apropos @thor @zleap

In my view, the War on Some Drugs (WoSD) has decreased some consumption.

Among poorer areas and the young however, it's easy to find drugs.

Would it be worse if the drugs were decriminalized or legalized? It's hard to tell, but likely more people would use them, but I'd say for a shorter length of time.

Much of the appeal of drugs is their bad boy status. Without that, most would move on to something else in their lives.

@apropos @thor @zleap

I wonder how many industries developed simply because of taxation or other government interference.

Headhunters (recruiters) for example.

Or even real estate agents.

@apropos @thor @zleap

Part of the problem with opiates was that doctors prescribed them.

In my view, there are no Utopias. Substances, like gambling and sex, will always bring problems.

The point is to ensure that normal, healthy people are protected from the onslaught of human decay as much as possible.

@amerika @apropos @thor

Is this is what happened with Fentanyl ?

@zleap @apropos @thor

Fentanyl is in medical use. I don't know if it was prescribed. A lot of painkillers like oxy were however.

@amerika @zleap @apropos @thor I'm also pretty sure it's not prescribed. The issue with it is that it's EXTREMELY powerful and the effective dose is very very tiny and it's also relatively cheap by weight. It's very easy to overdose on and drug manufacturers will use it to add cheap extra kick to whatever else they're selling in powder or pill form with predictable consequences.

@dew_the_dew @apropos @thor @zleap

https://www.pdr.net/drug-summary/Duragesic-fentanyl-268.1033

@dew_the_dew @apropos @thor @zleap

This was interesting:

"Fentanyl should not be used during impaired consciousness or coma, as significant decreases in respiratory drive may lead to adverse intracranial effects from carbon dioxide retention."

I know opiates kill through respiratory failure, and wonder if this is linked.

Like breathing into a paper bag to end panic, but... permanently.

@amerika @apropos @thor @zleap Look at all the dosages in mcg though how easy would it be to fuck up your measurements in a basement drug lab.

@amerika @zleap @thor I think opening up legal markets for what are currently considered illicit drugs would be beneficial for a number of reasons. A non violent drug user who isn't stealing to feed their habit literally harms no one except potentially themselves first and foremost. Keeping things in gray or black markets leads to impurities and dangerous additives, but more than that it creates a scenario where violence becomes perceived as necessary for businesses to secure their profits. The legal markets are protected by the government who claims monopoly on use of force. Illegal markets have to do this for themselves.

This isn't to say other black markets should be given legal status, but in the case of individuals partaking in activities that only put themselves at risk I see no reason for disallowing it.

Alcohol is one of the hardest drugs on the body, and we have nearly 100k deaths a year from excessive use. Drunk driving adds to that number victims of bad decisions while intoxicated.

@thatguyoverthere @zleap @thor

I tend to agree with legal but unregulated/untaxed markets.

Localize the damage.

@amerika @zleap @thor One regulation I do think is important is that ingredients should be accurately listed. One big problem with a dark drug market is that there is no way to ensure potency or even content is what's expected which can lead to unnecessary premature death. I don't think it's the government's place to decide what you put in your body, but if you think you are buying substance "a" at potency "x" that's all it should be. no extra additives unless they are listed.

@thatguyoverthere @thor @amerika

This is surely where legalisation / regulation comes in, you know what your getting / paying for.

However with the dark drug market surely people should also be taking some degree of self responsibility too. You know the risks, you chose to take them. Government as you say can / should only go so far.

@zleap @thatguyoverthere @thor

No, I think the message needs to be clear: we don't endorse this; you're taking your chances.

I want government out of as much as possible, and localized personal responsibility in as much as possible.

@amerika @thatguyoverthere @thor

I think this is what I was getting at,

Open science about the risks, backed with the science / data and you give people informed choices.

Laws cannot keep up with science.

@zleap @thatguyoverthere @thor

The more laws, the more error and corruption, also.

@amerika @thatguyoverthere @thor

Well yes, we have laws on libel, slander and deframation (as does the US) but if the new online safety bill also includes this, then it makes it harder to bring charges if someone is charged under the wrong law, in the case of the abvoe it would possibly be better to amend the existing laws to explicitly include online. .

We also have the telecommunications act to stop malicious use of the phone lines (which includes internet)

Online harms bill is going to make social media platforms more liable, (in theory but as another thread highlighted facebook are already trying to circumvent data protection laws (GDPR) by claiming gathering of certain info is needed.

@thatguyoverthere @thor @amerika

It is not just illegal drugs, people buy viagra online not knowing what they are actually getting, consumer program have given these fake products to labs to test and the have all sorts of stuff in , paint, sawdust etc oh and rat droppings etc due to being made in unhygienic conditions.

I suppose it Viagra is meant to make you stiff, then it does what it says on the tin, only in this case stiff = dead.

@zleap @thatguyoverthere @thor

Permanent priapism via rigor mortis? I love it. That's very morbid of you, and I commend that.

The question of business accountability is a huge one. Do we have a better business bureau, regulate, or let lawsuits do it?

I like lawsuits since they tend to end bad companies.

@amerika @thatguyoverthere @thor

We need to make it easier / cheaper to sue people BUT have safe guards in place to deal with malicious suits (look at patent trolls)

It confuses me how people who commit murder can't be sued under the EU/ UK human rights act for denial of life or family life by their victims family. BUT if that person stubs their toe in the shower in prison they can claim damages.

@zleap @thatguyoverthere @thor

The main way to make it easier/cheaper is to make it faster.

I agree.

I think countersuits should be more common.

I think but do not know that in the UK, in many suits, the losing party pays costs.

There are advantages to that if the suit is spurious, for example.

@amerika @thatguyoverthere @thor

I think they do yes, it has happened in insurance fraud cases where a fairly small claim say 40k ended up with a huge legal bill forcing fraudster to sell their home.

@zleap @thatguyoverthere @thor

I think it's good to have some legal decisions that destroy bad businesses.

Like all these phone spammers... I'm getting spam calls in Spanish only now.

@thatguyoverthere @zleap @thor

If our legal system was awake, it would permit fraud suits for anything other than listed ingredients.

For example, honey. Bad sellers replace much of the liquid with corn syrup.

To my mind, that's fraud if the container says HONEY.

But regulations shield this.

@amerika @thatguyoverthere @thor

In the UK that would probably breach the trade descriptions act.
Food laws have been updated here so that all ingredients have to be listed even on shop made sandwiches, this is to help people with allergies avoid items that have known allergens in.

It helps everyone else too, but hopefully will avoid people dying from eating products containing something they are allergic to.

@zleap @thatguyoverthere @thor

It's one of the reasons why UK tobacco is so good: the laws historically favored natural ingredients, not weird flavorings.

@amerika @thatguyoverthere @thor

Indeed, we have some pretty tough regulations here.

@zleap @thatguyoverthere @thor

It's everywhere now, part of the modern makeup.

I think it's wrong.

The tobacco law pre-dates regulations, incidentally. It was a Royal act, and I'm not sure what those are called in current law.

Regulations make it easy to circumnavigate them. I prefer having standards, and simply destroying any business that violates them.

Business understands that kind of risk.

@amerika @thatguyoverthere @thor

Indeed, well here we have activity pub, which is a standard, that works or seems to work really well. where there are problems we get together, discuss and enhence.

i guess in someweays the GPL is a standard

The main problem is that we don't always have the financial resources to take on big violators.

@zleap @thatguyoverthere @thor

Regulatory states are expensive. There could be some cost-shifting there.

I dunno how to write a law to protect online privacy. This is why I like common law: it reacts to real harms.

If Facebook leaks someone's data, I say let them sue. Clarify that privacy is a natural right, in other words.

Facebook fears that, because they could have as many lawsuits as users, and after the first one wins, they all will. RIP Facebook.

@amerika @thatguyoverthere @thor

Well with the online safety bill, big tech have been given a chance to self regulate, which has clearly failed, if you look at the leaked reports of facebook putting profits before user safety.

Other examples of online abuse Kids posting doctored videos of teachers on tik tok with their teachers labelled paedophiles.

They have failed hence the government here have decided to legislate.

The same goes for other industries here such as energy, they are given a chance to have a voluntary code, self regulate and just don't. So government has to act.
.
Hence is why it is important to engage with law makers via the forums on social.activitypub.rocks or rather the people there do the talking to lawmakers once people have ideas to present to them.

@zleap @thatguyoverthere @thor

I take a different approach: it is not Facebook's job to regulate this stuff at all.

Kids posting doctored videos? Take it up with the kids.

As far as the energy industry, they love regulation. Make of that what you will.

@amerika @thatguyoverthere @thor

I 100 % agree with taking it up with the kids, we already have several laws that would be breached by what they have done; e.g slander, libel, harassment, bullying, malicuous communications to probably name a few.

So take them to court and sue them or hold the parents responsible and sue them. They will soon regret it when mum / dad have to sell up and say we are now homeless due to your stupid behaviour.

The do gooders would claim though that the kids are not aware of the consequences, this is BS they know EXACTLY what they are doung. A few have just been suspended from school. They are pretty much untouchable in some cases.

Problem is it is easier to blame the platform - Facebook, TikTOk etc than it is to blame the users who post.

Online harms bill is also designed to remove the anonymity and force some sort of online ID system

I have no problem linking my posts to me via ID, but I also appreciate others may post anonymously as they want to discuss sensitive topics, or they may be an activist in a more dangerous country.

In some countries it is illegal to be gay, so having this ID system may put people in danger, if you are linked to certain groups etc. then visit a country where being gay is illegal.

@zleap @thatguyoverthere @thor

I say HELL NO to IDing users.

We know how this one ends: the cops at your door for something you posted on Twitter seven years ago.

The internet was a brief truth bubble because it was mostly anonymous.

@amerika @thatguyoverthere @thor

This is the problem, on Mainstream social media we have people abusing others anonymously, so as a result these laws are now being brought in. So an exanple is people sending indecent images to women, for example but that is not just a few p eople these women are getting bombarded with images, sexual comments etc etc.

Of course that is a manifestation of society (so back to education)

So the majority suffer due to the minority.

At least here on fedi we can block users, mute users or whole instances if that instance fails to deal with something. We have more control in some ways.

On fed we can verify our accounts, which should be optional. but i think in some cases there are benefits esp if you are a official account for example or an instance admin. .

@amerika @thatguyoverthere @thor

Problem with RIP Facebook is where do all the users go to?

As I have said before you attract the good and bad users.

@zleap @thatguyoverthere @thor

Someone invents something new.

We're seeing it now, just in slow motion.

@amerika @zleap @thor yeah I'm good with standards as opposed to regulations. There need to be teeth though when it comes to things you are putting in your body being hidden from. I think Subway recently found themselves in trouble in France because by the French standard, what subway calls bread is actually cake. In that case they weren't hiding secret ingredients per se, but they were selling a product that did not fit the definition. I think more recently there was a report that the tuna was lacking certain proteins found in tuna (using PCR), but I don't remember where that went.

I just think that while it's not the government's responsibility to regulate my choices, I should be able to participate in the free market and buy things and have them turn out to be what I think I am buying. Period. If I buy things that can harm me, but I know what they are, that's on me. The honey example is perfect. I think anyone selling corn syrup as honey should be punished in some fashion.

@thatguyoverthere @zleap @thor

I agree. I'd also like people to be able to sue for another entity, like rivers and lakes, instead of needing "standing" and a direct, personal, financial injury.

@amerika @thatguyoverthere @thor

Yeal that is doable if a company pollutes a river, that then has a direct impact on say your local business.

So environmental law should fine them and pay you compensation.

@zleap @thatguyoverthere @thor

In my view, no: you should be able to sue them for wrecking a river even if it cost you nothing, because you're out a river.

That way, there's a private incentive to sue, which works better in my view than government bureaucracies.

@amerika @thatguyoverthere @thor

Ah i get you there so you basically represent the river in court.

@zleap @thatguyoverthere @thor

Exactly. Company pollutes river, local guy notices his river has been ruined, he sues the company.

@amerika @thatguyoverthere @thor

Or gets together with other locals and issues a class action.

@thatguyoverthere @thor @amerika

We have laws in the uk that cover things like sales of good act, goods / services must be as advertised, fit for purpose, products must be safe etc.

@zleap @thatguyoverthere @thor

In my view of laws, the more general the better.

This is why I like fraud.

"It says here 'HONEY' but this isn't 100% honey, and the stuff in it is cheaper than honey, so I've been defrauded and want my money."

"Oh and the police outside would like a word with you because fraud is a felony."

Much harsher than regulations.

Regulations for example say that honey cannot be more than 1% bug legs.

That means all honey is exactly 1% bug legs ;)