@thor

This is generally my impression. A lot of addiction, too, which is why I favor making addiction as inexpensive and easy as possible.

At least localizes the problem.

I don't know how to save everyone. It's not in nature's plan at least.

I hope things work out for your sister.

@amerika @thor

It has been said many times we are losing the war on drugs.

If you legalise supply you control not only the supply but the purity and strength, that way you know what you are getting.

10mg of paracetamol from a pharmacy should be just that for example but in this case applied to I guess Heroin and cocaine among others.

Then you work on reducing the dependency, a t the same time as that try and deal with the mental health or other issues that have caused the addiction

Of course this also means that these substances can be tax, so lets tax them and put 100 percent of that in to providing free detox, mental health and other support.

As with other problems, it is fixable if we are prepared to be tough enough to have these hard discussions and make hard decisions as to how to solve the issues involved.

@zleap @thor

I oppose legalization and favor decriminalization.

Our goal is not to make drug use safe, only to make it less destructive.

In my view, the markets do a good job of regulating quality.

I also have very little faith in detox programs.

It's all up to the user, and most who quit do it on their own.

@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.