All Drugs Should Be Legalized Immediately, Says Harvard Prof | Hacker News Reader

All Drugs Should Be Legalized Immediately, Says Harvard Prof

businessinsider.com

16 pointstzury9 comments

While I agree with the sentiment, I don't know that heroin, crack, or crystal-meth should be included in the lot of legalized drugs. They border on poisons, and their existences are due solely to the drug war. Chemical modification to make the base more potent for smuggling and then cut on location have driven the trade to formulate stronger product per-gram so that it can be easily transported. In doing so they have become near poisonous products.

If we take opium and Heroin for example Heroin abuse was not ramped until the availability of opium and laudanum where no longer available. Opium, despite the fear mongering, is a relatively safe product with few deaths attributed to it, it was also the drug of choice among opiate abusers until it's abolishment at which point Heroin became the primary substance of choice due to availability. The same can be applied to the coca leaf and crack.

We should legalize the natural forms of these drugs and we will see the market for the expensive hard stuff dry up.

I think that not including these forms of the drugs you mentioned will entirely defeat the purpose of legalizing all drugs in one fell swoop. Aside from their scary chemical properties, you should take into consideration that the people who are addicted to these drugs are often driven to desperate situations because of their illegal status and resulting cost. Having known several heroin addicts, it is not realistic that they would reduce their intake to opium willingly even if that meant they are within legal rights to do so. The same goes for cocaine; many people graduate beyond the use of cocaine to crack because simple powdered cocaine fails to fulfill their need or because their nasal cavities are too damaged to suffice.

What I am saying is that I believe your idea of waiting for the market for processed drugs to "dry up" will inevitably mean creating a class of drug users who will continue to be persecuted until they presumably die out. This seems remarkably inhumane.

Sorry I should have been more clear. I don't think anyone should be prosecuted for ingesting a substance. My post was in relation to the sale of these substances. I apologize for that I should have been more clear of what side of the transaction I was referring to.

As well, I agree existing users will most likely not switch to the other less potent forms, but they will most likely use it when there is not an availability of the illicit substances to stave off withdraws. As well if they decide to quit they may use it to buffer off of the harder substances. My point was that a good portion of new users will no go through the hassle of finding a unsafe illicit substances, when a simpler less harmful form is available.

many people graduate beyond the use of cocaine to crack

Cocaine is a gateway drug to crack?

According to this NSDUH study (http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/NSDUH/2k9NSDUH/2k9Results.htm):

In, 2009, there were 617,000 people, aged 12 years or older, who used cocaine for the first time. During that same period, 94,000 tried crack for the first time.

If many people 'graduate' beyond the use of cocaine, I would expect I larger number of first-time crack smokers.

True, I simply based this off of the addicts that I have known. It is totally anecdotal, but from the time I spent with them the consensus was that powdered coke was no longer desirable to snort after long periods of time and so they would move onto smoking it. It wasn't very long before many of them switched directly to crack. I suppose if I ran in different circles I would have seen people switch to injecting instead.

I thought crack was the catalyst for the "War on Drugs", not a symptom of it.

Heroin was banned in the US in 1924.

Also, isn't heroin derived from opium?

So, are you saying people prefered coca leaves, but they were abolished, so crack became the substance of choice?

No I am saying that the market for Crack would not have existed if coca leaf and powder where available with little hassle. The economy would not be there. Think about it, if they outlawed liquor sure there would be some die hard liquor drinkers, but most would not go through the hassle, they would just drink beer. And liquor manufacturers would not be able to charge a premium due to the economic pressure that the legal alternative puts on it. It would exist but not at the volume that we see now in the drug trade.

On a side note: I would love to see the numbers of people who die in drug related violence contrasted to overdoses. I would suspect that we lose more people to the war on drugs than we ever did to overdose.

There are plenty of people that make their own spirits/beer/moonshine, even though other substances are available. In some areas of the US, there is a thriving, illicit moonshine trade, yet there are liquor stores abound. Some people prefer moonshine.

An addicted crackhead would start chewing on coca leaves if he could buy them at Wal-Mart? Or if he had only started chewing on coca leaves, he would have never gotten hooked on crack?

People have preferences to foods, why should drugs be any different.

Also, the US did outlaw liquor (18th amendment), and many people went through much hassle.

People would not be addicted to soda, if we had granted them easier access to corn and corn syrup (see what I did there).

Side note: I would like to see the percentage of overdose deaths related to legally manufactured pharmaceuticals.

PS: Maybe we should come up with a SW Florida HN Meetup?

right you are never going to kill it completely but the point is the moonshiner are in no way mainstream there are far more drug dealers than moonshiners, with one in virtually ever neighborhood in America. The point is, there will be people who prefer it and will go to any length to get it and by making a weaker safer legal alternative reduces the economically viability of producing moonshine, Heroin et. al.

Also, the US did outlaw liquor (18th amendment), and many people went through much hassle.

Beer was also prohibited which is exactly my argument, if you are going to make it illegally, you are going to make the hard stuff that requires less logistics to transport and has a better rate of return. American consumption of liquor skyrocketed in comparison to beer during the prohibition years and it was the only years in America that it did so. Many speakeasy sold liquor and mixed drinks exclusively. If liquor where outlawed and only beer remained, the consumption of liquor wold drop further due to the alternative being available.

Not that I am advocating the abolition on liquor. Just highlighting that we have clear historical reference that prohibition creates a preference for the strongest formula available. And the availability of a safer alternative reduces the economic viability of more potent products.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com