275 Comments

So, decriminalization didn't cause a huge rise in overdoses? So weird that the results of decriminalization in the US would be similar to the results everywhere else that's tried it.

Expand full comment

I wonder if these kinds of studies ... which have consistently said decriminalization is the way to do... take account of the effects in supplier nations. In Mexico, the reluctance to decrimnalize is that while it would legitimize a major export industry, it would also likely create a domestic market, one that the country really isn't in a good position to deal with... that is, whether or not it would create a "social problem" that had to be dealt with, when there are so many others also requiring public attention.

One I see is that a legalized narcotics market (and I use "narcotics" loosely, to include marijuana) would mean foreign corporations coming in to control production and markets, which would mean farmers even more likely to switch from basic food crops to export crops (poppies and marijuana) or the... ahem... pharma-chemical industry... cutting into goals of more food security (ie. growing pot instead of corn and beans).

Expand full comment

Decriminalization is not the same as legalizing.

Expand full comment

You're right, but for the sellers here, it's a distinction without a difference for the most part. Legalization, though, would presumably allow the state to force sellers to abide by things like labor laws and pay taxes. However, with discussion of legalizing marijuana here, one big concern has been that foreign corporations (protected by USMCA and other procorporate "free trade agreements") would just lead to more money being bled out of the economy for the benefit of Canadian and US off-shore accounts.

Not that I give it much thought, but wonder if this just wouldn't aggrevate our food security problem, with so much cropland dedicated to purely export crops. And.. I donno.. water is always an issue here: what is the water needed to produce a kilo of weed compared to a kilo of beans or corn? I can find some stats on hemp production, which requires about 20 to 25 inches of water a year, whereas corn only 14 to 18. Not something often considered by the import buyers, but a huge concern to growers and those of us who eat, especially in dry climate countries like Mexico.

Expand full comment

You raise some good points that I hadn't given much thought to. Thanks!

Expand full comment

The only time that a roll-back of prohibition occurred was the roll-back of Prohibition.

And it worked. Not without bumps and it took many decades to destroy the criminal mobs that Prohibition created but it did work.

It's time to face the facts and cut our damages.

Of course, if the MAGAts get their way, we will all be wiped out by global warming.

Expand full comment

For a short period here in Mexico in the late 1930s and into the 1940s when heroin addicts were issued prescriptions. It was working fairly well, although "respectable" pharmacies would not fill scripts, and users were kept in the "bad neighborhoods".... getting yourself certifed as an "adicto" was something shameful, and social pressure as much as anything meant demand for heroin was neglible -- the vast majority of production went to the United States. Incidentally, the pioneering export cartel boss was an illiterate woman called Lola la Chata (conveniently married to a cop!).

Not that the "issues" around legalization couldn't be worked out although with the end of prohibition mobsters who didn't go into the liquor trade just went on to other nefarious enterprises, something seen here as the marijuana trade dropped off, and gangsters are now shaking down avocado growers, or in the illegal tropical wood export trade, or even taking over mining operations. Which may be a worse problem than the old school narcos ever were.

And, I can imagine if, say, marijuana (which is already semi-legal here... it's complicated) became an regular legal export, the US growers would start screaming and wanting trade protections under USMCA regulations. Maybe you guys can start growing your own poppie for heroin, and produce your own narcotics (you already do.. Perdue Pharmaceticals, anyone? ) though there'd be the thonry problem of costs of production and wages to work out. On the other hand, there's always good old American knowhow... of the Walter White variety. Cheers!

Expand full comment

Research has shown that harm reduction is better than abstinence for almost every situation. The probably is not everyone really does want to prevent overdoses and death. Just like not everyone actually thinks rape is necessarily a bad thing. We live in a society with a not small minority that is really, really into veangence and cruelty.

Expand full comment

If only we had models of ways to deal with addictive and potentially harmful substances that isn't criminalization.

Oh, well, I'll just finish my coffee and my cigarette, then head out to fill my Xanax prescription and pick up a six pack of beer.

Expand full comment

If we want people to stop taking drugs, we need to give them a world you can live in without needing to dull the pain of living.

Expand full comment

This 1000 times.

Expand full comment

But what would Batman do?

Expand full comment

But what would Batman do?

Expand full comment

“If we want people to stop taking drugs, we should invest in clean, safe, free rehab centers instead of prisons.

THIS! (Goddamnit!)

Substance Use Disorder Is a Public Health Issue, Not a Criminal Justice Issue

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/substance-use-disorder-public-health-issue-not-criminal-justice-issue/

This article refers to Trump and Jeff Sessions obsession with locking up all the “drug criminals” in 2017.

Expand full comment

Ta, Robyn. I'm a harm reductionist. I also reversed a fentanyl overdose on the street in Brooklyn about four years and four months ago. NYC now has a few safe injection sites. More are needed.

Expand full comment

There was a brief period in the 70s where it seemed people realized the war on drugs was a colossal expensive and stupid mistake. Sadly it didn't last.

Expand full comment

Because EVERYBODY LOVED Ronnie Raygun and the war on drugs was one of his things.

Expand full comment

Because one basketball player died of a coke overdose and everybody got sad about that.

Expand full comment

“Now we go on to the next stop: making a final commitment not to tolerate drugs by anyone, anytime, anyplace. So, won't you join us in this great, new national crusade?” Nancy Reagan, 1986, as Ronnie Raygun declares War on Drugs.

Expand full comment

That just made my friends and I take more drugs!

Expand full comment

This is your brain on drugs.

This is your brain on drugs with hash browns and a side of bacon.

Expand full comment

Yummy!

Expand full comment

Criminalization of addiction shows how far humanity still has to go. Very few, if any, addicts are dissuaded from using for fear of legal consequences. Manufacturing meth, or trafficking fentanyl is another matter. But the act of using drugs or possession for personal use is very different. As a former addict, I know the only thing that works for most addicts is treatment. Compassion, support, understanding and replacing whatever emptiness that’s being filled with drug use with something positive and healthy. Throwing addicts in a concrete jail cell to suffer excruciating withdrawals is cruel and inhumane. And speaking for myself, the only thing an addict suffering withdrawal thinks about is using, again, as soon as possible. If we diverted 1/2 the funds we earmark for the “war on drugs” to treatment centers and aftercare, thousands of lives would be saved, and the jail population would decrease.

Expand full comment

Then what would happen to the share price of for-profit prisons. Didya ever think of that?

Expand full comment

Oh, they can eat a bag of dicks. Capitalism has winners and losers, they should have thought of that before starting their business.

Expand full comment

You knew that was sarcasm, right?

Expand full comment

Yep!

Expand full comment

For what it's worth, I read that as agreement.

Expand full comment

One of the 4 C's of substance use disorder is "continued use despite Consequences". Threatening jail for use is trying to make a symptom a cure, which is just asinine.

Expand full comment

The thing we don't know is if it is no longer illegal will more people start using? On the theory that most people tend to obey laws most of the time. If there is no law against it, then will it feel like it must be fine to do it?

Expand full comment

No. There will still be laws against it. The difference is that these addictive substances will still be regulated, but decriminalized. Meaning that “substance abuse disorder” will result in mandatory rehab and treatment, not prison. As it should be.

Institutionalization not incarceration.

Expand full comment

Housing for all. Put a roof over people's heads, *not* conditional on quitting one's addictions, gives folks the emotional and mental space to decide to quit for themselves, and the resources to tap into. And even if they don't, what's the downside of letting addicts live with some dignity?

Expand full comment

Birb lovfe uu

Expand full comment

It wouldn't sate anyone's lust for cruelty

Expand full comment

"Sometimes the most effective solution to a problem is not the most cathartic one."

Shit, there goes that giant meteor strike on Mar-a-Lago.

Expand full comment

Trump is a natural symptom of 40 years of hate radio and Reagan's unholy alliance with right wing religious nut jobs. The problem won't go away when he does, unfortunately.

Expand full comment

Not so fast, there. There are exceptions to most rules. Let have the meteor do its job and then evaluate the effect.

Expand full comment

It is at least worth a try.

Expand full comment

Where's that meteor impact simulator that lets you choose the meteor's composition, size, impact velocity, and impact angle?

It's fun dropping a solid gold (yes, that's one of the options) rock on Mar-A-Lago, and tweaking the other parameters to minimize the damage to the neighborhood....

Expand full comment

If properly targeted, one the size of a pea could do it the trick…

Expand full comment

Pea size would vaporize in the upper atmosphere, would not have any effect at sea level.

Expand full comment

I meant “pea size” when it reached sea level.

Expand full comment

You don't think that Republicans actually care how many people die from drug overdoses, do you? They just want more people in their jails and prisons where they can abuse and enslave them.

Expand full comment

And profit from them.

Expand full comment

Are you suggesting that abuse and enslavement are bad things?

Greg Gutfeld would take issue with you in a spirited defense of Second Civil War Would Be Neat.

Expand full comment

Exactly correct, my Queen!

Expand full comment