Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

OperationMobocracy t1_iu3wkvr wrote

Reply to comment by shamus727 in Study: Legalizing Marijuana Has No Impact on the Perceived Risk of Marijuana Use Among Children by BoundariesAreFun

I also suspect that lumping together all drugs as catastrophically dangerous by anti-drug propaganda. A person consumes some cannabis and finds that its not dangerous and then begins to think that the dangers of other drugs must be grossly exaggerated as well.

Plus the fact that until fentanyl, most recreational drugs at common potency and doses could be sampled without much immediate risk. Heroin might be the asterisk to this statement, but I'd wager that more often than not it wasn't at a potency that posed a high overdose risk.

Of course this kind of discounting of risk didn't take into effect the cumulative consumption risks of addiction or tolerance, but that's generally not what the propaganda tried to spell out. Plus most people aren't instantly addicted with one or two initial doses of anything, so its easy to see people using coke a couple of times and thinking its not a big deal and not realizing maybe it is a big deal some many doses in the future when they find out they can't go without.

34

admiralwarron t1_iu41hic wrote

I wonder if it would make sense to have something like a driver's licence for hard drugs. They first have to learn what the drug does to the body, how to be safe with it, what to do in case of overdose, how to spot a bad batch and so on.

If they have the licence, they can legally buy and carry a certain amount of hard drugs.

11

OperationMobocracy t1_iu42cw7 wrote

I think it probably makes perfect sense. There's all kinds of dangerous things we want or need people to have access to and a common solution is a licensing process which controls access to the thing and tries to guarantee that such use is reasonable and responsible -- explosives, radioactive materials, dangerous chemicals. Even a lot of gun permit laws require some kind of classroom instruction on law and safety and a basic functional test of gun use.

I think the problem with a "drug user license" is avoiding the diversion risk. It would probably be tempting to get your license, buy the drug and resell it. It's way lower risk than reselling your sample of U-235 or blasting caps.

6

AberrantRambler t1_iu4c47b wrote

The only people that it would be worth selling to would be the people that couldn’t get the license - you know, exactly the type of people society has said we don’t want to have this drug.

Funnily enough, this is exactly the type of person who would turn on their dealer in a heartbeat if they got caught and were promised some of their drug. Then they can go in the same treatment program as all the people who are denied the license.

−1

OperationMobocracy t1_iu4kgns wrote

Part of me wants to believe that that this would work and that there's some mix of rules and enforcement that would solve a diversion problem, but part of me also thinks that it could just devolve into a drug prohibition 2.0 cat and mouse game.

Probably a low barrier to entry for obtaining licensing would prevent a lot of diversion, basically excluding people considered too at risk (teens, mentally ill, etc). But there's always the risk of some meaningful number of people who are just non-cooperative with obtaining a license.

It's still an interesting idea.

3

weareeverywhereee t1_iu4ut7h wrote

I mean this is kind of happening via doctors. Check out like mindbloom or nuelife…doctor checkup via phone to ensure it will be ok, pay some money…boom ketamine at your door

1

Oh_My-Glob t1_iu5bqxp wrote

> Heroin might be the asterisk to this statement, but I'd wager that more often than not it wasn't at a potency that posed a high overdose risk.

I'd say crystal meth should have an asterisk there too. Personally I think coke, meth and heroin are too damaging and risky to ever be fully legalized. Coke mostly for its cardiovascular risks. Cannabis, psilocybin, LSD, DMT and MDMA are all pretty safe if done responsibly and have medical significance

1

OperationMobocracy t1_iu5iu8v wrote

The funny thing about amphetamines is how they seem to be just fine to feed to kids with ADD. I know they kind of process them differently neurologically but still.

Some people manage maintenance doses of opiates for years, even decades without problems. But there’s segment of the population that will want continually escalating doses and end up overdosing.

2