Canadian province experiments with decriminalising hard drugs

[Toni]

People use drugs, especially problematic ones, when they believe they or their life is not enough or a good life is unattainable.

Or when they're addicted. People with good lives can get addicted and have poor lives.

It's quite possible to leave a decent life addicted to opiates so long as they're reasonably available. Plenty of chronic pain patients do.

The solution is not criminalization, it's nationalization of the supply, cost control, and improvement of the basic standard of living.

Nonsense. Why would you want a permant underclass of addicted citizens? I'd agree that just throwing people in jail is not the solution. But ridding society of these drugs is the better course. Give people the option of treatment or a short jail sentence. Let's do what we can to return these people to society rather than think ourselves good by keeping them sick.

Drug treatment only works if the patient truly wants to be free of their addiction. It's not something that can be imposed with any likelyhood of success.

Really? You think that addicts have a hard time getting their drugs? Nope.

But you’re right: if the addiction is under control, it is possible to live for a while addicted to opiates. Avoiding needles is pretty key.

Hard as in it's expensive and severely interferes with living a normal life. And needles aren't needed if your objective is simply to avoid withdrawal symptoms.

Definitely best to avoid needles. Snorting doesn't do your nose any good, either. Well, meth doesn't do any good at all....

 

[bilby]

Opiates are harmful because they're expensive - so addicts need to stop doing pretty much everything else to fund their addiction. Including (but not limited to) things they need to do to earn money, such as personal grooming, laundry, etc. So then they're left with crime as an income source.

Opiates are expensive because they're illegal. The cost of producing them is tiny, and the legal manufacture of opiates would be incredibly easy to scale up - if it weren't for fear of their being diverted into the illegal market. The biggest fraction by far of the cost of opiates "on the street" is the risk premium due to the entire supply chain being constantly under threat from law enforcement.

The harm from use of inexpensive and mildly restricted opiates as recreational drugs, is minuscule compared to the harm from the use of inexpensive and mildly restricted alcohol. Prohibition of either results in massive increases in organised crime and social harm, for little or no benefit.

But puritans fucking hate the idea of letting people enjoy anything.

 

[Jarhyn]

Opiates are harmful because they're expensive - so addicts need to stop doing pretty much everything else to fund their addiction. Including (but not limited to) things they need to do to earn money, such as personal grooming, laundry, etc. So then they're left with crime as an income source.

Opiates are expensive because they're illegal. The cost of producing them is tiny, and the legal manufacture of opiates would be incredibly easy to scale up - if it weren't for fear of their being diverted into the illegal market. The biggest fraction by far of the cost of opiates "on the street" is the risk premium due to the entire supply chain being constantly under threat from law enforcement.

The harm from use of inexpensive and mildly restricted opiates as recreational drugs, is minuscule compared to the harm from the use of inexpensive and mildly restricted alcohol. Prohibition of either results in massive increases in organised crime and social harm, for little or no benefit.

But puritans fucking hate the idea of letting people enjoy anything.

I would say that a long with affordability and legality comes the need for education and addiction counseling, job training, and other measures designed to drive the "do anything for them" towards "doing the things they need to do to be driven towards normal life styles"

Or to use an extreme version, I recall one discussion from a class on behavior modification wherein the subject of a case study was cripplingly, violently addicted to being restrained. They used the restraints as a reward for... Not being restrained for a time.

It's clearly possible to use an addiction as a mechanism to resolve that same addiction.

 

[steve_bank]

It is not an experiment in Washington.

It is already de facto decriminalized. Other than trafficking you have little to fear for having drugs.

The Supreme Court's 2021 Washington state v. Blake ruling struck down the statute that made possession of controlled substances a class C felony. That forced the Legislature to quickly come up with a stopgap law in 2021 that made knowingly possessing controlled substances a misdemeanor rather than a Class C felony.Ja

What do we see? Open drug use n the streets. ODs on the street. Drug treatment capacity overwhelmed. A retired nurse in my building has as administered Narcan in front of our building.

I went rthrough the 60s and 70s. I used to think decriminalization was a good idea, at least for pot. Now I think liberalization of drugs was a bad idea.

 

[Elixir]

It's clearly possible to use an addiction as a mechanism to resolve that same addiction.

Back when I was experimenting with every psychotropic substance I could find, I tried heroin, morphin, codeine etc. and they all made me nauseous. So I never liked any of them enough to want to do it again. I don’t think you need to be addicted to get an aversion to an addictive substance or activity.

 

[southernhybrid]

As a person who suffers from chronic pain, I just want to set the record straight about opiates. I've taken legal prescribed opiates for several years. I have no side effects and they don't give me any type of high. All they do is take the edge off of my pain. The primary problem with Rx. opiates is that eventually you build up a tolerance and they become less effective for pain management. I take a small amount of ibuprofen with my Rx. drug, but the truth is that NSAIDS are far more dangerous for older adults like me. They often cause GI bleeds, gastric. ulcers and sometimes hypertension. Ibuprofen is the only NSAID I can tolerate without severe side effects and even at that, if I take more than about 600mg. per day, my BP increases. So, the truth is that narcotic pain relievers are the best thing we have to treat acute or chronic pain, and only a small percentage of people abuse them. The over reaction to that has made it very difficult for a lot of people in pain to receive adequate relief. In some cases, this has lead to suicide. I've used many different kind of pain relievers for over 20 years. There are a lot of other drugs used for various medical conditions that have more side effects, especially when used long term, compared to narcotic pain relievers. It's true that some doctors over prescribed these drugs, but that's a different issue.

Legalizing or decriminalizing drugs has many benefits. It keeps people out of prison for simply using harmful substances. If regulated well, it can prevent crime from drug cartels, as well as making the drugs safer. For example, if someone could get the drug they desire or are addicted to legally, it's not going to be tainted with other drugs that may be more harmful. The money wasted on law enforcement and prisons could be used for rehab and mental health care. Legalization allows for needle exchanges, preventing serious diseases like HIV, for example This puts less burden on our already over burdened. health care system. Humans have. used drugs since the beginning of civilizations, so it's absurd to think we can get rid of them. It would be much better to admit that a lot of humans use drugs and try to make them safer while also providing help to those who ask for it. ETOH often does as much or more damage compared to illegal drugs, yet nobody is talking about making it illegal. We know how well prohibition worked.

Of course, intoxicated people shouldn't be driving etc. but we already have laws that punish people for that. Sadly, some who abuse ETOH etc. don't have enough sense to stay home when they are intoxicated.

My sister did a lot of different illegal drugs when she was very young. I'm glad she was never arrested. That would have ruined her life. The drugs didn't ruin her life. It was just a dumb thing that she did when she was young. She abused ETOH during her 20s but eventually stopped drinking too. Her experiences are pretty common among young people and it would be much better if they had access to well regulated drugs and not have to worry about being jailed And yes. Black men are often given harsh sentences compare to white people. I've known white people who were arrested for using and they were offered rehab instead of jail. Just sayin'.

Look at how successful drug legalization has been in Portugal. It didn't increase drug usage or crime rates. Maybe we could learn from countries that have decriminalized drugs. I'm not suggesting that all drugs be available like cannabis, but there should be a way to legalize or decriminalize drugs to make them safer for those who have suffer from addiction.

 

[Toni]

The thing about using recreational drugs is that you never know who will become addicted and who will not, although there are some good predictors for addiction: having multiple family members with substance abuse problems being a strong one. I know a pair of brothers who experimented during their teen years, one who walked away with no pull. The other has probably used everything you can name, in addition to alcohol, for most of the last 50 years. It's catching up to him, hard.

Even with medically necessary, prescribed medications, sometimes an individual can become quickly addicted. That happened to a contractor who did some work for me. He had knee replacement and when he went off the meds after returning home, he became very, very ill because he was withdrawing. Now, I have neither his medical records nor a medical degree so I don't know if he was prescribed the appropriate dosage while he was hospitalized/in rehab for the knee. I do know that he's an extremely straight arrow and definitely not someone who abuses alcohol.

That said, sohy is right: my MIL was made to suffer without the use of opioids or opiates during her last year when her fragility necessitated her moving into a nursing home. She had become pretty salty in her later years, mostly because of increasing pain due to arthritis and osteoporosis. When she was in the rehab to help her try to regain function after a serious fracture, she was given morphine and was the same person I had known for more than 30 years. When she was moved to a nursing home, she tried very hard but the pain was not manageable nor would they give her anything but ibuprofen, which did nothing except leave her in agony while harming her organs.

 

[southernhybrid]

I"d like to correct what I said about Portugal. Drugs were decriminalized, not legalized and this only applies if the person had no more than a 10 day supply of the drug. They also implemented needle exchange programs etc.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

But puritans fucking hate the idea of letting people enjoy anything.

I think we're witnessing Reefer Madness Syndrome.

 

[southernhybrid]

The thing about using recreational drugs is that you never know who will become addicted and who will not, although there are some good predictors for addiction: having multiple family members with substance abuse problems being a strong one. I know a pair of brothers who experimented during their teen years, one who walked away with no pull. The other has probably used everything you can name, in addition to alcohol, for most of the last 50 years. It's catching up to him, hard.

Even with medically necessary, prescribed medications, sometimes an individual can become quickly addicted. That happened to a contractor who did some work for me. He had knee replacement and when he went off the meds after returning home, he became very, very ill because he was withdrawing. Now, I have neither his medical records nor a medical degree so I don't know if he was prescribed the appropriate dosage while he was hospitalized/in rehab for the knee. I do know that he's an extremely straight arrow and definitely not someone who abuses alcohol.

That said, sohy is right: my MIL was made to suffer without the use of opioids or opiates during her last year when her fragility necessitated her moving into a nursing home. She had become pretty salty in her later years, mostly because of increasing pain due to arthritis and osteoporosis. When she was in the rehab to help her try to regain function after a serious fracture, she was given morphine and was the same person I had known for more than 30 years. When she was moved to a nursing home, she tried very hard but the pain was not manageable nor would they give her anything but ibuprofen, which did nothing except leave her in agony while harming her organs.

Sure, some people will abuse or become addicted to drugs, but I simply don't see how those people benefit from being punished for using these drugs. I think it would be much better to try and help those who want help instead of treating them like criminals. Of course, there is no easy answer when it comes to humans and drugs, but imo, making drug usage a criminal offense is far more harmful and expensive than decriminalizing their usage. I'd make them all legal, at least in small amounts, but I'd be satisfied if we at least decriminalized drug usage and offered help for those who need it.

I"m sorry about your mil, Toni. I've read that the FDA has softened the regulations regarding Rx. narcotics recently after so many people who suffer in pain died by suicide and enough physicians complained about how difficult it was to treat pain patients. The truth is that pain is the primary reason why people seek medical care. Unless drug companies are able to develop a non narcotic drug that effectively treats severe chronic pain, narcotics are the best thing we have for that common problem, which becomes even more common in old age. I can say as one who began having arthritis pain in her 30s, which progressed substantially by the time I was in my early 50s, that death would probably be a welcome relief if it weren't for my Rx. narcotics. It's not just my knees. It's my feet, hands, rt. hip etc. Pain medication allows me to remain physically fit and remain able to do basic household chores. There is no reason to be fearful of Rx. narcotics for pain relief as most of us tolerate them well with few or no side effects. My late father took both hydrocodone and methadone for the last 20 years of his life without any problems. He had developed what is now referred to as complex regional pain disorder after surgery to remove a bunion. He also took a drug for his extreme anxiety for decades. He lived to be 87, so I doubt these drugs shortened his life, especially since he lived longer than anyone else in his family. Okay. I know this isn't the same as using drugs without a Rx. but it does bother me when people are denied adequate pain control due to the doctor or government's fear of over usage of these drugs. The majority who use them safely should not be punished for the small minority who end up abusing them.

 

[Bomb#20]

That said, sohy is right: my MIL was made to suffer without the use of opioids or opiates during her last year when her fragility necessitated her moving into a nursing home. She had become pretty salty in her later years, mostly because of increasing pain due to arthritis and osteoporosis. When she was in the rehab to help her try to regain function after a serious fracture, she was given morphine and was the same person I had known for more than 30 years. When she was moved to a nursing home, she tried very hard but the pain was not manageable nor would they give her anything but ibuprofen, which did nothing except leave her in agony while harming her organs.

^^^^ This ^^^^

Nonsense. Why would you want a permant underclass of addicted citizens? I'd agree that just throwing people in jail is not the solution. But ridding society of these drugs is the better course. Give people the option of treatment or a short jail sentence. Let's do what we can to return these people to society rather than think ourselves good by keeping them sick.

Let's give chronic pain sufferers the option of not needing to commit suicide, rather than think ourselves good by protecting irresponsible people from hurting themselves when we should be protecting innocent bystanders from being hurt by us.

But throwing pain patients under the bus just to save recreational users from dooming themselves to underclasshood doesn't make any sense; and as Judge Judy says, if it doesn't make sense it isn't true. We aren't really fighting a war on drugs for the sake of returning these people to society. Drug wars are like potato chips and nuclear weapons -- you can't have just one. Nuclear-armed countries have hundreds or thousands of bombs when a handful are adequate deterrent because in order to get that first handful countries had to build entire bomb-making industries, and those industries have political clout and a financial interest in perpetuating themselves. It's said America learned nothing from Prohibition, but that's not really true. America learned there's a whole lot of money to be made waging drug wars.

 

[Elixir]

There are similar sentiments expressed in this thread by people representing a fairly broad ideological spectrum. So why are we still in drug-war-crime hell?
Minority rule, that’s why.

 

[Toni]

I think you have good points....but thinking of a family member with decades of substance abuse--drugs and alcohol--I cannot figure out how legalization would have helped him. I really wish that I did. I came the the realization several years ago that I had probably never seen him not high on something. He was really good at presenting himself well. It is only in retrospect that I realize that he was probably altered that time.... Now: his brain is not great. And his emotional development stopped at about age 15 or so. He still makes important decisions like a 15 year old boy in the throes of adolescence. And yes, the volatility is there. He claims he's not using but then he will mention the pain meds he's on for this or that: I do NOT disagree that he needs relief from pain and will throughout his life. He's always managed to work so generally, his habit was covered. However, there were times when he did steal from family members and doubtless told himself that they could afford to lose whatever it was that he took. This was not actually true. Would it have been better for him if his drugs of choice (and it changed over time, as is often the case) had been legal? Maybe. It would not have helped him be sober enough to be a decent human being, to not be abusive to those around him, to be reliable, to parent. All of those things have caused a great deal of heartache in the family. Not to mention lots of money.

I'm also thinking of a young adult who grew up spending a lot of time in my home. Their parents abused alcohol and one also had a gambling addiction. The parents were two of the most talented people I knew--extremely artistic and the father was also a very gifted craftsman. But the alcohol abuse dramatically affected their ability to perform on jobs. There was tremendous economic insecurity, and that was with grandparents helping out substantially. As for the kid who spent so much time at my house: they're struggling a bit with their own alcohol abuse and also caught in a custody battle and the serious health issues of their father (stage 4 cancer...). I don't know much about the dad's family but I know that the mother was raised in a very middle class and very loving and supportive family. All of her siblings have struggled with some degree of substance abuse except one, and I believe that's why that sister divorced her ex.

I've mentioned before that I live in a small town. The local newspaper will publish if the fire department comes to your house for a cooking fire generating smoke. So, it's pretty easy to see why people in this town are arrested. Almost 100%, either drugs or alcohol are involved. Occasionally both. My son is a public defender, serving mostly residents in a county that is even more rural than mine. Almost every single one of his cases involves drugs. He's for legalization. We've talked about why the current generation of young 20 somethings would ever touch the stuff, seeing how it destroyed their parents and maybe grandparents. His opinion is that they do it because in their experience, that's just how you coped with bad stuff: pain, job loss, break ups, fights, etc. Of course that's all a very vicious cycle as using drugs to cope with emotional needs causes more pain, job loss, break ups, fights, all kinds of instability. Rinse/repeat. I don't see how legalization would stop that or even slow it down.

Unless we used that money to actually treat mental health issues. I don't see that happening, although there is desperate need.

So, that's why I'm hesitant. Legalization will make it more easily available and so more used.

I'm also a bit hesitant because for a lot of addicts, they seem drawn to the next bigger high. Which involves things like bath salts, more damaging stuff. Starting in your teens or twenties and using for a lot of years really increases the likelihood of increased usage and of more toxic stuff.

I think that pain management is one issue. The other issue is that it is my strong belief that many people abuse various substances because of untreated mental health issues and also because of despair.

 

[Elixir]

I cannot figure out how legalization would have helped him.

Maybe a hint about how it might have, could come from comparing with alcohol.
There is a lot less stigma attached to over-use of alcohol, mainly because there are no laws against it. People admit to the problem and seek treatment more readily, and there are more treatment resources specifically directed at alcoholism. Yet, give me a choice between sharing a road with a junkie or an alcoholic, I'll take the junkie every time. I simply cannot see any downside whatsoever to blanket decriminalization, that isn't more than offset by removing the fiscal and human costs of wars on drugs.

 

[Toni]

I cannot figure out how legalization would have helped him.

Maybe a hint about how it might have, could come from comparing with alcohol.
There is a lot less stigma attached to over-use of alcohol, mainly because there are no laws against it. People admit to the problem and seek treatment more readily, and there are more treatment resources specifically directed at alcoholism. Yet, give me a choice between sharing a road with a junkie or an alcoholic, I'll take the junkie every time. I simply cannot see any downside whatsoever to blanket decriminalization, that isn't more than offset by removing the fiscal and human costs of wars on drugs.

Trust me: the person I'm thinking of 1) has had zero problem abusing both alcohol and illegal substances. To the extent that about 25 years ago, his druggie friends approached his mother out of concern for his...life. He does not fail to reach out for help because of stigma. His parents paid for rehab and of course he checked himself out because they wouldn't let him use. He fails to reach out for help because in his mind, he's a victim. He 'doesn't have a problem.' He sounds very much like my father who 'wasn't addicted to cigarettes' that he had smoked since he was 6 years old (not a typo) and 'he could quit any time he wanted' which he did because his choice was smoke and die now instead of in 8 years (he made 11 or 12). My dad also thought he didn't go through withdrawal so he couldn't have been addicted when in fact, he was on morphine for the first several days due to the emergency medical event that prompted doctors to say you can smoke or you can live: your choice. He quit, decades too late and yes, it killed him as much as he tried to convince us that his COPD was really just like his grandfather's asthma...Of course my father didn't drink much and never took an illegal substance in his life and worked for the same employer from age 19 until retirement, never paid a bill late and always paid his bills and helped out people who needed it. Two failed marriages but....

The addict I'm thinking of does not think he has a problem. Except with money. He needs a lot of money which flows through his fingers the same way it would if you just handed a 15 year old boy $50K and said go have fun. He has a problem with doctors who 'don't know what they're doing' and 'just try to get more money' which he doesn't pay: he is defrauding Medicaid and has for years. I don't actually have a problem with that because I think medical care should be tax payer funded and because this way, his medical providers get paid something. If he had to pay, they'd never see a dime. Seriously, the guy is in his 60's and I don't think he's ever had a lease in his own name because no one with any choice in the matter would ever trust him for the rent. But he's always worked. He's been earning more money than the 2 of my kids earning the least amount of money (under $50 K) for certain who have still managed to purchase modest homes of their own.

The parents of the young adult I mentioned earlier? Have they sought help with their alcohol abuse or gambling addictions? Nope. Neither have any of the people I see in the paper who are arrested for stupid stuff they do while drunk, mainly DUIs and domestics but occasionally other fist fights and once in a while a theft.

 

[Elixir]

Drug treatment only works if the patient truly wants to be free of their addiction. It's not something that can be imposed with any likelyhood of success.

If the patient "truly wants" to be free of their addiction, they will rid themselves of it. Much of treatment consists of providing a perspective that helps the patient realize that their addiction is causing more harm and pain, than kicking the habit will bring them. Creating a distaste for and unpleasant associations with the drug, as it were. Why else would anyone quit anything? If they like it and they don't see it hurting them more than they like it, they'll keep doing it. Not rocket science.

The addict I'm thinking of does not think he has a problem. Except with money.

Then he doesn't want to quit. Nothing you can directly do about that. But you can relieve some of the money stress by making drugs legal, possibly letting him OD, or possibly letting him realize that it ain't really all that, and the "problem" was never money.

Addiction to money isn't exactly the topic of this thread, but I think that's what you're describing.
Very American.

 

[Bomb#20]

...I came the the realization several years ago that I had probably never seen him not high on something. ... He claims he's not using but then he will mention the pain meds he's on for this or that: I do NOT disagree that he needs relief from pain and will throughout his life. ...

[rant]Effective pain relief and getting high do not have to go together. After my wife's surgery she asked for an alternative to the standard opioid due to side effects, so the surgeon prescribed darvocet. It turned out to be perfect. Took care of the pain, no high, and when she didn't need it any more she stopped, no withdrawal, no issues. A few years later the FDA banned darvocet.[/rant]

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is not an experiment in Washington.

It is already de facto decriminalized. Other than trafficking you have little to fear for having drugs.

The Supreme Court's 2021 Washington state v. Blake ruling struck down the statute that made possession of controlled substances a class C felony. That forced the Legislature to quickly come up with a stopgap law in 2021 that made knowingly possessing controlled substances a misdemeanor rather than a Class C felony.Ja

What do we see? Open drug use n the streets. ODs on the street. Drug treatment capacity overwhelmed. A retired nurse in my building has as administered Narcan in front of our building.

I went rthrough the 60s and 70s. I used to think decriminalization was a good idea, at least for pot. Now I think liberalization of drugs was a bad idea.

When dealing is still illegal you still have the risk premium keeping them from having a reasonable life. And ODs are part of that risk premium--in a truly legal environment there would be few ODs. ODs are caused by the varying purity of street drugs and by people who don't realize the consequences of not being habituated anymore. If they get their drugs through a legal supply chain this can be addressed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's clearly possible to use an addiction as a mechanism to resolve that same addiction.

Back when I was experimenting with every psychotropic substance I could find, I tried heroin, morphin, codeine etc. and they all made me nauseous. So I never liked any of them enough to want to do it again. I don’t think you need to be addicted to get an aversion to an addictive substance or activity.

Yup--the pot smokers at high school made me realize that the smoke makes me somewhat nauseous, I would take the long way around to avoid going near where they congregated. I've never smoked a single puff and certainly don't want to try.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As a person who suffers from chronic pain, I just want to set the record straight about opiates. I've taken legal prescribed opiates for several years. I have no side effects and they don't give me any type of high. All they do is take the edge off of my pain.

Yup. My experience is very limited but I definitely had a what's-recreational-about-this?? reaction.

So, the truth is that narcotic pain relievers are the best thing we have to treat acute or chronic pain, and only a small percentage of people abuse them.

That's my understanding, also--narcotics are actually among the safest pain medicines.

The over reaction to that has made it very difficult for a lot of people in pain to receive adequate relief. In some cases, this has lead to suicide.

Just like with abortion--better to kill some than let one person sin.

Legalizing or decriminalizing drugs has many benefits. It keeps people out of prison for simply using harmful substances. If regulated well, it can prevent crime from drug cartels, as well as making the drugs safer. For example, if someone could get the drug they desire or are addicted to legally, it's not going to be tainted with other drugs that may be more harmful. The money wasted on law enforcement and prisons could be used for rehab and mental health care. Legalization allows for needle exchanges, preventing serious diseases like HIV, for example This puts less burden on our already over burdened. health care system. Humans have. used drugs since the beginning of civilizations, so it's absurd to think we can get rid of them. It would be much better to admit that a lot of humans use drugs and try to make them safer while also providing help to those who ask for it. ETOH often does as much or more damage compared to illegal drugs, yet nobody is talking about making it illegal. We know how well prohibition worked.

And legal reduces the burden on the healthcare system from drug-seeking. And the burden caused by all the red tape involved even for legitimate needs.

Of course, intoxicated people shouldn't be driving etc. but we already have laws that punish people for that. Sadly, some who abuse ETOH etc. don't have enough sense to stay home when they are intoxicated.

Yup--alcohol is almost certainly more dangerous than any of the recreational drugs once you remove the deaths that aren't actually due to the drugs.

Look at how successful drug legalization has been in Portugal. It didn't increase drug usage or crime rates. Maybe we could learn from countries that have decriminalized drugs. I'm not suggesting that all drugs be available like cannabis, but there should be a way to legalize or decriminalize drugs to make them safer for those who have suffer from addiction.

Can't permit sin!