Is There a Case for Legalizing Heroin?(newyorker.com)
newyorker.com
Is There a Case for Legalizing Heroin?
https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-populism/is-there-a-case-for-legalizing-heroin
38 comments
Is there a case for RE legalising heroin: my aunt was one of a small number of GPs in London licenced to prescribe heroin to addicts in the sixties and seventies as part of a treatment programme.
Switzerland has had programs giving methadone and heroin to addicts for more than 20 years now. They've been a success; heroin use has plummeted since it's peak in the 90s.
One reason for the success is that giving out free product kills the local market; many users finance their use by selling to and actively recruiting new users.
One reason for the success is that giving out free product kills the local market; many users finance their use by selling to and actively recruiting new users.
Or just straight up property crime. Breaking a window to steal $3 in change.
Not sure why/how the property insurance industry hasn’t lobbied government for this yet.
Not sure why/how the property insurance industry hasn’t lobbied government for this yet.
My great ant and uncle who were wealthy and lived in Zürich would put 300Fr in cash by the entrance area of their house. The idea being that if a junkie would break in, they would just take that money and leave.
Before the legalization a common stereotype would by junkies breaking into places stealing a few things or destroying things while searching for valuables.
Not sure if this is true or a sensible defense mechanism. However it shows something about the attitude during that time.
Before the legalization a common stereotype would by junkies breaking into places stealing a few things or destroying things while searching for valuables.
Not sure if this is true or a sensible defense mechanism. However it shows something about the attitude during that time.
Several cases most likely.
If they could make it actually go away by banning it those cases become much weaker, but so far that hasn't worked out.
If they could make it actually go away by banning it those cases become much weaker, but so far that hasn't worked out.
The only arguments against legalizing heroin are paternalistic - not trusting people to be responsible. In a bygone era I was prescribed Percocet for a dental procedure, which I have been told is an extremely strong opioid, and I did not like the numb feeling and eventually threw them away. So I have 100% proof that not everyone who takes opioids gets addicted and winds up in the gutter.
The absolute truth is that drug use is a victimless crime and banning it doesn’t make it go away. I would argue the death of legendary actor Philip Seymour Hoffman was a direct result of this - he purchased heroin off the black market, was an experienced heroin user, but the potency of the drug is unpredictable and he accidentally overdosed https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Seymour_Hoffman
America is finally legalizing marijuana and soon magic mushrooms. I would argue LSD and MDMA are not far behind. Why stop there? Cocaine and heroin are not the devil incarnate - I don’t see why we continually move the goal posts for “good” drugs but say others are beyond the pale. I don’t care what your anecdata says as an “experienced” drug user - I have had several friends become marijuana burnouts who still work shit jobs, if you want to argue heroin is simply too dangerous for society then alcohol and weed should get the ban as well.
The push for individual rights continues. I guarantee you within 10 years prostitution will be fully legalized in progressive coastal states. I don’t see why we can’t accept vice as a natural human past time (people like pleasure) and try to manage the down-sides of legalization the same way we do with all other legalized vice like gambling (state lotteries(!)) and alcohol. Better this than a bunch of criminals providing it anyway.
The absolute truth is that drug use is a victimless crime and banning it doesn’t make it go away. I would argue the death of legendary actor Philip Seymour Hoffman was a direct result of this - he purchased heroin off the black market, was an experienced heroin user, but the potency of the drug is unpredictable and he accidentally overdosed https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Seymour_Hoffman
America is finally legalizing marijuana and soon magic mushrooms. I would argue LSD and MDMA are not far behind. Why stop there? Cocaine and heroin are not the devil incarnate - I don’t see why we continually move the goal posts for “good” drugs but say others are beyond the pale. I don’t care what your anecdata says as an “experienced” drug user - I have had several friends become marijuana burnouts who still work shit jobs, if you want to argue heroin is simply too dangerous for society then alcohol and weed should get the ban as well.
The push for individual rights continues. I guarantee you within 10 years prostitution will be fully legalized in progressive coastal states. I don’t see why we can’t accept vice as a natural human past time (people like pleasure) and try to manage the down-sides of legalization the same way we do with all other legalized vice like gambling (state lotteries(!)) and alcohol. Better this than a bunch of criminals providing it anyway.
drug use is a victimless crime
That's not remotely true. Use of certain drugs (such as heroin) leads to horrible expectations for children of addicts. These children can only be thought of as victims of heroin use.
Now I'm not saying that should be used to curtail the freedom of non-parents. But the experience of children shouldn't be ignored either.
And I'm the first person who will agree that alcohol abuse in the home leads to horrible expectations for children as well.
try to manage the down-sides of legalization the same way we do with all other legalized vice like gambling (state lotteries(!)) and alcohol
Well, we don't do a good job of this. Alcohol has a devastating effect on lives (but of course not all lives, save your down votes recreational drinkers)
That's not remotely true. Use of certain drugs (such as heroin) leads to horrible expectations for children of addicts. These children can only be thought of as victims of heroin use.
Now I'm not saying that should be used to curtail the freedom of non-parents. But the experience of children shouldn't be ignored either.
And I'm the first person who will agree that alcohol abuse in the home leads to horrible expectations for children as well.
try to manage the down-sides of legalization the same way we do with all other legalized vice like gambling (state lotteries(!)) and alcohol
Well, we don't do a good job of this. Alcohol has a devastating effect on lives (but of course not all lives, save your down votes recreational drinkers)
The question here is whether drug prohibition is a victimless crime. And it's clearly not.
Besides, many _users_ of heroin are medicinal users who do not have victims (elderly patients on the NHS for example). You are conflating drug use with problematic drug use and concluding that problematic drug use is problematic, which is a tautology.
Besides, many _users_ of heroin are medicinal users who do not have victims (elderly patients on the NHS for example). You are conflating drug use with problematic drug use and concluding that problematic drug use is problematic, which is a tautology.
You are conflating drug use with problematic drug use
Is this like conflating speeding with problematic speeding? Some things are worth making illegal because of their potential effect on society.
That said.. in what way did I conflate those things? I specifically said Now I'm not saying that should be used to curtail the freedom of non-parents. Which clearly leaves open the possibility of carving out reasonable uses of a drug.
Is this like conflating speeding with problematic speeding? Some things are worth making illegal because of their potential effect on society.
That said.. in what way did I conflate those things? I specifically said Now I'm not saying that should be used to curtail the freedom of non-parents. Which clearly leaves open the possibility of carving out reasonable uses of a drug.
I was raised by an alcoholic. You’re not wrong that drug abuse affects others, and yes kids. But prohibition not only doesn’t address that, it amplifies it.
I wasn’t just raised by an alcoholic. I was raised by an addict. Being dragged bar to bar, party to party, neglected and abused while my mom was drinking was one thing.
Being loaded up in a car to far flung places up and down the mid-Atlantic in the middle of the night for god knows what was another thing.
I have more specific reasons I favor full legalization of drugs, but “think of the children” definitely falls flat for my experience. If drugs were legal I sincerely doubt I would have spent a considerable amount of my childhood waking up 100s of miles from home, people I cared about in jail, probably a great deal of risk I was put in and many others as well.
I wasn’t just raised by an alcoholic. I was raised by an addict. Being dragged bar to bar, party to party, neglected and abused while my mom was drinking was one thing.
Being loaded up in a car to far flung places up and down the mid-Atlantic in the middle of the night for god knows what was another thing.
I have more specific reasons I favor full legalization of drugs, but “think of the children” definitely falls flat for my experience. If drugs were legal I sincerely doubt I would have spent a considerable amount of my childhood waking up 100s of miles from home, people I cared about in jail, probably a great deal of risk I was put in and many others as well.
I struck this paternalistic attitude just the other day. I have pretty complex health problems, which include CRPS/RSD. Opiods are not the best for neuropathic pain, and only things like fentanyl have any impact. I'm also recovering from recent surgery (4th chest wall surgery in 5 years), so to prevent spread of my CRPS it's vital that post-surgical pain is managed.
I went to the pharmacy with a script for 80 30mg codiene tablets, and 1 box of 5 12ug/hr fentanyl patches. I couldn't get the patches, although I've been using 1 box a year for years. It was out of stock, none available for back order.
Another pharmacy had it in the next day.
Patients are not addicts. Just because some people need to take opioids or opiates does not mean they are addicts.
I went to the pharmacy with a script for 80 30mg codiene tablets, and 1 box of 5 12ug/hr fentanyl patches. I couldn't get the patches, although I've been using 1 box a year for years. It was out of stock, none available for back order.
Another pharmacy had it in the next day.
Patients are not addicts. Just because some people need to take opioids or opiates does not mean they are addicts.
Flip that. What's the social value of criminalizing any drug consumption?
Profit and advertisement of these products should be banned, and the state should provide addicts with clean supplies at-cost to out compete criminal enterprises.
The amount of violence this would avoid in the Americas is staggering, and clearly desirable.
Profit and advertisement of these products should be banned, and the state should provide addicts with clean supplies at-cost to out compete criminal enterprises.
The amount of violence this would avoid in the Americas is staggering, and clearly desirable.
At the very minimum we should immediately legalize anything that's clearly less dangerous than alcohol (which is a lot of stuff given that alcohol is very dangerous/destructive). Marijuana, most hallucinogens, etc.
Anyone who is arguing that marijuana, MDMA, etc. should not be legalized is an absolute hypocrite unless they're also campaigning to bring back prohibition of alcohol.
Anyone who is arguing that marijuana, MDMA, etc. should not be legalized is an absolute hypocrite unless they're also campaigning to bring back prohibition of alcohol.
I agree but MDMA is not comparable to marijuana or hallucinogens. It is structurally similar to amphetamine and there are studies suggesting that it causes brain damage even after a single use.
People have been known to commit terribly violent crimes due to MDMA. It's not the standard effect it has, but it happens enough to remind me that it's an amphetamine.
No, you're confusing correlation and causation. MDMA users have been known to commit terribly violent crimes.
Besides, alcohol users have also been known to commit terribly violent crimes (and unlike MDMA, which is near impossible to study in the US, we've studied alcohol enough to know that it is in fact a contributing cause of violence). The point is that it's hypocrisy to allow one clearly dangerous substance to be used by the population and to make another one illegal.
Besides, alcohol users have also been known to commit terribly violent crimes (and unlike MDMA, which is near impossible to study in the US, we've studied alcohol enough to know that it is in fact a contributing cause of violence). The point is that it's hypocrisy to allow one clearly dangerous substance to be used by the population and to make another one illegal.
The point is it's clearly less dangerous than alcohol, so it should be legal or alcohol should be illegal.
Devil's advocate - it is not necessarily the case that the social harm of a drug is matched by the personal harm. Arguably, the law has more business policing the social harm than the personal harm. Maybe it happens to be that alcohol - while poisonous - strengthens social bonds and is an overall net good, while cannabis - though relatively harmless - causes people to space out uselessly in front of the TV. Indeed, I believe this is a popular counterculture "conspiracy theory" - that the drugs that are illegal are the ones that cause the user to question the structure of society, in particular competitive capitalism.
I'm not endorsing any of the above - just pointing out that there are other reasons one might want a drug to be illegal than mere medical danger.
I'm not endorsing any of the above - just pointing out that there are other reasons one might want a drug to be illegal than mere medical danger.
Sure, and those are valid arguments to make to encourage or discourage use. I know you're just Devil's advocating, but to kind of one-up it: similar or stronger arguments could potentially be made for criminalizing things like gambling, pornography, watching Twitch for more than an hour per day, etc.
There are a lot of things that carry potential for social harm. It's the job of a nation's citizens to decide which are socially harmful enough to warrant fines or imprisonment. Ranged weapons certainly carry potential for social harm, but the US has decided they don't cross that threshold as long as they aren't fully automatic or explosive.
I think the social harm of even the most "notorious" drugs, like PCP and methamphetamine, don't cross that threshold, personally. There's a lot of pushback now, but I suspect within a century or so most or all drugs will be decriminalized in the US and many other places, even if mostly for practical rather than philosophical reasons.
Focusing solely on the personal harm arguments can be interesting to think about, too. Can a case be made for legalizing fentanyl, despite it often causing personal harm (death)? I think I lean towards legalizing both buying and selling of it as long as failure to disclosure it's contained in something is illegal; though in practice that might be too hard to enforce, in which case maybe selling should be illegal as long as there's some safe government-sanctioned source of it.
There are a lot of things that carry potential for social harm. It's the job of a nation's citizens to decide which are socially harmful enough to warrant fines or imprisonment. Ranged weapons certainly carry potential for social harm, but the US has decided they don't cross that threshold as long as they aren't fully automatic or explosive.
I think the social harm of even the most "notorious" drugs, like PCP and methamphetamine, don't cross that threshold, personally. There's a lot of pushback now, but I suspect within a century or so most or all drugs will be decriminalized in the US and many other places, even if mostly for practical rather than philosophical reasons.
Focusing solely on the personal harm arguments can be interesting to think about, too. Can a case be made for legalizing fentanyl, despite it often causing personal harm (death)? I think I lean towards legalizing both buying and selling of it as long as failure to disclosure it's contained in something is illegal; though in practice that might be too hard to enforce, in which case maybe selling should be illegal as long as there's some safe government-sanctioned source of it.
The problem is that the government is very limited in its levers over society. There's the financial - taxes, subsidies, fines, grants. There's freedom curtailment - prison, compulsory community service, restraining orders, use of military force. There's "soft marketing" - PSAs, presidential speeches, all forms of information war.
These sound big and scary but they are blunt. There is no government equivalent of the kind of precise, directed, powerful social pressure that your friends and family can apply. The government can't sit down and tell you, in a serious tone, that you acted like a complete turd when you got too drunk last night and if it happens again you won't be invited over anymore. There's no substitute for social fabric.
But social fabric doesn't scale. It doesn't scale with the intensity of the problem - once someone's hooked on heroin, you can't shame them back out of it. And it doesn't scale with size, either - community identity doesn't work at city sizes. Why should someone care what you think, if they'll never see you again?
So this leaves us in a position where people see drug-related problems and feel powerless to stop them. Something must be done. And the only available thing - it seems - is the blunt instrument of the law. And hey, maybe that causes other problems - worse problems, even! But something is being done, at least.
These sound big and scary but they are blunt. There is no government equivalent of the kind of precise, directed, powerful social pressure that your friends and family can apply. The government can't sit down and tell you, in a serious tone, that you acted like a complete turd when you got too drunk last night and if it happens again you won't be invited over anymore. There's no substitute for social fabric.
But social fabric doesn't scale. It doesn't scale with the intensity of the problem - once someone's hooked on heroin, you can't shame them back out of it. And it doesn't scale with size, either - community identity doesn't work at city sizes. Why should someone care what you think, if they'll never see you again?
So this leaves us in a position where people see drug-related problems and feel powerless to stop them. Something must be done. And the only available thing - it seems - is the blunt instrument of the law. And hey, maybe that causes other problems - worse problems, even! But something is being done, at least.
> cannabis - though relatively harmless - causes people to space out uselessly in front of the TV
You sound like your knowledge of cannabis is from anti-drug TV commercials. Speak for yourself, cannabis can definitely be a social drug. People are just forced to do it in the privacy of their own homes due to prohibition.
You sound like your knowledge of cannabis is from anti-drug TV commercials. Speak for yourself, cannabis can definitely be a social drug. People are just forced to do it in the privacy of their own homes due to prohibition.
That's not the point they're trying to make. You should re-read their post in full. It's a meta-level discussion, not an object-level one.
I agree you're onto something. There must be some reason society loves the war on drugs. I've always felt it was a tribal ritual of control and denial. Similar to food prohibitions that exist in many religions (kosher food, haram
I think we are at the point in the United States that we almost have a moral responsibility to decriminalize all drugs just to assist with defunding the Mexican cartels.
When you add that in with what it would do to violence in the US directly, I don't see how someone can argue the other side from a moral perspective.
When you add that in with what it would do to violence in the US directly, I don't see how someone can argue the other side from a moral perspective.
Agreed. Want to make serious strides on illegal immigration to the US? Remove the funding of the cartels.
...or force them to quadruple down on alternative income streams such as human smuggling instead of drug smuggling.
Are the cartels facing a labour shortage or something and sticking to their core competency and opting-out of other industries?
Could you explain how decriminalization helps to defund the cartels?
With legalization comes regulation and better control over the supply chain. I don’t see how decriminalization accomplishes anything other than saving court costs/costs of imprisonment.
With legalization comes regulation and better control over the supply chain. I don’t see how decriminalization accomplishes anything other than saving court costs/costs of imprisonment.
Canada’s marijuana legalization has lead to 2 things:
1. A big (and increasing) shift into purchasing from the legal market
2. A price crash on the illegal market. Like half the dollars per ounce going into the black market.
No real sign of increased consumption. And marijuana isn’t this cool and exciting thing anymore. It’s just there if you want it, otherwise carryon.
1. A big (and increasing) shift into purchasing from the legal market
2. A price crash on the illegal market. Like half the dollars per ounce going into the black market.
No real sign of increased consumption. And marijuana isn’t this cool and exciting thing anymore. It’s just there if you want it, otherwise carryon.
So there is a big difference between legalization and decriminalization. I was asking about the latter.
While I can see some of the benefits of decriminalization (easier to provide help to those who need it, enforcement can target distributors rather than users, etc), it really just seems like a political half measure to me.
While I can see some of the benefits of decriminalization (easier to provide help to those who need it, enforcement can target distributors rather than users, etc), it really just seems like a political half measure to me.
Yes, and I fear when decriminalization leads to civil penalties instead, it leads to wonky enforcement because it becomes about revenue (fines).
The libertarian in me says yes, but practically I know there are very few heroin users who are otherwise normal. The problem with the victimless claim is that it's literally true, but practically absurd. I am conflicted.
And yet, despite it being illegal you apparently know heroin users.
So what exactly is criminalizing it accomplishing?
I agree that people shouldn’t use heroin. But obviously prohibition is not working.
Just to throw all the cards on the table, I'm by no means what anyone these days would describe as "libertarian". I don't think drugs should be legal for the sake of everything being legal, I think they should be legal because making them illegal doesn't accomplish the singular goal of stopping people from using them, and creates a lot of other deleterious effects.
So what exactly is criminalizing it accomplishing?
I agree that people shouldn’t use heroin. But obviously prohibition is not working.
Just to throw all the cards on the table, I'm by no means what anyone these days would describe as "libertarian". I don't think drugs should be legal for the sake of everything being legal, I think they should be legal because making them illegal doesn't accomplish the singular goal of stopping people from using them, and creates a lot of other deleterious effects.
To preface this, I am and have been conflicted on this topic as well. I lean a bit towards the possibility of finding a balance between efforts to reduce supply (e.g., some form of criminalization) while also treating demand (e.g., research into causes/factors leading to drug use, free substance abuse treatment, methadone/suboxone, etc.).
That being said, I don't think anyone expects criminalization to yield zero use. I think the goal of criminalization is to make it more difficult to obtain the drugs and to dissuade people from starting drug use and/or continuing it.
That being said, I don't think anyone expects criminalization to yield zero use. I think the goal of criminalization is to make it more difficult to obtain the drugs and to dissuade people from starting drug use and/or continuing it.
I don't think you know that criminalization isn't working. You need to compare to what would happen if it were legal. Just because the number of users is > 0 does not mean criminalization doesnt work.
Certainly the biggest issue is that heroin costs money, and addicts will do anything for their dose. Making it legal--but not free--doesn't stop this. But there are other issues too (child neglect, homelessness, accosting people on the street) that even providing free drugs doesn't eliminate.
Alcohol prohibition might not have been worth it (in the sense that the curbs on freedom were too expensive) but it definitely worked in the sense of dramatically reducing alcohol deaths, diseases, and domestic disputes.
We should certainly consider making it legal--but not because zero heroin users was the goal.
Certainly the biggest issue is that heroin costs money, and addicts will do anything for their dose. Making it legal--but not free--doesn't stop this. But there are other issues too (child neglect, homelessness, accosting people on the street) that even providing free drugs doesn't eliminate.
Alcohol prohibition might not have been worth it (in the sense that the curbs on freedom were too expensive) but it definitely worked in the sense of dramatically reducing alcohol deaths, diseases, and domestic disputes.
We should certainly consider making it legal--but not because zero heroin users was the goal.
I’m not sure where you are drawing the figure “relatively few” from but a side effect of the illegality of heroin is that functional (or “normal”) users don’t typically broadcast their usage for fear of being arrested or stigmatized. There are many people who fall into disfunction or death but the relative amount is difficult to gauge, especially when you broaden the pool to include opiate users more generally.
Maybe if they didn't have to chase illegal drugs, they would only be semi-broken, like the rest of us?
And at the very least there wouldn't be space for gangs, the quality on the heroin would be higher and it would be possible to ensure the drug was only take at certain locations, maybe even create an opt-out or opt-in model where you needed to wait a few weeks from the time you have requested access until you get your heroin card?
And at the very least there wouldn't be space for gangs, the quality on the heroin would be higher and it would be possible to ensure the drug was only take at certain locations, maybe even create an opt-out or opt-in model where you needed to wait a few weeks from the time you have requested access until you get your heroin card?
We have legal and clean heroin given out, for basically free, by the state here in switzerland and from my personal experience these are the least city image damaging junkies ive seen around europe. Many of them even have regular work as they have no need to get criminal for their next shot.