• UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    In that sense, no prohibition has worked.

    We’ve had a litany of interventions in the history of the US regulatory system. Prohibitions on lead in paint and asbestos used for building insulation have been successful everywhere we’ve funded them. Prohibitions on trade with Cuba have kept Havana Club out of our bars and El Habanos off our cigar store shelves for decades.

    You can regulate a business out of existence. You can regulate a whole industry out of existence. But you do need to intend to pursue these ends. You can’t block narcotics up front with your DEA hand and smuggle them in through the back door with your CIA hand.

    You can do things about substance abuse. You can not do things about substance use.

    You can establish a sufficient amount of bureaucracy, surveillance, and risk such that doing a particular kind of business is no longer fruitful. There are certainly some prohibitions that are harder to enforce than others. Growing marijuana is borderline trivial, so the job of expunging the plant from existence becomes an enormous uphill climb. But refining cocaine or heroin? Halting the manufacture boutique designer synthetics that can only really come from a handful of high tech manufacturers? That’s comparably quite easy.

    The trouble sets in when you recognize drug use as a symptom of a deeper problem, rather than an end on its own. Prohibiting Oxycodone pushed more people into heroin. Policing heroin forced people on to fentanyl. The opioid addiction (and chronic pain that inspires its use) persist as we play wack-a-mole with alternative treatments.

    What do you do with the hundreds of thousands of junkies, once you’ve policed their drugs of choice out of the marketplace? That’s a problem we don’t really want to solve. So we turn our backs and let the opioids flow again, because its easier than dealing with a sudden influx of withdrawal victims.

    • Dasus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Prohibitions on lead in paint and asbestos used for building insulation have been successful everywhere we’ve funded them.

      I’m having a hard time believing you’re arguing in good faith with comments like that.

      You very well know we’re talking about substances as in psychoactive substances as in psychoactive substances people consume to experience a slightly altered state.

      No-one is sniffing asbestos. (Well, guess they sort of did back when there were cigarette filters made of asbestos.)

      And lead is still very much an issue in the US, despite no-one using it deliberately. A new study calculates that exposure to car exhaust from leaded gas during childhood stole a collective 824 million IQ points from more than 170 million Americans alive today, about half the population of the United States

      But refining cocaine or heroin?

      Both are also rather trivial. Not really any harder than making your own cannabis shatter.

      Halting the manufacture boutique designer synthetics that can only really come from a handful of high tech manufacturers?

      Haha, lol. Do you have any idea how many kilos of drugs are pumped out by university labs, people’s personal (“personal” in the sense that they’re a drug dealer/manufacturer who invest a ton of money into a personal lab for that very purpose, but it’s still small, ie personal) labs, etc? You’re way overestimating this, bruv.

      Imagine you’re a chem student at a university. You make 1 liter of LSD. You can smuggle that out in a soda-bottle. 1 liter of LSD would be, if sold at single-dose street value, around 100 000 dollars. (Obviously cheaper when you manufacture and sell wholesale, but still.)

      And that’s LSD, which is highly recognisable illicit substance. You can make all sorts of semi-illegal drugs that laws haven’t even caught up yet. (Golden times of this was around 2005-2015, I’d say) Dozens and dozens of technically legal substances, that are still pretty legal in most of the world.

      Not to mention people are literally growing their own coca bushes in their homes. Not that you’ll yield much anything besides leaves to chew on, much less make into coke and sell, but the point is the prohibitions do not work and will never work.

      Hell, all hell is about to break loose in the easy manufacture of hardcore drugs.

      This came out in 2015: https://www.nature.com/articles/521281a

      It’s an article about how there’s urgent regulation needed into GMO yeast. Yeast that seems like normal yeast, but also happens to biosynthesise opiates. And you can make them biosynthesise pretty much anything soon enough. They’ve also done it with cannabis, but as you rightly pointed out, growing it is super easy, and the effect people like relies on the entourage effect, so it’s not gonna be one people will get onto, but opiates and cocaine are certainly doable.

      So no. Prohibitions (of psychoactive substances — and you know perfectly well that’s what we meant) never work.

      once you’ve policed their drugs of choice out of the marketplace?

      Please do tell, as no-one has ever managed that. Do you have any idea how easy it is to get drugs in prison, the one place where you’d think you shouldn’t be able to get them, that’s being “policed” and shouldn’t have an easily accessible drug market?

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        No-one is sniffing asbestos.

        The functional argument is that you can’t ban things because people will simply go to the black market for them. Why don’t we have a robust trade in black market lead paint and asbestos wall filling?

        Do you have any idea how many kilos of drugs are pumped out by university labs

        Go ahead and lets see the numbers. My money is that its orders of magnitude less than cocaine coming out of Columbia or even weed out of Canada.

        there’s urgent regulation needed into GMO yeast

        So we’re back to regulation being a functional solution to control the distribution of substances?

        So no. Prohibitions (of psychoactive substances — and you know perfectly well that’s what we meant) never work.

        Then why bother trying to regulate GMO yeast? Or leaded gasoline for that matter?

        Please do tell, as no-one has ever managed that.

        The push towards fentanyl has been in response to the very successful policing of heroin and oxycodone traffic. When you’re not rushing these drugs in through the back door with another federal agency, you can - in fact - successfully control the traffic of a given substance.

        • Dasus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Why don’t we have a robust trade in black market lead paint and asbestos wall filling?

          Because those aren’t substances which people want to use, unlike psychoactive substances? I thought I made it quite clear we’re talking about prohibitions of substances, not bans on toxic paints. To pretend you don’t understand the difference between weed/beer/energydrink/cocaine/heroin and asbestos/lead/microplastics is downright incredible. As in, I don’t believe that you don’t actually understand the difference, and think you’re just pretentiously pretending you don’t, so you don’t have to admit how wrong you are in the argument.

          Go ahead and lets see the numbers.

          Let’s see the numbers of illicitly and covertly produced substances? Ah yes, let me just call up the international drug trade association and ask them for the exact amounts. :D

          is that its orders of magnitude less than cocaine coming out of Columbia

          You can easily go through several grams of coke a night. You won’t be able to go through even a gram of LSD. A gram would be 1000 times the normal dosage. Importing is hard business, and risky at that. If you can produce a synthetic stimulant without the risk of getting caught by the police, and if the stimulant is even an NPS, then even getting caught will not mean as much prisontime as with coke.

          I’ve been in the drug trade for about two decades. You’re talking out of your arse, and completely illogically. I’ve had this conversation a million times, it’s just evolved a bit over the years. Not much, but it has.

          Then why bother trying to regulate GMO yeast? Or leaded gasoline for that matter?

          REGULATION =/= PROHIBITION.

          If you’d have actually read my earlier comments you’d have noticed this:

          #You can only regulate. Regulation is beneficial. Banning is not.

          #You can do things about substance abuse. You can not do things about substance use.

          The push towards fentanyl has been in response to the very successful policing of heroin and oxycodone traffic. When you’re not rushing these drugs in through the back door with another federal agency, you can - in fact - successfully control the traffic of a given substance.

          “very successful”

          Are you on heroin, currently? Because I don’t know why else you would say something so completely ridiculous.

          https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/fentanyl-and-us-opioid-epidemic

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Because those aren’t substances which people want to use

            They clearly are, as we’d been using them prior to the enacted ban for decades.

            I thought I made it quite clear we’re talking about prohibitions of substances, not bans on toxic paints.

            Do you believe paint isn’t a substance? FFS, have you ever heard of huffing paint?

            To pretend you don’t understand the difference

            This isn’t a question of pretending. This is a question of economic incentive to do trade and the impacts regulation/prohibition has on those incentives.

            REGULATION =/= PROHIBITION.

            Both increase the cost of transactions for the purpose of discouraging certain forms of trade by assigning bureaucratic hurdles and civil penalties with legal transactions. A regulation on gasoline that prohibits including lead in the formula is both a REGULATION and a PROHIBITION.

            Are you on heroin, currently?

            Analysts say the opioid epidemic started with the overprescription of legal pain medications in the 1990s, but it has intensified in recent years due to influxes of cheap heroin, fentanyl, and other synthetic opioids supplied by foreign drug cartels. The crisis has become a scourge on the economy, a threat to national security, and a major foreign policy challenge.

            This was the root of the problem. Prohibiting reckless prescription of opioids in the 1990s would have averted the crisis in its infancy.

            • Dasus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              They clearly are, as we’d been using them prior to the enacted ban for decades.

              Would you stop being this childish? Do you not understand what “using a substance to facilitate an altered state” means?

              Unless you plan to argue that people were eating paint to get high, these semantical shenanigans will get you nowhere.

              “haven’t you heard of huffing paint”

              You apparently don’t actually know what it means to “huff paint”. The lead and the paint isn’t what you’re after. It’s the volatile solvents used, which will vanish when the paint dries. Do you know when “huffing paint” became a thing? When prohibitions were tried. People will get to their altered state, no matter what you try to do to stop them.

              Prohibiting reckless prescription of opioids in the 1990s would have averted the crisis in its infancy.

              I repeat, are you on heroin currently? Because the US isn’t the only country in the world, and prohibition of psychoactive substances (since you’re anally, pedantically, and utterly childishly still pretending not to understand what the context of this conversation is) has never worked, anywhere

              • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                Would you stop being this childish?

                My guy, I’m laying out historical facts and your response only ever seems to be name calling.

                Unless you plan to argue that people were eating paint to get high

                There’s quite literally a name for it - Pica. And lead paint, which is sweet because it contains lead, is a common substance people with pica would consume.

                You apparently don’t actually know what it means to “huff paint”.

                The incentives to include lead in paint, to enhance the color, and in gasoline, to prevent engine knocking, have existed for decades. Exposure can be recreational, but it can also simply be by way of chronic exposure. Nevertheless, there are economic incentives for including lead in the product in both cases. And the prohibition overrode that incentive.

                Because the US isn’t the only country in the world, and prohibition of psychoactive substances (since you’re anally, pedantically, and utterly childishly still pretending not to understand what the context of this conversation is) has never worked

                It has successfully deterred the sale and consumption of a variety of psychoactive substances, ranging from LCD to oxytocin, by eliminating them from drug retailers’ shelves.

                • Dasus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 months ago

                  You’re not laying out any sort of facts. You’re trying to purposefully distract from the actual topic, because you know you don’t know shit about it.

                  There’s quite literally a name for it - Pica.

                  Pica has nothing to do with getting high. It’s a craving for weird things.

                  We’re talking about the prohibition of recreational substances. Is lead a recreational substance? Is asbestos a recreational substance? “My guy”, you are being extremely childish. It’s downright funny.

                  It has successfully deterred the sale and consumption of a variety of psychoactive substances, ranging from LCD to oxytocin, by eliminating them from drug retailers’ shelves.

                  No, it hasn’t. It’s increased them. And do you know how I know you’re an ignorant person talking out of their arse on the subject?

                  You write “LCD”, like screens, when you mean “LSD”, like the drug. You also write “oxytocin”, the neurotransmitter (colloquially known as the “bonding hormone”) when you mean “oxycodone”, what Oxycontin is made of.

                  Which prohibition of a recreational substance has worked? Name one RECREATIONAL SUBSTANCE that has been successfully banned. (Note, even if you recreate by shoving pencils up your nose, that does not make pencils a recreational substance in this context.) You name one, and I’ll show you where you can buy it, because no such thing exists as no prohibition [of a recreational substance] works.