ARTICLE: 'Ending the war on all drugs'

[(Wordy)]

This thread is for discussion of the article 'Ending the war on all drugs' by Adam Susel.

Feel free to post your thoughts about the article, and any questions you might have.

We will encourage article authors to respond to questions about their articles. At the very least we can assume that the authors will be reading our discussion.

Constructive criticism and debate is most welcome, however abusive comments will not be tolerated. The Bluelight User Agreement (BLUA) applies, as it does across our site. We hope to conduct civil and constructive discussions here about the issues raised in the article.

 

[Tronica]

Thanks for this article Adam.

I think one of the reasons why psychedelic exceptionalism happens is stigma. There's less stigma associated with psychedelics and cannabis. And for some people who use those substances, they still hold strong to stigma against people who use so-called harder drugs (heroin, crack, methamphetamine, or injecting ROA). To deflect the stigma from themselves, they may reinforce the boundaries between their drugs of choice, and these other drugs. They may not be doing this consciously or deliberately. It may be more of a self defence, just to shield themselves from the stigma that revolves around drug use in the community.

I see this a bit in cannabis centric groups where they reject the term drug, instead using terms like plant, medicine, or plant medicine!

In fact there's an organisation called Thank You Plant Medicine (they have an annual day, February 20, where people are encouraged to host events and 'find their tribe'). While I don't believe this organisation is specifically thinking - we should exclude synthetic drugs and recreational or dependence use from our remit because they are not worthy - the focus only on plant based and only on medicinal use, may still have this effect on enacting psychedelic exceptionalism.

So yeah it's an interesting issue given that some people would argue that we should be practical/pragmatic, and if most of the population is on board with 'plant medicine' but not with other drug use types and kinds, we should at least get that done. But yeah, at what cost to those who use different kinds of drugs or in different ways?

In relation to this, Australia (where I'm from) just released their household survey (which we do every three years) and there is a VAST difference in opinion about what to do about drugs depending on the drug type in question. Much support for cannabis reforms, but very little support for legal access to heroin or methamphetamine for example. Drug type stigma is alive and well in the general population from what the data tell us.

 

[deficiT]

Really enjoyed the article Adam!

 

[AngelsandFairiesarereal]

Really enjoyed the article Adam!

Yea that was a good article

 

[ZeroContrast]

Much support for cannabis reforms, but very little support for legal access to heroin or methamphetamine for example. Drug type stigma is alive and well in the general population from what the data tell us.

Your reply, like the original article, fails to point out that a large reason for stigma against "hard" drugs is because those drugs have greater addiction potential (i.e. physical dependence). Drug reform definitely ought to include decriminalization of the use of all substances (and possession of small quantities), but most people realize the distinction of harder drugs in terms of their effects on the user. You're far less likely to hear about someone who just casually tried heroin at a party on the weekend and went back to their normal life on Monday. Even the mildest opioids can become habit forming relatively easily.

Sure ignorance can precipitate stigma as well, the fact that PCP is often grouped in with the likes of crack and meth, for example. And yes, some of the stigma surrounding all drugs is harmful to some degree or other (such as that faced by users seeking rehabilitation). But some "stigma" comes from knowledge rather than ignorance. THC, caffeine, codeine, LSD, etc, yes, they are all chemicals, but some of them do come with higher risk potential than others (risks that don't necessarily correlate with the way they're classified under the law). Many people, including lawmakers, especially in the past, wrongfully lump all drugs together and just tell the public, including (worst of all) children, that all drugs are "bad", without explaining how/why and to what degree.

Sure there are potential dangers to marijuana use, but those dangers are generally less acute than the dangers of meth (for example). So when kids and young people see someone use something like marijuana with little consequence, there is the danger of them assuming that the blanket label of "bad" is likely as exaggerated for other drugs as much as it is for marijuana... if they're not informed about the particular dangers of each. I have seen and heard the harm that coke, meth, and heroin can do, and that harm is far more pronounced than the harm from marijuana, psychedelics, or dissociatives. One can likely use one of the latter drugs responsibly and go on with their life, with the former group... it's far more of a dice roll.

 

[smokeymcpot42088]

Codeine is an opiate; since it is a morphine pro-drug I would even venture hard opiate. Heroin was invented as a cure for morphine addiction (as goofy as it was).

I respectfully, and I do mean respectfully disagree and (after decades of use on all ends of the spectrum, including none, w/ds etc) I still feel like drugs are more or less tools and all should be legalized and regulated.

I don't think too many people would CHOOSE to do meth and crack even if it was on the market. Daily marijuana use is now associated with a 42% increase of stroke. (noone is more shocked or less happy about this than me, trust) but I saw no holes in the study that is now on page 1 of cannabis discussion.

Maybe make "hard drugs" and I would include ethanol in that list like pseudophed; where there is some small barrier to purchasing more than the alotted amount. Than I feel the stigma would be more on people who are abusing the tools presented to them.

 

[DaiBanto]

All drugs should be regulated as ethanol and nicotine are now.

 

[Sixx_Psychonaut]

we need to legalize body autonomy it's so ridiculous the control the government has on our own bodies. who are they to tell us what to do with our lives.
more options and more funding put into harm reduction education......none of this Harold the health giraffe BS

 

[smokeymcpot42088]

^ Also correct. The minute they got the rights to our bodily fluids it became a real slippery slope. (and I dont like that term)

 

[unodelacosa]

All drugs should be regulated as ethanol and nicotine are now.

All drug possession should be decriminalized as a first step. A simple possession charge should never have been made a felony. That's fucking bananas; I can't believe society let this happen, but here we are.

We have to do better in regulating these "luxury tax" industries. The way nicotine and alcohol have been controlled over the years is shameful. Big tobacco and the alcohol industry have been run by morally bankrupt executive swine who, among other things, deliberately-though-indirectly advertised to children by the executives own admission. They lobbied to suppress medical information about health risks, particularly cancer, lung and heart diseases, and other ailments much like the alcohol industry does now.

And frankly, Big Pharma runs so many advertisements in the U.S., there's no way it's not causing problems. Yes, I know, profits incentivize, and so on and so forth, I just think certain things like health and education shouldn't be left to the profit motive when they benefit all of society. I'm also an advocate of required licensing after drug safety education and an exam, kind of like getting a driver's license.

 

[Burnt Offerings]

I’ve read that the USA (and New Zealand, iirc…?) is one of the only developed nations in the world to allow that kind of direct-to-consumer advertising for prescription drugs by pharmaceutical companies. I’m not sure if that’s true or not but yeah, I’ve always been mystified & annoyed by such ads. I would love to see them go bye-bye forever

 

[Foreigner]

I used to have very straightforward opinions on this, such as: the DEA isn't going anywhere because there is too much money and power involved in law enforcement.

Now I believe the rabbit hole goes much deeper. Similar to the child/adult sex trafficking rings, I think the laws are a smoke screen to maintain a highly profitable black market by the same elites who create and benefit from the laws in the first place. Decriminalization and legalization ruin profits and transfer underground power to the market of normy business owners. That would demonetize billionaires.

Drugs are so commonplace in our society now that there is no other reason to keep them decriminalized except to benefit the black market, which means black market racketeers are embedded in our governmental systems of power. One hand washes the other, and both sides profit. The prison-industrial complex gets free slave labor and the ability to ruin anybody they want for minor possession or even being high; and the black market billionaires continue to profit while giving the people in power a cut, or even giving them free product.

When you look at how criminal drug operations function on a smaller scale like in countries in South America, some local governments officials pay off cartels to not create violence or heavily disrupt the social order. It's the "black market tax." In exchange the black market continue dealing and holds the monopoly.

I mean, the CIA was able to use drugs to ruin black communities, so... they obviously have their finger on the pulse of the drug trade.

Tl;dr the government is actually in on it and benefits from the ongoing black market. The war on drugs is a bait and switch to distract people from how it has always been: cartels and governments in a business relationship. Ending the war on drugs means destroying their power.

 

[cyrilio]

Can't agree more with this article. We must regulate all drugs. Not just the ones currently in the spotlight. I don thing however that it's good not to try and decriminalize/regulate all drugs at ones. We have to start somewhere. Drugs like cannabis, and many psychedelics are relatively safe. This makes it much easier to convince people against drug reform. After the use of these substances has been normalized we can move towards regulation others like less potent opioids, amphetamines, dissociatives, etc.. It's going to be a long difficult process, but I believe that within 100 years we can achieve it.

26 June is Support Don't Punish. You can join event already being organized or setup something yourself. It's even possible to get some funding from them if needed,.

If you're in Amsterdam/the Netherlands then and are a member of any Harm Reduction organization then I'd like to welcome you to an event we'll be organizing with Stichting Legalize. I'll pout a blog post on our website soon with more information about the event.

For now we have [this Eventbrite page where you can join](https://www.eventbrite.nl/e/support-dont-punish-nl-2024-tickets-885055874947?aff=oddtdtcreator)

 

[unodelacosa]

https://www.eventbrite.nl/e/support-dont-punish-nl-2024-tickets-885055874947?aff=oddtdtcreator

Excellent stuff. I just wanted to fix the hyperlink for you.

Also, I agree insofar as to say the effort to end prohibition will require patience, PSAs, the creation of new clinics to help people who need it, and the addressing of retroactivity as it pertains to prisoners serving time for drug crimes (among other things). It's not an insignificant undertaking, that last part. Transitioning tens or hundreds of thousand of inmates suddenly released would overwhelm the system and local communities who would come up short on half-way house space. But yeah, let's decriminalize, legalize, and control drugs. I'm all for it as long as it's done right.

When you look at how criminal drug operations function on a smaller scale like in countries in South America,

Smaller scale? The transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) in South and Central America are anything but small scale. I agree with what you're saying as it echoes what I've been saying for many years now, but South American TCOs and the incorrectly titled "Cartels" are huge, multi-million dollar operations.

some local governments officials pay off cartels to not create violence or heavily disrupt the social order.

I've never heard that. It's usually the official who is getting paid off, not the other way around. Goddamn, what would they be paying the cartels with? Where would that money come from? Taxes? Are you sure you didn't write that backwards accidentally?

It's the "black market tax." In exchange the black market continue dealing and holds the monopoly.

I thought you said in exchange the cartels don't "create violence or disrupt the social order"? That does not seem to be the case anyway…

I mean, the CIA was able to use drugs to ruin black communities,

Idk about ruin, but yeah I take your meaning. There's that whole New Jack City thing. Killer Mike summarizes everything nicely in his track Reagan:

so... they obviously have their finger on the pulse of the drug trade.

Well Christ, they should given all the incarceration and the billions of dollars spent "fighting the drug war"…

Tl;dr the government is actually in on it and benefits from the ongoing black market.

No, only certain people, factions, and agencies (read: law enforcement, prison personnel, and district attorneys' offices) benefit from drug prohibition in the form of what they consider "job security". Those podunk towns with populations of 5,000 to 10,000 people sure do love it when a new prison is built nearby and it hires 800 people from the town, in addition to the construction contracts that go out locally… Ends up becoming the economic backbone of the area, and those folks do not want to see that endl. So they vote Republican and support measures that promote Draconian drug sentencing… But otherwise all that incarceration is expensive with it costing something like $25K/year per inmate. Now consider how there's nearly 2 million inmates in the country, and the tax payer ends up footing that bill. But that L.E. budget could be better spent elsewhere or left with the tax payers… there's the real conservative move, but no one thinks this way on the right any longer. It's all spend, spend, spend with both the right and the left.

The war on drugs is a bait and switch to distract people from how it has always been: cartels and governments in a business relationship.

It's a bit more complex than that, but essentially, yes, it's a scam to control masses of people.

Ending the war on drugs means destroying their power.

Yes, which is a part of why it's so important to do. Ending the drug war requires changing public perception of drugs and drug culture, just like it did with gay rights. Thirty years ago, being gay was still viewed as being a sick perversion, and in many people's minds, it was synonymous with being a child molester. That is for real how society, at large and overall, viewed it. I'm speaking in generalities, of course; there was dissent even back then. But it took celebrities and respected individuals in the public eye to muster up the courage to come out at a time when it was much more dangerous to do so. And in this way, gay rights activists were able to demonstrate to the public how far off their misperception of gay people was.