Why are there so many open air drug markets in the U.S?

[TheUltimateFixx]

PS the true hypocrisy comes to the fore when you see people who most certainly smoke or drink, proselytise against 'drug use'.

Sure, you don't dramatically keel over dead in a media-friendly way after consuming one cigarette or one drink (with the exception of massive alcohol over-consumption leading to poisoning within a short period of time, and potentially resulting in death if not treated).

Nicotine and alcohol top the charts by a mile when it comes to overall deaths associated with consumption.
Absolutely NOBODY would even dream of legalising alcohol if it was some novel thing that just showed up recently. It's toxic to the liver and the brain. The famous Bavarian Oktoberfest is arguably the biggest socially and legally approved open drug event. People routinely act irrational and anti-social. People routinely collapse into unconscious heaps needing medical attention and on occasion revival, and all-night care in a hospital.

IMAGINE if that was a heroin scene. A bunch of loaded junkies just staggering about, insensible, collapsing by the roadway, in no command of their conscious faculties. HOW QUICKLY WOULD THAT SHIT GET SHUT DOWN and blanket demands be made to not allow anything like it ever again.

 

[Serhat]

Everytime I argue for legalization, the standard response I tend to get even from people who generally favour the idea is, 'oh but it would be a massive social experiment and nobody knows how that would turn out, so we can't risk it'.


... The 'social experiment' was run for centuries before prohibition, where basically anybody was free to take whatever mind-altering substance they wished in whatever quantities they wished, that was available where they lived.

Result? Yes you had a proportion of problem users (ie addicts) in every population, but that never reached some massive proportion to the point where it was noticed and recognised as a distinct 'social problem' . THAT tellingly only happened following prohibition laws. And to this day the very worst statistics for 'addiction', associated drug crime, social degradation etc reliably correlate with those parts of the world that have the most intolerant drug laws. Clearly something is not merely 'not working' but instead being actively counter-productive.

THE WHOLE WORLD WASN'T ON DRUGS BEFORE PROHIBITION JUST BECAUSE DRUGS WERE AVAILABLE.

Thank you for your thoughtful response; I completely agree. It's interesting to note how the notion of a 'massive social experiment' is often used to stoke fear and uncertainty, while ignoring the real-life experiment of the 'war on drugs,' which by most measures has been a catastrophic failure.

What's more, countries and states that have moved towards decriminalization or legalization often report positive outcomes. For example, Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001 and has since witnessed significant reductions in drug-related deaths, HIV infection rates, and drug-related crimes. Similarly, states in the U.S. that have legalized cannabis have not seen the social apocalypse that many naysayers predicted; in fact, many have seen economic benefits and a decrease in opioid usage.

It's also worth noting that strict prohibition doesn't prevent drug misuse; it merely criminalizes it, pushing it into the shadows where it becomes more dangerous and less manageable. And as you pointed out, prohibition seems to exacerbate the very problems it aims to solve, creating a self-perpetuating cycle of social and economic degradation.

In summary, the 'social experiment' argument falls flat when you consider both historical context and contemporary case studies. It's time we move towards a more rational, evidence-based approach to drug policy.

 

[Serhat]

PS the true hypocrisy comes to the fore when you see people who most certainly smoke or drink, proselytise against 'drug use'.

Sure, you don't dramatically keel over dead in a media-friendly way after consuming one cigarette or one drink (with the exception of massive alcohol over-consumption leading to poisoning within a short period of time, and potentially resulting in death if not treated).

Nicotine and alcohol top the charts by a mile when it comes to overall deaths associated with consumption.
Absolutely NOBODY would even dream of legalising alcohol if it was some novel thing that just showed up recently. It's toxic to the liver and the brain. The famous Bavarian Oktoberfest is arguably the biggest socially and legally approved open drug event. People routinely act irrational and anti-social. People routinely collapse into unconscious heaps needing medical attention and on occasion revival, and all-night care in a hospital.

IMAGINE if that was a heroin scene. A bunch of loaded junkies just staggering about, insensible, collapsing by the roadway, in no command of their conscious faculties. HOW QUICKLY WOULD THAT SHIT GET SHUT DOWN and blanket demands be made to not allow anything like it ever again.

I couldn't agree more. The hypocrisy in the public's perception of drugs is staggering, and it's a point that doesn't get made often enough. Alcohol and tobacco are responsible for a significant proportion of drug-related deaths, yet they remain socially acceptable, even celebrated in many cultures. Events like Oktoberfest are indeed testaments to this double standard. Imagine the uproar if there was a similar festival celebrating the use of any other drug.

Your point about the reaction to a hypothetical 'heroin scene' is particularly poignant. Society has an uneven response to different substances, largely based on historical and cultural factors rather than empirical evidence. This perpetuates a system where some substances are wrongly demonized, while others, which can be just as harmful or more so, are freely consumed and even glorified.

It's clear that our attitudes toward drugs are not informed by rational, evidence-based considerations but rather by cultural norms, misinformation, and political agendas. These attitudes then inform public policy, leading to counterproductive and harmful laws. The first step toward a more reasonable drug policy is acknowledging these contradictions and working to address them. A science-based approach to drug regulation could benefit society in myriad ways, from public health to criminal justice reform.

 

[AlsoTapered]

... The 'social experiment' was run for centuries before prohibition, where basically anybody was free to take whatever mind-altering substance they wished in whatever quantities they wished, that was available where they lived.

And that experiment lasted at LEAST 6500 years. The Romans were well aware of cannabis & opium and yet they were regarded as medicines. Possibly price limited the size of a potential 'addict' population. They were aware that opium was addictive and that an overdose was a medical emergency. Alcohol was the only drug that caused serious social problems but sadly, it's so simple to produce (badly) that we can't effectively ban it... as the Volstead act proved that prohibition resulted in MORE harm.

These ancient cultures were well informed concerning the risks and benefits of the drugs available within their cultures.

What HAS changed is that science offers the pure, active component(s) which lend themselves more readily to abuse, Synthetic drugs now form the majority of available material in some classes of drug.

The US fentanyl crisis will be nothing when the Canadian carfentanil (x30000 morphine in potency) producers expand their markets, Amazingly, as far back as 1959 Ivar Karl Ugi developed a name-reaction (the Ugi reaction) that means that carfentanil and it's homologues are now as simple to produce as fentanyl. It took until 2015 for a Hungarian team to confirm that it could be applied to carfentanil, remifentanil and a range of other compounds BUT when the did, they really showed that it's quite general and even allows for some totally novel (read 'uncontrolled') derivatives to be simply reduced.

The above is highly reminiscent of the sudden explosion in the production, supply and use of etonitazene homologues. In this case, clandestine chemists stumbled upon an obscure 1975 German language paper which telescoped the synthesis of this class to just 2 simple, high-yielding steps.

I myself found that a paper ostensibly devoted to the synthesis of opioid ANTAGONISTS noted that one example proved to be a full agonist which, given affinity data, animal model data and calculated properties (LogP, pKa and so on) appears to be around x40000 morphine in potency. I presume that if I was able to locate it, so can others.

And those are just examples. If one is prepared to accept compounds in the range of 'only' x100s morphine in potency, their are quite literally tens of thousands of papers,

Because it's medical utility, opioids are the most widely researched class of drugs that are liable to non-medical use and I cannot help but think that with two new classes of 'super potent' opioids appearing on the market in two years, the trend is likely to continue,

Frankly, I don't believe that any drug agency has found an effective strategy for treating fentanyl dependence although the suicide rates amongst the pioneers of these drugs does not bode well. The case of 'Thomas K. Highsmith' of Morton Thiokol is an illuminating example.

 

[TheUltimateFixx]

Yea because drug laws are racist

Not inherently in any way these days, no. But they absolutely STARTED OUT that way.
Three distinct types of drug got profiled due to being popular with certain ethnic groups and had racist stereotypes attached to them.

The anti-opium propaganda was HEAVILY anti-Chinese ; followed by tirades against cocaine centered on fear-mongering about allegedly hypersexualised and ultra-violent 'negroes', while marijuana use was basically equated with the idea 'that's why those Mexicans are idle layabouts and also inveterate criminals'. There's no getting around the fact that prohibition was justified with and motivated by racism.

 

[camaroBDJ]

So I've been watching a few documentaries on Youtube and I'm finding this new phenonimon more than a little odd. Being from the UK here we certainly have places law enforcement know what is going on and monitor it, but nothing like some states in the US have these days (Philidelphia, Washington etc.)

Years ago I remember most places in America having quite heavy drugs laws, and even heavier sentance. I feel like the opioid crisis in some states must be some sort of blackops project to depopulated or else why would you ever allow public consumption of street sourced fentanyl/heroin/cocaine/meth. I notice some places in Canada (Vancouver, etc) have the same type approach where the police will sit and do nothing as addicts IV right in front of them.

Despite being anti prohibition I struggle to see that this kind of unregulated approach won't cause problems, especially knowing your country is full of drugs all cut with insanely powerful opiates like fentanyl.

Does anyone else here think it is a logical conclusion to make the government's are allowing this as a method to depopalate?

Be safe out there people, buy testing kits and only consume a tiny amount at first. Better safe than dead.

Two things one is the places that have open drugs are in city not the suburbs and cities like Baltimore, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, New York, New Jersey city and Cleveland are older cities and bit more walkable streets.

In the suburb they are mostly doing it but you don’t see them because it more spread out the area.

Also Baltimore, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, New Jersey city and Cleveland seem to be more into heroin and pain killers that is what you see them shooting up.

For what ever reason meth never became popular in New York, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, New Jersey city, Detroit or Chicago.

TWO Is people where already doing drugs there and jails being full all the time the cops had no where to put them.

And it seems places in west Europe just take down old buildings and build expensive building and displace the homeless or drug users. Where the US and east Europe have ghetto areas.

 

[camaroBDJ]

So I've been watching a few documentaries on Youtube and I'm finding this new phenonimon more than a little odd. Being from the UK here we certainly have places law enforcement know what is going on and monitor it, but nothing like some states in the US have these days (Philidelphia, Washington etc.)

Years ago I remember most places in America having quite heavy drugs laws, and even heavier sentance. I feel like the opioid crisis in some states must be some sort of blackops project to depopulated or else why would you ever allow public consumption of street sourced fentanyl/heroin/cocaine/meth. I notice some places in Canada (Vancouver, etc) have the same type approach where the police will sit and do nothing as addicts IV right in front of them.

Despite being anti prohibition I struggle to see that this kind of unregulated approach won't cause problems, especially knowing your country is full of drugs all cut with insanely powerful opiates like fentanyl.

Does anyone else here think it is a logical conclusion to make the government's are allowing this as a method to depopalate?

Be safe out there people, buy testing kits and only consume a tiny amount at first. Better safe than dead.

Also other thing despite the conservative states there is lot of meth in Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky ,Arizona, Missouri, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, West Virginia. May be because it is cheaper there and doing in house or trailer park easier.

AND heroin has more stigma of junkie.

 

[camaroBDJ]

Really, in the US? I never would have thought that. Then again, perhaps the war on drugs is dying down, politicians and police are realizing it doesn't work, only fills up the prisons and they get apathetic... Idk. I thought that was more a South American thing.

You right South American and Central American are really big on drugs but it seems to mostly be weed, cocaine and crack.

The question is why Europe or Asia is not big on drugs and why most Heroin come from Asia.

 

[elgoucho9]

Europe not big on drugs?

I think Europe is now the biggest cocaine consumer. Weed cocaine heroin all big business here.

 

[camaroBDJ]

There are many places with more-or-less open drug sales, on both coasts of the USA, but the “classic” OA situations exist running in a triangle from Philadelphia, to New York, and down to Baltimore. Encompassing all of Jersey, obviously. Kensington is probably the largest in the United States. I’m not as familiar with the Midwest scene (Detroit, Chicago, Gary, Cleveland etc.) but there may be some there too.

A lot of these places (Baltimore, Camden, Reading PA etc.) used to be economically quite significant but have been hollowed out be deindustrialization etc and the illegal drug trade is the largest “industry” and segment of the local economy, unfortunately. Even if you wanted to incarcerate everyone who participates in the drug trade in one way or another, there isn’t enough space in prison for em. There are understandings between criminal elements who move major weight and law enforcement in these areas, nobody’s gonna admit to it but it’s true, anyone who’s ever witnessed LEO’s alternating strategy of “squeezing” the drug trade by repressing users/dealers and just letting all the drugs be sold to everyone’s hearts content could tell you that, the (completely understandable) cynicism with the “drug war” mutated into a situation where absolutely nobody gives a shit as long as everyone keeps getting paid

The question is with so many abandoned houses in Baltimore, Pittsburgh, New Jersey city, Detroit why is there even homeless there?

The city of Philadelphia are starting get bit more people moving there now but at one time they had lot of abandoned houses.

 

[camaroBDJ]

Europe not big on drugs?

I think Europe is now the biggest cocaine consumer. Weed cocaine heroin all big business here.

When comes drug cartel no.

THE South American and Central American are insane.

UK has lot drug use and so does the eastern block.

 

[camaroBDJ]

Europe not big on drugs?

I think Europe is now the biggest cocaine consumer. Weed cocaine heroin all big business here.

I also read meth is becoming popular in the UK now no idea where they getting it from

 

[camaroBDJ]

I've not just ' heard ' about Portugal's approach ; I'm a drug researcher so I've followed this initiative from the start and studied all the related statistics in- depth. It's a massive step forward but to my mind still far from enough.

You can de-criminalise an individual, ie not punish for possession, procurement or personal use, but as long as the drug itself remains essentially ILLEGAL, the absolute major problems don't go away. You're still leaving criminal cartels with a monopoly on drug production. You're still contending with all the grave consequences that of necessity result from being forced to ingest an illegally produced substance, ie the risk of it being contaminated with fuck knows what and the impossibility of accurate (and therefore safe) dosing. As a street user you can never know the potency nor what's actually in it, even to the point where you can't always be sure your drug even IS what it's being sold as.

To my mind, re-legalization with a state monopoly on production and distribution, under very strict quality control, sale and age-restriction laws, is ultimately the only rational way to go. Humans absolutely will take a variety of mind-altering substances whatever. Best way to handle this and to minimise the associated harm is to STOP handing the market to the criminals, to sell a pharmaceutical-grade product, and to stop either criminalising or pathologising users on the mere basis of their use. (Portugal under current law mandates 'therapy' in place of a criminal sentence and it's expected of you whether you want or require it or not. I do not agree with this.)

Also some conservatives do stamp out drugs like meth in Chattanooga. If you look at Chattanooga there was meth there and now there is very little meth in Chattanooga. Same with Tampa and Sarasota area it seems.

 

[The Shadow Self]

You think it's bad now? Just wait...

 

[TheUltimateFixx]

When comes drug cartel no.

THE South American and Central American are insane.

UK has lot drug use and so does the eastern block.

I think you're confusing the main producer countries with the main consumer countries.

Most manufacture is in Latin America and parts of Asia. The bulk of the takers is the US and Europe.

 

[AlsoTapered]

I think you're confusing the main producer countries with the main consumer countries.

Most manufacture is in Latin America and parts of Asia. The bulk of the takers is the US and Europe.

I agree, but I note that now more unusual and indirect routes are used (like coke being transported through African nations and Heroin through the Balkans), those regions have become consumers. Makes sense to pay people in product and of course, said people will need to sell it locally and suddenly you have new markets.

OT did people outside the UK see that BIG story about some major shipping company in which whole crews were being paid to smuggle coke for an organised gang based in the Balkans? They were moving the coke to different hiding places between ports. Either they knew certain ports checked different places OR that the various anti-drug agencies off different nations talk to each other and would report ahead on the places already searched. Not a few members of a crew, ALL of them. They were shipping tens of tonnes at a time.

 

[elgoucho9]

When comes drug cartel no.

THE South American and Central American are insane.

UK has lot drug use and so does the eastern block.

No cartel operating in Europe?

We literally have "Super Cartel" operating here. Look into the Kinahans, Ndrangeta, Dutch Mocro Mafia.

 

[AlsoTapered]

No cartel operating in Europe?

We literally have "Super Cartel" operating here. Look into the Kinahans, Ndrangeta, Dutch Mocro Mafia.

We do - but ours are a bit less visible. Yes, they do murder each other from time to time but open gun-fights in the streets don't seem to happen. Bad for business,

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...idence-in-trial-of-alleged-dutch-drug-kingpin

 

[TheUltimateFixx]

No cartel operating in Europe?

We literally have "Super Cartel" operating here. Look into the Kinahans, Ndrangeta, Dutch Mocro Mafia.

I also noticed something changing whenever I go back to Germany at intervals. When I started out using, practically every single dealer who sold to me was also German. During the past decade and a half there's been a noticeable influx of first North Africans, then Middle Eastern, and now East Europeans, with apparently one set replacing another and shit getting more and more volatile and violent at every turnabout.

... Just my personal impression, might be a regional thing that doesn't apply country-wide; it's just something I've definitely noticed.

 

[elgoucho9]

We do - but ours are a bit less visible. Yes, they do murder each other from time to time but open gun-fights in the streets don't seem to happen. Bad for business,

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...idence-in-trial-of-alleged-dutch-drug-kingpin

Alot of shoot outs still in Antwerp and Amsterdam mate. Risky place. Plenty of murders with the Irish mafia and all what's gone down in Spain since then etc.

I've watched alot of "Holland Crime Boulevard" videos on youtube on the subject of the Mocro Mafia. I find these type of operations fascinating.