ARTICLE: 'Ending the war on all drugs'

[(Wordy)]

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

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.

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!

 

[AngelsandFairiesarereal]

Really enjoyed the article!

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.

 

[Gaz_hmmmm]

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.

Sounds like new age BS.

Are they pro plant medicine until you pull out some opium, morphine or cocaine?

Heroin was invented as a cure for morphine addiction (as goofy as it was).

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.

Diacetylmorphine / diamorphine (Heroin) wasn't rediscovered by Bayer as a cure for morphine addiction.
That is a myth. It was a Christian charity I'm the US, who's name I have forgotten, that would post it to those suffering from morphinism to get them off of it.
You can still find their old late 19th Century and early 20th Century adverts online.

Regarding regulation of opioids it could be easily done like it was in the British, Dutch and French colonies, possibly the Spanish Philippines too.

Opium, morphine and I think Heroin later were sold from government licensed places where only users/addicts who were licensed to use could purchase a certain amount within their tolerance range.
This was to stop stockpiling and potential smuggling.
It was illegal to sell/give to non-licensed users/addicts potentially resulting in a fine or prison time.

The license system worked so well that in French Vietnam opium users were still on average a woman in her 40's like it was in the West before recreational use and buying over the counter were banned.
Also the habit was dying out because user's were dying of old age and not enough new people were taking up the habit as it was illegal for them to do so and so well regulated.
Unfortunately when the French pulled out of Indochina and Vietnam cause of US pressure the South Vietnamese made opium use illegal and got rid of the license system.
This made pushed all the industry underground and use increased.
As we now know the CIA were shipping opium from the Hmong hill tribes to the Pepsi factory in Ho Chi Minh City (Then Saigon.) and were making Heroin with it and selling it, including in the US, to fund black op's.

British Colonies - Bangladesh*, Burma/Myanmar*, Hong Kong, India*, Malaysia, Pakistan* and Singapore.

*All were part of British India.

Dutch Colonies - Dutch East Indies now Indonesia

French Colonies - Indochina/Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam.

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

I agree they should all be regulated but not like alcohol or nicotine/tobacco.

I think they should be more regulated, like I already mentioned, opioid user's could be licensed and then be able to purchase within their tolerance range.

I assume there'd be experimenting with the regulation at the beginning to get it right for each drug or drug type.

With opioids for example I think opium, morphine and codeine should all be relegalised along with diacetylmorphine/Heroin and possibly other di and other esters of morphine. One's that are ridiculously potent I don't think would or should be relegalised.
I think a possibly upper strength limit of 10x to 20x more potent than morphine would probably be good enough for long-term / also recreational users.
You could also have hydrocodone, oxycodone, dihydrocodeine, hydromorphone, oxymorphone and possibly some other similar opioids regulated similarly too.

Any tax could go to harm reduction, rehab and other health and anti-addiction services.

 

[Methamphetanonymous]

I'd like to announce that I am officially declaring the War on Drugs: OVER.

New War needs to get brainstormed and released soon. What non descriptive and vague concept are we shooting at next?

 

[kongoman]

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.

I dont believe in licenses! I had drive license when I was 18 and know Im 45. Do you think I remember any driving rule?? I learned driving by myself when I was 14 and its a common sense thing.

 

[unodelacosa]

I'd like to announce that I am officially declaring the War on Drugs: OVER.

Well what were you waiting for? Also, I think you'll need the approval Congress, Mr. President. I think it's going to take a restructuring of the Department of Justice. DEA needs to be broken into three or four different entities that each function to transition the country out of this crippling paradigm of the so-called Drug War.

And there are two kinds of Special Agents who work for the DEA. There are the ones who really believe in what they're doing and delude themselves into thinking they're making a difference in fighting "crime". Then there are the opportunist criminal motherfuckers like the two jackass agents on the Silk Road case who wound up indicted and serving federal time after getting caught squirreling away millions in Bitcoin. Both types = pieces of shit.

At any police station there's a gym, showers and a locker room. All of the lockers in the locker room have locks on them, despite the fact that they're only used by cops.

New War needs to get brainstormed and released soon. What non descriptive and vague concept are we shooting at next?

No, any modern, developed, and civilized country should not declare war against its own people, especially when such a war leads to record-breaking, hyper-incarceration like we see in the U.S. w/ over 2 million people behind bars, which is more people per capita and more people overall despite being a distant third in terms of global population. Let us stop declaring war for a change and stop incarcerating everyone in the world. We should be striving for compassion, civility, and decriminalizing non-victim-bearing so-called "crimes". As of 2017, there were 4,650 special agents employed by the Drug Enforcement Administration.

"It is lamentable, that to be a good patriot one must become the enemy of the rest of mankind."
– Voltaire

"The cheapest sort of pride is national pride; for if a man is proud of his own nation, it argues that he has no qualities of his own of which a person can be proud."
–Arthur Schopenhauer

I dont believe in licenses! I had drive license when I was 18 and know Im 45.

Well there are pros and cons to licensing, and there's a difference between professional licenses and operational licenses. Sure, driver's licenses are an excuse to collect extra taxes. And ordinarily I would agree with you, but I think if we're gonna let teenagers drive on the road with adults, the license is not a bad idea just to set the standard and the expectations society has of its drivers. Germany takes that shit hella seriously, for example, but they have very low rates of automobile accidents plus the Autobahn for chrissakes.

Then there are professional licenses, especially ones that pertain to healthcare standards like for doctors and nurses. Do you care if your doctor has a license to practice medicine? I do, and I'm probably not alone. For that matter, do you care if the pilot of your plane has a pilot's license? Maybe it's just me, but I'm okay with the licensing program here.

Otherwise I agree that many licensing programs are unnecessary and self-serving for those enforcing them. I hate brokers, real estate middlemen,

Do you think I remember any driving rule??

Of course you do. You probably remember most of them and could pass a multiple choice DMV exam right now. It isn't like you come up to a red light or a yield sign and just draw a blank.

I learned driving by myself when I was 14 and its a common sense thing.

Common sense is not as common as you think, and some people – obviously not you and I, but we're not everyone – need to be told what the rules are, and for legal reasons, this removes any excuse a person may try to make for poor driving. Moreover, driving is not the same thing as taking psychotropic substances. I wouldn't expect anyone to be able to intuit nuanced pharmacodynamics, and clearly people do not understand the connection between drug dependency, tolerance, compulsive behavior patterns, self-medicating, and the legal ramifications of all the above.

In other words, that's nice that you know how to drive and have a natural instinct for it. However, certain states I've been through seem to be filled with drivers who are, less gifted, shall we say?

A psychotropic drug license would be one to ensure user safety. In a similar manner, I'm ok with concealed weapons permits, too, and think any gun owner should be capable of demonstrating they know how to wield a firearm safely before they're allowed to purchase and walk around packing heat. It won't end drug abuse, but it may bring down the stats to a more manageable level for society. That's the goal, anyway, the way I see it.

 

[TheUltimateFixx]

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

... What the F is 'Harold the Health Giraffe' ??

 

[TheUltimateFixx]

I dont believe in licenses!

Oh, so any idiot should just be able to jump in a car and go on the motorway, so long as daddy has shown him how to safely navigate the driveway at home?!

Licensing is NECESSARY for things with which you can cause death and injury, and a car is one of them. If somebody is driving, or operating heavy machinery, or handling firearms, you bet I want that individual to have a license. Why? Because that guarantees that he's had some level of fundamental training on how to not be a danger to himself and others when in charge of these things.