Am choosing to continue the debate even in the absence of our new pet journo 
Can't find fault with the SoS fella. Although I do think his views are very much US-centric where HR info and help (even needle exchanges - even needles themselves - are illegal and/or heavily suppressed in some states
8(). But his basic position that it is no bizniz of government to legislate about what people choose to do with their own bodies is indisputable.
Silk Road fella is a bit further from the mark though. I'd argue that most of the issues he brings up are perfectly valid... but only - or at least in very large part - directly caused and clearly massively exacerbated by prohibition. Of course there are problematic drug users - always have been and always will be - but we can't legislate for the whole to protect the minority from themselves. They will be self-destructive anyway and prohibition only exacerbates this. I think he totally misses the fact that illegal drugz iz just way kewler for many. And, in no way incidental to his views, are what keeps him making massive profits. There is a frisson from knowing that you move in circles that others may fear to visit. That world is very seductive. Not despite prohibition but because of prohibition.
I think the evidence for this is growing. In countries that have experimented with more liberal drug policies they have found that not only the obvious targets of crime and violence have plummeted but - more tellingly - that overall use has remained broadly the same (showing that drug use is a constant - a basic human need and desire to alter one's consciousness - so is utterly pointless to try to legislate against) but the real kicker is the social issues. Problematic drug use has halved already in Portugal, for example. Yes, addiction rates have halved. And - also rather noteworthy - the age of addicts is rising. Young people are actually turned off by losing the Kewl Factor and are simply choosing not to bother. Or certainly not to get into dangerous drug abuse.
I have been saying this for years now. Could see it in my own usage patterns and those of the vast majority of drug users I knew used - at least in part - because they identified with the outsider mentality. Many even enjoyed being on the wrong side of the law. Bitching and whining is way more fun - and easy - than trying to work for change. Exclusivity really is kewl. If you had to go down to a licensed premises to buy cheap (has to be cheap to make black market drug dealing untenable) and fully legal - and to be regularly exposed to sensible and honest HR info (just look at how tobacco use has plummeted since the rise of more in yer face HR info and social pressure towards cigarettes losing the kewl factor) I'd bet not only both of Spade's balls but at least one of my own that we'd see a similar drop in problematic use. And - if Portugal is anything to go by - see these benefits in doublequick time. Within a single generation rather than taking several generations as I've always believed.
This is precisely the goal of HR at it's best. We need people to have easy and complete access to relevant and realistic HR info and advice and for it to be as intrinsic to users' drug experience as it is with buying fags. Many say that having to see the risks of tobacco use - and have a helpline number provided - on every pack they buy doesn't change their interest in smoking. The evidence suggest otherwise. Seeing such things once is simply shock value and has little or no effect. Seeing it as standard every single time you indulge has a more subtle effect. You absorb the HR by osmosis. And it works. This is the way forward for all recreational drugs - including alcohol - and I really don't see anything to suggest otherwise. The evidence is mounting. Legalisation is effective, desirable to achieve the goals on all sides of the debate, and also completely inevitable.
Can't find fault with the SoS fella. Although I do think his views are very much US-centric where HR info and help (even needle exchanges - even needles themselves - are illegal and/or heavily suppressed in some states
8(). But his basic position that it is no bizniz of government to legislate about what people choose to do with their own bodies is indisputable.Silk Road fella is a bit further from the mark though. I'd argue that most of the issues he brings up are perfectly valid... but only - or at least in very large part - directly caused and clearly massively exacerbated by prohibition. Of course there are problematic drug users - always have been and always will be - but we can't legislate for the whole to protect the minority from themselves. They will be self-destructive anyway and prohibition only exacerbates this. I think he totally misses the fact that illegal drugz iz just way kewler for many. And, in no way incidental to his views, are what keeps him making massive profits. There is a frisson from knowing that you move in circles that others may fear to visit. That world is very seductive. Not despite prohibition but because of prohibition.
I think the evidence for this is growing. In countries that have experimented with more liberal drug policies they have found that not only the obvious targets of crime and violence have plummeted but - more tellingly - that overall use has remained broadly the same (showing that drug use is a constant - a basic human need and desire to alter one's consciousness - so is utterly pointless to try to legislate against) but the real kicker is the social issues. Problematic drug use has halved already in Portugal, for example. Yes, addiction rates have halved. And - also rather noteworthy - the age of addicts is rising. Young people are actually turned off by losing the Kewl Factor and are simply choosing not to bother. Or certainly not to get into dangerous drug abuse.
I have been saying this for years now. Could see it in my own usage patterns and those of the vast majority of drug users I knew used - at least in part - because they identified with the outsider mentality. Many even enjoyed being on the wrong side of the law. Bitching and whining is way more fun - and easy - than trying to work for change. Exclusivity really is kewl. If you had to go down to a licensed premises to buy cheap (has to be cheap to make black market drug dealing untenable) and fully legal - and to be regularly exposed to sensible and honest HR info (just look at how tobacco use has plummeted since the rise of more in yer face HR info and social pressure towards cigarettes losing the kewl factor) I'd bet not only both of Spade's balls but at least one of my own that we'd see a similar drop in problematic use. And - if Portugal is anything to go by - see these benefits in doublequick time. Within a single generation rather than taking several generations as I've always believed.
This is precisely the goal of HR at it's best. We need people to have easy and complete access to relevant and realistic HR info and advice and for it to be as intrinsic to users' drug experience as it is with buying fags. Many say that having to see the risks of tobacco use - and have a helpline number provided - on every pack they buy doesn't change their interest in smoking. The evidence suggest otherwise. Seeing such things once is simply shock value and has little or no effect. Seeing it as standard every single time you indulge has a more subtle effect. You absorb the HR by osmosis. And it works. This is the way forward for all recreational drugs - including alcohol - and I really don't see anything to suggest otherwise. The evidence is mounting. Legalisation is effective, desirable to achieve the goals on all sides of the debate, and also completely inevitable.
- but would rather hold judgement on the whole as have only seen a rather minor part. And even then it's likely been modified to a greater or lesser extent. But from the part I did see I'd suggest it's a bit silly to create another bathwater baby casualty really.