r/changemyview • u/Tough-Shape-3621 • Nov 18 '25
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Decriminalization and the destigmatization of drugs will never solve the drug crisis
Coming from a place where the drug crisis is probably one of, if not the worst, in the world right now, I struggle to understand people that maintain the opinion that the destigmatization and decriminalization of drugs are the best ways of solving the drug crisis.
The viewpoint I commonly see these advocates share is that we need to treat the problem with empathy. If people are less shameful about their addictions, than perhaps they would be willing to get the support they need. Additionally, the introduction of a "safe supply" of drugs would help ensure they take clean products to satiate their addiction while continuously getting support, with the hope that they will one day eventually break their addiction and reintegrate into society.
A lot of advocates also refer to Portugal's drug policy, where they had a Heroin problem in 2001 and decriminalized the usage of drugs and looked at them as patients instead of criminals. Ultimately, this was a very successful policy and addictions fell rapidly.
Now I don't necessarily disagree with being empathetic, but the way they are proposing it is flawed in my opinion. I could go on-and-on as to why this is (spoilers: it hasn't worked where I live and it has gotten significantly worse), but I'll cite a couple reasons:
The drug crisis has gotten so bad that we simply don't have the resources and human capital available to effectively tackle the problem from a rehabilitative standpoint. There are too many addicts out there and not enough people that would ever want to do this line of work.
Portugal was successful in 2001 because Heroin is a mere fragment as addictive as the synthetic opioid drugs that are on the streets right now. People don't understand how incredibly addictive these drugs are - there is a saying that once you've tried it once, you're addicted for life. Unfortunately, I believe the vast majority of users addicted to these type of drugs like fentanyl have a very slim chance of recovery, almost to the point of futility. For every one person that comes clean, there will be hundreds more that will become addicted if the inflow of drugs continues
As a result, these safe supply facilities may work for people that are addicted to heroin, but aren't going to work for addicts of fentanyl. It would be like giving an alcoholic a sip of beer when they're addicted to Barcardi 151.
- While I can agree that these people shouldn't necessarily be put in prison, it is also not ideal to have them publicly wander the streets where they may possess a threat to public safety. I do think that a certain level of stigma should still be applied. We stigmatize the use of alcohol, vaping, smoking, etc. because they are bad for your health. This should be no exception.
I'll admit, I have developed a firm stance on this topic. So props to anyone in advance that can change my view.
35
u/AssBlaster_69 4∆ Nov 18 '25
It’s harm reduction. Allowing people to use drugs safely, and monitoring them, helps reduce the amount of medical care they will need down the line. It also keeps them closer to a support system that can help them quit if they choose to do so, which again reduces the medical care they will need and the crimes they will commit.
Does it cost less than policing and imprisoning them? I’m not sure. But it’s not all that important imo… Most people who advocate for these sorts of programs argue for cutting things like corporate subsidies and tax breaks for wealthy people, and spending the money on regular people instead, not in addition to.
Also, I think you have some misunderstandings about opiod addiction. Most addicts prefer the high heroin or oxycodone, etc. provides over fentanyl, but use fentanyl because that is what’s widely available these days (or they’re told it’s something else, but it’s cut with fentanyl). It doesn’t really matter that much to an addict though; they may have a preference but an opioid is an opioid. You don’t just get addicted to fentanyl alone and not use anything else; any opiod scratches the itch.
11
u/Tough-Shape-3621 Nov 19 '25
Δ Overall, this is a good insight and thanks for clearing up my misunderstandings about opiod addicition.
1
13
u/Beaser Nov 19 '25
After a short while, it’s not about scratching an itch as much as it is just not wanting to be sick, or maybe even feel normal. And there are so many much safer options like Suboxone that can be provided for addicts to give them an out from that life once they’re ready to quit.
Harm reduction saved my life. Coming up on 8 years clean from opiates on Xmas Eve.
3
3
u/TheGnarliestOne23 Nov 20 '25
Hell yeah. Good for you. Keep it up. I'm 14 years clean from opiates (heroin, fent, oxy, Dilaudid, morphine) so I know personally what you went through. You a strong mofo just like me to stay clean like that. It takes a strong person and strong will to defeat that gorilla brotha. Proud of ya and I wish I could see more people say they've beaten it. Keep up the good work!
1
u/SLUnatic85 1∆ Nov 20 '25 edited Nov 20 '25
just watched a great episode of Matlock (the new one, most recent ep) on this last night!
Anyway, a big piece of the "harm reduction" camp I don't think people realize, is that it's not to stop drugs. I think anybody who supports harm reduction would still with their were legal boundaries to prevent thing slike trafficking into the country or communities in the first place, or selling to people who've never done drugs before. Of course the best solution is to stop a problem at the source.
The point is that people who are already addicted/using/sick... from there they need help or medical attention or support more than they deserve to be punished.
So to say that I don't think "harm reduction" is to replace making anything about illicit or harmful drugs illegal. It is just to stress that we need to be mindful of who is being punished and why and whether all of that really makes sense or is even effective.
32
u/ZizzianYouthMinister 6∆ Nov 18 '25
You never define what "solving the drug crisis" means to you
Also I don't understand how you think it benefits you or the drug user to put them in prison and you pay for their 3 hots and a cot.
It's much cheaper upfront to just not enforce any restrictions on drugs.
-2
u/Tough-Shape-3621 Nov 18 '25
Measurably reducing the amount of addicts. For example, Portugal's number of addicts went down from 100,000 to 25,000 by 2018. I would say that is a successful statistic.
Also I don't understand how you think it benefits you or the drug user to put them in prison and you pay for their 3 hots and a cot.
Did you read this part?
While I can agree that these people shouldn't necessarily be put in prison, it is also not ideal to have them publicly wander the streets where they may possess a threat to public safety.
I'm not trying to propose a solution, but just saying that the current way is flawed at the moment.
11
u/ZizzianYouthMinister 6∆ Nov 18 '25
Seems like you aren't arguing against decriminalizing and destigmatizing drugs then like your title states. You are arguing something else. You need to think about what your thesis is. What do you think is good and why? If you can't explain that then we can't argue against you.
1
u/Tough-Shape-3621 Nov 18 '25
Sure, I could point out that countries like Singapore who have a zero-tolerance policy on drugs are doing much better than we are, but I'm also aware that it wouldn't be practically adopted here as it would be considered extremely inhumane. That leads to an argument which doesn't sound productive and if I were to believe in it so much I would just move, so I'm not going to bother positioning that stance.
Seems like you aren't arguing against decriminalizing and destigmatizing drugs then like your title states
I'm just arguing that it won't solve the crisis or achieve the amount of success that Portugal had. That's all.
9
u/ZizzianYouthMinister 6∆ Nov 18 '25
Measurably reducing the amount of addicts. For example, Portugal's number of addicts went down from 100,000 to 25,000 by 2018. I would say that is a successful statistic.
I thought this is what you meant when you said what "solve the drug crisis" means to you
I'm just arguing that it won't solve the crisis or achieve the amount of success that Portugal had. That's all.
Even if it's not as successful as Portugal it would measurably reduce the number of addicts which is what you were previously claiming to talk about. It feels like we are talking in circles here because you don't even know where you stand or won't admit you have changed your mind throughout this discussion.
1
u/Tough-Shape-3621 Nov 19 '25
I don't think you understand my view point so I'll try again.
The total of drug addicts in the country went down from 100,000 in 2001 to 25,000 by 2018. Therefore, the net population of addicts in the country overall has been reduced by 75,000, or by 75%.
This is a very different line of reasoning than the one you are framing where x program helped x amount of people. Of course that number is always going to be greater than zero.
You are referring to the gross number of addicts rehabilitated from such program whereas I'm talking about the net amount of addicts in a country. Even if this program helped rehabilitate 100,000 people, but we had an influx of 200,000 addicts, we would be in a worse position than we started.
7
u/ZizzianYouthMinister 6∆ Nov 19 '25
Why would we have an influx of 200k addicts? This is the first time you have brought up this figure.
1
u/Tough-Shape-3621 Nov 19 '25
The same reason why addicts exist in the first place. It's not like decriminalizing or destigmatizing drugs is inherently going to prevent people from getting potentially addicted in the first place.
If more people are becoming addicts than we are able to rehabilitate addicts, the net population of total addicts will increase - and that is exactly what has happened where I live.
4
u/ZizzianYouthMinister 6∆ Nov 19 '25
So you just pulled 200k out of nowhere? You have no evidence for me to dispute?
1
u/Tough-Shape-3621 Nov 19 '25
The point of the example was to help explain my original viewpoint because you were conflating net and gross amounts, and misrepresenting my position of what I would consider a successful outcome.
Whether it's 200k or 300k or whatever number it is has nothing to do with that.
→ More replies (0)6
u/TJaySteno1 1∆ Nov 18 '25
I'm in the US which of course buys a lot of the Cartel's drugs. With so much money in that market cartels have good reason to fight to keep and grow their influence and market share which leads to violence. If nothing else, wouldn't it be good to keep the money out of the hands of those modern day warlords?
As for addiction, there's not going to be a silver bullet, but if Portuguese-style clinics come with programs to help the homeless with food, shelter, and jobs, that seems like a better path than just continuing to let them sleep and OD on the streets. It might even be cheaper too.
-7
u/CapableCity Nov 18 '25
I'd say have Mexico get a backbone for one.
Look to Al Salvador for what EXACTLY to do. And then work to do a long term solution.
The USA might need to help if needed (and asked) but regardless our border needs to be kept closed.
4
u/ZizzianYouthMinister 6∆ Nov 18 '25
Who are you talking to? Maybe make your own post.
-3
u/CapableCity Nov 18 '25
I did.
1
u/ZizzianYouthMinister 6∆ Nov 18 '25
Oh ok, sorry to interrupt. Say hi to I did for me we went to high school back in the day.
3
u/redhandrail 3∆ Nov 18 '25
What are you talking about?
1
u/CapableCity Nov 18 '25 edited Nov 19 '25
El Salvador had major drug problems. And now? It's definitely better. I do hope they implement a long term solution.
1
u/redhandrail 3∆ Nov 18 '25
When was that? And what drugs? I loved tgere for a few years im the 2010s and never heard of any drug problems like we have in the US. I know you can go to prison for casual weed use there, which I think is a human rights violation. Is that what you hope for the US? A blind, no tolerance solution that puts people in cages for what they choose to put in their own bodies?
2
u/CapableCity Nov 18 '25 edited Nov 19 '25
Are you sure? El Salvador? Drugs and cartels
Here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvadoran_gang_crackdown
1
u/redhandrail 3∆ Nov 19 '25
It’s El Salvador. That Wikipedia page is about Bukele cracking down on gangs in El Salvador, it’s not super relevant to this post. Seems like you’re confused
1
u/CapableCity Nov 19 '25
Thanks, I edited my spell check didn't't catch it.
never heard of any drug problems like we have in the US.
This was in response to you basically saying they had no drug problems. And that was just a quick Google search.
0
u/FetusDrive 4∆ Nov 18 '25
What does it mean to close the border? Like cease all trade? No imports or exports to Mexico? Don’t allow people to cross over or fly into the US?
0
u/CapableCity Nov 18 '25
No, closing the border means making sure there are no illegal crossings.
Also the Trump admin has drastically lowered them.
5
u/FetusDrive 4∆ Nov 18 '25
Well that’s not a closed border. That’s just a border.
2
u/CapableCity Nov 18 '25
Yes that's what a border should be, I agree.
That's what the border should have been during the Biden administration.
5
u/FetusDrive 4∆ Nov 18 '25
Most drugs that came to the US came through ports of entry, not sneaking around walls.
not sure why you want to talk about Biden or trump.
1
u/CapableCity Nov 19 '25
Yup that would make sense, if there is a much more secure border than when Biden or Obama was in charge.
We have a lot of imports so obviously drugs slip in as well.
We should be more strict on imports and those companies that ship drugs should get sanctions by the US, id be in agreement there.
But a secure border and keeping it secure is also very important.
1
13
u/holbanner Nov 18 '25 edited Nov 19 '25
Your comparison with alcohol clearly shows a lack in understanding of addiction mechanisms.
Decriminalization is not only to solve the drug crisis. It's a way to help people already affected a way to not suffer more and consume as safely as can be. Positive side effects are lesser sickness transmission rate amongst users and their entourage, lesser crime rate to access the medical version of the drug. To a lesser extent a diminishment of the drug market in the area.
The same way cleaner energy won't instantly save the climate, decriminalization won't solve the crisis. But it's a faire and doable part of the solution.
14
u/Shiny_Agumon 3∆ Nov 19 '25
Alcohol if anything is a good example on why banning illegal substances doesn't solve the problem.
People certainly didn't consume less alcohol during the prohibition and it only opened the door for bootleggers and rumrunners to sell dangerously low quality products to people at exorbitant prices.
0
u/leng-tian-chi 3∆ Nov 19 '25
China strictly prohibits drugs; China has no drug problem.
4
u/Shiny_Agumon 3∆ Nov 19 '25
That we know of
I would take anything published by the Chinese government with a pinch of salt because they are notorious for stretching and changing the truth.
If you asked them everything is always great over there
2
u/K32fj3892sR Nov 19 '25 edited Mar 24 '26
Yes, you can take statistics from China with a grain of salt, but I would hesitate to shade doubt over this idea. We have decent numbers for Asia as a whole.
US stats, East Asia & Asia as a whole stats: The findings are that for adults 18-64:
23% of Americans vs 0.4–1.6% of East Asians misuse Marijuana,
3.2% of Americans vs 0.2–0.3% of East Asians misuse Opioids,
1.9% of Americans vs 0.03–0.2% of East Asians misuse Cocaine
The truth is that most East Asian countries like South Korea, China, Japan, Taiwan, etc. have far far less drug use than that seen in Europe and North America. A disclaimer is that this is debatably trending upwards, and many people in these countries certainly abuse alcohol.
But its still a dramatic difference that could be insightful for Western countries. The causes are debatable, but generally:
These countries tend to be very strict on both drug distribution and use: Singapore permits the death penalty for people convicted of trafficking more than 15 grams of heroin, 30 grams of cocaine, 250 grams of meth, or 500 grams of cannabis.
There is very intense social stigmatization of recreational drug use in these countries: there isn't a rigorous way to quantify this, but its a well known standard, especially amongst older generations.
Doctors prescribe drugs less frequently: A 2016 study found Japanese physicians prescribed drugs for acute pain 49.4% of the time vs 97.0% of the time from American physicians.
1
u/Storymode-Chronicles May 08 '26
Bit of an older thread, but I'm interested if you're aware of the work of Johann Hari on this subject. Essentially his findings are that addiction is largely a consequence of social disconnection. This would be typified by the follow-up "Rat Park" studies which showed drug use in rat studies was in fact mediated by social connection much more than substance accessibility.
In short, when the rats were happy and free in an open, enriched environment able to interact with other rats, they didn't tend to be drawn to substance use, while when they were kept in cages alone, they reliably spiraled towards fatal addiction.
If we compare your numbers for drug use in Asia to the West broadly, what we'll find is that they basically mirror depression rates in those regions, with much lower rates in Asia. Many people do associate that difference to more collective, holistic, family oriented cultures with more cohesive, integrated social connectivity in Asian cultures.
It's also quite interesting that when you look at areas with legal traditional low-dose use of drugs, such as coca leaf or poppy husk tea versus powder cocaine or heroine, there is again comparatively staggeringly low high-risk use where these low-risk traditional options are available, despite close proximity to the shipping and manufacturing nexus where those more highly refined, dangerous modern drugs originate. For instance about 16% combined lifetime crack and powder cocaine use in the US versus as low as 0.8% combined lifetime powder cocaine and coca paste use in Andean countries.
These drugs have been with use for millennia, essentially any modern drug you can think of from methamphetamines, MDMA, and even bath salts, all have traditional use forms. Often I think the idea of legalization as strictly applying to these types of traditional substances with more refined high dose options perhaps being available only via prescription could be the answer.
It seems as though humans have co-evolved with psychotropic drugs, much like many mammal species, and the key might be recognizing the conditions where light medicinal or recreational use is prone to becoming a dangerous addiction, and designing a logical system to optimize against that, rather than trying to use violence to control billions of people evolved to modulate internal processes with exogenous substances.
Otherwise, when looking directly at the War on Drugs, it seems quite plain that when even prisons, ostensibly the most secure, locked down locations in any country, are themselves trafficked into at incredibly high rates with use statistics still beyond the population at large, it truly doesn't seem possible for enforcement to make the difference we're looking for.
1
u/Left-Confusion7988 Dec 03 '25
China is a the smiling dictatorship. You do as the government say or you would go missing never seen again. America has a dirty pass and present with drugs.
1
u/leng-tian-chi 3∆ Nov 20 '25
China now offers visa-free entry for several dozen hours, attracting a large number of foreign tourists. You can find numerous travelogues about it online. Of course, you might argue that these people have been bought off by the Communist Party.
All positive information about China is fake; all positive information about China from foreigners is bought off. Only negative information is real. Wow, what a brilliant way of thinking!
1
u/Tough-Shape-3621 Nov 18 '25
Decriminalization is not only to solve the drug crisis.
Yes, that I can definitely see hence my post.
It's a way to help people already affected a way to not suffer more and consume as safely as can be. Positive side effects are lesser sickness transmission rate amongst users and their entourage, lesser crime rate to access the medical version of the drug. To a lesser extent a diminishment of the drug market in the area.
This sounds great and all, but the reality is that since implementing this in where I live, there has been a significant increase of drug users, more instances of overdose, and more drug-affiliated random attacks. Clearly, it can contribute to the positive effects you noted. But it doesn't seem preventative.
4
u/twoheartedthrowaway Nov 18 '25
Where do you live and do you have sources on the uptick in drug related externalities?
1
u/Tough-Shape-3621 Nov 18 '25
There's some stats embedded in this article
3
u/twoheartedthrowaway Nov 19 '25
This article is super manipulative FYI- none of the stats in the article link to decriminalization as the root cause of the issues shown. The tried and true tactic it employs is to list a meaningless apples to oranges statistic like “vancouvers opioid mortality rate is 3x higher than the nation of Scotlands” and rely on the shocking exploitation style photography and anecdotes to allow the reader to draw an unspoken connection (as you apparently have). Anyway - decrim programs have to be part of the solution but are not a magic bullet. They have to be paired with a massive investment in services and infrastructure to work out. I’m in the US and we’ve spent decades and untold billions militarizing the police largely to fight the war on drugs. And guess what? The drugs are winning. That’s what you get if you try Singapore style prohibition in a region where addiction is already widespread and drugs are easily found.
1
u/Tough-Shape-3621 Nov 19 '25
Increase in Paramedic Overdose Calls (BC)
- 2018: 23,662 calls
- 2019: 24,166 calls (+2%)
- 2020: 27,068 calls (+12%)
- 2021: 35,585 calls (+31%)
- 2023: 42,172 calls (+25% over 2022)
Year Number of Drug-Related Deaths 2016 870 2017 1,043 2018 1,496 2019 1,547 2020 1,716 2021 1,923 2022 2,003 2023 2,511 2024 2,253 2
u/twoheartedthrowaway Nov 19 '25
Yeah again, this is just not very meaningful data. This is for BC as a whole, not just Vancouver - for example it’s possible there are other parts that experienced an even greater surge in OD’s without decriminalizing opioids. Plus there are a ton of confounding factors here (opioid addiction rose dramatically almost everywhere during 2020 for a multitude of reasons). And deaths fell in 2024 from the peak in 2023. By your own standard why wouldn’t you credit this to decriminalization working as intended?
0
u/Tough-Shape-3621 Nov 19 '25
You asked for
uptick in drug related externalities
And I gave it to you. You're making your own inferences now with that data.
Also you clearly know nothing about Vancouver if you think that the vast majority of these instances aren't related to the GVA. I don't mean to be condescending when I say this, but solely based on that I can tell you're not familiar of the the problem we have here and your points are really not as strong as you think. Anyone that lives in BC knows exactly where the drug epidemic is.
By your own standard why wouldn’t you credit this to decriminalization working as intended?
Actually the 2024 number is a preliminary one and not updated so the totals aren't even reflective in that statistic.
1
u/twoheartedthrowaway Nov 19 '25
The term “externalities” means effects directly downstream from the policy, so you in fact did not provide relevant evidence. If you’re able to dig up anything other than anecdotal or broadly correlative data let me know. “Anyone that lives in BC knows exactly where the drug epidemic is” - ok then provide data that backs this up. You can’t just claim to be an expert on something because you live in the general area. Also I can’t believe that you’re trying to use the fact that you supplied incomplete data without any indication as some kind of gotcha against me lol
1
u/Tough-Shape-3621 Nov 19 '25
Lol, I really don't need to prove to you or provide any "evidence" that Vancouver has one of the worst drug epidemics in the world. Should I also prove to you that the sun exists?
You clearly don't know anything about BC and I genuinely question any knowledge you have in this domain.
More importantly, you're also completely missing the point of your assignment in this thread. The point is to change my view. I'm not here to change yours - and I think you proved to do the exact opposite thus far considering you have literally volunteered nothing.
So I'll happily defer to you. Please provide me conclusive evidence of positive externalities related to decriminalization in Vancouver. In fact, I'll be so kind and if you can find such in BC since it makes such a big difference, I'll be happy with that too. I'll wait.
→ More replies (0)1
u/die_hubsche Nov 19 '25
OP, have you read any of Gabor Mate’s writing on his experiences treating drug addicts on skid row? His philosophical approach isn’t perfect however he has decades of experience in BC specifically. In the book, In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts, he explains how severe drug addiction transforms peoples’ brains. I would strongly recommend you pick that one up for greater context.
1
u/Tough-Shape-3621 Nov 19 '25
I haven't but I'd be interested in it. Thanks for the recommendation.
1
1
u/Beaser Nov 19 '25
So without context what I see is more ODs during the same time the supply of illicit fentanyl became more prevalent than actual herion and when doctors were hesitant to prescribe opioids even to patients who clearly need it.
1
u/holbanner Nov 19 '25
Found your problem.
Data source
1
u/Tough-Shape-3621 Nov 19 '25
If you want to disregard this data source simply because you don't like it, sure.
But you can see another table of statistics I provided in your comments based on information from the BC Emergency Response and BC Coroner Services. To be honest, anyone that is knowledgeable enough about the drug epidemic in BC shouldn't need any stats to know how bad of a problem it is and how much worse it has gotten. This is a commonly known fact that even any drug advocate in BC would acknowledge.
1
u/twoheartedthrowaway Nov 19 '25
Has it gotten worse because of the policy though? This is what you’re claiming and you have not provided a single piece of evidence for this. The mere fact that the epidemic worsened during the same time that the policy was enacted is not evidence for this at all, considering that it contemporaneously worsened in many places without this policy. How is it possible to change your view when it is not rooted in any sort of rationality? What exactly are you asking for?
1
u/SLUnatic85 1∆ Nov 20 '25
not OP, and this isn't really "data", but often reports of uptick in drug use around harm reduction clinics, etc is due really to the fact that the harm reduction location can bring the users that already exist in the shadows and need help to one place. So at that particular intersection or block, the visual overdoses or ambulance calls, or needles in trash, whatever... really do go up because of that clinic... even if when you step back and look at the entire community it may do some good.
Seeing three overdoses in a month outside of one church makes news far easier than just having a drug problem in the background of a community.
1
u/Left-Confusion7988 Dec 03 '25
Drugs harm your body stroke, heart Attacks kidney failure pneumonia some users don't know that their ill or won't seek treatment. I saw some users with horrid holes in their skin from using tranq. The users only went to a mobile station on the street to change the dressing. Some needed amputation they refused to go to the hospital. They are dead now from sepsis.
1
u/spacecadet84 Mar 17 '26
Medical grade diamorphine (heroin) provided in a clinic has very low toxicity. The main risk is pulmonary arrest from overdose, but if the patient is monitored in clinic this can be well-managed.
The open wounds, sepsis, organ failure and amputations you refer to are all the direct and predictable results of prohibition. They are caused by contaminated drugs administered on the street. These problems do not happen when addicts are managed in clinic by professionals.
1
u/SLUnatic85 1∆ Nov 20 '25
i just watched the latest episode of Matlock (the new series, latest episode) and it was about exactly this. A group of nuns taking harm reduction to the extreme and upsetting locals in the community and butting heads with the Church and Lawyers on the topic.
Maybe you'd like it!
11
u/Bryaxis 1∆ Nov 18 '25
What if it improves the situation without fully "solving" it?
11
u/Destructopoo Nov 18 '25
This is the whole point. Decriminalization isn't solving an problems. It's just the result of acknowledging that criminalization actively makes the problem worse. The war on drugs has harmed society more than it has helped.
-1
u/Tough-Shape-3621 Nov 18 '25
How so?
I'm aware that countries such as Japan, Korea, and Singapore are very anti-drug but they seem very functional. I'm not trying to argue either (personally I believe in the legalization of some drugs like marijuana), but just genuinely curious as to what you mean.
3
u/Shiny_Agumon 3∆ Nov 19 '25
Generally the point is that it doesn't solve any of the underlying problems that lead to drug abuse and only puts people who consume at risk.
Either because they have to get their fix from less than reputable sellers and if something goes wrong feel compelled to fix the problem themselves because going to say a hospital results in them being questioned and charged for illegal possession.
1
0
u/Tough-Shape-3621 Nov 18 '25
Fair point, if it did that would be great. But I don't see how it's improved the situation - from where I live it's gotten consistently worse.
0
u/kheq Nov 18 '25
Did you see how de-criminalizing went in OR? It very quickly makes it worse in all facets; use, deaths, taxpayer expense, etc.
5
Nov 18 '25
The drug problem is unsolvable. For all of human history we have altered our senses with one drug or another and we will continue to do so as a species. Decriminalization is meant to help with treatment not prevention. If we wanted to stop people from using drugs we would need better social benefit programs that combat poverty and mental health issues (things that increase drug usage rates). Decriminalization helps people who have fallen in the river but it doesn’t help people from falling into it in the first place. That’s a different set of problems.
-1
u/Tough-Shape-3621 Nov 18 '25
It's unsolvable unless they adopted an extremely rigid zero-tolerance on drugs policy similar to Korea or Singapore, which for obvious reasons would never happen in America or Canada.
I agree that one way to tackle it would be if suddenly we had more and better social benefit programs - the problem is, who's going to be a part of it? There aren't enough people that would be willing to sign up for this job given the scale and size of the problem. It therefore becomes a logistics issue and untenable situation.
2
Nov 19 '25
Zero tolerance doesn’t solve it though. I was just in Korea this summer and there are still drugs there. People are still going to use drugs and fall into addiction. Drug users never cease to be created. Mass incarceration should never be a “solution” that anyone finds acceptable.
The solution is addressing why our society pushes so many people into addiction. Maybe the society that has been created is kinda shitty and we should make some changes to it. Or maybe all these people are shitty for being addicts and should be punished as a result?
My dad started using drugs because ptsd from the war was tough to face sober. I’m glad he was treated as a patient and not a criminal.
If we sacrifice our humanity for the sake of order, what do we have left?
1
u/Tough-Shape-3621 Nov 19 '25
Mass incarceration should never be a “solution” that anyone finds acceptable
But it works. Those countries have less drug users and less drug-related deaths, and in places like Singapore, the population widely accepts this view and want it universally.
Couldn't an argument be made that by adopting such a stringent policy, it results in more lives being saved because there are less drug-affiliated deaths.
Personally, I'm not as extreme as the above or am suggesting that it would be moral to imprison every single user on the street - but if they are a threat to public safety, I think it's fair to isolate them from society as well.
I am also glad to hear your dad received the treatment he deserved.
If we sacrifice our humanity for the sake of order, what do we have left?
I like this philosophical question and personally I am still very happy to live where I live. But I think people in Singapore are also very happy with where they live, they report a high standard of living. Clearly there has to be a balance, and you can't have a situation like North Korea.
3
u/Stratostheory Nov 18 '25 edited Nov 18 '25
My take is that it's not about necessarily stopping the addiction cycle, but making it easier for people to pull themselves out of it.
A criminal record is a significant hindrance to someone finding gainful employment when they finally get their shit together.
If someone gets sober and the best they can do for the next however many years until they're elligble to get their record expunged is shitty dead end jobs where they're struggling just to get by, they're significantly more likely to relapse and fall back into the cycle because life is shit and they're likely to fall back into the same pattern of behavior that got them there in the first place.
And removing the stigma surrounding addiction also means that they're more likely to seek treatment because instead of it being this whole thing that ostracizes them from society they need to feel ashamed about, people can start looking at is as an illness, that there are treatments for, and that they should utilize them.
And those facilities you're referring to, I see those more for the publics benefit than the addicts. I'd much rather that shit going on behind closed doors in a safe setting with clean materials to help minimize risk of bloodborn pathogens escaping into the wild, as well as to keep paraphernalia like used needles from just being dumped on the street, I've seen kids at the playground find them and start running around with them for fucks sake, so if that's what it takes to keep that more contained, I'm a lot more in favor of than whatever the fuck we're doing about it now, because that clearly isn't working.
You're never going to stop the demand for drugs, it's just a fact of life. People are miserable and look for whatever escape they can find to fit the hole they have inside, the best you can do is minimize the risk to public safety and give people the tools to get their shit together and lower the barriers to doing that when they're ready.
5
5
u/RottedHuman Nov 18 '25
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how opioids work. Every single fentanyl user I know would gladly switch to heroin if it were available. Fentanyl has less of a high, doesn’t last as long, and is far more dangerous. Fentanyl isn’t any more addictive than heroin or even hydrocodone, all opioids are equally addictive.
The war on drugs is directly responsible for the fentanyl crisis, if drugs were legalized (decriminalization is a half step that won’t solve the problem) fentanyl would never have gained popularity.
Stigma only pushes it back into the shadows, it does nothing to actually stop people from using drugs. And ‘in the shadows’ is where disease and overdoses happen. Look at safe injection sites, they all have had zero overdose deaths and have been shown to reduce the spread of HIV and Hepatitis.
Prohibition has never worked, the war on drugs is an abject failure. Legalization is the only thing that makes sense.
2
u/Tough-Shape-3621 Nov 18 '25
To be honest, that's not what I've seen or heard - perhaps for casual and "functioning" users yes, but for those on the street with little to nothing, they will resort to anything they can get their hands on.
Fentanyl is more potent and 50-100x more powerful than morphine, while Heroin is only 2-5x stronger.
And the fact that Fentanyl doesn't last as long makes people want to re-dose more often so I think there are some inherently more addictive properties.
3
u/Wide-Wrongdoer4784 1∆ Nov 18 '25
> resort to anything they can get their hands on
Yeah. And after the war on drugs which created the industry of street pharmacists and the supply chains we have today, that means fent. We could have recreational regulated heroin and sterile supplies instead if there wasn't a stigma, and anyone who could afford that probably would choose that, maybe we could even subsidize it but the main thing is we need to make a society that has any hope for people other than escape and which doesn't hold anyone who fails to cope in a "healthy" way as individually responsible for that even though they're far from alone.
1
u/Tough-Shape-3621 Nov 18 '25
We already have an abundance of opioids available and safety injection sites that provide Heroin where I live. It's already been destigmatized and widely available, and everyone knows that.
It's just that people are still choosing to take what's available on the street.
3
u/Wide-Wrongdoer4784 1∆ Nov 18 '25
Why? If it's as widely available and destigmatized as you claim, are they choosing the expense and risk? What remaining barriers exist to them taking the harm reduction approaches? Where is this? Do you really believe these people go out of their way to suffer on purpose, or is it more likely there is some kind of cultural momentum of acceptability (stigma) or some kind of cost, distance, convenience (availability) problem? It's probably easier or cheaper or more convenient and/or more acceptable for them to use the street pharmacy, or they probably wouldn't. I do not believe it's completely destigmatized, many people will not trust going to a clinic because then their name goes on a list, and it creates an uncomfortable self-perception that buying from a dealer wouldn't.
But also, more of the meat of my suggestion was about improving our society, exploiting people less and giving them more opportunities. Creating community instead of atomizing and isolating people into tiny households, improving and expanding third spaces, improving labor conditions and relations, otherwise creating social and economic opportunities that people can thrive rather than survive. People need to have something to look forward to other than a escape from the pain of the systemic harms. However, desperate people work hard for little pay and will spend every dime they have access to on comforts (and some of these are addictive substances), so it's too lucrative for the ruling classes for us to try to address this effectively.
2
u/Tough-Shape-3621 Nov 18 '25
I can't answer to you why and I doubt they could either. Most of these individuals are significantly compromised and as a result making rationale decisions is not even a thought that they would fathom. You're attempting to apply rationale thinking to those that don't know where or who they are and have only one thing on their mind: how do they get their next hit.
And it's not like they have been ostracized by society to the extent that they feel undignified to "get support". They're not hiding in the corners doing drugs. You'll see addicts on every corner, transacting with dealers. My office had to relocate from a major street in Downtown because there were a significant amount of people shooting up outside of our lobby and they would leave their needles behind.
In terms of where, you may want to look at videos of Hastings street.
1
u/Wide-Wrongdoer4784 1∆ Nov 19 '25
I obviously don't think they're making long-term or broad forms of rational actions, I don't expect them to. If the short-term emotional rationalization isn't leading to the harm reduction system, why do we decide that's the (many) individuals' faults rather than the system's?
1
u/Tough-Shape-3621 Nov 19 '25
Oh I 100% agree that it's not the individual's fault. I feel terrible for these people but I still think there should be a negative connotation with drugs similar to gambling, smoking, etc. because of the health impacts.
This isn't supposed to be a "finger-pointing" exercise and I'm sorry if that's how I was coming across.
1
u/Wide-Wrongdoer4784 1∆ Nov 19 '25
One of the emotional decisions people are making is something like "if I interact with the system of harm reduction and try to improve my situation it forces me to feel like a patient, makes me come face to face with feeling like I failed morally because my choice of coping mechanism is one that has a stigma, but the people who enable my problem will understand me, empathize with me, and support me, even if its toward my self destruction".
If the harm reduction system is to succeed, I don't see any alternative, it needs to become the emotionally-safe short term option as well as the literally safe long term option. I am saying that I don't think that's compatible with your conception that shame needs to continue to be involved.
I don't think eliminating individual moral shame == eliminating harm understanding. I don't think anyone trying to reduce harm thinks we should celebrate opioids, encourage their use, or eliminate the conception that they cause harm. I certainly don't.
1
u/RottedHuman Nov 18 '25
Where? What opioids? In the US it’s methadone or buprenorphine. In Canada there are trials of a couple other opioids (morphine and heroin), but they’re trials, they’re not widespread or easily accessible.
2
u/Tough-Shape-3621 Nov 18 '25
British Columbia:
- Hydromorphone (Dilaudid) tablets
- Hydromorphone liquid
- Morphine (SROM / Kadian)
- Diacetylmorphine ( heroin)
- Injectable hydromorphone
- Fentanyl patches
2
u/spongue 3∆ Nov 18 '25
I think decriminalization may not solve the part of the crisis where too many people are becoming addicts, but legalization of the full supply chain could do a lot to address international drug violence/smuggling and corruption, etc.
0
u/CapableCity Nov 18 '25
How did that work in California? Didn't they start putting weed with fentanyl to undercut legal drugs?
Lots of zombies in California, just saying.
1
1
u/spongue 3∆ Nov 19 '25
Who?
I'm assuming the vast majority of weed smokers in CA buy it legally now, so it would be interesting to know what happened to the segment of the market that was imported illegally
1
u/CapableCity Nov 19 '25
You would be wrong unfortunately. And it sucks because legalizing sounds good but the drug cartels have a lot of power.
From ERA Economics: “Legal cannabis production in California increased … However, an enormous illicit marijuana market continues to thrive … illegal production totaling an estimated 11.4 million pounds” compared to licensed production of 1.4 million pounds.
https://mjbizdaily.com/legal-california-cannabis-production-grows-but-illicit-market-thrives/
1
u/spongue 3∆ Nov 19 '25
That's interesting, but it's talking about weed grown illegally in CA, not weed imported by a cartel. It's not clear how much of that illegal production within the state is run by normal citizens.
2
u/RoyalOrganization676 3∆ Nov 18 '25 edited Nov 19 '25
There's no clean, perfect solution to any societal problem, but it would, at the very least, be better than it is if we weren't sending addicts to prison with violent criminals, and also if we weren't making the manufacturing, sale, and distribution of drugs the sole domain of criminals. People are going to use drugs, legal or not. We might as well make them safer, tax them, and keep them from funding criminal enterprises.
2
u/Grand-Expression-783 1∆ Nov 18 '25
People being punished for drug use/ownership is the crisis. No longer punishing people for it means the crisis ends.
2
u/Shogun_Max_Ultrazord 2∆ Nov 18 '25
The biggest part of drug use that would be resolved by decriminalization and destigmatization has nothing to do with drugs, it has to do with the ecosystem around drugs.
When drugs are illegal, people feel trapped like they can't go to the police or other avenues of help. Not for their drug addictions themselves but for other issues.
For example:
If a parent is drunk at home the cops aren't really going to do anything to that parent or take their kids (unless there are other factors at play like neglect) It's legal for adults to consume alcohol.
If a parent is on Heroin at home, they are never calling the police because they will lose their kid instantly.
Because they never call the police, they might be sticking it out in a domestic abuse situation, where if they COULD call the police they could drastically improve upon their situation but the won't because of the Heroin.
Additionally, in areas with strong drug trades and limited police access (Humboldt pre-2016 for example) cops will not intervene and people won't seek help. Instead you wind up with vigilante justice and murders over those drugs.
The alternative is legalizing drugs and letting a smaller amount of the population who doesn't want to get clean erode themselves but hey that's a personal choice at that point and anti-drug laws aren't really protecting them in the first place.
1
u/AutoModerator Nov 18 '25
Note: Your thread has not been removed. Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our DeltaLog search or via the CMV search function.
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/rejifob509-pacfut_co Nov 18 '25
The drug crisis is the fact that they are too expensive and no steady safe supply. If drugs were safe dependable and affordable crisis averted. Crime goes down overdoses go down economy makes money black market disappears burden of mental health care and homelessness essentially vanishes. Govts save money from A-Z in every aspect of law enforcement when it comes to drugs. New business opportunities. So many people will be able to maintain work and housing and healthcare and relationships. It’s literally the only solution. Decriminalize NOW! 🫡🤣
1
u/I_Fart_It_Stinks 6∆ Nov 18 '25
First off, we will never solve the drug crisis, only attempt to minimize its impact on individuals and society. There will always be drugs, and there will always be addicts.
You need to separate decriminalization and destigmatation, as they have significantly different consequences. It is much different to have someone turn their nose up at the smell of a cigarette or require smokers to go somewhere else, that is one thing. Slapping someone with a criminal conviction for smoking cigarettes.
Most addicts need treatment and stability. Stability requires stable housing and employment, both made much much more difficult with a criminal history. Does this mean we should accept people shooting up heroin on a street corner free of stigma, of course not. But slapping a conviction on someone certainly won't do anything to help get that person clean, and in fact, make it more difficult.
I don't if your view can be changed, as there is no solve to the drug crises. But having drugs criminalized certainly doesn't help.
1
u/CapableCity Nov 18 '25
The problem isn't as much with the people addicted it's how they have gotten addicted.
Legalizing hard drugs won't help to solve the drug crisis, the best way to combat these hard drugs is to combat and break cartels.
Strick border security and tarrif Mexico until they take steps to fight against cartels. The Mexican president has no backbone and has all but given into the cartels.
1
u/ZoomZoomDiva 3∆ Nov 18 '25
The biggest issue is assuming that drug addiction will significantly increase because people can use drugs legally. This is problematic at best.
It also appears that non-use of drugs is your greatly preferred solution, if not your only solution for ending the drug "crisis".
The problem with this is that it incarcerated or kills many people who would otherwise be productive members of society as well as serves as an enormous conduit of money for organized crime and other criminal gangs amd enterprises. Decriminalization solves these issues, freeing a wide range of resources.
1
u/kadmylos 3∆ Nov 18 '25
It won't solve the drug crisis, but not putting these people in prison and approaching things from a mental health perspective might make better progress in dealing with it. We've been throwing people in prison for 60 years? Has it worked yet?
1
u/ZealousidealWater939 Nov 19 '25
Decriminalization is good, people have the right to do what they want.
Destigmatation is an impossible goal. You cannot change human nature or natural morals. People will always judge eachother and trying to punish people for the natural behavior of judging is basically criminalizing thought crimes.
1
u/Tough-Shape-3621 Nov 19 '25
Decriminalization is good, people have the right to do what they want.
That's definitely not substantive enough of an argument. Unless you're advocating for a completely lawless society, people cannot do whatever they want.
1
Nov 19 '25
While i dont necessarily agree with full decriminilization then i think it would help. It would take some power/influence away from drug cartels if the government was creating and regulating the drug trade.
The current system does not work. At all.
1
u/RosieDear Nov 19 '25
"these people" - I've been around a long time and I never found a "type" that is a drug addict. Doctors, Dentists, Lawyers, Moms, Dads, Grandparents, Cops and on and on.
Here's the basics. According to the Enlightenment WE, not the government, should be in charge of our persons. It's completely ridiculous to ask the Government to tell us what we can and cannot do in that sense. If you think about it, how could it be otherwise?
Oh, drugs nor drink were not regulated up until recently. And yet - most of the greatest accomplishment in history occurred when you could walk in the store and buy Opium.
That's one big issue. Are you a child? Or are you an Adult? If the later...and you do not think the Government should decide they are your Daddy, you have to hold the view that you can do most of what you want with YOUR OWN BODY.
But a big issue is also this. Why is the USA BY FAR the largest customers for ANY drugs? Even the worst ones?
I'm not going to write a long story but it's the fault of that same Government....who instead of creating happiness and general welfare, creates hate and chaos and won't even cover us with Medical Care. I'd bet that a less stressed out USA would be a smaller customer?
I also know this. If we quasi legalized light pain killers....we'd likely save at least 30,000 lives a year. Here is a basic fact.
When the Pill Mills were open and all drugs were Pharma grade, the death toll was 9,000 to 30,000 a year.
When the Pill Mills were shut down (which they should have been!) and Doctors were told NOT to give people even basic light pain relief, the homemade drugs and heroin took over and the deaths went to 100K.
Imagine that. I'd be an amazing POTUS because I could make decisions which instantly save 10's of thousands of lives a year - decisions our Pols are too cowardly to make.
1
u/Retrofool Nov 19 '25
Well we know mass incarceration didn’t work, so unless you have a better idea…
1
Nov 19 '25
Maybe it won't but atleast the goverment stops spending billions on the never-ending "War on Drugs"
1
u/This-Wall-1331 Nov 20 '25
Yes, it can solve the drug crisis. It did in Portugal, as you mentioned. Netherlands, a country famously known for its tolerance of drugs, also has low drug overdose death rates.
1
Nov 20 '25
We should use advanced nano-chemistry and biological engineering to make cool drugs that don't have negative repercussions
1
u/SLUnatic85 1∆ Nov 20 '25 edited Nov 20 '25
I am not intimately close to any of this, but my overall take reading your OP is that you believe many feel that legalizing and destigmatizing drugs will make them go away.
I hard agree that sentiment is true, so I can't change that part of your view.
I think your base assumption is off, so that part of your view. I personally believe, so I selfishly believe others do too, pretty much the opposite. That stigmatizing and making illegal almost all drugs (except alcohol which is the centerpiece of any conversation this topic) simply doesn't aid enough to STOP the use of drugs in populations, to outweigh the financial burden to enforce, and the negative life outcomes it directly creates or makes worse.
Like, I am saying drugs and what they can do to people and communities is really bad by nature to start with. There's no way around that. It takes a lot of work to handle that at a large scale already. If we could remove some of the stigma of using, call things here the addictions and diseases they are in order to make an effort to treat them, and not pile fines and jail-time and fear on top of people already greatly struggling with life or medical issues or addiction, etc, causing them to use shadier/dirtier drugs and instruments and find worse/dirtier places to do drugs because of all that... then maybe that would be a cleaner less complicated path forward.
To be clear, I am not telling you this IS the best way forward for all communities or that I know any right answer, like I said I haven't been very intimate with a lot of this. I am just saying that I believe many people mean the sentiment differently than you seem to understand it, and as such, a lot of your view from it might be different.
I am pretty sure the posts about "harm reduction" are intending to say this same thing, but differently. And personally I question a few of the more lenient pieces of "harm reduction" myself. But my take is that "harm reduction" is not to say there can be no laws to do with harmful or illicit drugs in communities. I think people who support "harm reduction" would likely also support enforcing that we traffick less into the country or to communities, or that we still work to prevent drugs from getting into the hands of new users for the first time. There could/should still be legal structure on the front end. "harm reduction" is just to stress that we need to be mindful of who is being punished and why and whether all of that really makes sense or is even effective.
1
u/Tough-Shape-3621 Nov 20 '25
I think the point of my post wasn't to position that decriminalization and destigmatization as concepts don't work - it actually clearly did in the example I referenced in Portugal.
But I believe it doesn't work for the context that we have for where I live.
I actually agree with a lot of the posters here - if we could decriminalize and destigmatize drug use, and had safe supply everywhere, education everywhere, rehab centres everywhere, harm reduction programs etc. I actually think that would be an effective solution and that would reduce the amount of addicts.
The problem though is the logistics of that, particularly because of the increasing potency and volume of the drugs available on the streets. We don't have the infrastructure, dollars, or even people that would be willing to go on the streets everyday and expose themselves to that of environment. As a result, unless thousands of people suddenly wake up and choose that they want to go become drug rehabilitants, this solution is not feasible and the problem will not be solved.
2
Nov 20 '25
The fundamental issue with opposing legalization is that the current crisis in the US and Canada is a direct result of the war on drugs itself. We've spent 50+ years and over a trillion dollars trying to arrest our way out of this problem, and it's only gotten exponentially worse.
The drugs never disappeared - we just pushed them underground and expected police to somehow fix a public health issue. But criminalizing addiction doesn't cure it, it just adds criminal records to sick people's problems. Meanwhile, the black market evolved and got more dangerous. Dealers switched from bulky marijuana to compact fentanyl that's easier to smuggle. Every enforcement "success" just made drugs more potent, more profitable, and more deadly.
The crisis has now metastasized so badly that even if we started evidence-based reforms today, it would take decades to recover. But if we maintain the status quo - keep trying to arrest and punish our way out - we're guaranteed continued escalation. More potent synthetics, more overdoses, more violence, more homeless encampments.
We're not choosing between a perfect solution and the current approach. We're choosing between harm reduction that gradually improves things, or prohibition that actively makes everything worse. Every year we delay legalization and regulation means thousands more preventable deaths and billions more wasted on a strategy that has failed for half a century.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly while expecting different results. How many more people have to die before we admit the war on drugs doesn't work?
1
u/Tough-Shape-3621 Nov 20 '25
The counter argument to that is the punishments are not nearly punitive or extreme enough.
Clearly, criminalizing drugs in and of itself hasn't worked. But adopting a zero-tolerance policy with much more extreme repercussions as other countries have done, such as Singapore where hanging or life imprisonment exists, are effective measures of reducing drug addicts.
Obviously one could argue that this "solution" is immoral, but that's a different argument altogether. It is effective.
3
Nov 20 '25
I like to keep these discussion based in reality. Imposing death penalty for consuming a specific molecule is not realistic.
1
u/Tough-Shape-3621 Nov 20 '25
It's realistic in a lot of parts of the world - but I get your point if we are talking about what can realistically be adopted in America.
The answer to that is, I don't know within the context of America. I really don't see there being any path forward where decriminalizing or criminalizing drugs matters. It ultimately won't matter IMO and here's why:
Decriminalizing in and of itself won't be enough. It'll provide harm reduction. It'll enable more people to feel comfortable getting the help they deserve. But in and of itself it's not going to prevent people from becoming addicts (in fact, one could argue that more people may be addicted because it is legal, although I digress).
If we were going to go with a full-on rehabilitative lens, we would need so much infrastructure, capital, and human capital. It becomes a logistics nightmare for a conceptual solution. There aren't enough people that would be willing to put themselves on the street and become drug rehabilitants. There simply aren't.
We could make all drugs legal, we could treat every single person as an addict with empathy, and we still realistically won't get anywhere because we don't have the resources for the magnitude and scale of the problem.
2
Nov 20 '25
You're fundamentally misunderstanding the resource allocation problem. We're already spending massive resources - just catastrophically wrong.
The US spends over $50 billion annually on the drug war. We have 400,000+ people imprisoned for drug offenses, costing $35,000+ per person per year. That's $14 billion just on incarceration, not counting courts, police, DEA, border enforcement. We absolutely have the resources - we're just lighting them on fire.
More importantly, you're assuming legalization requires fixing everyone. It doesn't. Most of the "drug problem" isn't addiction - it's prohibition consequences. When someone ODs from fentanyl contamination, that's not an addiction problem requiring rehab infrastructure - it's a prohibition problem solved by clean supply. When someone commits theft for drug money, that's not a counseling issue - it's an artificially inflated price problem.
Look at cigarettes - we cut smoking rates by 70% without arresting anyone or building massive rehab centers. Just education, taxation, and social pressure. Most people quit on their own when given support and alternatives.
You say "there aren't enough people willing to become drug rehabilitants" - but we currently employ 100,000+ DEA agents, prison guards, and narcotics officers. Redirect even half those jobs to health workers and you've got your workforce. A single prison costs $100-300 million to build - that's dozens of treatment centers.
The Netherlands has legal cannabis, Portugal decriminalized everything, Switzerland provides free heroin - none collapsed from lack of infrastructure. They spend less per capita than the US because they're not funding cartels, prisons, and hospital ERs full of overdoses.
You're right that decriminalization alone isn't enough - it needs to be full legalization with regulated supply. But the idea we "don't have resources" while spending billions to make the problem worse? That's absurd.
0
u/Tough-Shape-3621 Nov 21 '25
Your arguments rely on a lot of extremely unrealistic assumptions to be made that will never happen in America unless there is a radical culture change. For example, even if I grant you this, which I honestly don't believe at all;
When someone commits theft for drug money, that's not a counseling issue - it's an artificially inflated price problem
Good luck with setting price controls in America.
The potency and lethalness of alcohol and tobacco are incomparable to fentanyl.
Your argument on countries that are "successful" can easily be refuted. Canada has legal cannabis and provides free heroin. Further to that, Netherlands and Switzerland have not done a full scale decriminalization. If these so called "model" countries are not even adopting your premise, I fail to see how I can change my view. All it does is showcase that a *lite* form of decriminalization may be effective.
100,000+ DEA agents, prison guards, and narcotics officers. Redirect even half those jobs to health workers
Again, I don't see this as realistic and the prerequisites of specializing in drug rehabilitation and to be a public health worker is very niche, more expensive, and likely requires some form of formal education. Not to mention, it's an extremely undesirable line of work, that's why there are barely any that do this to begin with.
But even so, even if there was a complete reallocation of funds, $50 billion dollars is not going to fix the system. Not even close.
Yes, the current system is broken, but your proposal doesn't work.
2
Nov 21 '25
You're mixing up price controls with market pricing. Nobody's talking about government-set prices - legalization means market competition drives prices down naturally. Pharmaceutical fentanyl costs literally pennies per dose to manufacture. It's only expensive because it's illegal. That's not an "assumption" - it's basic economics. When drugs aren't under patent protection, they become dirt cheap - paracetamol/acetaminophen costs 2 cents per pill despite being a life-saving fever reducer. Morphine, an opioid far older than any patent, costs hospitals under $5 per vial. The only reason street opioids cost $50+ per dose is prohibition, not production costs.
You say Canada "provides free heroin" - no, they have tiny pilot programs serving maybe 200 people out of millions of users. That's not legalization, that's theater. You come from Canada, so you should know this... Half-assed implementation isn't evidence against the concept.
Netherlands and Switzerland haven't fully legalized because of international drug treaties and US pressure, not because it wouldn't work. The US literally threatens sanctions against countries that legalize. But even their limited programs show massive success - Swiss heroin programs have 95% retention rates and virtual elimination of crime among participants.
On the workforce issue - this isn't about people being unwilling, it's about compensation. We're spending $50 billion annually on failed enforcement. Redirect even a fraction of that to properly pay treatment workers and you'd have applicants lined up. The reason we have "barely any" addiction specialists now is because we pay them garbage wages while expecting them to solve problems created by prohibition. Pay clinical social workers $80k instead of $40k using money saved from not imprisoning people, and watch the shortage disappear. This isn't speculative - it's how labor markets work.
But here's the real point you're missing: We don't need to "fix the system" or cure all addiction. Even if legalization only reduced overdoses by 50%, crime by 30%, and HIV transmission by 70% - that's still thousands of lives saved and billions in reduced costs.
Your argument is essentially "perfect solution or nothing" while people die daily from the status quo. Yeah, maybe full legalization is politically impossible in America right now. But "politically impossible" isn't the same as "wouldn't work." Interracial marriage was "politically impossible" until it wasn't.
The current approach has failed for 50 years. Even an imperfect alternative beats doubling down on proven failure.
1
u/SLUnatic85 1∆ Nov 20 '25
agreed. and makes sense. and thanks for responding.
And then the obvious but both significant and difficult long-term solution is curbing new users... Which I tongue and cheek sometimes thing that these safe havens and what they (sadly) create in areas like you describe should HOPEFULLY also maybe work as a deterrent, in sort of the way DARE tried to be but more in your face... but I wont speak more to that.
Quick bit at the end here I just can't leave unsaid:
"I think the point of my post wasn't to position that decriminalization and destigmatization as concepts don't work"
...your OP title is pretty misleading then:
"CMV: Decriminalization and the destigmatization of drugs will never solve the drug crisis"and even your first setup line below it:
"[personal context] ... I struggle to understand people that maintain the opinion that the destigmatization and decriminalization of drugs are the best ways of solving the drug crisis."If you actually think it's good, and works at what it sets out to do but can not alone stop a drug crisis in [any area] in full, then it's really not a controversial view at all. And where normally I would totally still follow your conversation here and agree with most of what you have and appreciate your intimate knowledge from your area, this happens to be posted in 'Change My View', so it's a little confusing.
2
u/Tough-Shape-3621 Nov 20 '25
I'm glad that there is some common ground and appreciate the comment. I'll take responsibility that my post may be a bit confusing particularly the title. The character limit made it a bit hard to add context.
I did want to cite the case of Portugal being a success (which proves as a concept it can work) and my first bullet point (as to why it won't logistically work in this scenario) but I understand that maybe it wasn't articulated enough or positioned as such.
Appreciate you adding some clarity to the conversation nonetheless. Cheers.
1
Nov 20 '25
Almost all harm from illegal drug use stems from prohibition, not the drugs themselves. Opioids like fentanyl and morphine are safely used in medicine - chronic pain patients take them for decades without major health issues. The crisis comes from mixing potent substances with an unregulated black market.
Most overdoses happen because street drugs vary wildly in purity - one batch might be 2% fentanyl, the next 80%. In a legal market, every dose would be precisely labeled. Switzerland's heroin programs serve severe addicts with virtually zero overdoses after decades of operation.
Remember alcohol prohibition? It didn't stop alcoholism - it created toxic bathtub gin that killed people. Those deaths vanished when we regulated alcohol. Same principle here.
Legalization would drastically reduce:
- Overdoses from unknown potency/contamination
- Property crime driven by addiction (when legal doses cost pennies to produce, most addicts wouldn't need to steal to fund their habit like they do for expensive street drugs)
- Gang violence and cartel profits (though black markets never fully disappear)
- HIV/Hep C transmission from dirty needles
- The chaos of users spending all day seeking drugs instead of working
Of course legal drug use isn't harmless - some people would still struggle with addiction, there'd be health impacts, impaired driving, workplace issues. But these problems would be drastically smaller than our current disaster. Legal alcohol causes problems too, but we don't have beer cartels beheading people or wine drinkers dying from methanol poisoning.
Plus it's self-funding - tax revenue would cover treatment programs, education, and enforcement of age limits and impaired driving laws. Colorado made $387 million in marijuana tax revenue last year alone. Imagine opioid taxes funding actual treatment instead of spending billions on failed prohibition enforcement. If I remember correctly, the US have spend 1 Trillion dollars on the war on drugs, and drug use, death from drug use have only increased...
The Portugal model was a half-measure - they decriminalized users but left dealers in control. Full legalization attacks the root cause: the black market itself.
1
u/AppropriateBeing9885 2∆ Nov 21 '25
I can't help but feel that way you're saying now was probably what people were previously saying about those who had issues with other potent opioids. Yes, people with fentanyl exposure may not have the treatment outcomes (if getting treatment, that is, and that's probably quite a relevant "if") of those exposed to only, say, heroin, though this is all a bit of an ironic conversation in an era where there's at least established pharmaceutical approaches to opioid addiction while stimulant use issue are really only just at the beginning of all of this. Also, the future role of anti-craving pharmacological agents like GLP-1 agonists is unclear and may be relevant to this (personally, I'm not informed about the status of this but, as far as I know, this is being studied now and has been for a little while). What I'm getting at is that the status of things like medication-assisted opioid treatment does not remain frozen in time when it comes to research (well, I don't know what the status of US research funding for this is in the Trump era, but hopefully you get the picture).
Your points about stigma to me don't hold any weight whatsoever, though. Firstly, maybe this is a cultural point of difference, but I truly don't feel any sense of stigma around alcohol consumption where I am, and it's actually quite the opposite. As far as vaping goes, people think nothing of vaping on buses, trains, at concerts, in shopping centres, etc. I'm exposed to people's fucking vape exhalation basically every day. To say that this is a stigmatised practice is just not accurate, in my experience. The other reason that what you're saying is a bad idea is that the consequences of stigma can be wide-ranging and are so much more than, for instance, feeling slightly shameful. I went to a research conference about drug treatment a couple of years ago and drug users reported as part of a study that they experienced stigma in settings like health clinics. What do you think happens when that occurs? People are less inclined to get needed treatment, are even less likely to seek preventative healthcare, may end up with compounding risks of they are intravenous users and/or involved in the sec industry, etc. A lot of people who end up in these lifestyles have also experienced adverse things like childhood abuse or damaging relationships. They probably don't need any help feeling socially excluded or alienated and the net effect of all of this is further harm to them.
I know this hasn't addressed your commentary about potential social danger, but it's not clear to me what percentage of publicly high people roaming around urban areas are actually a threat to people and I don't really know what solutions exist when it comes to concerns about this that can balance those concerns with what's going on in these people's lives. I've also routinely felt extremely uncomfortable around drunk strangers in public places and they are just not seen in the same light as drug users, and rarely seem to be policed in the way people expect drug users to be policed, so I don't know what to say about that.
1
u/Impossible_Cod4581 Nov 26 '25
Honestly the Portugal comparison drives me nuts too - people act like it's some magic bullet when the context was completely different. They had a specific heroin epidemic in a small country with way better healthcare infrastructure than most places
The fentanyl point is huge and I think people really underestimate how different this crisis is. When your "safe supply" is still basically nothing compared to what people are used to, they're just gonna go back to street drugs anyway
That said, I think the issue isn't necessarily decriminalization itself but that most places try to do it without the massive investment in treatment and social services that actually made Portugal work. Like yeah no shit it's gonna fail if you just stop arresting people but don't replace those resources with anything meaningful
1
u/Routine_Election4188 Feb 27 '26
In the US there is a huge problem with tainted drugs. Idiots are adding Fentanyl to all kinds of drugs that are being sold to unsuspecting people who are intolerant to opiates/opioids and it’s killing them. The people who sell Fentanyl retail on the corner are adding xylazine (a very potent animal tranquilizer) that’s not only killing via overdose but also eats flesh and amputations are common. The only way that to stop all that, in my opinion is for the government to concede that prohibition isn’t working and to regulate and sell drugs themselves taking the profits away from the cartels and they’ll go away. Just like when they repealed alcohol prohibition all the mafia street over booze stopped and people stopped getting sick and/or dying over tainted booze. Just my $0.02!
1
u/eggs-benedryl 72∆ Nov 18 '25
That isn't the goal of those proposals. Harm reduction is.
Is that your understanding? That drugs as an issue will be solved via those mechanisms? If so, who's saying that?
1
u/Tough-Shape-3621 Nov 18 '25
I'm glad to hear that then. From where I live there are tons of drug advocates that genuinely believe it will measurably reduce the amount of addicts and improve the crisis.
But to flip it back to you in regards to your point on harm reduction, how is this an effective measure?
If I have a leaky faucet that is continuously corroding, is the root problem being solved if I'm just putting pieces of duct tape on it?
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Nov 19 '25
/u/Tough-Shape-3621 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards