Does decriminalizing drugs work?

Question

Do you think decriminalizing drugs will work? In an attempt to stem its opioid crisis, British Columbia Canada is testing something that may at first seem counterintuitive: decriminalizing those drugs. The Canadian province started a three-year hard drug decriminalization trial run on Tuesday. While it will still be unlawful to sell and traffic these drugs, as well as to bring them into airports and schools, possessing small quantities (less than 2.5 grams, or one-tenth of an ounce) for personal use won’t be penalized. Adults carrying that amount of opioids like heroin and fentanyl, as well as cocaine, meth, or ecstasy, will no longer run afoul of the law. Police will not seize the drugs, and users will be informed about resources for substance abuse recovery. Courtesy "Morning Brew"

Aerissa_Jade · Accepted Answer

I am all for it, as I believe in freedom to do drugs as much as you want. As with most things though, there is a catch.

As people are bad drivers as it is, if someone is using drugs and harms someone, or kills someone the penalty should be beyond extreme.

If they are using and kill someone in an accident, it should be automatic death penalty, as they have now proven they are a danger to society. They got behind the wheel of a car while on a drug and knew they could harm someone it should be considered intentionally planning on killing or hurting someone. No different than walking around in public randomly firing a gun in all directions... but I wasn't trying to hurt anyone but you knew you could.

That needs to be in place FIRST before trying to decriminalize them.

Second, if someone using these drugs overdoses or has other related health issues linked to them, insurance should not cover treatment and rates for others who choose not to use them should not have their rates increased as a result.

There can be specified user plans that have rates to cover all the overdoses and such. There is no reason that non users should have to pay for it. If someone says they are not a user (lies when signing up for health insurance) then that would fall into insurance fraud and be charged as such. If they have an overdose or other issues that can be proven to be cause of this, the insurance won't pay for the treatment and these kind of debts should not be allowed to be in bankruptcy.

In fact if someone owes from a previous treatment and hasn't made a payment agreement and is not current, they should be DENIED treatment for a future overdose /health issue and left to die on the street.

They have their freedom to make a choice but they do not and should not have the freedom to make others pay for their bad choices.

I should not have to pay a penny more for health insurance or hospitals raising costs to cover those who refuse to pay, due to someone else's choice to do these drugs.

As such I believe people should have the freedom to do them all they want but they need to be willing to accept the consequences of their actions if they choose to do so and make bad choices while using.

purplepoppy · Accepted Answer

Drugs aren't the problem, its the crimes used to finance the addiction. No one seems to mind that wealthy stock broker taking drugs but minute some poor guy robs them it's a different story. There's plenty of successful people who dabble but you never hear of them being arrested.

Then there's the social nuisance side, do you really want to see a guy shooting up on the bus with a smug "it's my right" attitude.

2.5g? The problem with "personal use" amounts is the second you misweigh that 2.6g is classed as intent to sell.

But I think the reality is it's a great way of massaging crime figures. Most drug crime figures aren't made up of dealers, the bulk are possession. That area now looks a lot better crimes dropped 50%

Moose304 · Accepted Answer

Every time I see this question asked I am reminded of what is THE MOST dangerous drug in the world. I won't list all the bad things that result from consuming the drug called alcohol. I contend that one thing that makes it so dangerous is It's legal and can be bought at most any street corner store in the US. NO I am not advocating we go back to prohibition because that never really worked. So do you really want to watch somebody strung out on PCP, or worse LSD, and the cops not be able to do anything about it? OK, let's talk about Fentanyl now. Are you comfortable with people legally being able to have this drug after watching this video?

https://www.youtube.com/embed/S0Vzz_P9JBk

I'm not attempting to be an asshole. I understand most of the time people are talking about pot etc. The thing is some of these substances are very dangerous and I will never be comfortable with removing the ability of the cops from taking them off the street! I am a systems engineer. One part of my job is making changes in a system. The problem is accounting for all the other problems down the line you create by fixing that one problem. I have seen people strung out before. I know they are doing it now with these substances already illegal. My issue is will making them legal fix it or make it worse. Until you can say for sure what is the right way I suggest finding another way!

KingDorkus · Accepted Answer

Portugal and Switzerland have this program. Read a book called "chasing the scream." It postulates that in reality, only about 10% or fewer people become true addicts. The rest get a high from the ritual / routine of the illegal action acquiring and the thrill of using. That so many of their lives get ruined because of something as stupid and primitive as punitive repercussions is shooting ourselves in the foot as we lose access to their gifts and talents, and plus if you tax it you can then use the proceeds to build teratment facilities for those actually afflicted with the disease of addictilon. Can you imagine locking up a diabetic for shootnig up insulin? Or punishing the diabetic by putting them in a program where they are told to hone their mental abilities to create more insulin and insulin resistance using their pancreas? IKt's also just so hypocritical and disgusting that in america we are are punitive and judgmental as we are about this topic yet look at the politicians, the trial lawyers, a ton of the doctors, teachers, unionmen and every other beyond corrupt, criminal class of people we excuse.

OlderAndWiser · Answer

People's opinions wll probably be shaped largely by their emotional response to the drug crisis, but the only true test will be time and the experience in BC.

Rosexøxø · Answer

@msc545 didn’t you make a question on this?

my answer:
Work in what sense?

People want to employ drugs? What will police officers be doing?

What will doctors be doing?

What will politicians be doing?

What will drug addicts be doing?

If we don’t do our jobs and let drugs do it’s job.

Everyone will lose tons more jobs

and then things will slip-up, and I put that lightly. 👐

Somebody has to tell young kids it’s wrong.

I may link the other question here. Not sure, yet.

lightbulb27 · Answer

I favor freedom if people were responsible. But they aren't. It's a question of what is the harm they do to themselves vs to other people unintentionally. How do we protect them from themselves and them from harming others.

Drug addicts generally speaking, are just wounded humans. They need therapy, community and salvation and some may never get out of it.

The number of drug addicts around me is immense... I find their disposed bottles and cans of garbage drug fluid on the side of the road. I believe it's called beer, wisky and such. blech!

Did any of this work in Amsterdam?

We need therapy and training for every kid and parent followed by daily beatings and 20 mile runs. Then again, Jesus couldn't fix it, I doubt any politician can either...

KrisPW · Answer

I think it depends on who else resides with the drug user. My niece was adopted from DHS, neglect and drug use were a major part of her early childhood. I've cried many times over the stories she tells as if they were just another day in her life. SO many things that are NOT ok for her to have experienced because of it.

Birth mom died a year of so after the adoption from meth overdose.

jshm2 · Answer

Technically it's not decriminalising. They are not changing the legal status of the narcotics.

Instead they are raising the bar from which you can be prosecuted for possession of them.

So in essence they are saying "we don't want to jail junkies, we want to jail dealers and suppliers".

It means the police and prosecutors are released to concentrate on the bigger boys, rather than low hanging fruit junkies filling jails.

It's another example of shithead "journalists" taking a small story, but weaving a big baseless assertion out of it.

RACSKC0B · Answer

Your question is too vague.
What do you mean "work", that depends on your end goal.
I'm any case regardless of the end goal, no place has been doing this long enough to say if it helps the problem or not.
I can tell you that prison sure doesn't seem to curtail any of the drug problems at all.

Keishio · Answer

It's a hard one to predict. I know BC has an opioid crisis with people overdosing because the heroin they think they're buying is cut with fentanyl and lord knows what else so maybe if people are able to buy a safer product it could be less harmful but that's a guess at best.

Leopard23 · Answer

We should stop putting people in jail for the recreational use of drugs or for being junkies. All it does is cost the tax payers untold amounts of money that could be better spent treating drug addiction and rehabilitating drug addicts. It also commits drug users to a life of crime and drug use. US Prisions are rife with drugs.

At the end of the day drug users are only hurting themselves. Are we going to criminalise fast food junkies for being obese and having diabetes?

TheSpaceGnome · Answer

All recreational drugs (including alcoholic drinks, cigars, cigarrettes, e-cigs, anc pot), should be subject to a prohibition.

People say prohibition didn't work, but it did, it just didn't help addicts (because nothing does). What it did do, is keep them and their drugs away from the rest of us, and I'm all for that.

Randalama · Answer

Work how? If you want to encourage you subsidize and if you want to discourage you prohibit. Our masters like us sedated, apathetic, unarmed, with tongues and brains firmly restrained. Perhaps I'm too cynical. A little recreational snort never hurt anyone.

21Cowboy21 · Answer

Yes - I see only positives from this. Less money to organized crime - more money generated in tax sales revenue, less turf wars, and the exact same amount of people who are addicts in either scenario - making the addict piece non-essential in determining the best choice as is unfortunately the same both ways.

FreyaRed · Answer

Legalization of weed doesn't seem to have any effect on drug addicted numbers. Holland where weed is legal since more than two decades proves that.
In matter of other drugs I don't think legalizing small amounts of those substances is a good idea. Drug dealers will just adopt their distribution method to this law and they will abuse it.

AmandaYVR · Answer

The similar program has been a success in Portugal. B. C. has tailored the program a bit, but it is in part because of their success that Canada is doing a trial now.

Anonymous · Answer

Well there’s no limit on alcohol possession, only that it not be open during travel or under the influence behind a vehicle.

Alcohol is legal and allowed & folks are informed of safe usage and AA and not to drive and so forth, what’s the difference.

Chazmatazz269 · Answer

I’m in favor of legalization and using a percentage of revenues to fund addiction treatments and support programs. I’m also in favor of much stronger penalties for people who do break laws.

Guy13 · Answer

No it doesn’t as man left unto himself without constraint of law, judgment, and consequence is in a very dangerous and fallen state of affairs.

gorydetails · Answer

It seems it’s worked well in Portugal. You’d have to increase drug treatment exponentially from what we spend now. It’s unacceptable to have people walking around cities like zombies.

TotallyAlmost · Answer

Yes, it works at creating more drug addiction and more violent crime. When you take people off the street for drugs, you also remove violent offenders. It's not an accident that crime is up everywhere since they decriminalized weed. It's not just the defund the police nonsense. They've disarmed them.

Anonymous · Answer

It has worked in many countries already. It is funny how people don't care how many people are off their faces on prescribed meds, but mention legalizing weed or anything else, and they become outraged.

In_Trance · Answer

Decriminalizing only increases sales and tax revenue as opposed to fines. It's more money for the Gov't. They don't gaf if everyone does it; as long as they make money off of it.

Does decriminalizing drugs work?

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

Does decriminalizing drugs work?

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

We're glad to see you liked this post.