Legalization of all drugs would end the overdose crisis.

So, I mainly started this to offer anyone on the site to come on my podcast to debate this topic with me. But I’ve also hit a slow point at work and have time to debate it on the forum as well. My podcast isn’t big at all only averaging about 30 views per episode with 15 subscribers atm. Anyone willing we will set up a date and have a long conversation about it. 

Other than that I’d love to discuss it on here and hear what you guys have to say about this topic. 

How does the legality of the issue, affect the reality of human behaviour?

Making drugs available at the Super-Mart, would legitimise the production and supply processes, thus eradicating the current production and supply culture. (Perhaps)

Though the addict would still be addicted, and therefore prone to both anti-social and self destructive behaviour

So one might suggest that the legalization of drugs would perhaps exacerbate these problems.

Legalizing drugs doesn't make them any safer to consume..

No it wouldn't. Legalization could potentially solve these problems:

1. People stealing or going broke/homeless because they can't afford super expensive street drugs.

2. People being reluctant to pursue treatment because they don't want to risk prosecution from admitting that they're using drugs.

3. Drugs being contaminated with adulterants (no guarantees, as even chocolate sold in mainstream retail stores contain heavy metals like lead.)

4. Needle sharing (also no guarantee if the needles are costly)

It would not stop people from:

1. Overdosing on heroin.

2. Not checking into rehab out of fear that a relapse after a month of detox could prove deadly, or because rehab is just unpleasant/expensive.

3. Overdosing on fentanyl because over time they've become so tolerant of heroin that it doesn't give them instant euphoria anymore and they want something stronger

4. Being fired because their drug habit makes them an unreliable employee

5. Going broke despite a job because they're just buying an excessive amount of a naturally expensive drug over an extended period.

6. Trying heroin at 14 because they got their 18 year old brother to go to the gas station and buy some for them.

7. Deadly car wrecks attributable to DUIs as these drugs are so addictive that users are seldom not high but still perceive the need to get in a car and drive somewhere.

There is a large number of people here who didnt read your relevant debates, but will post bunch of long comments opposing your view.

You will essentially be debating 1 vs 5.

Its not favorable, since the large number of voices tends to drown facts coming from 1 person.

I am not saying that you shouldnt debate here about drugs.

I am just saying that debating rules dont apply here.

It will be much harder to get anywhere, as it often is with any widely opposed view.

It absolutely does make these drugs safer to consume. For example, when alcohol was illegal 10s of thousands of people died from poorly made and contaminated alcohol. People were being blinded and maimed by methanol contamination. This is what’s causing the massively high number of opioid overdoses today. No one knows what they’re taking. There are a few different labs that analyze street drugs in the US. The best one is drugsdata.org that is sanctioned by the DEA and funded by erowid. I will copy and paste the first three results for heroin results from that lab. 

“Fentanyl

Yes I am very realistic about the fact that legalization wouldn’t prevent addiction or quell that poor behavior. However you need to consider that less than 20,000 people die from heroin overdoses every year. Compared to 75k plus of multiple opioids at once. The reason people are dying from multiple opioids at once is the contamination issue you mentioned which absolutely would be stopped if we legalized drugs. The prescription opioid system is perfect evidence of that. Where the supply is regulated less than 1% of people die from those drugs, including fentanyl, dilaudid, morphine, oxycodone, hydrocodone, etc. 

Also less than 20% of drug users are addicts, that includes opioids. If we want to get in a source battle we can, but that statistic has been accepted for many years by multiple health agencies both governmentally funded and privately funded. If you look at specific drugs you’ll see higher percentages but that’s because those drugs are more available and cheaper, not because they’re more addictive. if you take the entire drug using population only 10-20% of them are addicts. Yet these laws make the80-90% of drug users face the same consequences as those addicts. They make them have to face the risk of death by contamination, going to prison, losing their homes, losing their jobs, losing their kids, etc. 

These laws do not help anyone. All they do is make drug use much more dangerous than it should be. It also gives the police force and our government a free pass to abuse anyone who may be using drugs, which happens repeatedly. 

Also there’s no such thing as a drug that is “so addictive.” All drugs have the same addiction potential. Addiction isn’t caused by drugs. Addiction is an environmentally induced disorder not a molecularly induced disorder. Addiction has been relentlessly studied since about 1990. We know the determining factors that lead to people becoming addicts. Whether it’s gambling, sex, porn, drug, or even exercise. None of it revolves around the activity the person is choosing to engage with in a damaging way. 

The determining factors are poverty, job loss, trauma, PTSD, mental illness, unrealistic expectations put on people since they were children, divorce, etc. it is not a disorder caused by a molecule. Addiction doesn’t exist solely because the diacetylmorphine (heroin) molecule exists. Or any other molecule you can name. So that’s just a very unscientific and incorrect way of viewing pharmacology as a whole. That type of thinking and that type of approach to drugs is part of the reason so many people die from them. The drug education is abhorrent in this country, which will obviously lead to bad situations. If people weren’t properly educated how to drive safely and there were no regulations in place to keep drivers safe more people would die as well. If cars didn’t have to meet safety standards, if there weren’t seat belts, speed limits, or tests many more people would die. That’s the situation drug users are put in right now. 

Bad education and bad policies will obviously lead to bad results. Our drug education is basically only telling people they’ll die or become addicted if they use drugs like heroin or fentanyl or meth. That’s like only telling people about car crashes when trying to teach people how to drive. And it’s a great ability because most people who use opioids or amphetamine are not addicts, just like most people who drive cars never get in bad accidents. But with one of those topics we are only focusing on the worst case scenarios that is statistically unlikely and very easily avoidable with good education. 

I’m also not advocating for these drugs to be sold at a gas station (even though alcohol and tobacco and THC products are which you probably don’t complain about) I want them sold out of pharmacies as most of them already are. Meth can be prescribed and is prescribed often under the name brand desoxyn. Fentanyl is prescribed in various forms, as is dilaudid. I just want the professionals able to sell the drugs to anyone over 21 that wants them. 

Addictive drugs are never safe to consume, recreationally.

End of story.

An overdose is an overdose, legal or otherwise.

How would making drugs legally available, reduce the overdose crisis.

I see no logical correlation between legal availability and a reduction in reckless behaviour.

Of course they can be safe. Alcohol is addictive, it can kill people from withdrawal alone. Yet I have a feeling you’d not say it’s impossible to safely consume alcohol. 

I have you a perfect correlation between a safe and regulated supply and less people dying. Hundreds of millions of people are prescribed to take opioids yearly in the US, it has dropped in recent years. Yet even at the peak of the prescriptions, less than 20,000 people were dying yearly from those drugs. Even though some of those people were addicts. 

Legalization will not quell addiction. However, it will lead to less overdoses. There is evidence everywhere from that. When you see that multiple studies have shown that the average number of drugs in a OD death system is 6, and then you see the results of street drug analysis the pattern is clear. People don’t know what they’re taking then we somehow blame drugs for that. If people knew what they were taking and they had access to clean and regulated drugs less people would die. As proven by the prescription opioid model. 

We can also look at Sweden who practices HAT (heroin assisted therapy) they administer heroin to heroin addicts up to three times a day. An extremely small percentage of those people die because the drug is pure and the dosages are known. Way less people die in those therapeutic treatments solely because the drug is pure. 

Ive never said it would reduce reckless behavior. But it will reduce the probability of death by consuming opioids in particular exponentially. Tens of thousands of non addicted drug users die every year from contamination. It’s not just addicts, and to pretend that is the case is to lie and is not represented by the data at all.

I'm on one prescription for a miscellaneous health condition. I take about one dose (pill) every 24 hours. If I miss a day, then I might not even realize it. I recently went 3 or 4 days straight without access to it and was perfectly fine. At the end of those 3 or 4 days I didn't feel any worse than I normally do. I probably don't need it to live a normal life, but I take it just in case.

What I can positively attest to is that if I'd spent 6 months as a heroin user, I wouldn't be able to casually manage 3 or 4 days without it. I'd feel very unpleasant, and my thoughts would be preoccupied with obtaining another fix.

So no, all drugs are not equally addictive, so far as addiction=dependency.

You're suggesting it isn't an addiction if society is set up so that said drug habit doesn't carry consequences? If society at large refused to change along with this proposed legalization of all drugs, wouldn't said legalization do harm? Isn't your proposal only viable if combined with dozens of other changes that are unlikely to happen?

This is fair, but the consequences for heroin or meth addiction go beyond overdosing. It's a truly miserable way to live that makes the attainment of happiness virtually impossible for most users.

There's a bizarre assumption that every American citizen would exactly know where to find a drug dealer if they wanted to use. That isn't true; making hardcore drugs available at gas stations would certainly make it available to a lot more people, and double or triple the number of people who use, since there are vast multitudes who would fall into that temptation if they easily could. Furthermore it would lower the psychological barrier to getting started, as the whole enterprise would feel "less risky" despite hardcore drug use being inherently risky.

The question you should be asking yourself is: is preventing several tens of thousands of overdose deaths worth converting hundreds of thousands if not several million people into drug addicts who aren't currently addicts?

Fair enough. But again, if only "those who need it" could buy heroin from the pharmacy, then street heroin would still exist for those who didn't get approved. If anyone could get it but their supply was rationed, then the same result, since few if any heroin users can bring themselves to stay at their original dosage/frequency of use without upping it.

Thank you for the thought out reply, truly 99% of the time I have this conversation it seems like my opponent doesn’t think about what they’re saying. 

I agree with your sentiment about addiction. However I should clarify my stance and it’s my fault I wasn’t clear. Obviously stuff like ACE inhibitors don’t really have addiction potential because they don’t change the state of mind of the user a noticeable way. I was speaking more about drugs they’re used recreationally solely due to their psychoactive effects. But I will also say that addiction and dependence are very, very different things. Which is why I explicitly just brought up ACE inhibitors. Dependence on those drugs is a necessary thing and dependence on drugs in general isn’t a bad thing that should be looked down upon. There’s no stigma to being dependent on caffeine, but there is stigma surrounding heroin dependence for example and I don’t think that’s logical nor does it make sense. 

Also, this idea of “6 months as a heroin user” is false. Or at least you need to describe it much more clearly than that for your statement to be true. For example if you’re taking heroin once a week for 6 months I guarantee you will have no withdrawal. If you take it once a day for 6 months you may not even experience withdrawal depending on the dose you were taking. I’ve experienced opioid withdrawal just to see what it was about. I took an opioid every day, twice a day, in relatively large doses but not enough to incapacitate me or anything. I abruptly quit and I felt a little weird, like I had a mild case of the flu. There were no changes to my mood, just diarrhea and a runny nose. Totally manageable. Now don’t think I’m saying all opioid withdrawal is like what I experienced. It is highly variable based on things like dose, how often it’s being taken, and for how long it was consistently taken for. 

But let’s compare even the worst heroin withdrawal possible which can lead to hospitalization due to the absurd amount of shitting the person will do. I can explain why that is, but I’ll assume you know unless you ask. If we compare that to alcohol or benzodiazepines, it’s nothing. Withdrawal from alcohol can kill you, by causing grand mal seizures. If you’d like to know why that is I can explain. So harping on heroin is a pet peeve of mine. It’s not what people think it is and only has a bad reputation because of bullshit news reporting and unscientific approaches to the drug. Nothing about its pharmacology is especially dangerous, addictive, or damaging. Same with fentanyl. Opioids toxicologically are some of the safest drugs on the planet. The vast majority of people who take them (if they know what they’re taking) face no serious side effects from doing so, even if they take them for years at a time. The withdrawal is easily avoidable and is avoided by most opioid users. 

“You're suggesting it isn't an addiction if society is set up so that said drug habit doesn't carry consequences?”

No that’s not at all what I’m suggesting I apologize if my phrasing was unclear. What I’m saying is that addiction isn’t caused by drugs. It’s caused by certain life situations or imperfections that lead to people needing to escape their environment or state of mind. This is why there are gambling addicts, porn addicts, sex addicts, etc. it has nothing to do with whatever activity they turn to for their escape, and that includes drugs. Addiction should absolutely 100% be looked down upon and avoided at all costs. I think we can agree there.

However most drug users do avoid addiction. 80-90% of them are not addicts. I also want to be clear about something, I am not doing this to enable addicts. But I will admit that there is a possibility that it would do just that. We do not have this problem with alcohol, addicts can buy as much as they want and no one is advocating for prohibition of alcohol again, because it failed and killed more people and led to organized crime, government corruption, police brutality etc. all of these things have happened again. It didn’t work with one drug, why on earth would we expect it to work when we extend the number of prohibited drugs into the hundreds? 

I’m advocating for this change to benefit the majority. I am a responsible drug user, basically all of my friends are too, and my parents and I bet you know a lot of people that are. Whether their drug of choice is cannabis, alcohol, tobacco, opioids, stimulants, psychedelics, etc. most people who use drugs are responsible with it. But these laws not only risk ending their life because their supply is unregulated, they’re also risking their life due to the possibility of prison. I have children, I’m in college, I have a high paying job, and a 4 bedroom house. My favorite drugs are opioids, I don’t like injecting or snorting anything so I wouldn’t use heroin even if it was widely available. But I should not have to risk losing everything I just mentioned because I enjoy Kratom or oxycodone. Especially while people can sit right next to a police officer and drink alcohol with no concerns. 

“But again, if only "those who need it" could buy heroin from the pharmacy, then street heroin would still exist for those who didn't get approved”

I’m not saying people have to be approved. Anyone over the age of 21 should be able to buy any drug they want to use. The drugs should be made by Americans, sold by Americans, and analyzed by Americans to ensure quality and purity. 

I also am completely understanding that the black market wouldn’t go away immediately. To be honest with you that isn’t my problem. Most people I know that use drugs would absolutely pay more for a regulated supply of drugs. People already do, in my home state of Arkansas the medical cannabis was very expensive compared to the street, but that didn’t stop us from making over $1B in revenue from it in this small state. An interesting thing to consider, I’m not necessarily saying this is directly applicable to drugs like heroin, but it’s interesting. The quality of street cannabis has increased dramatically since legalization took place. A similar phenomenon could unfold with other drugs as well. 

Another thing I’ll point out is that you have no evidence more addicts would exist if there was an increase in drug availability. I’m not saying you’re necessarily wrong, but it’s hard to base an argument off of that when there’s just no evidence for it. The 10-20% of drug users are addicts statistic has been around since there 90’s. I read a book recently that was written by a psychiatrist in the 1990’s about addiction. They had much more loose definition of addiction than we use today, and even with that loose definition the 10-20% statistic was true, according to the data provided in the book. I’ll try to find it so I can give you the title and author name. Hundreds of studies have been done on rats and humans and the data are very clear that addiction is not a common outcome to drug use and that attractive alternatives almost always beat out the drug, even with addicts. Dr. Carl Hart with the NIH has some amazing studies on that specific aspect of addiction in particular. 

“Furthermore it would lower the psychological barrier to getting started, as the whole enterprise would feel "less risky" despite hardcore drug use being inherently risky.”

What exactly constitutes hardcore drug use? What is a hard drug? What is hardcore use? Drug use is risky, of course it is. We are allowed to do a lot of risky things in western culture. The presence of risk alone almost never constitutes banning an activity. It just calls for the government to pass regulations to make that activity less risky. That isn’t happening with drug use so of course people are dying. 

The last point I’ll make, I hope you read all of it im a writer so I’m long winded. The last point is that we need to consider what happens when drugs are ‘effectively’ removed from the street. People turn to other drugs. This is why fentanyl was introduced in the first place. It wasn’t illegal to purchase fentanyl or fentanyl analogs until relatively recently. You could order them directly to your front door. This comes from the research chemical market, the grey market, or the NPS market whatever you’d like to call it. The first scenario this took place in was MPPP back in the 80’s. It was sold as a heroin replacement. MPPP is a relatively safe drug that has been used medicinally. However, unless you’re a skilled chemist it is incredibly difficult to create MPPP without a byproduct called MPTP making it into the final product. MPTP is a neurotoxin that causes the permanent onset of Parkinson’s syndrome after one dose even if it is small. Thousands of people came down with Parkinson’s disease because they wanted an opioid high and their favorite drug was hard to come by. And MPTP wasn’t illegal at the time. This has happened so many times throughout history. MPTP, synthetic cathinones (bath salts), synthetic cannabinoids, fentanyl, now Xylazine. This is a direct result of prohibition that leads people to taking different drugs. These different drugs have different potencies, durations, toxicity profiles, etc. and many people aren’t drug knowledgeable so they just take it like they would the drug it’s serving to replace. This leads to death, and many other concerning things. 

It will always be a cat and mouse game, and every now and then the mouse is extremely dangerous in certain situations. Like fentanyl is right now, like MPTP was in the 80’s like bath salts were in the 2010’s. Prohibition never works. It causes more harm than good. It ends more lives than the drugs themselves do, and it ruins more lives than the drugs themselves do. 

There's a huge difference between  legalization and a controlled therapy.

In the UK we already use synthetic opioids as a controlled therapy, but this relies entirely upon the will and cooperation of the patient. 

The reckless will still overdose, legally or not.

So the current  culture of supply and distribution might change, which might affect the culture of drug use in relation to the addicted.

Perhaps that is what you are driving at.

Though are you certain that the legalization of addictive drug supply and usage, wouldn't encourage a wider level of participation.

Sure there’s a difference between controlled therapy and uncontrolled use of a drug. However the point I’m making is that if they used the products that are available on the streets those patients would be dying just as often. Because they’re using pure products no one dies at these clinics. 

“Though are you certain that the legalization of addictive drug supply and usage, wouldn't encourage a wider level of participation.”

No I’m not certain of that, but I’m not convinced that’s something that needs to be avoided. Most people who use drugs face no serious consequences from their use, unless they don’t know what they’re taking. If the product is controlled, there’s quality control and it’s made by professionals I don’t think it would be a bad thing if more people were using opioids or amphetamines or psychedelics. Tobacco kills more than every other drug combined. More people use opioids in the US than cigarettes. These drugs are much safer than drugs we have no problem with millions of people using and I don’t see a reason to not apply that same level of acceptance to these other drugs. They’re less toxic and less deadly. 

Well, tobacco kills more people because more people use it...Same with alcohol.

Perhaps because it is legal.

Though the damage is mostly long term, rather than an immediate reaction to an overdose, or a bad reaction to an impure substance.

And people should not die as a result of clinically controlled treatment.

Nonetheless, the term "drugs" is something of a generalisation, referring to potentially dangerous chemical substances.

And of course, some substances are potentially more dangerous than others. Especially when an immediate overdose is ingested. 

Eat a bowl of apple pips and you will OD on cyanide.

Even so, I don't think that apples are addictive.

Which is why apples are legal and heroin isn't.

“Well, tobacco kills more people because more people use it...Same with alcohol.”

That isn’t true. More Americans use opioids than cigarettes, cigarettes are responsible for about 90% of tobacco deaths. Also that line of thinking doesn’t make any sense. Less people use tobacco than alcohol, tobacco kills more people. Less people use alcohol than caffeine, alcohol kills more people. The amount of deaths a that will be linked to drugs will be directly related to the toxicity profile of said drug. Opioids are much less toxic than alcohol, at least classical opioids are. The more obscure ones like MPTP are different. 

Again your logic is inconsistent. Addiction potential 1: isn’t related to drugs at all 2: has never kept us from allowing people use alcohol or nicotine. You need a different reason than that because it’s immediately proven wrong when you consider the drugs that are already legal.

The number one cause of overdose deaths is the toxic drug supply. A very well done study out of Canada that was published a couple months ago went into great detail about this. To quell overdoses we need to regulate the drug supply. As I’ve mentioned, and you’ve yet to engage with it, this exact same thing happened during alcohol prohibition. People were being blinded, maimed, and killed due to methanol contamination in alcohol. That problem went away as soon as we started regulating the supply.

It shouldn’t be controversial to say that the drug supply needs to be regulated. There will never be a drug free America, ever. We should not pass laws that makes drug users ingest an unregulated supply because we have seen the results of this since 1970. It didn’t work with alcohol, it led to excess deaths. Of course it won’t work if we extend the number of prohibited drugs into the hundreds. The drug supply needs to be regulated. There is evidence everywhere that this would quell overdose numbers. Whether it’s the actual science of pharmacology and psychopharmacology or basing it off of drug supplies that are regulated. The results are clear, pure drugs kill less people. 

The consequences of tobacco and alcohol ingestion, though similar in terms of potential detriment, are distinctively different in terms of what is generally regarded as overdosing.

As for the quality of tobacco and alcohol products:

Despite legalization and regulation, black-market trade still exists, therefore the quality of all products cannot be guaranteed.

And this can be said for virtually all consumer products.

So it's fair to suggest that the legalization and regulation of other potentially addictive chemical substances, such as opiates, will not eradicate the black market trade of low quality products.

In the UK; the availability of free rehabilitation programmes involving synthetic opiate provision, has not reduced the level of opiate related deaths. Nor has it reduced levels of addiction.

Nonetheless, I will concede that the regulation of certain potentially harmful chemical substances, may affect overdose rates, but only where people choose to comply with a regulatory system.

Which is certainly not the same as proposing that the legalization of all drugs will end the overdose crisis.

Unfortunately, despite all the relevant information being out there, there is seemingly very little that can be done to stop certain people doing stupid things.

“The consequences of tobacco and alcohol ingestion, though similar in terms of potential detriment, are distinctively different in terms of what is generally regarded as overdosing  

Yes I know people who make moonshine. However the vast majority of people who consume alcohol purchase it from a regulated environment. Or they purchase kits sold by alcohol companies to make their own. Even the people who make their own alcohol are usually buying synthesis products that are regulated. 

That would happen with other drugs as well eventually. Most people who use drugs would absolutely rather have their product from a dispensary. 

Also you say we can’t stop stupid people from doing stupid things. That’s a part of my argument… people will always use drugs. We need to regulate their product so there is a steep drop off in the likelihood of overdose. As I’ve said many studies have shown that the number one cause of overdose is the toxic drug supply. If you want to stop overdoses, fix the drug supply so that it isn’t toxic and so if is predictable and regulated. If you do that, less people will die. That has been shown in Portugal. Where they didn’t legalize everything, but decriminalized all drugs and rolled out amazing infrastructure in terms of being able to test their substances. They had one of the highest overdose rates in Europe before their reform. Now they have the lowest by a mile. For comparison around 300 Americans out of 1,000,000 die from drug overdoses. That same stat for Portugal is 6 out 1,000,000 the data are very clear across many different types of evidence. If people know what they’re taking, even addicts, less people die. 

“In the UK; the availability of free rehabilitation programmes involving synthetic opiate provision, has not reduced the level of opiate related deaths. Nor has it reduced levels of addiction” 

Of course it hasn’t. Western rehab sucks, people don’t want to go and it almost never works. Which is why I brought up Swedens rehab practices where they administer the drug but it’s pure and they’ve seen a remarkable drop off in OD deaths. Free rehab does nothing to fix the main issue with drug overdose deaths, which is the toxic supply. I’m not sure how you’re equating the rehab thing to drug overdoses when we know it’s the toxic drug supply killing people. They’re separate things that have nothing to do with one another. As I’ve also pointed out, it’s not just drug addicts dying. It’s responsible users and first time users as well. A good metric for this is to look at the number of deaths in children that are under the age of 18. They’ve seen a dramatic increase in drug overdoses in recent years as the drug supply became more and more toxic. If you don’t know what you’re taking, there’s a much higher chance you will die. If you do know what you’re taking there’s a much lower chance you’ll die. That shouldn’t be surprising. It also shouldn’t be controversial to say we need to regulate the drug supply as much as possible. It will kill less people, we have many lines of evidence from that from independent sources and professions and even countries. 

Yep, we seem to have reached a point of general agreement.

Though, as I conceded previously, the Swedish example still relies upon cooperation.

Also, in terms of both social culture and population Sweden is markedly different to the USA and the UK. So one must be careful when trying to make direct comparisons.