Alcohol causing 20 times the harm of meth, police float tighter regulation
Alcohol causing 20 times the harm of meth, police float tighter regulation
Police estimate the harm from alcohol to be about $7.8 billion a year.
TL;DR:
- Alcohol $7.8b
- All illicits: $1.8b
- Meth: $0.365b
I wanted a figure for cannabis and found this from 2020:
- All illicits: $1.9b
- Meth: $0.824b
- Cannabis: $0.911
I notice that the per kilograms measure for harm is also useful to account for volume of usage, but think that per 'dose' would be better.
- Meth: $1.1m per kg with 743kg consumption
- Cannabis: $0.35m per kg with 58000kg consumption
These figures include 'associative crime' as harm. So it apparent counts the cost of buying it as harm, it also counts the tax loss of that expenditure, so IMHO it skews unfavourabley to higher expenditure. But put that aside.
These figures show that all illicit drugs combined are less harmful to society than alcohol, and tautologically the harm is inflated by illegality.
You're viewing a single thread.
Proof that methamphetamine should be legal.
I feel like you're right, but perhaps not for the reason you might be implying.
Meth causes a tiny fraction of the harm of alcohol because there isn't a legal meth store on every corner with meth companies sponsoring rugby games. Police are talking about where their efforts should be placed rather than suggesting it would be better if meth was legal and alcohol illegal.
However, in my view meth should be decriminalised, because the justice system is the wrong place to treat heath problems.
Decriminalization is the worse of both worlds, though.
With full legalization you can have control over the impurities in it and the revenue from it.
Decriminalisation is the start, the first step.
Once use of drugs is no longer a legal problem and solely a heath problem then it's safer for everyone.
One cannot just sell booze or tabacco out the boot of ones car either, neither should any other drug dealer. There's already precedent for how to manage legal drugs.
How does the Scandinavian model work? Something about the govt providing the drugs?
I know Portugal did it with a huge success.
Yeah I was just reading up on it but it seems they didn't go full legalisation, but had authorisations for addicts. In addition they made addiction treatment much more available.
From my understanding they didn't really legalise drugs, but instead tried to send addicts to rehab instead of prison.
Heard an interesting perspective from a criminal lawyer on this. They think we should copy the Portugal model because meth is attracting the cartels like Sinaloa, and cartel presence normally corrupts police.
We have a tendency to use prison to handle all behaviour we don't like, when realistically each behaviour has much more effective interventions, but it's different per behaviour so it's harder to organise and coordinate, and especially campaign on. It's easier to just build more prisons, even if it's not effective.
The trouble with that is, we get so much more crime this way. Like you say, there's much better interventions.
I'm not sure that it's just logistics and fear of the unknown (though given how long it took Aucklanders to be okay with building a subway, that obviously comes into play)!😀
But talking to people over the years I've come to the conclusion that there's a sizeable chunk of people for whom punishing criminals is much more important than having less crime. I can understand feeling that way, but emotions probably isn't the best thing to base policy on.
A study in the US found that different judges gave vastly different sentences for the same crime. One of the factors they found is that sentences were very different depending on if the judge thought prison was for punishment vs prevention or rehabilitation.
The punishment angle is still very popular, even if we know that it makes crime worse long term. You can even see plenty of it on Lemmy in the right threads.
I'm not an expert in Scandinavian drug laws but if you figure them out I'm always curious about new information.
Hmm I did some reading but didn't find anything about any countries that have made much progress towards lagalising all drugs.
You seem keen on legalising all drugs, did you have a view on how that would work?
Well, you'd start off by legalizing them and use the revenue to put in place a treatment network, regulations and enforcement.
What does legalising mean to you compared to decriminalising? Could I buy meth at the local bottle store?
Legalization typically means you buy it from a government agency or government regulated supplier.
Decriminalization usually means personal possession and use is not illegal but you still buy it through the black market.
I’m sure if you asked around you could buy meth most places now but I’m not sure about your local bottle store.
Ah thanks for the clarification. Yes that does sound like a better option, possibly with a Portugal style policy of needing a waiver to allow you access to the government supply.
There is definitely a place for legalization of some drugs; but there also needs to be an understanding on what the side effects would be of massive increases in usage.
Meth is some very addictive shit, look how hard we were working to get rid of smoking. I don't think introducing another massively addictive substance into the mix is a great idea.
By most accounts meth is less addictive then tobacco or alcohol . We don't think of it that way because people usually know a lot of people who drink responsibly but we often only see problematic meth users mostly because it's usually people with problems that use meth. If normal healthy people had access to meth they would probably fall into similar use patterns that they have with alcohol, some people using it only on occasions, some more frequently and some that become full on addicts. That's horrible for the people that do become addicts but if they have the genetic and emotional disposition for addiction they'd probably become addicted to something any way, whether that be illegal meth, or some other legal or illegal substance. Prohibition does not stop addiction because addicts will find some way to get there high.
This isn't to say that it should be sold by just anyone and go by the rules of capitalism, as capitalism and addictive substances do not mix well. It should only be sold in non-profit or government run stores to remove profit motive, and there should be non-discript packaging with no advertising allowed FOR ALL ADDICTIVE SUBSTANCES not just meth. The main problem with a lot of these drugs is capitalism looking for endless growth at the cost of human lives.
Making drugs illegal hasn’t worked.
Agreed.
But the situation is more nuanced than simply saying everything is up for grabs.
Weed should be fully legal, controlled quality and trusted. Tax revenue would help pay for health complications from the usage.
There needs to be a harm based assessment of each substance.
Everything should be legalized.
I haven’t simply said everything is up for grabs, that was you.
Every comment you've made here has been completely devoid of nuance, insight, or intelligence, and quite frankly, you sound like a bit of a moron.
Methamphetamine is an incredibly addictive and harmful substance, with drastic health risks to it's consumption, and making it easier to access is a terrible idea.
Every comment you've made here has been completely devoid of nuance, insight, or intelligence, and quite frankly, you sound like a bit of a moron.
You sound like my university professors.
Hahaha
If you've genuinely been to university, this shows that intelligence and education don't always follow one another.
Hey I can handle you calling me a moron but implying I’m lying is a step too far.
Do you typically attack people personally because you disagree with what they are saying?
I'm pointing out that people who hold a viewpoint that one thing is the way to go in all situations, with no exceptions, is something I typically associate with a lack of critical thinking ability.
Every comment you've made here has been completely devoid of nuance, insight, or intelligence, and quite frankly, you sound like a bit of a moron.
It sounds like you’re just insulting my intelligence.
Methamphetamine Is so highly addictive and has such bad side effects that the FDA approved it for a treatment for ADHD and obesity in children.
It’s called Desoxyn.
How many of the negative thing associated with it are just because it’s illegal? Have you spent any time thinking about that or do you just like insulting people?
Heheh.
Seriously though I wish professors didn't say stuff like that. It's bad pedagogy.
What is this massive increase of usage you assume would happen? All drugs could be legalised without offering them for sale with minimal checks like alcohol currently is.
I’m not sure there are huge numbers of kiwis just itching to get a meth habit, if only it were legal.
I don't think there is anyone out there, who is not starting a meth habit because it is illegal.
But lowering of social stigma, no chance of a criminal record and knowing you will get clean product; all will put upward pressure on usage numbers.
As legal as alcohol at least that is.