The first two doses of Narcan are free, the third time, you die

[De Selby]

I oppose the public funding.  The individual should pay for the services that saved him.

So if we find money in the wallets of ODing junkies we can give them narcan? Should you start carrying a cashiers check in a clearly visible place for wilderness rescue?

[De Selby]

Also, one may as well point out that the Bible criticizes drunkenness in both the Old and New-fangled Testaments. Which I think can be safely extrapolated to drug abuse, generally.

Which doesn't mean anyone has to believe it. I'm just sayin...

This. It's why this is even a debate despite the huge economic costs and cost to personal freedoms.

Biblical views on drugs have visited a biblical scale plague on America.

[Fitz]

Of course, if substances of known purity and strength were readily available from trusted sources... would this even be a debate?

The law is worse than the problem it purports to solve

Much like DUI problems in counties with blue laws. But hey at least they're driving to the next county to do their drinking! Keeps the dui death stats on the other side of the county line

[Perd Hapley]

This. It's why this is even a debate despite the huge economic costs and cost to personal freedoms.

Biblical views on drugs have visited a biblical scale plague on America.

Ah, Chicken Little has found the problem!    It's the Bible's detailed policy proposals on illicit drugs!

And the rest of us have found the new SJW trigger: stoned-shaming!

[Scout26]

Of course, if substances of known purity and strength were readily available from trusted sources... would this even be a debate?

The law is worse than the problem it purports to solve

Much like DUI problems in counties with blue laws. But hey at least they're driving to the next county to do their drinking! Keeps the dui death stats on the other side of the county line

^^^^This. 

[Firethorn]

Of course, if substances of known purity and strength were readily available from trusted sources... would this even be a debate?

It would certainly be harder to accidentally or unknowingly overdose.  Which, given that most addicts don't want to die, knowing overdose don't happen much.  While there are lots of accidental prescription overdoses, the rise we're seeing from former pill poppers switching to heroin is troubling.  Heroin is cheap, affordable, but not as much quality control and potency is often unknown due to fentanyl. 

It's the Bible's detailed policy proposals on illicit drugs!

Over time, I've found that 'biblical views' rarely have as much to do with the words in the Bible as they do about the views people claim come from the Bible.  A lot of Bible thumpers don't seem to actually read the book they're beating on.

[Fly320s]

So if we find money in the wallets of ODing junkies we can give them narcan? Should you start carrying a cashiers check in a clearly visible place for wilderness rescue?

No.  Let them die.  No loss to society from either group.

If the hikers want to think ahead and pay for a rescue insurance policy, then they will get rescued.

It all boils down to personal responsibility.  Who is responsible for saving the life of the hiker, or druggie, or helmetless motorcycle rider?  The individual and no one else.  If the individual wants to risk his life doing stupid stuff, and hasn't planned ahead for negative outcomes, then he can save his own ass.  The first responders are off the hook.

And the courts agree with me.  No cop or doctor or EMT or individual is required by law to perform a life saving service.

I will throw a bone out to normal people doing normal, reasonable things. 

[De Selby]

No.  Let them die.  No loss to society from either group.

If the hikers want to think ahead and pay for a rescue insurance policy, then they will get rescued.

It all boils down to personal responsibility.  Who is responsible for saving the life of the hiker, or druggie, or helmetless motorcycle rider?  The individual and no one else.  If the individual wants to risk his life doing stupid stuff, and hasn't planned ahead for negative outcomes, then he can save his own ass.  The first responders are off the hook.

And the courts agree with me.  No cop or doctor or EMT or individual is required by law to perform a life saving service.

I will throw a bone out to normal people doing normal, reasonable things. 

You're deliberately missing the point there.  It's one thing to say we should be required to find and save people.  Another thing indeed to say "knowing they're there, should we refuse help when we'd ordinarily give it just because the cause of the illness is a drug?".

Again, the basis of this view that drugs are an unreasonable risk is fundamentally biblical/moral. It's about judging users.

Me, I don't see why being intoxicated is cause for a person to be treated badly.

[lee n. field]

This. It's why this is even a debate despite the huge economic costs and cost to personal freedoms.

Biblical views on drugs have visited a biblical scale plague on America.

"Biblical views" -- how so?

[Fly320s]

Again, the basis of this view that drugs are an unreasonable risk is fundamentally biblical/moral. It's about judging users.

Certain drugs are an unreasonable risk.  It has nothing to do with religion or morals.  Yes, I do judge others as do you and everyone else.  Stupid people who play stupid games with themselves should not be saved at the risk and expense of others.

Other drugs are reasonably safe.  Marijuana is safe in that a user probably will not die from using it nor will the user require help from another person.  A person can OD and die with alcohol, but the chances are slim.  Other drugs and activites have varying degrees of risk.  The most risk, when talking about drug use, comes from using high potency drugs with unknown ingredients in unknown doses, such as heroin, meth, PCP, etc.  The people who use those drugs are taking an unreasonable risk with their health and safety, yet they expect someone else to save them.  They know the risk, yet they choose to take the drug anyway.  In that case, I say let them save themselves.

[Hawkmoon]

Of course, if substances of known purity and strength were readily available from trusted sources... would this even be a debate?

If substances of known purity and strength were available from trusted sources, people would want something stronger and procure it from un-trustworthy sources.

[Perd Hapley]

A lot of Bible thumpers don't seem to actually read the book they're beating on.

So, they're like non-Christian lawyers that live in Australia?

You're deliberately missing the point there.  It's one thing to say we should be required to find and save people.  Another thing indeed to say "knowing they're there, should we refuse help when we'd ordinarily give it just because the cause of the illness is a drug?".

Again, the basis of this view that drugs are an unreasonable risk is fundamentally biblical/moral. It's about judging users.

That verse about refusing to help people with moral problems is one of my very favorite in the entire Bible. It's almost as good as the verse about asset forfeiture, and repealing the fourth amendment.

Ah, being a Christian. We're terrible people for trying to help babies not get killed, and then we're terrible people when libertarians don't want to help druggies. It's terribly fun!

[Fly320s]

If substances of known purity and strength were available from trusted sources, people would want something stronger and procure it from un-trustworthy sources.

Yes, especially if the drug was cheaper or easier to get.  Damn those free market ideas!

[lupinus]

If substances of known purity and strength were available from trusted sources, people would want something stronger and procure it from un-trustworthy sources.

Hence the rampant unstoppable Force that is the high proof alcohol underworld, selling jars of Uber high proof on the street corners.

Make it as easy as hitting the store for a pack of smokes or a six pack and very, very few folks are likely to bother unless you burden it with stupidly high taxes. And even then most are going to go for the legal know source.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[Fly320s]

There is plenty of black market sales for the under 21 crowd. 

[Firethorn]

If substances of known purity and strength were available from trusted sources, people would want something stronger and procure it from un-trustworthy sources.

That assumes that stronger things are available from untrustworthy sources.  It would be quite possible to sell undiluted fentanyl under a legalization scheme, though I think I'd require a class or really hefty waiver first.

It also disregards the prevalence of popping pills diverted from our legal pharmaceutical system before the latest crackdown. 

As lupinus mentions, this just isn't born out in the real world unless we put stupid levels of taxes on it. 

There is plenty of black market sales for the under 21 crowd.

But, correct me if I'm wrong, there's no organized gangs out there shipping alcohol across the country, even smuggling it across borders, distilling it down in Mexico using lead pipes and spiking it with methanol and battery acid to 'give it a bit more kick', right?

We're talking more about the occasional clerk who'll sell without ID to teens that he knows, homeless drunks that will split the 'take' with a teenager willing to fund a couple bottles of something, 21 year olds wanting to be 'cool' with the teenage crowd, etc...  The product they're selling is identical to the legal stuff, just diverted.

It's when the black market people get into manufacturing that you get the horrors of non-existent quality control.

[lupinus]

There is plenty of black market sales for the under 21 crowd. 

Sure, but it's relatively small. And it's not exactly prone to violence, funding gangs, etc. Same can be said for moonshine. It's small potato's and mainly a way to make some side cash at best.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[cordex]

If substances of known purity and strength were available from trusted sources, people would want something stronger and procure it from un-trustworthy sources.

Maybe, but unless prices are extremely high on the legal market I doubt it.  In a theoretical "all the dopes is legal" scenario I think folk would be plenty content with uncut opium or uncut heroin or uncut cocaine or uncut whatever their drug of choice is.  They might use more to get a more powerful high, but we're talking about some pretty potent drugs already.  Unless someone comes out with a drug that lasts longer or is significantly cheaper than what is available on the open market or just gives a "better" high, I don't think people would prefer un-trustworthy sources just because something is theoretically more potent.

[MechAg94]

There will be some small percentage of users looking for the better high with stronger drugs.  However, I think that should be a small percentage.  For stuff like marijuana, those people would be growing their own.  I am not sure how easy that would be when it comes to other drugs. 

[Firethorn]

Maybe, but unless prices are extremely high on the legal market I doubt it.  In a theoretical "all the dopes is legal" scenario I think folk would be plenty content with uncut opium or uncut heroin or uncut cocaine or uncut whatever their drug of choice is.  They might use more to get a more powerful high, but we're talking about some pretty potent drugs already.  Unless someone comes out with a drug that lasts longer or is significantly cheaper than what is available on the open market or just gives a "better" high, I don't think people would prefer un-trustworthy sources just because something is theoretically more potent.

Hell, under a 'completely legal' scenario, couldn't they be switching because somebody came out with something safer, with a "cleaner" high?

Though I'll note that I don't consider "legal" the same as "unregulated".  Truth in advertising rules, container markings, ingredient lists, etc...

And yeah, 'uncut' traditional drugs would be a tough line to beat.

There will be some small percentage of users looking for the better high with stronger drugs.  However, I think that should be a small percentage.  For stuff like marijuana, those people would be growing their own.  I am not sure how easy that would be when it comes to other drugs.

I tend to think that 'growing your own' will tend to remain a hobby for relatively few users.  Growing your own will be for the same reasons people have their own crops and such.  Many don't have the space or time.  Same as how despite it being $40 to start brewing your own beer, most don't bother.

[Fitz]

If substances of known purity and strength were available from trusted sources, people would want something stronger and procure it from un-trustworthy sources.

yeah, it's hard to get stronger than pure, uncut cocaine or heroin. The fentanyl problem has nothing to do with demand and everything to do with cutting the difficult to smuggle product with a dangerous, but easier one. The high doesn't get any better, it just becomes easier to die.


But, you have a point. after all, the 200 proof moonshine epidemic is really tearing America apart.

[just Warren]

You can barely even find mason jars and crockery jugs these days!

[Angel Eyes]

But, you have a point. after all, the 200 proof moonshine epidemic is really tearing America apart.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everclear_(alcohol)

Ethanol cannot be concentrated by ordinary distillation to greater than approximately 96% by weight because at that concentration, the vapor has the same ratio of water to alcohol as the liquid, a phenomenon known as azeotropy.[10] The highest concentration of ethanol generally available for human consumption is 190 proof (95% alcohol by volume), which is about 92.4% ethanol by weight.

[Fitz]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everclear_(alcohol)

ok, 190 proof then.


Point stands. It's not the strength that's killing people, it's the inconsistency

[RoadKingLarry]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6uEMOeDZsA