If fentanyl were legalized, how much would you personally consume?
News flash: nobody does/does not do drugs based on legality.
The Rat Park experiment showed that rats in enriched, social environments consumed far less drugs than isolated rats, highlighting how environment strongly affects addiction.
In Defending the Undefendable, Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson’s chapter “The Pusher” argues that drug dealers, often vilified as destructive criminals, play a complex social role by supplying a demand that already exists. He suggests that punishing them does little to stop drug use and may actually exacerbate harm by driving the trade underground, increasing prices and danger. Since demand for illegal drugs is inelastic, higher prices directly leads to increase in petty crimes like theft that are often motivated by addiction. I.e. addicts wouldn't have to steal as many catalytic converters if drugs were pennies per day instead of hundreds of dollars. And it's only expensive because it's illegal. It's kind of ironic.
Dark speculation here, but addiction may even be an evolutionary coping mechanism, providing just enough short-term reward to keep individuals alive when life feels unbearable. The alternative to addiction might be even worse given e.g. an unusually strong biological emotional response to a (possibly accurate) negative assessment of their personal reality.
I engaged in good faith, made a nuanced point, and you open with an insult? I appreciate the knowledge you bring, but I’m not exactly sure what you’re defending here. Breathe man, we’re all in this together.
I opened with a rhetorical question, not an insult. The answer is obviously "the same as I consumed before it was legalized" - presumably zero fentanyl use for you whether it's legal or illegal. I was not implying you do fentanyl lol. I was implying your decision not to do fentanyl has nothing to do with it being illegal.
99% reading this thread is not the problem. They are not taking your hypothetical offer.
But there is a small slice of the population that would take your offer. The small percent of people that would take more would have devastating effects on a community.
My point is that it's always available whether it's legal or not. It's always available. It's just a question of how much violence, impurity, and price gouging you want to create by making it illegal. That's the only lever of control available. Abuse of prescription drugs is arguably a bigger problem than illegal drugs.
The Rat Park experiment has never been directly replicated and rat behavior is quite different from humans. I wouldn't draw any policy conclusions from it.
News flash: nobody does/does not do drugs based on legality.
The Rat Park experiment showed that rats in enriched, social environments consumed far less drugs than isolated rats, highlighting how environment strongly affects addiction.
In Defending the Undefendable, Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson’s chapter “The Pusher” argues that drug dealers, often vilified as destructive criminals, play a complex social role by supplying a demand that already exists. He suggests that punishing them does little to stop drug use and may actually exacerbate harm by driving the trade underground, increasing prices and danger. Since demand for illegal drugs is inelastic, higher prices directly leads to increase in petty crimes like theft that are often motivated by addiction. I.e. addicts wouldn't have to steal as many catalytic converters if drugs were pennies per day instead of hundreds of dollars. And it's only expensive because it's illegal. It's kind of ironic.
Dark speculation here, but addiction may even be an evolutionary coping mechanism, providing just enough short-term reward to keep individuals alive when life feels unbearable. The alternative to addiction might be even worse given e.g. an unusually strong biological emotional response to a (possibly accurate) negative assessment of their personal reality.