Prohibition works fine well enough, or rather, much better than most alternatives.
If Opium were for sale in every corner store (even if it was safely packaged, measured etc) we would have a healthcare epidemic that would shatter society. About 10% of society would be addicted very quickly, another 20% would have some fallout pretty quick, and that's enough to take everything down.
Opiates are extremely addictive, to the point that doctors now give you the 'minimum number of pills' you need after surgery, not the whole bottle.
The #1 cause opiate problem is addiction to legal pain killers and it's not a 'street problem' it's a 'suburbs problem'.
So if the most conscientious, bill paying, regular folk in society can't even handle access to their regular pain killers, there's no hope for us otherwise.
And now with fentanyl which is wiping people out - the discussion becomes moot because it's just so powerful it's not even a debate.
Most hard drugs should be prohibited and that's just the world we live in. We give up small rights, like the ability to smoke heroin, because society at large can't deal with it, and that statistically probably includes you and I anyhow.
So maybe soften punishment or whatever, decriminalize, fine.
But I don't even think most 'harm reduction' works - in 20 years of 'insite' in Vancouver, that disgusting, drug ridden area is thriving in it's ability to keep people addicts and screwed up.
As for money laundering, it's easier than we think to stop, but the BC government is soft, inept, and everyone is addicted to the money anyhow. Specific requirements and transactional requirements for mortgages, registration of accounts, limits and controls at casinos (you cash out more than $!K you provide an ID etc.)
Corrupt money from Asia is Canada's economic heroin.
>>If Opium were for sale in every corner store (even if it was safely packaged, measured etc) we would have a healthcare epidemic that would shatter society.
Smoking has been decreasing for 60 years, despite being legal, and that's due to anti-smoking campaigns and growing social rejection of smoking. And nicotine doesn't kill a significant proportion of its users within five years the way heroin does.
Drug-use would be heavily discouraged if it were legal. Reducing use through social pressure seems to me to be far more effective than reducing it through legal punishment of those that buy, sell and possess it.
>>The #1 cause opiate problem is addiction to legal pain killers and it's not a 'street problem' it's a 'suburbs problem'.
So the problem could be that medical professionals are recommending people to use it, not that it's available on the street.
Legalizing it would eliminate the entire illicit drug market, and would significantly reduce the crime committed by drug addicts to support their habit.
The fact that prohibited drugs are nevertheless so widespread, that it is trivial to get access to them if you want to, is prima facie evidence that prohibition doesn't work. Opiates (and other drugs) are already for sale on every corner. I don't see any evidence that'd demonstrate that their legality or illegality matters one bit. From the buyer's perspective, it doesn't matter because the likelihood of enforcement affecting you is extremely low (and consequently, risk/benefit ratio is so low, the risk just gets ignored). From the seller's perspective, the extra risk of an illegal activity just gets factored into the price.
"The fact that prohibited drugs are nevertheless so widespread, that it is trivial to get access to them if you want to, is prima facie evidence that prohibition doesn't work"
This is false. It is not trivial to get hard drugs. Most people have no idea how, and if they go that route it's risky.
If drugs were allowed to be in the corners store, you'd see a 100x increase in their use.
Drug prohibition keeps drugs in relatively small terms. Without it, it'd be as common as beer or wine.
If Opium were for sale in every corner store (even if it was safely packaged, measured etc) we would have a healthcare epidemic that would shatter society. About 10% of society would be addicted very quickly, another 20% would have some fallout pretty quick, and that's enough to take everything down.
Opiates are extremely addictive, to the point that doctors now give you the 'minimum number of pills' you need after surgery, not the whole bottle.
The #1 cause opiate problem is addiction to legal pain killers and it's not a 'street problem' it's a 'suburbs problem'.
So if the most conscientious, bill paying, regular folk in society can't even handle access to their regular pain killers, there's no hope for us otherwise.
And now with fentanyl which is wiping people out - the discussion becomes moot because it's just so powerful it's not even a debate.
Most hard drugs should be prohibited and that's just the world we live in. We give up small rights, like the ability to smoke heroin, because society at large can't deal with it, and that statistically probably includes you and I anyhow.
So maybe soften punishment or whatever, decriminalize, fine.
But I don't even think most 'harm reduction' works - in 20 years of 'insite' in Vancouver, that disgusting, drug ridden area is thriving in it's ability to keep people addicts and screwed up.
As for money laundering, it's easier than we think to stop, but the BC government is soft, inept, and everyone is addicted to the money anyhow. Specific requirements and transactional requirements for mortgages, registration of accounts, limits and controls at casinos (you cash out more than $!K you provide an ID etc.)
Corrupt money from Asia is Canada's economic heroin.