Does legalising/decriminalising drugs work? \ stacker news ~AskSN

pull down to refresh

Does legalising/decriminalising drugs work?

744 sats \ 27 comments \ @stack_harder 8 Jun AskSN

So it seems like Portugal is the poster child for this and, at a glance, seems very successful

Then on the other hand, I hear the places where drugs are legalised in Canada are like a hellscape, at least from an optics perspective.

I certainly wouldnt want to live anywhere near a place that was, basically, a magnet for drug users (skidrow levels)

what does Sn think?

view all related items

154 sats \ 0 replies \ @Scoresby 8 Jun

For a few years in my early twenties, I lived in the downtown eastside of Vancouver. I was working at a drop-in center for people with mental health issues and we served a lot of homeless and/or drug addicted people. At the time, harm reduction was the most popular approach to assisting such people. There were needle clinics and injection sites. I think it's fair to describe it as a magnet for drug users. It certainly was skid row.

Here's a few things I learned:

When you think of people nodding out on a street corner or collapsed on the sidewalk, it's pretty hard to tell the difference between drug addiction and mental illness. I knew plenty of people who were not into any particular drug use, but had equally miserable lives due to their severe mental health problems. Between the extremes of people who were legit nuts but not really into drugs and the people who were pretty neuro-normal but extreme down the addiction path, is the vast majority of homeless people -- probably using as a way to self-medicate.
Almost without exception, addicts in recovery had zero patience for harm reduction approaches. They strongly advocated zero-tolerance policies. It felt pretty harsh to me, but at the same time, I have to respect that these people had managed to extricate themselves from their drug use.
I can't really speak to drug use among people who aren't homeless. It seems that I don't run in the circles of drug users...or all the people I know are very secretive about it. Either way, my instincts tell me that the percentage of users among the "normal" population is probably not so different as the percentage of users among the homeless population.

So, legalizing drugs? I'm pretty much all for it on freedom principles. I doubt it dramatically increases or decreases the number of people you see nodded out on the side of the street.

155 sats \ 7 replies \ @k00b 8 Jun

Full disclosure, I've done very little research on the subject but I would guess it does work.

Despite how silly it sounds, I think a lot of drug use is a rebellion. It's cool to do prohibited things - for adults of all ages. It makes people that possess drugs part of an exclusive few. Legalizing them removes ALL cool points of drug possession. The only cool points left come from drugs being dangerous and their signal that you're "ready to die/destroy yourself for a good time."

Prohibition also makes drug users hide their usage which prevents intervention. We all know our friends that drink too much. But I'd guess most of us, unless we are users too, would fail to guess which of our friends use cocaine or other drugs.

Abrupt legalization likely needs to be paired with education, education that none of us get because it's assumed the state made sure we'll never encounter these drugs.

My bias here is that I think people should be allowed to do what they want with their bodies which could warp my perception of this topic entirely.

71 sats \ 1 reply \ @Aardvark 8 Jun

Read "chasing the scream" it makes a very solid case for legalization. The outcomes for most people are generally positive, especially for addicts. More often than not their problems come from being in the system, not from being addicted. An example is that you don't see alcoholics committing crime for alcohol, they just go to work.

There's a whole lot more to it, but it's a fantastic read.

66 sats \ 0 replies \ @freetx 8 Jun

Let me clarify to you and @thecommoner in case my short answer gave the wrong idea: I'm all for legalization. I dont think anyone has the right to forcibly stop someone from ingesting whatever they want....

There are some caveats of when people can ingest drugs (and to what degree): For instance, I think you would probably agree that it shouldn't be legal to drive blackout drunk? But we are not objecting to the act of ingesting the drug, rather its their inability to reasonably operate a dangerous device in public. It really has nothing to do with the drug....it should probably also be illegal to drive if physically blind or while sleeping, etc.

However the topic of legalization normally carries with it a sort of worst-case implication: Should it be legal for people to become addicted to drugs. For that I also think it should be legal, but well my point was simply: I think it should be legal but wouldn't define that as good strictly speaking. (Much in the same way I think it should be legal to chop your own hands off with an axe, but I wouldn't define that as good).

43 sats \ 2 replies \ @freetx 8 Jun

I'm going to offer my equally un-researched take: I doubt legalizing drugs is a "good" for society, but its probably less bad than making them illegal.

Overall, societies would most benefit from govts fixing the core problem of: Why do members of their society so badly want to escape reality? Ultimately I think it goes something like this:

Poor economic possibilities -> Lack of home ownership + family + kids -> Lack of meaning -> Desire to escape.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @thecommoner 8 Jun

Also un-researched information...though I did read "Chasing the Scream" which is a book about addiction and I thought it offered good info...

I think society is looking at many of our "systems" coming to collapse under their own weight over the coming years...to maybe decades?

I am a weirdo in that I think all drugs should be legal and should be produced in a manner that is safe and reliable. Potency is something that should be verified and provided to the users so they are able to make educated decisions about what they are using.

I also believe the "stigma" we have created over drug use is a self-fullfilling negative prophecy in which users feel cast out from society and left alone to make their own ill-informed decisions on things. This perpetuates a cycle of more use due to feeling cast out and eventually leads to entire swaths of like-minded castaways that grow and grow until they become a blight on society and due to our years of mind-fucking the rest of society - those in power simply convince the rest of society that cutting these parts of society off is ok?

Anyway I am getting a bit off topic - It does come back to the "control system" that is put in place being out of alignment with the idea that we should be doing all we can as the "human race" to perpetuate our species...which includes acknowledging that as individuals we all have a right to do what we deem is best for ourselves, as long as it isn't harming others....that last part is the tough part....what one considers harming another?

9 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 9 Jun

Why do people drink alcohol?

Why is happy hour popular? more fun than being in the office lol

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 9 Jun

Legalizing weed has made it way less cool. I have heard this quiet a bit over the last couple years.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @LibertasBR 8 Jun

I think a lot of drug use is a rebellion. It's cool to do prohibited things.

You couldn’t be more right about marijuana use. Just as ridiculous as the tobacco smokers from the ’20s and ’80s. Same goes for the other drugs too — it’s just that among all of them, weed and ecstasy carry this stronger kind of aura.

86 sats \ 3 replies \ @jannostr 8 Jun freebie

Canadian here. Vancouver and Victoria, Canada are suffering dearly from this policy. It is very shortsighted. Drug related deaths are up, crime is up, and worst of all it takes the ability of parents to say there are consequences to using such drugs away from them. I fear the day my son comes to me and says, 'whatever dad, its not illegal.'

If you are interested in this topic, watch this documentary -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PT8OU8Yhs_s&t=731s. Aaaron Gunn, the person who made that film, is now a member of parliament in Canada.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @stack_harder OP 9 Jun

Interesting, do you think a part of the issue is not just legalising something, but the way the gov implements the policy?

32 sats \ 1 reply \ @jannostr 10 Jun

In my view, the dumping of fentanyl and opioids into the Canadian market is part of a strategy by adversaries to decay our society. By legalizing it, we are submitting. I'm well aware that sounds conspiratorial, but it is even something the director of the FBI in the United States has said. Some (including the FBI director) argue that the CCP views it as a reverse opium war. If you are not familiar with the Opium Wars its worth a Google/ChatGPT. It provides interesting context.

Here is a GPT summary of the FBI director's position:

FBI Director Kash Patel has made several statements alleging that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is involved in shipping fentanyl precursors to Vancouver, Canada, as part of a transnational drug trafficking network. Below is a summary of his key claims based on available information:

Vancouver as a Hub for Fentanyl Production and Export: Patel stated that Vancouver has become a global hub for fentanyl production and distribution. He alleged that Mexican drug cartels, in collaboration with CCP-linked suppliers, are shipping fentanyl precursors to Canada, where the drug is manufactured in sophisticated "superlabs" before being distributed globally, including to the United States. He noted that this shift to Vancouver occurred because of tightened enforcement at the U.S.-Mexico border. Specifically, he said, “They’re flying it into Vancouver. They’re taking the precursors up to Canada, manufacturing it up there, and doing their global distribution routes from up there because we’ve been so effective down south.”

CCP’s Role in Supplying Precursors: Patel claimed that the CCP is the primary source of fentanyl precursors, which are the raw materials needed to produce the drug. He accused Chinese suppliers of deliberately routing these precursors through third countries, such as India, to evade international scrutiny, but emphasized that Canada, particularly Vancouver, is a key destination for these shipments. He stated, “The fentanyl precursors, the stuff you need to make fentanyl, comes from mainland [China].”

Geopolitical Motive: Patel argued that the CCP’s involvement in the fentanyl trade is not primarily profit-driven but rather a strategic effort to destabilize the United States. He described it as a “directed approach” to weaken America by targeting its population, particularly young people, saying, “Why don’t we go and take out generations of young men and women who might grow up to serve in the United States military, or become a cop, or become a teacher?” He further claimed that China is “not making a ton of money” from the trade, suggesting the motive is geopolitical sabotage.

Kash Patel has described the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) alleged involvement in the fentanyl trade as a “reverse Opium War.” In interviews, including on The Joe Rogan Experience (June 2025), he framed the CCP’s role in supplying fentanyl precursors to Vancouver and other regions as a deliberate strategy to destabilize the United States, drawing a historical parallel to the 19th-century Opium Wars, where Western powers, particularly Britain, flooded China with opium, leading to widespread addiction and social collapse. Patel argued that the CCP is now “reversing” this tactic by facilitating the flow of fentanyl into North America to weaken its adversaries, stating, “They’re running a reverse Opium War on us.” He emphasized that the motive is geopolitical, aimed at undermining American society, particularly its youth, rather than purely financial gain.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @stack_harder OP 11 Jun

i can totally imagine China doing something like this

32 sats \ 8 replies \ @fm 9 Jun

So it seems like Portugal is the poster child for this and, at a glance, seems very successful

Boots on the ground here, I was there when it started. It was good.. It was kind of amazing. Before decriminalization there was a huge number of junkies. Heroin took a hugel toll on portuguese consumers. Zombies everywhere, needles, robberies, shooting on the street.. Living hell. All this almost disappeared once they started to open safe spaces and giving free methadone. Safer spaces, lot less horror on the streets. ( its weird because despite being horrendous, it made me very scared of opioid addiction and kept me far from them).

Reality is, people self medicate. Anyone thinking opioid addiction is a choice, is because they dont understand how addiction works.

The way to go is not offering free drugs just because. You have to find a somewhat middle ground to treat these people and contain them in safe spaces for themselves and the rest of the people. And by containing i mean a facility more close to a mental hospice rather than a prision.

Most of this addicts would have a somewhat normal existence if they had access to cheap and safe drugs. How do we finance this is a another discussion, but treating them as people who need treatment is a much more correct approach of treat them as criminals.

This doesnt mean free drugs and skidrow alike campings.. There is a middle ground to be explored. Other countries like switzerland have also interesting models.

proibition wont stop drugs, education and family will

21 sats \ 5 replies \ @stack_harder OP 9 Jun

i love this about SN that we have people all over the place that can comment on things like this.

sounds like more places need to kind of emulate how it was done in Portugal. reminds me of the Wire episode where a police commander, secretly sets up several tolerated drug zones in vacant areas of West Baltimore.

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @fm 9 Jun

guess its time to google that wire episode then :)

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @stack_harder OP 9 Jun

it was the “Hamsterdam” storyline from Episode 4 through Episode 8.

man the Wire was a great show

21 sats \ 2 replies \ @fm 9 Jun

i totally missed that one.. i heard about it though maybe i should add it to my to watch list

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @stack_harder OP 9 Jun

100% add it, The Wire is probably one of my top 3 tv shows ever created (cant deicde on sopranos or Breaking bad for the top spot)

view all 1 replies

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @jannostr 11 Jun

The point ppl in Canada make is that Portugal was successful because it pairs decriminalization with treatment. Here, we just decriminalized, started prescribing opioids (via pharmacies) to people to give them a safe supply -- but didn't do much by way of treatment centres and helping people overcome their addition.

The result was that people take the safe supply (not laced with fentanyl) sell it to high-school kids, take the money any buy the very very cheap fentanyl product that China/Mexican cartels are dumping in Vancouver.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @fm 11 Jun

Yeah, the last documentaries i saw about Canada and fentanyl, instantly draw me back to the horror show in portugal in mid 90s before got better. Its true Portugal makes you see the therapist if you are not a lost case. And there is some sort of treatment. A lot of free methadone, not heroin or any other opioid. Addicts, since methadone doesn’t give you the high will still chase it, but they are lot less violent and rob lot less. I mean, the problem is not eliminated but its better than before. I have to recognize fentanyl was not present until the last 5 years and its still residual i think. Its been years i dont see the lab results so i might be wrong 😅 I hope it stays low. We have more of a coke problem nowadays. I wonder if that is laced..

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @purpurato 9 Jun

There's so much to be said about this subject, I will take the time to write a post about it.

Basically yes, legalizing works, how to do it is the question, but prohibition clearly doesn't work, it's been proven time and again, US people know.

4 sats \ 0 replies \ @398ja 9 Jun

Agree. Legalise it, ok, but make it illegal to drop needles everywhere...😮‍💨

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bitcoiner1 9 Jun

Would you put into the same category weed, nicotine, alcohol, cocaine, fentanyl, etc?

Not all the drugs can be treated as equal.

I'm in favor of legalizing weed, but for more dangerous one, I think it's not a good idea. There is plenty of stupid people who will destroy themselves becoming a load to their families and to the health system.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @bf53d2026e 9 Jun freebie

Just

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @LibertasBR 8 Jun

There’s no crime at all in using or selling drugs — those who buy, sell, and/or use are free to do as they wish. The crimes committed by users and dealers should be considered just like any other crimes. Here, dealers usually commit all three types: against freedom, property, and life. Users, most of the time, commit crimes against property.