Comment by jampekka
25 days ago
The main idea indeed is usually "channeling consumption" to less harmful substances, dosages/concentrations and outlets.
A prime example is alcohol, where prohibition led to bad outcomes. This led to the regulated legalization model.
E.g. in some Nordic countries hard liquor is still only available in government stores and licensed restaurants, with exactly this logic. Not long ago bars could serve only one "unit" of alcohol at a time. Longer ago there were limits to how much alcohol one could buy in a week.
> I guess the idea is that people will just keep using "safer" drugs like cocaine instead? I'm not sure it's working, we legalized cannabis and it made zero difference.
Cannabis and cocaine are very different kinds of substances with very different uses and audiences. Expecting legalized cannabis to substantially reduce cocaine use is like expecting banning of coffee would substantially increase alcohol consumption. There can be some minor effects due to multiple illegal substances tending to have the same outlets, but this is likely a subtle at best.
Also how much more "safe" cocaine is from methamphetamine is not that clear. Probably the largest effect is from very different demographics of methamphetamine vs cocaine users.
> A prime example is alcohol, where prohibition led to bad outcomes. This led to the regulated legalization model.
The problem is that addicts are not going to be satisfied. Canada tried "safe supply" programs, where addicts are provided with medical opiates. Some addicts ended up selling pills because they were too weak and buying stronger street drugs.
It also apparently failed to improve long-term outcomes, although it's a bit early to tell that for certain.
> Expecting legalized cannabis to substantially reduce cocaine use is like expecting banning of coffee would substantially increase alcohol consumption.
Well, it did not reduce opiate consumption either.