Quite smart. From the headline I thought this was going to be officially sanctioned sources of drugs. (Drugs must pass thru some quality-control system set up by the government before being sold?) Which is clearly just the “high end” market, and the cheap many-times-cut drugs sold on the black market remain on the “low end” side.
Rather, it seems like this is setting up testing for CONSUMERS, that can come in, and ask if their sample meets new standards set by the government for the drug they want tested. A bit more formal than the music festival drug test tent.
The English title here on HN is kind of confusing. “Germany wants to introduce free analysis of drugs nationwide“ might be better than “quality control” (which implies factory production to me)
(Reading a translation, so take my opinion with a grain of bath-salts)
I’m not sure if that’s the case. I just saw the news about the state of berlin performing this free analysis with the only condition to attend a talk about safe consumption
Agreed. Anecdotally, my buddy's wife had a really bad experience, because her weed was laced with something. This is the main reason I would love to see some regulation of drug trade ( edit: some clarification may needed; legalize and then ensure it is clean and it is what it says on the container ).
Not that it is panacea. Anecdotally, IL has legalized weed and edibles are extremely inconsistent in terms of what they contain ( it says it should x, but it can easily be 2x or .05x -- it is infuriating given really high tax on those ).
Assuming that 'IL' means US-Illinois, not sure if Israel has legalized.
On the case of US-IL, the problem is that there's no competition (after 3 YEARS), because of the obvious corruption in the process from the beginning. But I wholly expected this considering how Illinois politics works. I live in a central Illinois college town (2 full Universities) and we have 2 dispensaries, both owned by the same company. A comparable city in Colorado, Boulder has 8.
Sounds interesting but not sure if it holds under scrutiny. How does this work to shrink the black market? It feels to me that it would just help boost it.
This is just more political gymnastics that only serves to ensure the continued dominance of black markets and all of the violence and death those black markets bring.
Any substances widely consumed by people should be regulated and tested before they are sold to the public. Even the substances some people don't like other people consuming.
> Any substances widely consumed by people should be regulated and tested before they are sold to the public. Even the substances some people don't like other people consuming.
I suspect this is the beginning of reform. Politics moves slowly. At least my translation of the article implied that further steps towards decriminalization will come in the future.
In the US, states often pass laws that undermine federal laws. I'm less familiar with EU and German politics.
I always wonder how we as a society could legalize "hard" drugs. Do we sell them like alcohol / tobacco, with minimal restrictions? (Just age limits.) Or, do we require obtaining a license, or only allow taking hard drugs in a controlled setting? I don't have the answer; but it's an important discussion to have as drugs are decriminalized and legalized.
There was an article I read on here years ago that outlined a plan to the legalization of all drugs, but I've sadly never been able to find it again. It was such an old article that it thoroughly addressed the legalization of marijuana.
It basically put all the drugs into a tiered system. Weed would be grouped with alcohol, regulated but basically available everywhere. Non addictive but more powerful drugs like MDMA and shrooms would be available at pharmacies with a consultation from the pharmacist, basically just making sure users planned ahead and knew the risks. It went all the way up to to intravenous heroin use at specific facilities with on site nurses, where users had to consult a doctor every so often.
If anyone knows the article or something similar, I would like to reread it just to see what the author got right and to review their ideas going forward.
> Any substances widely consumed by people should be regulated and tested before they are sold to the public
Even after marijuana legalization, many states still have thriving underground marijuana markets.
Many people who consume a lot of a substance over time will inevitably seek out cheaper sources. The sources complying with regulation and testing requirements, however light, will be more expensive than someone growing some plants in the back of a spare building somewhere.
The problem is exacerbated for more expensive and addictive drugs. The few people I’ve known who became addicted to opioids were spending significant amounts of money to maintain their habit and traveling to increasing dangerous situations to get better prices.
It’s optimistic to declare that everyone should have access to well tested drugs, but the reality is that it’s not a magic bullet. I also have some serious doubts about the narrative that increasing availability of drugs won’t contribute to more widespread addiction problems.
> The sources complying with regulation and testing requirements, however light, will be more expensive than someone growing some plants in the back of a spare building somewhere.
That is not the case here in Seattle. The shop near my house sells a vast array of marijuana products at prices the old black market could never have touched. Economy of scale works! The testing requirements add real value - very few people will choose to buy some sketchy black-market grower's mystery weed when they can select from dozens of strains with measured cannabinoid percentages at a legal shop instead.
Here's an article explaining why Washington has been more successful than California in moving its marijuana industry aboveground:
A lot of states have made legal marijuana prohibitively expensive. The only black markets for weed in Oregon are for minors, because you can buy an ounce of pretty good quality stuff for $70.
Politicians who lost the war to keep a harmless drug illegal try and price out people from consuming it.
A lot of people desperately want a magic bullet for addiction, but I think it takes a healthy dose of humility to admit that there is no one perfect answer that will just solve it. Human nature is tricky, biology is tricky, and economics is tricky. Even someone eminently brilliant in all three subjects would have a difficult time coming up with a “solution.“
> The sources complying with regulation and testing requirements, however light, will be more expensive than someone growing some plants in the back of a spare building somewhere.
Avoiding police raids costs money too. But lets imagine you are right.
When you go to the bar, do you buy the cheapest boose they sell? No, you don't. Do you choose wine for w party by selecting the cheaperst crap they sell?
When I speak to people who use sibstances recreationally, they are discussing who has good stuff, who is dishonest, etc. They aren't just buying the cheapest white powder they can find.
> The sources complying with regulation and testing requirements, however light, will be more expensive than someone growing some plants in the back of a spare building somewhere.
The cost of dodging regulations can easily exceed the cost of compliance.
That's a lot of hemming and hawing with no solutions, which leaves us once again with a status quo that guarantees a violent black market, guarantees impure drugs and associated deaths, fails to make drugs less available (and makes youth access easier than for alcohol or tobacco) and costs an unfathomable amount of taxpayer money.
> This is just more political gymnastics that only serves to ensure the continued dominance of black markets and all of the violence and death those black markets bring.
It's progress and it's pragmatism, because it's either this or nothing. There is no meaningful amount of political support for what you describe.
I suspect it isn't that they merely "don't like" other people consuming. They also probably think that increased access (supply) may result in increased demand. I'm not sure, but I do feel that if hard drugs were available at every 7-11 for example, there might be more junkies. Every addict is an incredible waste of human potential.
Is anyone suggesting hard drugs be available at 7-11? I believe all drugs should be legal, but that there should of course be checks and regulations on who has access to the harder drugs that research has shown can ruin people's lives.
I say this as a formerly-active heroin addict: the hardest part of my time as an active addict was not having heroin. I was almost entirely functional, I had a full-time job the entire time, but if I was unable to get any for a couple of days it sent me completely spiralling.
If had a doctor's note showing I was an active heroin addict which would allow me to purchase heroin OTC at a chemist it would have improved my life immeasurably and made it much easier for me to quit. After all, it was only ever a day or two before I could buy more, and I know even now I could buy some heroin illegally online and have it drop through my door in less than 24 hours.
Personally I'm unable to consume any psychoactive substance as I've learnt by now it sends me down a path that gets harder to return from every time, but I believe all drugs should be made legal, and all drug problems should be handed over to the health system rather than the justice system.
The notion that legalisation would increase access is one of those things that looks logical on the surface but is completely the opposite in practice.
After having the displeasure of visiting Frankfurt and having to spend about a month using the main train station... I have to agree. I didn't really understand why junkies would line up at pharmacies until like the 3rd day... until I realized "oh, they get clean needles here". I used to be fairly libertarian on drugs, but having experienced the state of it in the U.S and Germany, and comparing with Asian countries like Singapore and Taiwan, I prefer the latter. I'd rather not see it. I'd rather the streets be clean. I'd rather feel safe going to the metro and having it not smell like urine and feces. If these are the two paths I have to choose, then ban the damn things.
It's political gymnastics because getting a majority for legalization is much harder than getting a majority for quality control. Germany is now legalizing cannabis, but that's still very far from legalizing heroin or cocaine. Remember that about 60% of German voters are over 50, and may be less open to radical changes.
In principle I agree that many drugs should be legal, and we should instead spend more resources on mental health and support for addicted people. But if all we can get a majority for is the latter part that's still an improvement.
You're confused. Cheese can be regulated not because it's practical to block it from being distributed. It isn't, and if you prohibited it you will create a black market.
Only after you've created the black market through prohibition, does regulation then become impossible.
Every single bad thing you can think of about drugs isn't caused by the drugs at all, but by the prohibition. And the few exceptions to this that someone might find... those rare bad things not caused by prohibition itself aren't actually reduced by prohibition. They still happen anyway. The junkie who is ruining his relationship with family still does so today.
That's actually you doing a lot of mental gymnastics to promote full legalization of everything.
Most people think you HAVE to forbid stuff sometimes. If it's forbidded it's because it's dangerous and it kill people. What you are advocating is a bit like saying "oh it's forbidden to stab people in the streets but if you do it we should teach you to do it the proper way to minimize pain". This makes 0 sense.
And I do take drugs recreationally..
People are getting into dangerous territory, let them be responsible of their actions. It's not like you can't test your stuff first or do risk reduction anyway if you make half an effort to inform yourself. Now saying the gov should organize or sponsor while he decided to forbid it is nonsense of the highest level. If they had more money to do that they would use it to actually fight more the cartels
The mental gymnastics come when we pretend illegal drugs aren't widely available today to anyone who wants them, with no quality control and via markets governed by violence. We already legally sell all manner of drugs up to an including various types of speed and opioids. The only difference is that for certain drugs, you have to go to an illegal dealer instead of a pharmacy.
In the U.S. the venue, performers, and promoters of an event where testing is performed are presumed guilty of distribution of illegal substances and subject to a civil penalty of at least $250,000 and up to 2x their gross receipts (income) for the event.
Thankfully the official policy of the U.S. Department of Justice has been to not enforce this law since 2018, largely due to the Opioid Epidemic becoming a top public health crisis.
It argues that all drugs should be decriminalized. Written by a philosopher who spent many years working on this subject. Briefly: anyone who is going to jail deserves to know why, and there is no satisfactory answer that can be given in the case of drug possession or use.
This is a myth that is endlessly repeated and will apparently never die. If you are caught possessing illegal drugs in Portugal, you are required to go in front a disciplinary tribunal that can mandate drug rehab and impose fines. If you refuse to attend rehab, they can jail you. They can impose a whole host of other legal consequences, including loss of professional license, passport, they can mandate that you're not allowed to hang out with certain people, etc. Drug dealing is still 'lock you up in jail' illegal.
Saying drugs are decriminalized in Portugal is like saying speeding everywhere is decriminalized. They moved legal sanctions to an administrative court, but they're still sanctions. I invite you to read this whole page
We have a working model that has provided stunning results for decades. Even back in 2001, there was a strong scientific basis for decriminalization, and treating drug use as a public health issue rather than a moral one.
With the sharp rise in opiate and fentanyl recently, it's alarming how backward the conversation still is. It's almost as if shadowy powerful forces are real content with prohibition...
Radical measures are necessary, now, just as they were in 2001 in Portugal. People are dying, families are being torn apart, and it's all so heart-breakingly unnecessary.
It's crazy that cannabis users can't have their drugs tested to ensure purity, safety and to confirm they aren't laced with other drugs. But mainly to ensure people aren't smoking dried plant matter with mold or other common problems.
The planned Cannabis legalization by the same health minister also kind of goes in the same direction. From what I understand only homegrown Cannabis can be sold and that only by privately organized clubs with very limited permanent member numbers. Also the number of plants one can grow is limited.
It is designed to keep professionally produced Cannabis out of the legal market. If this legalization can shut down the illegal market is doubtful in my opinion.
According to the plans (not actually law yet):
- private citizens will be able to grow a limited number (I think 5?) of plants, with the produce used only for their own consumption. Passing it to others will still be illegal (though consuming it with others on private property would be very unlikely to be prosecuted).
- non-profit "Cannabis Clubs" can grow a limited number of plants per member (again, I think 5). Membership is limited to max 500 and members have to be 18+ years old. Clubs can't be near playgrounds/schools/etc. and can only hand out a limited amount (I think 30g) per month to each member, who can't consume it on or near the club's property. The weed also is limited to a max THC and the club's properties have to be secured to a high standard.
What's the reasoning behind that approach? If the drug is considered dangerous, why is it less dangerous when I grow it myself rather than have a professional do it?
1. Before the election the now ruling parties promised legalization. Now they're under pressure to do it but fear the backlash, so they make a law but sabotage it at the same time.
2. They want to separate the legal market from the illegal market to avoid any situation where the new law could support professional producers. In principle this is a good idea but probably futile.
This is one of the flaws with prohibition... you lose all effective authority to regulate the prohibited product.
We'll see how well it works in Germany, but in the United States, such a program would plainly be nothing more than an intelligence asset for cops. For that reason dealers would order their customers to refrain from using it, and would exact retribution upon those who did.
Besides, trailer park meth cooks aren't really capable of producing a safe, unadulterated product in measured doses. They don't have the competence or the resources to do that. But addicts still need the product regardless. Do you even get to keep your meth if the state-run quality control lab says that it has too much rat poison? Why would an addict risk getting it confiscated for their own safety?
Just legalize the crap and sell it out of liquor stores in plain retail packaging manufactured by pharmaceutical corporations who have some cap on the profits they're allowed to earn over cost.
Readit News
Rather, it seems like this is setting up testing for CONSUMERS, that can come in, and ask if their sample meets new standards set by the government for the drug they want tested. A bit more formal than the music festival drug test tent.
The English title here on HN is kind of confusing. “Germany wants to introduce free analysis of drugs nationwide“ might be better than “quality control” (which implies factory production to me)
(Reading a translation, so take my opinion with a grain of bath-salts)
Not that it is panacea. Anecdotally, IL has legalized weed and edibles are extremely inconsistent in terms of what they contain ( it says it should x, but it can easily be 2x or .05x -- it is infuriating given really high tax on those ).
Still, I believe it is a step forward.
On the case of US-IL, the problem is that there's no competition (after 3 YEARS), because of the obvious corruption in the process from the beginning. But I wholly expected this considering how Illinois politics works. I live in a central Illinois college town (2 full Universities) and we have 2 dispensaries, both owned by the same company. A comparable city in Colorado, Boulder has 8.
Any substances widely consumed by people should be regulated and tested before they are sold to the public. Even the substances some people don't like other people consuming.
I suspect this is the beginning of reform. Politics moves slowly. At least my translation of the article implied that further steps towards decriminalization will come in the future.
In the US, states often pass laws that undermine federal laws. I'm less familiar with EU and German politics.
I always wonder how we as a society could legalize "hard" drugs. Do we sell them like alcohol / tobacco, with minimal restrictions? (Just age limits.) Or, do we require obtaining a license, or only allow taking hard drugs in a controlled setting? I don't have the answer; but it's an important discussion to have as drugs are decriminalized and legalized.
Alcohol is addictive, physical dependence forming and can be overdosed with no medical use. Are these not attributes of Schedule 1 drugs?
It basically put all the drugs into a tiered system. Weed would be grouped with alcohol, regulated but basically available everywhere. Non addictive but more powerful drugs like MDMA and shrooms would be available at pharmacies with a consultation from the pharmacist, basically just making sure users planned ahead and knew the risks. It went all the way up to to intravenous heroin use at specific facilities with on site nurses, where users had to consult a doctor every so often.
If anyone knows the article or something similar, I would like to reread it just to see what the author got right and to review their ideas going forward.
Even after marijuana legalization, many states still have thriving underground marijuana markets.
Many people who consume a lot of a substance over time will inevitably seek out cheaper sources. The sources complying with regulation and testing requirements, however light, will be more expensive than someone growing some plants in the back of a spare building somewhere.
The problem is exacerbated for more expensive and addictive drugs. The few people I’ve known who became addicted to opioids were spending significant amounts of money to maintain their habit and traveling to increasing dangerous situations to get better prices.
It’s optimistic to declare that everyone should have access to well tested drugs, but the reality is that it’s not a magic bullet. I also have some serious doubts about the narrative that increasing availability of drugs won’t contribute to more widespread addiction problems.
That is not the case here in Seattle. The shop near my house sells a vast array of marijuana products at prices the old black market could never have touched. Economy of scale works! The testing requirements add real value - very few people will choose to buy some sketchy black-market grower's mystery weed when they can select from dozens of strains with measured cannabinoid percentages at a legal shop instead.
Here's an article explaining why Washington has been more successful than California in moving its marijuana industry aboveground:
https://reason.com/2022/11/14/washington-has-been-much-more-...
Politicians who lost the war to keep a harmless drug illegal try and price out people from consuming it.
Avoiding police raids costs money too. But lets imagine you are right.
When you go to the bar, do you buy the cheapest boose they sell? No, you don't. Do you choose wine for w party by selecting the cheaperst crap they sell?
When I speak to people who use sibstances recreationally, they are discussing who has good stuff, who is dishonest, etc. They aren't just buying the cheapest white powder they can find.
The cost of dodging regulations can easily exceed the cost of compliance.
But I think it's also pretty clear that is a significant political leap that may even be at least a couple of generations away.
In the meanwhile this sounds like a pretty good way to save lives which may even be possible within the current political environment.
Well, no, not only. It also serves the consumers.
> Any substances widely consumed by people should be regulated and tested before they are sold to the public
Agreed.
It's progress and it's pragmatism, because it's either this or nothing. There is no meaningful amount of political support for what you describe.
I say this as a formerly-active heroin addict: the hardest part of my time as an active addict was not having heroin. I was almost entirely functional, I had a full-time job the entire time, but if I was unable to get any for a couple of days it sent me completely spiralling.
If had a doctor's note showing I was an active heroin addict which would allow me to purchase heroin OTC at a chemist it would have improved my life immeasurably and made it much easier for me to quit. After all, it was only ever a day or two before I could buy more, and I know even now I could buy some heroin illegally online and have it drop through my door in less than 24 hours.
Personally I'm unable to consume any psychoactive substance as I've learnt by now it sends me down a path that gets harder to return from every time, but I believe all drugs should be made legal, and all drug problems should be handed over to the health system rather than the justice system.
Likely IMO
> there might be more junkies
Unlikely, the myth of "one-taste of some drugs = instant addiction" need to die.
In principle I agree that many drugs should be legal, and we should instead spend more resources on mental health and support for addicted people. But if all we can get a majority for is the latter part that's still an improvement.
Only after you've created the black market through prohibition, does regulation then become impossible.
Every single bad thing you can think of about drugs isn't caused by the drugs at all, but by the prohibition. And the few exceptions to this that someone might find... those rare bad things not caused by prohibition itself aren't actually reduced by prohibition. They still happen anyway. The junkie who is ruining his relationship with family still does so today.
Dead Comment
Deleted Comment
Most people think you HAVE to forbid stuff sometimes. If it's forbidded it's because it's dangerous and it kill people. What you are advocating is a bit like saying "oh it's forbidden to stab people in the streets but if you do it we should teach you to do it the proper way to minimize pain". This makes 0 sense.
And I do take drugs recreationally..
People are getting into dangerous territory, let them be responsible of their actions. It's not like you can't test your stuff first or do risk reduction anyway if you make half an effort to inform yourself. Now saying the gov should organize or sponsor while he decided to forbid it is nonsense of the highest level. If they had more money to do that they would use it to actually fight more the cartels
Sure, but that does not apply to magic mushrooms, noone ever died from OD on magic mushrooms.
Provably does not apply to LSd either, MDMA is debatable, etc.
There are like 100's of drugs, and most aren't like heroin.
Deleted Comment
https://www.ggd.amsterdam.nl/geintegreerde-voorzieningen/dru...
We had some issues with white heroin a few years ago, it was sold to tourists as cocaine or something else, can't remember.
Thankfully the official policy of the U.S. Department of Justice has been to not enforce this law since 2018, largely due to the Opioid Epidemic becoming a top public health crisis.
Thats pretty evil
https://www.versobooks.com/products/1795-legalize-this
It argues that all drugs should be decriminalized. Written by a philosopher who spent many years working on this subject. Briefly: anyone who is going to jail deserves to know why, and there is no satisfactory answer that can be given in the case of drug possession or use.
Saying drugs are decriminalized in Portugal is like saying speeding everywhere is decriminalized. They moved legal sanctions to an administrative court, but they're still sanctions. I invite you to read this whole page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal#Laws_a...
We have a working model that has provided stunning results for decades. Even back in 2001, there was a strong scientific basis for decriminalization, and treating drug use as a public health issue rather than a moral one.
With the sharp rise in opiate and fentanyl recently, it's alarming how backward the conversation still is. It's almost as if shadowy powerful forces are real content with prohibition...
Radical measures are necessary, now, just as they were in 2001 in Portugal. People are dying, families are being torn apart, and it's all so heart-breakingly unnecessary.
So I’d assume quality isn’t much of an issue for steroids if you’re buying steroids in their original packaging.
Dead Comment
which we encoded into law https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2021/0050/latest/whol...
It is designed to keep professionally produced Cannabis out of the legal market. If this legalization can shut down the illegal market is doubtful in my opinion.
1. Before the election the now ruling parties promised legalization. Now they're under pressure to do it but fear the backlash, so they make a law but sabotage it at the same time.
2. They want to separate the legal market from the illegal market to avoid any situation where the new law could support professional producers. In principle this is a good idea but probably futile.
We'll see how well it works in Germany, but in the United States, such a program would plainly be nothing more than an intelligence asset for cops. For that reason dealers would order their customers to refrain from using it, and would exact retribution upon those who did.
Besides, trailer park meth cooks aren't really capable of producing a safe, unadulterated product in measured doses. They don't have the competence or the resources to do that. But addicts still need the product regardless. Do you even get to keep your meth if the state-run quality control lab says that it has too much rat poison? Why would an addict risk getting it confiscated for their own safety?
Just legalize the crap and sell it out of liquor stores in plain retail packaging manufactured by pharmaceutical corporations who have some cap on the profits they're allowed to earn over cost.