These figures include 'associative crime' as harm. So it apparent counts the cost of buying it as harm, it also counts the tax loss of that expenditure, so IMHO it skews unfavourabley to higher expenditure. But put that aside.

These figures show that all illicit drugs combined are less harmful to society than alcohol, and tautologically the harm is inflated by illegality.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Dave 5 points 5 months ago (12 children)

How does the Scandinavian model work? Something about the govt providing the drugs?

[–] pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online 5 points 5 months ago (5 children)

I know Portugal did it with a huge success.

[–] Dave 11 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (4 children)

Yeah I was just reading up on it but it seems they didn't go full legalisation, but had authorisations for addicts. In addition they made addiction treatment much more available.

From my understanding they didn't really legalise drugs, but instead tried to send addicts to rehab instead of prison.

[–] liv 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Heard an interesting perspective from a criminal lawyer on this. They think we should copy the Portugal model because meth is attracting the cartels like Sinaloa, and cartel presence normally corrupts police.

[–] Dave 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

We have a tendency to use prison to handle all behaviour we don't like, when realistically each behaviour has much more effective interventions, but it's different per behaviour so it's harder to organise and coordinate, and especially campaign on. It's easier to just build more prisons, even if it's not effective.

[–] liv 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The trouble with that is, we get so much more crime this way. Like you say, there's much better interventions.

I'm not sure that it's just logistics and fear of the unknown (though given how long it took Aucklanders to be okay with building a subway, that obviously comes into play)!😀

But talking to people over the years I've come to the conclusion that there's a sizeable chunk of people for whom punishing criminals is much more important than having less crime. I can understand feeling that way, but emotions probably isn't the best thing to base policy on.

[–] Dave 2 points 5 months ago

A study in the US found that different judges gave vastly different sentences for the same crime. One of the factors they found is that sentences were very different depending on if the judge thought prison was for punishment vs prevention or rehabilitation.

The punishment angle is still very popular, even if we know that it makes crime worse long term. You can even see plenty of it on Lemmy in the right threads.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (8 replies)