The paper ends: “aggressively targeting alcohol harms is a valid and necessary public health strategy.” Which means the reader is left with the message that the data are not really about relaxing other drug laws so much as tightening alcohol laws.

I wouldnt say that suggests tighteing laws, I think they mean by this addressing alchohol addiction and its root causes, not using a auth measure like banning to deal with it but focusing on it via a public health approach.

I’d say that’s a mixed message as they are concerned (subtly) with e.g. the connection between drugs and racial policing, which means using the paper e.g. to decriminalise cannabis rather than to campaign against alcohol. I suppose these aren’t mutually exclusive but, then again, when this graph is usually cited, it’s usually in favour of making cannabis legal rather than prohibiting alcohol.

Thats because it shows relative harm; if Alchohol can easily be shown to be detrimental to society on a factor of literally 100000’s of more deaths attributed too it vs cannabis it makes no sense why its illegal and one is legal.

I agree on your wider points about how a socialist society studying this would likely come to different conclusions, the paper isnt even considering ideological basis but within the scope of it they likely never wanted to try to begin with, as its more of a study done by a chemist implementing sociological methodology without considering ideology.

Also re: there are more booze drinkers than heroin users;

Usage in decriminalized societies and legalized socieities of all narcotics goes down during leglaization. People gain access to medicalized routes of de-addiction rather than thrown in a prison cell with gangsters, murderers and drug dealers.

Also ideally in a socialist society we would ban all advertising, especially for narcotics so people dont get ‘encouraged’ to do anything and instead know how drugs effect you, how to manage them and the risks vs rewards.

mephedrone causes a relatively low level of harm due to it being prescribed by medical professionals, it comes to the user in a clearly defined dose that will be uncut; most heroin addicts die due to accidental overdoses or cut drugs with fent.

I imagine benzos are still the same; and you should note while cannabis is similar to more dangerous drugs its likely only considering smoking.

I know where the OG study is though its avilable to read, I know the conclusions but the methods they use il need to brush up on.

https://www.ias.org.uk/uploads/pdf/News stories/dnutt-lancet-011110.pdf

well you see he watched this seth rogan movie once and browsed /r/politics obssessively for the last decade

because only kids read books, adults read the news

curious you call it a circle jerk yet here you are right in the center of the circle

mfw russian hackers are the reason that americans still dont have healthcare

Its bad which ever way you cut it; othering drug users on ‘common sense’ lines ignores the historical reasoning behind the US export of drug laws; trade and supressing black & lefitst voters in america.

In regards to Asias reluctance, just look at the Opium wars; that was the British.

Edit: Also I call it ‘liberal IDpol’ because thats what drug divisions are, a liberal generated form of IDpol that socialist countries accept uncritically; A sociological analysis of the topic always leads to legalization for a reason.

There’s a reason really existing socialist formations almost invariably come down hard on drugs.

Ahistorical, the reason why they come down hard on drugs is colonialism.

The truth of drug use is found in this graph, any drug policy that does not consider it is engaging in IDpol, which is liberal.

Source is a PHD holder, David Nutt.