(Initially posted in c/drugs but thought it would get more engagement here)

I was thinking about the way cannabis is increasingly legal in the US, and I’m starting to see it as a symptom of balkanization in this country that might start to become the model for the legalization of other drugs.

To explain: In most places in the US it is either legal or de facto legal despite the fact that until this year it was federally considered a schedule I controlled substance alongside Heroin, LSD, and many other widely known recreational drugs. For decades the federal government considered cannabis to be wholly unsuitable for all medical use and too dangerous for scientists to even research. They dedicated vast resources into destroying cannabis farms and putting cannabis users, dealers, and growers into prison. It was in a legal category more severe than fentanyl and many of its analogues.

Without even changing those laws, we got to a place where most states decided to just hand out licenses to businesses to grow and sell it, and allow anyone over the age of 21 to buy it.

I think the research chemical scene has by now made it clear that recreational drugs are not a finite group. New drugs are invented all the time. In the same way, new plants containing psychoactive compounds are either discovered or popularized all the time. They do not necessarily start their lives in the public consciousness with stigma, and they can be just as benign or deadly, euphoric or dysphoric, sedating or stimulating, psychedelic or inebriating as any classic, widely known drug.

The way the federal government categorized drugs and the way the DEA enforced drug law was never rational when you approach it from the goal of reducing the harm drugs cause socially. In actuality it was always about maintaining a legal and socially acceptable avenue for continuing this country’s legacy of racism and slavery.

What this means is that which new drugs are to be banned, which are to be ignored, and which are to be accepted is an entirely local matter determined by which marginalized communities can be connected to each drug for purpose of stigmatization. With increasing social disunity across the states, we might begin to see certain drugs became wide spread and tolerated in certain states but treated with extreme hostility elsewhere. A situation like this would paralyze the ability of the DEA to gain enough cooperation from local law enforcement to curtail production and distribution, leading to decrease in stigmatization and eventually the relaxation in attitudes even in places where the stigmatization began.

  • DerRedMax [comrade/them, any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    5 months ago

    I live in a state where cannabis is legal. There have been numerous “busts” of illegal grow operations that are allegedly connected to China.

    I think it’s a good example where anyone can legally buy and use a specific drug, yet the enforcers are still very much involved with the policing of that same drug.

    I think what you’ll see is not less enforcement - the DEA hasn’t packed up and left - but rather more specific, targeted enforcement against a particular group or organization.

    • cosecantphi [he/him]@hexbear.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      5 months ago

      Good insight there, thanks for bringing that up. It’s like we saw with original opium bans where for a time smoking it was illegal but tinctures were not. This became their excuse to target Chinese immigrants who were more commonly associated with smoking at the time, and how they avoided criminalizing all the white people using the same drug.

      My hope is that this kind of obviously racist, hypocritical enforcement won’t last for long, or will become too starved of resources when it comes to cataloging, targeting, and racializing of new psychoactive drugs.