Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

OperationMobocracy t1_iu42cw7 wrote

Reply to comment by admiralwarron in Study: Legalizing Marijuana Has No Impact on the Perceived Risk of Marijuana Use Among Children by BoundariesAreFun

I think it probably makes perfect sense. There's all kinds of dangerous things we want or need people to have access to and a common solution is a licensing process which controls access to the thing and tries to guarantee that such use is reasonable and responsible -- explosives, radioactive materials, dangerous chemicals. Even a lot of gun permit laws require some kind of classroom instruction on law and safety and a basic functional test of gun use.

I think the problem with a "drug user license" is avoiding the diversion risk. It would probably be tempting to get your license, buy the drug and resell it. It's way lower risk than reselling your sample of U-235 or blasting caps.

6

AberrantRambler t1_iu4c47b wrote

The only people that it would be worth selling to would be the people that couldn’t get the license - you know, exactly the type of people society has said we don’t want to have this drug.

Funnily enough, this is exactly the type of person who would turn on their dealer in a heartbeat if they got caught and were promised some of their drug. Then they can go in the same treatment program as all the people who are denied the license.

−1

OperationMobocracy t1_iu4kgns wrote

Part of me wants to believe that that this would work and that there's some mix of rules and enforcement that would solve a diversion problem, but part of me also thinks that it could just devolve into a drug prohibition 2.0 cat and mouse game.

Probably a low barrier to entry for obtaining licensing would prevent a lot of diversion, basically excluding people considered too at risk (teens, mentally ill, etc). But there's always the risk of some meaningful number of people who are just non-cooperative with obtaining a license.

It's still an interesting idea.

3