In fact, it's essential for drug policy success, so that Innovation (whether accelerated under a liberalized policy framework/legal regime or not) does not significantly outpace Regulation (which is inherently stifled under prohibitionist regimes, and often also stifled under very liberalised regimes).
What this article misses is that although innovation can be accelerated under a liberalised regime, often the commercial incentive will be less about increasing potency but more about increasing purity, regularity of supply, and information about the product - i.e. securing customer loyalty. More important than the visceral comfort of the consumer in Wired's anecdote about industrial-strength shrooms is the value of even an industrial drug manufacturer that is skilled enough to accurately inform the consumer/downstream supply chain about the potency and purity of their product. These are rare in black markets as they have little competitive edge, and even then a skilled black-market drug manufacturer will rarely be both willing and able to pass potency, purity and supply chain info on to the consumer.
Under a very liberalised regime (like that of alcohol, tobacco, vapes, and increasingly, weed) regulations can require information symmetry across the supply chain as a condition for commercial success (i.e legal supply). Under a very prohibitionist regime, regulators risk going against the spirit of prohibitionist laws by exercising their authority over black markets, or worse, risk contradicting the law and putting the state at risk of a successful lawsuit. As such, black markets for illicit drugs (unlike tobacco) effectively operate as "free markets", unburdened by consumer protection regulations, industrial safety regulations, supply chain restrictions and transparency regulations, etc. So black-market drug consumers can unwittingly face fluctuations in supply quality, potency, origin, adulteration with toxic chemicals, etc. - something that legal-industry drug consumers do not risk.
It's also worth noting that substantial wholesale fluctuations in supply potency over months/years can actually prove more lethal for abusers and hardcore users than gradual increases in potency, due to weakened tolerance and behavioural maladaptations to weaker supply e.g. favouring injection over smoking). The ideal trend would be like what we have seen in the alcohol and nicotine markets - a proliferation of "low-x" and "no-x" products accompanied by a cultural shift to support consumers who choose these options - whether to allow them to moderate their intake or to encourage them to consciously attempt to stop altogether. That said, although the trends for the alcohol and tobacco/nicotine industries are heading in the right direction, both remain substantially problematic in terms of personal and societal health burdens. I'm inclined to see these legalised policy regime failures as the resulted of very belated and staggered regulations, rather than the result of liberalisation in itself - but the lessons of this century's qualified successes in reducing the societal health burdens and other negative externalities of legalised drug markets (alcohol and tobacco) can certainly be learned and applied to the nascent cannabis and psilocybin markets. These markets can and should be regulated in North America, and in Germany, etc.
This is written about as if it were some huge new problem. OK, it is "new," but it falls into a a familiar pattern. We tax alcohol according to the content. Why not other halucingenic substances? Why not gambling (progressively) according to the amount wagered?
Is there any reason why you couldn’t regulate the potency of pot and psychedelics, just as beer has labels for alcohol content?
Nope, no reason why not.
In fact, it's essential for drug policy success, so that Innovation (whether accelerated under a liberalized policy framework/legal regime or not) does not significantly outpace Regulation (which is inherently stifled under prohibitionist regimes, and often also stifled under very liberalised regimes).
What this article misses is that although innovation can be accelerated under a liberalised regime, often the commercial incentive will be less about increasing potency but more about increasing purity, regularity of supply, and information about the product - i.e. securing customer loyalty. More important than the visceral comfort of the consumer in Wired's anecdote about industrial-strength shrooms is the value of even an industrial drug manufacturer that is skilled enough to accurately inform the consumer/downstream supply chain about the potency and purity of their product. These are rare in black markets as they have little competitive edge, and even then a skilled black-market drug manufacturer will rarely be both willing and able to pass potency, purity and supply chain info on to the consumer.
Under a very liberalised regime (like that of alcohol, tobacco, vapes, and increasingly, weed) regulations can require information symmetry across the supply chain as a condition for commercial success (i.e legal supply). Under a very prohibitionist regime, regulators risk going against the spirit of prohibitionist laws by exercising their authority over black markets, or worse, risk contradicting the law and putting the state at risk of a successful lawsuit. As such, black markets for illicit drugs (unlike tobacco) effectively operate as "free markets", unburdened by consumer protection regulations, industrial safety regulations, supply chain restrictions and transparency regulations, etc. So black-market drug consumers can unwittingly face fluctuations in supply quality, potency, origin, adulteration with toxic chemicals, etc. - something that legal-industry drug consumers do not risk.
It's also worth noting that substantial wholesale fluctuations in supply potency over months/years can actually prove more lethal for abusers and hardcore users than gradual increases in potency, due to weakened tolerance and behavioural maladaptations to weaker supply e.g. favouring injection over smoking). The ideal trend would be like what we have seen in the alcohol and nicotine markets - a proliferation of "low-x" and "no-x" products accompanied by a cultural shift to support consumers who choose these options - whether to allow them to moderate their intake or to encourage them to consciously attempt to stop altogether. That said, although the trends for the alcohol and tobacco/nicotine industries are heading in the right direction, both remain substantially problematic in terms of personal and societal health burdens. I'm inclined to see these legalised policy regime failures as the resulted of very belated and staggered regulations, rather than the result of liberalisation in itself - but the lessons of this century's qualified successes in reducing the societal health burdens and other negative externalities of legalised drug markets (alcohol and tobacco) can certainly be learned and applied to the nascent cannabis and psilocybin markets. These markets can and should be regulated in North America, and in Germany, etc.
Proliferations would riot and you would have to establish policing of an already under policed legalized sector.
Proliferations?
I meant to write proliferationists.
This is written about as if it were some huge new problem. OK, it is "new," but it falls into a a familiar pattern. We tax alcohol according to the content. Why not other halucingenic substances? Why not gambling (progressively) according to the amount wagered?
This seems to exactly parallel beer/wine/liquor. The liquor industry relies on addicts for its profits. Seems strange to not compare to alcohol
Nice post. Some of this has played out already in the grey-market world of drug analogues, also called 'research chemicals'.