Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,809 Year: 3,066/9,624 Month: 911/1,588 Week: 94/223 Day: 5/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Good drugs, bad drugs, legal drugs, illegal drugs
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 46 of 115 (597900)
12-25-2010 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Hyroglyphx
12-25-2010 11:55 AM


towards a solution
nj writes:
It's offensive to think that you and I might pay for people to get high. That's offensive. If you want to get as high as a goddamn kite, knock yourself out. But don't do it on my dime.
But since we're on the subject, how best do you think to handle drugs and drug users?
I would decriminalize drug use, nationalize drug productions, subsidize it and give them away for free through a local clinic setting where users also get free medical care and education.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-25-2010 11:55 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-25-2010 12:12 PM jar has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 115 (597901)
12-25-2010 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by jar
12-25-2010 12:04 PM


Re: towards a solution
I would decriminalize drug use, nationalize drug productions, subsidize it and give them away for free through a local clinic setting where users also get free medical care and education.
Well, even terrible opinions are still opinions you're entitled to.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by jar, posted 12-25-2010 12:04 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by jar, posted 12-25-2010 12:40 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 48 of 115 (597902)
12-25-2010 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Hyroglyphx
12-25-2010 12:12 PM


Re: towards a solution
I'm not convinced that it is such a terrible opinion.
Look at the currents costs involved in the system in place. Because it is illicit, we have the costs involved in crime, in enforcement, in loss of productivity, pain and suffering. Then there is the major expense, the silly "War on Drugs".
The real production costs of drugs is actually quite low. By decriminalizing and nationalizing the drugs, by giving them away for free, we would immediately stop a major source of funds to the criminal elements where it is a profit center.
By setting up the distribution through neighborhood clinics we would also get people in where general medical care could be provided.
Finally, the cost of the program would very likely be far less than what we spend today on the War on Drugs, local law enforcement related to drugs, incarceration of convicted drug users and dealers and the court costs associated with enforcement.
In addition, the government could encourage US farmers and pharmacies to produce the drugs under contract, redirecting funds that today end up going to the foreign drug lords. The plan would even help stabilize other nations, like our southern neighbor.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-25-2010 12:12 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-25-2010 1:38 PM jar has replied
 Message 84 by iano, posted 12-26-2010 4:00 PM jar has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 49 of 115 (597903)
12-25-2010 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Hyroglyphx
12-25-2010 11:55 AM


Re: Clarifying intent
Hyroglyphx writes:
I was speaking about hard drugs in that instance, and only in the sense that if we mollycoddle people, you only further perpetuate the problem.
Of course you were talking about hard drugs.
If you weren't talking about hard drugs then you wouldn't be talking about giving them to addicts in clinics.
But you claimed "By doing this, you only ensure that people will die at their own hand."
Since you seem determined to not address that issue, I will have to conclude that you have no way to support your assertion; that even your own personal experience has nothing to support it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-25-2010 11:55 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-25-2010 1:50 PM Panda has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 115 (597905)
12-25-2010 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by jar
12-25-2010 12:40 PM


Re: towards a solution
The real production costs of drugs is actually quite low. By decriminalizing and nationalizing the drugs, by giving them away for free, we would immediately stop a major source of funds to the criminal elements where it is a profit center.
By setting up the distribution through neighborhood clinics we would also get people in where general medical care could be provided.
Finally, the cost of the program would very likely be far less than what we spend today on the War on Drugs, local law enforcement related to drugs, incarceration of convicted drug users and dealers and the court costs associated with enforcement.
In addition, the government could encourage US farmers and pharmacies to produce the drugs under contract, redirecting funds that today end up going to the foreign drug lords. The plan would even help stabilize other nations, like our southern neighbor.
But you neglect the underlying issue, which is what caused, even if falsely, this drug war. And that is that addiction, especially addiction on a massive scale, is costly to a society. Now you don't even want them to pay for the maintenance of their own addiction, but give incentives to be an addict by making it free for junkies, and force us to subsidize for them.
Sure, you put the cartels out of business, which alleviates 1/2 the problem, but you create more addiction in the process, which neglects the other half.
Why not have the government simply take a step back altogether. That means that drugs would be decriminalized, but it also means that we won't facilitate people in getting high.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by jar, posted 12-25-2010 12:40 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by jar, posted 12-25-2010 3:29 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 115 (597906)
12-25-2010 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Panda
12-25-2010 1:17 PM


Re: Clarifying intent
Of course you were talking about hard drugs.
If you weren't talking about hard drugs then you wouldn't be talking about giving them to addicts in clinics.
But you claimed "By doing this, you only ensure that people will die at their own hand."
I'm referring to anyone that gives in to enabling behavior, like family, friends, or clinicians who perpetuate poor behavior.
Since you seem determined to not address that issue, I will have to conclude that you have no way to support your assertion; that even your own personal experience has nothing to support it.
What exactly didn't I answer? Or did I simply not answer it to your satisfaction? I think that people who enable drug users are complicit in the deaths of those who do overdose -- that they are co-conspirators, even if unintentionally.
You seem to think there's bar graphs out there that show how many addicts who overdose because of enablers vs those who overdose and don't. That kind of data does not exist, so it's unreasonable to demand it.
Do you want a consensus among psychologists? I think you'll find that the vast majority of psychologists, sociologists, social workers, and psychiatrists will tell you the same thing I am; that enabling behavior only inflames addictive behavior.
Do you deny this?

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Panda, posted 12-25-2010 1:17 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Panda, posted 12-25-2010 3:23 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 52 of 115 (597914)
12-25-2010 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Hyroglyphx
12-25-2010 1:50 PM


Re: Clarifying intent
Hyroglyphx writes:
What exactly didn't I answer? Or did I simply not answer it to your satisfaction?
Really?
Ok...I'll post it one more time - but you refused to answer it before, so I guess you will still refuse.
Are you still claiming that people that faciltate safe drug use ensure the death of the addicts?
Hyroglyphx writes:
You seem to think there's bar graphs out there that show how many addicts who overdose because of enablers vs those who overdose and don't.
Are you now also asserting that research into the affects on 'enabled' drug users has not been done?
Hyroglyphx writes:
Do you want a consensus among psychologists? I think you'll find that the vast majority of psychologists, sociologists, social workers, and psychiatrists will tell you the same thing I am; that enabling behavior only inflames addictive behavior.
Do you deny this?
This forum doesn't work like that.
You do not make unsubstantiated claims and then demand others disprove them.
(And "inflames addictive behavior" is not the same as "ensures the death".)
Stop making bald assertions and start providing some evidence.
If what you claim is so well established then you will have no trouble showing that enablers ensure the death of the addicts they enable.
...or you can just say that your opinions are not based on anything and are just pulled from thin air.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-25-2010 1:50 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-25-2010 4:04 PM Panda has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 53 of 115 (597918)
12-25-2010 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Hyroglyphx
12-25-2010 1:38 PM


Re: towards a solution
NJ writes:
But you neglect the underlying issue, which is what caused, even if falsely, this drug war. And that is that addiction, especially addiction on a massive scale, is costly to a society. Now you don't even want them to pay for the maintenance of their own addiction, but give incentives to be an addict by making it free for junkies, and force us to subsidize for them.
I have never seen any evidence that the cost of addiction was ever anything more than propaganda. And guess what, currently we do pay for their addiction. Where do junkies, as you call them, currently get the money to support their habit?
NJ writes:
Sure, you put the cartels out of business, which alleviates 1/2 the problem, but you create more addiction in the process, which neglects the other half.
I'm sorry but how exactly does my plan create more addiction?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-25-2010 1:38 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-25-2010 4:09 PM jar has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 115 (597922)
12-25-2010 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Panda
12-25-2010 3:23 PM


Re: Clarifying intent
Stop making bald assertions and start providing some evidence.
If what you claim is so well established then you will have no trouble showing that enablers ensure the death of the addicts they enable.
...or you can just say that your opinions are not based on anything and are just pulled from thin air.
Alright, this is the last time I'm going to go over it, because I've been more than clear about it.
I said that enablers are complicit in the death's of drug users. It's common sense. Would you hand a suicidal patient a gun as a means of recovery? So why would you help a junkie to get high?
The world revolves around incentives and consequences. If you remove these two things, there is no reason for the addict to ever even desire to be clean. Some times it takes hitting rock bottom to make the addict want to be clean. And it's going to take pain.
So providing them free drugs, free needles, and a non-confrontational and non-judgmental attitude is being "nice" to them, but it's also helping them remain in their addiction. Mothers, fathers, grandmothers, sisters, brothers, etc who do not hold their family members accountable do only ensure that their loved-one's will remain trapped, even unto death.
I've watched plenty of friends and family friends die from alcoholism to drug overdose, and the single greatest problem I witnessed, aside from the drug user themselves, was the enabling from the family and friends. They were more afraid of "offending" them than actually helping them. And now they're dead. Sooooo..... yeah......

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Panda, posted 12-25-2010 3:23 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Panda, posted 12-26-2010 2:21 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 68 by Trae, posted 12-26-2010 5:29 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 115 (597923)
12-25-2010 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by jar
12-25-2010 3:29 PM


Re: towards a solution
I have never seen any evidence that the cost of addiction was ever anything more than propaganda. And guess what, currently we do pay for their addiction. Where do junkies, as you call them, currently get the money to support their habit?
I'm sorry but how exactly does my plan create more addiction?
Are you somehow stopping the addiction by providing them more (and free) drugs at an unlimited supply? What incentive do they have to ever stop, besides death?

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by jar, posted 12-25-2010 3:29 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by jar, posted 12-25-2010 4:18 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 57 by Omnivorous, posted 12-25-2010 4:31 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 56 of 115 (597925)
12-25-2010 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Hyroglyphx
12-25-2010 4:09 PM


Re: towards a solution
NJ writes:
jar writes:
I have never seen any evidence that the cost of addiction was ever anything more than propaganda. And guess what, currently we do pay for their addiction. Where do junkies, as you call them, currently get the money to support their habit?
jar writes:
I'm sorry but how exactly does my plan create more addiction?
Are you somehow stopping the addiction by providing them more (and free) drugs at an unlimited supply? What incentive do they have to ever stop, besides death?
Huh?
You claimed that what I suggested would create more addition.
Stopping an addiction gets done as it has always gotten done, through education. A good way to do that is by getting them into a setting where they can get treatment and care, in other words a medical clinic.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-25-2010 4:09 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 57 of 115 (597927)
12-25-2010 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Hyroglyphx
12-25-2010 4:09 PM


When jar is right, he's heavy right.
The hypocrisy of society on the subject of drugs and the allure of outlaw behavior promote experimentation with addictive drugs.
A society that treats addicts as what they are--ill--removes both.
On the other hand, perhaps the best thing is to imprison drug users of all stripes, where they can be raped, generally brutalized and rendered nearly unemployable.
Our prisons are overcrowded to inhumane levels because of our irrational drug policies. There are still states where you'll do more time for giving your neighbor a joint than for raping her.
Jar's prescriptions are superbly rational. Until we tackle the problem of addiction with reason and compassion, the situation will continue to worsen.

I know there's a balance, I see it when I swing past.
-J. Mellencamp
Real things always push back.
-William James

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-25-2010 4:09 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-25-2010 7:54 PM Omnivorous has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 115 (597938)
12-25-2010 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Omnivorous
12-25-2010 4:31 PM


Re: When jar is right, he's heavy right.
A society that treats addicts as what they are--ill--removes both.
Does it make sense to continue feeding someone Mercury who's been suffering from Mercury poisoning? If it doesn't, then how does subsidizing drug addicts make any sense?
On the other hand, perhaps the best thing is to imprison drug users of all stripes, where they can be raped, generally brutalized and rendered nearly unemployable.
Obviously not, and if you'll take the time to read my posts you will see that I want decriminalize all drugs too... Where Jar and I part ways is that I just don't believe in providing free drugs at the tax payers expense.
Our prisons are overcrowded to inhumane levels because of our irrational drug policies. There are still states where you'll do more time for giving your neighbor a joint than for raping her.
Agreed, which is grossly unjust. The legal system in the US is in need of a serious adjustment, just like many other of it's sectors.
Jar's prescriptions are superbly rational. Until we tackle the problem of addiction with reason and compassion, the situation will continue to worsen.
Well, that all depends on what we both mean by compassion. If not demonizing drug addicts and not treating them like criminals, then we agree. If showing them compassion means subsidizing their habit at the expense of everyone else, then no.
I don't believe handing a suicidal person a gun is the best way to prevent them from committing suicide, so it makes little sense that dispensing their drug of choice, free of charge, would make a lick of difference.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Omnivorous, posted 12-25-2010 4:31 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by jar, posted 12-25-2010 8:34 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 60 by Omnivorous, posted 12-25-2010 8:49 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 59 of 115 (597939)
12-25-2010 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Hyroglyphx
12-25-2010 7:54 PM


Re: When jar is right, he's heavy right.
NJ writes:
Omni writes:
A society that treats addicts as what they are--ill--removes both.
Does it make sense to continue feeding someone Mercury who's been suffering from Mercury poisoning? If it doesn't, then how does subsidizing drug addicts make any sense?
Creating false analogies is fun isn't it.
First, most drugs are not equivalent to mercury poisoning. Most of today's illicit drugs are actually pretty benign, and one of the big problems is not the drugs themselves but purity and portion control.
In addition, I did not simply suggest feeding and subsidizing. Remember the distribution system, I suggested distribution through local health clinics. That would bring the addicts into an environment where they can be educated and many of the things that lead to misuse addressed.
For the majority of drug users, drugs are not fatal, in fact many may well be life enhancing. The problem is that so far we have not regulated or even investigated the majority.
Keep the benefits to society in general in mind as well.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-25-2010 7:54 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-25-2010 9:11 PM jar has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


(1)
Message 60 of 115 (597940)
12-25-2010 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Hyroglyphx
12-25-2010 7:54 PM


Re: When jar is right, he's heavy right.
Hyroglyphx writes:
Obviously not, and if you'll take the time to read my posts you will see that I want decriminalize all drugs too... Where Jar and I part ways is that I just don't believe in providing free drugs at the tax payers expense.
My sincere apologies--I have now read upthread. My passion on the subject spilled over unfairly on you.
Sorry 'bout that. I usually do try to read at least a fair amount of a thread before posting in it. You've reminded me why.
Does it make sense to continue feeding someone Mercury who's been suffering from Mercury poisoning? If it doesn't, then how does subsidizing drug addicts make any sense?
Drugs, even addictive drugs, are not poison; mercury is not eaten by choice (it's mostly absorbed by children due to Republican environmental policy).
The only true poisons involved are the poisons added to black market drugs, almost always adulterated with chemicals or drugs often more hazardous then the addictive drug itself.
In my opinion (and experience), the only way to kill the black market in addictive drugs is to supplant it with an irresistibly superior choice. A state clinic can provide the drug free in return for participation in health programs: psych counselling, HIV prevention/treatment, employment counseling, etc. This also removes the addict from the criminal milieu: if addicts are chasing street drugs, they are also chasing crime.
If the state sells drugs, there will be black market competition. The cost of manufacturing the drugs is trivial--sell them cheap at the state store, and the street dealers will beat that price. But dealers won't give it away.
Why is it better to spend billions to combat street drugs than millions to provide free, safe drugs in a health care environment? Simple decriminalization alone will not address the street supply of drugs of uncertain quality and potency, nor will it remove gang criminality from what is essentially a health care issue.
I understand that you feel you are adopting a principled, moral stand, but I don't see what is more moral about a situation that costs the taxpayers much more than jar's pragmatic solution.
Of note, nations which adopt jar's plan would also disrupt black market supplies by purchasing at the source. Afghan opium, for example, would no longer profit the Taliban but would rather reduce U.S. crime rates and police costs. In passing, let me also note that the war on drugs, e.g., the no-knock warrant, began eroding our civil liberties long before the war on terrorism.
Well, that all depends on what we both mean by compassion. If not demonizing drug addicts and not treating them like criminals, then we agree. If showing them compassion means subsidizing their habit at the expense of everyone else, then no.
The expense that "everyone else" pays now is extortionate.
I don't believe handing a suicidal person a gun is the best way to prevent them from committing suicide...
C'mon, Hyro, that analogy fails so badly I hardly have the heart to hurt it. The real loaded gun is the addict unable to obtain a fix because he can't afford it.
What, you think he's just going to give it up?
A better comparison would be refusing free medication to violent paranoid schizophrenics because it's unfair to do it at "everyone else's" expense--as though sick people should pay for their meds like everyone else, even if they're killing people to get the money.
The first medicine an addict needs is her drug. You can't argue with the monkey on her back; feed it, put it to sleep, and you can at least talk to her.
If she is reporting to health care providers to get her fix, the next medicine she'll get is the comprehensive treatment she needs.

I know there's a balance, I see it when I swing past.
-J. Mellencamp
Real things always push back.
-William James

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-25-2010 7:54 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-25-2010 9:46 PM Omnivorous has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024