Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 56 (9190 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: critterridder
Post Volume: Total: 919,058 Year: 6,315/9,624 Month: 163/240 Week: 10/96 Day: 6/4 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   War On Drugs
nator
Member (Idle past 2369 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 46 of 99 (192018)
03-16-2005 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Dr Jack
03-14-2005 10:33 AM


Re: Jesus could never get high because He Was the Most High already
quote:
Why? Everyone I know who's taken Cocaine has been fine with it.
Several of the people I've known who have taken cocaine have been obnoxious assholes while on it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Dr Jack, posted 03-14-2005 10:33 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2369 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 47 of 99 (192019)
03-16-2005 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Loudmouth
03-14-2005 1:49 PM


quote:
Why are we throwing addicts into jail (in the US)? How does this help them? We need to shift our view away from punishing drug use to TREATING drug use.
Couldn't agree more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Loudmouth, posted 03-14-2005 1:49 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 8.2


Message 48 of 99 (192021)
03-16-2005 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by nator
03-16-2005 10:39 PM


Re: Let's get some basics out of the way first.
Should GHB, the date rape drug, be available to anyone who wants it?
Yup!
So, what did they say about how much they cared about taking care of their chilren, achieving at work or school, or about anything else compared to how much they cared about getting and staying high?
Varied. Some really wanted help and wanted to change, many simply wanted to get high.
And how is providing as much heroin and crack cocaine to anyone who wants it, for free, going to help anyone recover from addiction?
How is charging for it and pushing folk into criminalization going to help anyone recover from addiction?
It would put them all out of business.
Damn right.
What effect would having all drugs free and plentiful have on neglect of children, frequency of unwanted pregnancy, date rape, domestic violence, regular old violence, worker productivity, the ability to keep a job, and petty crime?
Certainly wouldn't make it any worse but will likely improve things greatly. For example, right now almost 100% of income in many addicts households goes to finding drugs. If they were free that portion of the income could be spent on other things such as food.
A second issue is effort. Again, under the present system any time not high is used trying to find the resources and connection for the next high. If the drugs were free and readily available that energy and time could be used in other ways, like changing diapers.
(the reason I mention petty crime is because people who just want to be high all the time are not reliable, nor do they think properly. They therefore cannot keep a job and pay their living expenses. Thus, they will become homeless.)
And how would that be different?
Why do you think that there is no middle ground whatsoever between the "war on drugs" and a total free for all with all drugs available for free to everyone.
It's not an issue of middle ground. I just think the war on drugs is about as stupid an idea as anyone could possibly come up with. So far I've been unable to find any advantages to it and lots of disadvantages. It's a totally failed attemptt and I can't imagine why we think we might see different results when we just continue doing the same thing.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by nator, posted 03-16-2005 10:39 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by nator, posted 03-16-2005 11:41 PM jar has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2369 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 49 of 99 (192031)
03-16-2005 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by jar
03-16-2005 10:57 PM


Re: Let's get some basics out of the way first.
Should GHB, the date rape drug, be available to anyone who wants it?
quote:
Yup!
So you would be OK with supplying people with the means to easily commit rape, with no questions asked, as much as they wanted?
And how is providing as much heroin and crack cocaine to anyone who wants it, for free, going to help anyone recover from addiction?
quote:
How is charging for it and pushing folk into criminalization going to help anyone recover from addiction?
I support the decriminalization of drug USE, but not the production or distribution of them.
Anyway, you didn't answer my question.
How is having free, legal, widespread availability of crack and heroin going to help anyone recover from addiction?
I see how unsuccessful recovering from nicotine addiction is for many people at my workplace. There are many smokers there, and I know at least 5 people who had quit smoking years ago who started smoking again, and are addicted again, because there is an entire culture of cigarette smoking as a way to take a break at my workplace and in our greater culture. There have even been some people in their mid twenties who started to smoke because they were around it so much and it was part of "taking a break" and "dealing with stress".
quote:
Certainly wouldn't make it any worse but will likely improve things greatly. For example, right now almost 100% of income in many addicts households goes to finding drugs. If they were free that portion of the income could be spent on other things such as food.
If they got all the drugs they wanted, they would likely spend all of their time getting and staying high, instead of working a job and earning a living.
If, as you stated, the only reason for some people have to go to work is to make money to be able to buy drugs, and they then don't need money to get the drugs, then they don't have to waste time working. They can just be high all the time for free.
quote:
A second issue is effort. Again, under the present system any time not high is used trying to find the resources and connection for the next high. If the drugs were free and readily available that energy and time could be used in other ways, like changing diapers.
...or getting and staying high all the time instead of just some of the time.
quote:
It's not an issue of middle ground.
Of course it is.
I agree that criminalizing drug use is stupid.
I think it is just as stupid to hand out heroin and crack cocaine to anyone who wants them as if they were cheese samples at the grocery store.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by jar, posted 03-16-2005 10:57 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by jar, posted 03-17-2005 12:15 AM nator has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 8.2


Message 50 of 99 (192034)
03-17-2005 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by nator
03-16-2005 11:41 PM


Re: Let's get some basics out of the way first.
I think it is just as stupid to hand out heroin and crack cocaine to anyone who wants them as if they were cheese samples at the grocery store.
So let's look at the methodology.
First, the War on Drugs is incredibly expensive. Producing the drugs is incredibly inexpensive.
What I'd like to see done is begin by nationalizing all of the production and distribution and as I've said, simply give the stuff away.
But I'd like to see even more. I'd like for us to take the money saved and put it into the distribution network. Let's make the distribution point local neighborhood based clinics where folk will get their fix but also get health care, counseling, nutrition suplements and staples as well as child care facilities. These could easily be funded by diverting what we now spend in the active war on drugs plus the secondary and hidden costs; incarceration, court systems, law enforcement and training, a considerable amount of foriegn aid and expenditures, and a small contribution or redirection from the private sector (insurance companies that will see savings from curent losses due to theft and violence that are a direct result of the current drug culture).
We could place a condition that to get the free drugs you also have to get a free medical checkup on some regular basis, get recertified. If they have kids, to get their drugs they need to drop the kids off at the day care where they too can get medical care, fed, clothing checked and supplemented if needed.
We could encourage private charity groups to participate by providing a designated channel where help could be directed and controled, targeted so that all activities work towards a support network.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by nator, posted 03-16-2005 11:41 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by nator, posted 03-17-2005 2:03 AM jar has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2369 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 51 of 99 (192055)
03-17-2005 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by jar
03-17-2005 12:15 AM


Re: Let's get some basics out of the way first.
Jar, you avoided most of my post.
Why do you think that people who only go to work in order to get money to buy drugs wouldn't just stop working altogether and stay high 24 hours a day if they could get all the drugs they wanted for free?
Why do you think it is OK to hand out, no questions asked, the means for people to easily commit rape, as much as they wanted?
How is having free, legal, widespread availability of crack and heroin going to help anyone recover from addiction?
I see how unsuccessful recovering from nicotine addiction is for many people at my workplace. There are many smokers there, and I know at least 5 people who had quit smoking years ago who started smoking again, and are addicted again, because there is an entire culture of cigarette smoking as a way to take a break at my workplace and in our greater culture. There have even been some people in their mid twenties who started to smoke because they were around it so much and it was part of "taking a break" and "dealing with stress".
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-17-2005 02:04 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by jar, posted 03-17-2005 12:15 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Silent H, posted 03-17-2005 5:42 AM nator has replied
 Message 55 by jar, posted 03-17-2005 8:58 AM nator has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 6019 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 52 of 99 (192073)
03-17-2005 5:06 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Ben!
03-16-2005 6:13 PM


in other words, sorry for the slow response.
No problem.
I guess my point was that, for those who don't feel that religious pressure, there's still some reason why the drugs in question are considered "bad." Some has to do with "what is normal." Some has to do with pragmatic concerns (i.e. legitimatizing pleasure within the framework of a co-dependent society (i.e. I don't want to work for somebody who is viewed as a "laze", i.e. lazy person)).
Although I agree that a nonreligious person can have this viewpoint, and it might come from a nonreligious source, I would argue the originating source of modern feelings such as these is religious in nature. That is to say the ideas of what we view as "normal" or not were majorly shaped by religious views which dominated society throughout much of the last 2000 years, and especially reaching a recent climax of control in the late 1800's.
The effects of flu medicine are called "side-effects," and are undesired. A cold or flu medicine that works without side-effects would be greatly popular.
While this is true, you need to ask the counter question. Would a new version of crack without the side effects be desirable to society?
Given that marijuana comes with less deleterious side effects than alcohol, why is it treated as something bad?
That's the (supposed) role of regulation of such drugs, to control the severity of side-effects of drugs available for public consumption. Drugs with "severe" side-effects are illegal to distribute.
I realize what the stated purpose is, but stated purpose does not match reality. The fact that marijuana, mushrooms, and peyote is illegal and beer is legal shows there is something else going on here.
The only basis we have for saying "it's sad" is simply that the kids are "not normal."
Heheheh... maybe you missed my point then. People are advocating drug use for children, even with side effects, because they don't want their children to act objectively "normal" and instead act subjectively "normal".
But there are no non-problematic positions, at least given the thinking I've done so far.
While there may be no non-problematic positions, there certainly are proven less problematic positions. This is what confuses me about this whole topic. We went through prohibition and learned that it does not work, now keep pretending that other drugs are somehow different than alcohol and so prohibition will work in their case... based on what exactly?
The fact is we can let people determine their own fate, and try to help them out of problems if they get into trouble, or we can try to stamp everyone into lockstep in order to make sure people will less likely get into problems in the first place. Since history has shown the latter to lead to more death, suffering, corruption, and violence than the former, I vote for the former.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Ben!, posted 03-16-2005 6:13 PM Ben! has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 6019 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 53 of 99 (192075)
03-17-2005 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by nator
03-17-2005 2:03 AM


Re: Let's get some basics out of the way first.
Why do you think that people who only go to work in order to get money to buy drugs wouldn't just stop working altogether and stay high 24 hours a day if they could get all the drugs they wanted for free?
My question to you is:
1) how many people do not work and yet do not have a drug problem?
2) how many people (if drugs were free) would end up in the state you described?
3) how many people would at least not resort to working in violent crime if drugs were legalized?
To my mind we know there will always be a portion of the population that is unemployed and will need help in some way. There will even be some malingerers who want to just live off others (and that is even without drugs) and will use systems meant for helping the objectively disadvantaged. Do we throw the baby out with the bathwater? I don't think so, especially when we give money to companies to help them out when we know perfectly well there are companies which are malingerers.
The fact that drug addicts may inherently be malingerers does not alter the fact that I would not end the system of aid. We are better off having the catch, even if a few cheat the system. Free or lower priced drugs may help them stay malingerers, but cutting off connections and raising the price certainly won't end them using the system. In fact it will likely push them to work in crime, which does not help anyone.
Unless free drugs means that people will likely become users, then addicts, and finally malingerers, then I don't see how your position acts as an argument that we should not have free drugs.
Why do you think it is OK to hand out, no questions asked, the means for people to easily commit rape, as much as they wanted?
This is really silly. First of all "rape drugs" are not exactly drugs that people use for personal pleasure. That is they do not get one high and as far as I know they aren't even addictive. I'm not sure why Jar agreed to fund this as it seems if we are funding it them we'd have to be funding all sorts of chemical production that has no real benefit because it won't be helping addiction. It would be cost-benefit nil.
In any case, let's assume they are handed out freely. So what? If you are knocking someone else out rather than yourself then you are commiting a crime. If another person knocks themself out and you rape them then you have commited a crime. What is the difference if the person who bought the drug got it full price, discount, or free?
You can rape a person who passed out from alcohol, or you conked on the head. The fact that they are handing out "clubs" for free, does not mean more people will be conking people out in order to rape them.
You seem to keep riding the slippery slope fallacy of if evil can be done it will be done en masse.
How is having free, legal, widespread availability of crack and heroin going to help anyone recover from addiction?
Any one? That's easy. An addict may avoid getting involved with elements looking to keep him hooked as well as getting involved in crime which will further erode his connection to social supports he would need to stay out of trouble. Indeed, if it was a clinical center where drugs were obtained and counseling existed, he would not only have social supports there, but social pressure to stay out of crime.
Sending people to criminals to get their fix, and prison if they are caught using or selling, only increases their connection to elements that are going to pressure them to commit more crimes and avoid socializing influences.
Will this work in allcases? No. But it offers a chance which the alternative (illegality) does not.
I see how unsuccessful recovering from nicotine addiction is for many people at my workplace.
So? Some people really do manage to quit, and in any case those that do not can manage productive lives... correct? As far as people "taking a break" that is emotional addiction, not physical addiction. I've watched offices get hooked on coffee breaks, and where no coffee was brewing then water breaks, bathroom breaks, etc etc.
I am not sure how the argument that "it will be tough for people to break physical addiction if their source of chemicals is free", counters "it will be tough to break physical addiction because their source of chemicals will be criminal elements who will likely push them into crime and drive them further from social norms, as well as having less social help in general, plus they will now have to work harder (in desperation) in spite of their medical problem".
This is not to mention what you have avoided. Instead of thinking about the addict, and how hard it will be for them to pull themselves off it, think about the rest of society. How does it help us to give money to criminal organizations and alienate citizens who could be good so that we swell the ranks of criminal organizations? What's more in order to combat those now empowered criminal organizations it becomes necessary for good citizens to become "bad" ones in order to infiltrate and bring them down. This usually involves allowing drugs to come through anyway!
Prohibition failed. Do you agree with this or not? If it did fail, then why are drugs different?
I realize you are mainly attacking Jar's position of handing drugs out free (which would be the equivalent of the state running bars if we analogize to alcohol), but you have also stated you support keeping production and distribution illegal.
Contrary to some within this thread I find that backward thinking. While I get how it would work for easy drugs like marijuana and mushrooms, you'd still end up with someone trying to sell their extra stash for cash,and some people who'd rather buy than work on growing stuff (not everyone has a green thumb), and it would be much better to have real labs work on synthetics where quality could be controlled.
In the end you need to pull drugs out of the criminal world if you hope to end violence and increase aid to addicts.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by nator, posted 03-17-2005 2:03 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by nator, posted 03-17-2005 10:19 AM Silent H has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 99 (192084)
03-17-2005 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Monk
03-16-2005 8:28 PM


Re: Let's get some basics out of the way first.
quote:
A person in any profession who has been a heroin addict for 40 years with no ramifications has a story that a lot of people would be interested in.
Heroine, morphine, and cocaine abuse were all common in the Victorian period, these not yet being restricted drugs. As has been mentioned, Sherlock Holmes is a heroine addict, and this was not astoundingly remarkable, nor was it obligatory to paint him as a stumbling buffoon - quite the opposite, he is lauded for his intellect.
It is actually more accurate to say that poor, malnourished crime-committing heroine users are merely more visible than the productive, functional users who are not getting into trouble with the law, than to to say the functional users have a unique experience.
---
On the issue of criminalisation, I cannot see the logic in decriminalising use, but not sale. If using or owning a thing is not contrary to the law, why whould providing or making that thing be contrary to the law? The providers are fulfilling a market demand with appropriate supply - thats exactly how its supposed to work. If you don't want the product retailed, then you have to assert its usage and posession are criminal in and of themselves. You cannot blame an entrepreneur for meeting effective demand for a product it is legal to have.
This message has been edited by contracycle, 03-17-2005 07:12 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Monk, posted 03-16-2005 8:28 PM Monk has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by nator, posted 03-20-2005 6:36 AM contracycle has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 8.2


Message 55 of 99 (192094)
03-17-2005 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by nator
03-17-2005 2:03 AM


Re: Let's get some basics out of the way first.
Jar, you avoided most of my post.
Didn't think I did. But let me try a different way.
Why do you think that people who only go to work in order to get money to buy drugs wouldn't just stop working altogether and stay high 24 hours a day if they could get all the drugs they wanted for free?
So what? I just don't see where that has any relevance.
If someone is capable of going to work and functioning at a level where they can earn the money to satisfy their current drug habit, they are not as far gone as you imply. But even if you are 100% right, so what? The number of folk that will simply drop out and stay high all the time will still be fewer than the number of folk we have locked up. Even if they do drop out and just stay high, under my proposed system they will get medical care and if kids are involved, the kids will get more care then they recieve now.
I just don't see a downside.
Why do you think it is OK to hand out, no questions asked, the means for people to easily commit rape, as much as they wanted?
Why not?
Again, I just don't understand your objections. The drug isn't the issue, rape is the issue. Punish the folk for their behavior. I'm sure all the date rapists will gleefully trot down to the clinic, sign up to get their date-rape drugs.
I'm sorry Scraf, the whole idea was to silly and I couldn't believe you even brought it up.
How is having free, legal, widespread availability of crack and heroin going to help anyone recover from addiction?
Again, I clearly explained the answer to that. Under the system I propose the distribution point will be in health care clinics. And as I said before, "How does the current system help anyone recover from addiction?"

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by nator, posted 03-17-2005 2:03 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by nator, posted 03-20-2005 6:55 AM jar has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4327 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 56 of 99 (192098)
03-17-2005 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Monk
03-16-2005 8:28 PM


Re: Let's get some basics out of the way first.
I'll have a look for it tonight - here are a few interesting quotes that appear to from some academic research:
quote:
Nelson commented "Functional drug-abusing employees may work as productive members of a company for years without incident or detection. Cases have been documented of long-term heroin addicts with stable 10- and 20-year work histories."
quote:
Heroin is believed to be responsible for substantial lost productivity, however the effects of the drug itself are often confused with the effects of the "junkie" lifestyle. The primary barrier to heroin addicts working is not so much the effect of the drug itself, but of the lifestyle which surrounds illicit heroin use, with the constant need to "hustle" to get funds and "score" the next hit of street heroin.
http://www.idmu.co.uk/hemployment.htm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Monk, posted 03-16-2005 8:28 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Monk, posted 03-18-2005 10:55 PM CK has not replied
 Message 65 by nator, posted 03-20-2005 6:59 AM CK has not replied

  
kjsimons
Member
Posts: 826
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003


Message 57 of 99 (192105)
03-17-2005 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by nator
03-16-2005 7:11 PM


We can keep them illegal to produce and distribute, and have high penalties for those people, but make posession a misdemeanor, not a felony.
But this misses one of the bigger problems with the drug trade, the violence! We need to remove the profit in the drug trade by making the drugs legal so the druglords and gangs will lose their source of revenue. The reduction in price might also decrease property theft by individuals trying to buy high priced illegal drugs, maybe. We then also need to strongly discourage drug abuse (not use). I personally don't do any drugs harder than alcohol and caffiene, and not because of the legality of the hard stuff. I just don't like the out of control feeling some drugs give you.
I just don't see where making crack cocaine and heroin free and available to all is going to make crack and heroin addicts want to do anything other than get and stay high 24 hours a day.
Maybe I'm a bit callous, but I'm more concerned about the cost to me in dollars and increased societal violence due to the drug trade being illegal then the well being of people who will be addicts whether or not drugs are legal. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for trying to help them, but more concerned about helping myself and other non-drug addicts first. Have you ever been in a major inner city and seen what the violence of the drug trade does to the neighborhood? It's appalling, much more so than the plight of a drug addict!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by nator, posted 03-16-2005 7:11 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2369 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 58 of 99 (192112)
03-17-2005 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Silent H
03-17-2005 5:42 AM


Re: Let's get some basics out of the way first.
quote:
My question to you is:
1) how many people do not work and yet do not have a drug problem?
I do not see how this is relevant to what we are talking about.
quote:
2) how many people (if drugs were free) would end up in the state you described?
I don't know exactly, but I would suppose it wouldn't be fewer than there are now, and it would probably be more.
quote:
3) how many people would at least not resort to working in violent crime if drugs were legalized?
Some violent crime would go down, but not all. Remember, it's not the huge expense of drugs that leads most addicts to commit crimes, it's that their drug use makes them unemployable, so they have no income for anything, including drugs.
quote:
Unless free drugs means that people will likely become users, then addicts, and finally malingerers, then I don't see how your position acts as an argument that we should not have free drugs.
Cigarettes are expensive and restricted but are legal and have much less of a stigma attached to them compared to heroin or crack, and millions of people are addicted to them worldwide. Probably a third of the US is addicted to nicotine, if not more.
Now, jar says that he wants local health centers to hand over heroin and crack to anyone who wants it when they drop their kids off to daycare (and it had better be "nightcare" as well when mommy and daddy go on a bender for a couple of days).
Why wouldn't such behavior become normalized in family life, what with the children growing up with crack and heroin use a normal part of everyday life, like cigarettes are?
quote:
First of all "rape drugs" are not exactly drugs that people use for personal pleasure. That is they do not get one high and as far as I know they aren't even addictive. I'm not sure why Jar agreed to fund this as it seems if we are funding it them we'd have to be funding all sorts of chemical production that has no real benefit because it won't be helping addiction. It would be cost-benefit nil.
Right. that's why I asked.
quote:
In any case, let's assume they are handed out freely. So what? If you are knocking someone else out rather than yourself then you are commiting a crime. If another person knocks themself out and you rape them then you have commited a crime. What is the difference if the person who bought the drug got it full price, discount, or free?
You can rape a person who passed out from alcohol, or you conked on the head. The fact that they are handing out "clubs" for free, does not mean more people will be conking people out in order to rape them.
Should we install GHB dispensers in nightclub bathrooms then? Why don't we hand out guns and ammo to every violent criminal upon their release from prison? They'll get one anyway, right, and guns don't kill people, people kill people, right?
quote:
You seem to keep riding the slippery slope fallacy of if evil can be done it will be done en masse.
Cigarettes. Alcohol. (US)
Opium in China under foreign influence.
Let's remember that you were the one to briong up "evil", not me. I'm just talking about behavior.
quote:
An addict may avoid getting involved with elements looking to keep him hooked
Yeah that works great for people trying to quit smoking or drinking alcohol.
You forget that recovering addicts often have to completely cut off contact with everything and everyone associated with their drug of choice in order to not continue using. Cigarettes and alcohol are available in every grocery and corner store, and many coworkers take frequent smoke breaks out back, and alcohol is at nearly every restaurant and social event they attend.
Just having the stuff around, everywhere, in their everyday lives makes it very, very difficult to quit, even though there is lots of medical and social support available to help them do so.
There is that old joke about attending AA meetings and not being able to see the speaker through the haze of cigarette smoke.
quote:
as well as getting involved in crime which will further erode his connection to social supports he would need to stay out of trouble. Indeed, if it was a clinical center where drugs were obtained and counseling existed, he would not only have social supports there, but social pressure to stay out of crime.
I am all for decrimimalizing drug USE, but not production and not distribution. I am also all for lots of free drug treatment for all addicts.
quote:
Sending people to criminals to get their fix, and prison if they are caught using or selling, only increases their connection to elements that are going to pressure them to commit more crimes and avoid socializing influences.
Like I have said several times, I support the decriminalization of drug USE.
quote:
Some people really do manage to quit,
...despite easy availability of their drug everywhere.
quote:
and in any case those that do not can manage productive lives... correct?
Yes, for a few decades anyway. Then they become a burden by having long, debilitating illnesses.
Let us also remember that cigarettes and heroin and crack do not have exactly similar effects.
Cigarettes do not impair your cognitive function, while heroin and crack most definitely do.
quote:
As far as people "taking a break" that is emotional addiction, not physical addiction. I've watched offices get hooked on coffee breaks, and where no coffee was brewing then water breaks, bathroom breaks, etc etc.
No, they need to "take a break" because they are having a nicotine craving and they get more and more irritable and distracted from the withdrawl symptoms until they feed their addiction.
quote:
I am not sure how the argument that "it will be tough for people to break physical addiction if their source of chemicals is free", counters "it will be tough to break physical addiction because their source of chemicals will be criminal elements who will likely push them into crime and drive them further from social norms, as well as having less social help in general, plus they will now have to work harder (in desperation) in spite of their medical problem".
I don't think these need to be the only two scenarios.
Let's take the money we currently spend on incarcerating addicts and instead put it towards plentiful and free drug treatment centers, and also towards drug education.
quote:
Prohibition failed. Do you agree with this or not? If it did fail, then why are drugs different?
Yep, but we don't give alcohol away for free to anyone who wants it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Silent H, posted 03-17-2005 5:42 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by contracycle, posted 03-17-2005 11:01 AM nator has not replied
 Message 60 by Silent H, posted 03-17-2005 12:45 PM nator has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 99 (192119)
03-17-2005 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by nator
03-17-2005 10:19 AM


Re: Let's get some basics out of the way first.
quote:
Some violent crime would go down, but not all. Remember, it's not the huge expense of drugs that leads most addicts to commit crimes, it's that their drug use makes them unemployable, so they have no income for anything, including drugs.
I don't think thats necessarily a good assumption. Such drugs are expensive - not least becuase of the costs associated with conducting an illegal enterprise. For the poor, that degree of expense is probably not sustainable on low-end wages, and thus their income may be supplemented by criminality. It is not necessarily the case that their drug use makes them unemployable at all - it is that the relatively huge expense to them leads them to criminality, which makes life unstable, which makes it hard to hold down a job.
If they were sufficiently wealthy that they can easily sustain the expense of the habit, and can be confident of a stable supply, then the devolution to the chaotic and criminal lifestyle may not occur at all. Thats excatly the conclusion that appears to arise from studies on middle class habitual users.
Short article: Is heroin safe for some people to use?
Is heroin safe for some people to use? | Science | The Guardian
quote:
Why wouldn't such behavior become normalized in family life, what with the children growing up with crack and heroin use a normal part of everyday life, like cigarettes are?
Arguably, it already is for many poor families. But, why cannot we de-stigmatise this problem, so that people are more willing to seek treatment, and treatment can be provided without having to wade through accusations of "endorsing" drug taking?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by nator, posted 03-17-2005 10:19 AM nator has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 6019 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 60 of 99 (192135)
03-17-2005 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by nator
03-17-2005 10:19 AM


Re: Let's get some basics out of the way first.
I do not see how this is relevant to what we are talking about.
It is perfectly relevant as it feeds into the question of supporting people who do not work, and may not work for a long time due to an illness or other handicap. If you are for socialized medicine and welfare for a person disabled by a nonchemically induced condition, why would you be against doing the same thing for a chemically induced condition?
Some violent crime would go down, but not all. Remember, it's not the huge expense of drugs that leads most addicts to commit crimes, it's that their drug use makes them unemployable, so they have no income for anything, including drugs.
This is a stereotype based on the worst case addicts. However, even assuming all addicts are the braindead unemployable types, with proper socialized care for the unemployed this would result in lower crime... right?
In any case you seem to not understand the scope of the violence problem. Most of the violence is not junkies mugging people because they need money for a tv or food. If there is violence on the part of junkies it is usually for money for drugs, and the much greater portion of violence is a result of criminal orgs fighting each other as well as the police and citizens.
Having lived in poor neighborhoods where druggang killings happened right out my window (yes I saw them), as well as neighborhoods infested with living dead junkies, I can tell ya there is a lot less violence happening in the latter.
This also results in our not exporting our war to other nations where we end up having to kill foreign farmers in order to curb our addicts' habits.
Indeed I am really not getting how you came to this conclusion regarding violence. We had prohibition, we saw exactly what it did. Once alcohol was legal the violence went way down as did corruption in general. The orgs then switched to other drugs and the violence went back up. What is it that makes you think prohibition does not act as a lesson in how to handle other chemicals?
Cigarettes are expensive and restricted but are legal and have much less of a stigma attached to them compared to heroin or crack, and millions of people are addicted to them worldwide. Probably a third of the US is addicted to nicotine, if not more.
I don't smoke, most of my friends don't smoke, do you smoke? I don't get what your argument is here, just because it is legal does not mean the majority will suddenly be hooked on cigs much less on chronic.
I also fail to see where you indicated those who are addicted to cigs are suffering massively in life such that they cannot work.
Are you actually advocating for treating nicotine as we do other drugs?
Why wouldn't such behavior become normalized in family life, what with the children growing up with crack and heroin use a normal part of everyday life, like cigarettes are?
Oh you mean like marijuana, which is legal in the Netherlands and is a part of everyday life like cigs are? Yeah I see your point, it works out just fine thank you. Let me tell you it was certainly an eye opener going to family gatherings or social events and people are lighting up joints just as much as cigs... right in front of the KIDS!!!!
Big deal, it becomes just like any other choice in life. I tend to think hard drugs would be viewed by families as alcohol and alcohol addiction is. It is not glamorous and a pretty healthy sign for people to be very careful. Note that it does not need to be illegal, nor people thrown into prison, to get that point across.
Should we install GHB dispensers in nightclub bathrooms then? Why don't we hand out guns and ammo to every violent criminal upon their release from prison? They'll get one anyway, right, and guns don't kill people, people kill people, right?
Look, this is just silly. First of all Jar was clearly talking about dispensing drugs out of a clinic and not in bar bathrooms. Second, you are now trying to drag this into some gun rights issue for criminals... do you view people that go to nightclubs equivalent to violent criminals?
Cigarettes. Alcohol. (US)... Opium in China under foreign influence.
I'm sorry but are you trying to use this as proof that your slippery slope fallacy is somehow supported? Especially in the case of alcohol (which I keep bringing up) we have seen what prohibition does, it is worse than the problem of people getting addicted.
China is really out there as that was an illegal situation, not a legal one.
Yeah that works great for people trying to quit smoking or drinking alcohol.
Uh... yeah. People do recover from nicotine and alcohol problems. Is it hard? Yeah. Is it harder with greater availability? Yeah. Is it impossible? No. Are they faced with having to become criminals and so increase the likelihood of not seeking help when they need it? No.
Now in an illegal situation. Is it easy to kick? No. Is it easier to kick because there is less availability or that it's price is super high? No. Is it impossible? No, but once one is labelled as a criminal it may become impossible to find gainful employment afterward. Are they faced with having to become criminals and so increase the likelihood of not seeking the help they need? Yes.
I am all for decrimimalizing drug USE, but not production and not distribution.
Okay let's get this clear I do know that you are for decriminalizing drug use. I assume you understand that I am not quite in Jar's corner for complete drug handouts (at least not in the exact fashion he is discussing).
There is still a problem with prohibition of production and distribution. If you do not know this that is EXACTLY what prohibition started as. If you say a person can use it, then you have just legalized demand. Someone will have to fulfill that demand. Making that last half illegal ONLY GIVES PRODUCERS MORE PROFIT, WHILE INCREASING VIOLENCE.
Yes, for a few decades anyway. Then they become a burden by having long, debilitating illnesses.
You really got something against tobacco. This is not really true is it? What is the percentage of people that smoke who get cancer from smoking, or some other ailment? Then compare this with the percentage of everyone else that gets long debilitating illnesses before they die.
I think the best you will come up with is that perhaps on average, smokers will get their debilitating illnesses earlier than nonsmokers.
Intriguingly the smokers I did know all lived pretty long lives (of those that have died). The one guy I know that died of lung cancer was an avid nonsmoker and admitted the irony of his suffering and death (before his death of course).
Cigarettes do not impair your cognitive function, while heroin and crack most definitely do.
You do realize that many switch to other, usually harder, drugs because drugs are illegal and they are forced into choices of other products due to availability and price?
I agree that heroin and crack have greater effects than cigs. I just don't see how that means people that end up using them should be treated differently.
Let's take the money we currently spend on incarcerating addicts and instead put it towards plentiful and free drug treatment centers, and also towards drug education.
Although I could agree with this plan, if we maintain laws against the production and distribution of drugs, then the above will be countered by the criminal elements you force people to go to (and become part of) when getting their chemicals.
What good is drug education when you are also helping fund the pushers?
Yep, but we don't give alcohol away for free to anyone who wants it.
Oh I agree, and I think this is a problem with Jar's approach. I do not see the desperate need to hand things out for free (ie at taxpayer's expense) given how alcohol and cigs operate without that mechanism today.
There may be an argument that for really hard drugs it would be better to restrict them from profit oriented enterprises since they might abuse the higher addictive qualities on people such that we'd see much more health problems (more of such drug users becoming addicts). But I am still not confident of that actually being the result.
Personally I'd restrict free drug handouts to those that are in financial need and in the context of getting their medical/financial care. The rich can pay for their drugs.
Of course I guess Jar would have a point that we could track drug usage and addiction rates much more carefully the other way.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by nator, posted 03-17-2005 10:19 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by nator, posted 03-20-2005 8:15 AM Silent H 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