April 27, 20214 yr 3 minutes ago, DaEagles4Life said: If we extrapolate the problem it's usually not a drug problem only. Look at coal country and the opioid epidemic. It's not they all wanted to turn to drugs all at once. Coal was given the middle finger and a majority of these lost f it's usually a social problem a financial problem and have nowhere else to turn that's Cure poverty and you'll cure a great many social ills including taking a huge bite out of the drug problem over time. Until then, we must accept that many people who lose hope and are in bad circumstances may turn to drugs. Some of those people will become addicted, and the majority of those will not benefit from treatment, forced or not, until they want to. Even then it'll be a huge struggle and some will never be free of it.
April 27, 20214 yr 1 minute ago, PoconoDon said: Cure poverty and you'll cure a great many social ills including taking a huge bite out of the drug problem over time. Until then, we must accept that many people who lose hope and are in bad circumstances may turn to drugs. Some of those people will become addicted, and the majority of those will not benefit from treatment, forced or not, until they want to. Even then it'll be a huge struggle and some will never be free of it. True but locking low-level drug users up with hardened criminals and full-on addicts is definitely not the way to cut down on addiction. That only creates more addicts.
April 27, 20214 yr 4 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: True but locking low-level drug users up with hardened criminals and full-on addicts is definitely not the way to cut down on addiction. That only creates more addicts. As I posted earlier, I'm on board with that. There isn't any wisdom I can find in filling jails and prisons with personal use violators. It makes sense for no one except maybe the for-profit private prison industry.
April 27, 20214 yr Just now, PoconoDon said: As I posted earlier, I'm on board with that. There isn't any wisdom I can find in filling jails and prisons with personal use violators. It makes sense for no one except maybe the for profit private prison industry. So you're on board with full decriminalization, like they're doing in Oregon, or just pot?
April 27, 20214 yr 1 minute ago, VanHammersly said: So you're on board with full decriminalization, like they're doing in Oregon, or just pot? I'm in favor of full legalization of pot and managing it like alcohol ( e.g., must be 21, don't blaze and drive, don't provide to underage persons, etc.). To my mind, harder drugs provide a much trickier calculus. Decriminalizing personal use amounts to a small fine without jail time is fine by me. Offering them treatment is fine by me. Forcing treatment on those who don't want it is usually a waste of time and resources. As for dealing illicit drugs being a criminal enterprise? I think that should remain in place for now. I don't think the USA could handle a full on drug free for all. IMO, the chaos would be legendary and the resulting over correction would likely be even more Draconian laws than we've had to this point.
April 27, 20214 yr 1 hour ago, PoconoDon said: It's promising for those who desire treatment. The majority of addicts do not however, and will refuse it outright. What do you do with those folks? Estimates of possible outcomes is great if we can extrapolate for the entire population of addicts, but some estimate that 90% of addicts avoid treatment. I'm not suggesting that the centers can't help, but keeping proper perspective is important. Is there some evidence that this is true? Note that Portugal decriminalized drugs - but it's still not technically legal. They simply changed how they approach recreational use of drugs. They still actively investigate drug trafficking and make busts. Criminalizing recreational drug use makes no sense, and makes criminals out of people who pose no threat to their fellow citizens. Not to mention that minorities in particular are a targeted group, given how disproportionate sentencing and enforcement was for drugs consumed by PoC vs. whites.* It's very interesting how the approach to drug abuse in the "inner cities" back in the 80s and 90s ("tough on crime!") contrasts with the approach to modern opioid crisis ("so sad. we failed them economically."). *I'm not going to argue that all of the motivations therein were racial in nature (though some of them probably were), as there is always going to be a more aggressive level of policing in places where people (and crime) is more concentrated, and those tend towards PoC.
April 27, 20214 yr 13 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: Is there some evidence that this is true? Note that Portugal decriminalized drugs - but it's still not technically legal. They simply changed how they approach recreational use of drugs. They still actively investigate drug trafficking and make busts. Criminalizing recreational drug use makes no sense, and makes criminals out of people who pose no threat to their fellow citizens. Not to mention that minorities in particular are a targeted group, given how disproportionate sentencing and enforcement was for drugs consumed by PoC vs. whites.* It's very interesting how the approach to drug abuse in the "inner cities" back in the 80s and 90s ("tough on crime!") contrasts with the approach to modern opioid crisis ("so sad. we failed them economically."). *I'm not going to argue that all of the motivations therein were racial in nature (though some of them probably were), as there is always going to be a more aggressive level of policing in places where people (and crime) is more concentrated, and those tend towards PoC. https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUHresultsPDFWHTML2013/Web/NSDUHresults2013.pdf
April 27, 20214 yr 22 minutes ago, PoconoDon said: https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUHresultsPDFWHTML2013/Web/NSDUHresults2013.pdf They rely on a VERY broad definition of substance dependence. If you tell them over the phone that you want to cut down on your drinking, you're considered "in need of treatment".
April 27, 20214 yr 27 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: They rely on a VERY broad definition of substance dependence. If you tell them over the phone that you want to cut down on your drinking, you're considered "in need of treatment". That's one of a number of sources that offer estimates of untreated addicts. They all come in over 50% but as referenced above, they think as high as 90% don't get treatment. Some can't because it's not readily available, but most simply won't. In the end, only those who desire beating the addiction have any hope of success.
April 27, 20214 yr I agree with your last statement, but I feel like we're getting a bit far from the point here. Treating recreational usage of drugs as a public health issue when needed makes a lot more sense than making criminals of those who use drugs safely and responsibly, and pariahs of those who suffer from addiction and abuse. The main thrust is that where it's an issue, it's an issue of public health not criminal justice.
December 20, 20213 yr On 12/19/2021 at 1:37 PM, Toty said: "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never... I'm just kidding I'm not 16 anymore OK, but don't try to live in the valley. They won't have you.
December 20, 20213 yr 27 minutes ago, Toty said: Even if I introduced Midas Mulligan to the idea of cryptocurrency? No exceptions. The oath is voluntary though, so it's up to you.
May 11, 20223 yr 1 hour ago, BFit said: hi, my names BFit, and im a libertarian...... Do you hang truck balls on your Tesla pickup?
May 11, 20223 yr 8 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: Do you hang truck balls on your Tesla pickup? No but I charge it with a diesel powered generator I keep in the bed that runs on off road diesel
May 12, 20223 yr Interesting. So Libertarians support legalized sex work, drugs, abortion and oppose the Death Penalty. Privatizing SS is interesting. So how will that work? Do I get all the money I put into the system for 30 years back, for me to invest as I please, or is that money gone forever?
May 12, 20223 yr 1 hour ago, Gannan said: He voted no on the infrastructure bill Massie is a self-absorbed attention whooring moron. Anyone that still takes him seriously is almost certainly cut from the very same cloth as he was.
May 12, 20223 yr 4 hours ago, Gannan said: He voted no on the infrastructure bill As he should. He opposes all Omnibus Bills
May 12, 20223 yr 48 minutes ago, iladelphxx said: As he should. He opposes all Omnibus Bills Which will never happen so...
May 12, 20223 yr Legalizing pot is one thing. Doing the same for Coke or H or LSD or Molly, etc. Is not a good idea. I think the majority of people would be against legalization of All Drugs. We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a saltshaker half-full of cocaine, and a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…a pint of raw ether, and two dozen amyls Blues, reds, yellows, screamers, uppers, downers, you name it.
May 13, 20223 yr 10 hours ago, iladelphxx said: Massie is verifiably one of the biggest morons in Congress, and he looks perfect for that role, too. I'd say that's $500 well spent. I'd gladly offer another $500 to take the fight to the fascists.
Create an account or sign in to comment