https://www.foxnews.com/us/oregon-first-state-decriminalize-hard-drugs-heroin-cocaine.amp
more states to follow? Also lsd
last edit on
11/4/2020 1:30:39 PM
It's good to do that. If you're an addict that means it's your problem and not the taxpayers.
Rampant drug abuse has a way of spreading through the lower class as a way to handle the strife of it, either through a friend, modeling off of their parents, or simply had access when they needed it to self-medicate during a bad time. As it spreads, the housing markets that it spreads through decay property value based both on the rumor mill and property negligence.
It's a poison that keeps the poor poorer and reduces the presence of a middle class, and even the rich see their children fall prey to substances either through big pharma or through having affluent reasons to self-medicate. What drugs you do and don't accept are a big deal culturally.
On topic however, this is more likely that Oregon's decriminalizing small quantities of these drugs.
Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
last edit on
11/5/2020 2:52:06 AM
It's good to do that. If you're an addict that means it's your problem and not the taxpayers.
Rampant drug abuse has a way of spreading through the lower class as a way to handle the strife it, either through a friend, modeling off of their parents, or simply had access when they needed it to self-medicate during a bad time. As it spreads, the housing markets that it spreads through decay property value based both on the rumor mill and property negligence.
It's a poison that keeps the poor poorer and reduces the presence of a middle class, and even the rich see their children fall prey to substances either through big pharma or through having affluent reasons to self-medicate. What drugs you do and don't accept are a big deal culturally.
On topic however, this is more likely that Oregon's decriminalizing small quantities of these drugs.
I've had pretty mixed opinions on decriminalization. It's BS that people go away so long for weed. But I've also been around junkies and fentanyl abusers. I seen some of them die, and also ended up helping them sell stolen TVs and dragging a guy down the road at 1 AM under tarp, just because I was rolling with their shit. The vast majority of people do not need access to hardcore drugs.
I'm alright with the more light stuff being legal, but I think people driving to work after shooting up H and being high on the job would be bad.
It's good to do that. If you're an addict that means it's your problem and not the taxpayers.
Rampant drug abuse has a way of spreading through the lower class as a way to handle the strife it, either through a friend, modeling off of their parents, or simply had access when they needed it to self-medicate during a bad time. As it spreads, the housing markets that it spreads through decay property value based both on the rumor mill and property negligence.
It's a poison that keeps the poor poorer and reduces the presence of a middle class, and even the rich see their children fall prey to substances either through big pharma or through having affluent reasons to self-medicate. What drugs you do and don't accept are a big deal culturally.
On topic however, this is more likely that Oregon's decriminalizing small quantities of these drugs.I've had pretty mixed opinions on decriminalization. It's BS that people go away so long for weed. But I've also been around junkies and fentanyl abusers. I seen some of them die, and also ended up helping them sell stolen TVs and dragging a guy down the road at 1 AM under tarp, just because I was rolling with their shit. The vast majority of people do not need access to hardcore drugs.
I'm alright with the more light stuff being legal, but I think people driving to work after shooting up H and being high on the job would be bad.
They already have access though. And I think it's safe to say that typically if someone is considering heroin or meth, this is not their first rodeo. People don't usually 0-to-100 with their drug use, if legality was going to stop them, it would have before they got that far down the tunnel.
People are going to use drugs, regardless. I expect decriminalization of personal use will lead to lower crime rates, more stable lives for those in at-risk communities, increase in drug users going to the hospital when needed, more dealers being held accountable for other crimes via minimizing witness discouragement, and emptier prisons, which as Spatial pointed out already is money saved, money that can then be reinvested in those at-risk communities, such as the effort to transition from prison to government funded rehab.
In general, I'm inclined to take a rather libertarian stance on this and say that as a rule the government shouldn't punish people for only hurting themselves. I've always thought that notion was a bit ridiculous. However, I also think that decriminalization isn't just a libertarian neglect, it's in many ways an active reinvestment in the communities most affected by substance abuse.
I'm all for reform, and I think rehab is probably better than locking people up. But I've also seen how people get on hard drugs, and it's not a pretty sight. I get what you mean, that these people probably already have an inclination. But a lot of people get started and never stop. I'm having visions of 18 year olds trying something with ease of access, and never dropping them.
It's good to do that. If you're an addict that means it's your problem and not the taxpayers.
Rampant drug abuse has a way of spreading through the lower class as a way to handle the strife it, either through a friend, modeling off of their parents, or simply had access when they needed it to self-medicate during a bad time. As it spreads, the housing markets that it spreads through decay property value based both on the rumor mill and property negligence.
It's a poison that keeps the poor poorer and reduces the presence of a middle class, and even the rich see their children fall prey to substances either through big pharma or through having affluent reasons to self-medicate. What drugs you do and don't accept are a big deal culturally.
On topic however, this is more likely that Oregon's decriminalizing small quantities of these drugs.I've had pretty mixed opinions on decriminalization. It's BS that people go away so long for weed. But I've also been around junkies and fentanyl abusers. I seen some of them die, and also ended up helping them sell stolen TVs and dragging a guy down the road at 1 AM under tarp, just because I was rolling with their shit. The vast majority of people do not need access to hardcore drugs.
I'm alright with the more light stuff being legal, but I think people driving to work after shooting up H and being high on the job would be bad.
They already have access though. And I think it's safe to say that typically if someone is considering heroin or meth, this is not their first rodeo. People don't usually 0-to-100 with their drug use, if legality was going to stop them, it would have before they got that far down the tunnel.
People are going to use drugs, regardless. I expect decriminalization of personal use will lead to lower crime rates, more stable lives for those in at-risk communities, increase in drug users going to the hospital when needed, more dealers being held accountable for other crimes via minimizing witness discouragement, and emptier prisons, which as Spatial pointed out already is money saved, money that can then be reinvested in those at-risk communities, such as the effort to transition from prison to government funded rehab.
In general, I'm inclined to take a rather libertarian stance on this and say that as a rule the government shouldn't punish people for only hurting themselves. I've always thought that notion was a bit ridiculous. However, I also think that decriminalization isn't just a libertarian neglect, it's in many ways an active reinvestment in the communities most affected by substance abuse.
I mostly agree with this overall, but not for Heroin that shit's insane for how quickly it can grab a hold on someone and over the sorts of damages it can inflict in a short time. Through having people not get in as much trouble for possession of a smaller quantity of substances you also increase the risk of people introducing substances to others more freely, alongside less of a sense of avoidance against it from there being less of a stigma surrounding it than otherwise. There's still people even now who would not smoke weed simply because of the bad reputation it carried years ago, and all it takes potentially to become hooked on Heroin is trying it one time (the withdrawal is nasty too).
Meth's a point of contention for me, but Heroin's beyond the line. Heroin's beyond a drug, it's a weaponizable toxic substance, one where forcing someone to take it once could ruin their entire lives.
Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
last edit on
11/5/2020 3:27:01 AM
Tryptamine said:I'm all for reform, and I think rehab is probably better than locking people up. But I've also seen how people get on hard drugs, and it's not a pretty sight. I get what you mean, that these people probably already have an inclination. But a lot of people get started and never stop. I'm having visions of 18 year olds trying something with ease of access, and never dropping them.
I agree that decriminalization itself is by no means a solution to the drug problem, but I disagree that it will significantly increase availability. Amounts above personal use are not being decriminalized, so the dealers still have to contend with what they always did. I instead see it as a solution to other problems. And perhaps eventually through the reconstruction of such communities, could contribute indirectly to a decrease in substance abuse overall. But to deal with things like meth and opioids, we need an entirely separate battle plan in tandem with decriminalization.
last edit on
11/5/2020 3:28:29 AM
It's good to do that. If you're an addict that means it's your problem and not the taxpayers.
Rampant drug abuse has a way of spreading through the lower class as a way to handle the strife of it, either through a friend, modeling off of their parents, or simply had access when they needed it to self-medicate during a bad time. As it spreads, the housing markets that it spreads through decay property value based both on the rumor mill and property negligence.
It's a poison that keeps the poor poorer and reduces the presence of a middle class, and even the rich see their children fall prey to substances either through big pharma or through having affluent reasons to self-medicate. What drugs you do and don't accept are a big deal culturally.
On topic however, this is more likely that Oregon's decriminalizing small quantities of these drugs.
It persists regardless if it's illegal or not.
Spending billions on an endless war still fails. It never ends.
Statistics suggest nations that end the war on drugs are better off. Either way it'll destroy people.