Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
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.
How it's seen by the culture at large has a notable effect on distribution. While decriminalizing isn't the same thing as legalizing it, making it easier to carry also makes it easier to share.
In many fashions the pros outweigh the cons, but the class of a drug isn't something we should ignore.
Spending billions on an endless war still fails. It never ends.
It's a matter of harm reduction as opposed to something that binary. You don't win or lose versus drugs, you just reduce it's impacts sociologically.
Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
last edit on
11/5/2020 3:35:18 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.
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.
But it's not about the risk level of the drug, the real question is whether or not decriminalization significantly increases access. Keep in mind, decriminalization is not legalization. Personal use still results in either a fine or mandatory rehab, and possession beyond personal use still lands you in prison.
But it's not about the risk level of the drug, the real question is whether or not decriminalization significantly increases access.
Carrying a single dose of heroin is enough to use it as a weapon, and once their hooked they become a new source for it to spread towards others.
With other drugs, a single dose is typically just enough to have a good time, but this deserves it's own tier of treatment. It's more like a disease that piggybacks social climate than a substance that just alters your perceptions a bit.
Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
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.
How it's seen by the culture at large has a notable effect on distribution. While decriminalizing isn't the same thing as legalizing it, making it easier to carry also makes it easier to share.
That depends on the limitation of personal use. The scope of a drug's spread through a community is far more about the dealers than the users.
And it's unlikely that the way heroin is viewed will change much in our society, beyond the shift from seeing drug abusers purely as criminals, to seeing them as victims of something. A transition which is resulting in sociologically and financially healthy legislation, like the move from prisons to free mandatory rehab.
In many fashions the pros outweigh the cons, but the class of a drug isn't something we should ignore.
In a general sense, yes. But in this particular case, the question is one of distribution patterns, not individual effect.
Spending billions on an endless war still fails. It never ends.
It's a matter of harm reduction as opposed to something that binary. You don't win or lose versus drugs, you just reduce it's impacts sociologically.
He makes a fair point though. We've been hammering away at this pandemic for ages with brute force and wasted money. It's very simply not working. It's well past time we stop banging our heads against the same brick wall and look for real solutions, which are going to be more complex than throwing punishment at the problem over and over.
QuietBeef said: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.
It's a complicated way forward that needs reworking. I can't support everything being legal, because I've seen what drugs do to people. I've known people who got too high to dose right and die from it. Back when I was selling, I made the mistake of letting a maniac handle our supply, and he was dosing people arbitrarily with a toothpick. I've seen people sell their belongings like gaming systems and games for dirt-cheap just to get a hit. And relationships fail because the people are so high all the time that they can't even understand one-another. If you thought I was bad with the tranquilizers, I was literally nothing compared to other people I was around.
One of the things I like about how our laws are now, is that you have to be kind of astute to get your hands on drugs. So the people getting them at least have the wherewithal to do that. Greenlighting anyone doing anything seems really dangerous. People who try heroin or crack don't usually just drop the stuff, they end up living for it. Crackheads will do anything for a hit, it's fucking crazy. Opening up more people to that seems like a big risk to me.
But it's not about the risk level of the drug, the real question is whether or not decriminalization significantly increases access.
Carrying a single dose of heroin is enough to use it as a weapon, and once their hooked they become a new source for it to spread towards others.
With other drugs, a single dose is typically just enough to have a good time, but this deserves it's own tier of treatment. It's more like a disease that piggybacks social climate than a substance that just alters your perceptions a bit.
If criminalization is actually a solution, when exactly is it going to start working? : P
Also, you make it sound as if inexperienced people are taking heroin on whims, like candy from a stranger. If they know someone who's on it or selling, then they already have access, and if they're willing to consider it, they've already passed the point of worrying about legality.
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.
How it's seen by the culture at large has a notable effect on distribution. While decriminalizing isn't the same thing as legalizing it, making it easier to carry also makes it easier to share.
That depends on the limitation of personal use. The scope of a drug's spread through a community is far more about the dealers than the users.
That's why it's good to decriminalize small quantities over larger ones in most cases, yes.
And it's unlikely that the way heroin is viewed will change much in our society, beyond the shift from seeing drug abusers purely as criminals, to seeing them as victims of something. A transition which is resulting in sociologically and financially healthy legislation, like the move from prisons to free mandatory rehab.
I'd imagine the view shifting, especially if a media trend pushes it similarly to the Lean craze of a few years back.
It'd just take one hype movement, one set of strong memes, to get people hooked on Smack. People are stupid, they don't typically know better when the default is closer to "I'd try anything once" within the framework of willful ignorance, and unlike most mistakes it only takes making it once to ruin everything.
We just need a popular enough rapper to promote it.
In many fashions the pros outweigh the cons, but the class of a drug isn't something we should ignore.
In a general sense, yes. But in this particular case, the question is one of distribution patterns, not individual effect.
That's the thing: It wouldn't take much distribution in the first place to turn people. A small increase is a big increase, proportionally so based on how addictive it is and how strong it is.
Spending billions on an endless war still fails. It never ends.
It's a matter of harm reduction as opposed to something that binary. You don't win or lose versus drugs, you just reduce it's impacts sociologically.
He makes a fair point though. We've been hammering away at this pandemic for ages with brute force and wasted money. It's very simply not working.
The pandemic situation is more a matter of how it's being handled as opposed to the effort of trying to handle it at all.
As for drugs, we've otherwise managed to keep heavier substances out of a surprising number of people's hands through having other, lesser drugs be easier to access than the heavier stuff. Through having a series of fenceposts between each drug, you create a path more likely to be taken that's more likely to end somewhere safer (gateway drugs).
Through having increased risk for harder drugs, these paths form more naturally than what we'd otherwise see if all substances were treated equally.
But it's not about the risk level of the drug, the real question is whether or not decriminalization significantly increases access.
Carrying a single dose of heroin is enough to use it as a weapon, and once their hooked they become a new source for it to spread towards others.
With other drugs, a single dose is typically just enough to have a good time, but this deserves it's own tier of treatment. It's more like a disease that piggybacks social climate than a substance that just alters your perceptions a bit.If criminalization is actually a solution, when exactly is it going to start working? : P
As a matter of harm reduction, it's working more now than it could be projected to if it's in more people's hands.
10 doses is enough to make 10 addicts, most drugs don't work that way.
Also, you make it sound as if inexperienced people are taking heroin on whims, like candy from a stranger. If they know someone who's on it or selling, then they already have access, and if they're willing to consider it, they've already passed the point of worrying about legality.
That's a matter of how they're conditioned by society.
If it's already within the family and society's becoming that much more lax about it, that could end up being the push someone needs. Every little measure counts, and how things change make waves towards further measures. While that's me pulling a blatant Slippery Slope Fallacy, Heroin's beyond even that scope of dismissal through the risks it otherwise genuinely poses based on it's speed of acquisition.
If it's easy to carry this shit around and someone 'charitable' found someone on a bad day already in a K-Hole or some shit, that single dose could ruin their lives in ways that caustically spread to others. It goes beyond the line of a "Lifestyle Choice", it's poison.
Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
last edit on
11/5/2020 4:03:58 AM
QuietBeef said: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.It's a complicated way forward that needs reworking. I can't support everything being legal, because I've seen what drugs do to people. I've known people who got too high to dose right and die from it. Back when I was selling, I made the mistake of letting a maniac handle our supply, and he was dosing people arbitrarily with a toothpick. I've seen people sell their belongings like gaming systems and games for dirt-cheap just to get a hit. And relationships fail because the people are so high all the time that they can't even understand one-another. If you thought I was bad with the tranquilizers, I was literally nothing compared to other people I was around.
One of the things I like about how our laws are now, is that you have to be kind of astute to get your hands on drugs. So the people getting them at least have the wherewithal to do that. Greenlighting anyone doing anything seems really dangerous. People who try heroin or crack don't usually just drop the stuff, they end up living for it. Crackheads will do anything for a hit, it's fucking crazy. Opening up more people to that seems like a big risk to me.
Those people need rehab, not prison. They probably need more than that too, but prison hasn't been much of a solution. If anything the degradation of at-risk communities from an overabundance of jailing has contributed to the problem over time. It siphons money from potentially more helpful programs to keep so many people locked up, it makes it harder for them to get jobs after release, it separates families, it destabilizes the lives of everyone in those communities. Making it easier for people to get their lives together, not harder, is more likely to hinder the spread of meth and opioids than the same bullshit "solution" we've been doing for decades. I mean, if not decriminalization, then what?
I don't think you have to be very astute. I'm a mostly oblivious, socially reclusive, comparatively inexperienced drug user raised in a super low-risk community, but I know where I could get this stuff if I wanted to. Most people I've broached this subject with seem to have a similar experience. It's dubbed a "pandemic" for a reason, it's fucking everywhere. I don't think putting users in prison is really helping much, if at all. Dealers and producers, yes. But not users.
last edit on
11/5/2020 4:09:18 AM