We have this tendency to not see mental health as a disease. so for most of us we never realize these sorts of connections. But it is vital we change how we look at these things for everyone's sake.

@freemo Nothing says you can't both help them with it and attack drugs. Imprison addicts and once they're in and can't run away, have professionals treat them. They won't do it on their own.
Follow

@nerthos Sure we could. We could also put people witht he flu in prison then while they are there force them to take the treatment we want.

The notion that they "wont do it on their own" is nonsense though. Like with any disease some people get better after many attempts of treatment, some never do. Most drug addicts I know have been voluntarily in and out of rehab more times than I can count, they very clearly do treat it on their own, those treatments just also tend to fail. It doesnt help that treatment is often tens of thousands of dollars they dont have and health insurance is unlike to cure.

Here is an idea, instead of wasting an insane amount of money on sticking them in prison with worse results, why not just actually provide for them good affordable rehab on their own.

@freemo I'm proposing both rehab and punishment for doing something they've known it's illegal since they're kids. Both are needed.

The war on drugs is an ineffective, massive waste of money because the guns are aimed at the links of the chain that can protect themselves. If you try to go for a druglord without cutting off its source of money the druglord will just throw some money at a judge or friend in the police and get out free. Addicts don't have such resources, and without addicts to buy, druglords don't have the money to escape prosecution either.

In any siege the goal is to weaken the defender through denial of basic resources.

@nerthos the idea that someone needs punishment simply because something is illegal is absurdity at its finest. If you want to make the argument that someone should be put in jail for something arguing ont he basis of legality is a circular argument. You have to show that it is justified for the act to be illegal in the first place.

Simply put, as far as im concerned the idea of outlawing a persons right to decide what can or can not go into their own body is the epitome of bad law, unjust law, in every regard.

I've seen both sorts of systems at play. I've seen shitholes like america where they outlaw drugs and everyone suffers for it. I've seen other countries like the netherlands where despite what the technical law may be no one is ever arrested for it, and that waste of money is directed towards excellent affordable drug rehab programs.

Guess what, I have yet to meet a single person in the netherlands with a heroin addiction and I can think of more people than i could count on both hands who have it in america.

Funny how that works, one actually solves a problem, the other wastes money and doesnt. But yea lets hold onto the idea of sticking to failed policy just because it was already illegal. Thats like saying we have to stick to failed policy because failed policy already exists and they knew it.

@freemo @nerthos Didn't the drug war kinda succeed in east-asia and singapore and stuff though?
@freemo @nerthos But the most successful policy I can think of is the tobacco one. Soft power and constant low intensity harassment.

@ayy the only thing ive seen work are policies where the money is spent on medical help.

@nerthos

@ayy if you want to make that argument you'd have to show the cost, and the percentage of addiction before and after spending, and then compare it to a similar country using other techniques.

Morover youd have to evaluate how many lives were destroyed in one compared to the otehr.

For example in america even if you wind up in prison and get clean somehow more than likely your life has been destroyed by this (good lyuck getting a job as an exfelon). So even if it eliminated the drug abuse it would still be a failure since it just traded one problem for another.

@freemo They had very serious opium problems in China and managed to fix those.

@ayy Again, at what cost... There are lots of ways to get drug use to 0. I could also nuke a country and get drug use to 0. But the measure of success has to measure over all harm, financial and otherwise.

@freemo sorry, what the costs were is beyond my knowledge
@freemo Anyway I like drug-liberal places like NL. Been a few times and had a good time. I've seriously considered relocating to Amsterdam. Never change.
@ayy @freemo It did, because the side that was against drugs didn't handicap themselves.
You can't fight mafia by being humanitarian towards them.

@nerthos
there is a HUGE difference between discussing fighting the users vs fighting the producers.
@ayy

@freemo @ayy As I said before, the easiest way to attack the producers is to cut off their income. They'll start fighting among themselves over debts, making for easy pickings after expending their resources in producer-dealer fights.

@nerthos
Sure, and the best way to cut off their income is to make it legal.

@ayy

@freemo @ayy "Let's cut their income by allowing them to keep their business in a way they can't be prosecuted for it"

@nerthos
that makes no sense. If its legal they can keep their business in any sense. They would be beholden to actual good business practices. Meaning they can't sell on a street, cant import the drugs, cant make it out a bath tub. You have taxes, regulations, age limits, and limits on who how and why you can sell.

They would have to go out of business in their current form and be replaced with clean legal alternatives with whatever regulatory warnings or procedures you want.

In an ideal world I'd say all drugs should be legal and provided via regulated production from stores. However the stipulation is if you go in and buy it you must first have a free session with a medical professional who would provide you warnings, advice on how to be safe, and strongly encourage you to seek free rehab.

since the vast majority of addicts who cant keep their life in order actively seek out help and rehab its reasonable to think this would have a huge impact. In fact when we look at other countries that take the rehabilitation approach the results have been amazing.

@ayy

@freemo @ayy You regulate them, but the business is still there. The war on drugs is lost because drugs are now legal and you can't fight them.

Legalization is not winning the war on drugs, it's capitulation.

@nerthos
Just mroe absurdity. Youa re "fighting" them because you provide rehabilitation which is actually effective and reduces the numbers of users.. the idea that you cant fight it if you cant threaten a person is just absolutely absurd way of thinking.

@ayy

@freemo @ayy You provide rehabilitation. Users still exist, drugs are safer so more feel comfortable about them. Drugs never go away.

If they're illegal and unsafe, at least you can actively fight them. Attack producers, dealers and users, confiscate their belongings, use that money to rehabilitate captured users. That way you have both effective rehabilitation and eventually no drug market at all.

@nerthos
Except that isnt how it works. It only works that way if you pretend in your head thats how reality works. Most people who know anyone with a legitimate drug problem (cant function in society due to their drugs) know the vast majority are NOT trying to cure themselves because of fear of prison. Most want help because they suffer and dont want to suffer.

Its like suggesting people witht he flu would never never get better unless we make the flu illegal cause everyone would just be comfortable having it.

@ayy

@freemo @ayy People with the flu don't willingly put the flu into their systems.

Legality+rehabilitation doesn't erase drugs, otherwise your previously quoted Netherlands would have 0 drug users.
@nerthos @freemo I think he is not coming from a perspective of erasing drugs *completely*, but from making the harm to society and people as small as possible.

Starving the underground economy of money is certainly a big upside of legality.
@ayy @freemo And that's my point. He wants "safe" drugs, I want no drugs at all.

@nerthos
Nope not what i want at all. What I want is the absolute minimum number of people harmed, part of which means reducing drugs as mucha s possible but doing so without causing more harm than good.

@ayy

@freemo @ayy And what I want is to minimize the damage to people that have kept themselves off drugs, innocent people, at any cost. If preventing even one more stabbing during a theft where the thief is a drug addict trying to get their next fix, I'm perfectly fine with as much force as required for it.

@nerthos
Yup, in that regard i want the same. Which is what makes it curious you seem just as content with lumping weed and lsd into the category.. No one is stabbing anyone over lsd or weed. In fact your FAR more likely to have that be the result from alcohol. But somehow i doubt your going to be just as head strong on getting alcohol outlawed.

@ayy

Show newer

@ayy
When dealing with large numbers and large populations eliminating something completely is never possible really, and getting anywhere near a complete solution usually means you've had to cause a ton of collateral damage in the process.

@nerthos

@nerthos
People who shoot up heroin dont willingly do it either. Usually the people who do are either 1) already severely mentally ill and suffering from other issues they are trying to self medicate or 2)got to where they were medicating physical illness like pain medication or anxiety, usually starting from legally prescribed drugs.

Very few people just wake up one day with a great life and little issue and just go "ya know what, today i think ill try some heroin"

@ayy

@freemo @ayy Sure, that's the case with heavy drugs like heroin. It isn't the case with "recreational" drugs. Legalization means more weed/lsd/whatever consumers and no way to fight those.

@nerthos
Oh wait your one of those people who sees weed as a drug but not coffee or alcohol or some nonsense. Yea thats just a level of cherry picking your reality i dont really feel like getting into.

@ayy

@freemo @ayy I don't drink coffee and I've never gotten even near buzzed in my entire life. I'm against anything that impairs or alters brain function except when required for medical treatment.

I'm not against people using cannabis oil to treat chronic pain, or people drinking a glass of wine with their beef, or drinking a cup of coffee in the morning because they like the taste and warm feeling.

I'm against people getting stoned, I'm against people getting drunk to the point they can't stand, I'm against people drinking 15 cups of coffee and being as twitchy as a jumping spider.

All of those things, as I mentioned before, undermine human dignity. I believe in the possibility of an elegant, distinguished, clean species that doesn't rely on mind-altering substances.
@nerthos @freemo @ayy imagine having this distorted an understanding of human experience and tradition
Show newer
@freemo I don't think it's bad because it's illegal, I think it's bad because it undermines human dignity. I don't defend unjust law, but restriction of harmful substances is not unjust. Considering there are places where drug use is legal, individuals who wanted to consume recreational drugs should just go there to do so, not demand legality in places where a fair portion of the population is against it.

In the USA the war on drugs doesn't go well because govermnent agencies are tied to the drug trade, it's common knowledge the boom on cocaine and crack was a move by the CIA to get untraceable money for their operations.

I would be in favour of letting everyone do whatever they wanted with their own bodies if people in general took full responsibility for their actions, but people in general don't do that, and society has to carry the burden of individuals with bodies and minds ruined by addiction once that happens, they won't magically stop demanding assistance because the damage was caused by themselves.

If people signed a legally binding document resigning any rights to assistance or complaint, and allowing police or civilians to shoot them if they tried to steal to buy more drugs when they first acquired drugs? sure, I'd be fine with letting them take as many drugs as they wanted.

To me, priority should always be put on protecting innocents over anything else.

@somem
One suggestion. It is usually convention when replying to have the person your replying to as the first person you tag in the message and all other "observers" at the end of the message. This tends to make it more clear who it is you are addressing in threads.

@nerthos

@somem @freemo >anticapital
Guess you're speaking from experience lol

Have a good day my challenged friend

@nerthos
While i do disagree with your ideas and find them "idiotic" as far as ideas go. I would not apply that to you as a person. I think its fine to insult an idea but not a person. So while i may understand why he feels that way about you given the absurdity of your views I do not approve of him attacking you personally. For whatever that is worth.

@somem

@freemo @somem Neither of us two is an idiot, we have different views on the topic, even if we see eachother's views on it as stupid, and our methods are aimed at achieving our agendas, yours the well-being of as many people affected by addiction as possible, me the eradication of as much of the drug market as possible, both seller and buyer.

That doesn't apply to him though.

@nerthos
I mostly agree. But I should point out my top concern is not the well being of people with addiction. It is the well being of the whole of society. Whatever can reduce the greatest amount of suffering amongst all. I would even say i prioritize sober people over those addicted in my intentions (even if you may not agree my policies would have that effect).

@somem

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.