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.

@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?

@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.