4 ms·

Why is it that having certain problems gives you a license to demand that everyone else help you with them? We've all got problems, but for some reason wheneve

Why is it that having certain problems gives you a license to demand that everyone else help you with them? We've all got problems, but for some reason whenever I mess up on my taxes or something, I'm to blame, but if someone else robs a liquor store when being addicted to heroin, "the needle made me do it, mumble ... mumble ..." is an acceptable excuse.

lm______ 11y ago
No one said that robbers should be punished less harshly if they have an addiction.
snsr 11y ago
> is an acceptable excuse No, it's not. Going with your flawed example: having an addiction to heroin should be a socially acceptable problem, or at least one that doesn't land an addict in prison in and of itself. Helping those amongst us who are addicted helps to prevent desperate crimes.
- soylentcola 11y ago
  Exactly. To put it in terms of currently legal drugs, it's not illegal to be an alcoholic. You won't be imprisoned for the compulsive use of alcohol, regardless of the framework used to describe it (poor impulse control, chemical imbalance, whatever). But if you go beat someone up or crash your car while drunk, you're charged with those crimes, whether committed due to your addiction or not. But outside of actual crimes committed against others in society, just being in possession of alcohol or being an addict isn't illegal. Additionally, there are resources for people who want to improve their dealings with alcohol or work out the issues that are causing their problems with it. They can make use of these resources without fear of being arrested because mere possession and use isn't a crime. I don't claim that habitual use of opiates or amphetamines or whatever is a positive thing but putting someone at risk of criminal penalties and prison because of something that is (at worst) very unhealthy is sort of preposterous when you think about it that way. That doesn't mean we ought to turn a blind eye to crimes committed under the influence or in search of one's dose but at a minimum, possession and use ought not to be criminal offenses.
awjr 11y ago
As an example, when the UK government tried to demonize the cost to the National Health Service of smoking related diseases (£450Million), the tobacco industry rightly pointed out that tax revenue was around the £12Billion. Taxing drugs would more than pay for any social programme needed to support users. At the moment, general taxation is used to incarcerate users which could be better used elsewhere.
shocks 11y ago
You've got it totally wrong. I didn't say anything like this. In your example, you can turn to the government (or someone else) for help with your taxes. There is no stigma (or law) that makes it difficult for you. That's not the case for a drug addict. It's a lot harder to get help. I also didn't say that addicts should not be held accountable for their actions. Of course they should. (...unless you're tring to evade tax...)
- reddytowns 11y ago
  If I make a mistake on my taxes, or lets say, park in the wrong place, I get fined. If someone does heroin and gets hooked, they get a treatment program. What is the difference? Why, according to you, should I be punished, while the person on heroin should get all these treatment options opened up to them? Where is my "parked my car in the wrong place" rehab program?
  - darkr 11y ago
    > What is the difference? Both [legalisation/treatment-based approach to drug addition and fining drivers parking in the wrong place] are about reduction of harm on society and the individual, and effectiveness of that treatment. The driver addicted to "parking my car in the wrong place", is not potentially going to die if he suddenly can't park inconsiderately, so a gradual reduction strategy of "parking with just one wheel across the pavement", then progressing to "staying just a few minutes over the allotted parking time" is not required. The rehab program is the fine.
  - deciplex 11y ago
    You'd have to fuck up pretty hard on your taxes to ruin your life the way being caught with certain drugs can do. I'm not sure any drug offense can compare to a parking ticket. Legalization itself is partly a moral issue, as the state doesn't really have any business telling me what to eat or smoke or inject, or for that matter what plants I grow on my property for personal use. Coupled with drug treatment programs it is also a practical issue: the cost of treating an addict is lower than the cost to the government of keeping him in the justice system for most of his life, lower than the cost to society of keeping him on the margins for most of his life. It's also cheaper solely from a health perspective. It's good policy because it saves money so you don't have to pay so much in taxes and parking tickets in the first place. So there's your answer: we don't have treatment programs for people who can't figure out where to park, or how to pay their taxes, because those are dumb ideas with low ROI.

lm______ 11y ago

No one said that robbers should be punished less harshly if they have an addiction.

snsr 11y ago

> is an acceptable excuse No, it's not. Going with your flawed example: having an addiction to heroin should be a socially acceptable problem, or at least one that doesn't land an addict in prison in and of itself. Helping those amongst us who are addicted helps to prevent desperate crimes.

soylentcola 11y ago
Exactly. To put it in terms of currently legal drugs, it's not illegal to be an alcoholic. You won't be imprisoned for the compulsive use of alcohol, regardless of the framework used to describe it (poor impulse control, chemical imbalance, whatever). But if you go beat someone up or crash your car while drunk, you're charged with those crimes, whether committed due to your addiction or not. But outside of actual crimes committed against others in society, just being in possession of alcohol or being an addict isn't illegal. Additionally, there are resources for people who want to improve their dealings with alcohol or work out the issues that are causing their problems with it. They can make use of these resources without fear of being arrested because mere possession and use isn't a crime. I don't claim that habitual use of opiates or amphetamines or whatever is a positive thing but putting someone at risk of criminal penalties and prison because of something that is (at worst) very unhealthy is sort of preposterous when you think about it that way. That doesn't mean we ought to turn a blind eye to crimes committed under the influence or in search of one's dose but at a minimum, possession and use ought not to be criminal offenses.

awjr 11y ago

As an example, when the UK government tried to demonize the cost to the National Health Service of smoking related diseases (£450Million), the tobacco industry rightly pointed out that tax revenue was around the £12Billion. Taxing drugs would more than pay for any social programme needed to support users. At the moment, general taxation is used to incarcerate users which could be better used elsewhere.

shocks 11y ago

You've got it totally wrong. I didn't say anything like this. In your example, you can turn to the government (or someone else) for help with your taxes. There is no stigma (or law) that makes it difficult for you. That's not the case for a drug addict. It's a lot harder to get help. I also didn't say that addicts should not be held accountable for their actions. Of course they should. (...unless you're tring to evade tax...)

reddytowns 11y ago
If I make a mistake on my taxes, or lets say, park in the wrong place, I get fined. If someone does heroin and gets hooked, they get a treatment program. What is the difference? Why, according to you, should I be punished, while the person on heroin should get all these treatment options opened up to them? Where is my "parked my car in the wrong place" rehab program?
- darkr 11y ago
  > What is the difference? Both [legalisation/treatment-based approach to drug addition and fining drivers parking in the wrong place] are about reduction of harm on society and the individual, and effectiveness of that treatment. The driver addicted to "parking my car in the wrong place", is not potentially going to die if he suddenly can't park inconsiderately, so a gradual reduction strategy of "parking with just one wheel across the pavement", then progressing to "staying just a few minutes over the allotted parking time" is not required. The rehab program is the fine.
- deciplex 11y ago
  You'd have to fuck up pretty hard on your taxes to ruin your life the way being caught with certain drugs can do. I'm not sure any drug offense can compare to a parking ticket. Legalization itself is partly a moral issue, as the state doesn't really have any business telling me what to eat or smoke or inject, or for that matter what plants I grow on my property for personal use. Coupled with drug treatment programs it is also a practical issue: the cost of treating an addict is lower than the cost to the government of keeping him in the justice system for most of his life, lower than the cost to society of keeping him on the margins for most of his life. It's also cheaper solely from a health perspective. It's good policy because it saves money so you don't have to pay so much in taxes and parking tickets in the first place. So there's your answer: we don't have treatment programs for people who can't figure out where to park, or how to pay their taxes, because those are dumb ideas with low ROI.