6 ms·

Another instance of a cop who has watched the 'war on drugs' rage on and on, and came to speak out about the fundamental flaw in the approach: you can't fight a

Another instance of a cop who has watched the 'war on drugs' rage on and on, and came to speak out about the fundamental flaw in the approach: you can't fight a war against drugs; you have to treat the people at the bottom, hopelessly addicted users, like the victims they are. The poignant quote in the article isn't the one used for the headline, but this one: "drug policy should be about reducing not drug use, but drug harm."

randcraw 10y ago
Yep, if obesity and T2 diabetes and alcoholism are public health problems due to dietary misbehavior, then drug abuse is too, and for the same reasons.
- mhurron 10y ago
  > if obesity and T2 diabetes and alcoholism are public health problems due to dietary misbehavior The US doesn't do anything about those issues either, so drug addiction is already handled the same.
  - toyg 10y ago
    But the point is that the US don't prosecute (and persecute) obese people and supermarkets, because health problems are not criminal matters. That's where the difference is.
    - mhurron 10y ago
      Eating too much is not illegal. The actual state of being addicted is not illegal. If someone broke the law trying to get their next meal they would be prosecuted. The US doesn't treat obesity or addiction, or we can say they treat obesity and addiction exactly the same. Also, "the US don't ... (and persecute) obese people," in just a few moments I can find plenty of people claiming otherwise.
      - EdHominem 10y ago
        Food is not illegal, drugs are, even if you have a legal supply of money to trade for them. That does punish the addicts by arbitrarily making their behaviors illegal. If we outlawed you we could turn around and declare you an illegal and use it to justify the law against you. Why won't you just turn yourself in and end the manhunt? With that sort of circular logic in play it becomes obvious that our court system is actually just welfare for people in blue shirts.
      - muhfuhkuh 10y ago
        "If someone broke the law trying to get their next meal they would be prosecuted." Yet, you can't arrest an obese person for possession of Big Macs. You can't bust them eating a rasher of bacon mid-bite and throw them in a cage. So, addiction to drugs _is_ a criminal issue. They are not treated in the same way. That needs to change.
- snarfy 10y ago
  Addiction is not misbehavior. It is a health issue. If it were simply making a choice it would not be called addiction.
  - adrusi 10y ago
    The point that the parent posters are making, quite obviously actually, is that it does require a few choices to begin an addiction. You don't get addicted to cocaine without ever taking cocaine. I don't agree with the moral conclusions that they're implying, but you have to engage with their point.
ythl 10y ago
I know what you're saying, and I mostly agree with it, but some fundamental part of me feels wrong about just unconditionally helping all the addicted users. It's like, they've made so many stupid decisions, disregarded so many warnings, broken laws, possibly harmed other people (theft, robbery, etc.), and now people like me, people who heeded the warnings, avoided the drugs, have to pay for them one way or another to get out of the hole they dug. And addicts are addicts for life - it's not like it's a one time treatment. They will be mental health money sponges for the rest of their lives (esp. ones that relapse), and the people that made good choices have to pay for it all. It just seems unfair. Uncharitable? Maybe. But as long as I'm contributing to a charity, I would like to pick the people my money goes to. I don't like the government forcing me to be charitable and then paying out my money how they see fit to people that make poor choices.
- magic_beans 10y ago
  The problem with addicts is that they are born addicts. That is to say that addiction (to drugs, to food, gambling, video games, sex etc) is a disorder of the brain. It is something some people are born with and some people are not. Addicts "make poor choices" because their brains are wired that way. What the government needs to do is provide options for addicts to re-learn how to cope with life without resorting to their addiction.
  - ythl 10y ago
    > Addicts "make poor choices" because their brains are wired that way. I reject this statement. Even if people are more prone to addiction, that doesn't excuse their choices. Otherwise you could excuse serial killers by saying "Oh well, his brain was wired that way. He got derived sexual satisfaction from torture and killing. He couldn't control his actions; he's not responsible for his choices." Once you blame genetics, then suddenly nobody has accountability for anything. "Oh, he did X? He didn't have a choice, his brain was wired that way."
    - dota_fanatic 10y ago
      Why can't both be true. For some people, they're prone but overcome their instincts through nurturing and support from their environment to be different. For others, they're VERY prone, and lack nurturing and support from their environment to be different. It's incredible to me how quickly we support, nurture, even worship people who are born into extremely good circumstances with all the advantages of the modern age, who are able to exercise common sense and ethical behavior (did they deserve it?), while others are blamed and despised when they were born into extremely poor circumstances, disadvantage after disadvantage (did they deserve it?) Context differs wildly and yet everyone is held to the same standards and expectations, when we're all just barely evolved higher intelligence, with severely flawed wetware. It's fucking ridiculous.

randcraw 10y ago

Yep, if obesity and T2 diabetes and alcoholism are public health problems due to dietary misbehavior, then drug abuse is too, and for the same reasons.

mhurron 10y ago
> if obesity and T2 diabetes and alcoholism are public health problems due to dietary misbehavior The US doesn't do anything about those issues either, so drug addiction is already handled the same.
- toyg 10y ago
  But the point is that the US don't prosecute (and persecute) obese people and supermarkets, because health problems are not criminal matters. That's where the difference is.
  - mhurron 10y ago
    Eating too much is not illegal. The actual state of being addicted is not illegal. If someone broke the law trying to get their next meal they would be prosecuted. The US doesn't treat obesity or addiction, or we can say they treat obesity and addiction exactly the same. Also, "the US don't ... (and persecute) obese people," in just a few moments I can find plenty of people claiming otherwise.
    - EdHominem 10y ago
      Food is not illegal, drugs are, even if you have a legal supply of money to trade for them. That does punish the addicts by arbitrarily making their behaviors illegal. If we outlawed you we could turn around and declare you an illegal and use it to justify the law against you. Why won't you just turn yourself in and end the manhunt? With that sort of circular logic in play it becomes obvious that our court system is actually just welfare for people in blue shirts.
    - muhfuhkuh 10y ago
      "If someone broke the law trying to get their next meal they would be prosecuted." Yet, you can't arrest an obese person for possession of Big Macs. You can't bust them eating a rasher of bacon mid-bite and throw them in a cage. So, addiction to drugs _is_ a criminal issue. They are not treated in the same way. That needs to change.
snarfy 10y ago
Addiction is not misbehavior. It is a health issue. If it were simply making a choice it would not be called addiction.
- adrusi 10y ago
  The point that the parent posters are making, quite obviously actually, is that it does require a few choices to begin an addiction. You don't get addicted to cocaine without ever taking cocaine. I don't agree with the moral conclusions that they're implying, but you have to engage with their point.

ythl 10y ago

I know what you're saying, and I mostly agree with it, but some fundamental part of me feels wrong about just unconditionally helping all the addicted users. It's like, they've made so many stupid decisions, disregarded so many warnings, broken laws, possibly harmed other people (theft, robbery, etc.), and now people like me, people who heeded the warnings, avoided the drugs, have to pay for them one way or another to get out of the hole they dug. And addicts are addicts for life - it's not like it's a one time treatment. They will be mental health money sponges for the rest of their lives (esp. ones that relapse), and the people that made good choices have to pay for it all. It just seems unfair. Uncharitable? Maybe. But as long as I'm contributing to a charity, I would like to pick the people my money goes to. I don't like the government forcing me to be charitable and then paying out my money how they see fit to people that make poor choices.

magic_beans 10y ago
The problem with addicts is that they are born addicts. That is to say that addiction (to drugs, to food, gambling, video games, sex etc) is a disorder of the brain. It is something some people are born with and some people are not. Addicts "make poor choices" because their brains are wired that way. What the government needs to do is provide options for addicts to re-learn how to cope with life without resorting to their addiction.
- ythl 10y ago
  > Addicts "make poor choices" because their brains are wired that way. I reject this statement. Even if people are more prone to addiction, that doesn't excuse their choices. Otherwise you could excuse serial killers by saying "Oh well, his brain was wired that way. He got derived sexual satisfaction from torture and killing. He couldn't control his actions; he's not responsible for his choices." Once you blame genetics, then suddenly nobody has accountability for anything. "Oh, he did X? He didn't have a choice, his brain was wired that way."
  - dota_fanatic 10y ago
    Why can't both be true. For some people, they're prone but overcome their instincts through nurturing and support from their environment to be different. For others, they're VERY prone, and lack nurturing and support from their environment to be different. It's incredible to me how quickly we support, nurture, even worship people who are born into extremely good circumstances with all the advantages of the modern age, who are able to exercise common sense and ethical behavior (did they deserve it?), while others are blamed and despised when they were born into extremely poor circumstances, disadvantage after disadvantage (did they deserve it?) Context differs wildly and yet everyone is held to the same standards and expectations, when we're all just barely evolved higher intelligence, with severely flawed wetware. It's fucking ridiculous.