6 ms·

Portugal's performance in perspective: Only three people for every million die of a drug overdose in Portugal, which puts one of the eurozone's poorest countrie

Portugal's performance in perspective: Only three people for every million die of a drug overdose in Portugal, which puts one of the eurozone's poorest countries in a different league than rich international powerhouse Germany (17.6 per million) and in a different universe than social democratic utopia Sweden (69.7 per million). There's a fascinating documentary called American Addict on what nearly happened before this happened: "In 1971 President Richard Nixon declared war on drugs. He proclaimed, “America’s public enemy number one in the United States is drug abuse. In order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is necessary to wage a new, all-out offensive(Sharp, 1994, p.1).” Nixon fought drug abuse on both the supply and demand fronts." [source] Before criminalization, the trend in society was to start treating people who are afflicted with addictions like the sick people they are, rather than like criminals. There was an entire movement toward recovery as a necessary way of life for some people who cannot moderate alcohol intake (or drugs or whatever), just like insulin is a way of life for diabetics whose pancreases can't moderate insulin. Addiction is not a moral issue; it should not be criminalized. It is a medical issue. It is a mental health issue. When it's caught early enough, and treated with the proper mental health regimen, it does not have to be debilitating. Instead, what happened with war on drugs was mass-market criminalization... essentially forcing alcoholics and addicts forced into debilitation (hiding / shame)... leading to further desire for escapism through the addiction. It's a terrible cycle, and the worst part of it is that some counties have made things like DUIs into their bread-and-butter mainstream source of revenue. It's hard to say what the trend today is going toward. The privatization of jails is especially disconcerting; like society wants to trick itself into thinking that the more people it has locked up the "safer" it is. [source]http://web.stanford.edu/class/e297c/poverty_prejudice/paradox/htele.html http://web.stanford.edu/class/e297c/poverty_prejudice/parado...

mythrwy 9y ago
While I generally agree with most of what you state I'd like to offer the unpopular opinion that the personal decision to use hard or addicting drugs is something of a moral failing. Not that there aren't extenuating circumstances, not that it's a "terrible crime", but, it is a vice in which people for the most part, at least initially, have some choice. Again, I'm in favor of most everything you suggest, particularly decriminalization (which just makes sense). Still, in my view people need to take a little more personal responsibility. There are always excuses if we look for them. The best way to encourage people to take a little more responsibility? Probably most of what you suggest as well as giving people healthy environments and opportunity and something to be optimistic about. But traditionally shaming works a little as well. As unpleasant as this may sound. We appear to have come to a spot we think people shouldn't be shamed for anything. Well, except for being a racist or using PHP maybe. Shame was an effective social control for a long time and if we are going to do away with it we need to find a replacement.
- mattnewton 9y ago
  I think that shame doesn't help the people already addicted- it makes it harder for them to deal with their current issues. It encourages avoidance of help, and avoidance of looking at the problem head on. A better deterrent in my opinion would simply be ads about the consequences, like successful anti smoking campaigns. It would be hard for me to disagree more than I do with the advocacy of continued shame for addiction.
  - mythrwy 9y ago
    I don't think ads will work. But you might be right about shame. I don't know, I'm not an expert on addiction and human psychology. But I have known a few and most of them weren't either.
    - rosser 9y ago
      You admit you aren't an expert, but are demonstrably willing to extrapolate from the "few" you've known to "it's a moral failing"?
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - mythrwy 9y ago
        You appear to have misread.
- dannysu 9y ago
  Sometimes people get addicted to drugs starting from painkillers, which are prescribed by doctors. http://www.businessinsider.com/heroin-drug-overdoses-prescription-painkillers-opioids-suburbs-2017-3 http://www.businessinsider.com/heroin-drug-overdoses-prescri... At least in this case, perhaps it's not just a moral failing. Maybe it's an education issue? Or some other way we should help prevent situations like this.
- shawnee_ 9y ago
chrisbennet 9y ago
The true reason for the war on drugs was to be able to attack blacks and anti-war demonstrators, according to Nixon' domestic policy advisor: At the time, I was writing a book about the politics of drug prohibition. I started to ask Ehrlichman a series of earnest, wonky questions that he impatiently waved away. “You want to know what this was really all about?” he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/ https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/
- aaronbrethorst 9y ago
  Thanks for posting this. It explains a lot, including Jeff Sessions’s desire to restart the War on Drugs.
  - e40 9y ago
    Yes, it does, and I wish more people saw this. Of course, many of the people in the President's base are completely on board with this, but the rest of us really need to resist setting the clock back (in terms of attitudes) 40 years.

mythrwy 9y ago

While I generally agree with most of what you state I'd like to offer the unpopular opinion that the personal decision to use hard or addicting drugs is something of a moral failing. Not that there aren't extenuating circumstances, not that it's a "terrible crime", but, it is a vice in which people for the most part, at least initially, have some choice. Again, I'm in favor of most everything you suggest, particularly decriminalization (which just makes sense). Still, in my view people need to take a little more personal responsibility. There are always excuses if we look for them. The best way to encourage people to take a little more responsibility? Probably most of what you suggest as well as giving people healthy environments and opportunity and something to be optimistic about. But traditionally shaming works a little as well. As unpleasant as this may sound. We appear to have come to a spot we think people shouldn't be shamed for anything. Well, except for being a racist or using PHP maybe. Shame was an effective social control for a long time and if we are going to do away with it we need to find a replacement.

mattnewton 9y ago
I think that shame doesn't help the people already addicted- it makes it harder for them to deal with their current issues. It encourages avoidance of help, and avoidance of looking at the problem head on. A better deterrent in my opinion would simply be ads about the consequences, like successful anti smoking campaigns. It would be hard for me to disagree more than I do with the advocacy of continued shame for addiction.
- mythrwy 9y ago
  I don't think ads will work. But you might be right about shame. I don't know, I'm not an expert on addiction and human psychology. But I have known a few and most of them weren't either.
  - rosser 9y ago
    You admit you aren't an expert, but are demonstrably willing to extrapolate from the "few" you've known to "it's a moral failing"?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - mythrwy 9y ago
      You appear to have misread.
dannysu 9y ago
Sometimes people get addicted to drugs starting from painkillers, which are prescribed by doctors. http://www.businessinsider.com/heroin-drug-overdoses-prescription-painkillers-opioids-suburbs-2017-3 http://www.businessinsider.com/heroin-drug-overdoses-prescri... At least in this case, perhaps it's not just a moral failing. Maybe it's an education issue? Or some other way we should help prevent situations like this.
shawnee_ 9y ago

chrisbennet 9y ago

The true reason for the war on drugs was to be able to attack blacks and anti-war demonstrators, according to Nixon' domestic policy advisor: At the time, I was writing a book about the politics of drug prohibition. I started to ask Ehrlichman a series of earnest, wonky questions that he impatiently waved away. “You want to know what this was really all about?” he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/ https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/

aaronbrethorst 9y ago
Thanks for posting this. It explains a lot, including Jeff Sessions’s desire to restart the War on Drugs.
- e40 9y ago
  Yes, it does, and I wish more people saw this. Of course, many of the people in the President's base are completely on board with this, but the rest of us really need to resist setting the clock back (in terms of attitudes) 40 years.