5 ms·

People became more sympathetic to LGBTQ issues when people started coming out of the closet and they learned that their neighbours, cousins, nieces and nephews

People became more sympathetic to LGBTQ issues when people started coming out of the closet and they learned that their neighbours, cousins, nieces and nephews were being prevented from marrying their loved ones. We didn't need to "turn more people gay" to accomplish this. Similarly, we need to raise the visibility and openness of dealing with drug addiction, to come out of the closet so to speak, not increase drug addicted people.

jacquesm 7y ago
Unfortunately those in power are not nearly as badly affected by the drug epidemic as the poorer people. Even if they develop a habit or some complication related to it they will have access to the best care and treatment options. So there is very little cost to being 'tough on drugs' until the effects are also felt at all layers of society. Portugal, a country that is a lot more relaxed about many things than the USA had a much easier time to acknowledge this. The 'war on drugs' will never be won, and the victims are predominantly poor. In the meantime, American jails are overflowing with people who should have been helped, not incarcerated.
- TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
  Some of those in power benefit from keeping drugs criminalised. See for example the way that possession of crack cocaine - used on the street - carries much heavier sentences than powder cocaine, used by the middle classes. And the way large parts of the US jail system are run as a for-profit work camp. This results in miscarriages of justice, unjustifiably long sentences for trivial possession, and outright corruption. This is not an unfortunate accident. It's motivated partly by greed, partly by class violence, and partly by racism. Most Western countries don't quite have the culture of political extremism needed to create these conditions. Meanwhile the murky story of CIA links to drug smuggling is a different topic altogether. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_drug_trafficking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_drug_traffi...
  - icebraining 7y ago
    > Most Western countries don't quite have the culture of political extremism needed to create these conditions. Only 26 years before decriminalizing drugs, Portugal was a right-wing dictatorship with concentration camps and which was waging war on Africa to keep its slave colonies. The '74 revolution brought on two years of heavy left-wing power, during which many feared (and others hoped) it could become a communist state attached to the USSR. There's no lack of culture of political extremism in Portugal.
- tluyben2 7y ago
  I guess you hit the nail on it’s head; many in power are very addicted but they can hide it better, get better (and more well hidden) dope/prostitutes/casinos/etc than poor people can. Also for some reason a good bottle of whiskey is not considered a dangerous hard drug while it is but if you smoke a spliff people still think it is weird. Even if legal (which it has been in my country since before I was born). A lot of people, rich or poor, find it hard to cope with life and need help; if they are poor they go to jail or overdose, if they are rich they just, slowly or rapidly, kill themselves or, sometimes, get help. While all need help ofcourse.
daenz 7y ago
You probably don't mean it, but the phrasing you're using is very tone deaf to LGBTQ people who have historically been considered "diseased" and something to be "cured." To your point though, anecdotally, most people I know know someone personally who is suffering or has suffered from addiction. I would imagine much of the USA is that way. So in terms of visibility, I would venture to say that most of the population has/had some kind of personal contact with it. In terms of stigmatization, addiction is stigmatized because nobody wants to admit that they're out of control of their being. There's all kinds of social implications for de-stigmatizing being out of control.
- Ensorceled 7y ago
  Could you please explain how I’m being tone deaf? As someone with a Queer child, I’m flummoxed.
  - daenz 7y ago
    >we need to raise the visibility and openness of dealing with drug addiction, to come out of the closet so to speak Keep in mind you are talking about a social ailment to be corrected. It's tone deaf to LGBTQ community who has been considered a social ailment for a long time. If you avoid drawing analogies between mental/psychological illnesses and LGBTQ people, you will avoid coming off that way.
    - wolco 7y ago
      Your len is off. Homosexuality was illegal and slowly we've reached the point of gay marriage. A lot of political reforms are still required. Drug law reforms still need to progress. Gay rights only progressed because of a personal connection. Using the same method for drug reform is not tone deaf. It's a little offensive drug reform is a mental/psychological issue. For many it may be a choice over legal choices that cause more issues.
      - daenz 7y ago
        >Using the same method for drug reform is not tone deaf. Nobody is saying that using the same methods is tone deaf. Tone deafness is an insensitivity the nuances of marginalized groups. It's like saying we should fight systemic racism with the persistence of a field of laborers. The language is tone deaf to historical oppression. The message is right but the tone is way off. I'm trying to be polite about this, but maybe if you were screamed at in the streets as a blight on society for being gay, you would understand how language like "drug addicts should 'come out of the closet' so that we can treat addiction" (paraphrased, but accurate) is insensitive to gays who were/are treated like social illnesses.
fx1994 7y ago
I think most of people agreed to just give them anything they want since media was constantly bombarding with that stuff.

jacquesm 7y ago

Unfortunately those in power are not nearly as badly affected by the drug epidemic as the poorer people. Even if they develop a habit or some complication related to it they will have access to the best care and treatment options. So there is very little cost to being 'tough on drugs' until the effects are also felt at all layers of society. Portugal, a country that is a lot more relaxed about many things than the USA had a much easier time to acknowledge this. The 'war on drugs' will never be won, and the victims are predominantly poor. In the meantime, American jails are overflowing with people who should have been helped, not incarcerated.

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
Some of those in power benefit from keeping drugs criminalised. See for example the way that possession of crack cocaine - used on the street - carries much heavier sentences than powder cocaine, used by the middle classes. And the way large parts of the US jail system are run as a for-profit work camp. This results in miscarriages of justice, unjustifiably long sentences for trivial possession, and outright corruption. This is not an unfortunate accident. It's motivated partly by greed, partly by class violence, and partly by racism. Most Western countries don't quite have the culture of political extremism needed to create these conditions. Meanwhile the murky story of CIA links to drug smuggling is a different topic altogether. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_drug_trafficking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_drug_traffi...
- icebraining 7y ago
  > Most Western countries don't quite have the culture of political extremism needed to create these conditions. Only 26 years before decriminalizing drugs, Portugal was a right-wing dictatorship with concentration camps and which was waging war on Africa to keep its slave colonies. The '74 revolution brought on two years of heavy left-wing power, during which many feared (and others hoped) it could become a communist state attached to the USSR. There's no lack of culture of political extremism in Portugal.
tluyben2 7y ago
I guess you hit the nail on it’s head; many in power are very addicted but they can hide it better, get better (and more well hidden) dope/prostitutes/casinos/etc than poor people can. Also for some reason a good bottle of whiskey is not considered a dangerous hard drug while it is but if you smoke a spliff people still think it is weird. Even if legal (which it has been in my country since before I was born). A lot of people, rich or poor, find it hard to cope with life and need help; if they are poor they go to jail or overdose, if they are rich they just, slowly or rapidly, kill themselves or, sometimes, get help. While all need help ofcourse.

daenz 7y ago

You probably don't mean it, but the phrasing you're using is very tone deaf to LGBTQ people who have historically been considered "diseased" and something to be "cured." To your point though, anecdotally, most people I know know someone personally who is suffering or has suffered from addiction. I would imagine much of the USA is that way. So in terms of visibility, I would venture to say that most of the population has/had some kind of personal contact with it. In terms of stigmatization, addiction is stigmatized because nobody wants to admit that they're out of control of their being. There's all kinds of social implications for de-stigmatizing being out of control.

Ensorceled 7y ago
Could you please explain how I’m being tone deaf? As someone with a Queer child, I’m flummoxed.
- daenz 7y ago
  >we need to raise the visibility and openness of dealing with drug addiction, to come out of the closet so to speak Keep in mind you are talking about a social ailment to be corrected. It's tone deaf to LGBTQ community who has been considered a social ailment for a long time. If you avoid drawing analogies between mental/psychological illnesses and LGBTQ people, you will avoid coming off that way.
  - wolco 7y ago
    Your len is off. Homosexuality was illegal and slowly we've reached the point of gay marriage. A lot of political reforms are still required. Drug law reforms still need to progress. Gay rights only progressed because of a personal connection. Using the same method for drug reform is not tone deaf. It's a little offensive drug reform is a mental/psychological issue. For many it may be a choice over legal choices that cause more issues.
    - daenz 7y ago
      >Using the same method for drug reform is not tone deaf. Nobody is saying that using the same methods is tone deaf. Tone deafness is an insensitivity the nuances of marginalized groups. It's like saying we should fight systemic racism with the persistence of a field of laborers. The language is tone deaf to historical oppression. The message is right but the tone is way off. I'm trying to be polite about this, but maybe if you were screamed at in the streets as a blight on society for being gay, you would understand how language like "drug addicts should 'come out of the closet' so that we can treat addiction" (paraphrased, but accurate) is insensitive to gays who were/are treated like social illnesses.

fx1994 7y ago

I think most of people agreed to just give them anything they want since media was constantly bombarding with that stuff.