4 ms·

Punish Abuse not use. While yes there are very dangerous drugs that can cause addiction there is ZERO evidence that large scale criminal prohibition reduces th

by syshum 6y ago

Punish Abuse not use. While yes there are very dangerous drugs that can cause addiction there is ZERO evidence that large scale criminal prohibition reduces the number of people addicted to those drugs, assists anyone to become clean or does anything at all to resolve the issue of addiction In contrast there is A LOT of indications that even for very dangerous drugs that can cause addiction criminal drug prohibition makes the problem WORSE, creates worse outcomes for the general public, erodes basic human rights, and wastes resources that should be put into treatment instead of criminalization

refurb 6y ago
Punish Abuse not use. I would say punishment of abuse doesn't get us very far. What do we do with alcoholics? Sure, we punish them if they drive while intoxicated, but other than that, they are offered treatment and if they refuse it, they just suffer the consequences of their addiction until they decide treatment is a better option. Seems like that could work for drugs as well.
- Funes- 6y ago
  >they just suffer the consequences of their addiction No, their family and society as a whole suffer as well. I'd even go on to say that drug addiction is usually more destructive towards others than towards the addicted individuals themselves. I'm not advocating for keeping the so called "war on drugs" up, but let's be real here, people.
  - redisman 6y ago
    > I'm not advocating for keeping the so called "war on drugs" up, but let's be real here, people. So what would you have us do? Throw them in jail and pay for that?
    - cortesoft 6y ago
      I think there are a lot of options between "let everyone do whatever drugs they want as much as they want" and "throw them all in jail"
      - syshum 6y ago
        Such as? Remember all laws are only compulsory because they backed by the threat of violence, the threat of jail. Everything else is just a suggestion. Even if you suggest "well just fine them", what happens if they do not pay the fine? Generally the answer is jail.. so you have simply moved jail one position down In general if you are not willing to kill someone over X, then X should not be illegal because all criminal law is backed by the threat of government initiated violence
        Loughla 6y ago
        >In general if you are not willing to kill someone over X, then X should not be illegal What an odd, just outlandish statement. I genuinely don't understand this. So I'm not willing to kill someone who steals a television, but I definitely believe there should be some kind of consequences for that action. I legitimately do not understand your 'all or nothing' view. It just ignores all reality, I think.
        syshum 6y ago
        because you are looking at it from a punishment, and read that would I would all crimes to be capital punishment. In reality I oppose capital punishment at all, as violence is only ethical in self defense. This foundation is how I approach the law as well, as I believe a person does have the right to defend with lethal force someone from taking their property including their TV, I do not however believe that violence is ethical as punishment. There is a big difference between the 2 This is comes in to play as well when we talk about crimes and police responses, if you are not willing to have the police use Lethal Force to enforce a law, you likely should not be supporting that law. I do support the police is using lethal force to stop Theft, and other property crimes. I do not support the police using lethal force to prevent a person from voluntarily consuming a substance of their own desire, or from growing a plant the government as deemed illegal. Take for example the case of Eric Garner, he was accused of selling Cigarette's with out the proper taxes or regulations. I am sure many here support those regulations and taxes just simply believe he should not have been killed by the police. Where as I understand that any criminal law will be enforced with violence, as such I understand that every law has the potential to result in deadly force. So I oppose the very regulations that put both the police and Eric on a path to where they had to conflict with each other at all resulting in the loss of life
    - jimbob45 6y ago
      Jail until they volunteer/clear for treatment. Same principle as parole.
      - redisman 6y ago
        That's literally what the US has been doing (well except the parole part). Glad the drug problem is solved as of today because of that. Addicts sure are good at thinking about the longer term impacts of their habits vs taking a hit of the substance they're addicted to. Scary jail doesn't stop drug use
  - syshum 6y ago
    Emotional Harm should not be the basis of Public Policy, and that is what people generally talk about with "hurts their family" it is emotional harm of their loved one physically harming themselves. That is a very dangerous path to start making public policy because of emotional harm. One should only punish physical harm to person (i.e battery) or property (i.e theft)
  - refurb 6y ago
    That’s certainly true, but we’re looking at minimizing harm. The question is, is there a better alternative?
- dylan604 6y ago
  No addict is going to volunteer to go to treatment until they hit rock bottom. Forced treatment never (rarely?) works because it wasn't the addicts decision to do it. There are a lot of functioning addicts that are sustaining, but do not see the havoc that they are causing for those caught in their circles.
- syshum 6y ago
  I guess that would have to define "abuse", which to me and my statement means you are abusing others to feed your addiction, i.e your are stealing, assaulting, or commiting other crimes against other persons. Use would not involve that, as if you maintain your use with out abusing others than i would not classify that as abuse. Of course to some people any Use is abuse but then why have 2 terms

by syshum 6y ago

refurb 6y ago

Punish Abuse not use. I would say punishment of abuse doesn't get us very far. What do we do with alcoholics? Sure, we punish them if they drive while intoxicated, but other than that, they are offered treatment and if they refuse it, they just suffer the consequences of their addiction until they decide treatment is a better option. Seems like that could work for drugs as well.

Funes- 6y ago
>they just suffer the consequences of their addiction No, their family and society as a whole suffer as well. I'd even go on to say that drug addiction is usually more destructive towards others than towards the addicted individuals themselves. I'm not advocating for keeping the so called "war on drugs" up, but let's be real here, people.
- redisman 6y ago
  > I'm not advocating for keeping the so called "war on drugs" up, but let's be real here, people. So what would you have us do? Throw them in jail and pay for that?
  - cortesoft 6y ago
    I think there are a lot of options between "let everyone do whatever drugs they want as much as they want" and "throw them all in jail"
    - syshum 6y ago
      Such as? Remember all laws are only compulsory because they backed by the threat of violence, the threat of jail. Everything else is just a suggestion. Even if you suggest "well just fine them", what happens if they do not pay the fine? Generally the answer is jail.. so you have simply moved jail one position down In general if you are not willing to kill someone over X, then X should not be illegal because all criminal law is backed by the threat of government initiated violence
      - Loughla 6y ago
        >In general if you are not willing to kill someone over X, then X should not be illegal What an odd, just outlandish statement. I genuinely don't understand this. So I'm not willing to kill someone who steals a television, but I definitely believe there should be some kind of consequences for that action. I legitimately do not understand your 'all or nothing' view. It just ignores all reality, I think.
        syshum 6y ago
        because you are looking at it from a punishment, and read that would I would all crimes to be capital punishment. In reality I oppose capital punishment at all, as violence is only ethical in self defense. This foundation is how I approach the law as well, as I believe a person does have the right to defend with lethal force someone from taking their property including their TV, I do not however believe that violence is ethical as punishment. There is a big difference between the 2 This is comes in to play as well when we talk about crimes and police responses, if you are not willing to have the police use Lethal Force to enforce a law, you likely should not be supporting that law. I do support the police is using lethal force to stop Theft, and other property crimes. I do not support the police using lethal force to prevent a person from voluntarily consuming a substance of their own desire, or from growing a plant the government as deemed illegal. Take for example the case of Eric Garner, he was accused of selling Cigarette's with out the proper taxes or regulations. I am sure many here support those regulations and taxes just simply believe he should not have been killed by the police. Where as I understand that any criminal law will be enforced with violence, as such I understand that every law has the potential to result in deadly force. So I oppose the very regulations that put both the police and Eric on a path to where they had to conflict with each other at all resulting in the loss of life
  - jimbob45 6y ago
    Jail until they volunteer/clear for treatment. Same principle as parole.
    - redisman 6y ago
      That's literally what the US has been doing (well except the parole part). Glad the drug problem is solved as of today because of that. Addicts sure are good at thinking about the longer term impacts of their habits vs taking a hit of the substance they're addicted to. Scary jail doesn't stop drug use
- syshum 6y ago
  Emotional Harm should not be the basis of Public Policy, and that is what people generally talk about with "hurts their family" it is emotional harm of their loved one physically harming themselves. That is a very dangerous path to start making public policy because of emotional harm. One should only punish physical harm to person (i.e battery) or property (i.e theft)
- refurb 6y ago
  That’s certainly true, but we’re looking at minimizing harm. The question is, is there a better alternative?
dylan604 6y ago
No addict is going to volunteer to go to treatment until they hit rock bottom. Forced treatment never (rarely?) works because it wasn't the addicts decision to do it. There are a lot of functioning addicts that are sustaining, but do not see the havoc that they are causing for those caught in their circles.
syshum 6y ago
I guess that would have to define "abuse", which to me and my statement means you are abusing others to feed your addiction, i.e your are stealing, assaulting, or commiting other crimes against other persons. Use would not involve that, as if you maintain your use with out abusing others than i would not classify that as abuse. Of course to some people any Use is abuse but then why have 2 terms