5 ms·

Heroin isn’t prohibited just because people get high on it. It is also prohibited because addicts turn to petty crime, whether targeted at innocent loved ones o

Heroin isn’t prohibited just because people get high on it. It is also prohibited because addicts turn to petty crime, whether targeted at innocent loved ones or strangers, to get the money to support their addiction. So, decriminalizing is never a solution alone. It has to be accompanied with providing addicts with a free supply (and ideally a safe and hygienic space to use it in). It does little good for a society to legalize drugs without also rolling out that public medical infrastructure.

Out_of_Characte 6y ago
Not all addicted people are criminals. Putting heroin, or any kind of drug users, who have not committed any crime exept possesion is immoral. Prison is just isolating them while making sure their only friends are criminals. People that are on the streets are clearly not able to function like most people in a society. Punishment cannot be on the table.
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  Nowhere in my post did I advocate jailing users.
  - Out_of_Characte 6y ago
    "It does little good for a society to legalize drugs without also rolling out that public medical infrastructure." That's what I was referring to. I think legalising drugs would do alot of good even without the "public medical infrastructure"
yboris 6y ago
I agree that we should go further than just decriminalization. Heroin is extremely cheap (were it not for being illegal). Cities that provide safe spaces for its use (and clean needles) decrease health problems for its users (and thus for the population as a whole). We could also provide the heroin (reducing life-threatening fluctuations in quality and the incentive for petty crime). The book focuses on arguing for one thing: decriminalization. I think it succeeds hands down.
- imtringued 6y ago
  A lot of health problems from heroin usage stem primarily from cutting agents put in by street dealers. Basically what happens is that the street dealer ear marks his own share of the drugs and replaces that part with something else. Some people have come up with extremely nasty cutting agents that cause severe health problems far beyond what regular drug use is capable of. Similarly, the tobacco in cigarettes isn't the main driver of health problems, it's the additives that cause most of the problems.
amanaplanacanal 6y ago
Did addicts turn to petty crime before it was criminalized? This sounds unlikely, do you have a source for that?
wayneftw 6y ago
I agree that we should legalize all drugs while also providing help for people who fall into heavy addiction. > It is also prohibited because addicts turn to petty crime... This is just bad logic though. The best thing to do would be to just arrest people for the actual crimes when they happen instead of trying preempt it. Otherwise we'd have to make illegal all the things that cause people turn to crime like bad parenting, being a sociopath, being in debt and oh...having spent time in prison. As soon as you get out of prison, they'd have to turn you right around and put you back in again. (No offense meant to you - I'm not sure if you're stating the logic that has been given to you or expressing your own. Either way, I 100% agree that decriminalization alone is a bad idea.)
yellowapple 6y ago
And we can't just enforce the laws against said petty crime because...? Some people that play violent video games also end up committing violent crime. And yet, not once has such an argument come anywhere close to banning violent video games. And mind you, you don't even need a free supply of drugs to prevent said crime. Drugs ain't that expensive on the street; if people are resorting to crime to pay for e.g. heroin, chances are they're already pretty close to needing to resort to petty crime to pay for food and shelter. The focus should therefore be on their economic well-being; UBI would benefit them and non-addicts, and would go a lot further (not to mention that financial stress is already something that drives people to self-medicate said stress in the first place).
- imtringued 6y ago
  I disagree with UBI. There are simpler mechanisms that aren't a funding nightmare. Government jobs and infrastructure investments are the tried and true method for times when economic activity is below the expected/desired levels. Fiscal policy is actually a necessary part of speeding up the recovery of the economy. A UBI that gets abolished as soon as the economy picks up again is fruitless because it fails to keep its promise.
  - yellowapple 6y ago
    > There are simpler mechanisms UBI is quite literally as simple as it gets: revenue = collect_taxes() # LVT, other wealth taxes, etc. ubi_pool = revenue - cover_expenses() # infrastructure, etc. for c in citizens: c.send_check(ubi_pool / citizens.count) > that aren't a funding nightmare No less a "funding nightmare" (because God forbid the ownership class pays its fair share) than artificially creating jobs for the sake of working. Would be a lot simpler to just... give citizens money. On that note... > Government jobs and infrastructure investments are the tried and true method for times when economic activity is below the expected/desired levels. Infrastructure improvements are necessary regardless of whether or not the economy is healthy; bridges and roads don't care about whether society is rich or poor when they decide to collapse. And government jobs beyond said improvements just shuffle around the symptoms of economic problems without actually fixing anything. That is: these are "tried", sure, but they solve different problems than what UBI and other forms of welfare solve. > A UBI that gets abolished as soon as the economy picks up again Why in the heck would we want to do that? The whole point of UBI is to be a permanent safety net, not some stop-gap solution. And with that permanent solution, economic downturns and crises become significantly less harmful to the working class. UBI is a preventative measure, not a reactive one.
imtringued 6y ago
>It is also prohibited because addicts turn to petty crime I was about to write a rebuttal but once I read the rest of your comment you are spot on. Decriminialization is not enough. You also need to help people get out of the vicious chemical dependency cycle in a way that doesn't break their bank account. The high cost of drugs drives secondary criminal activity because people have to finance their drugs somehow and that usually means theft and involuntary prostitution.

Out_of_Characte 6y ago

Not all addicted people are criminals. Putting heroin, or any kind of drug users, who have not committed any crime exept possesion is immoral. Prison is just isolating them while making sure their only friends are criminals. People that are on the streets are clearly not able to function like most people in a society. Punishment cannot be on the table.

Mediterraneo10 6y ago
Nowhere in my post did I advocate jailing users.
- Out_of_Characte 6y ago
  "It does little good for a society to legalize drugs without also rolling out that public medical infrastructure." That's what I was referring to. I think legalising drugs would do alot of good even without the "public medical infrastructure"

yboris 6y ago

I agree that we should go further than just decriminalization. Heroin is extremely cheap (were it not for being illegal). Cities that provide safe spaces for its use (and clean needles) decrease health problems for its users (and thus for the population as a whole). We could also provide the heroin (reducing life-threatening fluctuations in quality and the incentive for petty crime). The book focuses on arguing for one thing: decriminalization. I think it succeeds hands down.

imtringued 6y ago
A lot of health problems from heroin usage stem primarily from cutting agents put in by street dealers. Basically what happens is that the street dealer ear marks his own share of the drugs and replaces that part with something else. Some people have come up with extremely nasty cutting agents that cause severe health problems far beyond what regular drug use is capable of. Similarly, the tobacco in cigarettes isn't the main driver of health problems, it's the additives that cause most of the problems.

amanaplanacanal 6y ago

Did addicts turn to petty crime before it was criminalized? This sounds unlikely, do you have a source for that?

wayneftw 6y ago

I agree that we should legalize all drugs while also providing help for people who fall into heavy addiction. > It is also prohibited because addicts turn to petty crime... This is just bad logic though. The best thing to do would be to just arrest people for the actual crimes when they happen instead of trying preempt it. Otherwise we'd have to make illegal all the things that cause people turn to crime like bad parenting, being a sociopath, being in debt and oh...having spent time in prison. As soon as you get out of prison, they'd have to turn you right around and put you back in again. (No offense meant to you - I'm not sure if you're stating the logic that has been given to you or expressing your own. Either way, I 100% agree that decriminalization alone is a bad idea.)

yellowapple 6y ago

And we can't just enforce the laws against said petty crime because...? Some people that play violent video games also end up committing violent crime. And yet, not once has such an argument come anywhere close to banning violent video games. And mind you, you don't even need a free supply of drugs to prevent said crime. Drugs ain't that expensive on the street; if people are resorting to crime to pay for e.g. heroin, chances are they're already pretty close to needing to resort to petty crime to pay for food and shelter. The focus should therefore be on their economic well-being; UBI would benefit them and non-addicts, and would go a lot further (not to mention that financial stress is already something that drives people to self-medicate said stress in the first place).

imtringued 6y ago
I disagree with UBI. There are simpler mechanisms that aren't a funding nightmare. Government jobs and infrastructure investments are the tried and true method for times when economic activity is below the expected/desired levels. Fiscal policy is actually a necessary part of speeding up the recovery of the economy. A UBI that gets abolished as soon as the economy picks up again is fruitless because it fails to keep its promise.
- yellowapple 6y ago
  > There are simpler mechanisms UBI is quite literally as simple as it gets: revenue = collect_taxes() # LVT, other wealth taxes, etc. ubi_pool = revenue - cover_expenses() # infrastructure, etc. for c in citizens: c.send_check(ubi_pool / citizens.count) > that aren't a funding nightmare No less a "funding nightmare" (because God forbid the ownership class pays its fair share) than artificially creating jobs for the sake of working. Would be a lot simpler to just... give citizens money. On that note... > Government jobs and infrastructure investments are the tried and true method for times when economic activity is below the expected/desired levels. Infrastructure improvements are necessary regardless of whether or not the economy is healthy; bridges and roads don't care about whether society is rich or poor when they decide to collapse. And government jobs beyond said improvements just shuffle around the symptoms of economic problems without actually fixing anything. That is: these are "tried", sure, but they solve different problems than what UBI and other forms of welfare solve. > A UBI that gets abolished as soon as the economy picks up again Why in the heck would we want to do that? The whole point of UBI is to be a permanent safety net, not some stop-gap solution. And with that permanent solution, economic downturns and crises become significantly less harmful to the working class. UBI is a preventative measure, not a reactive one.

imtringued 6y ago

>It is also prohibited because addicts turn to petty crime I was about to write a rebuttal but once I read the rest of your comment you are spot on. Decriminialization is not enough. You also need to help people get out of the vicious chemical dependency cycle in a way that doesn't break their bank account. The high cost of drugs drives secondary criminal activity because people have to finance their drugs somehow and that usually means theft and involuntary prostitution.