3 ms·

"I don't think this stuff should be sold, say, in a gas station" You have two options- the drug can be sold legally or we can have an excess number of deaths f

"I don't think this stuff should be sold, say, in a gas station" You have two options- the drug can be sold legally or we can have an excess number of deaths from overdoses, impurities and black market violence. For some inexplicable reason, the majority of people continue to chose the option that guarantees the most human suffering.

seanmcdirmid 5y ago
> For some inexplicable reason, the majority of people continue to chose the option that guarantees the most human suffering. The problem is that we are asked to decriminalize drugs (like fentanyl) at the same time that we are asked to dedicated massive public resources for the rehabilitation of those people who then used those decriminalized drugs. I would be happy if it were one way or the other, but right now it sucks.
- standardUser 5y ago
  The money we spend to try (and fail) to stop drug production, trafficking, sale and use could instead be used to help cover the obviously colossal, multi-generational shortfall we have on mental health and addiction spending. Not to mention revenue raised from taxes. Maybe there should be exceptions made for exceptionally deadly and addictive dugs, like fentanyl.
  - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
    That money won't be enough. Those people are simply broken, most of them aren't being fixed no matter how many resources we throw at them. Convincing us that we should let people do what they want with drugs and somehow...that it is also our responsibility to pick up the pieces for these people as a consequence, it sounds like hypocrisy. Deflecting that society was responsible for the drug abuse in the first place (by letting people be poor and closing the mental hospitals) isn't going to convince many people that we should allow drug abuse and pay for the consequences as well.
    - pmoriarty 5y ago
      "Deflecting that society was responsible for the drug abuse in the first place (by letting people be poor and closing the mental hospitals) isn't going to convince many people that we should allow drug abuse and pay for the consequences as well." The question is: what's the alternative to allowing drug abuse? We know the War no Drugs is a dismal failure that hurts most the people who need help the most, and their families, and (as knock-on effects) the rest of society. The pessimist in me thinks it'll just continue, despite being so detrimental to our society as a whole, but there are signs (like the success of cannabis legalization, and the ongoing Psychedelic Renaissance) that we may be moving towards a more constructive future where people who need help aren't treated like criminals and attacked.
      - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
        > We know the War no Drugs is a dismal failure that hurts most the people who need help the most, and their families, and (as knock-on effects) the rest of society. When I was younger, I used to think the war on drugs was a dismal failure, but now seeing what happens when decriminalization is gone with instead, with junkies on the street camping in parks leaving their needles everywhere and the pervasive burnt peanut butter smell from smoking fentanyl on the buses. It might have just been the best of a bunch of bad solutions. But I get that not all drugs are fentanyl or heroin, I'm totally ok with marijuana legalization. Also, since it is decriminalized in our city and not other places in our region, we probably attract much more of the problem just because our cops don't harass users or dealers.
        standardUser 5y ago
        So you can see how the War on Drugs is not a viable solution, and you can see how the half-assed, semi-decriminalized mess we have in some cities is not a viable solution. But you can't see how proactively spending all of this money helping people instead of marginalizing/imprisoning people might be a viable solution? Either way, we're gonna keep spending untold billions on this problem. I'd like to stop throwing money at policies that destroy lives, violate civil liberties and have been proven by decades of evidence to be infective.

seanmcdirmid 5y ago

> For some inexplicable reason, the majority of people continue to chose the option that guarantees the most human suffering. The problem is that we are asked to decriminalize drugs (like fentanyl) at the same time that we are asked to dedicated massive public resources for the rehabilitation of those people who then used those decriminalized drugs. I would be happy if it were one way or the other, but right now it sucks.

standardUser 5y ago
The money we spend to try (and fail) to stop drug production, trafficking, sale and use could instead be used to help cover the obviously colossal, multi-generational shortfall we have on mental health and addiction spending. Not to mention revenue raised from taxes. Maybe there should be exceptions made for exceptionally deadly and addictive dugs, like fentanyl.
- seanmcdirmid 5y ago
  That money won't be enough. Those people are simply broken, most of them aren't being fixed no matter how many resources we throw at them. Convincing us that we should let people do what they want with drugs and somehow...that it is also our responsibility to pick up the pieces for these people as a consequence, it sounds like hypocrisy. Deflecting that society was responsible for the drug abuse in the first place (by letting people be poor and closing the mental hospitals) isn't going to convince many people that we should allow drug abuse and pay for the consequences as well.
  - pmoriarty 5y ago
    "Deflecting that society was responsible for the drug abuse in the first place (by letting people be poor and closing the mental hospitals) isn't going to convince many people that we should allow drug abuse and pay for the consequences as well." The question is: what's the alternative to allowing drug abuse? We know the War no Drugs is a dismal failure that hurts most the people who need help the most, and their families, and (as knock-on effects) the rest of society. The pessimist in me thinks it'll just continue, despite being so detrimental to our society as a whole, but there are signs (like the success of cannabis legalization, and the ongoing Psychedelic Renaissance) that we may be moving towards a more constructive future where people who need help aren't treated like criminals and attacked.
    - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
      > We know the War no Drugs is a dismal failure that hurts most the people who need help the most, and their families, and (as knock-on effects) the rest of society. When I was younger, I used to think the war on drugs was a dismal failure, but now seeing what happens when decriminalization is gone with instead, with junkies on the street camping in parks leaving their needles everywhere and the pervasive burnt peanut butter smell from smoking fentanyl on the buses. It might have just been the best of a bunch of bad solutions. But I get that not all drugs are fentanyl or heroin, I'm totally ok with marijuana legalization. Also, since it is decriminalized in our city and not other places in our region, we probably attract much more of the problem just because our cops don't harass users or dealers.
      - standardUser 5y ago
        So you can see how the War on Drugs is not a viable solution, and you can see how the half-assed, semi-decriminalized mess we have in some cities is not a viable solution. But you can't see how proactively spending all of this money helping people instead of marginalizing/imprisoning people might be a viable solution? Either way, we're gonna keep spending untold billions on this problem. I'd like to stop throwing money at policies that destroy lives, violate civil liberties and have been proven by decades of evidence to be infective.