5 ms·

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-genera

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
        > But you can't see how proactively spending all of this money helping people instead of marginalizing/imprisoning people Oh, we can spend an unlimited amount of helping people and it only lasts until they get out and get their next fix. How do you help people that don't really want help? And all of the "help" they want just goes to enabling the destructive behavior, the money we throw at the problem right now just allow them to do more drugs. > instead of marginalizing/imprisoning people might be a viable solution? So? The other approach is just enabling their behavior with compassion: let's make sure they have housing and open shelters so they can don't die while continuing to do their drugs? We are already spending untold billions on that, meanwhile ignoring petty property crimes (because junkies need legos for what?), and we only go OMG when they bash some poor girl's head in with a baseball bat because they are having a crisis. Why have any sympathy for those people at all? So we are already spending around $60k/year/person on these people, how much higher do you want our one city to go? $200k/year? $1 million/year? How do you help people who don't really want help but will gladly take your money? Supply of those needing help (even if they just want drugs) is also basically unlimited since it is more of a national problem, while big cities are expected to provide compassion on their own.
        standardUser 5y ago
        You seem to have a very narrow and frankly uninformed opinion on addiction. It's unlikely you can be convinced that spending billions to arrest and imprison druggies is worse than spending the exact same billions to provide services and support if your beginning assumption is that addicts are lost causes.

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
      > But you can't see how proactively spending all of this money helping people instead of marginalizing/imprisoning people Oh, we can spend an unlimited amount of helping people and it only lasts until they get out and get their next fix. How do you help people that don't really want help? And all of the "help" they want just goes to enabling the destructive behavior, the money we throw at the problem right now just allow them to do more drugs. > instead of marginalizing/imprisoning people might be a viable solution? So? The other approach is just enabling their behavior with compassion: let's make sure they have housing and open shelters so they can don't die while continuing to do their drugs? We are already spending untold billions on that, meanwhile ignoring petty property crimes (because junkies need legos for what?), and we only go OMG when they bash some poor girl's head in with a baseball bat because they are having a crisis. Why have any sympathy for those people at all? So we are already spending around $60k/year/person on these people, how much higher do you want our one city to go? $200k/year? $1 million/year? How do you help people who don't really want help but will gladly take your money? Supply of those needing help (even if they just want drugs) is also basically unlimited since it is more of a national problem, while big cities are expected to provide compassion on their own.
      - standardUser 5y ago
        You seem to have a very narrow and frankly uninformed opinion on addiction. It's unlikely you can be convinced that spending billions to arrest and imprison druggies is worse than spending the exact same billions to provide services and support if your beginning assumption is that addicts are lost causes.