3 ms·

What is intellectually dishonest is mischaracterizing my beliefs, which you have done to an impressive degree. I’m an opioid addict and formerly homeless perso

What is intellectually dishonest is mischaracterizing my beliefs, which you have done to an impressive degree. I’m an opioid addict and formerly homeless person who has spent thousands of hours advocating for, and working with, the unhoused. I am the furthest thing from a 1980s drug warrior. In fact, I have always argued that American drug policies are an unequivocal failure. All I have stated, and continue to believe, is that one cannot emulate successes such as those in Estonia, Switzerland, Portugal and other jurisdictions by picking only the policies that are most politically feasible or attractive. These are holistic approaches that require changing the incentives of all agents interacting in the illicit drug economy. If one only focuses on a single element of the trade (say, the users, as has been done in many American metropoles) then the policy is bound to fail.

southernplaces7 3y ago
If this is the case than I do seriously apologize. I assumed you were arguing for prohibition and a return to tendencies in this direction that are only just now, finally being reevaluated in favor of at least debating legalization. To me that essential prohibitionist stance is disgusting, and especially so after so many years of abject failure. I agree, a holistic approach is a good idea, but at least in my assessment, it absolutely needs to include a serious move towards practical legalization while investing in support for addiction problems among users. The latter is important, but the formar is the very major missing piece. Multinational drug trafficking organizations will diversify, but without that huge central source of revenue, they'll be walking on a much weaker path in their attempts to dominate entire regions and national governments.
- atdrummond 3y ago
  We seem to be in agreement here. I apologise that these discussions have to become so heated; I understand this only comes from a place of compassion and frustration on your part. I appreciate your enthusiasm for change and obvious love for people who are - and have been in - my former position; there’s absolutely no anger on my side for the accidental friendly fire. Thank you so much for speaking up. The necessary changes in this space are only going to happen with continued pressure to abdicate the status quo.

southernplaces7 3y ago

If this is the case than I do seriously apologize. I assumed you were arguing for prohibition and a return to tendencies in this direction that are only just now, finally being reevaluated in favor of at least debating legalization. To me that essential prohibitionist stance is disgusting, and especially so after so many years of abject failure. I agree, a holistic approach is a good idea, but at least in my assessment, it absolutely needs to include a serious move towards practical legalization while investing in support for addiction problems among users. The latter is important, but the formar is the very major missing piece. Multinational drug trafficking organizations will diversify, but without that huge central source of revenue, they'll be walking on a much weaker path in their attempts to dominate entire regions and national governments.

atdrummond 3y ago
We seem to be in agreement here. I apologise that these discussions have to become so heated; I understand this only comes from a place of compassion and frustration on your part. I appreciate your enthusiasm for change and obvious love for people who are - and have been in - my former position; there’s absolutely no anger on my side for the accidental friendly fire. Thank you so much for speaking up. The necessary changes in this space are only going to happen with continued pressure to abdicate the status quo.