3 ms·

You can't "solve" addiction, but you can manage it better than we do today. Addiction is a health issue, not a criminal issue. It should also be noted that the

You can't "solve" addiction, but you can manage it better than we do today. Addiction is a health issue, not a criminal issue. It should also be noted that the War on Drugs was never about "protecting people" -- it was a tool to oppress the people (people of color, counter culture (anti-war)). We've collectively agreed that it's ok to allow dangerous and addictive drugs (alcohol and tobacco). We need to stop being hypocritical about that. The answer to the problem: 1. Legalize all drugs 2. Tax them 3. Regulate them 4. Educate and assist in minimizing the risks. 5. Treat addicts in a medical context rather than a criminal one. There are challenges in doing this, but they're way better options than the current approach.

HydianSnake1 3y ago
[flagged]
- pstuart 3y ago
  [flagged]
UncleOxidant 3y ago
I live in Oregon and that 5 step plan isn't working out. I agree that addiction is first and foremost a health issue. However, relying on addicts to voluntarily enter treatment isn't working. We're seeing very few enter treatment - last I heard it was well under 10%. I think in the case of highly addictive drugs like opioids/fentanyl, and meth they should be made illegal again (Remember, Oregon essentially did your #1 above) however, instead of incarceration in a prison, we need some kind of treatment hospitals that are involuntary - something between a prison and a hospital with emphasis on treatment. We need to take a much more nuanced approach: some drugs are highly addictive (fentanyl, meth) - people can get hooked on them after only 1 or 2 uses, you want to prevent that as much as possible and that requires that they be illegal. Other drugs are not addictive: marijuana, LSD, shrooms, etc - making those legal is fine, but in the cases of the psychedelics you really want to encourage people to have guidance as much as possible.
- pstuart 3y ago
  I'm in the PDX area and am well aware of the problem. I agree on the involuntary institutionalization (both on the need and the fact that current treatment plans aren't working). When we talk about addicts in the area, we're pretty much talking about the homeless population. I've yet to see any census of sorts, but I'd wager that a significant portion of the homeless population is mentally ill. That also need to be revisited in the context of involuntary institutionalization. As far as opioids and meth go, making them illegal has been an abject failure. Let the addicts have their drugs (a la methadone clinics) but minimize the the dangers as well as the organized crime that thrives on their criminality.
  - UncleOxidant 3y ago
    > As far as opioids and meth go, making them illegal has been an abject failure Because the emphasis has been on punishment not on treatment as a health problem. They have to be illegal if you want to be able to involuntarily hospitalize the users. Dealers of the addictive drugs should be punished (if they're not users and thus not addicted - if they're dealer/users they need to go through treatment first, punishment later if they continue to deal). If you live in the PDX area I don't need to tell you that our current system which relies on voluntarily submitting to treatment isn't working. Yes, mental illness plays a part, but in many cases it's tough to tell which came first: the mental illness or the drug use - the drug use makes the mental illness worse and the mental illness often leads to more drug use.
    - naasking 3y ago
      > They have to be illegal if you want to be able to involuntarily hospitalize the users. That's not true. People are confined all the time for being a danger to themselves or others, even if they're not using drugs.
      - UncleOxidant 3y ago
        Sure, but that's a lot harder to do. Making it illegal and making the penalty treatment would probably be a lot easier.
ecshafer 3y ago
The lowest drug use rates are in Singapore, China, Japan, Indonesia, etc. these are countries that execute dealers and drugs are very illegal and socially taboo. There are two sides to every coin.
- fomine3 3y ago
  It's taboo but criminals don't be executed without multiple murdering in Japan
encoderer 3y ago
People have an obligation to be productive to society. If they check-out and use drugs all day, they are not creating the value needed to feed, clothe and shelter themselves. Therefore if we allow people to live in this state, the work of other people is sustaining them, and we (society) have become enablers. Sadly, just look at the god awful “linkage centers” in SF for how your ideas play-out in reality. These “harm reduction” ideas are more like life-support for addicts. Yes maybe there are fewer deaths but I think there probably is more suffering.
- pstuart 3y ago
  Then lets make alcohol and tobacco illegal.
  - encoderer 3y ago
    Why is fixing hypocrisy such a high priority? American culture has increasingly stigmatized and marginalized those substances for 100+ years (alcohol) and 60+ (tobacco).

HydianSnake1 3y ago

[flagged]

pstuart 3y ago
[flagged]

UncleOxidant 3y ago

I live in Oregon and that 5 step plan isn't working out. I agree that addiction is first and foremost a health issue. However, relying on addicts to voluntarily enter treatment isn't working. We're seeing very few enter treatment - last I heard it was well under 10%. I think in the case of highly addictive drugs like opioids/fentanyl, and meth they should be made illegal again (Remember, Oregon essentially did your #1 above) however, instead of incarceration in a prison, we need some kind of treatment hospitals that are involuntary - something between a prison and a hospital with emphasis on treatment. We need to take a much more nuanced approach: some drugs are highly addictive (fentanyl, meth) - people can get hooked on them after only 1 or 2 uses, you want to prevent that as much as possible and that requires that they be illegal. Other drugs are not addictive: marijuana, LSD, shrooms, etc - making those legal is fine, but in the cases of the psychedelics you really want to encourage people to have guidance as much as possible.

pstuart 3y ago
I'm in the PDX area and am well aware of the problem. I agree on the involuntary institutionalization (both on the need and the fact that current treatment plans aren't working). When we talk about addicts in the area, we're pretty much talking about the homeless population. I've yet to see any census of sorts, but I'd wager that a significant portion of the homeless population is mentally ill. That also need to be revisited in the context of involuntary institutionalization. As far as opioids and meth go, making them illegal has been an abject failure. Let the addicts have their drugs (a la methadone clinics) but minimize the the dangers as well as the organized crime that thrives on their criminality.
- UncleOxidant 3y ago
  > As far as opioids and meth go, making them illegal has been an abject failure Because the emphasis has been on punishment not on treatment as a health problem. They have to be illegal if you want to be able to involuntarily hospitalize the users. Dealers of the addictive drugs should be punished (if they're not users and thus not addicted - if they're dealer/users they need to go through treatment first, punishment later if they continue to deal). If you live in the PDX area I don't need to tell you that our current system which relies on voluntarily submitting to treatment isn't working. Yes, mental illness plays a part, but in many cases it's tough to tell which came first: the mental illness or the drug use - the drug use makes the mental illness worse and the mental illness often leads to more drug use.
  - naasking 3y ago
    > They have to be illegal if you want to be able to involuntarily hospitalize the users. That's not true. People are confined all the time for being a danger to themselves or others, even if they're not using drugs.
    - UncleOxidant 3y ago
      Sure, but that's a lot harder to do. Making it illegal and making the penalty treatment would probably be a lot easier.

ecshafer 3y ago

The lowest drug use rates are in Singapore, China, Japan, Indonesia, etc. these are countries that execute dealers and drugs are very illegal and socially taboo. There are two sides to every coin.

fomine3 3y ago
It's taboo but criminals don't be executed without multiple murdering in Japan

encoderer 3y ago

People have an obligation to be productive to society. If they check-out and use drugs all day, they are not creating the value needed to feed, clothe and shelter themselves. Therefore if we allow people to live in this state, the work of other people is sustaining them, and we (society) have become enablers. Sadly, just look at the god awful “linkage centers” in SF for how your ideas play-out in reality. These “harm reduction” ideas are more like life-support for addicts. Yes maybe there are fewer deaths but I think there probably is more suffering.

pstuart 3y ago
Then lets make alcohol and tobacco illegal.
- encoderer 3y ago
  Why is fixing hypocrisy such a high priority? American culture has increasingly stigmatized and marginalized those substances for 100+ years (alcohol) and 60+ (tobacco).