3 ms·

I'm not familiar with the history and details. I'm for decriminalization of drugs but I think that only helps if you also provide meaningful help in getting fre

I'm not familiar with the history and details. I'm for decriminalization of drugs but I think that only helps if you also provide meaningful help in getting free of addiction. I'm for decriminalization because if you can't admit you have a problem and need help without being charged with a crime, it's a barrier to getting clean. I'm also generally for "It's your body. Put what you want in it." I am not criticizing this change in policy. I am also for holding people accountable for their behavior and not excusing bad behavior generally based on "Poor baby. Has an addiction." We don't say chemo patients are excused from behaving appropriately, though we do make allowances for the fact they are probably grumpy and not at their most diplomatic because they are miserable. I believe addiction frequently has an unrecognized medical component and people are literally self medicating, often for an issue that doctors have failed to identify. I believe if you find the underlying cause, they can stop. Anyway, just trying to give context here. Decriminalization should not be code for "Let's let assholes claim the rules don't apply to them at all and excuse all their awful behavior."

anon291 2y ago
> I'm for decriminalization because if you can't admit you have a problem and need help without being charged with a crime, it's a barrier to getting clean. I'm also generally for "It's your body. Put what you want in it." Like literally... this is usually the case even in places where drugs are actually still illegal. In the US at least. For example, my state of Oregon decriminalized drugs. This did... nothing in terms of legal process, other than to eliminate any court appearances (police can't jail you so you don't show up in court). While Measure 110 was being implemented I was on the grand jury. Essentially, the status quo before the bill was that people would be held pre-trial. They would go on 'trial' or take a plea deal and be sentenced to recovery. That is what went on before decriminalization. Then suddenly one day, police could no longer hold them and everyone stoped showing up to court. I think I read today that the drug courts went from thousands of cases to a few hundred per year. That's thousands of people slipping through the cracks.
charles_f 2y ago
> It's your body. Put what you want in it. The problem is when you let others deal with the consequences - which is by and large what's happening in Vancouver.
baq 2y ago
> It's your body. Put what you want in it. What happens after? If you become an addict and steal shit from my car to pay for more shit you want and now need to put in you? Making people addicted is the opposite of making them free. People have understood this very well for a long time now.
- VeejayRampay 2y ago
  he means the good drug addicts, the ones that stay home and paint avant-garde masterpieces high on expensive high-quality heroine
- otherme123 2y ago
  Stealing is what is illegal. Your reasoning is very dangerous, as you can link whatever you want. For example, it's common in the US to blame certain videogames or movies after mass shooting: by that logic illegalizing the videogames solves the shootings. Or we need to illegalize some videogames because they might cause shootings. When people think drugs and addiction they immediately think of heavy opiates. But there are a lot of drugs that cause mild to no addiction (and certainty less than alcohol or tobacco), and low harm: LSD, for example. Nobody steals shit from your car to do some acid.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - wetpaws 2y ago
    [dead]
  - baq 2y ago
    The difference between video games and smoking fentanyl is like between a chair and an electric chair. If you don’t see it, we have nothing to talk about.
    - otherme123 2y ago
      And you are doing exactly what I said: straight to the most powerful opiod available. Fentanil is bad, lets outlaw shrooms, LSD, MDMA, marihuana... But leave out alcohol because...? Ah, yes, because when it was ilegal, mafia, violence and damages related to them were worse than ever. Also notice how heroin and fentanil are currently illegal. Everywhere. How is it going? I guess there are no addicts, or people stealing cars to get their fix. Because that only happens when they are legal, isn't it? Somehow we know that ilegalization solves nothing or create worse problems like mafias and linked violence, and still believe that it's the solution.
FrankyHollywood 2y ago
In theory I'm also for decriminalization, but in practice it doesn't work. Some drugs are so intense, can't compare to your Friday night beer. See the heroin epidemic in Amsterdam during the 70s, some neighborhoods became completely uninhabitable and an emergency status was declared. It just doesn't work. "The Dutch Hard Drug Epidemic, 1972–Present" https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep42912.9 https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep42912.9 "Heroïne-epidemie in Nederland" https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero%C3%AFne-epidemie_in_Nederland https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero%C3%AFne-epidemie_in_Ned...
- TacticalCoder 2y ago
  > In theory I'm also for decriminalization, but in practice it doesn't work. Some drugs are so intense, can't compare to your Friday night beer. The question is simple, really: "Do you really want your kid to have free access to Tranq?". Answer that, in all honesty, from the bottom of your earth. My enemies aren't the dealers or the consumers. My enemies are those saying every single drug should be freely accessible to my kid.
  - DoreenMichele 2y ago
    Drugs that are legal for adults are typically illegal for children. Alcohol and tobacco are both legal for adults in the US and illegal for children. Saying adults who are generally functional should generally have agency over their own body is not saying "Anything goes!" and is not saying "Let's actively seek to turn kids into addicts!" A lot of arguments against decriminalization are posited as extremist, worst case scenarios. I said from the start that I don't know what the history is for the jurisdiction in question and ended with my firm belief that decriminalization should not be code for giving assholes a pass on any and every shitty thing they want to excuse or justify. Seems like something went wrong in BC and they are trying to course correct. I'm fine with that.

anon291 2y ago

> I'm for decriminalization because if you can't admit you have a problem and need help without being charged with a crime, it's a barrier to getting clean. I'm also generally for "It's your body. Put what you want in it." Like literally... this is usually the case even in places where drugs are actually still illegal. In the US at least. For example, my state of Oregon decriminalized drugs. This did... nothing in terms of legal process, other than to eliminate any court appearances (police can't jail you so you don't show up in court). While Measure 110 was being implemented I was on the grand jury. Essentially, the status quo before the bill was that people would be held pre-trial. They would go on 'trial' or take a plea deal and be sentenced to recovery. That is what went on before decriminalization. Then suddenly one day, police could no longer hold them and everyone stoped showing up to court. I think I read today that the drug courts went from thousands of cases to a few hundred per year. That's thousands of people slipping through the cracks.

charles_f 2y ago

> It's your body. Put what you want in it. The problem is when you let others deal with the consequences - which is by and large what's happening in Vancouver.

baq 2y ago

> It's your body. Put what you want in it. What happens after? If you become an addict and steal shit from my car to pay for more shit you want and now need to put in you? Making people addicted is the opposite of making them free. People have understood this very well for a long time now.

VeejayRampay 2y ago
he means the good drug addicts, the ones that stay home and paint avant-garde masterpieces high on expensive high-quality heroine
otherme123 2y ago
Stealing is what is illegal. Your reasoning is very dangerous, as you can link whatever you want. For example, it's common in the US to blame certain videogames or movies after mass shooting: by that logic illegalizing the videogames solves the shootings. Or we need to illegalize some videogames because they might cause shootings. When people think drugs and addiction they immediately think of heavy opiates. But there are a lot of drugs that cause mild to no addiction (and certainty less than alcohol or tobacco), and low harm: LSD, for example. Nobody steals shit from your car to do some acid.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- wetpaws 2y ago
  [dead]
- baq 2y ago
  The difference between video games and smoking fentanyl is like between a chair and an electric chair. If you don’t see it, we have nothing to talk about.
  - otherme123 2y ago
    And you are doing exactly what I said: straight to the most powerful opiod available. Fentanil is bad, lets outlaw shrooms, LSD, MDMA, marihuana... But leave out alcohol because...? Ah, yes, because when it was ilegal, mafia, violence and damages related to them were worse than ever. Also notice how heroin and fentanil are currently illegal. Everywhere. How is it going? I guess there are no addicts, or people stealing cars to get their fix. Because that only happens when they are legal, isn't it? Somehow we know that ilegalization solves nothing or create worse problems like mafias and linked violence, and still believe that it's the solution.

FrankyHollywood 2y ago

In theory I'm also for decriminalization, but in practice it doesn't work. Some drugs are so intense, can't compare to your Friday night beer. See the heroin epidemic in Amsterdam during the 70s, some neighborhoods became completely uninhabitable and an emergency status was declared. It just doesn't work. "The Dutch Hard Drug Epidemic, 1972–Present" https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep42912.9 https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep42912.9 "Heroïne-epidemie in Nederland" https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero%C3%AFne-epidemie_in_Nederland https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero%C3%AFne-epidemie_in_Ned...

TacticalCoder 2y ago
> In theory I'm also for decriminalization, but in practice it doesn't work. Some drugs are so intense, can't compare to your Friday night beer. The question is simple, really: "Do you really want your kid to have free access to Tranq?". Answer that, in all honesty, from the bottom of your earth. My enemies aren't the dealers or the consumers. My enemies are those saying every single drug should be freely accessible to my kid.
- DoreenMichele 2y ago
  Drugs that are legal for adults are typically illegal for children. Alcohol and tobacco are both legal for adults in the US and illegal for children. Saying adults who are generally functional should generally have agency over their own body is not saying "Anything goes!" and is not saying "Let's actively seek to turn kids into addicts!" A lot of arguments against decriminalization are posited as extremist, worst case scenarios. I said from the start that I don't know what the history is for the jurisdiction in question and ended with my firm belief that decriminalization should not be code for giving assholes a pass on any and every shitty thing they want to excuse or justify. Seems like something went wrong in BC and they are trying to course correct. I'm fine with that.