5 ms·
> None of this can happen until we shake off the current policies rooted in puritanicalism. Arguably an extreme in either direction would be relatively effecti
by all2 2y ago
> None of this can happen until we shake off the current policies rooted in puritanicalism.
Arguably an extreme in either direction would be relatively effective. Where we sit now is not effective because it doesn't embrace actual justice, nor does it embrace actual recovery. In Seattle, for instance, the policy is to distribute drugs and needles to users, but not offer effective recovery options. Nor is there social pressure to not use drugs. Nor is there actual justice for those who prey on people who are too weak to escape.
I think a combination of both approaches could be good; target the dealers, the movers, and the makers; allow users who want rehab to undergo rehab without facing charges (make no charges contingent on the absence of crime other than possession and use).
- quasse 2y ago> In Seattle, for instance, the policy is to distribute drugs and needles to users Please cite your sources if you are going to make ridiculous claims. The city of Seattle does not have a municipal policy to distribute drugs to drug users at the syringe exchanges.
- Der_Einzige 2y agoIf they did, it would be illegal federally and all involved would be jailed.
- all2 2y agoCurious. I must be misremembering.
- jrockway 2y agoI mean, the executive branch can pick and choose who it prosecutes. If they are in favor of the program, they can simply not prosecute.
- jjtheblunt 2y agoDo you mean judicial branch?
- benglish11 2y agoThe attorney general (and the DOJ) is part of the executive branch
- jjtheblunt 2y agooh, i should have noticed that too; thank you.
- throwup238 2y agoThe charitable interpretation is methadone but that's neither new nor unique to Seattle.
- avidiax 2y agoYou don't have to target dealers. If the government makes equivalent drugs available for free, no dealer can compete. Giving out free drugs like candy isn't ideal, so you can put just enough speed bumps to limit the free drugs only to actual drug addicts with a black market dealer. That means that all the dealer's best customers disappear even faster than before.
- all2 2y agoThe "free candy" approach doesn't take into account the part where some of these drugs literally unwire self control in the user, that is they lose their ability to choose whether they do a drug or not and lose any agency they once had. There's a reason highly addictive drugs should be tightly controlled.
- Terr_ 2y agoYeah: There's some very interesting philosophical territory in there about what situations and choices are actually voluntary, and which ones are essentially a kind of biochemical slavery that the person needs to be liberated from.
- brainwad 2y agoDrugs cost actual resources to produce. Giving them away for free will distort the market towards more consumption than ideal. And unlike e.g. healthcare or education, it's not like we can morally justify that overconsumption. Taxpayers shouldn't be paying to get/keep people addicted to drugs.
- avidiax 2y agoWe are all already paying a high price for street drugs. The addicts are not paying out of their pockets, but instead are stealing things and extracting a fraction of the value. Then we pay for emergency medical care when the street drugs have terrible quality. Pharmaceutical quality opioids and amphetamines are definitely cheaper when you factor in the externalities of street drugs. The low price also allows lower consumption, counterintuitively. Taper the supply, and if the dealers return, increase supply until they are out of business. Hard to be an addict when the government tapers you and drives the street dealers out of business if they try to supply again.
- rayiner 2y ago> Arguably an extreme in either direction would be relatively effective. We have empirical proof that the restrictive extreme works: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/singapore-announces-plans-to-execute-more-death-sentenced-prisoners-convicted-of-non-violent-drug-offenses https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/singapore-announces-plans-.... We have no empirical proof that the permissive extreme works. There's also no moral impetus for the permissive extreme, except maybe in rare cases when people are forced into drug use against their will. We are talking about something that virtually always starts out as a deliberate, anti-social choice.
- doctor_eval 2y agoThe link you provided does not even remotely support your claim, which I can only assume is that the death penalty stops drug distribution. But unless you control for Singapore’s somewhat unique geography and politics, pointing to Singapore’s death penalty - itself the result of a wider political context - signifies very little.
- rayiner 2y agoThe death penalty is very important. What makes ordinary people follow the law is a desire to conform to society’s expectations. Humans are social animals—we want to be “good people,” not “bad people.” Imposing the death penalty for drug dealers cultivates a social norm about how evil drug dealers are. Its society’s ultimate sanction and indicator of the acts society deems evil. It’s like the social opprobrium we have in the US for child molesters, where we look the other way when they get killed in prison. It reinforces the norm—even other criminals realize that child molesters are especially evil.
- saagarjha 2y agoArguing for extrajudicial punishment in prison for criminals as being good, actually is pretty wild
- doctor_eval 2y ago> Imposing the death penalty for drug dealers cultivates a social norm about how evil drug dealers are This is just so unbelievably stupid that I have no words at all.
- seanmcdirmid 2y ago> In Seattle, for instance, the policy is to distribute drugs and needles to users, but not offer effective recovery options As a seattlite, this is the first I’ve heard of this. There might have been safe needle exchanges a decade back when heroin was popular, but these days when you just need some foil to smoke some fent…you don’t even see needles on the street anymore. And I’m pretty sure we aren’t giving out drugs (fent or heroin) to addicts, maybe you mean Narcan or methadone as first aid against ODing?
- all2 2y agoUgh. Then I'm terribly out of date.
- WalterBright 2y ago> but not offer effective recovery options They do offer treatment, but few take it.