Canada responds to British Columbia drug crisis by decriminalizing narcotics

[Ug make hammer]

Hope this works. I’d just keep PCPs illegal.

For me it's date rape drugs. If the drug has no taste or smell and can be used to physically incapacitate another person, it should be illegal.

 

[bomberfox]

For me it's date rape drugs. If the drug has no taste or smell and can be used to physically incapacitate another person, it should be illegal.

Yep date rape drugs too.

 

[Schism]

Personal responsibility is where a person finally realizes that they can't keep on with their drug habit and they need help.

Why would you want to enable, coddle, subsidize them until then?

My point is that some people reach that point well before they're arrested and charged, and there's no social utility whatsoever in with-holding the help until they do get arrested.

Why is that? Haven't democrats put forth a system that promotes treatment, provided means for that treatment, and actually helped anyone receive treatment? Because I can tell you that in my 7 years of working with addicts? I couldn't get any one into treatment unless their family was willing to put up $10 grand.

It's my experience that the best way to get mental health treatment of any kind (including rehab) is to get arrested. Police can't just put you back on the street, so voluntary or involuntary admission is the least harmful course for the cops to take.

That's some bullshit fantasy, especially now in progressive cities that just send them right back out into the streets the same day.

The second time I was institutionalized there was a sudden influx of physically sick people to mental ward. Cops had busted a crack house, and these were the crack consumers who were actually living there (not dealers). There was no room in rehab on one day's notice, so the cops brought them to mental ward. Contrast that with myself who still had a place to live: I had to wait two weeks for admission.

The few places that churned through addicts for free were flop houses where addicts served court mandated treatment but in fact were using and dealing in rehab. It's a fantasy that any real treatment and recovery is happening.

Every time there's a mass shooting, politicians of both parties say we need more "mental health" and maybe the reason they never pay for it, is that addicts have a mental health problem and doing anything positive for addicts is seen as enabling or encouraging drug use. It's so stupid.

The problem is that progressives and liberals have advocated for the mentally ill to be left alone and barred treatment against their will.

Now they populate your cities in tents, like some third world country. They get by with panhandling and petty theft. It's disgraceful.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Why would you want to enable, coddle, subsidize them until then?

"Enabling" as you describe it, is for government to do nothing at all. That's the essence of liberty, but because you're a Big Government busybody who wants to interfere in people's private habits, it's "enabling" to you.

"Coddle" is even less meaningful. Benign indifference is not "coddling".

And "subsidize"? Who in hell suggested the Canadian or US government should subsidize the previously illegal drugs?

Why is that? Haven't democrats put forth a system that promotes treatment, provided means for that treatment, and actually helped anyone receive treatment? Because I can tell you that in my 7 years of working with addicts? I couldn't get any one into treatment unless their family was willing to put up $10 grand.

Perhaps you didn't have the right contacts. I don't know, and I don't know why you'd even ask ME questions about YOUR experience.

That's some bullshit fantasy, especially now in progressive cities that just send them right back out into the streets the same day.

Well they should be spending the money they save on criminal justice "solutions".

The few places that churned through addicts for free were flop houses where addicts served court mandated treatment but in fact were using and dealing in rehab. It's a fantasy that any real treatment and recovery is happening.

Even "flop houses" are better than nothing. They hold out more hope than living on the street.

The problem is that progressives and liberals have advocated for the mentally ill to be left alone and barred treatment against their will.

Oh really? Those damn liberals and their obsession with rights, I dunno. Maybe Republicans should ... but no, that's a bad joke. Except in maybe Utah, Republicans do even less.

Now they populate your cities in tents, like some third world country. They get by with panhandling and petty theft. It's disgraceful.

Yes, yes it is. Why do you suppose they go to Democratic cities though? Could it be that for all the poor conditions, it's better than what they would get in Republican cities?

Again, except Utah. Utah should be a good example to all Republicans who pretend to care, and don't chant "personal responsibility" whenever something bad happens to anyone else. Government can't do anything, good or bad, without spending money. Money is the life-blood of government!

 

[multivita-man]

Maybe not a big step, but it will lead to more unregulated ‘street drug’ sales and abuse.

Portugal has already done this, and they've had some measurable successes. The idea isn't to handwave drug use but to encourage people who have a problem to come forward and get treatment for it without fear of long-term consequences such as social stigma, future employability, or criminal conviction.

 

[multivita-man]

Why would you want to enable, coddle, subsidize them until then?

Because it might turn them into more productive, tax-paying members of society.

Why is that? Haven't democrats put forth a system that promotes treatment, provided means for that treatment, and actually helped anyone receive treatment? Because I can tell you that in my 7 years of working with addicts? I couldn't get any one into treatment unless their family was willing to put up $10 grand.

What, you mean where they pay $10,000-15,000 to go to some retreat for 4 weeks, dry out, attend some lecture sessions one-on-one and then end with a group 'therapy' in which they sit in a room full of strangers and fellow addicts, and listen to their own family members talk in front of everyone there about what an embarrassment they are? Yeah that works. NOT.

America's solution to the drug problem is to shame addicts. Shame doesn't work. Making people feel like they're part of a community does, which is why even though the piousness of AA is annoying, I don't entirely dismiss it because it can provide a community of empathy for people who are shunned otherwise.

That's also why even though pharma therapies show promise in terms of reducing cravings, over the longer-term, I think it's too easy for people to just say to themselves that they'd rather be high or drunk and give that up as well. In the end, what's missing is social connection and meaning.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Absolute nonsense, your way of framing the entire thing is incorrect since it is neither taxing it, or subsidizing it.

Let me spell it out for you, prohibition, has failed, miserably, we spent untold billions every year on drug enforcement that fails miserably in its goals of stopping drug use and that is completely evidence everywhere you look.

Prohibition isn't the only issue at play, social stigma and lack of services/treatment options can be another and attacking methods of harm reduction such as needle exchange programs and safe injection sites is also a problem...

But prohibition doesn't work, never has worked, never will work and has not only not worked, it's actively made the problem worse.

Prohibition or not. Meth heads will rob, steal, and maim to support their addiction whether the drugs are criminalized or not.

Handing out free needles or whatever doesn't make the problem go away.

 

[Ug make hammer]

America's solution to the drug problem is to shame addicts. Shame doesn't work. Making people feel like they're part of a community does, which is why even though the piousness of AA is annoying, I don't entirely dismiss it because it can provide a community of empathy for people who are shunned otherwise.

My doctor recommended AA at one point. But I was already set against it because I didn't want to become a teetotaller. I wanted to be what I used to be: a moderate user of alcohol who would toddle off to bed when I'd had enough. So I invented my own program, tailored to my problem of every-day heavy drinking. I became an every-second-day drinker and so far that is working out well for me.

Well it does require will-power, and some of my meds make it easier too. But I think AA gives up many opportunities to "save" heavy drinkers, with the piousness you mentioned but also the insistence on "not one drop."

 

[Ug make hammer]

Handing out free needles or whatever doesn't make the problem go away.

Handing out free needles was never intended to reduce drug use. It's intended to reduce harm in the form of HIV and Hepatitis.

Some people (not saying you) consider preventable disease to be "consequences" of IV drug usage, and free needles to be "enabling" of such usage. It's a moralistic and vengeful view of sound medical practice.

 

[multivita-man]

My doctor recommended AA at one point. But I was already set against it because I didn't want to become a teetotaller. I wanted to be what I used to be: a moderate user of alcohol who would toddle off to bed when I'd had enough. So I invented my own program, tailored to my problem of every-day heavy drinking. I became an every-second-day drinker and so far that is working out well for me.

Well it does require will-power, and some of my meds make it easier too. But I think AA gives up many opportunities to "save" heavy drinkers, with the piousness you mentioned but also the insistence on "not one drop."

I guess it depends. There are addicts, and then there are real addicts. You're probably a binge drinker, as opposed to someone who's truly dependent. You still have some ability to self-regulate. Some just don't.

In general, abstinence is probably a good goal for real problem drinkers. But they and people around them need to realize that there will almost certainly be relapses. I think it's important for the addict's support group to recognize that maintaining a completely sober life is hard, and relapses shouldn't be treated as failure but as a setback - that approach encourages transparency, which is crucial. It's important to avoid being *too* judgmental because we want the addict to confess when he/she has effed up. But at the same time, addicts are still accountable. There has to be an honest conversation about why the decision to have a drink or a hit was made, and how that decision can be avoided in the future.

 

[Bear5131]

Funny that is EXACTLY what you do with Drugs. So take your own advice bub.

And you proved me right, YOU love alcohol so obviously that is NEVER a problem to you. Drugs on the other hand are your scapegoat.

You sure are strange 1st you have a heart attack when I mention how bad meth messes you up looks wise and thats quite common, cocaine doesn't do That

Then when I mention alcohol you have a heart attack also

 

[Ug make hammer]

I guess it depends. There are addicts, and then there are real addicts. You're probably a binge drinker, as opposed to someone who's truly dependent. You still have some ability to self-regulate. Some just don't.

Early in life when I mostly drank with friends, I was a binge drinker. We were all into drugs though. Booze was for when no-one had other drugs.

In general, abstinence is probably a good goal for real problem drinkers. But they and people around them need to realize that there will almost certainly be relapses. I think it's important for the addict's support group to recognize that maintaining a completely sober life is hard, and relapses shouldn't be treated as failure but as a setback - that approach encourages transparency, which is crucial.

Yes. I've heard they are not judgmental (unless you literally turn up drunk).

It's important to avoid being *too* judgmental because we want the addict to confess when he/she has effed up. But at the same time, addicts are still accountable. There has to be an honest conversation about why the decision to have a drink or a hit was made, and how that decision can be avoided in the future.

But I don't agree with that. It's possible to have a habit without having a problem, and the "not one drop" idea actually leads people to go all in when they do have one or two drinks. They live the nightmare because they have adopted the idea that drinking at all is a nightmare.

I should not profess any more though. My drinking is under control (I think) but that's not to say it will never get out of control again. And like I say, it relies on will-power, even when I'm quite drunk, so I can't say it would work for anyone else.

What we're lacking here is the experience of past-or-present addicts of other drugs. Alcohol is addictive, but it's not virulently so. It takes years to get really addicted. Other than nicotine and caffeine, I've never really been a drug addict. I count alcohol as a "close shave" with addiction. I wonder if it is possible for a real addict of heroin to be off it for a year or more, then have one hit without falling back into the habit?

 

[JasperL]

My doctor recommended AA at one point. But I was already set against it because I didn't want to become a teetotaller. I wanted to be what I used to be: a moderate user of alcohol who would toddle off to bed when I'd had enough. So I invented my own program, tailored to my problem of every-day heavy drinking. I became an every-second-day drinker and so far that is working out well for me.

Well it does require will-power, and some of my meds make it easier too. But I think AA gives up many opportunities to "save" heavy drinkers, with the piousness you mentioned but also the insistence on "not one drop."

I've read studies that show most problem drinkers solve the problem on their own, much as you've done. Essentially what you're pointing out is addiction is very individual. I used to get drunk every day, 365. The AA approach works for me (although I no longer attend meetings...the piousness is a problem, although that varies widely from meeting to meeting, group to group) because I know myself well enough to know that I really don't want and never wanted to drink moderately. If given the chance, I like to get drunk. So life is FAR easier for me drinking nothing at all than trying to do something I never wanted to do which was, say, 2 or 3 beers, then bed. Or A glass of wine with dinner. Etc. The only reason I ever did that was work the next day or I couldn't have 8 glasses of wine without being obviously an outcast in that crowd who are only having 1 or 2... Plus I tried the "moderate" thing and failed pretty miserably. A few months under control, then no longer under control.

Anyway, the point is 'harm reduction' versus abstinence is a very legitimate goal for lots of people with problems of addiction, whether alcohol or sugar or 'hard' drugs. All those feed the same metabolic reward pathways, and we see the problems all around us. One doctor whose lectures I've watched online and who does bariatric surgery gives a compelling case that his real job is treating sugar/refined carb addiction, and if he doesn't do that the surgery will fail. So part of his screening pre-surgery is making sure his patients develop a plan to deal with that, and it's mostly handling stress, community, etc.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Prohibition or not. Meth heads will rob, steal, and maim to support their addiction whether the drugs are criminalized or not.

Handing out free needles or whatever doesn't make the problem go away.

No it doesn't...

Which is why I specifically spell that out in terms of other factors/things needed to combat drug addiction in general.

Because unless we're going to simply kill drug addicts, harm reduction like needle exchange programs and safe injection sites means less hepatitis, less HIV, less healthcare costs associated with the addiction for society at large...

 

[JacksinPA]

prohibition never, ever works. I'm libertarian so this is an EZ one

Prohibition in the U.S. created organized crime. I'll bet no one saw that coming.

 

[JacksinPA]

I've read studies that show most problem drinkers solve the problem on their own, much as you've done. Essentially what you're pointing out is addiction is very individual. I used to get drunk every day, 365. The AA approach works for me (although I no longer attend meetings...the piousness is a problem, although that varies widely from meeting to meeting, group to group) because I know myself well enough to know that I really don't want and never wanted to drink moderately. If given the chance, I like to get drunk. So life is FAR easier for me drinking nothing at all than trying to do something I never wanted to do which was, say, 2 or 3 beers, then bed. Or A glass of wine with dinner. Etc. The only reason I ever did that was work the next day or I couldn't have 8 glasses of wine without being obviously an outcast in that crowd who are only having 1 or 2... Plus I tried the "moderate" thing and failed pretty miserably. A few months under control, then no longer under control.

Anyway, the point is 'harm reduction' versus abstinence is a very legitimate goal for lots of people with problems of addiction, whether alcohol or sugar or 'hard' drugs. All those feed the same metabolic reward pathways, and we see the problems all around us. One doctor whose lectures I've watched online and who does bariatric surgery gives a compelling case that his real job is treating sugar/refined carb addiction, and if he doesn't do that the surgery will fail. So part of his screening pre-surgery is making sure his patients develop a plan to deal with that, and it's mostly handling stress, community, etc.

AA is a quasi-religious organization. Where else do you end meetings by joining hands & reciting the Lord's Prayer. Hypocrites.

 

[JasperL]

AA is a quasi-religious organization. Where else do you end meetings by joining hands & reciting the Lord's Prayer. Hypocrites.

There's some of that, and the appeal to a "higher power" is certainly at least quasi-religious, but it's really not necessary. The meetings I ended up going to regularly were not at all religious. What's kind of funny is the evangelical churches in my area do not host AA meetings - not enough religion, and of course those churches believe there is only one possible 'higher power' and AA allows for many. There's an alternative called "Celebrate Recovery" that's overtly Christian and very religious, and that's what you see at the Baptist churches and other Bible thumper places.

 

[Roger Duke]

Let's just make everything legal. Think of all the benefits. The crime rate would drop to zero. We all want to live in a place where there is no crime.
And think of the money we would save on police and prisons. We could scrap the entire judicial system. We'd still need Judge Judy though but instead of laws for civil court judges to go by, they could just go by their feelings.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Let's just make everything legal. Think of all the benefits. The crime rate would drop to zero. We all want to live in a place where there is no crime.
And think of the money we would save on police and prisons. We could scrap the entire judicial system. We'd still need Judge Judy though but instead of laws for civil court judges to go by, they could just go by their feelings.

Or we could not be idiots, trying to treat all crime the same. Crime where the main victim is the criminal, is fundamentally different to crime where the main victim is someone else.