Yes, it is. “Their junkie problem” is a reasonably well understood addiction problem. Criminalizing addiction harms users and promotes addicts’ cycle of addiction. Even when legal, shaming addiction promotes relapse. Learn what you’re talking about. People’s lives depend on it.
I agree with you and I want to clarify the point to others: not punishing users is not enough. They need access to clean, cheap drugs so they don’t have to take more risks to their health than necessary and stay away from the criminal side of drugs.
I might add that at the same time they should have access to the help they need to fight their addiction.
I think you can also argue the opposite. Decriminalizing addiction incentivizes people to use, as well as cushions the potential consequences of their use and prevents them from hitting rock bottom. I don't think we should shame use and we should offer anyone who's addicted a path out of it through treatment etc.
Again, I question whether removing consequences from drug use incentivizes people to quit, and assert that for many people, having real consequences can be the catalyst to make healthy changes. I am speaking from experience. Of course there are many people in the world and I'm not claiming everyone is the same.
I looked up info on Portugal and this is what I found:
> The reality is that Portugal’s drug situation has improved significantly in several key areas... However, such improvements are not solely the result of the decriminalization policy; Portugal’s shift towards a more health-centered approach to drugs, as well as wider health and social policy changes, are equally, if not more, responsible for the positive changes observed. Drawing on the most up-to-date evidence, this briefing clarifies the extent of Portugal’s achievement, and debunks some of the erroneous claims made about the country’s innovative approach to drugs.
> Portugal decriminalized the personal possession of all drugs in 2001. This means that, while it is no longer a criminal offence to possess drugs for personal use, it is still an administrative violation, punishable by penalties such as fines or community service.
So it seems that there are certainly indicators that decriminalization has certain positive outcomes, but it's not entirely due to decriminalization, and as they allege may be more impacted by changes to social health policies and perspectives. And further, they have not completely removed consequence from drug use. There are still civil penalties and other consequences.
To me that strikes a sort of balance and seems preferable to cart-blanche decriminalization.
> There are still civil penalties and other consequences.
It looks like that is true for Oregon as well. They just downgraded misdemeanor drug possessions to infractions and downgraded felony possession to misdemeanor.
What's the difference between getting addicted to gambling (legal), alcohol (legal), prescription drugs (legal) vs. any criminalized drug? And why does the government draw this arbitrary line? Before we strawman me, I'm not advocating _all_ drugs become legal, but pointing out the absurdity of the legality of it all.
Decriminalization brings on a greater opportunity for rehabilitation without entering the legal system (which lots of people never escape from). Keeping more people in the legal system should not be the goal.
Continuing to make drug sales illegal doesn’t actually do much to limit the availability of drugs. Drugs have never been more accessible or cheap and that trend is likely to continue.
I think the government should legalize all drugs so they can control the drug markets and take them away from violent criminal organizations. They can also ensure the drug supplies are safe (devoid of contaminants) as well as tax them to fund social services.
There’s always going to be a market for illegal drugs. It gets bigger as time goes on. Better to have it under the control of government and taxed/regulated than underground under the control of cartels
Because you can’t just go to the store and buy it like you can MJ? We are already seeing an uptick in addictions from MJ, which is much less addicting than cocaine.
So, can you point to something showing how decriminalization doesn’t increase the availability, and therefore the suffering of the addicts? Also have you ever been an addict? Are you talking out of experience? If not, then kindly sit down and shut up.
> Because you can’t just go to the store and buy it like you can MJ? We are already seeing an uptick in addictions from MJ, which is much less addicting than cocaine.
Responding to a request for source without a source is great.
> So, can you point to something showing how decriminalization doesn’t increase the availability
Ignoring a request for source and then asking for source.
> Also have you ever been an addict? Are you talking out of experience? If not, then kindly sit down and shut up.
This is a garbage response and shouldn't be welcome on this site.
edit Your response is also junk because decriminalization is not the same as legalization, and decriminalization is not the same as allowing dispensaries (medical or otherwise). So your point just kind doesn't make sense with the subject matter and scenario we're talking about.
You can “argue” a lot of things if you ignore evidence. Making use safe and reducing its stigma makes people safer when they do use. It doesn’t increase use or attract new users. Drugs aren’t an app, they don’t need to attract an audience. The audience is already there. The actual facts show that making use safe is key to making the drug that exists either way socially safe, by making recovery a personal process not a public justification of existence process.
It seems counterintuitive that there isn't a subset of the population who is dissuaded from drug use because of the danger (that could be danger of getting robbed or killed while purchasing, danger of arrest, danger of falling into addiction, whatever), and thus counterintuitive that making things safer wouldn't have at least some increase in use. Certainly there are more per capita marijuana users in Colorado than Wyoming, right?
Cannabis use probably goes up with legalization, but I think that’s largely because the risks associated with the drug are relatively low and widely understood to be low. Legalizing or decriminalizing meth or heroin wouldn't cause people to think “okay now is the time for me to start a potentially life-destroying addiction!”
Except the US has already had an opioid addiction problem. Hell, I can remember sitting in the chat of an MMO where a particular user was trying to convince everybody, including children, that heroin was safe.
And yes, cannabis use did go up with legalization. Those that have troubles with addictions are in trouble.
I think my experiences are unique, so not really commenting in terms of the politics.
Yes, me. I chose not to use now because I am concerned with the legality (or rather the effects of illegality).
- When I'm somewhere with legal cannabis I'll go to a shop and buy 5mg Indica pills.
- I won't go to a weed dealer where cannabis is illegal and get something that's of dubious quality, potentially washed with something nasty, not tested and hard to dose correctly, and potentially funding violence in my community.
I heard this reference to arguing the moon is made of cheese in my favorite fanfiction (Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality). Is this a common reference that I don’t know about?
Calling addiction a "junky" problem is akin to calling obesity a "fatso" problem. It says a lot about your mindset towards it. And this mindset is very much the reason why it is still a problem.
Have this though experiment. If the obese would get as much hate as junkies (junkies steal vs obese make health care insurance expensive, etc), would that help them?
There is absolutely a stigma against obesity in the US. The country’s fixation on weight is well-documented and the last decade of “body-positivity” has done little to change it.
That said, the stigma against obesity is absolutely less severe than the stigma against drug addiction. Personally, I think that’s appropriate.
One can be a healthy addict (i know very healthy people who cannot stop coffee without withdrawal), one cannot be a healthy obese person.
The problem in this comparison is that addiction has a very broad scale (e.g. coffee to crack) similar to body weight. Obesity already entails the person well over-weight (in terms of drug use that'd be "daily crack use" or smth).
I personally would rather be in a relation with a coffee addict than someone suffering from obesity.
“It funnels millions in marijuana tax revenue toward what it calls Addiction Recovery Centers, where people can be screened and directed to treatment options. Those tax dollars will also go to a Drug Treatment and Recovery Services Fund overseen by the state that could be used to pay for treatment, housing or other programs designed to address addiction.”
Gotta walk before you can run. Still a long way to go in America towards treating addiction as a health issue, not something to be locked up in prison for. Prove effectiveness and then make your case for more funding.
Even if most of the money comes from the general budget, that still would be a huge saving compared to trying and incarcerating them. Whether it's paid for is the big question.
Is that a speculatuon or do you know / have data for how much is needed? Can you tell us at least roughly what percentage of expence will this revenue cover?
The medical community has a long history of wanting to ban substances that has a known history of causing medical issues in people. Like lead in paint.
