OT Drugs! The Good, The Bad & The Deadly

[SharpeScooterShooter]

@Phatguysrule and i were discussing drug use and some ways to eliminate/minimize the abuses we see going on.
I felt it could use its own thread to help keep other threads more on topic as to the relation of the OP.

Phats, here are our last two posts in that conversation(maybe more should be moved here?).

What I am describing has reduced crime rates, addiction rates, and overdose rates everywhere it has been tried.

Where and when has what you are talking about worked? Do you have any examples of your suggested method working well?

I already provided you evidence that right here in Portland, legalizing the hard drugs has increased drug usage.
I also showed you evidence that even though there is free help, the addicts are by and large declining it.
It hasnt worked here in Portland and thats enough factual evidence to show legalization, here, is not working. Whether it worked elsewhere is irrelevant if it is actively not working here.
And again, other places are not here.

Once we realize that its the drug addiction that has people making poor choices to commit crimes to support thier habit, then we have pinpointed the source of the bulk of the homelessness(other being poverty).

Listen. I live and am dealing with a hard core drunk. There is no help, no rationalization, no common sense that can be had from addicts.
Until they are ready to want and maintain the want for help and they want to quit, nothing will help. No legalization. No prison time, etc.
I see it up front on a daily basis in a vacuum and have lived very close to addicts half my life.
I speak from living with the problem. Not off some reports from another country that doesn't have the same social/community breakdowns that we have.
Only two things will solve the homelessness/ drug problem here.
Lockdown for addicts to recover and better social services for broken families.
Either way though, addicts aren't typically able to kick the habit without a detox lockdown.
Just read up on recovery program websites. They all say the first step is a detox that usually involves a lockdown of sorts.
These are recovery facts you can read up on addiction and what recovery entails.


Anyhow those are my thoughts on this. I will curb further thoughts on this topic, as i just realized this is supposed to be about religion. Not drug addictions and homelessness.

I am now adding to the above…

With that said, i think we are closer to being on the same page than it may seem.
I just believe, along with your suggestions, there should also be a mandatory lockdown time for those already addicted, in order to have a higher percentage of pulling through and remaining sober. This is, of course, once they have committed a crime.
But the punishment of that crime should include what it takes to get clean and sober. Even if its a misdemeanor.

The social safety net and improved community services is def good but I do not believe that will help the current situation. Only the future. I believe we can address the now along with tomorrow. Those addicted will not kick the havit with improved social services alone. Facts back this up in Oregon. There needs to be a lockdown period to go through the withdrawals, detoxify and then level out. THEN there are months and months of mental rehab. This doesn't happen with outpatient visits from specialists, etc. Most addicts require an in house lockdown with constant supervision and strict programming to build a sense of organization of daily activities, before they are close to being able to be on their own with minimal chance of relapse.
This is where I feel jail time should be part of the solution, but the time spent in jail should be overhauled to be more of a recovery, than an institution of isolation/segregation.
Once an addict has committed a crime, i feel it is no longer their choice if they want to sober up or not. They crossed the line, proved to the world they are incapable of managing their usage and will need the road to recovery forced upon them in order to be a productive member of society again.
I would vote for programs like that. I am not for setting up camps for addicts to have a free space to continue to abuse. Ive been around too many addicts to know the more we give the more they take.
To me, the first step is creating more recovery facilities. Step two is a better screening/psychoanalysis of all criminals to determine the reason for the crime.
if deemed the individual is an addict, then they are convicted to the appropriate recovery program and the time is varied, based on the individuals progression/improvement.

 

[HailBlazers]

Watched this last night.

 

[Phatguysrule]

@Phatguysrule and i were discussing drug use and some ways to eliminate/minimize the abuses we see going on.
I felt it could use its own thread to help keep other threads more on topic as to the relation of the OP.

Phats, here are our last two posts in that conversation(maybe more should be moved here?).






I am now adding to the above…

With that said, i think we are closer to being on the same page than it may seem.
I just believe, along with your suggestions, there should also be a mandatory lockdown time for those already addicted, in order to have a higher percentage of pulling through and remaining sober. This is, of course, once they have committed a crime.
But the punishment of that crime should include what it takes to get clean and sober. Even if its a misdemeanor.

The social safety net and improved community services is def good but I do not believe that will help the current situation. Only the future. I believe we can address the now along with tomorrow. Those addicted will not kick the havit with improved social services alone. Facts back this up in Oregon. There needs to be a lockdown period to go through the withdrawals, detoxify and then level out. THEN there are months and months of mental rehab. This doesn't happen with outpatient visits from specialists, etc. Most addicts require an in house lockdown with constant supervision and strict programming to build a sense of organization of daily activities, before they are close to being able to be on their own with minimal chance of relapse.
This is where I feel jail time should be part of the solution, but the time spent in jail should be overhauled to be more of a recovery, than an institution of isolation/segregation.
Once an addict has committed a crime, i feel it is no longer their choice if they want to sober up or not. They crossed the line, proved to the world they are incapable of managing their usage and will need the road to recovery forced upon them in order to be a productive member of society again.
I would vote for programs like that. I am not for setting up camps for addicts to have a free space to continue to abuse. Ive been around too many addicts to know the more we give the more they take.
To me, the first step is creating more recovery facilities. Step two is a better screening/psychoanalysis of all criminals to determine the reason for the crime.
if deemed the individual is an addict, then they are convicted to the appropriate recovery program and the time is varied, based on the individuals progression/improvement.

@Phatguysrule and i were discussing drug use and some ways to eliminate/minimize the abuses we see going on.
I felt it could use its own thread to help keep other threads more on topic as to the relation of the OP.

Phats, here are our last two posts in that conversation(maybe more should be moved here?).






I am now adding to the above…

With that said, i think we are closer to being on the same page than it may seem.
I just believe, along with your suggestions, there should also be a mandatory lockdown time for those already addicted, in order to have a higher percentage of pulling through and remaining sober. This is, of course, once they have committed a crime.
But the punishment of that crime should include what it takes to get clean and sober. Even if its a misdemeanor.

The social safety net and improved community services is def good but I do not believe that will help the current situation. Only the future. I believe we can address the now along with tomorrow. Those addicted will not kick the havit with improved social services alone. Facts back this up in Oregon. There needs to be a lockdown period to go through the withdrawals, detoxify and then level out. THEN there are months and months of mental rehab. This doesn't happen with outpatient visits from specialists, etc. Most addicts require an in house lockdown with constant supervision and strict programming to build a sense of organization of daily activities, before they are close to being able to be on their own with minimal chance of relapse.
This is where I feel jail time should be part of the solution, but the time spent in jail should be overhauled to be more of a recovery, than an institution of isolation/segregation.
Once an addict has committed a crime, i feel it is no longer their choice if they want to sober up or not. They crossed the line, proved to the world they are incapable of managing their usage and will need the road to recovery forced upon them in order to be a productive member of society again.
I would vote for programs like that. I am not for setting up camps for addicts to have a free space to continue to abuse. Ive been around too many addicts to know the more we give the more they take.
To me, the first step is creating more recovery facilities. Step two is a better screening/psychoanalysis of all criminals to determine the reason for the crime.
if deemed the individual is an addict, then they are convicted to the appropriate recovery program and the time is varied, based on the individuals progression/improvement.

I agree we need recovery facilities. That's the step we have missed. As well as police and prison reform. And we need to house all of the homeless so individuals and families are no longer forced to help support these people, rather they can just

But there is no reason to keep torturing people with a system that doesn't work, just because it's the only system we have. That's insane and inhumane.

Portland and Oregon can't be used as an example yet because drugs haven't been decriminalized long enough for anything except Marijuana. Which given time has shown exactly that. It's falling out of favor and somewhat losing its cool factor.

Keeping substances illegal just raises the price and encourages more people to sell it, and makes it more enticing for people to use it.

No prohibition has ever been successful in a democracy where people have rights to privacy. It can't work and causes more problems than it tries to address.

The first step is that we need to cease causing harm. And we've taken that step. Limiting government overreach is the only way to force the kind of change needed in the US.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

Watched this last night.

whoa! That looks good. Gonna try to watch it tonight!

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Poll added

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

I agree we need recovery facilities. That's the step we have missed. As well as police and prison reform. And we need to house all of the homeless do individuals and families are no longer forced to help support these people, rather they can just

But there is no reason to keep torturing people with a system that doesn't work, just because it's the only system we have. That's insane and inhumane.

Portland and Oregon can't be used as an example yet because drugs haven't been decriminalized long enough for anything except Marijuana. Which given time has shown exactly that. It's falling out of favor and somewhat losing its cool factor.

Keeping substances illegal just raises the price and encourages more people to sell it, and makes it more enticing for people to use it.

No prohibition has ever been successful in a democracy where people have rights to privacy. It can't work and causes more problems than it tries to address.

The first step is that we need to cease causing harm. And we've taken that step. Limiting government overreach is the only way to force the kind of change needed in the US.

I agree with about two thirds to three quarters of that.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

I agree we need recovery facilities. That's the step we have missed. As well as police and prison reform. And we need to house all of the homeless do individuals and families are no longer forced to help support these people, rather they can just

But there is no reason to keep torturing people with a system that doesn't work, just because it's the only system we have. That's insane and inhumane.

Portland and Oregon can't be used as an example yet because drugs haven't been decriminalized long enough for anything except Marijuana. Which given time has shown exactly that. It's falling out of favor and somewhat losing its cool factor.

Keeping substances illegal just raises the price and encourages more people to sell it, and makes it more enticing for people to use it.

No prohibition has ever been successful in a democracy where people have rights to privacy. It can't work and causes more problems than it tries to address.

The first step is that we need to cease causing harm. And we've taken that step. Limiting government overreach is the only way to force the kind of change needed in the US.

So do you believe all drugs should be legal to possess, consume, purchase and sell, regardless of quantity or frequency?

 

[MickZagger]

So do you believe all drugs should be legal to possess, consume, purchase and sell, regardless of quantity or frequency?

Its going to happen whether it’s legal or not. So I guess it depends on if you think the government should get a cut or not

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

Its going to happen whether it’s legal or not. So I guess it depends on if you think the government should get a cut or not

I suppose that would depend on what that cut is spent on. Recovery programs?

 

[Shaboid]

This poll is going straight to the DEA along with a list of S2 ip addresses, right? Just wondering if I should call Saul in advance of taking it.

 

[MickZagger]

I suppose that would depend on what that cut is spent on. Recovery programs?

Yeah, I suppose the government is already getting some kind of cut of it by prosecuting drug crimes. There’s a lot of money being passed around within the court systems with stuff like that

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

Yeah, I suppose the government is already getting some kind of cut of it by prosecuting drug crimes. There’s a lot of money being passed around within the court systems with stuff like that

I am all for a complete overhaul of our spending regarding this aNd other social services… mostly improved accountability and verification of exactly where the money goes.

 

[riverman]

Our criminal justice systems are better used focusing on actual crimes ....drug addiction is an illness and in my view shouldn't be forced into a social box with criminals. We need rehabilitation communities with on the job training programs so not only can they get sober...they can learn a skill. Chronic addicts should be in facilities that are longer term and have a probation system in place. It's not a cheap or readily assessable situation but one that would probably benefit society long term. Criminalize drug abuse, not drugs. Make the most dangerous drugs prescription only. If you can sustain a life as an alcoholic or drug addict and not impact the life of anyone around you or the general public. I think it's your personal choice. An addict is never not a junkie...or an alcoholic...they are just sober today and hopefully tomorrow. Public intoxication or reckless behavior should be policed. People need to be held accountable. If people are going to kill themselves I'd rather they do it with a drug than a gun or by cop or in an automobile or at the end of a rope...sounds harsh but I believe in personal choices as long as they don't affect anyone but yourself.

 

[Phatguysrule]

So do you believe all drugs should be legal to possess, consume, purchase and sell, regardless of quantity or frequency?

No. Only small quantities should be decriminalized. We should still control it, but not harass sick people (addicts) over it. That's why I've repeatedly said "decriminalize" rather than "legalize".

We want the stakes to be very high for cartels, so people are more likely to grow or make it on their own. Make it harder for cartels to compete with the local product and there will be less of it for people buy.

Then local product will be the dominant source. That's far easier to control than just cartels shipping it in.

 

[Phatguysrule]

And no, I've never done an illegal drug and I've never been drunk. I've never smoked a cigarette.

I did accidently get a little high on engine degreaser once... But then I opened the door and the sensation went away.

My parents did every drug in the book. I was raised in a drug house until I was 6 years old. Watched my dad get arrested dozens of times (and deservedly so). Visited him in jail many times...

Nobody in government ever did anything to actually help our family. Aside from some food stamps. We were just cogs in their machine.

Nothing was ever done with the intention to help. Just punish and keep us down. So they could look down their noses at us.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

Our criminal justice systems are better used focusing on actual crimes ....drug addiction is an illness and in my view shouldn't be forced into a social box with criminals. We need rehabilitation communities with on the job training programs so not only can they get sober...they can learn a skill. Chronic addicts should be in facilities that are longer term and have a probation system in place. It's not a cheap or readily assessable situation but one that would probably benefit society long term. Criminalize drug abuse, not drugs. Make the most dangerous drugs prescription only. If you can sustain a life as an alcoholic or drug addict and not impact the life of anyone around you or the general public. I think it's your personal choice. An addict is never not a junkie...or an alcoholic...they are just sober today and hopefully tomorrow. Public intoxication or reckless behavior should be policed. People need to be held accountable. If people are going to kill themselves I'd rather they do it with a drug than a gun or by cop or in an automobile or at the end of a rope...sounds harsh but I believe in personal choices as long as they don't affect anyone but yourself.

There is a very close correlation to drug abuse and violent crimes.
In the prisons:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4070162/

This is a decent breakdown here:

https://bjs.ojp.gov/drugs-and-crime-facts/drug-use-and-crime

and what is in this article is this:


Percent of prison and jail inmates who committed offense to get money for drugs

Local jail inmates State prisoners Federal . prisoners
Offense 2002 2004 2004
Total 16.4% 16.6% 18.4%
Violent 8.0 9.8 14.8
Property 26.9 30.3 10.6
Drugs 24.8 26.4 25.3
Public-order 5.2 6.9 6.8


This shows that drugs indeed do play a large role in violent crimes. Decrease addiction and it will decrease violent crimes.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

No. Only small quantities should be decriminalized. We should still control it, but not harass sick people (addicts) over it. That's why I've repeatedly said "decriminalize" rather than "legalize".

We want the stakes to be very high for cartels, so people are more likely to grow or make it on their own. Make it harder for cartels to compete with the local product and there will be less of it for people buy.

Then local product will be the dominant source. That's far easier to control than just cartels shipping it in.

The addicts on the street still commit crimes for small quantities. They are broke. They cant afford large qties, but dont think for a second they wouldn't buy large qties if they didn't already run themselves into the ground. The discount alone would have them buying more if they could.

You mention cartels. Maybe you should define small quantity? I consider it between an eighth and an ounce or less. Depending on the drug.

 

[Phatguysrule]

There is a very close correlation to drug abuse and violent crimes.
In the prisons:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4070162/

This is a decent breakdown here:

https://bjs.ojp.gov/drugs-and-crime-facts/drug-use-and-crime

and what is in this article is this:


Percent of prison and jail inmates who committed offense to get money for drugs

Local jail inmates State prisoners Federal . prisoners
Offense 2002 2004 2004
Total 16.4% 16.6% 18.4%
Violent 8.0 9.8 14.8
Property 26.9 30.3 10.6
Drugs 24.8 26.4 25.3
Public-order 5.2 6.9 6.8


This shows that drugs indeed do play a large role in violent crimes. Decrease addiction and it will decrease violent crimes.

And you don't decrease addiction by punishment. Simply doesn't work. I can't find any evidence of punishment backed prohibition ever having a positive impact on addiction.

It's very hard for me to support restrictions that don't make a positive impact on society.

 

[riverman]

There is a very close correlation to drug abuse and violent crimes.
In the prisons:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4070162/

This is a decent breakdown here:

https://bjs.ojp.gov/drugs-and-crime-facts/drug-use-and-crime

and what is in this article is this:


Percent of prison and jail inmates who committed offense to get money for drugs

Local jail inmates State prisoners Federal . prisoners
Offense 2002 2004 2004
Total 16.4% 16.6% 18.4%
Violent 8.0 9.8 14.8
Property 26.9 30.3 10.6
Drugs 24.8 26.4 25.3
Public-order 5.2 6.9 6.8


This shows that drugs indeed do play a large role in violent crimes. Decrease addiction and it will decrease violent crimes.

The crimes are also tied to the accessibility and inflated costs of the drugs they steal for. To fix the problem you have to move away from that vicious cycle in my view. I don't believe illegal meth has any FDA controls over potency or distribution but as it stands you can abuse all these drugs on the black market ...Drug abuse needs to be addressed...drug addiction stats will follow the trend of treatment and legality more than lack of regulation and limited distribution.

 

[Phatguysrule]

The addicts on the street still commit crimes for small quantities. They are broke. They cant afford large qties, but dont think for a second they wouldn't buy large qties if they didn't already run themselves into the ground. The discount alone would have them buying more if they could.

You mention cartels. Maybe you should define small quantity? I consider it between an eighth and an ounce or less. Depending on the drug.

Anything under an ounce is fine with me. 1/2 ounce would be fine. Whatever. We can always tighten it up if need be.

If they are on the street committing crime they'll be arrested. The drugs are irrelevant. If they are an addict it will be obvious. If it is a recurring problem it will be dealt with.

Of course we have a long way to go before our police are actually trying to help society, so there's that.

We certainly shouldn't be giving police we can't trust more authority over more people, when there is no evidence that it's beneficial. In fact, most evidence points to the opposite being true.

Crimes of theft, property damage, harm to others, and intimidation should be what we focus our police and jails on.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

So how does one solve the problem of non compliant drug addicts who wont voluntarily admit themselves into a program but continue to commit crimes to support the addiction?
The only realistic answer is lockdown and statistics about drug addiction recovery proves that lockdowns are an integral part of an addicts percentage of success.

 

[riverman]

So how does one solve the problem of non compliant drug addicts who wont voluntarily admit themselves into a program but continue to commit crimes to support the addiction?
The only realistic answer is lockdown and statistics about drug addiction recovery proves that lockdowns are an integral part of an addicts percentage of success.

We have mentally ill people who can't function in the real world and have to be institutionalized already...that's where you need an institution that will keep them sober and productive and not out continually breaking the law....the laws should represent no tolerance for abuse of anything that puts others or the public in harms way or inhibits sober people from freely and safely enjoying the city without harrassment or exposure to unhealthy public activity such as shitting on a sidewalk or ranting at the telephone pole..If you can't control your problem then social services should intervene.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

We have mentally ill people who can't function in the real world and have to be institutionalized already...that's where you need an institution that will keep them sober and productive and not out continually breaking the law....the laws should represent no tolerance for abuse of anything that puts others or the public in harms way or inhibits sober people from freely and safely enjoying the city without harrassment or exposure to unhealthy public activity such as shitting on a sidewalk or ranting at the telephone pole..If you can't control your problem then social services should intervene.

Okay, but how? You didn't really answer the question.
I agree the law should represent no tolerance for abuse. So how do we fix those who don't want help, but are continually in violation of the law?

When you say, if you cant control your problem, if you mean addicts, well almost all cant. And so how, and in what way, should social services intervene?
Forcibly implement a detox and recovery program?

 

[riverman]

Okay, but how? You didn't really answer the question.
I agree the law should represent no tolerance for abuse. So how do we fix those who don't want help, but are continually in violation of the law?

When you say, if you cant control your problem, if you mean addicts, well almost all cant. And so how, and in what way, should social services intervene?
Forcibly implement a detox and recovery program?

It's a long process and will take funding....I did answer the question but as to a financial proposal...no...our govt hasn't even come up with one yet...this will take a long time to implement and half the country doesn't support socialized programs even like planned parenthood so helping addicts is going to be pretty far down the line for their tax dollar approval. We're not solving this issue on a msg board but we can speculate. My answer is legalize drugs and regulate their use first. Enforce public safety laws and public health regulations so nobody can abuse their freedom of choice without being removed from the streets. It's like saying you're going to cure domestic abuse....you can try but it's not going to be an easy battle.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

It's a long process and will take funding....I did answer the question but as to a financial proposal...no...our govt hasn't even come up with one yet...this will take a long time to implement and half the country doesn't support socialized programs even like planned parenthood so helping addicts is going to be pretty far down the line for their tax dollar approval. We're not solving this issue on a msg board but we can speculate. My answer is legalize drugs and regulate their use first. Enforce public safety laws and public health regulations so nobody can abuse their freedom of choice without being removed from the streets. It's like saying you're going to cure domestic abuse....you can try but it's not going to be an easy battle.

I don't disagree, but I'm looking for more specifics. If an individual has been arrested and convicted of a violent crime while high and has been deemed has a chemical dependency on a regulated drugs, but this individual declines social services that will help him, what alternatives are there other than letting them loose to repeat the behavior or lock them up and force rehab on them?

I think the disconnect or miss understanding might be the gap in addicts who say they want to quit and or want help, vs the number that actually take the physical steps to do so. Most are just talk and when it comes down to it, would rather live on the streets than go the path of recovery. recovery isn't easy. Most addicts will need to be forced onto it some way or another.
Again, stats show that most cant quit without help. And most of that help is forced through conviction of crimes and a penalty that includes a recovery program the individual has to pay for and often cant, or thru intervention of family and friends. But its extremely rare for recovery programs to get volunteers on their own.

 

[riverman]

I don't disagree, but I'm looking for more specifics. If an individual has been arrested and convicted of a violent crime while high and has been deemed has a chemical dependency on a regulated drugs, but this individual declines social services that will help him, what alternatives are there other than letting them loose to repeat the behavior or lock them up and force rehab on them?

I think the disconnect or miss understanding might be the gap in addicts who say they want to quit and or want help, vs the number that actually take the physical steps to do so. Most are just talk and when it comes down to it, would rather live on the streets than go the path of recovery. recovery isn't easy. Most addicts will need to be forced onto it some way or another.
Again, stats show that most cant quit without help. And most of that help is forced through conviction of crimes and a penalty that includes a recovery program the individual has to pay for and often cant, or thru intervention of family and friends. But its extremely rare for recovery programs to get volunteers on their own.

I thought I addressed this with the comparison to mental institutions...addicts who refuse treatment can be institutionalized and sobriety can be forced on them by lock and key. In abuse cases this is probably going to be necessary. Nothing will be a cure all...people will manipulate the system and relapse just like alcoholics do. It's worth the effort in my view. Courts would have to determine the path

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

I thought I addressed this with the comparison to mental institutions...addicts who refuse treatment can be institutionalized and sobriety can be forced on them by lock and key. In abuse cases this is probably going to be necessary. Nothing will be a cure all...people will manipulate the system and relapse just like alcoholics do. It's worth the effort in my view. Courts would have to determine the path

You added how, by defining locking them up. Which is the exact thing Ive been saying all along. Lock those up who don't comply and overhaul the programs that happen while locked up.
So you agree with what I've been saying all along.

 

[Phatguysrule]

So how does one solve the problem of non compliant drug addicts who wont voluntarily admit themselves into a program but continue to commit crimes to support the addiction?
The only realistic answer is lockdown and statistics about drug addiction recovery proves that lockdowns are an integral part of an addicts percentage of success.

People who continually commit crime get longer and longer sentences.

They can shorten their sentence by exhibiting good behavior. Part of that good behavior for people with drug problems can be completing a rehab/recovery program.

 

[Chris Craig]

I drink alcohol but I'm responsible with it.

I have tried three of those drugs in my younger days. But it's been a long time.

It's been a while since I have had prescription drugs, but I used them only when needed and responsibly.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

People who continually commit crime get longer and longer sentences.

They can shorten their sentence by exhibiting good behavior. Part of that good behavior for people with drug problems can be completing a rehab/recovery program.

To make sure im getting this right?

Part of the good behavior would be a recovery program after they are released or will it be during the sentence?
If after they are released, I wouldn't expect a very high percentage to voluntarily admit themselves. I would think this would need to be part of the sentence in order to be successful.