Honest talk about the cost of being ugly

[Tigers!]

Why would anyone care about addiction rates? The aim is to reduce harm.

I think the closed loop thought is crime prevention. Lock up the junkies and they can’t break into your house, and if you legalize heroin there will be junkies EVERYWHERE.
The public as a body is convinced that consuming illegal drugs is bad, while consuming thousands of dollars worth of legal drugs per capita (less in Au I assume)

And that dichotomy is part of the problem. Drinking, smoking ('legal' drugs) do much harm to society through health costs, asocial costs, stupid marketing campaigns etc.
There are no health benefits to be gained by taking legal (non-medicinal) or illegal drugs.

“A person is smart. People are an idiot.”
-I forget who said it

@Tigers! - is your prison industry a good place to invest?

No. Prisons should be state run, not private or semi-private.
It would be wonderful if we did not need prisons but neither you not I or our grandchildren will live to see that.

 

[Tigers!]

Are they really combating addiction? The addicts are still addicted. Now it is just more socially acceptable. Is the aim to reduce addiction rates? Increase addiction rates? Maintain addiction rates?

Why would anyone care about addiction rates? The aim is to reduce harm.

Silly me thought the aim was to get people non-addicted.

Worrying whether or not someone is addicted to something is futile. All that matters is whether their addiction leads to harmful impacts on others. That's why smoking tobacco doesn't force nicotine addicts into prostitution, but does mean we need to put "No Smoking" signs in buses.

Is it futile to worry about a loved one who is addicted to the turps? Who is a potential threat to yourself or others?

Addiction is secondary. We don't let drunks drive cars, but we do let them ride in taxis - because being drunk in a vehicle isn't the problem, being drunk whilst driving is.

I can introduce you to a few taxi drivers who has been robbed, beaten up by drunks in their cabs.
Does your bus company want drunken fools or louts on their buses?
Being drunk in a vehicle is always a problem whether you be the driver or a passenger.

Trying to solve a problem by attacking a proxy for that problem is stupid. As long as an addict has access to his alcohol or his nicotine, and is restrained from harming others, his addiction is not a problem for anyone but himself, and it's up to him to ask for help with it - or not.

Lots of people live long, happy and fullfuilling lives while addicted to various things. The reason why thlse addicted to crack cocaine or heroin are more of a problem to others than those addicted to nicotine or ethanol is clear - the latter two are not illegal.

As nicotine is becoming more and more expensive (due solely to government efforts to make it so), organised crime and the whole vile cascade of unintended consequences that it brings is becoming a problem in Australia. The cause isn't addiction to the smokes; It's that they are now artificially priced such that criminals can exploit the addicts. Just like heroin or cocaine are.

Of course the cause is the addiction. If you are not addicted or desire smokes then the current price of them is irrelevant. It has no direct impact on your life. Granted, particularly in Melbourne, the current epidemic of fire bombing of tobacco places has costs. It has costs because people want the smokes or to control the supply. But only because people want the smokes. No smokers the problem magically disappears.

Making smoking unattractive is wise. Making it merely expensive is deeply unwise. Making it illegal would be crazy. But that's what has been done with other drugs.

So back to the issue. How do we wean people off such addictions? We both agree there is a problem.

 

[Tigers!]

I like the Danish system. They just give drugs to addicts. Offer them rehab if they'd like. But there's no pressure. They started with this in 1999. In 2000 I visited to Copenhagen. Istedgade was a notorius street with heroin addicts everywhere. Prostitutes and sex clubs. Needles littering the street. In 2015 I moved to Copenhagen. Today Istedgade is an uppmarket adress. My favourite area in Copenhagen. I used to live there. But got priced out. They still have the free heroin clinic there. But all the misery around it is gone today. Addict rates are the lowest since they started counting.

This is clearly the way to do it

You guys are simply too sensible!

Its not just us. I think every European country now has some version of this (ie Harm Reduction). Iran and Portugal were first. They've both gotten amazing results with combating addictions. It seems to be the best solution long and short term. No downside really.

Are they really combating addiction? The addicts are still addicted. Now it is just more socially acceptable. Is the aim to reduce addiction rates? Increase addiction rates? Maintain addiction rates?

Yes, they are combating addiction. More people manage to kick the addiction and go sober through the harm reduction method, than they do through any other paradigm.

The theory goes that being addicted is a mental problem, rather than a naughty lifestyle choice. The theory builds on an assumption that there's a psychological issue at the core of the addiction and if they didn't have this issue, they wouldn't be addicted. The addictive substance or behaviour is employed to crowd out the distressing thoughts triggered by the psychological problem. And if they work on that issue, they will then be able to kick the addiction. And if we force addicts to have to chase drugs we make it harder for them to work on the underlying issue, thus perpetuating the addictive cycle. The goal with harm reduction is to give the addicts less problems, rather than more problems.

Also, making drugs illegal, makes a person who already psychologically vulnerable even more vulnerable. Not only are they addicted to drugs, now they also have a criminal record. We're basically using social tools forcing drug addicts into a criminal world where their only method of survival is to be a criminal, and then we also punish them for being a criminal. It's a pretty cruel method. Like Steve said, we create drug addicts, force them to sell drugs to survive and then "cut their balls off" if they do. It's not nice. And doesn't solve the problem. It perpetuates the addiction.

But most importantly.... the numbers are in. It works. It works very effectively.

The war on drugs paradigm comes from AA. In their parlance, addicts typically only get off drugs if they they first hit "bottom". The drugs is an escape, but when they're so trapped by life, they can't escape, they are forced for face their demons. We basically marginalise and punish them as much as possible, to force them into an iron vice where getting clean is the only option. Which also can work. But this method has some obvious problems. It's cruel. It requires a vast social conspiracy. While the criminal world gives them sanctuary. So we are encouraging the growth of a maffia. The maffia will then start spilling over into other ways to make illicit money. That's bad for everyone. It fills the jails with people that without the addiction wouldn't be there. And finally, it's extremely expensive. Success rates are low and the bill is high.

With the harm reduction method it's perfectly possible for someone to just stay perpetually on drugs within the system and just get their daily fix. We're not forcing anyone to anything. It can happen. But it at least doesn't groom them into a criminal. And that's still a bonus for society. So even that situation is still a win.

And once we start giving the addicts drugs the income is immediately taken away from criminals. That's a good thing. Addicts don't need to sell to pay for the habit.

There's more. HIV and hepatitus rates go down. When they're given the drugs its always administered by a nurse in a clinic. Hygenic. There really is no downside

If the addicts remain reliant upon the drugs to function (sic) that would be a downside. It is the diversion of their time, energy, talents to getting to and maintaining a certain level of existence. They certainly could do better for themselves.
There is the relationship costs. The addicts would not be the best possible version of themselves to other people esp. those that know them, love them, work with them.

But there's an implicit assumption with your statements. That they'd be even better versions of themselves if we don't give them drugs. Ie, they find the drugs themselves, probably through criminal means.

The implicit assumption I make is that they are better versions of themselves when they are off the drugs.

So they're still on drugs, but now have their days occupied by the need to chase drugs. How exactly are they better versions of themselves, than they would be if we just gave them the drugs? They're still on drugs. They just have one less problem now.

FYI, in the harm reduction system, they're not given as much drugs as they want. They're given just enough for abstinence to not be unbareable. They're also forced to be in the clinic a while after receiving the drugs. So they can't get their government supplied fix and then go out and top up. Not right away anyway. We also force regular medical check ups onto them. Because drug addicts suck at taking care of themselves. This is great for containing transmissible diseases. Again... sick people are hardly the best version of themselves.

Plenty of addicts repeatedly drift in and out of the system for years before getting clean, if ever. Addictions can be hard to kick.

BTW, This is a simplified version. The reality of drug addiction is not this simple. People are addicts for a variety of reasons, and there's a variety of mechanisms. But these other guys are still better off in the harm reduction paradigm.

The problem I will always have with harm reduction programs is the message it sends.
The message is that we do not really care if you are addicted. In fact, we care so little about you that we will allow, encourage you to continue to live your life in ways that are harmful to you and those around you.

Addiction is not good for anyone, anywhere, anytime.

 

[Elixir]

And that dichotomy is part of the problem. Drinking, smoking ('legal' drugs) do much harm to society through health costs, asocial costs, stupid marketing campaigns etc.

That harm is multiplied, not reduced, by incarcerations and stigmatization. The dollar cost of incarcerations alone dwarfs any benefit of enforcing drug laws.
Marketing campaigns would be pointless if all drugs were legal. (But it would cost our illustrious incarceration industry billions.)

There are no health benefits to be gained by taking legal (non-medicinal) or illegal drugs.

That’s a blind faith and (pardon me, but) stupid statement with nothing backing it up.
Drugs save (prolong) many many lives, Tigers! and improve many others. Many “drugs” are concentrates of substances found in foods.

Your pronouncement presumes that there is a clear and well acknowledged boundary between food vs drugs, and even nutrients vs intoxicants. It appoints you supreme arbiter of what is a harm and what is a benefit. Worst of all, it makes a mockery of the basic tenet underlying all of toxicology;
“THE DOSE MAKES THE POISON”
The harm isn’t an inherent quality of the consumed substance, it is in the consumption. You can die from tuna salad if you’re doing it wrong enough.

 

[bilby]

There are no health benefits to be gained by taking legal (non-medicinal) or illegal drugs.

Well, that's almost certainly not true of alcohol. A small amount of alcohol seems to have measurable health benefits, though few consumers of alcohol do so at such low levels as to have the good outweigh the harm.

And there are plenty of prescription drugs that can be abused and/or can be addictive - but which are prescribed precisely because they do more good than harm. Your attempt to draw a distinction between medicinal and non-medicinal does not reflect a distinction that exists in reality. People take benzodiazepines (for example) both for recreational purposes, and for essential medical reasons. It's the exact same tablet, doing both good and harm, depending on the user and their reasons for use.

Biology really doesn't lend itself to absolute claims such as yours here.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I like the Danish system. They just give drugs to addicts. Offer them rehab if they'd like. But there's no pressure. They started with this in 1999. In 2000 I visited to Copenhagen. Istedgade was a notorius street with heroin addicts everywhere. Prostitutes and sex clubs. Needles littering the street. In 2015 I moved to Copenhagen. Today Istedgade is an uppmarket adress. My favourite area in Copenhagen. I used to live there. But got priced out. They still have the free heroin clinic there. But all the misery around it is gone today. Addict rates are the lowest since they started counting.

This is clearly the way to do it

You guys are simply too sensible!

Its not just us. I think every European country now has some version of this (ie Harm Reduction). Iran and Portugal were first. They've both gotten amazing results with combating addictions. It seems to be the best solution long and short term. No downside really.

Are they really combating addiction? The addicts are still addicted. Now it is just more socially acceptable. Is the aim to reduce addiction rates? Increase addiction rates? Maintain addiction rates?

Yes, they are combating addiction. More people manage to kick the addiction and go sober through the harm reduction method, than they do through any other paradigm.

The theory goes that being addicted is a mental problem, rather than a naughty lifestyle choice. The theory builds on an assumption that there's a psychological issue at the core of the addiction and if they didn't have this issue, they wouldn't be addicted. The addictive substance or behaviour is employed to crowd out the distressing thoughts triggered by the psychological problem. And if they work on that issue, they will then be able to kick the addiction. And if we force addicts to have to chase drugs we make it harder for them to work on the underlying issue, thus perpetuating the addictive cycle. The goal with harm reduction is to give the addicts less problems, rather than more problems.

Also, making drugs illegal, makes a person who already psychologically vulnerable even more vulnerable. Not only are they addicted to drugs, now they also have a criminal record. We're basically using social tools forcing drug addicts into a criminal world where their only method of survival is to be a criminal, and then we also punish them for being a criminal. It's a pretty cruel method. Like Steve said, we create drug addicts, force them to sell drugs to survive and then "cut their balls off" if they do. It's not nice. And doesn't solve the problem. It perpetuates the addiction.

But most importantly.... the numbers are in. It works. It works very effectively.

The war on drugs paradigm comes from AA. In their parlance, addicts typically only get off drugs if they they first hit "bottom". The drugs is an escape, but when they're so trapped by life, they can't escape, they are forced for face their demons. We basically marginalise and punish them as much as possible, to force them into an iron vice where getting clean is the only option. Which also can work. But this method has some obvious problems. It's cruel. It requires a vast social conspiracy. While the criminal world gives them sanctuary. So we are encouraging the growth of a maffia. The maffia will then start spilling over into other ways to make illicit money. That's bad for everyone. It fills the jails with people that without the addiction wouldn't be there. And finally, it's extremely expensive. Success rates are low and the bill is high.

With the harm reduction method it's perfectly possible for someone to just stay perpetually on drugs within the system and just get their daily fix. We're not forcing anyone to anything. It can happen. But it at least doesn't groom them into a criminal. And that's still a bonus for society. So even that situation is still a win.

And once we start giving the addicts drugs the income is immediately taken away from criminals. That's a good thing. Addicts don't need to sell to pay for the habit.

There's more. HIV and hepatitus rates go down. When they're given the drugs its always administered by a nurse in a clinic. Hygenic. There really is no downside

If the addicts remain reliant upon the drugs to function (sic) that would be a downside. It is the diversion of their time, energy, talents to getting to and maintaining a certain level of existence. They certainly could do better for themselves.
There is the relationship costs. The addicts would not be the best possible version of themselves to other people esp. those that know them, love them, work with them.

But there's an implicit assumption with your statements. That they'd be even better versions of themselves if we don't give them drugs. Ie, they find the drugs themselves, probably through criminal means.

The implicit assumption I make is that they are better versions of themselves when they are off the drugs.

So they're still on drugs, but now have their days occupied by the need to chase drugs. How exactly are they better versions of themselves, than they would be if we just gave them the drugs? They're still on drugs. They just have one less problem now.

FYI, in the harm reduction system, they're not given as much drugs as they want. They're given just enough for abstinence to not be unbareable. They're also forced to be in the clinic a while after receiving the drugs. So they can't get their government supplied fix and then go out and top up. Not right away anyway. We also force regular medical check ups onto them. Because drug addicts suck at taking care of themselves. This is great for containing transmissible diseases. Again... sick people are hardly the best version of themselves.

Plenty of addicts repeatedly drift in and out of the system for years before getting clean, if ever. Addictions can be hard to kick.

BTW, This is a simplified version. The reality of drug addiction is not this simple. People are addicts for a variety of reasons, and there's a variety of mechanisms. But these other guys are still better off in the harm reduction paradigm.

The problem I will always have with harm reduction programs is the message it sends.

I don't understand your logic. How could you possibly get that message? The only message the war on drugs sends, imho, is that we prey on the weak and don't care about people (any people), encourage the maffia and crime, don't care about the damages drugs does and we're fiscally irresponsable.

The message is that we do not really care if you are addicted. In fact, we care so little about you that we will allow, encourage you to continue to live your life in ways that are harmful to you and those around you.

The war on drugs paradigm is designed to trap addicts into a criminal lifestyle. How is that in any way less harmful to the people and those around them?

Addiction is not good for anyone, anywhere, anytime.

We agree on the goals. But not the method.

I had ChatGPT do a meta analysis of all available studies. It produced a long text. But here's its summary

"In summary, the rigorous reading of the literature is this: harm reduction is efficacious where it has been tested most seriously, especially for overdose prevention, infectious-disease prevention, and treatment engagement; its strongest tools are OAT, naloxone, and NSP; supervised consumption sites are beneficial but harder to evaluate cleanly; and the evidence for drug checking, safer supply, and social-support models is promising but still maturing."

Compared to the previous paradigm, harm reduction is a slam dunk, if you want to reduce addiction

 

[DrZoidberg]

There are no health benefits to be gained by taking legal (non-medicinal) or illegal drugs.

Well, that's almost certainly not true of alcohol. A small amount of alcohol seems to have measurable health benefits, though few consumers of alcohol do so at such low levels as to have the good outweigh the harm.

That's tabloid science reporting. At no point has any serious researcher ever claimed the positive effects of alcohol outweigh its negative effects. At any dosage.

What they have said is that there are positive effects of alcohol. These small positive effects, in no way, compensate for its many negative effects. Not even close. Alcohol is never healthy at any time or at any dosage.

Alcohol is one of the most toxic drugs we have, both physically and mentaly.

The only reason why its popular as the drug of choice to legalise is because its easy to dose, hard to overdose, easy to gauge where we are in the high and can start cutting down, requires continuos topping up, hard to become addicted to and is in a physically annoying form which creates a practical barrier against overuse.

If we had to pick one drug to legalise, this is the obvious choice. But never think its healthy.

 

[bilby]

Are they really combating addiction? The addicts are still addicted. Now it is just more socially acceptable. Is the aim to reduce addiction rates? Increase addiction rates? Maintain addiction rates?

Why would anyone care about addiction rates? The aim is to reduce harm.

Silly me thought the aim was to get people non-addicted.

Yup, that sort of simplistic attacking of a proxy (addiction) instead of attacking the actual harms is pretty damn silly.

It's not possible to get "people" as a whole non-addicted. And it's certainly not your business or mine whether they are, unless they are a friend or familiy member.

Australia's boardrooms are full of people who are addicted to alcohol and/or tobacco; But when an addict can afford all the brandy and cigars he wants, he is not a "problem", so much as a "pillar of society".

Worrying whether or not someone is addicted to something is futile. All that matters is whether their addiction leads to harmful impacts on others. That's why smoking tobacco doesn't force nicotine addicts into prostitution, but does mean we need to put "No Smoking" signs in buses.

Is it futile to worry about a loved one who is addicted to the turps?

No.

Who is a potential threat to yourself or others?

Is that threat a direct consequence of addiction? Are the CEOs who smoke expensive cigars a threat? (Well, probably, but not because of their nicotine habit).

Addiction is secondary. We don't let drunks drive cars, but we do let them ride in taxis - because being drunk in a vehicle isn't the problem, being drunk whilst driving is.

I can introduce you to a few taxi drivers who has been robbed, beaten up by drunks in their cabs.
Does your bus company want drunken fools or louts on their buses?

Nope. Are most of those fools addicts? Also nope. Alcohol is a big problem. Alcohol addiction is a very small subset of that problem - until and unless you enact prohibition and the gangsters move in.

Being drunk in a vehicle is always a problem whether you be the driver or a passenger.

That's really not true at all. Most of the drunks I see are not a problem at all - and it is good to see they were responsible enough not to try to drive themselves home.

Trying to solve a problem by attacking a proxy for that problem is stupid. As long as an addict has access to his alcohol or his nicotine, and is restrained from harming others, his addiction is not a problem for anyone but himself, and it's up to him to ask for help with it - or not.

Lots of people live long, happy and fullfuilling lives while addicted to various things. The reason why thlse addicted to crack cocaine or heroin are more of a problem to others than those addicted to nicotine or ethanol is clear - the latter two are not illegal.

As nicotine is becoming more and more expensive (due solely to government efforts to make it so), organised crime and the whole vile cascade of unintended consequences that it brings is becoming a problem in Australia. The cause isn't addiction to the smokes; It's that they are now artificially priced such that criminals can exploit the addicts. Just like heroin or cocaine are.

Of course the cause is the addiction. If you are not addicted or desire smokes then the current price of them is irrelevant. It has no direct impact on your life. Granted, particularly in Melbourne, the current epidemic of fire bombing of tobacco places has costs. It has costs because people want the smokes or to control the supply. But only because people want the smokes. No smokers the problem magically disappears.

How do you propose to achieve that utopia?

Making smoking unattractive is wise. Making it merely expensive is deeply unwise. Making it illegal would be crazy. But that's what has been done with other drugs.

So back to the issue. How do we wean people off such addictions? We both agree there is a problem.

You have completely missed my point, perhaps because you can't see the difference between the addiction and the harm it causes. These are different issues, requiring different approaches.

We don't "both agree there is a problem"; I don't think addiction per se is a problem at all; While you seem incapable of grasping that the harms caused by addicts in Australia (and the wider OECD) are not due to addiction itself, but rather are due to treating addiction as though it were itself a problem.

You say "Of course the cause is the addiction. If you are not addicted or desire smokes then the current price of them is irrelevant", but this is question begging - sure, the crime and societal harm goes away in the absence of addiction; But it ALSO goes away if prices are low enough to make it unprofitable for gangsters to import illegal tobacco. So addiction is not THE problem, but merely A problem - And only then for the individual addict.

There are two ways to approach the problem of crime and societal harm due to substance abuse; One entails eliminating addiction, the other entails a change to tax and excise rates. Guess which it is easy for governments to do?

If you can massively reduce harm, but refuse to do so because you insist for "moral reasons" on punishing addicts, with crime reduction as a vague hope that might perhaps happen as a result, by mechanisms known to be ineffective, but belived in by god-bothering do-gooders, then you are a part of the problem, even if you are not yourself addicted.

The problem is "criminal gangs are becoming powerful and wealthy, enabling them to diversify into all kinds of nefarious activities". The problem is NOT "Old mate over there is risking lung cancer". His informed choice to do so causes very little harm to anyone else. He should be encouraged to choose more wisely. But he shouldn't be made a part of the criminal class, or made to support that class. That's hugely counterproductive.

 

[bilby]

Addiction is not good for anyone, anywhere, anytime.

That's a nice dogma; And it has the merit of simplicity.

But reality is complex, and addiction won't go away just because simpletons believe it should, nor because they keep repeating the same old failed ideas.

Addiction, in isolation, is also not bad for everyone, everywhere, at every time. Lots of addicts live happy lives running major corporations. As long as they can afford their habit, it need not be a problem at all.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Addiction is not good for anyone, anywhere, anytime.

That's a nice dogma; And it has the merit of simplicity.

But reality is complex, and addiction won't go away just because simpletons believe it should, nor because they keep repeating the same old failed ideas.

Wait wait. Don't get suckered in to his false dichotomy.



Tigers is creating a dichotomy where anyone with an alternative strategy is for addiction or promoting addiction.

What Tigers is advocating is a system that maximises addiction and maximises the damages of addiction. Which goes counter to what he says he's advocating.

If you respond to Tigers on the same level as his post, you could say, "Tigers, why are you for addiction?"

Addiction, in isolation, is also not bad for everyone, everywhere, at every time. Lots of addicts live happy lives running major corporations. As long as they can afford their habit, it need not be a problem at all.

That's not true. Any addiction is bad. Addictive drugs and behaviours are used to crowd out negative thoughts, so we don't have to deal with them. Its always good to deal with our problems.

Hanging on forums like this is arguably an addictive behaviour. We'd all be better off taking a break from the computer and making friends in the real world. Having discussions and arguments online gives us little dopamine hits. Cocaine does the same thing. Watching the news does the same thing. Chasing likes on Instagram is the same thing. Doing meth is the same thing. Its all escapism.

But its annoying and hard work to deal with our addictive behaviours. So we'd rather keep going, avoiding to have to think about our problems. So we pour another glass of fine cognac and tell ourselves that I am not like the others, I have it under control. No you don't. All of these behaviours are maladaptive and dysfunctional. Everyone is better off always being sober.

Its better to admit to ourselves we are flawed, but still worthy of love. Everyone is

 

[southernhybrid]

Wow! I thought this thread was about physical beauty v. lack of it. Okay. Since it's been derailed into drug addiction, I'll add my opinion.

It appears as if food addiction is the most dangerous one in democratic countries these days, especially in the Southern. US. Obesity is often a deadly disease which often leads to heart disease, certain types of cancer and diabetes, as well as increased joint pain etc. We do have GLP drugs to treat it now and I currently have two friends who are doing well on those drugs, but sadly they don't work for everyone and some people have such severe anorexia that they stop taking them. Moving on.....

I think it's insane to make drugs illegal, especially to punish anyone for consuming a potentially harmful substance, unless they are driving under the influence and/or harm anyone due to the impact of the drug they've consumed.

The most abused drug is alcohol. At least that was what was said in the recent course I took about drug addiction and abuse so I could keep my nursing license active. And, we know how well prohibition worked.

If drugs like heroin were legal, they could be regulated. Needle exchanges and safe places to administer the drug could help keep users safe, with rehab offered as an option for those who want help. It has worked out pretty well in Portugal, the last time I checked. If the drugs aren't made legal, they should at least be decriminalized with few exceptions. This would cut down on bringing drugs into countries by nefarious groups. It would make the drug itself safer as we would know the content wasn't laced with a more dangerous drug than the user expected. Okay. Hopefully, I've made my point.

Let me share a personal experience that I might have mentioned in the distant past. Many years ago I had jury duty. The question was asked before choosing who would be on the jury, "Who among you feel that all drugs should be legal?" I was the only one who raised her hand and I was not chosen to be on the jury.

Sometime later, a woman I barely knew told me that I was lucky not to have been on that jury because the two young Black men who were being charged with possession of a small amount of cocaine were found guilty of distributing and one of being an accomplice in distributing. One man got a 20 year prison sentence and the other one got a 30 year sentence. The woman told me that her husband had been on the jury and while the evidence was overwhelming that they were guilty of possession, the people on the jury had no idea the sentence would be so harsh. She also told me that her husband felt so guilty that he couldn't sleep for weeks. Of course, I was glad I wan't on that jury as it would have been an extreme moral dilemma for me to have found them guilty. I don't think sentences are as harsh these days but they still send people to prison for distributing or using illegal drugs. I'm not talking about hardened criminals. I'm talking about people who may be desperate to make a living so they sell small amounts of drugs to get by. It's insane and cruel how these people are treated by our legal system.

If we want to digress even more, we could talk about the need for prison reform. No. It's not necessarily the for profit prisons. The state and federal prisons in the US are often nightmares, hell holes, understaffed, sometimes run by cruel people. If people are going to be locked up, the conditions should be humane. The food should be decent. Learning and rehab should be encouraged. We drastically need prison reform and we need more sane laws regarding drugs. Okay. That's my opinion. I'm not here to argue, just giving a few thoughts about how drug usage could/should be better managed.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Wow! I thought this thread was about physical beauty v. lack of it.

Okay. Since it's been derailed into drug addiction, I'll add my opinion.

I don't think this forum is capable of having a honest conversation about it. It seems to be too triggering for people to manage to stay focused on what others are actually saying. It was just a bunch of defensive reactions to stuff nobody said, or implied. That was my impression anyway.

So I just gave up on that conversation. And it has a life of its own now.

It appears as if food addiction is the most dangerous one in democratic countries these days, especially in the Southern. US. Obesity is often a deadly disease which often leads to heart disease, certain types of cancer and diabetes, as well as increased joint pain etc. We do have GLP drugs to treat it now and I currently have two friends who are doing well on those drugs, but sadly they don't work for everyone and some people have such severe anorexia that they stop taking them. Moving on.....

FYI, almost everyone is technically a food addict today. We're not physically built for snacking between meals. Anybody who does that is abusing food. And its standard behaviour today.

Optimal fat percentage for a man is 13% bodyfat. 18% for women.

That's the fat percentage when everything in the body works the best and we get the least diseases.

By today's standards, that's alarmingly skinny.

In the 1800's everyone in the working class had a visible sixpack. It should be normal. And they had a shit, one sided diet, and were riven with parasites.

Our world today is designed to make us abuse food. No shit people all around us struggle with food addictions.

It would be like lining every road with stalls with dirt cheap heroin and crack, and act surprised when some of us can't handle it

 

[Elixir]

I don't think addiction per se is a problem at all; While you seem incapable of grasping that the harms caused by addicts in Australia (and the wider OECD) are not due to addiction itself, but rather are due to treating addiction as though it were itself a problem.

That fact was obvious to me as a homeless teenager, extolling the benefits of psychedelics and reviling opiates, amphetamines and other “uppers” and “downers”. I never mistook the substances for “the problem”, as so very many seem eager to do.

What Tigers is advocating is a system that maximises addiction and maximises the damages of addiction. Which goes counter to what he says he's advocating.

Yes, and it is the global “conservative” position, created and perpetuated by profiteers in the drug manufacturing/dealing and incarceration businesses.
Those incredibly profitable industries DEPEND upon addicts, and have a deeply vested interest in maximizing harm to keep alarm levels high enough to ensure the support of Tigers! and his ilk.
We all pay through the nose (literally in many cases) for the privilege of ignoring the plight of the incarcerated drug addict, and the luxury of writing off huge swaths of humanity as “the cost of keeping us safe from drug addicts”.
It’s bullshit, and adult humans should be able to see through it. But alas …

 

[Elixir]

Ok, sorry for pointing fingers and villainizing … I can’t help it. I’ve been fascinated by drugs since I was about ten years old, have studied their effects both objectively and subjectively ever since, and feel like I know more about them* than do most medical professionals. I apologize to anyone I personally offend.
So …
If locking up offenders and confiscating their drugs isn’t the solution, what is?
I don’t know, but Portugal offers a model that has been both more effective and more humane compared to America’s war on drugs, which is a thinly disguised gift to incarceration profiteers, a gift given at inestimable cost to the general population.
One central feature of Portugal’s success is de-criminalization of possession or consumption of most substances, and I think that’s where we should begin.

* not talking about “designer” drugs like GLP-1 etc.

 

[Elixir]

It would be like lining every road with stalls with dirt cheap heroin and crack, and act surprised when some of us can't handle it

I suspect that the abusers would die off within a generation or two. Problem solved!
But the closest we are realistically able to get to that (ignoring the problem of building all those stalls!), would be to utterly de-regulate what anyone wants to eat or drink, and reserve criminality for behaviors that directly harm others, whether or not such behavior could be construed as “drug induced”.

 

[bilby]

I suspect that the abusers would die off within a generation or two.

I suspect that would be as effective as eradicating homosexuality by sterilising all the gays.

 

[Elixir]

What they have said is that there are positive effects of alcohol. These small positive effects, in no way, compensate for its many negative effects. Not even close. Alcohol is never healthy at any time or at any dosage.

Again, the toxicology maximum:TDMTP

In fact, studies have found correlations between light alcohol use and lowered risk of heart disease, stroke, and diabetes.
Causal connections are not well understood in all those cases, but it is not accurate to say “never at any dose” about alcohol or virtually anything else (short of Novachik et al).

 

[Elixir]

I suspect that would be as effective as eradicating homosexuality by sterilising all the gays.

“Effective” at what? I was referring to the “problem” that drug addicts represent to others, which is almost entirely material.
I think people who have a problem with gay people would still have that problem if gay people were all sterile, but that’s not based on anything substantial except the visceral nature of “gay hatred” I’ve encountered. Doesn’t seem to be related to fertility at all.
In contrast, giving a junkie all they can consume would inarguably reduce any material threat they might pose.

 

[bilby]

I suspect that would be as effective as eradicating homosexuality by sterilising all the gays.

“Effective” at what? I was referring to the “problem” that drug addicts represent to others, which is almost entirely material.
I think people who have a problem with gay people would still have that problem if gay people were all sterile, but that’s not based on anything substantial except the visceral nature of “gay hatred” I’ve encountered. Doesn’t seem to be related to fertility at all.
In contrast, giving a junkie all they can consume would inarguably reduce any material threat they might pose.

My point is that neither strategy does anything to stop another one from coming along.

 

[steve_bank]

RFKjr said the social benefits of alcohol outweigh the negatives, and ended government recommendations an alcohol consumption limits.

Giving junkies all they can consume? Legalize heroine?

Where addicts are given maintenance doses crime has gone down in the area, at east in some cases.

Jut what we need, a nation addicted to more drugs.

Now that we have long term data on pot consumption it is far from harmless.