Honest talk about the cost of being ugly

[DrZoidberg]

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.

That sounds a bit conspiracy theory. While some conservatives might profit from it, the vast majority have no vested interest in it.

And its not an ideoligical divide. The main proponent of Harm Reduction in Sweden, David Eberhard, is also the leading addiction expert and pilitically actice in Swedens most conservative political party, Medborgerlig Samling. Swedens main proponent of the war on drugs and the architect of Swedens policies historically up until now, Nils Bejerot, was a communist. A Maoist.

Its an age divide. Pretty much everyone over 60 supports the war on drugs. Everyone under 40 supports harm reduction. Those in between are on the fence.

Its all over the political map.

Socialists love trying to control people, which is what the war on drugs is all about.

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 …

You sound like a conspiracy theorist. Obviously, nobody thinks like this. Its a cartoon.

I think the psychology of these people is more along the line of seeing the addict as iredeemebly corrupt and corrupting. The addict as a cancer to remove. The sooner they die the better, and all our focus should go to protecting the still untainted from any contact with drugs.

I suspect, some version of this, is what's operating in these people's minds. Don't you think?

 

[Elixir]

the vast majority have no vested interest in it.

The vast majority have no power either. They are told what to think and what to do by those with monetary power.

Its a cartoon.

You really think having the highest incarceration percentage of the population is a cartoon? If so, you are woefully deluded or just plain ignorant. The fact is, we incarcerate an order of magnitude higher percentages of our population than do most “civilized” countries. It’s no cartoon, Z. It’s Big Business.

The U.S. incarcerates a much larger share of its population than most other countries, and it is consistently at or near the top globally. Recent comparisons put the U.S. at about 505 prisoners per 100,000 people, far above places like Canada, England and Wales, Germany, Japan, and Norway, which are generally in the double or low triple digits.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

Removing the drug dealers reduces the rate at which people become addicted.

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.

Sure, it's not perfect. But in the US they spend even more energy on their habit, plus likely a lot of crime.

The objective is to choose the attainable path that causes the least harm. A "perfect" path that fails badly (the drug war) is not a good thing!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Couple of quibbles here:

1) It's not a mental problem, it's a coping mechanism for a problem.

2) The problem might not be a psychological one in the first place. Drugs are often an escape from a hellish situation.

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.

Exactly. Punishing drug use just adds another layer of problems, it doesn't help.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

You realize there's no medical difference between being habituated to something properly prescribed and being addicted to something recreational?

And there are multiple drugs that you must be weaned off carefully, and drugs that if you have been using them for a long time it's never safe to quit.

 

[Toni]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Mostly true except that tobacco use does lead to very serious lung disease, heart disease, and oral cancers. The costs of diagnosing and treating these side effects of tobacco use are borne by society. This cost of illness from second hand smoke or tobacco use by pregnant women go far beyond the tobacco user Abd lead to various respiratory ailments, low birth weight and prematurity of infants exposed en utero.

Addiction to alcohol or drugs dues the most harm to the users but coming in a very close second are the family and friend, especially te children of addicts. Sure economic deprivation is one harm but more serious are the emotional harms caused by addicts who are unreliable, erratic, verbally and physically abusive. Parents who are passed out while children are in their care are at the very least seriously negligent. Infants burn to mothers who abuse substances suffer a history of physical ills, including being born addicted.

These issues exist even if the users are well able to purchase their substances. Addicts tend not to be very nice people if they are using too much or in need of a guy or just because their need to feed their addiction interferes with their ability to manage their emotions, best case scenario. Those best cases are pretty damn rare.

I’ve known people who were raised by alcoholics. The damage done is very significant and is not less because the substance is easily available, affordable and legal.

While I agree that legalizing recreational drugs would eliminate some of the serious problems, it dues t eliminate or even limit the sane kinds of problems that excess alcohol and tobacco use cause the individual and family members sharing a home with them, particularly children.

 

[Toni]

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.

Couple of quibbles here:

1) It's not a mental problem, it's a coping mechanism for a problem.

2) The problem might not be a psychological one in the first place. Drugs are often an escape from a hellish situation.

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.

Exactly. Punishing drug use just adds another layer of problems, it doesn't help.

Coping mechanisms that require the sufferer to use illegal substances or substances that are legal to excess are indeed mental health problems pls ty of addicts ( to whatever) use in order to cope with ( situation, condition, etc.) which might be better managed with good access to skilled mental health professionals.

Punishing addiction is ineffective and extremely redundant.

 

[Elixir]

Coping mechanisms that require the sufferer to use illegal substances or substances that are legal to excess are indeed mental health problems pls ty of addicts ( to whatever) use in order to cope with ( situation, condition, etc.) which might be better managed with good access to skilled mental health professionals.

Whether or not that is the case, criminalizing possession and consumption of select substances is a big fat LOSER for everyone, both individually and collectively.
To me it’s as stupid as criminalizing dropping a rock on your foot.

 

[Toni]

Coping mechanisms that require the sufferer to use illegal substances or substances that are legal to excess are indeed mental health problems pls ty of addicts ( to whatever) use in order to cope with ( situation, condition, etc.) which might be better managed with good access to skilled mental health professionals.

Whether or not that is the case, criminalizing possession and consumption of select substances is a big fat LOSER for everyone, both individually and collectively.
To me it’s as stupid as criminalizing dropping a rock on your foot.

I absolutely agree.

But legalization will only reduce the harms of some of the effects of drug/alcohol use or tobacco use, for that matter.

People will still lose or be unable to keep jobs due to addiction. People will still experience serious ill health effects ( physical, emotional, social) and some of those effects will be visited upon friends and family even if the friends and family do not use. People will be less able to regulate their emotions, will be more prone to violence, will be more likely to be victim in d if crime, including violent crime, will drive and cause accidents, injuries and deaths while under the influence. They will still cause deterioration of important relationships.

 

[DrZoidberg]

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.

Couple of quibbles here:

1) It's not a mental problem, it's a coping mechanism for a problem.

How isn"t that a mental problem?

2) The problem might not be a psychological one in the first place. Drugs are often an escape from a hellish situation.

How isn't that a psychological problem?

 

[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.

If that was true you would support the method that is the most effective at getting people off drugs. But you don't. Why is that, do you think?

Don't you think harm reduction works?

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.

I still don't understand how you get this message from harm reduction?

Addiction is not good for anyone, anywhere, anytime.

If you truly believe this then why are you arguing for a method that every time it has been tried has driven up addiction, and its negative consequences?

I don't think you're making any sense. You certainly aren't building an argument

 

[DrZoidberg]

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

That's a different argument. Its an argument where we weigh the social benefits of a drug against its negative effect on health.

That's hard to quantify, so you could spin this whichever way you'd like.

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

In which cases hasn't it?

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.

I've had pot smoker friends all my life. From my experience, I think its the most destructive drug of them all. Because its kills ambition. The side effects are maneagible enough for addicts to function in society. So they feel no pressure to get off it. So it just continues. They're content in their little bubble of nothing happening, perpetually. Its like a time machine that only goes forward in time.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Harm reduction is also better for the criminals. Criminals will always work with wherever there's a monetary incentive to break the law. If there's an incentive to make money dealing drugs criminals will deal drugs. Which exposes them to addiction, which then traps them into continuing being a criminal.

Harm reduction allows the criminals to work on getting out of each of these separately. It has worked well in Denmark

 

[Elixir]

legalization will only reduce the harms of some of the effects of drug/alcohol use or tobacco use, for that matter.

True, there is no silver bullet. But the primary harms are just the tip of the iceberg of secondary and tertiary fiscal, social and other harmful effects that legalization can be expected to mitigate.

 

[steve_bank]

We are awash in drugs legal and illegal. We are awash in a vast array of panaceas, supplements. Make your dick bigger. Get rid of wrinkles. Grow hair back.

Decadence on a mass scale in the west, to the point where people can not function without a crutch.

Instant 24/7 gratification.

Seattle experimented with decimalization of drugs and allowing public use of all drugs. It got out of control.

Society has the right to limit behavior that threatens health and safety of the community.

Pot was legalized here under state licenses. Pot shops have a chronic problem with armed robbery, there have been murders in pot shop robberies. Mostly young people doing the robberies.

I initially supported legalization of pot,. Now I think it was a bad idea. People teen to old hang out on the street smoking pot. It used to be cheap wine in paper bag, now it is pot.


You want to heroin, fine. If you call 911 for help they should just let you fend for yourself. No social services.

 

[Toni]

legalization will only reduce the harms of some of the effects of drug/alcohol use or tobacco use, for that matter.

True, there is no silver bullet. But the primary harms are just the tip of the iceberg of secondary and tertiary fiscal, social and other harmful effects that legalization can be expected to mitigate.

What concerns me about legalization is that for a lot of people they think that if it is legal, it's not really bad.
Or: if it's legal, it's safe.
If it's legal, and we stop arresting people for using (is selling next?) the problem solved. The underlying and resulting issues will not go away.

Also there are always some people who chase bigger thrills, the stuff that's forbidden.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Seattle experimented with decimalization of drugs and allowing public use of all drugs. It got out of control.

Or England in 1870 - 1910. 30% of everyone in Great Britain is estimated to have been addicted to heroine.

There's no successful examples of legalising all drugs

Society has the right to limit behavior that threatens health and safety of the community.

Ok. But nobody has argued against that. So why are you mentioning it?

Pot was legalized here under state licenses. Pot shops have a chronic problem with armed robbery, there have been murders in pot shop robberies. Mostly young people doing the robberies.

I initially supported legalization of pot,. Now I think it was a bad idea. People teen to old hang out on the street smoking pot. It used to be cheap wine in paper bag, now it is pot.

I think pot is primarily legalised to free up police resources so they can focus on more serious crime. And filling up jails with pot smokers has questionable benefits for society.

Also, pot smoking primarily ruins your own life. And that's where the damages are limitted. Which brings up ideological maxims, like how much power should we give to the state?

While I think pot is the most destructive drug we have, I don't think the behaviour of pot smokers can justify the govornment to get involved. I think we should be restrictive when applying force to control our citizens. If we don't have strong arguments for it hurting others, I struggle with supporting a ban. Smoking pot makes drivers slow down, and thereby become safer drivers, even though they have impaired reflexes.

Even though I think pot is extremely destructive, I still think it should be legalised. I think its govornment overreach

You want to heroin, fine. If you call 911 for help they should just let you fend for yourself. No social services.

So you want to force heroine addicts into more dangerous criminal behaviours. How will that make life better for anyone?

 

[bilby]

The costs of diagnosing and treating these side effects of tobacco use are borne by society. This cost of illness from second hand smoke or tobacco use by pregnant women go far beyond the tobacco user

Indeed, but that's an argument for protecting non smokers from second hand smoke, not an argument for prohibition of smoking, nor for the massive "sin tax" that makes it so expensive that criminals can profit by selling chop chop.

Recent reports suggest that 80% of tobacco sold in Australia is illegal - either illegally grown here, or smuggled across the border without payment of excise.

You can buy tobacco legally here, but it is so expensive to do so that it might as well be prohibited, as far as organised crime is concerned.

 

[bilby]

Addicts tend not to be very nice people if they are using too much or in need of a guy or just because their need to feed their addiction interferes with their ability to manage their emotions, best case scenario.

Sure, but it's not illegal to be an asshole, and plenty of people manage it without recourse to addictive substances.

 

[bilby]

Coping mechanisms that require the sufferer to use illegal substances or substances that are legal to excess are indeed mental health problems pls ty of addicts ( to whatever) use in order to cope with ( situation, condition, etc.) which might be better managed with good access to skilled mental health professionals.

Whether or not that is the case, criminalizing possession and consumption of select substances is a big fat LOSER for everyone, both individually and collectively.
To me it’s as stupid as criminalizing dropping a rock on your foot.

I absolutely agree.

But legalization will only reduce the harms of some of the effects of drug/alcohol use or tobacco use, for that matter.

People will still lose or be unable to keep jobs due to addiction. People will still experience serious ill health effects ( physical, emotional, social) and some of those effects will be visited upon friends and family even if the friends and family do not use. People will be less able to regulate their emotions, will be more prone to violence, will be more likely to be victim in d if crime, including violent crime, will drive and cause accidents, injuries and deaths while under the influence. They will still cause deterioration of important relationships.

Yes, which is why we need laws and support systems to help reduce and mitigate these harms, and to protect the public from them.

The idea that legalising all drugs means not doing anything at all about their harmful impacts is absurd propaganda; We have plenty of harm reduction in place for the already legal substances, including such things as bans on smoking in public places, and the detection and punishment of drunk drivers.

In my state, it is illegal to smoke in a private car, if children are present. You can't smoke in a pub or club, other than in a designated smoking area, and those areas have rules to protect staff from secondhand smoke - for example, they must be substantively outdoor areas, not enclosed rooms (and of course, children are not allowed in them). You cannot smoke within 5m of the entry/doirway of a non-residential building, nor in any public transport, including at bus stops or on railway stations, even where these are not enclosed.

None of this encourages organised crime, in the way that prohibition and/or punitive taxes do.

There's a lot we can do (and in many places, are doing). Legalisation doesn't mean total deregulation.