Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think the way to go is to convince people never to try drugs in the first place.
That requires us to analyze why people start to take drugs.
Now you're making sense!
But it is slow going, because it works thorough generations. "Harm Reduction" is what takes most of the bad away from the current drug abuse situation, while at the same time, we find a new way to get it through to the younger generations why they shouldn't take them (obviously making them illegal as hell hasn't worked in that regard, and it actually attracts kids to them). Programs like DARE didn't work because they were laced with so much propaganda. The moment one realizes that smoke is being blown up their a** is the moment you will lose them to experimentation with drugs.
So we have to do the analysis, as you mentioned, and then properly apply the techniques that should result in markedly less drug problems in a generation or two.
But during that time, we should implement Harm Reduction techniques anyway, like other countries have done, with much success. Reducing the current harm as much as practical while working on future generations is the key to long term success.
But it is slow going, because it works thorough generations. "Harm Reduction" is what takes most of the bad away from the current drug abuse situation, while at the same time, we find a new way to get it through to the younger generations why they shouldn't take them (obviously making them illegal as hell hasn't worked in that regard, and it actually attracts kids to them). Programs like DARE didn't work because they were laced with so much propaganda. The moment one realizes that smoke is being blown up their a** is the moment you will lose them to experimentation with drugs.
So we have to do the analysis, as you mentioned, and then properly apply the techniques that should result in markedly less drug problems in a generation or two.
But during that time, we should implement Harm Reduction techniques anyway, like other countries have done, with much success. Reducing the current harm as much as practical while working on future generations is the key to long term success.
well, theres nothing wrong if someone chooses to use a chemical to feel good everyday, that is up to them to decide.
It only becomes a problem when there are laws in place against it, which leads to the price being so artificially inflated, purely as a product...heroin should be very cheap, of course, this leads users not being financially able to feed their habit, which results in crime, theft, robbery, etc.
well, theres nothing wrong if someone chooses to use a chemical to feel good everyday, that is up to them to decide.
It only becomes a problem when there are laws in place against it, which leads to the price being so artificially inflated, purely as a product...heroin should be very cheap, of course, this leads users not being financially able to feed their habit, which results in crime, theft, robbery, etc.
Yes, I agree 100%. The problem comes in when the chemical is destructive, and even that isn't set in stone.
Cigarettes are a good example. Some people can smoke all their lives without it killing them prematurely. But most will have several years shaved off their life if they smoke.
Teach people real facts like that, instead of a bunch of hyped-up misinformation designed solely to scare, like we have been doing for decades. Then, let people make their own choices. Even with something destructive like smoking cigarettes, empowering people by letting them decide on their own is always a much better route than prohibition.
They tried that with the DARE program in schools...it was not effective.
The way I look at it, if someone wants to use drugs, so be it, as long as its not controlling their lives and they are not robbing or stealing in order to get them, its their body, if they want to use a chemical to feel good everyday, more power to them, but its certainly wrong and actually treasonous for Govt to create and enforce drug laws, which ultimately benefit the drug cartels.
I think that is a bit unrealistic. The damage goes way beyond their own bodies, after all their drugs don't fall from the skies. They are produced and delivered by poor farmers and a ruthless drug mafia.
And even the addicts themselves are not harmless at all. Many of them do stupid things, some cause accidents while high, some commit crimes to finance their addiction, some need costly healthcare paid for by society...
So, no, I think ideally nobody would take drugs, there is nothing good about it, it is always better to be sober.
It seems to me the biggest problems our neighbors to the south have is America's neverending war on drugs, and all of that money is funding the drug cartels in the south, which in turn terrorize those countries. If we as a nation finally told the government to stop the war on drugs and invest all of that money into rehab programs, do you think it will help the people south have a better way of life without the US funding the drug lords so much anymore?
$ and power. You end the war on drugs and then all of a sudden our criminal justice system can't fund itself. Entrenched power structures don't like relinquishing power, money and authority. Take a looksy at the private prison industry for example.
I think the way to go is to convince people never to try drugs in the first place. That requires us to analyze why people start to take drugs.
It usually starts as either peer pressure, or someone dealing with too much stress or going through a depression, and they start looking for ways to drown out their pain.
I think that is a bit unrealistic. The damage goes way beyond their own bodies, after all their drugs don't fall from the skies. They are produced and delivered by poor farmers and a ruthless drug mafia.
And even the addicts themselves are not harmless at all. Many of them do stupid things, some cause accidents while high, some commit crimes to finance their addiction, some need costly healthcare paid for by society...
So, no, I think ideally nobody would take drugs, there is nothing good about it, it is always better to be sober.
Right, thats why I specifically said to legalize and regulate them all, this would take the criminal element completely out of the equation, there would be no more confusion about whats actually in the drugs they are taking, or accidentally dying because they didnt know elephant tranquilizer was mixed into the dope to increase weight!
If drugs were legalized and regulated, price would come WAY down, heroin is so artificially inflated, and its all due to risk, it being illegal.
$ and power. You end the war on drugs and then all of a sudden our criminal justice system can't fund itself. Entrenched power structures don't like relinquishing power, money and authority. Take a looksy at the private prison industry for example.
Yep, its fairly easy to see why all these groups work together, US law enforcement, prison industry, Mexican drug cartels, they ALL profit and benefit in keeping drugs illegal, once its legal and regulated, they are cut out of the equation.
In fact, US law enforcement benefits SO much from this, its really a conflict of interest for them to be enforcing drug laws at all imo!
It seems to me the biggest problems our neighbors to the south have is America's neverending war on drugs, and all of that money is funding the drug cartels in the south, which in turn terrorize those countries. If we as a nation finally told the government to stop the war on drugs and invest all of that money into rehab programs, do you think it will help the people south have a better way of life without the US funding the drug lords so much anymore?
It is time to raise the white flag, get honest about our failed attempts to effectively control supply, and turn our attention to serious efforts at demand reduction. Until policy makers appreciate that addiction and substance abuse are medical disorders, something the American Medical Association declared in the 1950s, we will continue down this failed and very expensive path. After all, it would be medical malpractice to incarcerate someone for having diabetes or cancer. Why does it make sense to punish someone for a substance use disorder?
Demand reduction has several facets, but the most important is effective treatment. Only a fraction of those with substance use disorders receive any treatment, either in the community or in the criminal justice system. Much of the problem is an inadequate public health system that lacks capacity and funding for effective substance abuse treatment. A key word in that sentence is “effective.” Much of the substance abuse treatment that does exist is based on a 12-step model derived from Alcoholics Anonymous. While a 12-step program can be helpful for ongoing sobriety maintenance, it is not evidence-based treatment.
The clinical evidence is clear. We know what can effectively treat substance use disorders. What is needed is for policy makers to set aside politics and personal opinion, stop dumping the problem into the criminal justice system, and get to work solving one of the greatest public health crises in our history. We have the tools. What has been lacking is the political will.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
