Has Seattle Liberal Culture Finally Crossed the Line? (middle-class, 2015)

[CityWok]

Originally Posted by BATCAT

These kind of approaches save money and save lives, [...]

I don't see any examples of this, except maybe what we did for the homeless, and that doesn't appear to be working. Many homeless are junkies themselves, and we just keep attracting more with ideas like these.

We need to take the money and invest it in enforcing the laws that were put in place, instead of investing our money to ignore it. If we remove the consequences, people are going to keep doing it. There's a time for compassion and a time to be strict.

[BATCAT]

Originally Posted by CityWok

If we remove the consequences, people are going to keep doing it. There's a time for compassion and a time to be strict.

Hmm, maybe you are right. Maybe we should even start a "War on Drugs" or something. I wonder where that will get us in fifty years or so.

[CityWok]

Originally Posted by BATCAT

Hmm, maybe you are right. Maybe we should even start a "War on Drugs" or something. I wonder where that will get us in fifty years or so.

Oh, so we should just embrace drugs then? There's no proof that the War on Drugs failed. It certainly wasn't perfect, but it deterred me from using them, and who is to say there wouldn't be more drug users today had the country not done it.

There's no perfect deterrent, but it's still important to have them. Just like your front door. You know it won't keep everyone out, but it would foolish not to lock it.

[BATCAT]

Originally Posted by CityWok

Oh, so we should embrace drugs then? There's no proof that the War on Drugs failed. It's certainly not perfect, but it definitely deterred me from using them, and who is to say there wouldn't be more drug users today had the country done it.

If you can't see other options that exist other than either "embracing drugs" (what does that even mean?) and treating substance abuse as a criminal issue necessitating mass incarceration and a "war", then I don't even know what to say.

Why don't we declare a war on beer, wine, and spirits? Who is to say the evils of alcoholism wouldn't be mitigated. Why not throw smokers in jail? I mean, it would save lives, wouldn't it?

Yes, the "War on Drugs" is an abject failure. Look at the insane levels of incarceration over illegal drug in the US. Look at what we spend on incarceration and law enforcement for drugs alone.

You know what? Yes, if you present the scenario that the ONLY OTHER OPTION is this ridiculous, expensive, deadly, racist, endless "War on Drugs", then yeah, ok let's "embrace" them. I would rather just decriminalize EVERYTHING and make treatment free and readily available. I triple guaran-freakin-tee you the money and lives saved would be MONUMENTAL.

[JL1585]

So I just wanted to hear folks responses. I thought I was being conservative, but as a pharmacist, and someone whom is actively trying to fight drug abuse and addiction, I'm against this but not for moral reasons, more so public health, and the unintended consequences. The gentleman above said it best, regarding homeless population downtown. You try to do something good, well intended and it just gets out of hand. No one saw that coming, but we should learn from that.

I wrote the chairman for the Task force yesterday and got a response today. They seem full speed ahead almost, like this is happening, and theres nothing we can do about it. I'm not sure how I feel about this city and their intentions anymore. From him, I got that Seattle is trying to make national headlines from their "experiment". I guess we'll see.

GBUA.

[CityWok]

Originally Posted by BATCAT

"embracing drugs" (what does that even mean?)

It means allowing places for people to do illegal drugs. Which was the original topic of this thread, and something I feel is a bad idea given how we've seen similar solutions fail to perform with the homeless.

Originally Posted by BATCAT

Why don't we declare a war on beer, wine, and spirits? Who is to say the evils of alcoholism wouldn't be mitigated. Why not throw smokers in jail? I mean, it would save lives, wouldn't it?

Because they're not as severe, not as addictive, and don't have a tendency to cause criminal behavior as much as drugs do?

Originally Posted by BATCAT

Yes, the "War on Drugs" is an abject failure. Look at the insane levels of incarceration over illegal drug in the US. Look at what we spend on incarceration and law enforcement for drugs alone.

Without the War on Drugs, there would have been more crime, more costs, and a poorer society. There's really no way to prove that it failed, at least not objectively, unless you have some sort of time machine to compare it to had we not done it. If so, I stand corrected.

Originally Posted by BATCAT

if you present the scenario that the ONLY OTHER OPTION is this ridiculous, expensive, deadly, racist, endless "War on Drugs", then yeah, ok let's "embrace" them.

I did that to make a point, since you sarcastically suggested that the "War on Drugs" was my ONLY intended solution, when clearly it was not.

[BATCAT]

Originally Posted by pikabike

The antioverdose treatment gets abused. Addict goes through withdrawal, still isn't deterred from using heroin again, gets "saved" again, repeat ad nauseum. One addict was quoted as having gone through this cycle SEVEN times, and it's not over yet.

Wait, you're telling me addicts often require many cycles of treatment to get clean, and some never do, or eventually relapse?

STOP THE PRESSES PEOPLE WE HAVE A REAL BREAKTHROUGH IN THE SCIENCE OF ADDICTION TREATMENT HERE!

[BATCAT]

Originally Posted by CityWok

It means allowing places for people to do illegal drugs. i.e. The original topic of this thread, and something I don't think is a good idea.

Um, the entire state of WA is a "place for people to do" a federally illegal drug.

But anyhow, I fail to understand how strict enforcement of drug laws against a bunch of random junkies is in the interest of the public or of law enforcement., given that it a)doesn't really represent a path to treatment, b)serves to criminalize public health issues and addiction

Originally Posted by CityWok

Because they're not as severe, not as addictive, and don't have a tendency to cause criminal behavior.

I'm just gonna have to take your word on that one.

[CityWok]

Originally Posted by BATCAT

Um, the entire state of WA is a "place for people to do" a federally illegal drug.

The law was voted and changed for WA, specifically for that drug. It is completely different, because we're now allowing people to do heroin, which is still illegal, even in the state of WA.

Originally Posted by BATCAT

I'm just gonna have to take your word on that one.

Do you know a single heroin user who has maintained a quality lifestyle without medical supervision? Yet look at the people who do use it. Homeless. Don't take my word for it. There are plenty of studies that correlate crime with heroin use. No I'm not going to look them up for you. It's common sense

Sure, drinking can also ruin lives and cause criminal activity, but you'd have to be pretty blind to not see the difference in severity there.

[Seacove]

Originally Posted by CityWok

Do you know a single heroin user who has maintained a quality lifestyle without medical supervision?

Would you support more treatment facilities? Because I would. Addicts are a cost to society when they could be turned into self-supporting contributors to society. I also would support a way to clear their record after X amount of years if drugs were the cause. From what I understand, once they've committed a crime, it's hard for them to find a job or even rent a place to live if they found a job. If that doesn't sound like a recipe for hopelessness, I don't know what does.

If you are an addict and you're trying to stop but you can't get a job and no one will rent to you, where do you go? There are people that have no family so where do they go? If we created incentives for them to get clean and clear their records after X amount of time of no trouble, I would think that would be motivating for many and would give them a path. Marking them with a scarlet letter for life doesn't sound like a solution.

I think there is a good portion of Seattle's homeless that fall in that category.