Current Events > Anyone who thinks people should be put in jail for drug use is immoral

(+) Yeah! (+)

and should have no say in policy making.

Seeing so many people try and argue how repealing Oregon's decriminalization law will somehow make the overdose problem better despite decades of ample evidence that jailing addicts tends to make the problem worse. They're doing nothing other than trying to create some excuse to sweep them out of view and make their life marginally better at the expense of others.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Definitely

And bring a massive fucking hammer down on the corporations that enabled or even outright peddled this shit, they literally pushed to make people addicts for their own profit.

Also while we're on the topic of corporations intentionally creating addicts for profit

Fuck every single casino and fuck every single elected official who allows that to be a thing

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

By design.

RuneterranSnap posted...

trying to create some excuse to sweep them out of view and make their life marginally better at the expense of others.

Jailing people for drugs isn't the answer, but the general public should have the privilege of not seeing people OD/nodding off in every public space.

justaguy3492 posted...

Jailing people for drugs isn't the answer, but the general public should have the privilege of not seeing people OD/nodding off in every public space.

No the fuck they shouldn't.

The general public helped create this mess by not fixing the problem sooner, they don't get to whine because they see the mess that's a result of fixing decades of mistakes.

especially an american jail

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Yeah it's disgusting. Also the free drinks in the name of "hospitality" that are meant to entice alcoholics in who are particularly susceptible to addiction.

justaguy3492 posted...

Jailing people for drugs isn't the answer, but the general public should have the privilege of not seeing people OD/nodding off in every public space.

This is such a weird take with obviously fucked priorties. I imagine a lot of people think the same but don't explicitly say so.

RuneterranSnap posted...

No the fuck they shouldn't.

The general public helped create this mess by not fixing the problem sooner, they don't get to whine because they see the mess that's a result of fixing decades of mistakes.

What? When did the general public vote/have a say on pharmaceutical companies pushing opioids over the past decades? Here's a fix I'd vote for, mandatory rehab/psych care for any homeless drug addicts. Letting people pass out or die on sidewalks isn't a solution.

justaguy3492 posted...

What? When did the general public vote/have a say on pharmaceutical companies pushing opioids over the past decades?

They had a say in people getting locked up for it which was a HUGE contributor to the problem.

justaguy3492 posted...

Here's a fix I'd vote for, mandatory rehab/psych care for any homeless drug addicts.

Mandatory care is next to worthless. It has to be voluntary.

justaguy3492 posted...

Letting people pass out or die on sidewalks isn't a solution.

No, the solution is treating them like human beings and giving them access to the care they need. Knock off the concern trolling.

They complain about prison overcrowding, yet stick people in there for stupid shit like drug use.

I get the feeling theres a solution in there somewhere

Dark_Arbron posted...

They complain about prison overcrowding, yet stick people in there for stupid shit like drug use.

I get the feeling theres a solution in there somewhere

No no they need to be in prison because otherwise some privileged kid might see something upsetting

This may be a technicality, but people don't get jailed for using drugs.

They get jailed for possessing drugs, or doing something illegal while under the influence.

bigblu89 posted...

This may be a technicality, but people don't get jailed for using drugs.

They get jailed for possessing drugs, or doing something illegal while under the influence.

It is a technicality and a pointless one.

RuneterranSnap posted...

Mandatory care is next to worthless. It has to be voluntary.

So if someone refuses help that's the end of it, they just continue to live on the street making public spaces worse?
RuneterranSnap posted...

No, the solution is treating them like human beings and giving them access to the care they need. Knock off the concern trolling.

I agree that access to care should be more accessible, but again if someone says no (which many do) what's the actual solution? Just let it be?

justaguy3492 posted...

So if someone refuses help that's the end of it, they just continue to live on the street making public spaces worse?

You offer them the help. They have to take it.

justaguy3492 posted...

I agree that access to care should be more accessible, but again if someone says no (which many do) what's the actual solution? Just let it be?

Yes.

RuneterranSnap posted...

You offer them the help. They have to take it.

Yes.

So when most people with substance abuse issues don't accept help, we just deal with the problem, got it. And I'm the concern troll?

justaguy3492 posted...

So when most people with substance abuse issues don't accept help, we just deal with the problem, got it. And I'm the concern troll?

When what you're suggesting will explicitly making it worse and you've made it explicitly clear you don't care about them, you just care about having to see them? Yes.

And for the record, you have NOTHING supporting the idea that most won't seek help.

Just using hard drugs or carrying around personal quantities, sure, it's just a waste of jail space.

HOWEVER...using the influence or addiction to drugs is not a viable defense for committing crimes fueled by or to obtain drugs. Harming others, thieving property, or disrupting the lives of sober people shouldn't be tolerated or handled with a light touch just because drug use factors into it. Even if they are hooked and a slave to it there is still a personal choice somewhere in there that has to be met with consequence.

Solid_Sonic posted...

HOWEVER...using the influence or addiction to drugs is not a viable defense for committing crimes fueled by or to obtain drugs. Harming others, thieving property, or disrupting the lives of sober people shouldn't be tolerated or handled with a light touch just because drug use factors into it. Even if they are hooked and a slave to it there is still a personal choice somewhere in there that has to be met with consequence.

100%. I will never support others being victimized for the sake of addicts, just like I wouldn't support addicts being victimized for the sake of others.

RuneterranSnap posted...

And for the record, you have NOTHING supporting the idea that most won't seek help.

https://www.fortbehavioral.com/addiction-recovery-blog/5-reasons-people-dont-seek-help-for-addiction/

https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUH-DetTabs-2016/NSDUH-DetTabs-2016.pdf

pages 1323-1327 tables 5.53a and 5.53b specifically.

justaguy3492 posted...

https://www.fortbehavioral.com/addiction-recovery-blog/5-reasons-people-dont-seek-help-for-addiction/

https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUH-DetTabs-2016/NSDUH-DetTabs-2016.pdf

pages 1323-1327 tables 5.53a and 5.53b specifically.

Which does not support your claim and shows well under half just wouldn't take treatment.

There are people who should definitely be taken in by the state and put through some kind of forced rehab. I just wish we had a system that could actually accommodate that. We basically have the extremes of abusive institutionalization and doing fucking nothing.

RuneterranSnap posted...

Which does not support your claim and shows well under half just wouldn't take treatment.

You're correct. I should rephrase to, don't receive help. My main argument is we should be using tax dollars to create mandatory drug treatment facilities (that aren't jail, as jails focus on punishment over rehabilitation) for those who are affecting everyday society. Free drug treatment programs should also be available to functioning addicts as well (aka the ones I don't "have to see")

justaguy3492 posted...

You're correct. I should rephrase to, don't receive help. My main argument is we should be using tax dollars to create mandatory drug treatment facilities (that aren't jail, as jails focus on punishment over rehabilitation) for those who are affecting everyday society. Free drug treatment programs should also be available to functioning addicts as well (aka the ones I don't "have to see")

And again, mandatory treatment doesn't work.

RuneterranSnap posted...

And again, mandatory treatment doesn't work.

Doing nothing as you're proposing doesn't work.

Nemu posted...

There are people who should definitely be taken in by the state and put through some kind of forced rehab. I just wish we had a system that could actually accommodate that. We basically have the extremes of abusive institutionalization and doing fucking nothing.

Yep and it sucks. My oldest cousin has been in and out of jail since before I was born. And he is definitely one of those that didn't voluntarily get help. Instead, he would promise that he was going to "get help this time" only to turn around and steal from family to get his fix.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

*Grabs one*

There's a great disturbing amount of people in the Phillipines that agree with Duerte on executing drug dealers and users.

Prestoff posted...

There's a great abnormal amount of people in the Phillipines that agree with Duerte on executing drug dealers and users.

Or Singapore. There was a big thread on Reddit of people praising Singapore because they just hung a woman for posession.

RuneterranSnap posted...

Or Singapore. There was a big thread on Reddit of people praising Singapore because they just hung a woman for posession.

The strange thing is that I imagine a lot of those people probably oppose the western war on drugs and support drug decriminalisation in North America and Europe. There's definitely a large contingent of people online who are progressives in the context of western politics but either make excuses for or outright support oppressive laws and authoritarian non-western governments. Noam Chomsky types basically.

Lobinde posted...

The strange thing is that I imagine a lot of those people probably oppose the western war on drugs and support drug decriminalisation in North America and Europe. There's definitely a large contingent of people online who are progressives in the context of western politics but either make excuses for or outright support oppressive laws and authoritarian non-western governments. Noam Chomsky types basically.

I defy you to find any example of Noam Chomsky supporting Singapore executing drug users.

Lobinde posted...

The strange thing is that I imagine a lot of those people probably oppose the western war on drugs and support drug decriminalisation in North America and Europe. There's definitely a large contingent of people online who are progressives in the context of western politics but either make excuses for or outright support oppressive laws and authoritarian non-western governments. Noam Chomsky types basically.

I even saw it on here a few years ago, people supporting corporal punishment and using the general quality of life in Singapore as an argument, ignoring the plethora of OTHER social improvements that give them it.

AloneIBreak posted...

I defy you to find any example of Noam Chomsky supporting Singapore executing drug users.

Please exercise reading comprehension. Nowhere did I say or even implicate that Chomsky has expressed apologia or support for this exact occurrence, I am saying that he has a history of apologia or outright support for authoritarian, non-western governments, such as his denial of the Srebrenica massacre/bosnian genocide, and that many people with similar worldviews to chomsky practice similar apologias including but not limited to defending Singapore executing drug users.