Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

pk10534 t1_je86suc wrote

Reply to comment by Nolubrication in West Baltimore gang takedown: 33 indicted on drug, gun and attempted murder charges, police say by Dr_Midnight

And you think companies would market their product ethically if heroin was to be even less regulated and more widely available?

3

Nolubrication t1_je88vod wrote

The problem was that Purdue was marketing their "heroin" as safe. Nobody thinks actual heroin is safe. And nobody is suggesting it shouldn't be regulated. Just not illegal. We shouldn't be locking up addicts, and there shouldn't be a black market ruled by violence.

Seriously, read up on how successful Portugal has been with their drug policy. The results speak for themselves.

8

Bmorewiser t1_jeb6lg2 wrote

People would think heroin you can get from a pharmacy is “safe” as compared to shit you get in the street because, comparatively, it would be. And addicts typically don’t start using with the belief they’ll get addicted. Don’t you remember the “i never said I wanted to a junkie when I grow up” PSAs back in the 80s/90’s. Even as regulated as Oxy is, people still end up hooked. Legalizing drugs would make that problem worse and unless it was unlimited supply, you’d still have a black market issue

1

Dr_Midnight OP t1_jec6y1y wrote

> People would think heroin you can get from a pharmacy is “safe” as compared to shit you get in the street because, comparatively, it would be.

Far less likely of a chance of it being cut with fentanyl -- that's for certain.

2

Nolubrication t1_jeb8ifx wrote

What's your solution, then? Because after 50+ years of the war on drugs, we have more addicts and more drug gang activity than ever before.

Also, last I checked, the entire U.S. population did not turn into alcoholics when the Volstead Act was repealed.

1

Bmorewiser t1_jebxlh4 wrote

just because your ideas are overly simplistic and unlikely to work in real life doesn’t mean I’m suddenly obligated to solve some intractable problem that’s plagued us for a half century.

1

Nolubrication t1_jeceat5 wrote

Not my idea. Also demonstrably proven to work. But you do you. Keep sticking your head in the sand.

1

Ok-Entrepreneur4365 t1_jedu4os wrote

>What's your solution, then?

Rehabilitate anyone involved in narcotics criminal charge that can be defined as "victimless"

Throw the fucking book at anyone whose charges involve anything else.

>Because after 50+ years of the war on drugs, we have more addicts and more drug gang activity than ever before.

The national reduction of crime in the 90's has been attributed to many things, including the "stop and frisk" policies as well as keeping violent repeat offenders actually locked up.

We have more addicts because now progressive policies advocate for "safe use" spaces.

And we have more drug gang activity because of corrupt pieces of shit like Marilyn Mosby not doing their jobs to prosecute obvious offenders.

1

Nolubrication t1_jeeepnm wrote

> Throw the fucking book at anyone...

We're not going to incarcerate our way out of this. So long as there is money to be made, the black market will thrive.

> progressive policies

"You know that new needle exchange program is pretty cool. Maybe I'll try heroin now!"

You think that's how it works, huh?

1

Ok-Entrepreneur4365 t1_jeegn88 wrote

>You think that's how it works, huh?

I work with addicts and alcoholics.

Literally both active and sober folks say that they give exactly 0 shits about what anyone else thinks they should or shouldn't do.

It's called enabling. Which is something you're doing when you make a space that says "we don't care if you use or not, feel free to get better at getting high with the things we give you"

Anyone going to a needle exchange is already on heroin. You're just another fool advocating for an easier way for people to kill themselves.

Bartenders can get in legal trouble if they over serve someone. Progressives like you should be charged the same for working safe space zones.

1

Nolubrication t1_jeehcvh wrote

> I work with addicts and alcoholics.

Doing what? Clearly not treatment, because you have no clue if you still view addiction as solvable through punitive measures.

1

Ok-Entrepreneur4365 t1_jeeijep wrote

>you have no clue if you still view addiction as solvable through punitive measures

Multiple people over multiple years have straight up told me and told their peers in AA and NA that they only got their shit together once they were brought before a judge and made to answer for the fucked up shit they did while in active addiction.

You're completely ignorant if you think that's not true.

1

Nolubrication t1_jeekp71 wrote

You're an addict? That's your expertise here?

You're arguing against a strawman, either intentionally or simply because you haven't bothered to educate yourself on what is happening in places like Portugal. Nobody is suggesting that we simply eliminate enforcement and call it a day.

1

Ok-Entrepreneur4365 t1_jeel9r6 wrote

>You're an addict?

Nope

>That's your expertise here?

I'm involved in counseling for people with addictions. I've also spent personal time with these folks, on the streets of Baltimore.

>Nobody is suggesting that we simply eliminate enforcement and call it a day.

You literally said that punishing people for drug crimes doesn't work.

If you ever actually cared about this issue you might actually do some volunteering or work to help people.

But you're talking about some magical solution of "safe spaces" and "national hamsterdam."

And you clearly didn't watch the wire because you'd know that Hamsterdam was an enormous shithole.

1

Nolubrication t1_jef1la6 wrote

> You literally said that punishing people for drug crimes doesn't work.

And it doesn't. All 33 of the gangbangers in the OP article will be replaced by new participants in the drug game within a week. There is no way we will incarcerate our way out of our national drug epidemic.

And you're not arguing against the alternative; you are arguing against the strawman you're building, "make everything legal and do nothing else about the problem". Any viable path to reducing addiction and overdose rates also has to include a myriad of social services. The $50k/yr it costs to lock someone up and throw away the key can be better spent on counseling, education, rehabilitation, and "housing first" programs.

We should be taking our cues from nations whose policy is actually reducing drug use among adolescents (new addicts) and opioid deaths overall.

Have a look at the chart here. Does that indicate to you that America's less liberal national drug policy is more or less effective than that of its OECD peer nations?

1