Powered by Outside

Thread of political debate and discussion

PB Forum :: Pinkbike Groups
Thread of political debate and discussion
Author Message
flag therealtylerdurden
Posted: Jul 9, 2016 at 16:15 Quote
crs-one wrote:
Right now I think the growing drug epidemic is heroin, and it definitely does not discriminate with regards to skin colour. (You have a point. I've always associated heroin with white people and crack with blacks. It's been that way for a long time. But you are right, heroin is becoming more of a problem everyday, and impacting all communities. The Mexican cartel actually goes to small towns with no hard drug use, going door to door, taking a 'poll' as to whether or not they take painkillers. Say yes? 'Oh! Well, we have something for you that's the same, but more potent and way cheaper!' And starting new drug rings across the country.) Rural white folk, urban black folk, it's hitting everyone. The one glimmer of hope is that people seem to be coming around to the idea of treating drug addiction as a public health issue rather than a criminal issue. Will be interesting to see how that pans out.

For what it's worth I support full legalization of just about every drug, I don't think it's the government's business to tell you what you can and cannot put in your body (this logic applies to dildos as well) and I don't have any faith at all in criminal elements to ensure a safe narcotic supply.

(Agree about being treated as a social, not criminal issue.. But once again only to a point.

Hell f*cking no to full legalization. You ever seen a tweaker who's been awake for two straight weeks? And is just batshit twacked out on meth? Oh, and he managed to get your back literally up against a wall, cornered in on all sides, out of view from the public, and pulls out a blade and tries repeatedly to stab you in the gut? It f*cking sucks. Granted, I was an idiot to allow myself to get into such a scenario to begin with, still man. f*ck that shit, and f*ck legalization.
flag crs-one
Posted: Jul 9, 2016 at 16:15 Quote
Seems to me that decrim/legalization is the cheapest way you could possibly hit gangs. A stroke of a pen takes away their monopoly over drug money, while increasing the tax base by shifting drug sales out of the black market.

I also think that given how expensive incarceration is (not to mention the costs of hiring police to go after drug users, holding a trial, all the other shit that comes before that taxpayers get to pay for), there's some savings to be had by funding rehab programs rather than sending people to prison, but that does require an initial outlay of tax money so I can see why it's controversial. I also wonder how much money gets wasted treating waves of overdoses caused by low-quality drugs. In Canada it's tax money, I'm not clear how it works in the States but I think it would be either taxpayers, or the hospitals would recoup their money from all the people who actually pay their health care bills. Either way, we're all paying and I think we can all agree there's better shit to spend tax money on, even if we can't agree on what specifically that is.
flag iffy
Posted: Jul 9, 2016 at 16:17 Quote
But if drugs were decriminalized how would all those goverment agencies that dont exist fund themselves?
flag ethan991
O+
Posted: Jul 9, 2016 at 16:18 Quote
iffy wrote:
But if drugs were decriminalized how would all those goverment agencies that dont exist fund themselves?

IT'S ALL A CONSPIRACY THEORY!!!!!!!!
flag therealtylerdurden
Posted: Jul 9, 2016 at 16:20 Quote
crs-one wrote:
Seems to me that decrim/legalization is the cheapest way you could possibly hit gangs. A stroke of a pen takes away their monopoly over drug money, while increasing the tax base by shifting drug sales out of the black market. (Not if you need a script for it. Same thing is going on with painkillers)

I also think that given how expensive incarceration is (not to mention the costs of hiring police to go after drug users, holding a trial, all the other shit that comes before that taxpayers get to pay for), there's some savings to be had by funding rehab programs rather than sending people to prison, but that does require an initial outlay of tax money so I can see why it's controversial. I also wonder how much money gets wasted treating waves of overdoses caused by low-quality drugs. In Canada it's tax money, I'm not clear how it works in the States but I think it would be either taxpayers, or the hospitals would recoup their money from all the people who actually pay their health care bills. Either way, we're all paying and I think we can all agree there's better shit to spend tax money on, even if we can't agree on what specifically that is.
Huh. Good points man.

Relevant:

Unsecure image, only https images allowed: http://cdn.patch.com/users/3887382/2015/02/T800x600/20150254e73ca32b917.jpg
flag badbadleroybrown
Posted: Jul 9, 2016 at 16:20 Quote
crs-one wrote:
Seems to me that decrim/legalization is the cheapest way you could possibly hit gangs. A stroke of a pen takes away their monopoly over drug money, while increasing the tax base by shifting drug sales out of the black market.

I also think that given how expensive incarceration is (not to mention the costs of hiring police to go after drug users, holding a trial, all the other shit that comes before that taxpayers get to pay for), there's some savings to be had by funding rehab programs rather than sending people to prison, but that does require an initial outlay of tax money so I can see why it's controversial. I also wonder how much money gets wasted treating waves of overdoses caused by low-quality drugs. In Canada it's tax money, I'm not clear how it works in the States but I think it would be either taxpayers, or the hospitals would recoup their money from all the people who actually pay their health care bills. Either way, we're all paying and I think we can all agree there's better shit to spend tax money on, even if we can't agree on what specifically that is.
It's largely a tax burden in the US as well. The problem that's most common in the states is that treatment doesn't work as often as you'd think. I think a big part of that problem is that people go right back to the areas and groups of people that led to their addiction in the first place. I think the first thing that needs to happen in the US is restructuring the welfare programs. Setting a system where people have to work and have to look for work to get their benefits. Right now, we basically pay people to sit home and have kids and raise kids poorly. Which begets generations of poorly raised kids who know nothing but sitting home having kids to earn money. We need to make people work, submit to drug tests like a real job, and do some labor. Set up day care centers or encourage existing day care centers to accept payment from the gov... Instead of paying these people to do nothing, learn nothing, and be nothing. Make that money go towards people bettering themselves. Studies show that as a person's sense of self worth increases both their tendency for drug use and reproduction rates go down.
flag crs-one
Posted: Jul 9, 2016 at 16:24 Quote
therealtylerdurden wrote:
crs-one wrote:
Right now I think the growing drug epidemic is heroin, and it definitely does not discriminate with regards to skin colour. (You have a point. I've always associated heroin with white people and crack with blacks. It's been that way for a long time. But you are right, heroin is becoming more of a problem everyday, and impacting all communities. The Mexican cartel actually goes to small towns with no hard drug use, going door to door, taking a 'poll' as to whether or not they take painkillers. Say yes? 'Oh! Well, we have something for you that's the same, but more potent and way cheaper!' And starting new drug rings across the country.) Rural white folk, urban black folk, it's hitting everyone. The one glimmer of hope is that people seem to be coming around to the idea of treating drug addiction as a public health issue rather than a criminal issue. Will be interesting to see how that pans out.

For what it's worth I support full legalization of just about every drug, I don't think it's the government's business to tell you what you can and cannot put in your body (this logic applies to dildos as well) and I don't have any faith at all in criminal elements to ensure a safe narcotic supply.

(Agree about being treated as a social, not criminal issue.. But once again only to a point.

Hell f*cking no to full legalization. You ever seen a tweaker who's been awake for two straight weeks? And is just batshit twacked out on meth? Oh, and he managed to get your back literally up against a wall, cornered in on all sides, out of view from the public, and pulls out a blade and tries repeatedly to stab you in the gut? It f*cking sucks. Granted, I was an idiot to allow myself to get into such a scenario to begin with, still man. f*ck that shit, and f*ck legalization.

I've seen tweakers before, yes. I do wonder how many people would get into weird shitty drugs like meth if the more common ones were legal, cheaper, and less stigmatized...but that is just idle wondering. Either way I think full legalization is a bit "neater" than the pick-and-choose criminalization that is the status quo. There will be lots of super shitty individual outcomes to legalization, but from both a civil liberty and harm reduction perspective I think it's the way to go. I don't think Portugal ever had the same problems with drug gangs and crazy shit like meth, but if you look at the drug use statistics before and after they decriminalized possession, there's some interesting and counter-intuitive results.

I haven't been mugged by a meth head before, however I've been jumped more than once by drunk people. Even though alcohol can be extremely dangerous both to the user and to the general public, I do not support criminalizing it at all.
flag therealtylerdurden
Posted: Jul 9, 2016 at 16:26 Quote
Hmm. Interesting. I do believe in personal liberties. As usual, obligatory 'to an extent.'
flag badbadleroybrown
Posted: Jul 9, 2016 at 16:30 Quote
crs-one wrote:
therealtylerdurden wrote:
crs-one wrote:
Right now I think the growing drug epidemic is heroin, and it definitely does not discriminate with regards to skin colour. (You have a point. I've always associated heroin with white people and crack with blacks. It's been that way for a long time. But you are right, heroin is becoming more of a problem everyday, and impacting all communities. The Mexican cartel actually goes to small towns with no hard drug use, going door to door, taking a 'poll' as to whether or not they take painkillers. Say yes? 'Oh! Well, we have something for you that's the same, but more potent and way cheaper!' And starting new drug rings across the country.) Rural white folk, urban black folk, it's hitting everyone. The one glimmer of hope is that people seem to be coming around to the idea of treating drug addiction as a public health issue rather than a criminal issue. Will be interesting to see how that pans out.

For what it's worth I support full legalization of just about every drug, I don't think it's the government's business to tell you what you can and cannot put in your body (this logic applies to dildos as well) and I don't have any faith at all in criminal elements to ensure a safe narcotic supply.

(Agree about being treated as a social, not criminal issue.. But once again only to a point.

Hell f*cking no to full legalization. You ever seen a tweaker who's been awake for two straight weeks? And is just batshit twacked out on meth? Oh, and he managed to get your back literally up against a wall, cornered in on all sides, out of view from the public, and pulls out a blade and tries repeatedly to stab you in the gut? It f*cking sucks. Granted, I was an idiot to allow myself to get into such a scenario to begin with, still man. f*ck that shit, and f*ck legalization.

I've seen tweakers before, yes. I do wonder how many people would get into weird shitty drugs like meth if the more common ones were legal, cheaper, and less stigmatized...but that is just idle wondering. Either way I think full legalization is a bit "neater" than the pick-and-choose criminalization that is the status quo. There will be lots of super shitty individual outcomes to legalization, but from both a civil liberty and harm reduction perspective I think it's the way to go. I don't think Portugal ever had the same problems with drug gangs and crazy shit like meth, but if you look at the drug use statistics before and after they decriminalized possession, there's some interesting and counter-intuitive results.

I haven't been mugged by a meth head before, however I've been jumped more than once by drunk people. Even though alcohol can be extremely dangerous both to the user and to the general public, I do not support criminalizing it at all.
Interestingly... in the areas of the US where they've fully legalized reefer, usage among 25 year olds is way down and way up among > 35 year olds.
flag crs-one
Posted: Jul 9, 2016 at 16:31 Quote
I don't know what it was like where you went to school, but in Canada it's always been waaaaaaay easier for kids to get weed than alcohol. That experience (a pretty common one I think) lends support to my belief that legalizing x y or z does not necessarily make it more abundant.

badbadleroybrown wrote:
It's largely a tax burden in the US as well. The problem that's most common in the states is that treatment doesn't work as often as you'd think. I think a big part of that problem is that people go right back to the areas and groups of people that led to their addiction in the first place.

I agree, successful large scale rehab is a bit of a pipe dream (I believe it's worth pursuing but I can understand why others may disagree), however I think there's merit to even small-scale addiction management programs like safe injection sites. You cut down on ODs, cut down on diseases from shared needles (which don't just affect drug users, how many news stories have you guys read about crazy hobos stabbing people with HIV needles?), and you give users access to health professionals instead of just drug dealers and other street users.

edit - I promise pipe dream was an unintentional pun.
flag therealtylerdurden
Posted: Jul 9, 2016 at 17:02 Quote
BBLB: That is interesting. Also a higher incidence rate of mental disorders, particularly schizo type disorders. This is more common in teenage usage, but appears to affect some of evwry age demographic.

crs-one: Some interesting possiblities I hadn't considered about disease reduction using this model of approach.

"I promise pipe dream was an unintentional pun." Razz
flag iffy
Posted: Jul 9, 2016 at 17:04 Quote
banning TV would probably have more effect on mental disorders
flag therealtylerdurden
Posted: Jul 9, 2016 at 17:17 Quote
Honestly, there's a good liklehood of that. Or at least the ability to cope in a healthy manner and be a productive member of society.
flag banana2301
Posted: Jul 9, 2016 at 20:35 Quote
Subbing for lols

"crazy hobos stabbing each other with needles"

 


Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.067441
Mobile Version of Website