It Was Just Pot, They Said

[FoxtArt]

The libertarian and darwinian approach is probably the most flawed of all solutions. True, in time (say, 50-100,000 years) the problem would genetically resolve itself that way as to the current issue (opiates, etc.) although there will always be a new chemical that can do the same, or worse.

The problem with the libertarian aspect is it is taken from a flawed perception of a typical, mid-30's, "white-guy" with his shit put together, and with relative luck in his life, and little memory of his youth. It doesn't account for the reality of the human species, especially our anatomy and physical development.

Do you know how infants, toddlers, and children have developmental milestones? Those are external indications of brain development. You wouldn't expect a toddler to be able to make informed, logical decisions about drug use. The brain undergoes multiple periods of rapid change in our life, completely reorganizing and re-wiring, processing thought entirely differently in transitory periods. These include a period of infancy, childhood, teenage, and a few in adulthood. A brain of a typical child is actually far more active - and would appear far more intelligent - in a brain scan, prior to their upcoming pruning and reorganization.

Well, you don't become an "adult" at eighteen, I'm sorry to say. The typical "adult" has developmental milestones and their brain continues to change - develop - and their cognitive processes continue to mature into their 30's. Late teens and early twenties individuals are largely predictable as a group because of this development, and their cognitive processes are not yet fully developed. That's not to say, they aren't responsible for their decisions, only that they aren't quite as capable of making wise ones.

It's easy to look back, cocky as hell, and say "pfft if drugs were legal i'd never have used and there wouldn't be a problem". However, you cannot understand the butterfly effect, and most certainly one of the factors that kept you from using drugs - among others - was their illegality, whether you recognize it or not. If drugs are legal and available over the counter like pez dispensers, teenagers and young adults can EASILY be led into their use, especially if they happen to be around anyone capable of manipulating them into doing it, and it has little to do with "choice", it has more to do with sheer "luck".

Look back upon your life, and consider the mistakes you have made - some of them massive. Maybe you didn't ever try any illegal drug of any kind, but you still made MASSIVE mistakes, and luckily, they didn't catch up with you. Now, consider where you would be if any of those mistakes warranted an automatic death penalty.

You don't get to pick who your children's friends are, not really. And they lack the understanding of difficult psychological concepts and understanding until they are much older. Kids and teens have always done stupid shit since the beginning of time. Do you really want drugs to be freely available at every turn, so that out of all the serious mistakes your child will make, the "dead" one is right there? Do you really want drugs to be so freely available at any turn, where older manipulators can influence their decisions, before your child is practiced in relationships?

The thing about consciousness, is we aren't as conscious as we think we are. Our decisions occur subconsciously, and they are based primarily upon our memories and our experiences. You can't teach the mistakes out of someone; wisdom literally has to be learned, there is nothing that replaces actual experience. That's why you made dumbass mistakes when you grew up, and your kids will too (likely outside of your knowledge). Presuming that you can simply "teach" your kids not to make dumbass mistakes is probably the pinnacle of ignorance.

We are biological meat bags with predictable brains, all of which were born in complete ignorance, testing our environment to find our way. I won't live in a place that freely places the equivalent of rat-poison and spring traps all through society, as I'm not such an idiot to believe my children are immune from manipulation and mistakes.

[Skip]

Sounds like we'll really have to flesh out specific arguments to discuss. To start I'd say that of course all the fees and taxes and such are going to be aimed at the largest, richest segment of the population, which is people who are gainfully employed. I know that's not specifically what you meant, but if the state needs to make money, it's not going to be from people already living off of state provided benefits.

I've been dealing heavily with people who are "disabled" a lot lately so I'm right there with you on that particular topic, probably.

Yes, I think you understand my rage.

Legit disabled I have no problem voluntarily funding programs to help, it's why we give to charities. This is probably less than 1.5-2% of the population and could be managed with death/disability insurance program. People who choose to be junkies? Nope. But gov is here to force me any way they can.

The libertarian and darwinian approach is probably the most flawed of all solutions. True, in time (say, 50-100,000 years) the problem would genetically resolve itself that way as to the current issue (opiates, etc.) although there will always be a new chemical that can do the same, or worse.

The problem with the libertarian aspect is it is taken from a flawed perception of a typical, mid-30's, "white-guy" with his shit put together, and with relative luck in his life, and little memory of his youth. It doesn't account for the reality of the human species, especially our anatomy and physical development.

[snip]

This was a really good post! Perspective is very important. Quoting and bolding a couple of great thoughts.

As a freedom/natural rights issue, this would sort itself out if we didn't have a welfare state and the hand-wringers didn't rule over us and our lives. The problem starts with the "concern" and then evolves into a moral panic. Because collectivists can never appropriately force the bad actor to be accountable, they can only redistribute the negative consequences to good actors.

They are turning natural consequences/biology 180 degrees and completely perverting it.

I don't think it's coincidental that they are trying to disarm us while doing this. I know I see a lot of things through the lens of gun rights but it would seem Coloradans should be asking for stronger gun rights with this change. Yet again, they are pushing it the opposite direction.

[Irving]

OxArt's post was good, but it goes in both directions. It took my half way through that text to figure out he was actually talking about the opposite perspective that I thought he was. I'm referring to how we can't realistically expect to live in a society where we leave those with problems to just figure it out. There ARE societies like that on the planet today, but they never left the jungles and are still in the stone age.

[Skip]

OxArt's post was good, but it goes in both directions. It took my half way through that text to figure out he was actually talking about the opposite perspective that I thought he was. I'm referring to how we can't realistically expect to live in a society where we leave those with problems to just figure it out. There ARE societies like that on the planet today, but they never left the jungles and are still in the stone age.

It was more common in the history of this country to be able to buy these scheduled substances than not. One used to find cocaine and opiates in a "drug store" and they were purchased without prescription. Yes, they were abused and people most likely OD'd and died from that abuse.

WoD followed WoP for a reason. We've had WoP for ~50 years and WoD for ~30. The country is ~243 years old. Humanity is the same.

I hardly think the choice is "suffer the junkies" or "stay in the jungle."

[FoxtArt]

(limited to this issue) I think I would argue that any "one" solution of the respective camps would be a complete and utter failure; truly a hybrid approach taking pieces from each camp is probably the best solution.

Recognize: We are biological, and just like weeds, insects, and animals (catnip) there are MANY chemicals - both natural and synthetic, that will alter the way we process thought or feel, sometimes permanently.
1) Every kind of chemical shouldn't be legalized and freely available like candy. That's stupid, and will result in many more addictions than there are presently, most of which "don't deserve it".
2) Some people will inevitably expose themselves or get exposed, and then become addicted to chemicals. It's literally a component of biology. Some of them began their addiction willfully and intentionally, fully aware and with full sight of the consequences; most of them did not, at minimum, were shortsighted and/or manipulated. The range of chemicals with these effects is broader than a product selection at a grocery store.
3) Some people, addicted, clean, or otherwise, are just pure fucking evil.
4) Some people can never break the habit of addiction in any circumstance.
5) Biology though, does make it a bitch to break an addiction cycle once a person is addicted.
5) Many more, under the right circumstances, are likely capable of getting clean, and stopping recidivism.
6) Addicted people commit crimes at an incredibly higher rate than non addicted people.
7) Repeat recidivism is incredibly expensive. Enforcement, long term jail, support services, etc.

Realistically, we need to stop the compassion arguments and other touchy-feely bullshit, and approach this topic from a logical angle.

If it isn't incredibly clear, the "most fixable" aspect of this system is the addiction cycle - for #5. And as expensive as it is, it is the far cheapest of the solutions, and the most realistic. However, it is ignorant to apply this to all persons. Identifying #3 and keeping them in prison is important (skipping any further side-investment in them) and identifying #4 and letting them be - them - is also important, mitigating punishments that are purely repeat-drug related without any other factors (homelessness, trespassing, shoplifting, robbery and assault). If certain people are incapable of breaking the addiction cycle, but otherwise stay within the bounds of the law, then yeah - they don't need to be in prison over the mere fact of addiction. That typically, is pretty unusual that someone fits that typecast.

I do like serious enforcement of homeless and drug-related crimes (over and above, say enforcing drugs), treated as multipliers, much like firearms are in any kind of violent assault, and then providing them with a very strict choice: long jail time or long treatment time; with positive outcomes. As a component of that, I also think a psychological screen should be undertaken - potentially with imagery, both to study this problem in greater depth as mass-imagery is available to study, and also to screen out evil-sons-of-bitches who shouldn't have the treat-and-release option available.

That's my complete argument to solution, in a nutshell.

[Irving]

I think we need to narrow down specific points of contention.

[Irving]

There seems to be a lot of research going on now using things like MDMA, Ibogaine, ketamine, and even psilocybin to break addiction. All this research is decades behind due to over reaching government and BS "war on drugs" policies that have prevented these studies in the past. I'm only mentioning this as an example of one of the many failure points of the War of Drugs, not to suggest that toy store shelves should place Barbies between open bottles of bleach and PEZ dispensers filled with fentanyl.

[Skip]

There seems to be a lot of research going on now using things like MDMA, Ibogaine, ketamine, and even psilocybin to break addiction. All this research is decades behind due to over reaching government and BS "war on drugs" policies that have prevented these studies in the past. I'm only mentioning this as an example of one of the many failure points of the War of Drugs, not to suggest that toy store shelves should place Barbies between open bottles of bleach and PEZ dispensers filled with fentanyl.

Which I think is great news for those who want to get clean.

Decriminalizing hard drugs is creating fewer incentives to get clean. The hand wringers/statists seem to be completely pre-occupied with finding ways to spread the consequences around than finding solutions.

[FoxtArt]

There seems to be a lot of research going on now using things like MDMA, Ibogaine, ketamine, and even psilocybin to break addiction. All this research is decades behind due to over reaching government and BS "war on drugs" policies that have prevented these studies in the past. I'm only mentioning this as an example of one of the many failure points of the War of Drugs, not to suggest that toy store shelves should place Barbies between open bottles of bleach and PEZ dispensers filled with fentanyl.

Not in disagreement there. I don't advocate for the "war on drugs", only against the extreme libertarian opposite LET THE WEAK DIE!

Most importantly I think unbiased research is incredibly important, the most important, and we need to be collecting a ton of real data for it. To some extent, I think as long as people knowingly consent and a study has some level of predictable safe outcome, we need to lift some [not all] of the "ethical" constraints on human trials. I also strongly wished there was a much better dedicated effort to study the living brains [magnetic] of addicts of all types, so that all kinds of advanced research could be undertaken in addition to a deep-learning/AI direction. I recognize it would be incredibly expensive, but a lack of real understanding of the facets of the issues is far more expensive (compounding), as is ignoring the problem altogether.

One of the best solutions to a negative chemical dependence is likely replacing it with a less-dangerous, or hopefully, nearly harmless chemical dependence. The addiction cycle of biology almost requires it. And like I was inferring, each isolated camp is wrong , but not entirely wrong - including the "war on drugs" camp. Criminalization of dangerous, highly addictive substances that serve no known benefit is important [especially in concert with other crimes]; but they also shouldn't be shunned or isolated from research. Likewise, merely being addicted shouldn't automatically send someone to prison for a long time, ala- three strikes. There are people who truly do manage their addiction and lead productive, perhaps shorter lives. That is their right to (libertarians are not entirely wrong). The compromise is to have severe penalties for the combination of drugs + illegal behaviors, simply so that we can overcome the constitutional burden to long enough involuntary institutionalization and treatment, as an alternative to a lengthy prison term.

[Irving]

I think that there is a much larger conversation here. Kind of like changing the legal system so that felons that have done their time can vote when they get out. There are lots of things wrong with society, and any "fixes" shouldn't be viewed as cure alls because they clearly are not.