Portugal's approach to drug use and abuse.

[Gilligan]

I found this very interesting.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radical-drugs-policy-is-working-why-hasnt-the-world-copied-it

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Portugal’s policy rests on three pillars: one, that there’s no such thing as a soft or hard drug, only healthy and unhealthy relationships with drugs; two, that an individual’s unhealthy relationship with drugs often conceals frayed relationships with loved ones, with the world around them, and with themselves; and three, that the eradication of all drugs is an impossible goal.

This is why Portugal's policy is frowned upon here; the fact that many American's (especially politicians) believe the opposite of these things. The fact that so many in the legal system (and political system for that matter) rely on the war on drugs to maintin/gain power, gain money or things of value, gain cool military surplus gear like armored vehicles and guns and whatever else, maintain jobs, etc. are all goals by our government and their actors in this war on drugs.

Until Americans see this war for what it really is, nothing will change here, regardless of the success this type of system has in other countries/places.

 

[vraiblonde]

That is a super long article that didn't grab me in the first few paragraphs, and therefore I don't want to waste 6 hours reading it only to find it's a bunch of blather. From Chris' excerpt, that all sounds well and good but considering how our government and media work in the US, I don't trust these "facts and figures" about "how successful" some thing is. "They" tried to say that about the Netherlands, and yet the man on the street says Amsterdam is a junkie #### hole. We see how our press tries to polish the turd that is Baltimore, yet we've seen for ourselves what a roached out ghetto it is in many MANY areas.

I honestly don't give a crap if people want to destroy their lives with drugs. Their life, their problem. It's when they make it MY problem that I take notice. No, you cannot have my money so you can buy drugs. No, you cannot have my valuables to sell so that you can buy drugs. No, you can't assault me because you're high on drugs.

My solution would be that these people can shoot up whatever they please - drain cleaner, have at it. But the second they make their problem someone else's problem, they get executed.

BOOM. Drug problem solved.

Chris, you come up with all these reasons why "we" don't want to "solve" our drug epidemic, when the truth is all we want is to not be victimized by junkies. It is literally that simple.

 

[GURPS]

Chris, you come up with all these reasons why "we" don't want to "solve" our drug epidemic, when the truth is all we want is to not be victimized by junkies. It is literally that simple.

shoot up all you want, don't involve me in your degradation

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Chris, you come up with all these reasons why "we" don't want to "solve" our drug epidemic, when the truth is all we want is to not be victimized by junkies. It is literally that simple.

If that were true, we wouldn't spend the time we do arguing that peopel should or shouldn't be locked up for posessing somethign our govt. deems illegal.

No one wants to be victimized by junkies, but that becomes another crime altogether. We, as a country, have this idea that pre-emptively locking up people for simple drug use or posession will curtail junkies victimizing people. I don't agree with that.

 

[vraiblonde]

If that were true, we wouldn't spend the time we do arguing that peopel should or shouldn't be locked up for posessing somethign our govt. deems illegal.

Chris, we want them locked up so they'll leave us alone. I thought I made that perfectly clear in my last post and I'm not sure how I can clarify it further for you.

We, as a country, have this idea that pre-emptively locking up people for simple drug use or posession will curtail junkies victimizing people. I don't agree with that.

You do not agree that keeping a junkie locked up will prevent them from victimizing others? I don't know what to say about that.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

You do not agree that keeping a junkie locked up will prevent them from victimizing others? I don't know what to say about that.

No. I do not agree that just because someone is a junkie means they are going to victimize people at every turn.

Does it happen? Yes, but what you're advocating for is nothing but a perpetual cycle. Lock someone up for posessing. Lock someone up for using. Then act all surprised they didn't turn their life around and find Jesus in jail, only to lock them up again if and when they #### up.

I believe in a system that exists to find ways to get people off the drugs without needing to lock up the users who haven't harmed or victimized anyone. I believe this is the best "bang for your buck" for society.

Not to mention the side effects of decriminalizing drugs which I've gone into great lenghts before.

 

[vraiblonde]

No. I do not agree that just because someone is a junkie means they are going to victimize people at every turn.

That's not the question I asked. Go back, read it this time, and try again. I have no interest in having a discussion with the voices in your head.

 

[Dakota]

Chris, we want them locked up so they'll leave us alone. I thought I made that perfectly clear in my last post and I'm not sure how I can clarify it further for you.



You do not agree that keeping a junkie locked up will prevent them from victimizing others? I don't know what to say about that.

Our state is no longer locking up junkies.

Now you want to know what was long? Reading all this and listening to all the hearings on this being passed.
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?id=SB1005&stab=01&pid=billpage&ys=2016RS

In a nutshell, the Reader's Digest verision of this all is that addicts are being released back into the community over and over again and the courts & parole and probation are, by law, required to keep pushing them back into treatment. Now it takes a great deal of history to get a person locked back up in the prisions based only on thier drug usage... even when you know it is a matter of time they will rob and steal to get money for drugs.

So Chris, whatcha bitching about? Looks like JRA is in 32 or 33 states now so only time will tell if this law was the right move or not.


The states just want to lock up less people to save money. Drug usage is expensive. Prisions are expensive. Courts are expensive. But... so is all this drug treatment on the tax payer's dime.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

That's not the question I asked. Go back, read it this time, and try again. I have no interest in having a discussion with the voices in your head.

And I have no interest discussing this with someone who believes that all junkies victimize people. You're the one that said we lock drug users and posessors to "leave us alone".

No, again, I don't believe locking up junkies means they won't victimize us. There always have, and always will be users of substances who victimize in order to obtain them. It happens no only with illegal substances like drugs, but legal ones.

So Chris, whatcha bitching about? Looks like JRA is in 32 or 33 states now so only time will tell if this law was the right move or not.


The states just want to lock up less people to save money. Drug usage is expensive. Prisions are expensive. Courts are expensive. But... so is all this drug treatment on the tax payer's dime.

The issue isn't about simply not locking them up. The whole premise of Portugal's program is treatment. You get caught with drugs and a team of doctors and others determine if you need help, then tell you to get it if that is determined.

Regardless if people are being locked up (I mean, we see a drug arrest on just about every "police blotter" post on this very forum), the guise of this drug war is used in a number of ways so the govt. gets more power over citizens. They promote scare tactics in order to frighten the populous into believing that heavy-handed govt. and incarceration is the only effective method to enforce behavior that same govt. deems not okay. Regardless of actual data and evidence that shows decades of this method has not worked.

Locking people up does not save money. Studies have shown that offering treatment and getting people clean in order for them to return as an active member of society costs less to society than simply jailing them. Locking people up is the simple way to push unsavory people out of society's view.

 

[Kyle]

Methadone isn't treatment.

It just changes the name of your dealer to begin with "doctor"

 

[luvmygdaughters]

No. I do not agree that just because someone is a junkie means they are going to victimize people at every turn.

Does it happen? Yes, but what you're advocating for is nothing but a perpetual cycle. Lock someone up for posessing. Lock someone up for using. Then act all surprised they didn't turn their life around and find Jesus in jail, only to lock them up again if and when they #### up.

I believe in a system that exists to find ways to get people off the drugs without needing to lock up the users who haven't harmed or victimized anyone. I believe this is the best "bang for your buck" for society.

Not to mention the side effects of decriminalizing drugs which I've gone into great lenghts before.

Well, what about the ones who overdose just about everytime they use? Thats a perpetual circle...shoot up...overdose...narcam....shoot up again....rinse and repeat!! How do you stop that??

 

[stgislander]

I found this very interesting.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radical-drugs-policy-is-working-why-hasnt-the-world-copied-it

You posted this on purpose didn't cha?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Well, what about the ones who overdose just about everytime they use? Thats a perpetual circle...shoot up...overdose...narcam....shoot up again....rinse and repeat!! How do you stop that??

The question is, as a free country, and assuming the OD'er isn't harming anyone, why should we stop it?

We just saw two people post that they don't give a #### if someone uses drugs as long as it doesn't affect them.



I find it a bit funny that when we discuss drugs, suddenly this country is built on some moral foundation and cares about how much money we spend. I know where your point is going, and what your next point will be. Again, while this sort of thing certainly happens, I don't believe it's at some crazy high level to the point one can argue govt. resources are being taxed from those ODs. Not unless that argument is followed or precluded by the obvious fact that obesity, car crashes, and a large number of other things tax govt. resources as well.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

You posted this on purpose didn't cha?

Had to. We've missed a good drug debate with the same talking points and Portugal as an example.

 

[luvmygdaughters]

The question is, as a free country, and assuming the OD'er isn't harming anyone, why should we stop it?

We just saw two people post that they don't give a #### if someone uses drugs as long as it doesn't affect them.



I find it a bit funny that when we discuss drugs, suddenly this country is built on some moral foundation and cares about how much money we spend. I know where your point is going, and what your next point will be. Again, while this sort of thing certainly happens, I don't believe it's at some crazy high level to the point one can argue govt. resources are being taxed from those ODs. Not unless that argument is followed or precluded by the obvious fact that obesity, car crashes, and a large number of other things tax govt. resources as well.

Yes, but, it does affect them, if their tax dollars are being used to insure this drug addict has a "safe infusion area" to shoot up, and if he/she overdoses for the umpteenth time, who is paying for the narcam they are receiving? Again...our/ my tax dollars. So yes, they are affecting me. The way I look at it, I'm supporting them while they are in jail, I'm supporting them when they overdose, more than likely, I'm supporting their children with food and a place to live. It all comes back to who is footing the bill for this.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Yes, but, it does affect them, if their tax dollars are being used to insure this drug addict has a "safe infusion area" to shoot up, and if he/she overdoses for the umpteenth time, who is paying for the narcam they are receiving? Again...our/ my tax dollars. So yes, they are affecting me. The way I look at it, I'm supporting them while they are in jail, I'm supporting them when they overdose, more than likely, I'm supporting their children with food and a place to live. It all comes back to who is footing the bill for this.

There's a million things I don't want my tax dollars going to, but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about Liberty.

You can't go into court and ask to lock someone up because you feel victimized by that person based on how the govt. uses our collective tax dollars.

I don't agree on a war on drugs, but my tax dollars are supporting it. Am I being victimized by the govt. and those people who agree with the war on drugs? No, because I recognize that the role of govt. is to collect tax money for the greater good. I don't have to agree with how it's collected or used, but until our government decides it wants to start limiting spending of our tax money, I have no dog in the fight.

We all, collectively, foot the bill for every facet of this drug battle. Law creation, enforcement, judges, public defenders, jails, treatment, ambulatory care, children, food, etc. everything is covered by us. If your argument is that govt. should spend the least amount possible, why aren't you in favor of a system where personal responsibility takes the center stage and people who actually hurt someone are held accountable or when people hurt themselves we, as a country, are putting faith into that person(s) to become a functioning member of society again instead of a system that punishes even the most functional, taxpaying memeber of society simply because they use or posess something the govt. told them not to? The idea that all drugs can be erradicated, or that all drug users will simply get high at their own home and not affect anyone else is a pipe dream, but it's better than the idea that the govt. is the only thing that can rid society of something that has literally been around since the beginning of civilization. That idea has led to warrantless road blocks, SWAT teams used all the time, civil asset forefiture, growing budgets, etc. all of which cost tax dollars.

 

[Hijinx]

The Liberty to use drugs. What a great freedom that is.
The14 and 15 year olds who get hooked or who carry the drugs for the dealer so he doesn't get caught with them.
The young girl who exchanges sex for drugs.Ends up with a pimp supplier, and in the sex business.
The young mother who addicts her fetus.
The kids driving on the street hyped up and kills someone.
The young father who gets drugs but cannot afford to pay the rent
The young couple trying to care for a child , and infant while waiting for the ambulance to pick up whichever one is overdosed at the time.
Drugs are usually prevalent among the young because you seldom see an old junkie. They mostly don't live that long.
The driver of a car who rear ends a car and when the 1st responders get there they still have the needle in their arm.
The kids watching CPR given to a parent and Narcan getting shot up their nose.

Yes narcotics use is a great freedom. Lets make it legal.
While we are at it why can't I just prescribe anti-biotics to myself.
Why do we need to go to a Doctor for a prescription when we can look on the internet and see what we want or need.
If Heroin is legal so should penicillin be.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

The Liberty to use drugs. What a great freedom that is.
The14 and 15 year olds who get hooked or who carry the drugs for the dealer so he doesn't get caught with them.
The young girl who exchanges sex for drugs.Ends up with a pimp supplier, and in the sex business.
The young mother who addicts her fetus.
The kids driving on the street hyped up and kills someone.
The young father who gets drugs but cannot afford to pay the rent
The young couple trying to care for a child , and infant while waiting for the ambulance to pick up whichever one is overdosed at the time.
Drugs are usually prevalent among the young because you seldom see an old junkie. They mostly don't live that long.
The driver of a car who rear ends a car and when the 1st responders get there they still have the needle in their arm.
The kids watching CPR given to a parent and Narcan getting shot up their nose.

Yes narcotics use is a great freedom. Lets make it legal.
While we are at it why can't I just prescribe anti-biotics to myself.
Why do we need to go to a Doctor for a prescription when we can look on the internet and see what we want or need.
If Heroin is legal so should penicillin be.

Are you saying all those things are bad only if they involve drugs, and not, say alcohol or cigarettes?

Is there anything that embodies freedom more than choosing to put into your own body what you wish?

Just so you're aware, drugs aren't "legal" in Portugal.

 

[Hijinx]

Are you saying all those things are bad only if they involve drugs, and not, say alcohol or cigarettes?

Is there anything that embodies freedom more than choosing to put into your own body what you wish?

Just so you're aware, drugs aren't "legal" in Portugal.

I am saying people who use drugs are the ones most likely to be high when they are needed. Needed by their children , their families,needed to be responsible human beings.

I understand you like drugs and want an opportunity to use them without threat of arrest.
But drugs are dangerous to yourself and others.
Even Doctors get hooked,and they should know better.
There is no such thing as a recreational drug that will not hook you.

So you want the freedom to put things in your body .
The opportunity to turn your brain into mush
Go ahead do it. Don't let the law stop you.
You want to #### up your life be my guest, just don't encourage others by making it legal.