Seattle Has Figured Out How To End the War On Drugs (nytimes.com) 316
Nicholas Kristof writes in an opinion piece for The New York Times about Seattle's "bold approach to narcotics that should be a model for America." Instead of being prosecuted for being caught with small amounts of drugs, that person is steered toward social services to get help. "In effect, Seattle is decriminalizing the use of hard drugs," writes Kristof. "It is relying less on the criminal justice toolbox to deal with hard drugs and more on the public health toolbox." From the report: This model is becoming the consensus preference among public health experts in the U.S. and abroad. Still, it shocks many Americans to see no criminal penalty for using drugs illegally, so it takes courage and vision to adopt this approach: a partial retreat in the war on drugs coupled with a stepped-up campaign against addiction. The number of opioid users has surged, and more Americans now die each year from overdoses than perished in the Vietnam, Afghan and Iraq wars combined. And that doesn't account for the way drug addiction has ripped apart families and stunted children's futures. More than two million children in America live with a parent suffering from an illicit-drug dependency.
So Seattle is undertaking what feels like the beginning of a historic course correction, with other cities discussing how to follow. This could be far more consequential than the legalization of pot: By some estimates, nearly half of Americans have a family member or close friend enmeshed in addiction, and if the experiment in Seattle succeeds, we'll have a chance to rescue America from our own failed policies. Decriminalization is unfolding here in part because of Dan Satterberg, the prosecuting attorney for King County, which includes Seattle. It's also arguably underway because of what happened to his little sister, Shelley Kay Satterberg. At the age of 14, Shelley ran away from home because her parents wouldn't let her go to a concert on a school night. It was a rebellion that proved devastating. She was away for several months, was gang-raped by two men, was introduced to hard drugs and began to self-medicate with those drugs to deal with the trauma of rape. Dan told me that he was angry at Shelley -- angry that she had made terrible choices, angry that she had hurt their parents. But over time he also concluded that his own approach of prosecuting drug users accomplished little, except that it isolated them from the family and friends who offered the best support system to escape addiction. The report mentions a program called Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) that appears to be working. It was started in 2011 by Satterberg and others and has spread across the country, with 59 localities now offering LEAD initiatives or rolling them out. "The idea is that instead of simply arresting drug users for narcotics or prostitution, police officers watch for those who are nonviolent and want help, and divert them to social service programs and intensive case management," writes Kristof.
One 2017 peer-reviewed study found that drug users assigned to the program "were 58 percent less likely to be rearrested, compared with a control group." It also found that "participants were almost twice as likely to have housing as they had been before entering LEAD, and 46 percent more likely to be employed or getting job training." And while it costs about $350 per month per participant to provide case managers, it is still cheaper than jail, courts and costs associated with homelessness.
So Seattle is undertaking what feels like the beginning of a historic course correction, with other cities discussing how to follow. This could be far more consequential than the legalization of pot: By some estimates, nearly half of Americans have a family member or close friend enmeshed in addiction, and if the experiment in Seattle succeeds, we'll have a chance to rescue America from our own failed policies. Decriminalization is unfolding here in part because of Dan Satterberg, the prosecuting attorney for King County, which includes Seattle. It's also arguably underway because of what happened to his little sister, Shelley Kay Satterberg. At the age of 14, Shelley ran away from home because her parents wouldn't let her go to a concert on a school night. It was a rebellion that proved devastating. She was away for several months, was gang-raped by two men, was introduced to hard drugs and began to self-medicate with those drugs to deal with the trauma of rape. Dan told me that he was angry at Shelley -- angry that she had made terrible choices, angry that she had hurt their parents. But over time he also concluded that his own approach of prosecuting drug users accomplished little, except that it isolated them from the family and friends who offered the best support system to escape addiction. The report mentions a program called Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) that appears to be working. It was started in 2011 by Satterberg and others and has spread across the country, with 59 localities now offering LEAD initiatives or rolling them out. "The idea is that instead of simply arresting drug users for narcotics or prostitution, police officers watch for those who are nonviolent and want help, and divert them to social service programs and intensive case management," writes Kristof.
One 2017 peer-reviewed study found that drug users assigned to the program "were 58 percent less likely to be rearrested, compared with a control group." It also found that "participants were almost twice as likely to have housing as they had been before entering LEAD, and 46 percent more likely to be employed or getting job training." And while it costs about $350 per month per participant to provide case managers, it is still cheaper than jail, courts and costs associated with homelessness.
Portugal. Enough said. (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.ted.com/talks/joha... [ted.com]
Finally some good news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Can this please be implemented via Congress nationwide.
This whole war on drugs is, to paraphrase someone who needs to try some, "sad".
Re:Finally some good news... (Score:4, Insightful)
>"Can this please be implemented via Congress nationwide."
It is not a Federal power (see Constitution).
>"This whole war on drugs is, to paraphrase someone who needs to try some, "sad"."
Of course, the "war on drugs" isn't a Federal power either. Hmmm....
Anyway, I think decriminalization of "hard" drugs is a good idea. If it works, other areas will likely follow suit. Perhaps it won't work well in all areas, or work better applied differently. This is one of many reasons that such things SHOULD be handled on the local level.
Re: (Score:2)
While I happen to agree with you on this, my opinion and your opinion do not matter. The only group of people whose opinion matters (the Justices of the Supreme Court) disagree with you.
Re:Finally some good news... (Score:4, Insightful)
If the federal ban on certain drugs is constitutional, then Prohibition would have been legal without the 18th Amendment.
Re:Finally some good news... (Score:4, Insightful)
>"If the federal ban on certain drugs is constitutional, then Prohibition would have been legal without the 18th Amendment."
Exactly. What made Prohibition constitutional was that they went through the actual, proper way to grant a Federal power- by amending the Constitution. Of course, it was a STUPID amendment, but they figured it out, eventually.
But for many, many decades, the Fed just does pretty much whatever it wants, and the Supreme Court has allowed it through its ridiculous "interpretation" which runs contrary to the writing and spirit of the Constitution. Hopefully that will now change more. Of course, they have to deal with some very long precedents, unfortunately.
Anyone who studies the Founders knows they would be horrified by the size and scope of the modern Federal government and what they have become. And no, it is not about Slavery- that could clearly have been stuck down without turning the Fed into a monster that interferes with healthcare, education, wages, voting procedures, sets speed limits and so many thousands of other things that are "reserved to the States or to the People." One would think the 10th Amendment (part of the Bill of Rights) doesn't even exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The British parliament forced China to legalize drugs after the Opium Wars in the 19th Century. How did that work out?
Re: (Score:2)
We did sell a lot of opium.
Re: (Score:3)
Seattle is dying (Score:3, Informative)
https://www.youtube.com/result... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Since Tucker Carlson says so - it must be true!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Seattle is dying (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Seattle is dying (Score:5, Insightful)
This measure may help. The normal order has been drug use -> arrest and conviction -> inability to get a job -> homelessness and more drug use -> shitting on the sidewalk.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there any reason to believe that re-ordering the steps will help, in the long run? If the underlying problems are not addressed by the provided therapy, it won't help, anymore than opioid laced nostrums helped hair loss.
Re: (Score:2)
If the underlying problems are not addressed by the provided therapy, it won't help, anymore than opioid laced nostrums helped hair loss.
Yeah, but if you're flying high on opiates, you don't even give a damn about your hair loss.
So the problem has effectively been solved.
Of course, now that you are an opiate addict . . . you have a bigger problem now.
But then again, if you are occupied with your concern about being an opiate addict . . . you won't have time to worry about your hair loss.
Re:Seattle is dying (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there any reason to believe that re-ordering the steps will help
Yes. Many jurisdictions have lessened or eliminated criminal penalties for drugs: Netherlands, Vancouver, Uruguay, Portugal. It is not a panacea, but it is better than drug prohibition and incarceration.
Arresting people for drugs and pushing them onto the criminal justice treadmill is expensive and counterproductive, since it virtually ensures that their lives will be worse, and whatever pushed them into drug use will now be aggravated by unemployability and alienated families and friends.
Our prisons are crime factories. We need to collectively stand up to the PIC [wikipedia.org] and stop the insanity.
The only workable alternative to decriminalization and medicalization of drug use is Singapore style death penalties, and that isn't going to happen in America.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you point to any actual numbers? I'm afraid that your claims sound like a political campaign. Many treatment facilities fail, _miserably_, depite the high hopes of their founders. Many drug treatment regimes, and drug treatment centers overwhilmingly fail. There are successes, but I suggest that they don't deserve automatic support. They should be evaluated on the effectiveness of their treatment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Vancouver isn't a country. And Canada has a unified criminal code, meaning that unlike say the US, if you commit a crime in Toronto the weight of that crime is the same in Vancouver(across the country), there is no weighting or individual indictable offences(felonies) by province. To put it bluntly, Vancouver, BC, Canada is like San Fransisco, CA, USA. Except in Canada's case, it's the only city in the country where if you get doped out of your tree, the chances of you freezing to death are greatly red
Re:Seattle is dying (Score:5, Interesting)
While some people just can't be helped, by skipping the arrest and conviction -> inability to get a job, at least some who manage to kick the habit in treatment will have an actual shot at a better life that reduces the temptation to fall back into drugs.
It's worth noting that WWI produced many involuntary heroin addicts. After the war, they remained addicts the whole time they held down a job, raised a family, and otherwise were contributing members of society.
Like the WWI vets, many (but hardly all) addicts today first got hooked when taking prescribed opiates. The only thing prison will do "for" them is throw them into a pit they never manage to climb out of.
Re: (Score:3)
Like the WWI vets, many (but hardly all) addicts today first got hooked when taking prescribed opiates. The only thing prison will do "for" them is throw them into a pit they never manage to climb out of.
That's a line of bullshit. Most WWI vets who got hooked, were given drugs like morphine or short-salt derivatives which have a very high addiction rate naturally. Most people who get 'hooked' in the last 20 years did so because they use them recreationally, then get into cycle of chasing the next high - then chasing a more potent drug to get that next high. Remember all those targeted don't pop pills PSA's from 10, 15 years ago? Yep. From that point, it became a literal industry in the US because the fol
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually more expensive than you'd imagine. The construction costs for public toilets are bad enough, but you also need to have someone inspect them on a regular basis, and clean them. All of which comes from the city budget, usually stretched thin already, and the project also needs to be justified to politicians and voters who actively want to see drug users suffer. A few cities even ended up forced to get ridiculously-expensive techno-toilets with automatic door openers and a mechanism to flood the floor
Tucker and the video tend to ignore (Score:5, Interesting)
We blame it on drugs because the mentally ill often do drugs, but that's just putting the cart before the horse. Poor people with mental problems take drugs to cope.
And before you accuse me of being uninformed, I've got several friends with severe mental illness. Some of them on a wide range of pills. From time to time the pills stop working. Moreover the big thing nobody realizes about mental illness is this: it's not 24/7, 365 days a year. The mentally ill have long periods of lucidity. During that time they remember their bouts with insanity like it was a dream or something. But that makes it worse. If you're foaming at the mouth 24/7 nobody faults you. But if you're batshit crazy 3 months out of the year at random and sane the rest of the time folks just think you're fakin' it.
And at any rate nobody just shits on the sidewalk out of anything other than mental illness.
As for why Seattle has a problem with homelessness, you're climate mostly lets them survive (in the Southwest and back east the eat and cold will kill a lot of the crazies) and your police don't bust their heads (in my city we don't have the same problems because we'll take all your stuff, burn it, drive you out of city limits and leave you).
So you've got 3 options. 1) leave things as it is and keep calling security, 2) bring back the asylums and put more resources to housing them and 3) police brutality. Any of them will work, but you're gonna have to pick one.
Re: (Score:3)
You are 100% right. Closing the asylums in the 80s is a huge factor.
Actually it was mostly Reagan (Score:2)
Not quite. That was 1950s. Killed proposal in 1980 (Score:5, Informative)
On the 1950s there was a movement toward out-patient treatment and away from locking people up in insane asylums. Then again in the late 1960s, and most of the state asylums were closed. For good reason - the system nearly guarantees horrible abuse.
In October of 1980, a month before Reagan was elected, Carter signed a bill which would have provided funding for asylums, starting the next year. A few months later, Reagan signed an omnibus budget which didn't include Carter's new program. Which simply mean that the new funding Carter had signed *months earlier* never happened.
There were no asylums built with Carter money in October and torn down in November. Democrat talking points at the time implied that there were, but of course that's ridiculous. The Republicans simply decided not to implement a NEW program that the Democrats had wanted.
How that program would have gone we'll never know. We do know about the horrible abuses that caused the closure of the asylums in the 1950s and 1960s.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It was in the 1960s and 70s that the ACLU successfully sued to have the mental asylums closed down. [wikipedia.org]
The state hospitals incarcerated non-criminals against their wills in inhumane conditions. This was a violation of due process and their civil liberties. There is STILL public funding for mental institutions. However, people now must either be there because they are a danger to themselves or others, they have voluntarily checked in, or they are criminally insane. Especially now that we have drugs to su
Re: (Score:2)
the main cause of homelessness, which isn't just mental illness, but closing the asylums back in the 80s.
Arguably the main cause of homelessness is not enough homes. If you have 10 million people and 9 million places for them to live, you're going to have 1 million homeless people. Yeah, homeless people have mental issues (don't we all) but a lot of them can still manage to hold down a job, or at least make enough money for rent if there were a place that didn't cost as much as a liver.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not a tucker fan, nor fox news for that matter.. I live here. Daily, my wife has to call security to chase homeless encamped in the entry way to her office - followed by maintenance to clean up human crap. DAILY. Watch the video (ya, it's hour) or keep your uninformed opinions to yourself.
Yeah I live here too. My personal opinion is that a lot of the homeless problem in Washington state (and yes, it isn't confined to Seattle - it's a problem in conservative areas of the state as well) has more to do with Washington state law - the near impossibility of getting treatment for the mentally ill unless they do something criminal or are self-aware enough to commit themselves - than Seattle city policy.
Re: (Score:3)
James d'Orma Braman 1969
Last Republican mayor of Memphis:
John Loague 1876
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Re:Seattle is dying (Score:5, Informative)
That was an ideologically driven video, by Sinclair, and they were so sure of their conclusions they didn't even bother checking if the people they were filming were actually homeless [crosscut.com].
Yes, Seattle has some serious homelessness problems, and most of that is because Seattle has some serious affordability problems, driven by a lack of land, and a lot of Tech companies driving up housing and rental prices. At the moment, to be able to find a place to live if you make minimum wage, you have to live at least an hour outside of the city, likely more.
If the city is dying, it's because it's being murdered by Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft and Google, not by drugs and homeless people. They're a symptom of the problem, not the cause of it.
Re: (Score:2)
That was an ideologically driven video, by Sinclair, and they were so sure of their conclusions they didn't even bother checking if the people they were filming were actually homeless.
So the worst inaccuracy in the movie is one person, who is not even speaking? Basically, the movie is spot-on then.
As for Amazon and Facebook - Olympia and Tacoma that have no Amazon or Facebook offices are also getting overrun by druggies. While Bellevue which has a non-nonsense police is relatively bum-free, yet there are plenty of large companies in that area.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe after housing prices implode and people are walking away from homes I shall buy one.
Re: Seattle is dying (Score:2)
Well duh, anybody who has been there even once since 1998 knows this. Everywhere there's a sidewalk or a patch of grass, there's a hobo. The solution to this is obvious:
Send them to San Francisco. Everybody in San Francisco has a highly exaggerated sense of social consciousness, and they'll even tell you that they love the homeless and will welcome them with open wallets!
Netherlands has been doing this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the Netherlands has been doing this for years. Regardless, addiction should be treated as a medical problem, not a criminal one. I hope this becomes the standard policy for drug addiction across the country.
The drug laws is all about money and how existing addiction industry (alcohol, tobacco, sugary foods) makes more profit. A person who has tasted hard drug won't go back to alcohol - it's too low fun (also you will find the stupidity of all the ill-effects/hangover/liver). Similar to how a happy person won't push for wars. So to protect your industry, you lobby to ensure your competition does not raise its head.
Re: Netherlands has been doing this (Score:3, Insightful)
Absolutely not. Under no circumstances is this a good idea or morally just. If someone decided to make bad decisions that end up harming innocent people or infringing on their rights, it's game over and they should be removed from society, since they can't be trusted to reside in it.
Must be nice to think that way because it's not your stuff you're thinking their stealing. It's someone else's. I guarantee if some homeless person stole your wallet you would be upset.
I don't owe these people shit. They made ba
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Netherlands has been doing this (Score:5, Informative)
They've had petty good results with free heroin here in Vancouver as well. Seems that once the junkie doesn't have to spend all their time and energy on getting the next hit, they can be functioning members of society. Biggest problem is the right wingers freaking out.
Re:Netherlands has been doing this (Score:5, Insightful)
So pray tell, what pays for law enforcement and prisons? The Conservative Fairy?
Re: (Score:2)
How much more tax should they pay to a city become like a nation in the EU?
Should a city take from city law enforcement and prisons budgets to offer free health care for all?
Just free care for addicts? Depends on the addiction?
Free healthcare are for addiction 9 to 5? Full 24 hours shifts?
A handbook on what addiction is? Computer game addiction too? Just a list of blood test detec
Re: (Score:3)
I notice you dodge the question.
Re: (Score:3)
Good taxes. Good taxes pay for punishment, and don't count when it comes to tax cuts. Bad taxes pay for helping people. The outcome is irrelevant, only the punishment counts.
Wrong headline! (Score:5, Funny)
We Would Like To Congratulate Drugs for Winning the War On Drugs [pics.me.me]
Come on Slashdot, stop letting us down. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
BS flag waived (Score:4, Insightful)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
enjoy
Secondly... what does this liberal propaganda have to do with tech and why is this on
Re: (Score:2)
If the city is really so far left, why are the mental hospitals shut down?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but that didn't come from the left.
Re:BS flag waived (Score:4, Interesting)
Capitulation is, after all, one way to end a war.
Re:BS flag waived (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:BS flag waived (Score:4, Insightful)
Secondly... what does this liberal propaganda have to do with tech and why is this on /.? Can we go back to what this site is suppose to be about?
Because the editors are leftist, and they use their platform to promote their politics.
In their defense (maybe?) , they probably don't think they are being political. After all, leftists politics is just good ol' common sense to them. (If we respond or disagree, we are being political though, strangely enough.)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: BS flag waived (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The video is 1 hour long. Could you cite a timestamp in the video that supports your claim?
Re: (Score:2)
You're that busy?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.dailyuw.com/wellnes... [dailyuw.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Not that many people care that they're homeless. They care that they steal shit 24x7 and the drugs make them fucking crazy and sociopathic.
The majority of Americans already want it ended (Score:2)
The hard part is getting people to vote for the kinds of politicians who will do what needs to be done. So far people have either wanted to vote for pro-drug war people or willing to look the other way on such candidates for the sake of other issues. Until it becomes a deal breaker and a career ender like being an overt racist or a literal Nazi we're not going to have legal weed. The best we can hope for is a few pockets of sanity, but even t
Seattle also has a horrible homeless problem (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Well it helps solve everyone else's homeless problem, they'll migrate to Seattle.
Re: (Score:2)
This is, indeed, a real problem, and the Supreme Court has said that cities and counties have no right to limit their benefit to residents. Until that decision lots of places had decent ways to handle the problem, but now nobody dares to be the "most liberal", because if they are, they'll end up needing to support the entire country.
Re: (Score:2)
It is just as bad here, zombies camping on the sides of the streets, but there aren't very many jail beds available.
Behavior is getting more brazen, because there are so many zombies now.
Nobody is going to get funding to jail all the zombies in the current political climate with tax breaks and partisan deadlock and all that.
It would probably be a lot cheaper to build a giant hospital with free drugs and healthcare and entertainment where they can't leave. Most of them would be really happy with it.
War on drugs (Score:2)
We have brought peace for our time.
What if they don't want help? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, assuming Seattle goes ahead with this, how about they balance it out by doubling down on punishment for the drug dealers? How about seizing all of a drug dealers' assets and using that to fund their forced rehab program, since that isn't going to be free? Otherwise wouldn't they just be creating an infinite loop of the same problem over and over again? John Doe gets picked up for heroin possession, they put him in rehab, he gets clean (whether he wanted to or not), they at some point release him, drug dealers go to work on him, two weeks later he's shooting heroin again. What would be the point?
Re: (Score:2)
Believe it or not, not every drug user thinks they've got a problem, or they don't care; what do you do with these people? 'Helping' someone who doesn't want your 'help' is not 'helping them'. On the subject of substance addiction, is any amount of rehab going to do any long-term good if the substance abuser in question isn't on board with the process to begin with? Forcing someone down a path 'for their own good' rarely works. I suppose if they tell drug users who are caught, "Your choice, either go into rehab and make a committment to get clean and stay clean or go to jail, that might work.
I'm tired of people that provide some outlying hypothetical situation and claim whatever change talking about won't work because of it. It doesn't need to work for every person. It just needs to be an improvement over the old system. The summary even reports on a study showing the improvements of the new system.
Re: (Score:2)
Not actually such an outlier. There is a fair point in that one, along with your point that just because those cases exist, doesn't mean that the policy of assistance to people self medicating with drugs should be prevented.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that all drugs should be legal. You know the score up front what they'll do to you. You pick them up in the local pharmacy, which carries all the health warnings under the sun. They'll then be a known clean source of a known purity (avoiding huge amoun
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Because of the insane stuff people do while drugged up. But yes, that's been proven long ago not to be a successful strategy (it's prohibition all over again).
What would help with that aspect is if being on drugs and committing a crime is treated as an aggravating factor, not a mitigating one. I.e. if you assault someone while on drugs, the fact you were high isn't treated as something to be taken into consideration as you were temporarily not fully compus mentis, it would be tacking extra penalties onto
Re:What if they don't want help? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What would help with that aspect is if being on drugs and committing a crime is treated as an aggravating factor
That sounds like an excellent way for criminal justice to be a part of the solution. Criminalizing the drugs themselves has been ineffective but once there's a conviction for a different crime a court would have the power to deal with an addict without worrying about their consent.
Re: (Score:3)
Now, assuming Seattle goes ahead with this, how about they balance it out by doubling down on punishment for the drug dealers? How about seizing all of a drug dealers' assets and using that to fund their forced rehab program, since that isn't going to be free?
This just doesn't work. Most drug dealers are desperate homeless or unemployed people, and there's no lack of them. Enforcement against drug dealers simply drives up the price a little bit.
Any realistic anti-drug program has to target users. The best formula is treatment first and if this doesn't work then it's jail with involuntary treatment. Portugal basically did this with great success.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't have freedom with the freedom to make "bad" choices. That's the whole point; each person chooses.
Maybe we should have a suburban zombie zone for them.
A great idea that won't work (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a great idea that won't work and is in fact doomed to fail for the most part.
That's because the vast majority of addicts don't want to get clean- drugs like crack rewire your brain so the only thing that matters to you is getting high again. They don't want therapy or social services, THEY WANT TO GET HIGH.
What happens is that smoking crack releases a shitload of endorphin, and your endorphin receptors get so swamped that you're basically unable to feel pleasure from anything except a massive endorphin dump (from smoking crack) that swamps them again.
After a certain amount of abuse the receptors get fatigued or burnt out and stop functioning properly. You just don't produce enough endorphins from normal activities to feel any pleasure compared to the massive tidal wave of endorphins that crack causes to be released.
Worse yet is that apparently the receptors don't ever really recover (maybe a tiny bit, but not back to anything resembling normal function).
So yeah, this is a great idea doomed to fail. Most addicts don't want help, unless it's help finding more crack.
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest endorphin release of the day isn't even when you get high, it's when you take a shit. That is what paralyzes you for a brief moment on the toilet when the main business happens. You even lose track of time; seconds go by as if no time passed.
Crackheads have the opposite problem; time moves really slowly. 5 seconds of them jabbering to you is like, 50 seconds of normal talking to them.
The problem is dopamine, and the inability to maintain normal levels without the drugs. There are medications tha
Re: (Score:2)
I saw give them as much Fentanyl as they want and this problem will take care of itself.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it can't possibly work and will only make matters worse, meaning that it's a terrible idea.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
After a certain amount of abuse the receptors get fatigued or burnt out and stop functioning properly. Worse yet is that apparently the receptors don't ever really recover
This happens with normal emotions, too. It's not something special with drugs.
Re:A great idea that won't work (Score:4, Insightful)
That's why susbtitution theraphy is employed: an opioid substitute (usually methadone but in some cases medical grade heroin) is provided in a clinical environment to the addicts who require it, usually long-term drug addicts where a "traditional" rehabilitation would be very likely unsuccessful.
Many were skeptical of such a strategy, until hard facts proved it very effective: https://transformdrugs.org/her... [transformdrugs.org]
Re: (Score:3)
As a long-time resident of the Seattle area, no one would be happier to proclaim, "I was wrong!" than me, but I don't see it happening.
Still, I'm all for it it if it helps, even a little. If it gets just a few people back on track then it would be worth it.
The physical model of addiction also went out in the late 70's - it's a social problem, for the most part.
Part of it is certainly a social problem, but the addictive physical effects of a drug like crack or heroin are a undeniably real thing.
Coming up next: massive hordes of addicts (Score:5, Interesting)
Coming up next: massive hordes of addicts move to Seattle from areas where shooting heroin in public and shoplifting are still illegal. It's like giving benefits to the homeless: only leads to the homeless people moving in. Seattle, with its huge population of homeless and addicts, should think a little further ahead. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Shoplifting isn't legal here. It's just that the SPD won't enforce the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Its a food donation.
Re: (Score:2)
Coming up next: massive hordes of addicts move to Seattle from areas where shooting heroin in public and shoplifting are still illegal. It's like giving benefits to the homeless: only leads to the homeless people moving in. Seattle, with its huge population of homeless and addicts, should think a little further ahead. :-)
Switzerland did this years ago, and received the same sort of dire predictions. Never happened. I think perhaps mostly because homeless people and addicts are mostly not able to think clearly enough to decide to move, and unable to scrape together the resources or will to do it if they do decide.
Re: (Score:2)
They're being helped along by other jurisdictions: Portland has been known to buy one way bus tickets to Seattle to get rid of their own homeless population.
Also, lest you forget, US of A in no way resembles Switzerland.
Re: (Score:2)
Switzerland and the USA are two very different places.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop fighting it. (Score:2)
How to end the war on dugs: Stop fighting it.
Look to Portugal, learn, execute.
isn't this normal? (Score:2)
Do what you want, just keep it off my street (Score:2, Troll)
I don't care what people use in private or in places specifically catering to junkies. But if you want to be around in society, you have to keep yourself well kept and functional. San Francisco is pretty unpalatable to visit with family because of all the people being weird on the street and shooting up / pooping in public. Why can't we have opium dens like in the old times? Get high, sleep it off and then come out when you are capable of behaving normally. People acting unruly on the street must be dealt w
The problem isn't the drugs. (Score:2)
The problem isn't the drugs per se, it's people using the drugs as an excuse for being an asshole. Because when they're not being assholes (whether on drugs or not), most people don't care. That's selection bias for you.
That's not to say some drugs won't inherently kill you if used often enough, long enough, or some combination thereof, but that's a completely different problem from shitting in the streets and breaking into cars.
Shocking (Score:5, Interesting)
Um, no. (Score:3)
There are several problems with this, and I hardly know where to start. I have a lot of experience helping people with drug addiction, and the truth is that while they do need treatment, decriminalization is unlikely to provide that. This sounds more like a political bandage than something that will really form a coherent and complete solution.
First, the linked study reveals a lot of important info. It may be peer-reviewed, but it has a very small sample for making such a sweeping change. Only 203 participants and 115 in the control group. They even had trouble finding people for the control group, and had to discriminate geographically, which could affect things. Moreover, the whole point of the program was to choose people who were likely to succeed in the first place. Of those chosen, still not everyone succeeded. So the program makes sense as a companion to the traditional justice system, but it cannot simply replace or "decriminalize" drugs.
There are other important considerations as well. First, in many cases it is the threat of punishment that actually helps to push people to get help. Making the decision to allow oneself to be treated is not easy at all. LEAD probably achieves a little more compliance because it is oriented toward improving their living conditions, etc., but it itself is not a drug treatment program. It seems to still rely on inpatient treatment. This means that even if it is less expensive than a law court, there's still the problem of paying for inpatient treatment. In my experience, lack of space at treatment centers can make people have to wait for a spot, which provides time for a relapse, and makes the whole thing harder. So first and foremost, we really need to provide more funding for more treatment centers. In the end, money is probably more important than method, as usual. If we aren't willing to pay to help people, then the war on drugs carries on, and it's a war we should fight precisely because we need to help those who suffer because of drugs, both here and abroad.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they are. They just don't stay that way, but by then, it's too late.