Anyway, my personal experience is that a very good friend of mine had a slow slide into drugs that took a major toll. Started with the typical recreational use, and eventually slid into heroin abuse. Despite years and many many attempts at his friends trying (in vain) to get him help including every kind of treatment we could find his use persisted.
It only turned around for him when he was arrested for robbing a gas station for his next hit. Only while sitting in jail did he realize the depth and tragedy of his addiction. It hasn't been all sunshine and roses since he has been out, but he has been making a concerted effort to stay clean because he simply does not want to go through that again.
Fact was, for him anyway, rehab did not make him want to change. Only hitting total rock bottom did.
1) No one has suggested decriminalizing robbery
2) Not all drug addicts go on to commit other crimes
3) Rehab does for work many people
4) Jail and prison do not successfully break most drug habits
That is the main thrust of the problem within law enforcement and one side of our politics. This sort of anecdotal evidence leads to laws like stop and frisk or the disproportionate rate of arrest for certain ethnic groups.
I'm clearly not going to change your minds. Like I said, I'm talking from personal experience. I think its' great Trace realized there is a problem and did something about it. The difference between you and the people I contact and arrest, you WANTED the change and did what you needed to do to change it. We have drug treatment facilities where these guys are in and out of and right back on the pipe/needle afterwards because they don't want to give it up.
I think we are getting off topic anyhow and according to you guys I'm clearly in the wrong anyway, so no sense in going back and forth.
Being that it was your personal experience it isn't exactly unknown for addicts to go into rehab without getting throw in jail first. It's futile to frame the entire drug addicted population in the US by those standards, and did you keep tabs on whether they stayed off drugs for good in prison? It isn't like drugs can't be gotten in there or fell off the wagon when they got out. People react to things differently and Trace isn't a unique case.
Anyway, other countries have fantastically successful rehab programs without tossing people into prison to either stay hooked on drugs or cold turkey their recovery in solitary torture.
Far fewer arrests for minor drug offenses occur. While it was recently reported that someone is arrested for marijuana possession in the U.S. every 42 seconds, Dutch citizens have generally been spared the burden of criminal records for minor, nonviolent offenses. According to one comparison, in 2005 there were 269 marijuana possession arrests for every 100,000 citizens in the United States, 206 in the United Kingdom, 225 in France, and just 19 in the Netherlands.
Lighter enforcement did not lead to more drug use. About 25.7 percent of Dutch citizens reported having used marijuana at least once, which is on par with the European average. In the comparatively strict United Kingdom, the rate is 30.2 percent and in the United States it is a whopping 41.9 percent.
While coffee shops generate about €400 million ($512 million USD) in annual revenue their main purposes were public health and social inclusion. Thus, the Netherlands invested heavily in treatment, prevention and harm reduction.
Also important:
In addition, the country has virtually eliminated injecting drug use as a transmission of HIV and enjoys the lowest rate of problem drug use in Europe.
In fact, this non-criminalization approach has been so successful that every other country in the world is trying to emulate it.
Hahahaha no they aren't, especially not here. Because the United States is such an exceptional country and those very high drug use rates and very high incarceration rates compared to other countries means we need to be cracking down harder, not trying something different. That's the lowest we can expect those numbers to go because we are doing the very best we can right now and nothing should ever change.
The war on drugs is the worst thing to happen to modern policing.
sweet jesus.
You guys really don't seemed concerned with having a conversation about it, more just concerned with knocking down anyone else who has a competing idea.
I really feel like no body read what i wrote, just read what they "think" i wrote and went from there.
1) No one has suggested decriminalizing robbery
I dont even.....how did.....what? How did you even remotely get that from my post? My point was that no amount of rehab helped him UNTIL he did the super illegal thing, got tossed in jail and was forced to think about how far down the hole he had gotten. In other words, robbery being a criminal offense is what helped him.
edit: did i miss read your intent here? maybe i did. not sure.
2) Not all drug addicts go on to commit other crimes
Again.....what? I never said they did.
3) Rehab does for work many people
I never said it didn't. We all figured it would, THATS why we kept trying to get him in to treatment. However, since he didnt WANT to be there, it didnt work. Only when HE wanted to get help did it have any effect at all.
4) Jail and prison do not successfully break most drug habits
Once again...i never said it did. I stated that being in jail forced him to rethink his life because..."holy shit man, i just robbed a gas station and i didn't think i was that type of person. Things have gotten out of hand."
Up until that point the drugs had taken hold and he had gotten away with all the petty stuff he did to get a new fix.
sweet jesus.
You guys really don't seemed concerned with having a conversation about it, more just concerned with knocking down anyone else who has a competing idea.
I really feel like no body read what i wrote, just read what they "think" i wrote and went from there.
1) No one has suggested decriminalizing robbery
I dont even.....how did.....what? How did you even remotely get that from my post? My point was that no amount of rehab helped him UNTIL he did the super illegal thing, got tossed in jail and was forced to think about how far down the hole he had gotten. In other words, robbery being a criminal offense is what helped him.
edit: did i miss read your intent here? maybe i did. not sure.
2) Not all drug addicts go on to commit other crimes
Again.....what? I never said they did.
3) Rehab does for work many people
I never said it didn't. We all figured it would, THATS why we kept trying to get him in to treatment. However, since he didnt WANT to be there, it didnt work. Only when HE wanted to get help did it have any effect at all.
4) Jail and prison do not successfully break most drug habits
Once again...i never said it did. I stated that being in jail forced him to rethink his life because..."holy shit man, i just robbed a gas station and i didn't think i was that type of person. Things have gotten out of hand."
Up until that point the drugs had taken hold and he had gotten away with all the petty stuff he did to get a new fix.
So what you've actually done here is advocated jail for all offenders through your anecdote while completely ignoring what I said about treatment sucking in general here in the States because we prefer to funnel our money towards drug law enforcement instead.
The logic goes: jail worked for this one person -> jail can work for people -> we should throw drug offenders in jail
And if you're not making such a point, then I have to ask what the point of your anecdote was? If you're not following this train of logic then your anecdote fails to provide any perspective or insight into this issue, and you are not actually suggesting a course of action.
I'm not trying to be mean with this post. I'm asking you to clarify your actual position beyond wishy-washy "stop interpreting my post the way you did, because I totally didn't say any of those things" while strongly insinuating that you believe that prison time works in place of rehab.
sweet jesus.
You guys really don't seemed concerned with having a conversation about it, more just concerned with knocking down anyone else who has a competing idea.
I really feel like no body read what i wrote, just read what they "think" i wrote and went from there.
1) No one has suggested decriminalizing robbery
I dont even.....how did.....what? How did you even remotely get that from my post? My point was that no amount of rehab helped him UNTIL he did the super illegal thing, got tossed in jail and was forced to think about how far down the hole he had gotten. In other words, robbery being a criminal offense is what helped him.
edit: did i miss read your intent here? maybe i did. not sure.
2) Not all drug addicts go on to commit other crimes
Again.....what? I never said they did.
3) Rehab does for work many people
I never said it didn't. We all figured it would, THATS why we kept trying to get him in to treatment. However, since he didnt WANT to be there, it didnt work. Only when HE wanted to get help did it have any effect at all.
4) Jail and prison do not successfully break most drug habits
Once again...i never said it did. I stated that being in jail forced him to rethink his life because..."holy shit man, i just robbed a gas station and i didn't think i was that type of person. Things have gotten out of hand."
Up until that point the drugs had taken hold and he had gotten away with all the petty stuff he did to get a new fix.
I read what you wrote and thought of it as the anecdote that it was. I'm glad that person is better but we should not be basing our laws around anecdotes.
So what you've actually done here is advocated jail for all offenders through your anecdote while completely ignoring what I said about treatment sucking in general here in the States because we prefer to funnel our money towards drug law enforcement instead.
The logic goes: jail worked for this one person -> jail can work for people -> we should throw drug offenders in jail
See...this is what i really dont understand about some of the posters when faced with a differing opinion.
My post was "Jail worked for this one person".
The only person running away with my logic is you man. Re-read the preceding posts to my story. You'll have one officer who says "i have to arrest people who do illegal things. I wish they'd get help, but a lot dont (the ones that he has to arrest for doing illegal stuff) and thats what he can do. To which people reply with posts stating "jail doesnt work"
to which my story says, "well, it worked for my friend because he had to hit rock bottom to WANT THE HELP AND WANT TO BE CLEAN"
The only person with your above "we should throw drug offenders in jail" is you man. I never said that. Simply added a story that was a different perspective from the "jail doesn't work" echo chamber you guys have going here. To which, of course, everyone battles back with "anecdotal opinion!" to MY post, but not to the OTHER anecdotal opinion "i didnt need jail to help me get clean" just a few posts above mine. At no point did i say that we should throw all drug offenders in jail. I simply stated it worked for my friend, as a response to people stating that it doesnt work
And if you're not making such a point, then I have to ask what the point of your anecdote was? If you're not following this train of logic then your anecdote fails to provide any perspective or insight into this issue, and you are not actually suggesting a course of action. Read above.
I'm not trying to be mean with this post. I'm asking you to clarify your actual position beyond wishy-washy "stop interpreting my post the way you did, because I totally didn't say any of those things" while strongly insinuating that you believe that prison time works in place of rehab. I didnt strongly insinuate anything. I stated a story that was a personal experience from a competing perspective.
So what you've actually done here is advocated jail for all offenders through your anecdote while completely ignoring what I said about treatment sucking in general here in the States because we prefer to funnel our money towards drug law enforcement instead.
The logic goes: jail worked for this one person -> jail can work for people -> we should throw drug offenders in jail
See...this is what i really dont understand about some of the posters when faced with a differing opinion.
My post was "Jail worked for this one person".
The only person running away with my logic is you man. Re-read the preceding posts to my story. You'll have one officer who says "i have to arrest people who do illegal things. I wish they'd get help, but a lot dont (the ones that he has to arrest for doing illegal stuff) and thats what he can do. To which people reply with posts stating "jail doesnt work"
to which my story says, "well, it worked for my friend because he had to hit rock bottom to WANT THE HELP AND WANT TO BE CLEAN"
The only person with your above "we should throw drug offenders in jail" is you man. I never said that. Simply added a story that was a different perspective from the "jail doesn't work" echo chamber you guys have going here. To which, of course, everyone battles back with "anecdotal opinion!" to MY post, but not to the OTHER anecdotal opinion "i didnt need jail to help me get clean" just a few posts above mine. At no point did i say that we should throw all drug offenders in jail. I simply stated it worked for my friend, as a response to people stating that it doesnt work
And if you're not making such a point, then I have to ask what the point of your anecdote was? If you're not following this train of logic then your anecdote fails to provide any perspective or insight into this issue, and you are not actually suggesting a course of action. Read above.
I'm not trying to be mean with this post. I'm asking you to clarify your actual position beyond wishy-washy "stop interpreting my post the way you did, because I totally didn't say any of those things" while strongly insinuating that you believe that prison time works in place of rehab. I didnt strongly insinuate anything. I stated a story that was a personal experience from a competing perspective.
Let me reiterate and repeat myself. What is your actual point?
You keep shouting that you're not claiming that jail works. But then you literally say this:
Simply added a story that was a different perspective from the "jail doesn't work" echo chamber you guys have going here.
So what's the point of that if it isn't to claim that actually, in some cases, jail works?
I'm also kind of wondering how that relates to policing, if we're not endorsing arresting people as a method of making them hit rock bottom.
Because there are a lot of people who would be fine with that as a policy, and while I'm sure it makes a certain subset of the population feel like we're doing something about the problem, I favor a more results-oriented, bigger-picture approach.
It is not a bad argument at all to say that both over policing and zero policing are bad things.
And society would be better served if the war on drugs was put to an end. And as a few states and DC have shown, they are under no obligation to assist the federal government in waging it.
I have a question about this that may belong in this thread and may not.
What do you mean the war on drugs should be put to an end?
Pot? sure, whatever, that's fine.
Cocaine? Heroin? Meth?
that shit needs to have a war fought on it. Take it from a guy whose house is sandwiched between a coke head and a heroin house. Thank god I have a big dog, because every other house in the area has been robbed by them at one point or another. Usually looking for pills to take or sell.
It's the idea that we can arrest our way out of a drug crisis, especially when we're sending them to private prisons. Breaking and entering, robbery, burglary, and murder ought to get you sent to prison. Drug addiction should get you sent to rehab. We barely have any concept of the latter.
oohhh ok
yeah I support that for sure (rehab)
Just my personal experience on rehab vs arrest. In order for rehab to work, the addict has to want to quit. Most of the people I come into contact with just plain don't want to. So they go to rehab for a bit, promise me they will never end up seeing me and two weeks out of rehab, busted in the park again with a needle in their arm. Arrest, especially for the repeat offenders, will land some of these guys in prison for a good year without drugs where they can't get any drugs. I've seen more people out of prison try to kick it than I have people leaving rehab.
Drug abuse, generally speaking the hard stuff like meth and heroin, are often coupled with crime by the user. All they care about is their next hit and don't want to work so most of them resort to theft and burglary to make their money as mentioned by user above. I'm all for legalizing marijuana, most of the users of that don't bother me. Pretty sure my dentist smokes weed. Hard stuff use as I mentioned generally tends to lead someone to criminal activity
I'll try and avoid multiple confrontations and simply state my anecdotal story was in response and support for this post. Specifically, the bolded line. It was to state, that, from my close experience with a heroin user, the case was he didnt "want to quit" because he hadn't hit his own rock bottom yet. Its why rehab didnt take. It didn't take because it was just "part of the cycle" in his mind (at the time) and he needed to get arrested to realize what a heinous hold the drug had on him.
In this case, his rock bottom was knocking over a gas station to score a hit. The arrest and jail time worked to help him by breaking his cycle of "i can do what ever i want to get drugs because there are no repercussions. I'll just go to rehab".
Now he was faced with serious repercussions and forced into being away from the drug, and facing who he had become, and what he'd done.
He came out a better person, and has been working hard to stay away from drugs. He hasn't always been totally successful, but has been on the right track for years and i couldn't be more proud of him.
Have we talked about the coverup of Jermaine McBean's (warning: images of the victim shortly after the incident) being shot by police in 2013 yet? Also note how fucking wrecked the guy who called 911 is about being a cog in the machine that got the guy killed and realize why so many communities don't call the police no matter what.
As much as a discussion about the legality of drugs are concerned, it seems like that would be better served for a Goddamned Separate thread or maybe something more related to stories with positive or negative police interaction. Just saying.
Highway patrol troopers in Oklahoma fatally shot a man whom they had been trying to get out of high water, authorities said.
The two troopers responded to a stranded motorist call south of Tulsa late Friday and found two men with two vehicles, said Capt. Paul Timmons of the Oklahoma Highway Patrol.
The troopers told the men to come toward them to safer ground out of the high water, Timmons said. But at some point, an altercation broke out.
The troopers fired, killing one of the men, 35-year-old Nehemiah Fischer, according to Timmons. They arrested the other man, Fischer's older brother, Brandon, who was uninjured.
The shooting is under investigation.
Timmons said Nehemiah Fischer, 35, was armed. But he said it was unclear why the altercation had broken out.
The highway patrol's practice is to place any patrolman involved in a fatal shooting on administrative leave. Timmons couldn't confirm whether that had been done yet for the two troopers in this case.
He declined to disclose the troopers' names.
While I can imagine perhaps the stranded men mistakenly drawing a weapon and things escalating from there, I'm having a real hard time imagining a situation where somebody you're trying to rescue needs to be killed.
Yea, my mistake i guess. I was under the impression that lending a real world experience to the discussion was allowed. Especially when that discussion had been about an officers opinion about the exact subject i wrote about.
And especially after another poster gave his anecdotal opinion (about not needing jail time, which is awesome) and no body jumped up his ass about it.
Yea, my mistake i guess. I was under the impression that lending a real world experience to the discussion was allowed. Especially when that discussion had been about an officers opinion about the exact subject i wrote about.
And especially after another poster gave his anecdotal opinion (about not needing jail time, which is awesome) and no body jumped up his ass about it.
I think I've been very patient and friendly about this, and I'm pretty much done talking about it. I've posted good data as an example from another country that tried something other than locking people up to make them hit rock bottom and showed you that it seems to be working well, but you never responded to it or addressed that part of my argument at all. You just keep going on the defensive like I'm attacking you when really I'm just trying to get a coherent argument instead of a personal story.
I'm happy your friend isn't doing drugs anymore. Can we find a way to make this relevant to policing? I don't think treating drug addicts like criminals is an appropriate way to police. What do you think? Do you agree?
Bit late in the thread to get all superior about anecdotes, isn't it? That said, of course Ninjeff should address the evidence Phasen put up with something beyond his own experience.
It is not a bad argument at all to say that both over policing and zero policing are bad things.
And society would be better served if the war on drugs was put to an end. And as a few states and DC have shown, they are under no obligation to assist the federal government in waging it.
I have a question about this that may belong in this thread and may not.
What do you mean the war on drugs should be put to an end?
Pot? sure, whatever, that's fine.
Cocaine? Heroin? Meth?
that shit needs to have a war fought on it. Take it from a guy whose house is sandwiched between a coke head and a heroin house. Thank god I have a big dog, because every other house in the area has been robbed by them at one point or another. Usually looking for pills to take or sell.
Legalizing the harder stuff would make a big dent in eliminating the bolded part.
Legalizing it removes the dealers, then the war can become treatment, and addicts won't automatically be criminals.
Legalizing it helps a lot with drugs around the schools, once it's in stores/behind counter's they need a bootleg /buyer etc, just like alcohol, but at the moment, drugs are easier for kids to get because drug dealers don't have to bother with regulations and will just show up to schools at recess
I don't see how legalizing highly addictive drugs will help make the drug problem go away.
Yea, my mistake i guess. I was under the impression that lending a real world experience to the discussion was allowed. Especially when that discussion had been about an officers opinion about the exact subject i wrote about.
And especially after another poster gave his anecdotal opinion (about not needing jail time, which is awesome) and no body jumped up his ass about it.
I think I've been very patient and friendly about this, and I'm pretty much done talking about it. I've posted good data as an example from another country that tried something other than locking people up to make them hit rock bottom and showed you that it seems to be working well, but you never responded to it or addressed that part of my argument at all. You just keep going on the defensive like I'm attacking you when really I'm just trying to get a coherent argument instead of a personal story.
I'm happy your friend isn't doing drugs anymore. Can we find a way to make this relevant to policing? I don't think treating drug addicts like criminals is an appropriate way to police. What do you think? Do you agree?
OK. New start.
First off, its difficult to get tone over the internet. So, while some people who frequent this forum may know your personality, or tone, i do not. So, i found your replies dismissive and more concerned with how what i said was wrong, instead of how it may be relevant. Perhaps that was not the intent, but hence the "defensive" tone.
I thought it was relevant since it was a continuation of the reply from Romero Zombies, and responding to the multiple arguments to his statement.
More over, it was to illustrate that the idea of rehab being a fix is preferable in drug abuse situations. Notice i never said it wouldnt be a favorable outcome, but simply that some people have to go to jail to hit bottom and realize "shit....i really messed up, and i better get straight". Instead of just saying "some people need to go to jail to hit rock bottom" i decided to give my anecdote about the real world experience I've had with the subject. I felt it relevant also because it was a real world example of what Romero Zombies was talking about.
It seemed relevant to "policing" since....well...a Police Officer was talking about it, and about how his experience with habitual drug users was that they tend to fall into crime, for which he has to lock them up, and how that caused many people to seek help.
My example was a real world instance of pretty much exactly what he said.
To answer your question: I don't think treating drug addicts like criminals is an appropriate way to police. What do you think? Do you agree?
I think the drug addicts that fall to crime to support the habit need to be arrested and prosecuted accordingly. For some, this will be the "rock bottom" they need, and hopefully drive them towards wanting to get clean. In my experience, this has been the case.
Its always preferable that the user gets rehab and help before it comes to criminal activity to sustain the habit, but from my experiences with this issue, i have found that the users tend to not "feel like they have a problem" until its far too late. Its why rehab doesnt work in some cases, as the user refuses to see the scope of the problem. For those people, jail is usually an inevitability. Hopefully, it can also serve as a "wake up call".
Now, if you're asking if the current "war on drugs" is effective; I dont think it is. Its pretty opposite actually. I think it makes things worse. But that's more due to lack of "follow up" to the illegal activity. Instead of locking people up, and then cutting them lose when the time is served, some community follow up and genuine help at rehab and support would go a long way.
If you're asking if i think certain drugs should be illegal; I think they should. Weed is fine, and honestly, i kind of feel like weed would solve of lot of problems. lol.
Heroin, Meth, Crack etc need to remain illegal. Still come with punishment, but less felony and more misdomeanor. Still use the carrot and stick approach, but with more carrot, and less stick.
Yea, my mistake i guess. I was under the impression that lending a real world experience to the discussion was allowed. Especially when that discussion had been about an officers opinion about the exact subject i wrote about.
And especially after another poster gave his anecdotal opinion (about not needing jail time, which is awesome) and no body jumped up his ass about it.
I think I've been very patient and friendly about this, and I'm pretty much done talking about it. I've posted good data as an example from another country that tried something other than locking people up to make them hit rock bottom and showed you that it seems to be working well, but you never responded to it or addressed that part of my argument at all. You just keep going on the defensive like I'm attacking you when really I'm just trying to get a coherent argument instead of a personal story.
I'm happy your friend isn't doing drugs anymore. Can we find a way to make this relevant to policing? I don't think treating drug addicts like criminals is an appropriate way to police. What do you think? Do you agree?
OK. New start.
First off, its difficult to get tone over the internet. So, while some people who frequent this forum may know your personality, or tone, i do not. So, i found your replies dismissive and more concerned with how what i said was wrong, instead of how it may be relevant. Perhaps that was not the intent, but hence the "defensive" tone.
I thought it was relevant since it was a continuation of the reply from Romero Zombies, and responding to the multiple arguments to his statement.
More over, it was to illustrate that the idea of rehab being a fix is preferable in drug abuse situations. Notice i never said it wouldnt be a favorable outcome, but simply that some people have to go to jail to hit bottom and realize "shit....i really messed up, and i better get straight". Instead of just saying "some people need to go to jail to hit rock bottom" i decided to give my anecdote about the real world experience I've had with the subject. I felt it relevant also because it was a real world example of what Romero Zombies was talking about.
It seemed relevant to "policing" since....well...a Police Officer was talking about it, and about how his experience with habitual drug users was that they tend to fall into crime, for which he has to lock them up, and how that caused many people to seek help.
My example was a real world instance of pretty much exactly what he said.
To answer your question: I don't think treating drug addicts like criminals is an appropriate way to police. What do you think? Do you agree?
I think the drug addicts that fall to crime to support the habit need to be arrested and prosecuted accordingly. For some, this will be the "rock bottom" they need, and hopefully drive them towards wanting to get clean. In my experience, this has been the case.
Its always preferable that the user gets rehab and help before it comes to criminal activity to sustain the habit, but from my experiences with this issue, i have found that the users tend to not "feel like they have a problem" until its far too late. Its why rehab doesnt work in some cases, as the user refuses to see the scope of the problem. For those people, jail is usually an inevitability. Hopefully, it can also serve as a "wake up call".
Now, if you're asking if the current "war on drugs" is effective; I dont think it is. Its pretty opposite actually. I think it makes things worse. But that's more due to lack of "follow up" to the illegal activity. Instead of locking people up, and then cutting them lose when the time is served, some community follow up and genuine help at rehab and support would go a long way.
If you're asking if i think certain drugs should be illegal; I think they should. Weed is fine, and honestly, i kind of feel like weed would solve of lot of problems. lol.
Heroin, Meth, Crack etc need to remain illegal. Still come with punishment, but less felony and more misdomeanor. Still use the carrot and stick approach, but with more carrot, and less stick.
Thank you for making clear talking points. I am mobile but I will respond more thoroughly when I'm back in front of a PC.
Yea, my mistake i guess. I was under the impression that lending a real world experience to the discussion was allowed. Especially when that discussion had been about an officers opinion about the exact subject i wrote about.
And especially after another poster gave his anecdotal opinion (about not needing jail time, which is awesome) and no body jumped up his ass about it.
I think I've been very patient and friendly about this, and I'm pretty much done talking about it. I've posted good data as an example from another country that tried something other than locking people up to make them hit rock bottom and showed you that it seems to be working well, but you never responded to it or addressed that part of my argument at all. You just keep going on the defensive like I'm attacking you when really I'm just trying to get a coherent argument instead of a personal story.
I'm happy your friend isn't doing drugs anymore. Can we find a way to make this relevant to policing? I don't think treating drug addicts like criminals is an appropriate way to police. What do you think? Do you agree?
OK. New start.
First off, its difficult to get tone over the internet. So, while some people who frequent this forum may know your personality, or tone, i do not. So, i found your replies dismissive and more concerned with how what i said was wrong, instead of how it may be relevant. Perhaps that was not the intent, but hence the "defensive" tone.
I thought it was relevant since it was a continuation of the reply from Romero Zombies, and responding to the multiple arguments to his statement.
More over, it was to illustrate that the idea of rehab being a fix is preferable in drug abuse situations. Notice i never said it wouldnt be a favorable outcome, but simply that some people have to go to jail to hit bottom and realize "shit....i really messed up, and i better get straight". Instead of just saying "some people need to go to jail to hit rock bottom" i decided to give my anecdote about the real world experience I've had with the subject. I felt it relevant also because it was a real world example of what Romero Zombies was talking about.
It seemed relevant to "policing" since....well...a Police Officer was talking about it, and about how his experience with habitual drug users was that they tend to fall into crime, for which he has to lock them up, and how that caused many people to seek help.
My example was a real world instance of pretty much exactly what he said.
To answer your question: I don't think treating drug addicts like criminals is an appropriate way to police. What do you think? Do you agree?
I think the drug addicts that fall to crime to support the habit need to be arrested and prosecuted accordingly. For some, this will be the "rock bottom" they need, and hopefully drive them towards wanting to get clean. In my experience, this has been the case.
Its always preferable that the user gets rehab and help before it comes to criminal activity to sustain the habit, but from my experiences with this issue, i have found that the users tend to not "feel like they have a problem" until its far too late. Its why rehab doesnt work in some cases, as the user refuses to see the scope of the problem. For those people, jail is usually an inevitability. Hopefully, it can also serve as a "wake up call".
Now, if you're asking if the current "war on drugs" is effective; I dont think it is. Its pretty opposite actually. I think it makes things worse. But that's more due to lack of "follow up" to the illegal activity. Instead of locking people up, and then cutting them lose when the time is served, some community follow up and genuine help at rehab and support would go a long way.
If you're asking if i think certain drugs should be illegal; I think they should. Weed is fine, and honestly, i kind of feel like weed would solve of lot of problems. lol.
Heroin, Meth, Crack etc need to remain illegal. Still come with punishment, but less felony and more misdomeanor. Still use the carrot and stick approach, but with more carrot, and less stick.
Thank you for making clear talking points. I am mobile but I will respond more thoroughly when I'm back in front of a PC.
Cool dude. I look forward to it.
Maybe to add a productive idea:
What if, in drug related arrests (meaning possession) we give the first time offender a choice of "rehab" or jail time.
If rehab, they must stay clean, and submit to mandatory drug tests for the next 12 months. If they fail in the rehab, or relapse while out, they get the jail time they'd have had to begin with.
If they succeed in cleaning up, we call it good and waive the jail time?
Of course, we'd need better rehab facilities, but one thing at a time i guess.
0
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
It is not a bad argument at all to say that both over policing and zero policing are bad things.
And society would be better served if the war on drugs was put to an end. And as a few states and DC have shown, they are under no obligation to assist the federal government in waging it.
I have a question about this that may belong in this thread and may not.
What do you mean the war on drugs should be put to an end?
Pot? sure, whatever, that's fine.
Cocaine? Heroin? Meth?
that shit needs to have a war fought on it. Take it from a guy whose house is sandwiched between a coke head and a heroin house. Thank god I have a big dog, because every other house in the area has been robbed by them at one point or another. Usually looking for pills to take or sell.
Legalizing the harder stuff would make a big dent in eliminating the bolded part.
Legalizing it removes the dealers, then the war can become treatment, and addicts won't automatically be criminals.
Legalizing it helps a lot with drugs around the schools, once it's in stores/behind counter's they need a bootleg /buyer etc, just like alcohol, but at the moment, drugs are easier for kids to get because drug dealers don't have to bother with regulations and will just show up to schools at recess
I don't see how legalizing highly addictive drugs will help make the drug problem go away.
An article I read ages ago (probably linked on this forum actually) made a compelling case that certain drugs increase in popularity, as other drugs become harder to get.
(I don't remember the examples, so this is propably factually incorrect, but I hope you understand the point I'm trying to make)
By making Cocaine harder to get, people turn to Meth. So if you legalize and regulate Cocaine, but keep Meth illegal, Meth use would drop. So you make the safer one legal to try and force people away from the more dangerous one.
edit: illegal in the sense of selling it, not use. The idea is to change the supply side.
Anecdote time!
In NZ, there's currently a kerfuffle around so called "legal highs", which is a synthetic THC drug, since marijuana is illegal.
Lots of scare stories going around, but it does seem that there are issues around synthetic THC which makes it more dangerous than marijuana.
It is not a bad argument at all to say that both over policing and zero policing are bad things.
And society would be better served if the war on drugs was put to an end. And as a few states and DC have shown, they are under no obligation to assist the federal government in waging it.
I have a question about this that may belong in this thread and may not.
What do you mean the war on drugs should be put to an end?
Pot? sure, whatever, that's fine.
Cocaine? Heroin? Meth?
that shit needs to have a war fought on it. Take it from a guy whose house is sandwiched between a coke head and a heroin house. Thank god I have a big dog, because every other house in the area has been robbed by them at one point or another. Usually looking for pills to take or sell.
Legalizing the harder stuff would make a big dent in eliminating the bolded part.
Legalizing it removes the dealers, then the war can become treatment, and addicts won't automatically be criminals.
Legalizing it helps a lot with drugs around the schools, once it's in stores/behind counter's they need a bootleg /buyer etc, just like alcohol, but at the moment, drugs are easier for kids to get because drug dealers don't have to bother with regulations and will just show up to schools at recess
I don't see how legalizing highly addictive drugs will help make the drug problem go away.
An article I read ages ago (probably linked on this forum actually) made a compelling case that certain drugs increase in popularity, as other drugs become harder to get.
(I don't remember the examples, so this is propably factually incorrect, but I hope you understand the point I'm trying to make)
By making Cocaine harder to get, people turn to Meth. So if you legalize and regulate Cocaine, but keep Meth illegal, Meth use would drop. So you make the safer one legal to try and force people away from the more dangerous one.
Anecdote time!
In NZ, there's currently a kerfuffle around so called "legal highs", which is a synthetic THC drug, since marijuana is illegal.
Lots of scare stories going around, but it does seem that there are issues around synthetic THC which makes it more dangerous than marijuana.
"Synthetic marijuana" is several orders of magnitude more dangerous than the real stuff
It's not even the same chemical, they modify it because it's not technically illegal and then when the new, awful, dangerous chemical is outlawed they change it again ever-so-slightly
It's bad news bears, and wouldn't be a problem if people could get a legal high from real marijuana without having to be worried about getting busted and thrown into jail by the cops
+4
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
It's not even the same chemical, they modify it because it's not technically illegal and then when the new, awful, dangerous chemical is outlawed they change it again ever-so-slightly
It's bad news bears, and wouldn't be a problem if people could get a legal high from real marijuana without having to be worried about getting busted and thrown into jail by the cops
This song and dance is actually the reason they're moving forward with this legalization scheme, for which I commend them.
Synthetic THC can do some really, really fucked up shit to you. Mainly because, similar to supplements, the ingredients that are actually in the shit aren't regulated in any fashion, so the herbs that the manufacturers claim are in them aren't at all. It's almost similar to using household chemicals and shit to make meth. It'll still get you high as shit, but it's also toxic as hell. "Synthetic" is the key.
As for the whole "war on drugs" thing...my brother's currently serving a life sentence without possibility of parole because of meth. He had every opportunity to get clean and choose a better path, but no matter what options you give people, sometimes they're just fundamentally broken and the only place they can feasibly exist is behind bars. There's a serious need for reform in the way we handle drugs and drug addicts in this country, definitely. I just can't say I have enough faith in either side for it to ever work.
0
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
Legalizing the harder stuff would make a big dent in eliminating the bolded part.
Legalizing it removes the dealers, then the war can become treatment, and addicts won't automatically be criminals.
Legalizing it helps a lot with drugs around the schools, once it's in stores/behind counter's they need a bootleg /buyer etc, just like alcohol, but at the moment, drugs are easier for kids to get because drug dealers don't have to bother with regulations and will just show up to schools at recess
And are you actually saying people should be allowed to buy heroin in convenience stores? Meth? Are you high? Insane? Only in the last ten years have we finally managed to make real cultural progress against cigarette smoking, and here you come in with the bright idea of "now that we've gotten rid of an highly unhealthy, highly addictive substance, let's introduce 10 more that are even worse!"
Legalizing the harder stuff would make a big dent in eliminating the bolded part.
Legalizing it removes the dealers, then the war can become treatment, and addicts won't automatically be criminals.
Legalizing it helps a lot with drugs around the schools, once it's in stores/behind counter's they need a bootleg /buyer etc, just like alcohol, but at the moment, drugs are easier for kids to get because drug dealers don't have to bother with regulations and will just show up to schools at recess
And are you actually saying people should be allowed to buy heroin in convenience stores? Meth? Are you high? Insane? Only in the last ten years have we finally managed to make real cultural progress against cigarette smoking, and here you come in with the bright idea of "now that we've gotten rid of an highly unhealthy, highly addictive substance, let's introduce 10 more that are even worse!"
Yes, but think of all the hilarious corporate sponsorship Big Meth has to offer.
"Your Red Cap Super Bowl XXC halftime show, live from Crystal stadium!"
Legalizing the harder stuff would make a big dent in eliminating the bolded part.
Legalizing it removes the dealers, then the war can become treatment, and addicts won't automatically be criminals.
Legalizing it helps a lot with drugs around the schools, once it's in stores/behind counter's they need a bootleg /buyer etc, just like alcohol, but at the moment, drugs are easier for kids to get because drug dealers don't have to bother with regulations and will just show up to schools at recess
And are you actually saying people should be allowed to buy heroin in convenience stores? Meth? Are you high? Insane? Only in the last ten years have we finally managed to make real cultural progress against cigarette smoking, and here you come in with the bright idea of "now that we've gotten rid of an highly unhealthy, highly addictive substance, let's introduce 10 more that are even worse!"
You seem to have fallen down a rather slippery slope, lemme see if I can help you out. Legalizing isn't the same as putting it in a convenience store, as we have found in America with such concepts at medicinal marijuana, which can be tightly controlled in both sales locations and acceptable form. The Netherlands has legalized heroin, but you have to go to a special place to do it, and you get it straight from the government. There are areas between illegal and CVS auto-injecting you when you walk in the door.
+16
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
It seems that a solution could be legalizing weed as it is the biggest money maker for the dealers, offer rehab options for users, fixing rooms for the ones that is out of reach. Meanwhile the dealers should be hit hard and of course keep punishing for actual crimes committed regardless of user status.
Have we talked about the coverup of Jermaine McBean's (warning: images of the victim shortly after the incident) being shot by police in 2013 yet? Also note how fucking wrecked the guy who called 911 is about being a cog in the machine that got the guy killed and realize why so many communities don't call the police no matter what.
They just posted an update (warning: images of the victim shortly after the incident) outlining that the cop who killed the dude got an award for killing him even though it was (and still is) under investigation.
Opty on
0
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
You seem to have fallen down a rather slippery slope, lemme see if I can help you out. Legalizing isn't the same as putting it in a convenience store, as we have found in America with such concepts at medicinal marijuana, which can be tightly controlled in both sales locations and acceptable form. The Netherlands has legalized heroin, but you have to go to a special place to do it, and you get it straight from the government. There are areas between illegal and CVS auto-injecting you when you walk in the door.
I still have issues with that (I'm not big on the government handing out free illegal drugs*), but that's a lot more palatable than it being in convenience stores (which is what he said).
*if they're going to do it it should be coupled with a treatment program (including institutionalization if necessary) plus with financial support and counseling after the addicts get clean.
Posts
1) No one has suggested decriminalizing robbery
2) Not all drug addicts go on to commit other crimes
3) Rehab does for work many people
4) Jail and prison do not successfully break most drug habits
http://www.drugabuse.gov/about-nida/legislative-activities/testimony-to-congress/2006/02/examination-drug-treatment-programs-needed-to-ensure-successf
That is the main thrust of the problem within law enforcement and one side of our politics. This sort of anecdotal evidence leads to laws like stop and frisk or the disproportionate rate of arrest for certain ethnic groups.
Being that it was your personal experience it isn't exactly unknown for addicts to go into rehab without getting throw in jail first. It's futile to frame the entire drug addicted population in the US by those standards, and did you keep tabs on whether they stayed off drugs for good in prison? It isn't like drugs can't be gotten in there or fell off the wagon when they got out. People react to things differently and Trace isn't a unique case.
Take the Netherlands:
Also important:
In fact, this non-criminalization approach has been so successful that every other country in the world is trying to emulate it.
Hahahaha no they aren't, especially not here. Because the United States is such an exceptional country and those very high drug use rates and very high incarceration rates compared to other countries means we need to be cracking down harder, not trying something different. That's the lowest we can expect those numbers to go because we are doing the very best we can right now and nothing should ever change.
The war on drugs is the worst thing to happen to modern policing.
You guys really don't seemed concerned with having a conversation about it, more just concerned with knocking down anyone else who has a competing idea.
I really feel like no body read what i wrote, just read what they "think" i wrote and went from there.
1) No one has suggested decriminalizing robbery
I dont even.....how did.....what? How did you even remotely get that from my post? My point was that no amount of rehab helped him UNTIL he did the super illegal thing, got tossed in jail and was forced to think about how far down the hole he had gotten. In other words, robbery being a criminal offense is what helped him.
edit: did i miss read your intent here? maybe i did. not sure.
2) Not all drug addicts go on to commit other crimes
Again.....what? I never said they did.
3) Rehab does for work many people
I never said it didn't. We all figured it would, THATS why we kept trying to get him in to treatment. However, since he didnt WANT to be there, it didnt work. Only when HE wanted to get help did it have any effect at all.
4) Jail and prison do not successfully break most drug habits
Once again...i never said it did. I stated that being in jail forced him to rethink his life because..."holy shit man, i just robbed a gas station and i didn't think i was that type of person. Things have gotten out of hand."
Up until that point the drugs had taken hold and he had gotten away with all the petty stuff he did to get a new fix.
So what you've actually done here is advocated jail for all offenders through your anecdote while completely ignoring what I said about treatment sucking in general here in the States because we prefer to funnel our money towards drug law enforcement instead.
The logic goes: jail worked for this one person -> jail can work for people -> we should throw drug offenders in jail
And if you're not making such a point, then I have to ask what the point of your anecdote was? If you're not following this train of logic then your anecdote fails to provide any perspective or insight into this issue, and you are not actually suggesting a course of action.
I'm not trying to be mean with this post. I'm asking you to clarify your actual position beyond wishy-washy "stop interpreting my post the way you did, because I totally didn't say any of those things" while strongly insinuating that you believe that prison time works in place of rehab.
I read what you wrote and thought of it as the anecdote that it was. I'm glad that person is better but we should not be basing our laws around anecdotes.
Let me reiterate and repeat myself. What is your actual point?
You keep shouting that you're not claiming that jail works. But then you literally say this:
So what's the point of that if it isn't to claim that actually, in some cases, jail works?
I suspect that for a lot of people, rock-bottom is actually just being dead.
Because there are a lot of people who would be fine with that as a policy, and while I'm sure it makes a certain subset of the population feel like we're doing something about the problem, I favor a more results-oriented, bigger-picture approach.
I'll try and avoid multiple confrontations and simply state my anecdotal story was in response and support for this post. Specifically, the bolded line. It was to state, that, from my close experience with a heroin user, the case was he didnt "want to quit" because he hadn't hit his own rock bottom yet. Its why rehab didnt take. It didn't take because it was just "part of the cycle" in his mind (at the time) and he needed to get arrested to realize what a heinous hold the drug had on him.
In this case, his rock bottom was knocking over a gas station to score a hit. The arrest and jail time worked to help him by breaking his cycle of "i can do what ever i want to get drugs because there are no repercussions. I'll just go to rehab".
Now he was faced with serious repercussions and forced into being away from the drug, and facing who he had become, and what he'd done.
He came out a better person, and has been working hard to stay away from drugs. He hasn't always been totally successful, but has been on the right track for years and i couldn't be more proud of him.
So?
Facts and empirical evidence are highly valued here.
If you insist on relying on anecdotes, we won't take your position very seriously.
While I can imagine perhaps the stranded men mistakenly drawing a weapon and things escalating from there, I'm having a real hard time imagining a situation where somebody you're trying to rescue needs to be killed.
Yea, my mistake i guess. I was under the impression that lending a real world experience to the discussion was allowed. Especially when that discussion had been about an officers opinion about the exact subject i wrote about.
And especially after another poster gave his anecdotal opinion (about not needing jail time, which is awesome) and no body jumped up his ass about it.
... which is why Trace's account was dismissed, yes?
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
I think I've been very patient and friendly about this, and I'm pretty much done talking about it. I've posted good data as an example from another country that tried something other than locking people up to make them hit rock bottom and showed you that it seems to be working well, but you never responded to it or addressed that part of my argument at all. You just keep going on the defensive like I'm attacking you when really I'm just trying to get a coherent argument instead of a personal story.
I'm happy your friend isn't doing drugs anymore. Can we find a way to make this relevant to policing? I don't think treating drug addicts like criminals is an appropriate way to police. What do you think? Do you agree?
Bit late in the thread to get all superior about anecdotes, isn't it? That said, of course Ninjeff should address the evidence Phasen put up with something beyond his own experience.
I don't see how legalizing highly addictive drugs will help make the drug problem go away.
OK. New start.
First off, its difficult to get tone over the internet. So, while some people who frequent this forum may know your personality, or tone, i do not. So, i found your replies dismissive and more concerned with how what i said was wrong, instead of how it may be relevant. Perhaps that was not the intent, but hence the "defensive" tone.
I thought it was relevant since it was a continuation of the reply from Romero Zombies, and responding to the multiple arguments to his statement.
More over, it was to illustrate that the idea of rehab being a fix is preferable in drug abuse situations. Notice i never said it wouldnt be a favorable outcome, but simply that some people have to go to jail to hit bottom and realize "shit....i really messed up, and i better get straight". Instead of just saying "some people need to go to jail to hit rock bottom" i decided to give my anecdote about the real world experience I've had with the subject. I felt it relevant also because it was a real world example of what Romero Zombies was talking about.
It seemed relevant to "policing" since....well...a Police Officer was talking about it, and about how his experience with habitual drug users was that they tend to fall into crime, for which he has to lock them up, and how that caused many people to seek help.
My example was a real world instance of pretty much exactly what he said.
To answer your question:
I don't think treating drug addicts like criminals is an appropriate way to police. What do you think? Do you agree?
I think the drug addicts that fall to crime to support the habit need to be arrested and prosecuted accordingly. For some, this will be the "rock bottom" they need, and hopefully drive them towards wanting to get clean. In my experience, this has been the case.
Its always preferable that the user gets rehab and help before it comes to criminal activity to sustain the habit, but from my experiences with this issue, i have found that the users tend to not "feel like they have a problem" until its far too late. Its why rehab doesnt work in some cases, as the user refuses to see the scope of the problem. For those people, jail is usually an inevitability. Hopefully, it can also serve as a "wake up call".
Now, if you're asking if the current "war on drugs" is effective; I dont think it is. Its pretty opposite actually. I think it makes things worse. But that's more due to lack of "follow up" to the illegal activity. Instead of locking people up, and then cutting them lose when the time is served, some community follow up and genuine help at rehab and support would go a long way.
If you're asking if i think certain drugs should be illegal; I think they should. Weed is fine, and honestly, i kind of feel like weed would solve of lot of problems. lol.
Heroin, Meth, Crack etc need to remain illegal. Still come with punishment, but less felony and more misdomeanor. Still use the carrot and stick approach, but with more carrot, and less stick.
Thank you for making clear talking points. I am mobile but I will respond more thoroughly when I'm back in front of a PC.
Cool dude. I look forward to it.
Maybe to add a productive idea:
What if, in drug related arrests (meaning possession) we give the first time offender a choice of "rehab" or jail time.
If rehab, they must stay clean, and submit to mandatory drug tests for the next 12 months. If they fail in the rehab, or relapse while out, they get the jail time they'd have had to begin with.
If they succeed in cleaning up, we call it good and waive the jail time?
Of course, we'd need better rehab facilities, but one thing at a time i guess.
An article I read ages ago (probably linked on this forum actually) made a compelling case that certain drugs increase in popularity, as other drugs become harder to get.
(I don't remember the examples, so this is propably factually incorrect, but I hope you understand the point I'm trying to make)
By making Cocaine harder to get, people turn to Meth. So if you legalize and regulate Cocaine, but keep Meth illegal, Meth use would drop. So you make the safer one legal to try and force people away from the more dangerous one.
edit: illegal in the sense of selling it, not use. The idea is to change the supply side.
Anecdote time!
In NZ, there's currently a kerfuffle around so called "legal highs", which is a synthetic THC drug, since marijuana is illegal.
Lots of scare stories going around, but it does seem that there are issues around synthetic THC which makes it more dangerous than marijuana.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
"Synthetic marijuana" is several orders of magnitude more dangerous than the real stuff
It's bad news bears, and wouldn't be a problem if people could get a legal high from real marijuana without having to be worried about getting busted and thrown into jail by the cops
This song and dance is actually the reason they're moving forward with this legalization scheme, for which I commend them.
It's just that they started on the wrong end.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
As for the whole "war on drugs" thing...my brother's currently serving a life sentence without possibility of parole because of meth. He had every opportunity to get clean and choose a better path, but no matter what options you give people, sometimes they're just fundamentally broken and the only place they can feasibly exist is behind bars. There's a serious need for reform in the way we handle drugs and drug addicts in this country, definitely. I just can't say I have enough faith in either side for it to ever work.
That's such a bad idea. Switzerland tried it and it failed miserably.
And are you actually saying people should be allowed to buy heroin in convenience stores? Meth? Are you high? Insane? Only in the last ten years have we finally managed to make real cultural progress against cigarette smoking, and here you come in with the bright idea of "now that we've gotten rid of an highly unhealthy, highly addictive substance, let's introduce 10 more that are even worse!"
Yes, but think of all the hilarious corporate sponsorship Big Meth has to offer.
"Your Red Cap Super Bowl XXC halftime show, live from Crystal stadium!"
You seem to have fallen down a rather slippery slope, lemme see if I can help you out. Legalizing isn't the same as putting it in a convenience store, as we have found in America with such concepts at medicinal marijuana, which can be tightly controlled in both sales locations and acceptable form. The Netherlands has legalized heroin, but you have to go to a special place to do it, and you get it straight from the government. There are areas between illegal and CVS auto-injecting you when you walk in the door.
That would make the job of Wal-Mart greater far more interesting.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/may/04/denmark-nurses-addicts-inject
It seems that a solution could be legalizing weed as it is the biggest money maker for the dealers, offer rehab options for users, fixing rooms for the ones that is out of reach. Meanwhile the dealers should be hit hard and of course keep punishing for actual crimes committed regardless of user status.
They just posted an update (warning: images of the victim shortly after the incident) outlining that the cop who killed the dude got an award for killing him even though it was (and still is) under investigation.
I still have issues with that (I'm not big on the government handing out free illegal drugs*), but that's a lot more palatable than it being in convenience stores (which is what he said).
*if they're going to do it it should be coupled with a treatment program (including institutionalization if necessary) plus with financial support and counseling after the addicts get clean.