SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Oregon law to decriminalize all drugs goes into effect, offering addicts rehab instead of prison:
"I lived in the bottom for years," says [Janie] Gullickson, 52. "For me and people like me, I laid there and wallowed in it for a long time."
But if she has to pick the lowest point – one that lasted years, not days, she says – it came shortly after she hit 30 in 1998. At that time, Gullickson had five kids, ages 5 to 11, by four different men. She came home from work one day as a locksmith to find that her ex-husband had taken her two youngest and left the state. Horrified, devastated and convinced that this was the beginning of the end, her life spiraled: She dropped her other son off with his dad, left her two daughters with her mom and soon became an IV meth user.
In prison six years later, Gullickson was contemplating joining an intensive recovery program when a "striking, magnetic gorgeous Black woman walked in the room, held up a mug shot and started talking about being in the very chairs where we were sitting," Gullickson remembers. There was life on the other side of addiction and prison, the woman said. But you have to fight for it. Gullickson believed her.
"I remember thinking, I may not be able to do all that, be what she was, but maybe I could do something different than this," Gullickson says. "That day, I felt the door open to change and healing."
Now Gullickson, executive director of the Mental Health & Addiction Association of Oregon, is determined to give other addicts the same opportunity. That's why she pushed for the passage of Measure 110, first-of-its-kind legislation that decriminalizes the possession of all illegal drugs in Oregon, including heroin, cocaine, meth and oxycodone. Instead of a criminal-justice-based approach, the state will pivot to a health-care-based approach, offering addicts treatment instead of prison time. Those in possession will be fined $100, a citation that will be dropped if they agree to a health assessment.
The law goes into effect Monday and will be implemented over the next decade by the state officials at the Oregon Health Authority.
[...] "I hope that we all become more enlightened across this country that substance abuse is not something that necessitates incarceration, but speaks to other social ills – lack of health care, lack of treatment, things of that nature," says Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, D-N.J., an outspoken critic of the War on Drugs.
[...] Watson Coleman also points out that it's far more expensive to pay to incarcerate someone than get them treatment. Rehab programs not only empower people, she says, but they also save communities money.
Also at: CNN.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Socrastotle on Tuesday February 02 2021, @02:55PM (27 children)
I think you have an over idealized view of society. What people want to achieve and what people actually achieve tend to be radically different, even when the means to get from A to B are trivial. For instance, who wants to obese? The answer is nobody. Yet the US obesity rate is upwards of 42% (!!!!!) and continuing to rapidly increase. And losing weight requires less than nothing. Eat less, drink less, and your weight will go down - period. Yet people no longer have the self discipline for even such trivial tasks.
I tend to be in favor of complete drug legalization from an ideological point of view (in that it's absurd for a government to regulate what people put into their body) but I have no delusions of this being a socially positive idea. It will result in a sharp increase of horrible outcomes. I just value personal liberty above trying to engineer a less free but more optimal society. If somebody wants to dope their life away, who am I or anybody else to tell them they cannot?
By decriminalizing drugs and then giving free drugs to addicts, you will get the worst of both worlds. You don't have the freedom that legalization entails, yet you have an even more exaggerated version of its negative effects.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02 2021, @03:16PM
The whole world was mostly decriminalized until recently, opium has been documented as a mainstay for thousands of years. Addiction wasn't really any worse of a problem back then.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02 2021, @03:29PM
I know what your conventional thinking decrees, but:
I am personally acquainted with a person (no PII) who gained weight while on a medically-supervised starvation diet. Last I heard, this person was being moved to a medically-supervised liquids-only diet.
Oh, and this person is practically a gym inhabitant. Phenomenal cardio. Still gained weight, eating about 800 calories daily.
I recall there was a prison study that effectively proved the same sub-population existed, but mechanisms were never demonstrated.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by PiMuNu on Tuesday February 02 2021, @03:46PM (2 children)
I don't completely disagree with your statement. As I said there is a tightrope, and where one views the balance is a judgement call. Maybe I am an optimist!
Something you didn't address was the economic argument, i.e. "we give drug addicts access to clean, cheap/free drugs so that the economics of the illegal drug trade are no longer viable". This has direct benefits - it is harder to get access to addictive drugs for new starters - and indirect benefits - the crime mentioned by GGP is no longer necessary.
In the UK, cigarettes have become slowly more strictly controlled and there has been a concomitant reduction in take-up of smoking among young people - UK government stats (sorry for the unwieldy URLs).
Number of younger smokers longitudinal study:
https://digital.nhs.uk/binaries/content/documents/corporate-website/publication-system/statistical/statistics-on-smoking/statistics-on-smoking-england-2019/part-4-smoking-patterns-in-children-copy/part-4-smoking-patterns-in-children-copy/publicationsystem%3AbodySections%5B3%5D/publicationsystem%3Aimage [digital.nhs.uk]
Affordability (some menage of cost and income) longitudinal study:
https://digital.nhs.uk/binaries/content/documents/corporate-website/publication-system/statistical/statistics-on-smoking/statistics-on-smoking-england-2019/part-5-availability-and-affordability-of-tobacco-copy/part-5-availability-and-affordability-of-tobacco-copy/publicationsystem%3AbodySections%5B10%5D/publicationsystem%3Aimage [digital.nhs.uk]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by looorg on Tuesday February 02 2021, @04:02PM (1 child)
The thing is that legalization isn't some magic bullet. If we look at say the states that legalized weed they still have a rampant illegal market to. For various reasons. Some people just like it being "dangerous", some doesn't want to use legal means in case they somehow get registered and what that will do to them. Legal might mean more expensive -- after all having a nice storefront, paying taxes and such is more expensive then having someone standing around some dark alley. A cost that gets pushed to the customers.
If the legal drug market grows and the illegal shrinks then the dealers and their organizations won't magically go away. If anything things might actually become more violent as they keep fighting for a smaller and smaller market share. That said the market doesn't appear to be shrinking at he moment. Legal just seems to be a compliment to the market.
Then there is the issue of the mindset of it being legal then it must be safe or less dangerous. Which might might more people try it. But it's probably very hard to judge and create a proper study of this. It's not like you can just go around asking people if they wanna snort/shot/smoke heroin/coke/meth just cause it's "legal".
https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2019-07-23/illegal-pot-still-plagues-states-where-weed-is-legal [usnews.com]
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/07/21/legal-marijuana-black-market-227414 [politico.com]
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-08-14/californias-biggest-legal-marijuana-market [latimes.com]
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday February 04 2021, @08:07PM
Or at least it isn't an instant magic bullet and it is possible to screw the process up. Storefronts do cost money. On the other hand, it's a lot cheaper to hire people to man them than it is to hire someone for the street corner when the latter are subject to arrest and imprisonment and the former are not.
It is also possible to set taxes and regulatory burden so high that street drugs remain cheaper. There's an easy solution to that one. It also takes time to establish a full legal supply chain from crop to storefront. It takes even longer since the feds aren't playing ball, keeping that entire industry from using conventional banking. Time can solve that one.
The whole thing about fear of registration boils down to distrusting that legal means legal. Various levels of government have spent decades earning the distrust of pot smokers, it's going to take time to earn it back.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02 2021, @04:44PM (15 children)
OK so why doesn't everyone smoke cigarettes? Or drink until they fall down every day and night? Addiction is a symptom, not the underlying problem.
The underlying problem that affects *waves hands* 20% of people is psychological trauma - their drug of choice best alleviates their mental torment. Read the book "In the realm of hungry ghosts" on eBay - I got a copy for $3 - or check out some quotes [goodreads.com] by the author.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02 2021, @05:24PM (14 children)
"Psychological trauma"? Only for some. For many, there was absolutely nothing wrong with their life, they tried a drug, and their body reacted to it VERY POSITIVELY, and they kept taking it and were hooked.
Don't fall 100% for psychobabble justifications for everything. There is a physiological component that is critical. It's in our genes. You can easily see this in cases of alcoholism that runs in families. You can see it in your friend who took his first drink and his face lit up with joy on the first sip, and does so every other time he takes his first sip of the day.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02 2021, @05:37PM (13 children)
BZZZZT bullshit.
You think your parents' traumas don't pass onto you? And their parents' to them? The physical addiction to, say, booze is minimal I've drunk heavily basically since the age of 15. I can stop for days or a week - there are zero physical symptoms. Also smoked cigarettes socially for 10 years, 3-4 a day. Then stopped when I moved and didn't have the same social circle.
Caffeine is tougher - if I stop for a few days (and I can), I get headaches for about 2 days. Then it's over, addiction finished.
So for me - and probably 80% - we can dip in and out of addictive substances and move on with our lives. The physical addiction is *minor*.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02 2021, @05:57PM (12 children)
You didn't take the harder drugs. Please, try some heroin, some meth, some fentanyl and back to us. Caffeine? What a joke!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday February 02 2021, @06:46PM (2 children)
Says you. I quit amphetamines cold turkey and only had a couple days where I felt fine but was really tired. Caffeine? I'd rather give up smoking. Repeatedly. The headaches were worse than having a tooth pulled.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Oakenshield on Tuesday February 02 2021, @09:21PM (1 child)
I have a buddy that reacts the same way as you. He tried to convince me that quitting caffeine would do the same to me as it did to him. Terrible headaches. I tried to tell him it made no difference to me. Every year, I spent a week with my boys at Scout camp with nothing but water and it never caused me any discomfort or headaches. (I don't drink coffee) So, I switched completely to non-caffeine drinks for a month just to show him.
I could guzzle two liters of Coke right before bed and sleep like a rock. ...Until I wake up at 4AM with a painfully full bladder.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 03 2021, @02:40AM
Water from a stone!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 03 2021, @01:51AM (1 child)
Well I can't, can I?
I've taken oxys and they're OK. Same as hydrocodone. Nice, especially with caffeine!
I took them for 2 weeks after a wisdom tooth extraction. Then stopped. They also made me constipated. Amazingly I did not become a zombie sex slave, just went about my life. I still like them and would do again - but constipation is something I wouldn't care for very often. ====== See example of a grown up making a decision
And YET I did not steal my mom's supply for her hip operation.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 04 2021, @02:49PM
Man, opiates and caffeine make me hurl. Which is why I hate, hate, hate opiates.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday February 04 2021, @01:12PM (6 children)
Caffeine is no joke. I have one vice, and *only* one, and caffeine is it. I need almost the recommended upper limit of 400mg a night to function properly. Am looking into possibly being hypothyroid and eating more iodine to see if that lessens the need, but it looks like I'm going to be a caffeine hound till the grave.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 04 2021, @02:52PM (4 children)
400mg? Noob. My standard ration is 1200mg every morning. I won't even drop it down below 300 per AM if I've been an overachiever lately and my kidneys need a break.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday February 05 2021, @01:35AM (3 children)
You also have ADHD and antisocial personality disorder, one diagnostic hallmark of the latter being chronic understimulation of the autonomic and near-autonomic nervous system. You need barely sublethal doses of it just to keep functioning. For my part, the 350-400mg a day are causing some rather unpleasant side effects and I really wish I didn't need so much. Hopefully adding some iodine and some zinc will help with this, though I hear zinc helps men more than women.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday February 05 2021, @02:16PM (2 children)
Nope, I'm very social. Fuck, I've put shitloads of hours in to the thing you're insulting me on specifically so I have another good venue for being even social. What have you done?
It's a tolerance thing. You know, that word you and your friends like using as its own antonym. I didn't start out on a couple grams a day but I can manage it once in a while easily enough. I generally get by on 900-1200mg a day. Also, yeah, that's what the FDA says is likely to cause problems but they qualify it with the word "rapid" rather than "daily".
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday February 06 2021, @01:43AM (1 child)
You don't seem to understand what words mean. Antisocial personality disorder doesn't mean you dislike socializing, it means you're a socio*path.* I wish the institution were a bit less euphemistic and would outright call it sociopathy still, but what the hell. A turd by any other name...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday February 06 2021, @02:37PM
You know, from someone who actually lacks anything approaching a properly functioning sense of empathy, that's pretty hilarious. You're one of the worst I've ever seen at identifying emotion and how it factors in to motivation, which is what empathy is. Is that pathological or is it intentional lies you tell yourself to keep from having to acknowledge that you are the bad guy?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2021, @11:40PM
Equal amounts of caffeine and ibuprofen will get you through the day, or night. Just don't use an NSAID daily.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Wednesday February 03 2021, @12:40AM (5 children)
Yep, all you have to do is fight a biological drive second only to breathing for the rest of your life. But you can't totally fight it or you'll die, so you have to fight it just enough.
Imagine people trying to quit smoking if they HAD to light up 2 or 3 times a day to avoid death. Easy Peasy, right?
Thought experiment: Measure your rate of breathing and average volume. Now, maintain 75% of that for as long as you can...ENJOY!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 03 2021, @01:52AM
See also ABSTINENCE. Suppress that sex drive, kids.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 04 2021, @02:53PM (2 children)
Your stomach and hunger levels will adjust to most anything if you keep the calorie count stable.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday February 04 2021, @09:40PM (1 child)
To an extent. Actual hunger pangs go away after about 24 hours of fasting and will likewise adjust down if a person starts eating less at a time, but that is only a small part of the biological drive to eat.
Anorexics often manage to defeat all of the various drives to eat, but I don't think anyone who isn't anorexic would argue that they are in any way physically or psychologically healthy.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday February 05 2021, @02:18PM
Yeah, see, the trick is to park it in the healthy range instead of at either extreme. Your body will adjust after a while. If you weigh 300lbs or if you weigh 65, you are not healthy. You are in fact decidedly fucked up, health-wise.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by pdfernhout on Friday February 05 2021, @02:02AM
https://web.archive.org/web/20150430050047/ttp://drfuhrman.com/library/article16.aspx [archive.org]
"An abundance of food, by itself, is not a cause of health problems. But modern technology has done more than to simply make food perpetually abundant. Food also has been made artificially tastier. Food is often more stimulating than ever before—as the particular chemicals in foods that cause pleasure reactions have been isolated—and artificially concentrated. These chemicals include fats (including oils), refined carbohydrates (such as refined sugar and flour), and salt. Meats were once consumed mostly in the form of wild game—typically about 15% fat. Today’s meat is a much different product. Chemically and hormonally engineered, it can be as high as 50% fat or more. Ice cream is an extraordinary invention for intensifying taste pleasure—an artificial concoction of pure fat and refined sugar. Once an expensive delicacy, it is now a daily ritual for many people. French fries and potato chips, laden with artificially-concentrated fats, are currently the most commonly consumed “vegetable” in our society. As Dr. Fuhrman reports in his excellent volume Eat to Live, these artificial products, and others like them, comprise a whopping 93% American diet. Our teenage population, for example, consumes up to 25% of their calories in the form of soda pop!
Most of our citizenry can’t imagine how it could be any other way. To remove (or dramatically reduce) such products from America’s daily diet seems intolerable—even absurd. Most people believe that if they were to do so, they would enjoy their food—and their lives—much less. Indeed, most people believe that they would literally suffer if they consumed a health-promoting diet devoid of such indulgences. But, it is here that their perception is greatly in error. The reality is that humans are well designed to fully enjoy the subtler tastes of whole natural foods, but are poorly equipped to realize this fact. And like a frog sitting in dangerously hot water, most people are being slowly destroyed by the limitations of their awareness. ...
Once in awhile, a person may actually become aware of important dietary knowledge. Despite the ingenious misinformation campaigns waged by the dairy, cattle, and processed food industries, sometimes a person actually comes to understand the truth about diet. At such times, determined individuals might attempt to change their diet toward whole natural foods—in spite of dire and unfounded warnings from their families, friends, and doctors.
But along the way, they are likely to be met with a formidable obstacle—their own taste neuroadaptation to artificially-intense foods. This challenge is depicted as Phases IV and V, wherein a change to less stimulating foods typically will result in a reduced pleasure experience. In the early stages, this process is dramatic because natural foods often are not nearly as stimulating.
Scientific evidence suggests that the re-sensitization of taste nerves takes between 30 and 90 days of consistent exposure to less stimulating foods. This means that for several weeks, most people attempting this change will experience a reduction in eating pleasure. This is why modern foods present such a devastating trap—as most of our citizens are, in effect, “addicted” to artificially high levels of food stimulation! The 30-to-90-day process of taste re-calibration requires more motivation—and more self-discipline—than most people are ever willing to muster.
Tragically, most people are totally unaware that they are only a few weeks of discipline away from being able to comfortably maintain healthful dietary habits—and to keep away from the products that can result in the destruction of their health. Instead, most people think that if they were to eat more healthfully, they would be condemned to a life of greatly reduced gustatory pleasure—thinking that the process of Phase IV will last forever. In our new book, The Pleasure Trap, we explain this extraordinarily deceptive and problematic situation – and how to master this hidden force that undermines health and happiness. ..."
The biggest challenge of the 21st century: the irony of technologies of abundance used by scarcity-minded people.