[careinke]

Sea what is Shabu (Ice)? No my wife did not tell me anything about that drug. I wonder though what percentage take and are addicted to this drug and if that has led to much crime in certain areas.

When I lived in the PI, I felt the high petty crime rate was due to the $300/year annual income, just like in every other third world country. Persons gotta eat.

[SeaGypsy]

Weird how many of us have connection to the Philippines. I'm not sure its a statistical anomaly.

[Tanada]

Well (unfortunately) the recreational drug decriminalization ballot proposal went down to a hard defeat last night in Ohio. How do things stand in your corner of USA?

[Newfie]

Canada legalized pot. There’s some common sense drug control for you.

Tanada, elsewhere you commented the voters are schizo or something like that. Here’s another example.

[Newfie]

A bit of a round up here.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/mariju ... I/amp.html

[onlooker]

Perhaps we should discuss on this thread the whole issue of Narcotics and the failed Drug War. How it is ridiculous to be putting drug addicts in jail, when they simply are physically sick people compelled to feed an addiction. And so, no headway is made in reducing demand for illicit drugs.

How in addition, the criminilization of Drugs is providing profits to the whole incarceration Industry including shareholders. How the dimensions of this problem encompass moralty in how we treat this vulnerable marginalized population. And how this criminilization spurs criminal activity and gang culture.
Finally how drug producing countries are being devastated by corruption and crime related to the Drug Cartels

So yes lots to talk about and so much wrong with US Policy related to this issue

[KaiserJeep]

I am generally not in favor of adding more legal intoxicants. Alcohol has been legal since Prohibition ended, and is the #1 problem. The abuse of opioids is pretty serious even though these are manufacured and prescribed legally.

Since pot was legalized, people are smoking same in public here in California. It is amusing when I go to my favorite bakery to see the police and firemen/EMTs at their respective outside tables, with pot-smoking adults at the next table. I used to enjoy sitting outside, but not when you can get high when the wind changes, from second-hand smoke from superpotent legal weed.

It's obviously gonna hurt tourism to those Scandahoovian places people used to go to consume drugs, too.

[SeaGypsy]

Where I'm living the police couldn't care less about weed, but get done DUI & you are screwed, huge fine, minimum 6 month loss of license. Also it's law all over Australia that all drivers involved in crashes causing hospital treatment level injuries are blood tested. Insurance companies automatically void insurance of drug & drunk drivers, so the consequences are pretty huge.

[Tanada]

In Our View: We can learn from Oregon’s drug experience

The Columbian Published: March 26, 2021, 6:03am

A recent decision from the state Supreme Court could have a cataclysmic impact on Washington’s criminal justice system. The Legislature must work quickly this year to temper the temblor in the state’s judicial and policing structures.

In a 5-4 decision on Feb. 25, justices struck down a decades-old drug-possession statute as unconstitutional. The general consensus is that the ruling in State v. Blake not only affects cases in which someone accidentally or unknowingly possessed illegal drugs, but also requires that past convictions be vacated, new sentences be imposed and fines be reimbursed.

Until the ruling, people in possession of illegal drugs could be convicted even if they did not know they were carrying. Washington was the only remaining state in which prosecutors were not required to prove intent, and the ruling calls into question all drug convictions over the previous five decades.

“We think this is a $100 million issue,” Juliana Roe, policy director of the Washington State Association of Counties, told Crosscut.

Because the Legislature passed the now-defunct law in 1971, lawmakers should provide the funding for counties to navigate the fallout of the ruling. And because that ruling appears to mean that anybody in Washington – including minors – now may possess drugs such as cocaine, methamphetamine and heroin, lawmakers should clarify that the most dangerous substances remain criminalized in the state.

Those are the immediate concerns. But in the long run, the ruling demands that Washington rethink its criminal justice system and that system’s role in the nation’s failed war on drugs.

As attorney Mark Middaugh told The Seattle Times: “The Supreme Court took a dramatic step towards having a more just and humane criminal justice system. It’s a big step; it’s a big deal. The Legislature should not rush to resume hostilities in the war on drugs. The Legislature has a tremendous opportunity to take a pause and instead focus on public health and racial equity.”

Drug policy historically has provided inequitable punishment in Washington and other states. The King County Public Defender’s office has determined that Black defendants are 62 percent more likely than white defendants to go to prison for felony drug charges.

In recent years, the state has transitioned from the harshest approach to prosecuting drug possession. Specialized courts, including in Clark County, have focused on treatment rather than incarceration; those courts have been effective at reducing recidivism and addiction while decreasing jail time and the cost to the public.

Addiction should be treated as a public health crisis rather than a criminal crisis, and that will necessitate large investments in treatment facilities and programs. Over time, that will reflect a wise expenditure, yielding more benefits than mass incarceration.

Questions about how Washington should approach drug policy can be informed by what is taking place in Oregon. There, voters in November approved the decriminalization of small amounts of drugs while increasing access to treatment and recovery services.

Washington should not be quick to adopt a similar law, but it can learn from what works well and what does not in Oregon.

Either way, the Blake ruling will provide a much-needed impetus for rethinking our state’s approach to drug enforcement. The first steps should be to keep drugs out of the hands of minors, reinforce laws against drug dealers, and enhance behavioral interventions. After that, the focus must be on an equitable justice system.

[JuanP]

Uruguay was the first country in the world to decriminalize the possession and consumption of Cannabis everywhere in its territory for all its citizens. The production, distribution, and sale of pot is regulated by the government and users have to register themselves with the government and do free group therapy and get a free medical examination to qualify. Pot is distributed in hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies, and remains a controlled substance. Only registered institutions and persons can grow, distribute, sell, possess, or consume pot. Unregulated pot production, possession with intent to distribute, trafficking, importing, and exporting remain criminal offenses. The program has worked like a charm for years and has completely eliminated the crime that used to be associated with domestic pot consumption.

Tourists and foreigners don't qualify for the program; this was to prevent Uruguay from becoming a potheads' tourist destination. Most foreign tourism in Uruguay is upscale and expensive, aimed mostly at very wealthy foreigners.

[careinke]

In Our View: We can learn from Oregon’s drug experience

The Columbian Published: March 26, 2021, 6:03am

A recent decision from the state Supreme Court could have a cataclysmic impact on Washington’s criminal justice system. The Legislature must work quickly this year to temper the temblor in the state’s judicial and policing structures.

In a 5-4 decision on Feb. 25, justices struck down a decades-old drug-possession statute as unconstitutional. The general consensus is that the ruling in State v. Blake not only affects cases in which someone accidentally or unknowingly possessed illegal drugs, but also requires that past convictions be vacated, new sentences be imposed and fines be reimbursed.

Until the ruling, people in possession of illegal drugs could be convicted even if they did not know they were carrying. Washington was the only remaining state in which prosecutors were not required to prove intent, and the ruling calls into question all drug convictions over the previous five decades.

“We think this is a $100 million issue,” Juliana Roe, policy director of the Washington State Association of Counties, told Crosscut.

Because the Legislature passed the now-defunct law in 1971, lawmakers should provide the funding for counties to navigate the fallout of the ruling. And because that ruling appears to mean that anybody in Washington – including minors – now may possess drugs such as cocaine, methamphetamine and heroin, lawmakers should clarify that the most dangerous substances remain criminalized in the state.

Those are the immediate concerns. But in the long run, the ruling demands that Washington rethink its criminal justice system and that system’s role in the nation’s failed war on drugs.

As attorney Mark Middaugh told The Seattle Times: “The Supreme Court took a dramatic step towards having a more just and humane criminal justice system. It’s a big step; it’s a big deal. The Legislature should not rush to resume hostilities in the war on drugs. The Legislature has a tremendous opportunity to take a pause and instead focus on public health and racial equity.”

Drug policy historically has provided inequitable punishment in Washington and other states. The King County Public Defender’s office has determined that Black defendants are 62 percent more likely than white defendants to go to prison for felony drug charges.

In recent years, the state has transitioned from the harshest approach to prosecuting drug possession. Specialized courts, including in Clark County, have focused on treatment rather than incarceration; those courts have been effective at reducing recidivism and addiction while decreasing jail time and the cost to the public.

Addiction should be treated as a public health crisis rather than a criminal crisis, and that will necessitate large investments in treatment facilities and programs. Over time, that will reflect a wise expenditure, yielding more benefits than mass incarceration.

Questions about how Washington should approach drug policy can be informed by what is taking place in Oregon. There, voters in November approved the decriminalization of small amounts of drugs while increasing access to treatment and recovery services.

Washington should not be quick to adopt a similar law, but it can learn from what works well and what does not in Oregon.

Either way, the Blake ruling will provide a much-needed impetus for rethinking our state’s approach to drug enforcement. The first steps should be to keep drugs out of the hands of minors, reinforce laws against drug dealers, and enhance behavioral interventions. After that, the focus must be on an equitable justice system.

I am happy to see this decision. People Should be allowed to consume whatever they want without being arrested. Perhaps the police can turn their attention to property crimes, theft, assault, pediphillia, and child abuse instead. Still plenty of work to do....

[evilgenius]

I think the number one problem related to this issue is closely related to that of treatment. That problem would be that of personal development in a world where, in the absence of it, the vacuum can be filled by any behavior. I think the first and foremost thing lacking is not so much a sense of self among people, but a sense of love for our selves. When we lack a confidence in our own well being, then any deviation from the norm becomes a reason to doubt. That sort of doubt is doubt indeed. It is the sort of doubt which compels us to fill a void.

We currently live in a world where we don't lift each other to either reach or understand the sort of healthy outlook I suggest. It costs too much money, most of the time. Basically, everybody who never got aborted, but had all of those issues as to whether they should have been because their presence in their parent's lives was bound to be destructive. And, also, those who were wanted, but had that kind of life anyway. It sucks to be born, period. In addition to existential pain, there are very good reasons to doubt one's self. And despite all of the rhetoric from various institutions and organized groups, nobody was there to help you.

The world needs life coaching on a massive scale! People do need to learn how to think in ways where they can identify what is best for them. They need to be able to recognize that outside of all of the emotions they feel, and make the right choice for the time they are living. Because, sometimes, we do need a break, but not always. We don't teach people to find that for themselves. We need to not only provide for people's safety when they learn how to make these decisions, but also for when they know better but make mistakes along these lines. I'm amazed how some would much rather let anyone who consumes a substance die than help them, as if they weren't that close to suffering the same fate numerous times throughout their lives. It's good to praise ourselves when we make the right decisions, but it's also good to forgive those who fail along the way. Few of them only want failure. Most were seeking something else.

[Plantagenet]

I am happy to see this decision. People Should be allowed to consume whatever they want without being arrested.

I usually find myself agreeing with your posts, careinke, but I disagree here. I think some drugs are too dangerous to made freely available to uninformed young people.

Almost no one one who becomes addicted to heroin or crack cocaine or methamphetamine or ketamine or even marijuana understands how strong the addiction will be. There are countless examples of people who "tried" heroin, for example, on the advice of a "friend" and then became addicted and it didn't end well for them.

I knew a promising young man who died in his dorm room at college, overdosing on Heroin. Then there was a beautiful young woman who became addicted to meth and turned into a scabrous pestilential hooker. And there was a young dreamer who smoked a lot of pot and wrote folk songs and then, after a while, he got kinda vacant and all he would do is hang out on hippie hill and smoke pot, beg for a few coins, buy more pot, sleep on the street, buy more pot....etc.

I guess I don't see what people get out of drugs. Wouldn't it better if they wouldjust go for a hike on the beach or for a run on a mountain trail?


Real life is better then drugs.

Cheers!

[mmasters]

I am happy to see this decision. People Should be allowed to consume whatever they want without being arrested.

I usually find myself agreeing with your posts, careinke, but I disagree here. I think some drugs are too dangerous to made freely available to uninformed young people.

Almost no one one who becomes addicted to heroin or crack cocaine or methamphetamine or ketamine or even marijuana understands how strong the addiction will be. There are countless examples of people who "tried" heroin, for example, on the advice of a "friend" and then became addicted and it didn't end well for them.

I knew a promising young man who died in his dorm room at college, overdosing on Heroin. Then there was a beautiful young woman who became addicted to meth and turned into a scabrous pestilential hooker. And there was a young dreamer who smoked a lot of pot and wrote folk songs and then, after a while, he got kinda vacant and all he would do is hang out on hippie hill and smoke pot, beg for a few coins, buy more pot, sleep on the street, buy more pot....etc.

I guess I don't see what people get out of drugs. Wouldn't it better if they wouldjust go for a hike on the beach or for a run on a mountain trail?


Real life is better then drugs.

Cheers!

They are looking for bliss or one of it's variants...Some people get it through sex, some exercise, some alcohol... some from hard drugs like coke, meth and opiates.

I personally think drugs should be evaluated on case by case basis. I think POT is OK but I wouldn't want my dentist or my surgeon smoking it regularly while doing work on me.

One drug that should be legal in a therapeutic setting is MDMA. I did a variant of this when I was in college and can confirm it's a wonderful therapy tool for people who are emotionally damaged or have PTSD.

[Pops]

Addiction is a curse, mind and mood altering not so much. I come from a long line of addicts of one sort or another and consider myself a functioning alcoholic, although I haven't drank in many years. Much of addiction is self-medication for one mental or social malady or another. Adding a layer of gratuitous criminality on top does indeed make pot a gateway— to criminality. Every pot smoker I knew back in the day had a veneer of "rebel law-breaker" in their personality, it was part of the cachet.

And for folks who do know when to say when, what is the harm in the less physically addictive recreations? Here too, puritanical government intrusion makes regular folks into criminals for no good reason.

Certain drugs are bad news, addictive poison. I've never heard of a recreational heroin user. And although there are lots of old junkies there are few old speed freaks. Crank is the scourge of the age, when I was younger I saw more guys snort up their entire life, possessions, families, friends than any other drug. And there is no excuse for the legality of nicotine, the very first puff makes a person feel sick at their stomach and every subsequent drag is just an effort to stave off withdrawal. At least heroin feels good, nicotine never does.

The thing about the very addictive drugs is you will do anything to get them and that makes those addicted to them very good customers. I think possession of small amounts should be a ticket to treatment not jail. If you are a dealer you should be hung—that includes pill-mill docs and the drug companies that make them.

[Ibon]

Certain drugs are bad news, addictive poison. I've never heard of a recreational heroin user.

I lived in Zurich Switzerland in the 80's. Some of you may remember Needle Park, an urban park that was contained bordering two rivers and a major road. Switzerland was the first country to hand out heroin and needles to users within the boundary of this one park. My wife and I would intentionally take a short cut through this park heading back to our tiny apartment. On many nights you would see these dystopian scenes of fires burning in trash cans, users sitting around shooting up between their toes, in their arms, all lit up by the firelight of the informal bonfires. It was eerie to say the least. But no crime, peaceful in its own dystopian way.

When heroin users started coming from other countries to visit Needle Park, the situation got so bad that Switzerland halted the project to stop this international heroin tourism. They changed over to dispensaries located throughout the city staffed by nurses who would provide the heroin and needles for users to shoot up. Remember this was to a big degree approved to contain the AIDS epidemic.

The point of this story is that Pops, you are incorrect here in your assessment. Years later the dispensaries gathered all their data on users, protecting their identities. What they found was the high number of functional heroin addicts, businessmen and bankers, professionals who maintained their habit for decades but were still able to function in their jobs. That surprised me as well because I had always assumed that heroin use leads you down to the gutter. That seems to more accurately describe Crystal Meth actually.

The reason for this misunderstanding is that users of heroin from the beginning are a select group of the population who are the ones more predisposed to addiction; folks who have been abused, prostitutes, PTSD sufferers, broken families, poverty.

There was articles in the periodicals back then in Zurich about how many of the users went to the dispensaries in their suits and ties during their breaks from the ofiice.

[Pops]

My sister was a junkie. She said the same Ibon, she met bankers at her connection's house. As I said, there are lots of old junkies because heroin doesn't burn you up like speed does.

Here's the thing, if a banker is doing heroin and knows his career, marriage, family, freedom, entire life will go down the toilet if he is caught using, but he continues to use anyway, then by definition he is an addict and not a casual user.

As I understand it, the Swiss were not simply being benevolent to their junkie bankers, the program was called Heroin Assisted Treatment and was initiated because of the the parks, high use and ODs. It was treatment for addiction.

But you're right, if the government is supporting your habit that not only takes the criminality out of the equation, but the financial problem too. If they give you a set dose you might not OD, maybe won't kill someone for a fix, or sell you daughter on the street.

But again, the point isn't that heroin is not terminally addictive, but that it is so addictive the only way to stabilize a junkie to the point they won't self-destruct is to meter their use.

[Ibon]

No doubt highly addictive is heroin. I was mostly referring to the large number of functional addicts. I had always thought heroin addiction caused a steep decline into becoming non functional.

Yes it was an enlightened drug policy back then already. No crime, no gangs, controlling AIDs. It did not result in additional new addicts either.
No crowding of jails.

[aadbrd]

Alcoholism and smoking is a blight on society despite being legal. Same with drugs. Legalization doesn't solve any of that.

It's no coincidence that the legalization wave happened during the great recession. The cover story was that it provided a way to provide new jobs through a legal pot industry, but the other side of the coin is people were chronically depressed and it was better to allow them to lean on drugs as a coping mechanism and not face prosecution.

Has any of this helped? The rash of mass shooting suggests otherwise. We are a sick country in every meaning of the term.

[Tanada]

Alcoholism and smoking is a blight on society despite being legal. Same with drugs. Legalization doesn't solve any of that.

It's no coincidence that the legalization wave happened during the great recession. The cover story was that it provided a way to provide new jobs through a legal pot industry, but the other side of the coin is people were chronically depressed and it was better to allow them to lean on drugs as a coping mechanism and not face prosecution.

Has any of this helped? The rash of mass shooting suggests otherwise. We are a sick country in every meaning of the term.

Ah yes, puritanism and labelling people is so much easier than seeing the vast number of shades of grey that make up the real world.

My oldest brother in law was addicted to Heroin in Vietnam serving as a draftee. He extended his tour to keep his easy fix, but when his time was up the second time he kicked the habit so he could come home to my sister. He died last month, of lung cancer, having been a smoker from his early teens. He just turned 70 I think, and while never a huge money maker he managed to support my sister and their children from the time he returned from Nam until he retired.