Zero Tolerance or Harm Minimisation? (1 Viewer)

[transcendent]

Perspective #1:

Stopping Drugs at the Source by Cutting Off the Supply

Certain drugs are illegal for a reason -- they're so dangerous that there is no safe way to have them in our society. We have to do everything possible to keep illegal drugs out of the country and off the streets. We need to cut off the supply of drugs by targeting traffickers and dealers, both wholesalers and street corner drug dealers. Tougher enforcement and stricter sentencing of dealers and users helped to deal with the crack cocaine epidemic of the 1990s and kept overall drug use at stable levels. To win the war on drugs, we need to pursue this strategy aggressively, making every effort to identify, prosecute, and imprison drug dealers, thus cutting off the drug supply both at home and abroad.



Perspective #2:

Reducing Demand by Holding Users Accountable

The drug problem has persisted because millions of drug users continue to buy them. Despite abundant evidence of their corrosive effect on users and the society as a whole, drug use is still widely tolerated and even glamorized in the media. Sports stars use steroids and many people abuse even over-the-counter inhalants and prescription drugs. The war on drugs will be won only when millions of users are persuaded to stop, and young people are persuaded not to start. We have to make zero tolerance for drugs a top national priority -- starting at home, in the schools, and the workplace.



Perspective #3:

Redefining Drug Use as Addiction, Not Criminal Behavior

The drug problem has persisted, and in some respects worsened, because we've gone at it the wrong way. The "war on drugs" isn't working and even if it was, the price is too high. The prohibition on drugs leads to black market prices. It generates crime and violence as dealers fight over turf and sales, and drug users steal to buy illicit substances at inflated prices. The drug laws turn users -- who need treatment -- into criminals. We'd be far better off if drug use were regarded as a health problem. We should legalize at least some drugs and reduce the harm they cause by regulating their sale and treating their victims.

http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/debate.cfm?issue_type=illegal_drugs

 

[withoutaface]

If people want to drugfuck themselves that's their business, just so long as they're over 18 and dispose of their needles properly.

 

[Plebeian]

If it's their own concern, would you send a state-funded ambulance to pick up someone who had reportedly had a (presumably non-lethal) drug overdose?

 

[withoutaface]

If it's their own concern, would you send a state-funded ambulance to pick up someone who had reportedly had a (presumably non-lethal) drug overdose?

If they are going to take drugs then it's their business to also make sure they have enough money to pay for any health care costs they may incurr.

If you're stupid enough to BASE jump without a parachute why shoudl you expect anyone to be waiting at the bottom with a net to catch you?

 

[Olsen]

After watching 'Traffic' on Sat night and reading the debate about drugs i'd have to say the harm minimisation approach is the best though not the most ideal solution. Drugs are everywhere and will still be here for years to come. It's the illegality attached to drugs that make them highly valuable and if we legalise small quantities of say MJ we can decrease the value of MJ. However, having said that the most ideal solution would be to try and cure the addiction or at least reduce it to a manageable level.

 

[loquasagacious]

Legalise and tax. Tax on drug sales/profits can fund rehab etc etc

Remember that MJ alone is a $6Billion a year industry in Australia, if we took say a conservative 10% of that we have $600M Which I guess is abit more than we currently invest in the problem.

The revenue wuld also be used to curtail illegal supply, as afterall we want all supply to be legal regulated and taxed. Ultimately the dealer on the street will be put out of business by the pharmascist, the couriers by FedEx, Linfox and TNT, the growers by large scale farmers, the refiners and bikies by Herron. Harmful additives can be curtailed and a large chunk of the profits can now go to govt.

 

[katie tully]

If it's their own concern, would you send a state-funded ambulance to pick up someone who had reportedly had a (presumably non-lethal) drug overdose?

I should like to discuss this further!

State funded ambulances? When did this happen? Fairly sure, unless you have ambulance cover you have to pay.

Anywhore on topic...

As much as it pains me and as much as I hate drug fucked people, I cannot argue that statistically, harm minimization programs haven't decreased the incidence of HIV/Hep C amongst syringe users.

(Sorry for the confusion, it was quite a spasticated sentence)

 

[KFunk]

As much as it pains me and as much as I hate drug fucked people, I cannot argue that statistically, harm minimization programs have decreased the incidence of HIV/Hep C amongst syringe users.

I am confuzzled. Do you mean the opposite? Or are you questioning the success of harm minimization approaches at decreasing HIV/Hep C rates?

 

[wixxy2348]

ollld thread.. REVIVE!

 

[Riet]

zero tolerance is the only way. We should put anyone who abuses any drugs ever into jail.

 

[katie tully]

I am confuzzled. Do you mean the opposite? Or are you questioning the success of harm minimization approaches at decreasing HIV/Hep C rates?

What? No I'm not arguing against the success of harm minimization, I am saying that according to the statistics and data released, it has decreased the incidence of HIV/Hep C.

I just used to be really hard line zero tolerance, and as such it still pains me to agree with facilitating their drug use, despite acknowledging the benefits.

 

[katie tully]

I hate alcoholics in the same way, yes.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

Definitely harm minimisation. The benefits of it are intuitively obvious (but have been backed up by studies, which is why the UN supports it) and the disadvantages of zero tolerance should be equally obvious. Thankfully Obama supports harm minimisation, so maybe we'll start to see some tangible changes to American and international drug policy (though it should be pointed out that most countries are already way ahead of America in this department).

 

[katie tully]

That's not what I asked you. You've bastardized the question to hide your hypocrisy.

You said you supported "zero tolerance," which means stopping all drug use, not just use by addicts.

I asked do you hate alcohol per se, not just alcoholics.

So do you hate all alcohol use? If not, would you be willing to concede that not all drug use is detestable?

I didn't say I supported zero tolerance you fucking gronk, read it again.

I said

I just used to be really hard line zero tolerance

Past tense dick brain. But despite having changed my mind in regards to harm minimization, I still have issues deep down with facilitating drug use. If people want to take the shit recreationally and still function properly, good on them. If they want to sit in gutters, live off welfare and be cunts when they come and get their needles, they can get fucked.

There is the distinction.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

You said you supported "zero tolerance," which means stopping all drug use, not just use by addicts.

No she didn't you. Re-read her posts. She did make a mistake in her first post where she accidentally added a negative qualifier but it sounds very much like Katie understands and begrudgingly supports the logical basis of harm minimisation.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

Oh right, its "obvious." Thanks for that insightful contribution.

Fuck you're such a gronk. Always militantly opposed to those who may potentially disagree with you, or who simply do not phrase things in a way that you might deign to be acceptable.

 

[katie tully]

Definitely harm minimisation. The benefits of it are intuitively obvious (but have been backed up by studies, which is why the UN supports it) and the disadvantages of zero tolerance should be equally obvious. Thankfully Obama supports harm minimisation, so maybe we'll start to see some tangible changes to American and international drug policy (though it should be pointed out that most countries are already way ahead of America in this department).

And yes they are rather obvious.


Had a great chat with a A&OD counselor the other day re: the effectiveness of prohibition. I still think more needs to be done in terms of prevention, preventing people from taking up drugs like ice, heroin, speed.... But failing that, we can either spend lots of $$$s prosecuting them, $$$'s hospitalising them, or we can put money into rehabilitation in the event they can get clean if they want and contribute to society.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

If people want to take the shit recreationally and still function properly, good on them. If they want to sit in gutters, live off welfare and be cunts when they come and get their needles, they can get fucked.

There is the distinction.

The main benefits of harm minimisation are, depending on the methods used (I'm gonna assume we're mostly talking about shit like heroine):
- clean drugs (no dangerous impurities)
- exact dosages and monitored dosages (far less chance of overdose)
- clean needles (no HIV, etc)
- less drug-induced stealing and accompanying crimes
- and this is the best one: lower relapse rates (people getting professional help instead of being arrested or forced to hide are far more likely to eventually quit).

You mention tax payer costs. Well, which would you rather do: pay less tax payer dollars on drug users because harm minimisation rehabilitates many and lowers crimes rates, or spend more tax payer dollars on criminalising and punishing drug users because zero tolerance requires massive amounts of police and jail funding?

This actually has nothing to do with welfare (in terms of the dole). That's based on the number of druggies (assuming all use it, which is not true, but a simple assumption). Harm minimisation produces less druggies over time, so again, it makes sense to support harm minimisation even from this perspective.

Edit: I noticed you actually pointed out most of these benefits in a post above, sorry.

Saying something is obvious is not an acceptable argument. Anyone can say it about anything. It has no probative value whatsoever.

I was giving my opinion on an issue in a forum thread broadly exploring the topic. I specifically wasn't arguing or trying to change minds (I prefer to do that later when someone actually disagrees with me, or I disagree with someone).

 

[katie tully]

My point was that you have a very negative attitude towards drugs, which you have just admitted is true. I was wondering if you have the same militant hatred of alcohol. You still haven't answered this question.

I did answer the question, and you're trying to curb ball me into admitting that all drugs are bad and all people who take drugs are bad.

I have previously made the distinction between recreational drug users who maintain a semblance of life, and my disdain for the unproductive members of society that I have to interact with on a daily basis.

And with that goes alcoholics. Just like I don't believe those who take recreational drugs for a bit of a weekend high are bad people, I don't believe binge drinkers or those who drink socially are bad people.

I can't explain why I have such a disdain for those who spend their lives in a constant haze in a filthy shit hole somewhere. It might be irrational, it might be based on underlying prejudices or whatever, but imo as long as I support harm minimization and recognize that prohibition and militant policing is useless, does it really matter if I have that opinion?

I used to word supported, past tense dick brain.

Yeah and the question was fucking irrelevant you wanker. If you knew I was saying I used to support it, meaning I no longer support it then what difference does my personal opinion on people with addictions matter?

Most likely because you yourself drink and view it as socially acceptable. There is no logical justification for this attitude. So as I said initially, it is likely that people like you have been influenced by government funded organizations which spread anti-drug propaganda.

Uh no, maybe it's because
a. I work in a clinical setting and I see people affected by long term drug use weekly
b. I see what their lives become
c. My Uncle and Aunty are both useless drug fucked sleaze bags
d. From a scientific perspective I appreciate that drugs, including alcohol, are not without consequence.

All substances are poisonous. It just depends on the dose.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

I can't explain why I have such a disdain for those who spend their lives in a constant haze in a filthy shit hole somewhere.

I think such a disdain is a pretty common and normal feeling. It ties into human valuation of potential, worth, and waste. People generally hate seeing somebody waste their life (whatever that means), and while what the definition of a 'waste of a life' is is very debatable, seeing somebody literally physically waste away on drugs is a pretty powerful and uniformly interpreted image. Not many people would agree it's a desirable or positive state for a human to be in.

And being close to such people on a daily basis as you are no doubt compounds that disdain.