Legalising drugs

Drowned Out

Principles of Housing First are: 1) Move people into housing directly from streets and shelters without preconditions of treatment acceptance or compliance; 2) The provider is obligated to bring robust support services to the housing. These services are predicated on assertive engagement, not coercion; 3) Continued tenancy is not dependent on participation in services; 4) Units targeted to most disabled and vulnerable homeless members of the community; 5) Embraces harm-reduction approach to addictions rather than mandating abstinence. At the same time, the provider must be prepared to support resident commitment to recovery; 6) Residents must have leases and tenant protections under the law; 7) Can be implemented as either a project-based or scattered site model.[6]
(per wiki)

All sounds reasonable to me....

jnimhaoileoin

Drowned Out said:

Principles of Housing First are: 1) Move people into housing directly from streets and shelters without preconditions of treatment acceptance or compliance; 2) The provider is obligated to bring robust support services to the housing. These services are predicated on assertive engagement, not coercion; 3) Continued tenancy is not dependent on participation in services; 4) Units targeted to most disabled and vulnerable homeless members of the community; 5) Embraces harm-reduction approach to addictions rather than mandating abstinence. At the same time, the provider must be prepared to support resident commitment to recovery; 6) Residents must have leases and tenant protections under the law; 7) Can be implemented as either a project-based or scattered site model.[6]
(per wiki)

All sounds reasonable to me....

How are people actually motivated to get clean under this system though? I presume homeless people who aren't addicts would be housed before those who are?

Godfather.

rgambs said:

Godfather. said:

so should we reward drug addicts for thier addiction and house them all and let them collect welfare to buy more drugs ? sounds like a hard choice to make, by enabling an addict we are not helping them.
I know from experiance that there are programs to help turn addicts life around that are free, the only thing I would change is the process for for getting into the programs, in 1989-1990 it was hard to get into a program and still cost $50 for a physical but if you can spend $50 on a bag you can get a physical if your really ready to clean up...as painfull as it may be. but just throwing out the red carpet for addicts and enabling them is stupid.

Godfather.

It can't be any more stupid then the current system!
If it saves the taxpayers money to legalize how stupid can it be?

the current system is flawed for sure, but I don't think in the end game legalizing drugs will be any cheaper..it may clear out the court house but many of the crimes related to to drug use will still be here, murder, burgleries, rapes, international trafficing, even if it was legal in the US it may not be in other countries so shipping it out of here would be big money, kind of like the bootlegers of the 30's who shipped whisky from canada to the US and killed to protect thier rackets, my thought is to find a way to (I don't know how) to educate people or it's really up to us as parents to teach our kids the dangers and cost of drug addiction, if we tell them it's not bad then that's what they'll know and that's what they'll do, it wont happen over night but we need to start now.

Godfather.

Drowned Out

Well....I'll go out on a limb and say that hardcore addicts are generally not happy with their lot in life. The motivation to get better is personal, but I would think things like reconnecting with their families, being self-sufficient, not feeling sick and going thru withdrawals, having the respect of their peers, etc are motivation....the thing is - unless you're ready to quit, NOTHING is enough motivation to change your mind. If you're choosing drugs over your kids in the first place, you're pretty far gone....telling a homeless person 'no housing for you because you're an addict' isn't going to motivate them to change their ways - they're already homeless! Allowing them self respect and minimizing the harm of their addiction until they're ready to quit does have a net benefit to society from a monetary stance, but also from the position of social well-being; if it is proven to help people recover, I think benefits are obvious...What is the alternative? As you said; telling them to lie in their beds....in which case, they will likely become a huge burden on society. If society makes them feel worthless, they're not going to care much about their affects on it...

Godfather.

Drowned Out said:

rgambs said:

Godfather. said:

so should we reward drug addicts for thier addiction and house them all and let them collect welfare to buy more drugs ? sounds like a hard choice to make, by enabling an addict we are not helping them.
I know from experiance that there are programs to help turn addicts life around that are free, the only thing I would change is the process for for getting into the programs, in 1989-1990 it was hard to get into a program and still cost $50 for a physical but if you can spend $50 on a bag you can get a physical if your really ready to clean up...as painfull as it may be. but just throwing out the red carpet for addicts and enabling them is stupid.

Godfather.

It can't be any more stupid then the current system!
If it saves the taxpayers money to legalize how stupid can it be?

Right....like I said....even if money is your motivation (instead of people, addiction, homelessness, crime, or any of the related social issues), you can still support these initiatives because they cost less....people are just soooo against 'the welfare state' that they knee jerk past the positives right to their stock answers...it's not enabling their addiction, it's enabling them to live long enough to get clean, and to reduce the burden on our social services. It's an approach that allows addicts to not feel like they're too far gone to be saved, saves lives, and saves money. Most homeless people end up in forced rehab via prison sentences for crimes caused by their homelessness and/or addiction, or hospital stays caused by the same. By providing the basics for them we skip the crime, we skip the prisons and hospitals, and we end up with people entering rehab when they're ready....and we all know the cliche about quitting - you can't until you're ready to....so the forced rehab is a total disaster and waste of money.

many of the the folks in prison for drug related crimes are in for murder and trafficing etc. and things that are caused by drug addiction

Godfather.

callen

Godfather. said:

Drowned Out said:

rgambs said:

Godfather. said:

so should we reward drug addicts for thier addiction and house them all and let them collect welfare to buy more drugs ? sounds like a hard choice to make, by enabling an addict we are not helping them.
I know from experiance that there are programs to help turn addicts life around that are free, the only thing I would change is the process for for getting into the programs, in 1989-1990 it was hard to get into a program and still cost $50 for a physical but if you can spend $50 on a bag you can get a physical if your really ready to clean up...as painfull as it may be. but just throwing out the red carpet for addicts and enabling them is stupid.

Godfather.

It can't be any more stupid then the current system!
If it saves the taxpayers money to legalize how stupid can it be?

Right....like I said....even if money is your motivation (instead of people, addiction, homelessness, crime, or any of the related social issues), you can still support these initiatives because they cost less....people are just soooo against 'the welfare state' that they knee jerk past the positives right to their stock answers...it's not enabling their addiction, it's enabling them to live long enough to get clean, and to reduce the burden on our social services. It's an approach that allows addicts to not feel like they're too far gone to be saved, saves lives, and saves money. Most homeless people end up in forced rehab via prison sentences for crimes caused by their homelessness and/or addiction, or hospital stays caused by the same. By providing the basics for them we skip the crime, we skip the prisons and hospitals, and we end up with people entering rehab when they're ready....and we all know the cliche about quitting - you can't until you're ready to....so the forced rehab is a total disaster and waste of money.

many of the the folks in prison for drug related crimes are in for murder and trafficing etc. and things that are caused by drug addiction

Godfather.

Caused by it being illegal.

Think the whole argument for regulating what one wants to ingest is nuts. Caffeine, sugar, nicotine, booze.

As to adding to social costs yeah that's a problem but education and help are the way to address, not locking them up, taking ability to find a decent job away then saying "good luck buddy but we're watching you and throw your ass back in jail if you use again".

PJ_Soul

Godfather. said:

Drowned Out said:

rgambs said:

Godfather. said:

so should we reward drug addicts for thier addiction and house them all and let them collect welfare to buy more drugs ? sounds like a hard choice to make, by enabling an addict we are not helping them.
I know from experiance that there are programs to help turn addicts life around that are free, the only thing I would change is the process for for getting into the programs, in 1989-1990 it was hard to get into a program and still cost $50 for a physical but if you can spend $50 on a bag you can get a physical if your really ready to clean up...as painfull as it may be. but just throwing out the red carpet for addicts and enabling them is stupid.

Godfather.

It can't be any more stupid then the current system!
If it saves the taxpayers money to legalize how stupid can it be?

Right....like I said....even if money is your motivation (instead of people, addiction, homelessness, crime, or any of the related social issues), you can still support these initiatives because they cost less....people are just soooo against 'the welfare state' that they knee jerk past the positives right to their stock answers...it's not enabling their addiction, it's enabling them to live long enough to get clean, and to reduce the burden on our social services. It's an approach that allows addicts to not feel like they're too far gone to be saved, saves lives, and saves money. Most homeless people end up in forced rehab via prison sentences for crimes caused by their homelessness and/or addiction, or hospital stays caused by the same. By providing the basics for them we skip the crime, we skip the prisons and hospitals, and we end up with people entering rehab when they're ready....and we all know the cliche about quitting - you can't until you're ready to....so the forced rehab is a total disaster and waste of money.

many of the the folks in prison for drug related crimes are in for murder and trafficing etc. and things that are caused by drug addiction

Godfather.

The folks who are in prison for murder are in there for murder. A murder that happens to be connected to some kind of drug activity is still just a murder, and they are violent offenders. No one wants them out of prison I don't think.

jnimhaoileoin

PJ_Soul said:

Godfather. said:

Drowned Out said:

rgambs said:

Godfather. said:

so should we reward drug addicts for thier addiction and house them all and let them collect welfare to buy more drugs ? sounds like a hard choice to make, by enabling an addict we are not helping them.
I know from experiance that there are programs to help turn addicts life around that are free, the only thing I would change is the process for for getting into the programs, in 1989-1990 it was hard to get into a program and still cost $50 for a physical but if you can spend $50 on a bag you can get a physical if your really ready to clean up...as painfull as it may be. but just throwing out the red carpet for addicts and enabling them is stupid.

Godfather.

It can't be any more stupid then the current system!
If it saves the taxpayers money to legalize how stupid can it be?

Right....like I said....even if money is your motivation (instead of people, addiction, homelessness, crime, or any of the related social issues), you can still support these initiatives because they cost less....people are just soooo against 'the welfare state' that they knee jerk past the positives right to their stock answers...it's not enabling their addiction, it's enabling them to live long enough to get clean, and to reduce the burden on our social services. It's an approach that allows addicts to not feel like they're too far gone to be saved, saves lives, and saves money. Most homeless people end up in forced rehab via prison sentences for crimes caused by their homelessness and/or addiction, or hospital stays caused by the same. By providing the basics for them we skip the crime, we skip the prisons and hospitals, and we end up with people entering rehab when they're ready....and we all know the cliche about quitting - you can't until you're ready to....so the forced rehab is a total disaster and waste of money.

many of the the folks in prison for drug related crimes are in for murder and trafficing etc. and things that are caused by drug addiction

Godfather.

The folks who are in prison for murder are in there for murder. A murder that happens to be connected to some kind of drug activity is still just a murder, and they are violent offenders. No one wants them out of prison I don't think.

No, I would certainly only be suggesting that people maybe shouldn't be jailed for possessing or selling drugs, as these acts in themselves cannot be said to directly harm others

brianlux

Any country that sells these items freely in retail store...



... and makes other drugs illegal has laws that are hypocritical.

PJ_Soul

Yes, that alcohol is legal and pot is not is one of the greatest absurdities of our time.

tempo_n_groove

Drowned Out said:

Principles of Housing First are: 1) Move people into housing directly from streets and shelters without preconditions of treatment acceptance or compliance; 2) The provider is obligated to bring robust support services to the housing. These services are predicated on assertive engagement, not coercion; 3) Continued tenancy is not dependent on participation in services; 4) Units targeted to most disabled and vulnerable homeless members of the community; 5) Embraces harm-reduction approach to addictions rather than mandating abstinence. At the same time, the provider must be prepared to support resident commitment to recovery; 6) Residents must have leases and tenant protections under the law; 7) Can be implemented as either a project-based or scattered site model.[6]
(per wiki)

All sounds reasonable to me....

They did something like this in the 60's and 70's. They called them "Projects".

Last-12-Exit

I think decriminalization of pot and coke could be handled in this country. I'm not sold on the idea of making heroin accessible to the masses legally. But pot and coke could be.

tempo_n_groove

Last-12-Exit said:

I think decriminalization of pot and coke could be handled in this country. I'm not sold on the idea of making heroin accessible to the masses legally. But pot and coke could be.

Make it all legal. All of it.

I know crack addiction has gone down because of a newer generation watched what happened.

Now I wonder what happens though when you keep making new drugs? Molly is the next beast. What's coming after that?

Thirdly if it's not illegal or "hush hush" will it be so chic? See what happened to alcohol during prohibition? People that never drank before wanted to have a drink…

Last-12-Exit

tempo_n_groove said:

Last-12-Exit said:

I think decriminalization of pot and coke could be handled in this country. I'm not sold on the idea of making heroin accessible to the masses legally. But pot and coke could be.

Make it all legal. All of it.

I know crack addiction has gone down because of a newer generation watched what happened.

Now I wonder what happens though when you keep making new drugs? Molly is the next beast. What's coming after that?

Thirdly if it's not illegal or "hush hush" will it be so chic? See what happened to alcohol during prohibition? People that never drank before wanted to have a drink…

I think the prohibition argument is very simplistic. Not that it isn't valid. But keeping heroin illegal doesn't make me want to go shoot up. Alcohol was legal and the bible thumpers insisted on legislation. I believe that is what led the major push against prohibition. It was one of the first real examples of the people being told by the government what they couldn't ingest.

Wma31394

Last-12-Exit said:

I think decriminalization of pot and coke could be handled in this country. I'm not sold on the idea of making heroin accessible to the masses legally. But pot and coke could be.

Pot sure..coke no way.

callen

Drug abuse and addiction is a medical issue not a criminal one. Get police and Doo gooders out of it. All drugs.

Drowned Out

Wma31394 said:

Last-12-Exit said:

I think decriminalization of pot and coke could be handled in this country. I'm not sold on the idea of making heroin accessible to the masses legally. But pot and coke could be.

Pot sure..coke no way.

Why?
Before you answer, consider this:
- coke is slightly more physically harmful and slightly easier to become dependent upon than alcohol, but considered less socially harmful and half as intoxicating drugwarfacts.org/cms/Addictive_Properties#sthash.8rSvWokc.kaWXQHvg.dpbs
(whether you accept that risk or not......see below)
- decriminalization reduced use in Portugal by 50%.
-Re-distribution of drug war funding would further decrease harm and use thru treatment programs and improved care
- most people who want it now can get it, despite prohibition
- prohibition of any drug puts an unnecessary burden on our police, justice, and legal systems and results in (often life) prison sentences for people who have harmed no one but themselves

Last-12-Exit

Wma31394 said:

Last-12-Exit said:

I think decriminalization of pot and coke could be handled in this country. I'm not sold on the idea of making heroin accessible to the masses legally. But pot and coke could be.

Pot sure..coke no way.

Coke, while addicting, is not really considered a hard drug anymore. Really, I think most all drugs except heroin should be decriminalized.

Godfather.

callen said:

Drug abuse and addiction is a medical issue not a criminal one. Get police and Doo gooders out of it. All drugs.

drug addicts rob, kill, steel and lie for thier fix and that's what gets a whole lot of them in prison.
I can't think of any case where a person went to prison for the sole crime of a drug addiction, only the crimes they commit for thier addiction.

Godfather.

Godfather.

...well I know a few people the got busted for being under the influance and did a few days in jail.

Godfather.