Thread: Why daddy's nose bleeds: responsibility and disease and addiction Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020030
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
I'm probably stepping into a minefield with this, as I consider the steps we take to hide all the bottles when certain people come by for a visit over Xmas.... The whole thing troubles and frightens me.
Some of us live in places where drugs laws are being changed. Canada will have marijuana decriminalized probably within a year.
The tendency to conceptualize addictions to all things chemical - alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, cocaine, various amphetamine drugs etc - as disease, seems to me to over-simplify and excuse a complicated thing that clearly has a voluntary component: - the deliberate act of lighting something on fire and breathing the smoke, drinking a liquid, swallowing a tablet. There is a compulsive component and probably mentally ill/disordered thoughts and feelings component, which I think is over-emphasized, that people are somehow powerless about it, with their personal responsibility minimized. We still jail them if they drive intoxicated, though we can't fire them if they show up to work intoxicated because it is seen as disability.
Where is the line? Should we hold people to more accountability for their behaviour? Should I just accept that that once initiated the addiction is a disease?
What things can someone be addicted to? I'm hearing about internet addictions, food, sex, porno, gaming. What???
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Should we hold people to more accountability for their behaviour?
Yes, of course we should. But we should also offer more help to those who wish to break their addictions and incentives to them to stay off.
Simply demonising people by talking about accountability without offering help is not only wrong but counter productive, turning a big problem into a much bigger one.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
I think we can only stick to the three Cs
We didn't cause it.
We can't cure it.
We can't control it.
People have to come to their own decisions to change, we can't do it for them.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
There is a compulsive component and probably mentally ill/disordered thoughts and feelings component, which I think is over-emphasized, that people are somehow powerless about it, with their personal responsibility minimized.
You can thank AA for that -- the First Step is "We admitted we were powerless over alcohol–that our lives had become unmanageable." Too many people seem to get stuck on that one.
I would really, really love to see a true medical treatment program for alcoholism and other addictions. Every program I've encountered (and I've encountered many as a so-called "co-dependent") is based on the 12 Steps, and people sit around and talk about their powerlessness, their Higher Power, etc. etc. They keep saying "It's a disease" (and I agree), but then they don't treat it like one. A support group in conjunction with medical treatment is great, but not in and of itself.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
The highly controversial Passages Malibu treatment center used to include a sentence in their TV ads: "This is not a 12 step program . . . this works!" In later ads the last two words of the sentence were deleted.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Pigwidgeon: quote:
I would really, really love to see a true medical treatment program for alcoholism and other addictions. Every program I've encountered (and I've encountered many as a so-called "co-dependent") is based on the 12 Steps, and people sit around and talk about their powerlessness, their Higher Power, etc. etc. They keep saying "It's a disease" (and I agree), but then they don't treat it like one. A support group in conjunction with medical treatment is great, but not in and of itself.
I consider addiction and even other mental health problems somewhat like AIDS. The part of you that could help your health is crippled by the disease. In AIDS, your immune system is impaired against fighting infections and cancers and HIV itself. In addiction your mind itself is impaired in its decision-making and even its volition to seek and sustain treatment. Yes, the individual pours the drink or shots up but they are not totally the person they would be if they were not using. It's a catch-22.
Twelve Step is not perfect. Yes, some people get stuck in Step One. But read the rest of the steps: they are all about thinking things through and personally doing the work to right their lives. Addiction is a disease. First realizing that gives addicts permission not to consider themselves fundamentally evil. This removes a great burden and allows them to start to manage the disease with the help of an inpatient program, out patient, their sponsors and their Higher Power. For most people with long, deep addiction medical help is the first step after admitting the problem. Twelve Step is often after-care.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Perhaps a bit of a tangent. There have been quite a few deaths from the use of illegal drugs at music festivals here over the last couple of years. Perhaps impurities, perhaps what is sold is much stronger than that the user normally buys, who knows. In any event, these deaths each get lots of publicity.
The response from some described by the newspapers as experts in the field? The government should send out teams so that those who have purchased these drugs can have them tested before use. That seems to have some illogicality to it, but there's that same cry with each of these tragic and totally avoidable deaths.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
On the festival drugs, it's the old question of whether we should treat drug use as a criminal issue or a public health issue. Certainly, knowingly selling tainted drugs should be a crime. But telling users "you better not" isn't exactly working, so maybe working in some sort of regulatory protection isn't a bad idea.
As to the OP, a friend posted this thought piece to Facebook this morning, talking (in rather rough language, mind,) about anxiety. A short snip:
quote:
We lack community completely in North America and carry around this absurd idea that we’re supposed to learn how to adult, build healthy relationships, raise children, and lead successful lives — all by ourselves. If you struggle to parent on your own or even struggle with isolation, society says you’re deficient, some kind of mutant failure. There is absolutely no credence paid to the scientific fact that we are a social primate species, meant to live in communities. And I’m not talking about the kind of community where everyone has the same lawn or everyone sings the same fucking hymnal in the fancy god building. I’m talking about the kind that aren’t scared to protect one another, step in when someone needs help, tell someone that it’s okay, this shit is hard.
If this is true, is it any wonder that so many folks turn to external stimuli that cause positive chemical reactions as part of their daily struggle to cope? And is it also possible that the answer, within reason, might not be more self-reliance, but more community support?
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Drugs with impurities are no different than dodgy bootleg liquor of the prohibition years, and other places including present day hazardous vodka. It is tragic when people use something they believe to be safe. Because it is drugs it attracts less sympathy than someone eating poisoned food.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
On the festival drugs, it's the old question of whether we should treat drug use as a criminal issue or a public health issue. Certainly, knowingly selling tainted drugs should be a crime. But telling users "you better not" isn't exactly working, so maybe working in some sort of regulatory protection isn't a bad idea.
That final sale resulting in death is the last of a whole string of illegal sales and purchases. Why should the State carry out purity testing at the cost of taxpayers generally?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Pigwidgeon: quote:
I would really, really love to see a true medical treatment program for alcoholism and other addictions. Every program I've encountered (and I've encountered many as a so-called "co-dependent") is based on the 12 Steps, and people sit around and talk about their powerlessness, their Higher Power, etc. etc. They keep saying "It's a disease" (and I agree), but then they don't treat it like one. A support group in conjunction with medical treatment is great, but not in and of itself.
I consider addiction and even other mental health problems somewhat like AIDS. The part of you that could help your health is crippled by the disease. In AIDS, your immune system is impaired against fighting infections and cancers and HIV itself. In addiction your mind itself is impaired in its decision-making and even its volition to seek and sustain treatment. Yes, the individual pours the drink or shots up but they are not totally the person they would be if they were not using. It's a catch-22.
Twelve Step is not perfect. Yes, some people get stuck in Step One. But read the rest of the steps: they are all about thinking things through and personally doing the work to right their lives. Addiction is a disease. First realizing that gives addicts permission not to consider themselves fundamentally evil. This removes a great burden and allows them to start to manage the disease with the help of an inpatient program, out patient, their sponsors and their Higher Power. For most people with long, deep addiction medical help is the first step after admitting the problem. Twelve Step is often after-care.
Similarly, I would say the part of addiction that involves choice occurs earlier than the part where you're seeking treatment. Yes, you have a choice whether to drink, snort, shoot, or light up... initially. But at the point when you are addicted, it's no longer a choice. In fact, that really is the definition of addiction-- when it is no longer something you can choose, but something that has control over you. Depending on the substance, that may happen the 1st, 2nd, 10th, or 200th time you try the drug, but the point of addiction comes at the point you are no longer in control-- yes, in fact, "powerless over your addiction."
[ 22. December 2016, 23:10: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
On the festival drugs, it's the old question of whether we should treat drug use as a criminal issue or a public health issue. Certainly, knowingly selling tainted drugs should be a crime. But telling users "you better not" isn't exactly working, so maybe working in some sort of regulatory protection isn't a bad idea.
That final sale resulting in death is the last of a whole string of illegal sales and purchases. Why should the State carry out purity testing at the cost of taxpayers generally?
A few bucks so that someone doesn't die seems like a screaming deal to me.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
A "few bucks" here and a few more there, diverted from the general health budget - when all that is needed is that those attending these events have a bit of short term memory and remember the publicity about those who died at the last festival and the signs they saw on the way in to this one. And the same few bucks furthering an illegal activity from which some are making very many bucks. Sorry, but I don't buy that one.
[ 23. December 2016, 00:13: Message edited by: Gee D ]
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
A "few bucks" here and a few more there, diverted from the general health budget - when all that is needed is that those attending these events have a bit of short term memory and remember the publicity about those who died at the last festival and the signs they saw on the way in to this one. And the same few bucks furthering an illegal activity from which some are making very many bucks. Sorry, but I don't buy that one.
Taking an illegal drug shouldn't be punished with a death sentence.
It's also way cheaper to do the prevention then to spend the money on the overdoses and dead bodies. This is the same nasty attitude that spread Aids among IV drug users by making needles illegal. How that works out is pretty obvious
Pence delays legalizing needles.
The people preventing drug testing and safety aren't interested in costs, they want to punish those who ignore their rules.
You might also note that while there's a lot of bad drugs at the music festival there's also a lot of good ones. So the message that "all Drugs are dangerous and bad and we posted a sign about that" doesn't get taken seriously by the intended audience.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Not with you either. There's an inherent contradiction in saying that these drugs are illegal and then paying for someone to test them. Make sure that people know the risk.
There was no such contradiction with AIDS, at least here - just a message that safety means always using condoms. Virtually no transmission through needles.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Virtually no transmission through needles.
No, there's a lot of transmission through needles.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
There was a news story about drug testing at festivals here in the summer. The organiser of the testing service said:
quote:
For the first time we’ve been able to offer the testing service to individual users as part of a tailored advice and information package provided by a team of experienced drugs workers. This can help people make informed choices, raising awareness of particularly dangerous substances in circulation and reducing the chance of drug-related problems occurring
Festival goers voluntarily brought drugs to the testing service to find out what they had bought. About 25% of the drugs were then destroyed.
Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on
:
I work with a lot of young kids who are using (12-16-year-olds). I have a real beef with the supply chain. This age group is not in a position to make good decisions about what are potentially life-altering (and not for the better) drugs.
At the moment, the gangs are using a sort of pyramid selling arrangement in which young kids get their drugs free for quite a long period before the screws go on. By that time, the kids are addicted. Combine that with an adolescent brain, often parental neglect and modelling, and we're seeing a generation who see all kinds of drugs as completely normalised.
I would say that the difference between prohibition era alcohol and now is the sheer scale of the supply operation. When I worked in child protection, every parent I met was using meth. Every parent. They were also using marijuana, cocaine, heroin, methadone and a lot of alcohol. These days I meet kids who think ticking off that list is a life goal.
People didn't have access to that variety back in the day.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
There is a genetic component to addictions - moderately to highly heritable¹ as well as the social contexts that introduce the addictive substances (or behaviours).
It probably means that, ironically, the addicted elders are facing offspring with their own endorphin addictions as the generations grew up in different social contexts. As we have overcome diseases we have been looking at chronic conditions and have been pushing ever healthier lifestyles².
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
A significant portion of heterosexuals with Aids got it from using dirty needles for illegal drug use. Why this is considered a good thing by people like you baffles me. You told them not to take drugs, and you oppose the easy availability of sterile needles, because you think that people deserve a slow expensive painful death because they didn't obey you, and you think that it's for their own good.
There's a whole bunch of traffic safety mechanism that keep people from driving too fast. No doubt this is a waste of good money, and those who drive too fast should just kill themselves and others because it's not worth wasting money on them. What nonsense.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
And by the way needle exchange is a component of the Australian HIV strategy.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
A significant portion of heterosexuals with Aids got it from using dirty needles for illegal drug use. Why this is considered a good thing by people like you baffles me. You told them not to take drugs, and you oppose the easy availability of sterile needles, because you think that people deserve a slow expensive painful death because they didn't obey you, and you think that it's for their own good.
There's a whole bunch of traffic safety mechanism that keep people from driving too fast. No doubt this is a waste of good money, and those who drive too fast should just kill themselves and others because it's not worth wasting money on them. What nonsense.
At no stage have I said - nor would I say - that it'd a good thing that use of dirty needles may condemn users to a long and agonising death. Just point out in my posts where I have said that. It's just not there. The use of dirty needles was a very minor factor in the transmission of AIDS here.
Your bit about traffic accidents is just plain silly.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
The use of dirty needles was a very minor factor in the transmission of AIDS here.
Are you sure that isn't because of the needle exchange programme?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Who knows why - there was an extremely effective advertising programme also. I am not aware of any data that goes to that sort of breakdown. It may well exist, I just don't know of it.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Here are some pdfs showing substantial activity in needle exchange in Australia and one from Canada quoting evidence from the exemplory and effective needle exchange programme in Australia.
So combine that with the evidence that a high proportion of IVDUs are infected with HIV worldwide.
If the priority is preventing HIV then needles exchange programmes should be a priority. You seemed to be implying that this hadn't been necessary in Australia. The evidence is otherwise.
By the way Hepatitis C transmission is much more common than HIV, and reduced but not prevented by needle exchange.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Gee D--
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
There's an inherent contradiction in saying that these drugs are illegal and then paying for someone to test them.
Harm reduction.
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
no prophet: quote:
Should I just accept that that once initiated the addiction is a disease?
Why insist on labelling it a disease, if the real question is: Should we extend help to such people, not to approve or encourage, but for the simply pragmatic reason that it is more efficient? That avoid making any decision to help dependent on justifying the condition as a disease.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
If a large number of people are quite simply hellbent on acquiring, and using to excess, potent substances which adjust normal emotion then I would say they is very little any one, or any institution can really do.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Feel one way, and it is nasty. Use a substance, feel different or better. Suggests people crudely self medicate because thing are bad for them. -which came up in another discussion.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Feel one way, and it is nasty. Use a substance, feel different or better. Suggests people crudely self medicate because thing are bad for them. -which came up in another discussion.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
Damn you God for this empty yearning and longing you placed in me that can only be cured in loving you.
Oh! Oh! Oh! the freedom that false god's gave me in those early days. No more unrest, no more dis-ease, no more fear, no more loneliness. Oh bring me that golden cow and I will fall down and worship.
Even if I have been told, the price I would pay for such false love, I would have loved still. Because screw you God for making me this way. And first love is always the deepest, the best, the purest. I remember her and I remember cider, if only her name was Rosie, it may have been, I cant recall.
Powerless? I was always powerless in love.
I care little for the pathological. psychological of physiological aspects of this disease anymore. They could cure all three with a nostrum, a therapy a mindful moment. Every addict I have know has fallen down to her or his sacred cow. loved them more than anything or anyone else. Mother screw you, children later I will be with you but now I must be with my god, wife well you are in love with me but you refuse to see my unfaithfulness with this hidden dark spirit posing as a drink so HAHA I get to lick it's feet again.
It's simpler if you try and think of it as that, unfaithfulness. Is your Dad, Wife, Son, friend (insert here the name of the one you love) more in love with something else? Spends more time, finds more comfort, lies to you about, spends more money on? If it were another person you would see it for what it is but it isn't so you don't. And mostly you don't because you don't believe you are powerless over the thing you love, irony on irony.
Free to choose, thank you God. And in the end only one choice matters, who/what do I love. If this were not a Christian website I would have to spell out the whole "only one God" "Love the Lord your God" thing. The joy of free will, having crossed the thin red line and even when offered a choice most (up to 90%) will chose isolation, insanity , degradation and an early death. (while royally fucking up everyone around and not caring much)
Price we pay for freedom.
Fly Safe,
Pyx_e
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Much though I disapprove of taking drugs, and don't go in for it, how about this argument?
1, What is the state's right to tell adults what they can or can't take?
2. Isn't it a civil liberties issue that adults should be entitled to take what they like AND
3. Should take personal responsibility for the consequences.
4. After all, this is the line we take most of the time and in most places on alcohol, tobacco and gambling.
5. Point 3 should always be instead on as the price of 2. There should be no concessions on this.
6. The sale of drugs and their consumption should be legal and be subject to the same sorts of regimes as apply to contaminated food and drink, restaurants, labelling, under age sales etc.
7. It's reasonable that states should gain revenue by taxing drugs in much the same way as they tax tobacco and alcohol.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Of course the state has a right (and duty) to regulate behaviour. Particularly when one person's behaviour affects others.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
Yeah cos:
a/ that works (not)
b/ "the state" is run by people who care about your money not how u behave.
c/ You can not control how parents rise their kids, after those first 3 years all bets are off.
Pyx_e
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
Enoch:
quote:
1, What is the state's right to tell adults what they can or can't take.
Because taking substances can make them more liable to harm others directly, or become a burden to others. Ask parents/partners of addicts.
quote:
2. Isn't it a civil liberties issue that adults should be entitled to take what they like AND
3. Should take personal responsibility for the consequences.
Possibly, if the consequences could be confined to themselves. But No man is an island, and all that.
quote:
4. After all, this is the line we take most of the time and in most places on alcohol, tobacco and gambling.
Not entirely, since we try to control by excessive taxes. But that's the "one wrong justifies another" argument. I agree with those who say that if refined alcohol were invented today it would probably be banned. And I wish some forms of gambling were.
quote:
5. Point 3 should always be insisted on as the price of 2. There should be no concessions on this.
I don't give anyone the right to stick two fingers up to society, so whilst by all means trying to change the rules, you have to live with them. And like it or not, the majority in this country are not prepared to see people left to die, starve or steal because they have made themselves incapable of looking after themselves. So this laissez-faire will not be accepted. It's also more expensive to lock them up.
quote:
6. The sale of drugs and their consumption should be legal and be subject to the same sorts of regimes as apply to contaminated food and drink, restaurants, labelling, under age sales etc.
And advertised? And what would be your age limit? A feared consequence of this is that the existing illegal sales networks would then concentrate even more on those too young to buy legally.
quote:
7. It's reasonable that states should gain revenue by taxing drugs in much the same way as they tax tobacco and alcohol.
Were I to accept your overall premise, then I admit this would be a logical conclusion.
But I wonder what type of society this would promote. It's bad enough as it is.
Confession: I have zero experience of drugs outside medically prescribed ones.
Posted by nickel (# 8363) on
:
(I'm such a literalist. I thought this thread was going to be about HHT, a genetically inheritable malformation of blood vessels. That's literally why my dad's nose bleeds, as did his mother's, and her father's, and my sister's, and numerous other aunts/uncles/cousins. But okay, never mind!)
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Every addict I have know has fallen down to her or his sacred cow. loved them more than anything or anyone else.
Thnkyou for that, Pyx_e.
There are different drug uses. Call something Heroin and take it recreationally and it kills. Call it something else, diamorphine, and give it medicinally and it saves life.
That is the difference between my adiction and that of the casual user, or even the died-in-the-wool junkie. I never wanted to take the drug any more than I wanted the accident which caused me to be given it. More than anything else I wanted to be off it.
But the addict they love, and hate, their poison.
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
The highly controversial Passages Malibu treatment center used to include a sentence in their TV ads: "This is not a 12 step program . . . this works!" In later ads the last two words of the sentence were deleted.
The spokesman also says "I used to be an addict and now I'm not." Obviously, the Passages Malibu version of addiction is that it's a bit like the flu--take a vaccine (their treatment, of course) and be done with it.
Not sure a "get out of addiction free" card is going to do it, though.
The experience of most addicts I know is that a person is always a recovering addict, even when s/he goes years without using. Even addicts I know who don't participate in AA or NA seem to have this understanding.
sabine (retired social worker who met a lot of addicts along the way)
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
If the priority is preventing HIV then needles exchange programmes should be a priority. You seemed to be implying that this hadn't been necessary in Australia. The evidence is otherwise.
I was not implying that at all - it was a part of the Grim Reaper attack on AIDS that was extremely effective in reducing the spread throughout the community. As an even further tangent from the thread, there has been a recent successful prosecution of an AIDS infected man, who knew his status, for having reckless and unprotected sex with a woman. He received a substantial sentence.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
What did you mean by the following quote then;
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Not with you either. There's an inherent contradiction in saying that these drugs are illegal and then paying for someone to test them. Make sure that people know the risk.
There was no such contradiction with AIDS, at least here - just a message that safety means always using condoms. Virtually no transmission through needles.
Because I certainly read that as suggesting that needle exchange wasn't important ("just a message that safety means always using condoms") and there was virtually no transmission through needles.
I'm arguing that needle transmission is a major risk and that needle exchange is very effective and useful and should be done.
Do you disagree?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Not at all.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Not with you either. There's an inherent contradiction in saying that these drugs are illegal and then paying for someone to test them. Make sure that people know the risk.
I brought up needle availability as an example of saying drugs are illegal and paying for someone to provide sterile needles. I'm glad you agree that it's a good idea.
So why is providing testing for illicit drugs an inherent contradiction while providing clean needles for use with illicit drugs not such a contradiction.?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
You also set up a strawman to argue against me, but have not bothered to explain that yet.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
I set up another example of funding to cause harm reduction during the use of illicit drugs. After making the false statement that iv drug user needle sharing didn't cause HIV infection, you agreed that it's a good thing to do that funding.
Yet there's somehow an inherent contradiction in funding testing to prevent harm from drugs that are contaminated or over strength.
So where's the straw man? And what's the difference between the two cases?
[ 28. December 2016, 05:49: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
A significant portion of heterosexuals with Aids got it from using dirty needles for illegal drug use. Why this is considered a good thing by people like you baffles me. You told them not to take drugs, and you oppose the easy availability of sterile needles, because you think that people deserve a slow expensive painful death because they didn't obey you, and you think that it's for their own good.
Your assertion that "people like me" want dirty drugs used is arrant nonsense. Your assertion that I think people want a slow expensive death and so forth is offensive as well. I see no point in further trying to debate with you until you clear this up.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
A "few bucks" here and a few more there, diverted from the general health budget - when all that is needed is that those attending these events have a bit of short term memory and remember the publicity about those who died at the last festival and the signs they saw on the way in to this one. And the same few bucks furthering an illegal activity from which some are making very many bucks. Sorry, but I don't buy that one.
This is what I assume "people like you" think. Keeping people from getting killed while taking illegal drugs isn't worth a few bucks diverted from the general health budget. Apparently the general health budget doesn't extend to covering drug users.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
Fascinating topic.
I have a bit of experience.
AA and other 12 step programs for addiction (alcohol or other drug of choice) are not perfect. People do get stuck on the first step. People who have been in recovery for a while fall victim to their own hubris and "go back out"; sometimes never coming back in.
What I can say is that for some it does work. It works because - done right - the alcoholic takes a look at their life, what they have done and cleans the dread filled thoughts out of their psyche through the 12 steps. They get continuing support through going to meetings and having friends in the program and a sponsor to turn to for clear headed thinking.
It is a joy and an inspiration to see someone come in jittery and filled with fear to gradually turn into a rock solid human. Should professional therapy be a part of recovery as well? In my experience, yes.
All that being said, condemning addicts (alcohol is a drug) and telling them they should be more responsible is not apt to lead to a useful outcome.
Be brave and have a look at this from Johann Hari.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I don't think addiction is a simple think to apply general assessments, treatments or assignations of responsibility.
Treating addicts who will accept it and maintaining the health of those who remain addicted makes economic sense.
Yes, I agree it is the right thing to do regardless, but that won't sell it to those who would dismiss addicts as self-made.
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Not with you either. There's an inherent contradiction in saying that these drugs are illegal and then paying for someone to test them. Make sure that people know the risk.
There was no such contradiction with AIDS, at least here - just a message that safety means always using condoms. Virtually no transmission through needles.
Did they hand out free condoms by the bowlful, at Family Planning, at Student Health Centres, O-Weeks, and the like? And were there people muttering on the sidelines about taxpayer money being spent on this, on the basis that it was simply encouraging licentiousness? I only ask because both things are/were true here. Whether either of these things were going on when certain risky sexual behaviours were actually illegal, I couldn't say - I'm a bit young to remember.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
While I'm far too old to know first-hand either. My memory from news articles at the time is that condoms were generally available at the festivals.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
A "few bucks" here and a few more there, diverted from the general health budget - when all that is needed is that those attending these events have a bit of short term memory and remember the publicity about those who died at the last festival and the signs they saw on the way in to this one. And the same few bucks furthering an illegal activity from which some are making very many bucks. Sorry, but I don't buy that one.
OK if we must think about human lives in terms of money, the cost of treating those who *nearly* die, but don't - including the people with lifelong disability as a result (e.g stroke due to high blood pressure due to either contaminated or over strength drug) likely far outstrips the cost of the preventative measures suggested.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
We do not think of human lives in terms of money, but that is how we think of the provision of health services. The health budgets are limited; were there to be some sort of major epidemic, then there could be a transfer of money from somewhere else, or a bit more borrowing. Otherwise, those who control these funds spend them in accordance with parliamentary allocation.
Now, that requires working out priorities. Spending money testing illegal substances at these events seems to me to be a much lower priority than establishing support services to keep elderly people in their own homes if that be their wish - particularly when there's so much publicity about the danger of the drugs being sold. Or at the other end of the spectrum, paying for research into deal with AIDS, for example. It's not a never-emptying bucket.
[ 12. July 2017, 07:56: Message edited by: Gee D ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
I'm interested that ignoring warning features in the health care priorities. To push that idea, what about those elderly people who struggle to remain in their homes as a result of smoking-induced strokes? Should we reduce their priority for support on the basis of having ignored the warnings on smoking?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Smoking is has been strongly and effectively discouraged here to the extent that the numbers smoking have dropped dramatically over the last 50 years. At the moment, it's a bit above 10% of the adult population.
Regardless of that, smoking has never been illegal here while the use of the drugs we are talking about is. That is the major difference. My point is to deny that it's a proper use of public money to test something illegal while affirming that it is a proper use to provide large warnings of the danger at the events.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
My point is to deny that it's a proper use of public money to test something illegal while affirming that it is a proper use to provide large warnings of the danger at the events.
Even if a utilitarian case could be made of overwhelming cost-effectiveness would you still stand by that point?
And would your argument extend to not providing condoms targeted at prostitutes as a tacit condoning of illegal soliciting?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
I am not sure that I understand how the assessment outlined in your first sentence could ever be measured.
The offence here is along the lines of soliciting in a public place for the purpose of prostitution. So any connection between supply and commission of an offence would be at the most very remote, so remote that causation is impossible to see.
Posted by irreverend tod (# 18773) on
:
From personal experience of having a relative with a serious prescription medication problem - many drug addicts start using to avoid having to cope with the real world and its expectations of them and then can't stop.
The problem with legalizing is that it normalizes this avoiding behaviour, which puts a huge burden on the families and then eventually the state. The drug addiction becomes the disease they suffer from, which they might fight any attempt to cure, so they can continue to avoid reality.
Legalizing means that someone will be making a huge amount of money, while others are left to deal with the fall out. Drug addicts eventually cease to function as the addiction gets more entrenched and more medication is needed - and we will all end up paying.
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by irreverend tod:
Legalizing means that someone will be making a huge amount of money,
"Someone" is already making huge amounts of money selling drugs illegally. In Mexico, I read, some drug cartel leaders essentially buy the goodwill of those around them -- buying their silence and co-dependence, if you will -- by delivering some of the services once delivered by the now-disrupted government(s) of their state(s).
The question then becomes, who do you want to be on the receiving end of the money? Who do you want playing Robin Hood? In theory, at least, voters can expect some responsiveness from government, and absent that, can rid themselves of same.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Liquor is a good example. Licensed, it supplies a steady stream of money to the state, which could in theory be used for alcoholic counseling or other services. Controlling the suppliers prevents manufacturers from foisting off poisonous brews onto the public, so that people don't go blind from drinking bathtub ethanol. Brought under the umbrella of society, liquor is now controlled by social mores. It's tacky, to fall down drunk in the street; if you are inebriated at work they fire you and if you try to drive your friends grab your keys. Overindulgence is recognized as a social ill. People who drink cheap disgusting things (vodka Jello shots, ew) are held to be unsophisticated and probably too young to have any sense. In many countries there is a culture of teaching the kids to drink properly (wine at meals).
So is liquor better in, or out of legality? In the US we have tried it both ways, with Prohibition, and I believe we have determined it's better legal.
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on
:
I'll confess, though to a certain bewilderment about the "voluntary" bit of the addiction process.
I agree that once someone is addicted to a substance, whether legal or illegal, we're dealing with a different animal than when an individual is faced with an actual choice -- that is, when the non- (or not-yet-) addicted individual is offered that first hit or toke or shot or whatever it is, and could at least in theory say, "No thanks, I'll pass."
Having, during a time well beyond the statute of limitations, and in a jurisdiction where I no longer reside, indulged in illegal marijuana use, I know at least a bit of the mental process which led to my first "yes" vote: curiosity + some peer pressure (everyone in the group was partaking) + having seen no particular harm befall anyone present as a result of partaking (I had said "no" a number of times previously) + the belief in my own invulnerability common among the young (early 20s).
Later on -- a couple of years -- I was offered "harder" substances, and always said no. The whole idea scared the bejeezus out of me. Alcoholism was present in my family; I had already suffered a couple of bouts of depression; I wasn't all that enamored of the disorientation and disinhibition I'd previously experienced from overdrinking or from smoking pot, etc. etc.
I wonder, then, about the mental process that gets a substance "virgin" to make that first voluntary -- but nonetheless scary and risky -- foray.
Of course, this doesn't apply in lots of situations: people who get addicted through a doc's prescription or people too young to make responsible decisions, or people essentially coerced into the first trial, etc.
But at least some folks must enter into that first situation with some knowledge of likely or at least possible dire consequences, and yet even simple self-preservation seems not to enter into their calculations. That's the bit that bewilders me.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by irreverend tod:
Legalizing means that someone will be making a huge amount of money, while others are left to deal with the fall out.
Let's talk about banks with large operations in Miami ..
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on
:
I do think there needs to be consequences to addiction acting out behavior. This is the only way people hut rock bottom. There is definitely a genetic propensity in some people to be addicts. In my own family, I see it for generations.
There are some clean and sober people in my own congregation that got that after dearly paying the price (ostracized, marriage broken up, jail etc). They are now along up for lost time livinging life. One is getting involved in politics and just went overseas in a program to see how other countries do things. The other is on a 3rd marriage and that one has lasted many years....and that person is helping their spouse through aggressive cancer.
They inspire me. I'm up not having slept much. One of my family is leaving the residence of a drug and alcohol addict tonight after a hellish confrontation. Bags are packed and that persons is sleeping peacefully on my futon. They will travel on tomorrow to relatives outside the area.
I coped by trying not to be too dragged into things. But I'm always available for those taking proactive action...to help.
I have no really good answers except we need to treat this as a disease that also has what I believe not only a physical but an emotional and spiritual wound. The 12 step programs help as they give support and wisdom. I did Alnon in for 5 years and
I learned to detach and let the other shoe fall. That lesson is huge in itself.
I've called the cops on the family member some years ago. Hardest thing I've ever done.
[Trying to edit grammar. Plz forgive typos I don't catch as I wrote this in haste on a cell phone).
[ 17. July 2017, 13:25: Message edited by: duchess ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I am not sure that I understand how the assessment outlined in your first sentence could ever be measured.
One could for instance total up the cost of death and treatment of drug overdoses, and compare that with the cost of providing a testing service. My point was to understand whether you were advocating a point of principle about not doing anything that might be seen to condone illegality, or whether it was a pragmatic position based on assumptions about the real world.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
I do think there needs to be consequences to addiction acting out behavior. This is the only way people hut rock bottom.
That does appear to be the way most addicts who recover start thinking about recovery. There's no need for it otherwise.
That said, I think there are ways to try and keep people alive while waiting for that moment that might be worth considering.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I am not sure that I understand how the assessment outlined in your first sentence could ever be measured.
One could for instance total up the cost of death and treatment of drug overdoses, and compare that with the cost of providing a testing service. My point was to understand whether you were advocating a point of principle about not doing anything that might be seen to condone illegality, or whether it was a pragmatic position based on assumptions about the real world.
I wrote from the perspective of principle. It seems wrong to me to make use of a substance illegal, and then to provide testing facilities so that those wanting to use it can check its strength and purity. Society sufficiently carries out its duty by the large warning signs at all these events. The later digression into costings etc was in answer to the posts of others.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Gee D.--
Harm reduction.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
It seems wrong to me to make use of a substance illegal, and then to provide testing facilities so that those wanting to use it can check its strength and purity.
Why? Because its a mixed message that might confuse people or something deeper?
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Society sufficiently carries out its duty by the large warning signs at all these events.
A metaphor might be not making buoyancy aids available in a well known trouble spot on the basis that there were adequate warning not to swim? Is that really discharging a duty of care if there's something more that could be done?
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
quote:
I learned to detach and let the other shoe fall. That lesson is huge in itself.
Sounds like you're going through it, Duchess.
That shoe metaphor needed looking up for this UK non-flats dweller. It's a good one.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Society sufficiently carries out its duty by the large warning signs at all these events.
A metaphor might be not making buoyancy aids available in a well known trouble spot on the basis that there were adequate warning not to swim? Is that really discharging a duty of care if there's something more that could be done?
I was talking purely in the context of the activity being illegal, and so your test fails at that level. It's not a valid metaphor. In any event, there's a pretty good argument that the council's actions in providing the sign would be sufficient to provide a full defence to any claim for damages. There have been recent cases here that a council has satisfied its duty of care by providing a sign saying eg that there are rocks close to the surface and that diving from a bridge is dangerous. If you're talking of some moral obligation as opposed to a liability in damages, again it's hard to see what more a reasonable council could do.
Golden Key, the users are choosing to engage in an illegal activity. A number of large signs reminds them that the activity is illegal and that there have been problems with drug purity in the past. What more harm reduction should society reasonably provide?
[ 18. July 2017, 10:49: Message edited by: Gee D ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
If you're talking of some moral obligation as opposed to a liability in damages, again it's hard to see what more a reasonable council could do.
I was talking morals rather than legality. Say that the area is private property and there's a no trespassing sign. But people have drowned and the "more that could be done" is a fence around the river.
Why not do more if it can be achieved? Do you have a principle that can be further articulated?
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Why not do more if it can be achieved? Do you have a principle that can be further articulated?
US law has a doctrine called "attractive nuisance", which basically says that if you have something like a trampoline or a swimming pool on display, you have to expect that it will attract trespassing children, and are potentially liable for them being injured.
So if you have a rickety old climbing structure on your property that you know is unsafe, posting a sign will not stop you from being liable when a child climbs on it, falls, and hurts themselves.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
A metaphor might be not making buoyancy aids available in a well known trouble spot on the basis that there were adequate warning not to swim? Is that really discharging a duty of care if there's something more that could be done?
Do you mean a buoyancy aid? or a life preserver?
Because they signal quite different things. A life preserver says "here's a place where people are at risk of falling in to the water; here's a safety device to help save them if they do. So watch your footing!"
A buoyancy aid says "come on in - the water's fine". Providing buoyancy aids at a location where it was unsafe to enter the water would be the height of irresponsibility.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Yes OK, a life preserver. I don't think that would qualify as attractive nuisance.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
If you're talking of some moral obligation as opposed to a liability in damages, again it's hard to see what more a reasonable council could do.
I was talking morals rather than legality. Say that the area is private property and there's a no trespassing sign. But people have drowned and the "more that could be done" is a fence around the river.
Why not do more if it can be achieved? Do you have a principle that can be further articulated?
Private property is more than likely fenced from the road in more populated areas, not necessarily so as you get more remote where paddocks tend to be large. But rather than keep changing your ground, how about you deal with the situation I presented in answer to your post - a sign is there, people climb over the fence and dive into the river? None of which is illegal. Drug taking is. That's my principle, there is no obligation legal or moral to test the quality of drugs illegally on sale at these events.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
But rather than keep changing your ground, how about you deal with the situation I presented in answer to your post - a sign is there, people climb over the fence and dive into the river?
I'm changing my ground because you find reasons why the scenarios are not alike.
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
That's my principle, there is no obligation legal or moral to test the quality of drugs illegally on sale at these events.
Yes, I get that's your principle but I'm struggling as to why. Clearly there's no legal obligation, perhaps arguing that there's a moral obligation is going to far, but the simplest way of putting this is;
Why not if it will save lives?
You might argue it won't save lives, or more lives can be saved in another way, hence the point of my scenarios to get away from that. I'm trying to understand what principle is at work that might be more important than saving lives.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Why not do more if it can be achieved? Do you have a principle that can be further articulated?
US law has a doctrine called "attractive nuisance", which basically says that if you have something like a trampoline or a swimming pool on display, you have to expect that it will attract trespassing children, and are potentially liable for them being injured.
So if you have a rickety old climbing structure on your property that you know is unsafe, posting a sign will not stop you from being liable when a child climbs on it, falls, and hurts themselves.
And, in some places, you're responsible for making it virtually impossible to get to that backyard pool: wall or unclimbable fence with locked gate, etc.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Feel one way, and it is nasty. Use a substance, feel different or better. Suggests people crudely self medicate because thing are bad for them. -which came up in another discussion.
Lots of people use drugs. Some people abuse drugs. Those are two very different things.I'm now convinced that the people who abuse drugs do so because they are either rich and bored or poor and in pain. Research is confirming what many people have learned the hard way: there is a connection between trauma, the resulting changes to the brain, and addiction.
Personal responsibility sounds like such a good thing to those who have NO FUCKING CLUE what the lives of addicts have been like.
quote:
Paige’s life was chaotic from the very beginning as she was regularly exposed to violence, neglect, open drug use and inappropriate living conditions. That lifestyle had its effects on her education – she changed schools 16 times with sporadic attendance before finally quitting in Grade 10. After her mother relocated them to the Downtown Eastside in 2009, Paige moved more than 50 times, shuttling between homeless shelters, safe houses, youth detox centres, couch-surfing scenarios, foster homes and a number of Single Room Occupancy (SRO) hotels.
...
In addition to her other vulnerabilities, Paige was also dealing with serious health concerns as she was diagnosed as a young child with Marfan syndrome, a condition that left her legally blind without her glasses. The same illness left her with other unmet health needs, including medication she could not afford and a requirement for ongoing cardiac care.
...
Predictably, given Paige’s environment and the constant trauma, she developed problems with alcohol and substance use herself. Paige ended up in the Emergency ward or detox after being found unconscious or incoherent at least 17 times. She was involved in more than 40 police files, mostly for public intoxication or disturbances involving alcohol ... the ministry’s approach to Paige was one of waiting for her to ask for help, rather than proactively offering it and acting decisively to ensure her safety and well-being.
Anybody want to tell Paige she should have been more responsible? Save your breath. She died of an overdose at age 19.
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
That's my principle, there is no obligation legal or moral to test the quality of drugs illegally on sale at these events.
Yes, I get that's your principle but I'm struggling as to why. Clearly there's no legal obligation, perhaps arguing that there's a moral obligation is going to far, but the simplest way of putting this is;
Why not if it will save lives?
You might argue it won't save lives, or more lives can be saved in another way, hence the point of my scenarios to get away from that. I'm trying to understand what principle is at work that might be more important than saving lives.
So someone could have the drug tested, then be met at the out door by a police officer and charged with possession. Why not? The state fulfills its obligations by the posters on clear show, and of course there are media reports of the deaths at each event. If you're still silly enough to purchase these drugs, that's your decision.
As an aside, I'm not at all convinced that there's any real change in the numbers dying but rather that the concentration at events gets the headlines.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Gee D--
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
So someone could have the drug tested, then be met at the out door by a police officer and charged with possession. Why not? The state fulfills its obligations by the posters on clear show, and of course there are media reports of the deaths at each event. If you're still silly enough to purchase these drugs, that's your decision.
As an aside, I'm not at all convinced that there's any real change in the numbers dying but rather that the concentration at events gets the headlines.
--If someone at a concert can be kept from taking tainted drugs, that saves resources (ambulance, hospital, police, and the cost of those), emotional damage for attendees, and emotional damage for the person's loved ones.
--If the person takes tainted drugs, they might well hurt someone else.
--If the person takes tainted drugs, the effect may be a fried brain, which will likely mean total, lifelong care. Someone will have to pay for that.
--If tainted drugs are discovered, people may stop buying from that particular dealer. The cops might even catch the dealer.
--Arresting someone for possessing and using drugs makes no sense, and just causes more damage.
--In a country with no universal health care, like the US, addicts have a hard time getting rehab.
--When, in the history of our sorry species, has "Don't!" + consequences been enough to stop everybody from doing stupid things?
--I'm definitely not drug savvy. Alcohol is the only thing I've tried; and I can only have a sip of communion wine anymore, due to conflicts with several meds I'm on. For me, self-medicating tends to be very dark chocolate, books, TV, movies, etc. Luckily for me, those are both legal and socially acceptable--and dark chocolate is even good for me!
--I think people want to feel better, to fit in with friends, to try something new, to explore their brains. Some make the mistake of doing that via harmful things. That doesn't mean they're awful people.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
So someone could have the drug tested, then be met at the out door by a police officer and charged with possession. Why not?
Because that would undermine the ability to reduce harm. We have needle exchanges that don't attract police attention, although meeting drug users exchanging needles would be a good opportunity to make arrests. The view is that the harm reduction is worthwhile.
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
The state fulfills its obligations by the posters on clear show, and of course there are media reports of the deaths at each event. If you're still silly enough to purchase these drugs, that's your decision.
OK the state meets its obligations, but is government simply about meeting obligations? If something more beyond minimum obligations would save lives, why not do it?
[ 19. July 2017, 10:09: Message edited by: mdijon ]
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Because the action is illegal. That may sound simple, but that's the answer.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Gee D--
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
So someone could have the drug tested, then be met at the out door by a police officer and charged with possession. Why not? The state fulfills its obligations by the posters on clear show, and of course there are media reports of the deaths at each event. If you're still silly enough to purchase these drugs, that's your decision.
--Arresting someone for possessing and using drugs makes no sense, and just causes more damage.
--In a country with no universal health care, like the US, addicts have a hard time getting rehab.
Your first point is an entirely different argument altogether. If parliament decides that possession (perhaps below a limit) or use is no longer no offence, my objection goes.
There is universal health care here, but that is entirely irrelevant to my argument - as are all your cost/benefit points I've not copied over. I'm arguing from the principle that the state should not support the commission of an illegal act.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
In London, there are frequent warnings about bad drugs on the streets, which are usually causing fatalities. The same currently with legal highs, which are killing people. But I don't know who is actually testing stuff, or if it's coming from drug clinics, police, and so on.
I think at some festivals, the testing is done by various charities, but the police support it.
To say that kids know that stuff is illegal, therefore it's their problem, strikes me as morally vacuous.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
To say that kids know that stuff is illegal, therefore it's their problem, strikes me as morally vacuous.
Not necessarily kids - many of those attending would be well into their 20s. They not only know it's illegal, but they are warned of the dangers on site.
Why is it the state's problem?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
To say that kids know that stuff is illegal, therefore it's their problem, strikes me as morally vacuous.
Not necessarily kids - many of those attending would be well into their 20s. They not only know it's illegal, but they are warned of the dangers on site.
Why is it the state's problem?
Not sure how the state comes into it. I guess the police support such charities, as they end up picking up the dead bodies. Just blaming people seems inane to me.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
What charities? And who is blaming people?
It is the state's problem (not really a problem, but we'll keep your word) because the criminal law and its enforcement is a matter for the state; it is a public not a private concern. At the moment, the possession and use of some drugs is illegal. Why should the state which declares carry out purity testing on something the use and possession of which it has made a criminal offence? I don't understand any argument of principle against this. Indeed, as I read the list you set out a couple of posts ago, a lot of your thinking is along cost/benefit lines, not of principle.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Because the action is illegal. That may sound simple, but that's the answer.
Can it have a bit more unpacking for the benefit of someone who doesn't get it yet? It's not just that I disagree, I don't understand your view. Which is the action you are referring to that is illegal? Taking/possessing the drugs or testing them?
Needle exchange is very well established as harm reduction and seems to be linked to illegal activity. You seem to be suggesting that would be off as well?
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Indeed, as I read the list you set out a couple of posts ago, a lot of your thinking is along cost/benefit lines, not of principle.
You wouldn't accept that "least harm" was a principle? It's certainly the principle behind things like needle exchanges - nobody who runs a needle exchange programme is suggesting that injecting drugs is a good thing, but it is clear that injecting drugs with sterile needles is less bad than sharing used needles with your mates.
And for that kind of programme to work, the police have to support it (to the extent of not lurking outside arresting users for possession), or people won't use it.
It's the same principle that hands out condoms to teenagers. Yes, it is illegal for minors to have sex. But if minors are going to have illegal sex, it's very much better if they do so in a way that doesn't result in pregnancy and STD transmission.
There is an argument which is sometimes made which is that handing out condoms encourages minors to have sex, and that kids who would not normally have had sex are emboldened to do so by the fact that they have been given condoms. There is, AFAIK, not a shred of evidence that that actually happens.
[ 19. July 2017, 12:54: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Gee D--
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Your first point is an entirely different argument altogether. If parliament decides that possession (perhaps below a limit) or use is no longer no offence, my objection goes.
There is universal health care here, but that is entirely irrelevant to my argument - as are all your cost/benefit points I've not copied over. I'm arguing from the principle that the state should not support the commission of an illegal act.
I was under the impression that concert drug testing in the US is done by private organizations. Checking around a bit, that seems to be the case.
One of them is DanceSafe. On their site is "Drug checking is a valuable public health tool and Johns Hopkins University agrees".
I also found this at DrugAbuse.gov: "Concerts and Drugs: Is There a Way to Reduce the Dangers?". It's a blog for teens, and this is a short article trying to get them to look at different sides of the issue, and comment on it. And boy, did they! One comment I liked, by "Dan": "If harm reduction encourages drug use than seat-belts encourage speeding and should be banned".
From the search hits I got, it looks like this has been an issue in Australia for at least several years. This SMH article looks at different sides: "Can testing make drugs safer for those who ignore calls not to take them?".
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
In the UK, it has been The Loop, which has been doing the testing, although there may be others.
https://wearetheloop.org/
I think in some parts of the UK, police have been turning a blind eye to cannabis use. I think it's the dealers they're after, but this is presumably at the discretion of Chief Constables, not all of whom are convinced by the 'war on drugs'.
[ 19. July 2017, 14:17: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Because the action is illegal. That may sound simple, but that's the answer.
Can it have a bit more unpacking for the benefit of someone who doesn't get it yet? It's not just that I disagree, I don't understand your view. Which is the action you are referring to that is illegal? Taking/possessing the drugs or testing them?
I don't know how to unpack such a simple statement any further. The state should not on the one hand make certain actions illegal and on the other support those actions. Would you say that a health officer should dash up to a man about to rape a woman and give him a condom saying that it will minimise the risks of his catching something from her? And I did think it was pretty obvious that the illegality was taking/possessing drugs not testing them (although strictly I suppose that the person testing them would be possessing them for a moment).
Golden Key, I read the SMH each day for want of anything better - the alternatives are both Murdoch owned. It's certainly not the paper it was when John Pringle and Angus Maude were editors. But while the SMH runs such an article, there's little demand for testing beyond that paper itself.
[ 19. July 2017, 22:01: Message edited by: Gee D ]
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think in some parts of the UK, police have been turning a blind eye to cannabis use. I think it's the dealers they're after, but this is presumably at the discretion of Chief Constables, not all of whom are convinced by the 'war on drugs'.
The drugs that have been causing deaths at festivals here are rather more dangerous than cannabis even before the impurities.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I don't know how to unpack such a simple statement any further.
Which is interesting, because it implies that this is axiomatic for you in a way that it isn't for me. I agree the state shouldn't generally make a habit of getting involved in illegality, but I do think there is a place for harm reduction. Needle exchange has been very successful in reducing HIV. You would say that doesn't matter in the face of a principle regarding illegality. When the principle of saving lives comes up against legality I'm in favour of saving lives.
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Would you say that a health officer should dash up to a man about to rape a woman and give him a condom saying that it will minimise the risks of his catching something from her?
No. You don't really think that's the same do you?
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
And I did think it was pretty obvious that the illegality was taking/possessing drugs not testing them
In which case it seems to me possible to argue that the state isn't actually doing anything illegal, or encouraging anything illegal, simply trying to reduce harm in the setting where something illegal is already happening.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Yes, I do think it the same if you carefully read what I said. The condom was to be used to protect not the victim of the rape but the perpetrator. Here, the test is to protect the person committing a criminal offence - admittedly one of much less seriousness.
As to the first, I do think it's axiomatic. While the action remains a criminal offence, such matters as your perception of harm reduction do not come into it. That equally deals with your last paragraph.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
And just to make it clear, the impure drugs that have caused deaths here have not been cannabis or even heroin, but such real nasties as methamphetamines (or ice) which even in the pure state lead to very real problems. The use of this drug is very closely linked now to many violent crimes committed here, particularly in country areas and amongst the original inhabitants of this land.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Yes, I do think it the same if you carefully read what I said.
Maybe this is what it's like for you with your axiomatic legality, but I can't see how one has to explain why giving a rapist a condom isn't at all like testing drugs for impurities.
There's someone being raped in front of you. That's quite a big difference don't you think?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
But the condom is being handed out to protect the rapist from possibly catching something from the victim. Your wanting to test an illegal drug in case it contains something harmful to the person whose consumption will be illegal. There is an enormous difference in the scale of the offence being committed, but each is an offence.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
What the fuck is axiomatic legality? Is this a posh phrase for no compassion?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
There is an enormous difference in the scale of the offence being committed, but each is an offence.
Really not the only difference.
A rape victim becoming a rape victim in front of one really isn't simply on a scale of badness above someone taking drugs in front of one.
There is something qualitatively different about someone being raped compared with a drug offense.
If you feel that the only thing making you think the state ought not be involved in providing something to be used in rape is the illegality of rape, and the thing that stops you advocating saving lives of drug users is the illegality of their activity then that seems to me a profound overvaluing of legality as a guiding principle.
[ 20. July 2017, 10:57: Message edited by: mdijon ]
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
The drug user is criminal and victim, both at once. You say that it is impossible to ignore the criminal even if doing so would prevent harm to the victim.
Your rapist analogy does not work because in that case, the criminal and victim are *different people*.
[x-posted with mdijon]
[ 20. July 2017, 10:57: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
There is an enormous difference in the scale of the offence being committed, but each is an offence.
If you feel that the only thing making you think the state ought not be involved in providing something to be used in rape is the illegality of rape, and the thing that stops you advocating saving lives of drug users is the illegality of their activity then that seems to me a profound overvaluing of legality as a guiding principle.
I most assuredly do not feel that nor is it a reasonable interpretation of what was I saying. The state does owe some duty and fulfills that by the pre-festival publicity about bad drugs as well as the signs there.
You know what I consider the correct approach. What do you consider that to be and why?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
The drug user is criminal and victim, both at once. You say that it is impossible to ignore the criminal even if doing so would prevent harm to the victim.
[x-posted with mdijon]
There are huge assumptions in your first sentence which I'm not prepared to make. A drug user is a voluntary user - certainly some illegal drugs are drugs of addiction, whether that be physical or psychological; there are also treatments available to deal with the addiction for a willing patient.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
A bit like saying there are depression treatment services for suicide victims if only they would use them. The disease changes the sufferers insight.
That said most drug users at festivals are not addicts, just young people making an unwise choice.
My approach would be primarily utilitarian. Testing for drugs (or swapping dirty needles for clean) has potential good and bad effects. Good effects are reducing overdoses or HIV transmission, bad effects might be encouraging increasingly harmful drug use.
In the case of swapping dirty needles, it seems very likely that drug use hasn't risen in response to the service and that HIV transmission has been prevented. So I regard that as a net benefit.
In the case of testing drugs at festivals I think it unlikely that this will result in more drugs being bought, but it's possible and I'd want to monitor that. It may well result in fewer deaths, although deaths due to overdoses at festivals are pretty rare so the benefits may be slight.
There are considerations regarding harm to others, justice and fairness that influence the decision. So for instance if the cost of the service was very high and would have a disproportionate impact on other state services for the level of benefit that is important to me. Likewise if there are victims involved (people being raped for instance) then I'd absolutely want to take that into account in my decision. The practicality of intervention is also important.
So I'm very firmly in favour of needle exchange, interested in the drug testing idea but not sure, and very much against the state giving rapists condoms on that basis.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Gee Dee: quote:
There are huge assumptions in your first sentence which I'm not prepared to make.
You are evidently reading more into it than I intended.
The drug user is a criminal = the drug user is doing something illegal.
The drug user is a victim = their criminal act will (probably) only affect their own body.
Only the first statement would be true of a rapist.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Gee Dee: quote:
There are huge assumptions in your first sentence which I'm not prepared to make.
You are evidently reading more into it than I intended.
The drug user is a criminal = the drug user is doing something illegal.
The drug user is a victim = their criminal act will (probably) only affect their own body.
Only the first statement would be true of a rapist.
And only the first statement would be true of a drug user. A Drug user, as such, is not a victim - perhaps so in other matters but not in drug use, particularly of the sort of use we're speaking of here.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
My approach would be primarily utilitarian. Testing for drugs (or swapping dirty needles for clean) has potential good and bad effects. Good effects are reducing overdoses or HIV transmission, bad effects might be encouraging increasingly harmful drug use.
So I regard that as a net benefit.
I've deleted the rest inthe copy-over as this paragraph sets out the difference between us. I take a point of principle, that the state should not support an illegal activity. You (and I must say most others) take the utilitarian position you set out. I don't see that as principle.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
You (and I must say most others) take the utilitarian position you set out. I don't see that as principle.
You don't see minimizing harm as a principle, then? As I said earlier, I rank needle exchanges and the tolerance of drug-testing by charities at concerts alongside the provision of condoms to teenagers by family planning clinics and school nurses as things which minimize harm.
Presumably you don't support allowing children access to condoms either, as that would be condoning their crime?
What about the policy that some police forces have not to undertake high-speed pursuits of motorcyclists (because they usually end in the motorcyclist wiping out and killing himself)? Presumably you disapprove of that on the same grounds?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I don't see that as principle.
On what basis do you say it isn't a principle? It seems to meet the definitions to me. You may not agree with it but that doesn't entitle you to say it isn't a principle.
The rest of the paragraph you snipped balanced it, and set out conditions where other considerations might trump my utilitarian principle.
What conditions might trump your position regarding legality? If its nothing at all I think then that strikes me as rather Javertesque.
[ 21. July 2017, 04:18: Message edited by: mdijon ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
A Drug user, as such, is not a victim - perhaps so in other matters but not in drug use, particularly of the sort of use we're speaking of here.
I would say they are a victim of a drug pusher who exposes them to harm, and may also be a victim of a form of addiction.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
A Drug user, as such, is not a victim - perhaps so in other matters but not in drug use, particularly of the sort of use we're speaking of here.
I would say they are a victim of a drug pusher who exposes them to harm, and may also be a victim of a form of addiction.
Who forces them to go to the drug pusher? Surely people have to take some responsibility for their own conduct.
As to the principle - utilitarianism in this context seems to me to be too close to economic rationalism to be a matter of principle.
I can't follow what LC is getting at. As a parent, I'd be frowning on the free availability of condoms to underage children and given the horrors of child abuse which have emerged before the Royal Commission here I'd be even more against it. And there's no parallel at all in how high speed chases may be conducted. There's no action by the police which assists the commission of an offence - indeed, it's the opposite as the action is designed to call off the high speeding.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Surely people have to take some responsibility for their own conduct.
It seems rather binary to say that victim vs taking responsibility are the two options. I have no problem describing someone as a victim of drug addiction, or a smoker as a victim of smoking-related-disease. In both cases the victim needs to stop their self-harming behaviour. That's not a contradiction is it?
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
As to the principle - utilitarianism in this context seems to me to be too close to economic rationalism to be a matter of principle.
And saving lives can be dismissed as simply economic rationalism?
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
As a parent, I'd be frowning on the free availability of condoms to underage children and given the horrors of child abuse which have emerged before the Royal Commission here I'd be even more against it.
I can't think that making condoms inaccessible to 15 years olds is a smart idea if one cares about human suffering, or justified by fears of child abuse.
I agree high speed chases are something different.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
I understood that victim was being used in the sense of a victim of a crime; you seem now to be using it in the sense of a victim of an illness and I don't disagree with that usage. That does not get your opposition to my argument anywhere though.
I still can't go for your saving lives argument though as a justification for drug testing - publicity and signage etc most definitely, but after that, it's the decision of the individual.
I don't understand your comments about child abuse. We have had chilling evidence of abuse come out before the Royal Commission. We need to drive home an acceptance that under-age children simply cannot consent to sexual activity. What you're suggesting cuts away at getting that message across.
Finally, you're the one promoting economic rationalism, not me. In its current usage, I'm dead against it.
[ 21. July 2017, 12:37: Message edited by: Gee D ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I understood that victim was being used in the sense of a victim of a crime; you seem now to be using it in the sense of a victim of an illness and I don't disagree with that usage. That does not get your opposition to my argument anywhere though.
There are several elements to discuss, I'm pretty clear I'm not going to get anywhere in a knock-down-argument sense on any of this.
I would say though that a drug addict is also a victim of the drug pusher, who is committing a crime, in addition to their illness.
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I still can't go for your saving lives argument though as a justification for drug testing - publicity and signage etc most definitely, but after that, it's the decision of the individual.
Can you see how some might find that rather uncompassionate?
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I don't understand your comments about child abuse. We have had chilling evidence of abuse come out before the Royal Commission. We need to drive home an acceptance that under-age children simply cannot consent to sexual activity. What you're suggesting cuts away at getting that message across.
There's a big difference between 15 year olds having sex with each other and an adult having sex with an under-age child. I don't deny chilling evidence of child abuse, I do think though that the availability of condoms to 15 year olds is simply realistic if you don't want to see underage pregnancies and STDs, and I don't see that provision encourages paedophiles in any way.
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Finally, you're the one promoting economic rationalism, not me. In its current usage, I'm dead against it.
It was your label not mine. I'm asking you to justify applying that label to an argument about saving lives.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I can't follow what LC is getting at.
These are other examples of harm minimization that could be seen to condone lawbreaking.
quote:
As a parent, I'd be frowning on the free availability of condoms to underage children and given the horrors of child abuse which have emerged before the Royal Commission here I'd be even more against it.
Children are not being given condoms so that they can be raped by their abusers in "safety". Children are given condoms because in an environment where teenagers are having sex with each other, reducing the transmission of STDs and pregnancy seems like a good idea. And, AFAIK, there's no evidence that the provision of condoms increases the number of teens who have sex. (If there was, we'd have to balance increased teen sex against decreased teen pregnancy and STDs.)
quote:
And there's no parallel at all in how high speed chases may be conducted. There's no action by the police which assists the commission of an offence - indeed, it's the opposite as the action is designed to call off the high speeding.
The police are chasing the motorcyclist because he has committed a crime. Deciding not to pursue fleeing criminals does indeed assist in the commission of an offence, or at least the chance of the criminal getting away with it. The police have quite explicitly decided that they will discontinue pursuit, and accept that they might not identify or catch the criminals, rather than continue a pursuit that is likely to result in a death.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Who forces them to go to the drug pusher? ...
Nobody. And yet they do. Why?
If you don't know - or don't want to know - why people abuse drugs, you're going to have a really hard time convincing them they shouldn't.
quote:
You didn’t wake up one day and decide to become an addict. More likely, if you have trauma in your history you woke up with the conscious or unconscious desire for what all trauma survivors want: safety and control. The good intention behind your addictive behavior, then, has its roots in positive outcomes, including relaxation from the hyper vigilance of fear; relief from the up swell of memories; restoration from the inability to choose your behavior.
Trauma and Addiction: 7 Reasons Your Habit Makes Perfect Sense
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
.... As a parent, I'd be frowning on the free availability of condoms to underage children and given the horrors of child abuse which have emerged before the Royal Commission here I'd be even more against it. ...
Yeah, because pedophiles prey on kids that can get them free condoms. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Mdijon, to try and deal with all your points:
a. I don’t see the user as a victim of the pusher, but a customer. The user is at most a victim of the drug use.
b. Some obviously find that position as lacking compassion. I don’t and I don’t know that I’m alone in that. There is no compulsion on virtually anyone* to take these drugs, it is the free choice of the user.
c. The point is that even for a couple of 15 year olds, neither is in a position to consent. Young people need support in saying no to paedophiles, particularly at the grooming stage, and strengthening the general approach to under-age sex should help them.
d. I know that it was my term, but it is how I see and label your approach. You may prefer a different label.
To Leorning Cniht
e. Some examples please.
f. I don’t know from where you get the idea that I want children to be raped in safety. See what I’ve said above and in my early posts.
g. The chase may have ended, but by that stage, the police will know the vehicle being chased. Often an opportunity to set up a road block ahead. It does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that a person being chased does not later get arrested and charged.
To Soror Magna
h. I don’t know why people go to drug pushers. I don’t find that quotation at all convincing particularly of the people buying these dangerous drugs at festivals. In the tributes which flow (tributes always flow following one of these deaths, it’s a phrase which saves a journalist from decent thought) we’re told what upright pillars of society the deceased was, the great contribution being made, and to be made in the future etc.
i. Read what I’ve said above and in earlier posts of the reason behind the condoms/underage children/paedophiles etc. Most certainly miles from what you say.
* There may be instances of forced drug use as a part of some assault. I’m not aware of any here.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Unless usage has changed, "pusher" and "dealer" don't refer to the same person. A dealer sells drugs. A pusher forces or tricks people into using drugs, so as to create more business.
IMHO, a pusher's activities are much more vile.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
That different usage makes sense, but AFAIK has not crept in here.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
By co-incidence this story was published today.
Personally I find it compelling, particularly the point about a possible bad batch of pills circulating at a festival possibly leading to many preventable deaths.
Gee D, it seems impossible, morally, to me to walk past someone dying. They might be dying due to their own stupid fault, I may have no legal obligation of care to them, but if they are dying and I can do something I personally feel compelled to act, and if enough of a consensus exists in society that we should act then the state has every business enacting that.
The fact that some interpret this as condoning illegality isn't enough to stop me.
It would be nice if you could extend the courtesy of regarding that as a principle worthy of the name.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Ecstasy is an unpredictable drug. It's really difficult to teach about the risks because young people hear and see it's harmless, until it's not.
One of my cautionary tales, I have a lot, is about a young lad I worked with, who took a couple of ecstasy tablets with a friend. The friend took a double dose, so 4 or 5 tablets. The lad I worked with survived, just, after some time in intensive care, left with permanent heart damage and life time medication to keep his kidneys working (iirc). (He was on the prayer list here for a bit.) The friend was totally unscathed, even called the ambulance.
Yes, it's illegal. But young people see others taking ecstasy harmlessly and, anyway, young people believe they're invincible
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Yes, I do think it the same if you carefully read what I said. The condom was to be used to protect not the victim of the rape but the perpetrator. Here, the test is to protect the person committing a criminal offence - admittedly one of much less seriousness.
As to the first, I do think it's axiomatic. While the action remains a criminal offence, such matters as your perception of harm reduction do not come into it. That equally deals with your last paragraph.
Perhaps you think you are making a cogent point. But, so far, your argument is an idiot. A drooling, brain-damaged idiot. Your statement is worthy of a Hell call, but I shall address it here because you do not appear to be an idiot, or IMO a troll.
Rape and paedophilia are always harmful acts for the victims. The legality of a drug has nought to do with its ability to harm. Alchohol is the most costly drug, in terms of damage, in the history of human drug use. This is not due only to its legality but to the way it works.
Your analogy is not only a poor one but one that cannot but fail to make your intended point.
Which, from observation, appears to be that the law is infallible and must be applied with no concern as to harm.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
What the fuck is axiomatic legality? Is this a posh phrase for no compassion?
Pretty much. Jesus would be soo proud.
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Unless usage has changed, "pusher" and "dealer" don't refer to the same person. A dealer sells drugs. A pusher forces or tricks people into using drugs, so as to create more business.
IMHO, a pusher's activities are much more vile.
IMO, this is a false dichotomy developed to justify, not delineate. Steppenwolf notwithstanding, it is typically more complicated than that.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
where you get the idea that I want children to be raped in safety. See what I’ve said above and in my early posts.
Because in response to my raising the issue of children being given condoms, you started talking about inquiries into institutional child abuse.
There is no evidence, as far as I am aware, that preventing children from accessing condoms supports them in saying no to sex at all, let alone in resisting paedophiles.
I understand why you could think that it might help, but as far as I know, all the evidence suggests otherwise - children with easy access to condoms are not more likely to have underage sex, but they are less likely to get pregnant.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
Here is a program which appears to be frequently successful.
This is for people who would have died without timely treatment with naloxene. Apparently the close call makes them more open to offers of help.
Moo
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Gee D, it seems impossible, morally, to me to walk past someone dying. They might be dying due to their own stupid fault, I may have no legal obligation of care to them, but if they are dying and I can do something I personally feel compelled to act, and if enough of a consensus exists in society that we should act then the state has every business enacting that.
Nor would I walk past someone dying and that is a genuine moral principle. I don't see the analogy that you seem to though, in helping those dying and providing tests for illegal drugs. As I keep saying, the state fulfills its moral duty by substantial publicity about the dangers of using the drugs on sale at these events. I've read what Curiosity Killed posted after you and that highlights the problem. The ecstasy tablets may have been poison-free but an overdose will kill - and should the state send people around watching consumption and saying not to have a second or third tablet?
lilbuddha - Rape and paedophilia are always harmful acts for the victims. - I totally agree. My post very carefully did not give rise to any contrary reading. I repeat it: giving a condom to a rapist to stop his possibly contracting something from his victim is always wrong and could never be right. I see that as a valid analogy with the state testing illegal drugs at these events.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Well, then.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I've read what Curiosity Killed posted after you and that highlights the problem. The ecstasy tablets may have been poison-free but an overdose will kill - and should the state send people around watching consumption and saying not to have a second or third tablet?
Way to miss the point. The point was that ecstasy is unpredictable. The lad who survived unscathed took way more. According to the article mdijon posted,
quote:
Measham is at pains to point out that testing alone can’t remove all danger. “Five friends go out one night and take ecstasy; one doesn’t come home. They’ve all had the same drug in the same venue. There’s an X factor here that we’ve still not really pinned down.”
That X factor is what affected the young man I used to work with. There have been other cases, and it was suggested that it was what killed Leah Betts, although that is disputed.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
That quotation gets to what I've been saying. Taking drugs is a dangerous and illegal activity. Those who take them should be made aware of the danger and at festivals, there's ample signage to try to make the point. But some just don't read.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Ri-i-ight. As someone who has taught drugs education to teenagers, it's very difficult to persuade them of the dangers of a drug when they see their friends having no problems. Particularly when, as all teenagers, in their minds they are invincible. Blaming young adults for this is unreasonable as research is showing that the way teenagers and adults think about intentions changes as their brains develop.
2007 paper
One of the reasons teenagers and young adults are high risk is that their brains rewire through adolescence and that maturation is believed to cause the immature and impulsive behaviours often observed in young people.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Gee D--
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
That different usage makes sense, but AFAIK has not crept in here.
One or two posts mentioned "pusher", when it seemed "dealer" was meant. I'm not very drug savvy, but that usage has been in the news and media since I was a child. There may well be a lot of people who are both pushers and dealers.
lilBuddha--
That's also in response to you. I'm not defending either pushers or dealers--but I think there's a big difference between filling an existing need, and forcing/tricking someone into getting hooked.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Curiosity killed ... so what would you do? If they can't be taught of the real dangers of drugs, how can they be taught to take them to testing when they already ignore the danger signs? And how do you get them the message in that linked article about the inherent dangers of even pure drugs?
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
I talk to young people about ecstasy in terms of it being unpredictable, that they probably know people who use it and are fine, but they won't know if they are one of the people who it affects badly and they need to be aware of the dangers. I'll use real stories of kids I knew and taught. I'll also direct them to sites like Talk to Frank if the net nanny will let us use it. If it won't I'll print the information off.
But it's difficult. The law and Government make it harder to have honest discussions about drugs: Professor David Nutt was appointed as the Government adviser on drugs in 2009 and sacked following publication of a paper that categorised drugs using a measured scale, both legal and illegal, in terms of psychological, physical and societal harm. The UK classifies drugs somewhat arbitrarily as Class A, Class B, Class C and unclassified. Nutt's categorisation put ecstasy and cannabis as Class C, alcohol in Class A and tobacco in Class B. Cannabis is Class B and Ecstasy is Class A.
Depending on the students I am working with, I am prepared to discuss that categorisation and the law as part of the drugs unit. It depends if they are mature enough to understand that the paper was disputed and to engage with some of those arguments.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
I still don't understand how what you try to teach can get through if other messages can't.
I gather that the drugs being sold at festivals here range from cannabis to methamphetamines to more that I don't really understand. The deaths have resulted from the sale of "little tablets" which could mean a whole range.
As an interesting aside, the recent death of a young woman came about because her best friend had bought some little tablets and gave her one. The friend was charged with the supply, pleaded guilty and was given some sort of bond. She was very lucky not to have been charged with something much more serious.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
The problem with taking the stance of considering legality and illegality for drugs is that that line is arbitrary with respect to the harm that those drugs cause. When kids* grow up seeing adults abuse alcohol with the inherent damage and violence that regularly accompanies alcohol abuse, it's very difficult to convince them that cannabis and ecstasy are worse. Because actually, dispassionately, alcohol is more harmful. Alcohol just happens to be legal, so the supply is supervised and monitored.
The issue with many of the illegal drugs is not the harm they do, but the lack of checking of purity of what is supplied. Often what kills is either the impurities and/or that what is being sold is not what is described, or that the strength is unpredictable.
* particularly when those children have symptoms of foetal alcohol syndrome.
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
The drug user is criminal and victim, both at once. You say that it is impossible to ignore the criminal even if doing so would prevent harm to the victim.
[x-posted with mdijon]
There are huge assumptions in your first sentence which I'm not prepared to make.
Speaking of assumptions -
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
A drug user is a voluntary user
Assumption. There are many reports by women of having been forcibly injected by men who they were in [admittedly dysfunctional] relationships with, who go on to develop a habit. And that's leaving aside the question of whether or not such things are ever entirely voluntary after the first imbibing has affected some neural pathways.
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
there are also treatments available to deal with the addiction
Assumption. There might be some treatments, at some level, for some addictions, in some districts/areas. Some of them might even be funded.
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
for a willing patient.
Can you not see the circularity of all this? The fact that some people manage to stop taking drugs proves both that drug use is voluntary and that treatments are efficacious and sufficient? What about the fact that most people (including most people who take part in a program) don't have this outcome?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Nor would I walk past someone dying and that is a genuine moral principle. I don't see the analogy that you seem to though, in helping those dying and providing tests for illegal drugs. As I keep saying, the state fulfills its moral duty by substantial publicity about the dangers of using the drugs on sale at these events.
The analogy is that fulfilling moral duty by publicity is walking past if there's something more that could be done.
Maybe the person is lying there dying, they need food and water to survive the night. Giving them the water in your bag might fulfil a moral duty, but you could also go and buy them food and bring it back you could do more. I want to do the more. You don't want to do it because something they are doing something illegal which is connected to their risk of death.
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I've read what Curiosity Killed posted after you and that highlights the problem. The ecstasy tablets may have been poison-free but an overdose will kill - and should the state send people around watching consumption and saying not to have a second or third tablet?
As CK says that is missing the point. There are things that can be done to reduce the risk of drugs, but we can't eliminate all the risk. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we can.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Nor would I walk past someone dying and that is a genuine moral principle. I don't see the analogy that you seem to though, in helping those dying and providing tests for illegal drugs. As I keep saying, the state fulfills its moral duty by substantial publicity about the dangers of using the drugs on sale at these events.
The analogy is that fulfilling moral duty by publicity is walking past if there's something more that could be done.
Maybe the person is lying there dying, they need food and water to survive the night. Giving them the water in your bag might fulfil a moral duty, but you could also go and buy them food and bring it back you could do more. I want to do the more. You don't want to do it because something they are doing something illegal which is connected to their risk of death.
It may be because it's latish on a Sunday evening, but I can't see that analogy at all - in fact, I don't really understand the sentence. Has something fallen out of it?
From what do you derive the very last sentence? I can't think of anything I've said that could suggest not providing help to a person dying, regardless of any illegality they may have committed.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
The point is that there are a certain number of young people every year who take dodgy drugs at events where we could, with resources available, provide a testing service that might stop them taking those dodgy drugs. Those are the dying people.
You say we have done enough already by trying to get through their thick skulls that drugs might kill them.
I say that there's something more that we can do to prevent death and we should do it. You think we should walk past on the basis that the young people are involved in illegality, the thing we could do would involve us to some extent in that illegality, and you think that is a barrier.
And the reason that is a barrier is simply axiomatic. It doesn't seem to derive from any other principle such as autonomy, beneficence, etc.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
Every day people use illegal drugs. Some of those people go have a good time and then use the drugs occasionally. Some drugs are worse than others in this respect, but even Heroin can be stopped voluntarily by some people. Look at the results of Heroin using soldiers in Vietnam stopping when they got home. If you have ever had a surgery and walked out of the hospital free of opiate addiction you have experienced drug use without addiction.
Other people can use those drugs and they quickly become incapable (so they experience) of stopping using those drugs and more like them.
Treating addiction by telling people they are doing the wrong thing and hurting themselves may feel morally correct and superior. I have a lot of experience with addicts. My experience suggests that telling an addict they are doing something wrong is about as useful as trying to stop a tiger rushing at you with a feather. But then I suspect the people touting the lecture method have either not experienced life with an addict, or prefer to keep things purely academic as real life tends to be too messy.
Addicts can get over their addiction. There may be some who can do it all on their own. I have never seen that happen, but you never know. Everyone I have seen recover not only wants to quit; they also accept the help of others who have experienced addiction themselves.
Yes, the long term recovery rate for addicts (again, alcohol is a drug, so alcoholics are just garden variety addicts whose drug of choice is alcohol) is depressingly low. As a friend of mine says "You step over a lot of dead bodies if you stay in AA for very long."
Judging addicts helps them not at all. Telling them drugs are bad helps them not at all. If that is all you are capable of by way of helping addicts it is probably for the best if you stay away from them as horseshit like that will merely give them another excuse to use.
Neither should you enable an addict by making life easier for them in their addiction. An addict has to hit whatever their personal bottom is to find the need to change. No one, not even the addict, knows what that bottom is.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Top post by that man. Moralizing about drugs is as useful as sugar on shit.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
And addicts are the majority population for needle exchange. For testing ecstasy in clubs and festivals, we are mostly not dealing with addicts but mainly with young people who like the occasional hit at a club.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Rather similar discussion going on about morning after pill, where Boots have said that keeping a high price on it, stops 'inappropriate use'. Eh?
Is this some kind of strange idea that stopping women having recourse to MAP promotes moral virtue, and if that means there are more unwanted babies, never mind, the sluts shouldn't be having sex?
Although, postscript, Boots have apologized for their language.
[ 23. July 2017, 15:12: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Keeping a high price on it encourages profits for Boots. They have a range of cheap generic drugs that now have over-the-counter licenses and charge a fortune for them in Boots-branded versions. They then don't stock the cheaper generics in the same line.
It's predatory pricing and anti-competitive practice. They got caught with a bullshit excuse, but the whole range of over-the-counter stuff needs looking at, not just the morning-after-pill.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Rather similar discussion going on about morning after pill, where Boots have said that keeping a high price on it, stops 'inappropriate use'. Eh?
It's that gang of ne'er-do-wells that gather behind the bike sheds to chase the Plan B.
That's what they mean, right?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I think they crush the tablets up, and snort them. Somebody has to be vigilant, so it's Boots.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Look at the results of Heroin using soldiers in Vietnam stopping when they got home. If you have ever had a surgery and walked out of the hospital free of opiate addiction you have experienced drug use without addiction.
So those are two, almost completely different examples you realise?
quote:
Neither should you enable an addict by making life easier for them in their addiction. An addict has to hit whatever their personal bottom is to find the need to change. No one, not even the addict, knows what that bottom is.
Supplying clean needles isn't helping addicts stay addicted, it is helping them stay alive.
Testing festival drugs is doing the same and many of the users are not, and will not become, addicts.
I think you likely understand this, but not everyone on this thread appears to.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
NSS
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
NSS
Cute. But given the bollocks for argument on this thread thus far, it isn't unreasonable to check.
However a reasonable reading of your words should be obvious, it should be equally obvious that not everyone here will see that.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
The point is that there are a certain number of young people every year who take dodgy drugs at events where we could, with resources available, provide a testing service that might stop them taking those dodgy drugs. Those are the dying people.
You say we have done enough already by trying to get through their thick skulls that drugs might kill them.
I say that there's something more that we can do to prevent death and we should do it. You think we should walk past on the basis that the young people are involved in illegality, the thing we could do would involve us to some extent in that illegality, and you think that is a barrier.
And the reason that is a barrier is simply axiomatic. It doesn't seem to derive from any other principle such as autonomy, beneficence, etc.
I now understand what you were trying to say. What I'm saying is that we are doing the most that we need to do, and it's now up to them. Some may die from impurities in what they take; others because they take too much of something which would pass any testing - how do you stop that? It's something I've raised before and which you have yet to answer.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
What I'm saying is that we are doing the most that we need to do, and it's now up to them.
And Jesus said: Do only the barest minimum and fuck them if they if they do not manage to fall in line with our expectations.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Some may die from impurities in what they take; others because they take too much of something which would pass any testing - how do you stop that? It's something I've raised before and which you have yet to answer.
My answer is that no measure is perfect, but if we have a measure that will save x lives then the fact that we won't save x + y lives is no reason not to do it. Nor is the reason that we've already done the minimum necessary. I would like us to do more than the minimum.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
While I don't see what is being done as the minimum but rather carrying out what is the obligation the state carries.
To go back to the motor-cycle helmet: to start with, that's not any sort of analogy. The parents are not committing an offence by supplying a helmet. And it is not the parents' action which has made riding under-age illegal. I can see no reason why the parents should not supply the helmet.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
I agree the motorcycle analogy is a bit different, and I suspect will produce another area where communication might get challenging.
On the minimum vs obligation distinction - isn't that just semantics? If I say "Why don't we do something more" is there really any difference between saying "This is all that we are obliged to do" and "This is the minimum that we need to do"?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Not sure that it's just semantics, as my point is neither minimum or obligation (if you're using that in the sense of required) but rather should.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
And my point is as much about want to as should. I want to protect young people from harm.
It seems to me that to argue against doing it you have to either say;
a) "I only want to do what I'm obliged to, I don't care enough to do more"
b) "I think that what you are proposing will not work/ will be harmful for pragmatic reasons"
or
c) "I would be happy to save these lives, but I can't because I feel constraints based on other principles".
I think you are saying c) to me. And since that is axiomatic for you there's little more that can be said.
My only counter would be to say that using the law as an axiomatic seems dangerous to me. There must be other moral imperatives in life that can trump it.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Mostly your pojnt c, but not that I feel that there are constraints but that there are in fact constraints, ie the legislation making the sale and use of these drugs illegal. If they were as legal as eg alcohol, my objections would go. There is no principle in either of your other points.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
On the hell thread, RuthW used the term 'legalism' which struck me as accurate about Gee D. I also thought of scrupulosity. But RuthW also made the point that legalism may in fact be immoral. Thus if you can save lives by doing X, but X condones something illegal? Of course, it depends on what X is and what the something illegal is.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
If obeying the law is considered axiomatic and unassailable then by definition that is legalism.
I would guess that for most of us obeying the law is a motivated by other principles - wanting a framework that keeps an orderly society, for instance, or supporting a concept of justice that transcends the law.
GeeD has confirmed that obedience to the law is axiomatic, but he hasn't directly confirmed it is unassailable for him (although I am inferring it is).
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Mostly your pojnt c, but not that I feel that there are constraints but that there are in fact constraints, ie the legislation making the sale and use of these drugs illegal. If they were as legal as eg alcohol, my objections would go. There is no principle in either of your other points.
But this is stupid. Legal =/= good. Legal =/= right. Legal =/= just. And, most importantly, legal is not sufficient to control behaviour. Nothing is completely, but education has a higher success rate than legal.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
No law is unassailable and the ongoing development of what should and should not be law remains a vital part of the legal system.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
No law is unassailable and the ongoing development of what should and should not be law remains a vital part of the legal system.
This manages to say something completely true and yet utterly useless to the conversation.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
On the hell thread, RuthW used the term 'legalism' which struck me as accurate about Gee D. I also thought of scrupulosity. But RuthW also made the point that legalism may in fact be immoral. Thus if you can save lives by doing X, but X condones something illegal? Of course, it depends on what X is and what the something illegal is.
Saving the lives of people doing something illegal does not condone doing illegal things. It merely recognizes that people doing illegal things are still human beings who deserve our care.
Let's say someone owns land on which there is an unstable cliff. That person may chose to place a sign warning that the cliff is unstable. That doesn't mean that person has condoned trespass on the property.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
No law is unassailable and the ongoing development of what should and should not be law remains a vital part of the legal system.
Obviously. But not an answer to the question of whether the principle of unswerving obedience to the law is ever assailable for you.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
I'd like to think that I'd have had the courage to disobey Hitler's anti-semitic laws, and similar examples. Instances where there's an interference with basic human rights.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
I should resist the temptation, but I won't.
Somehow it has always occurred to me that living is a basic human right.
OTOH, if society deems drug use a capital crime, we should - according to law - let them all suffer and die whilst watching over their final breaths with that glow that comes from moral superiority.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I'd like to think that I'd have had the courage to disobey Hitler's anti-semitic laws, and similar examples. Instances where there's an interference with basic human rights.
I could work with that as a thin edge of a virtuous wedge. Healthcare is a human right isn't it?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I'd like to think that I'd have had the courage to disobey Hitler's anti-semitic laws, and similar examples. Instances where there's an interference with basic human rights.
I doubt you would.
First, Germans are no more or less evil or heartless than any other group of people. So just as most people there and then didn't, most others substituted in wouldn't either. Human nature.
Second, regarding you specifically: If you have such a tight focus on law Über Alles whilst living in a society free from such extraordinary pressures, then it bodes poorly for moral strength in extremis.
Am I wrong? Possibly. However, your statements thus far do not so indicate.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
I should resist the temptation, but I won't.
Somehow it has always occurred to me that living is a basic human right.
OTOH, if society deems drug use a capital crime, we should - according to law - let them all suffer and die whilst watching over their final breaths with that glow that comes from moral superiority.
That city councilman in Ohio who wants to refuse emergency services in response to 911 calls for anyone who has previously received help twice for an illicit drug OD is onto something. Think of all the public money we could save, not to mention the reduction of the surplus population.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So just as most people there and then didn't, most others substituted in wouldn't either. Human nature.
On the other hand maybe someone prepared to go against the flow is better equipped to do that twice. GeeD is rather against the flow on this thread. Maybe he'd pull that off in the right circumstances. Who's to know?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So just as most people there and then didn't, most others substituted in wouldn't either. Human nature.
On the other hand maybe someone prepared to go against the flow is better equipped to do that twice. GeeD is rather against the flow on this thread. Maybe he'd pull that off in the right circumstances. Who's to know?
It is impossible to know for certain. And it is a useless game anyway. As much as we like to think there is some inner-core that is the essential Us, we are greatly shaped by our circumstance. You, born into early 20th C Germany, would not be our mdijion. You would be a completely different person.
So, all we can really compare is our attributes in our reality transplanted into Nazi Germany. And GeeD's posts on this thread aren't encouraging.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Back to GeeD's actual position on this thread, aren't we missing a simple way out of this?
The state simply has to legislate that testing drugs and not turning in the drug users presenting their drugs for testing is not against the law in certain circumstances. Then once that is done there's no objection on grounds of illegality.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Back to GeeD's actual position on this thread, aren't we missing a simple way out of this?
The state simply has to legislate that testing drugs and not turning in the drug users presenting their drugs for testing is not against the law in certain circumstances. Then once that is done there's no objection on grounds of illegality.
Doesn't change his stance that it is better to let someone die than break the law to help them. It is for his apparent callous disregard for people and offensive analogy that I called him to Hell. Thus far, he's not made much of an effort to change this.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Back to GeeD's actual position on this thread, aren't we missing a simple way out of this?
The state simply has to legislate that testing drugs and not turning in the drug users presenting their drugs for testing is not against the law in certain circumstances. Then once that is done there's no objection on grounds of illegality.
Precisely. But if you're going to do that, what are the circumstances - they should not be limited to attendance at festivals.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I'd like to think that I'd have had the courage to disobey Hitler's anti-semitic laws, and similar examples. Instances where there's an interference with basic human rights.
I could work with that as a thin edge of a virtuous wedge. Healthcare is a human right isn't it?
Access to healthcare, free legal advice for those arrested and so forth are basic human rights. Are you contemplating some sort of law that makes them illegal?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Access to healthcare, free legal advice for those arrested and so forth are basic human rights. Are you contemplating some sort of law that makes them illegal?
Good grief, no. My point was that you were prepared to break the law where it interferes with basic human rights, therefore one could make an argument regarding the healthcare benefits of needle exchange vs the law.
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Precisely. But if you're going to do that, what are the circumstances - they should not be limited to attendance at festivals.
The circumstances would have to be worked out, and yes I would suggest doing it a bit more widely than festivals. So I think you'd be broadly in favour of changing the law to support drug testing if that was shown to be a useful intervention. Which is good common ground then.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
As to your first - I don't see that taking an illegal drug is a basic human right, any more than there is no basic human right to drive a car while blind drunk.
As to the second, I'd take the position that if drug-taking at a festival is to be permitted, there's no argument against allowing it generally, subject perhaps to the same rules as apply to alcohol consumption by minors.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
As to your first - I don't see that taking an illegal drug is a basic human right
Do you really think that is my argument?
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
As to the second, I'd take the position that if drug-taking at a festival is to be permitted...
While I'd actually be in favour of legalization of many drugs, that wasn't what I was arguing. I was arguing for specific legislation saying that in the specific instance of someone providing a drug-testing service would not be legally bound to report a drug user and would not be breaking the law. Possession and supply could still be treated as crimes.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
As to your first comment, I had no idea what your argument was, but you have now set it out.
The second still has problems in the context of this thread. How can the state on the one hand say that it is illegal to take this drug, but on the other provide testing services. There is a clear illogicality. Even if the testing were provided and paid for by someone other than the government, could not the police simply wait at the out door, check and the arrest those coming through with drugs?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
As to your first comment, I had no idea what your argument was, but you have now set it out.
The second still has problems in the context of this thread. How can the state on the one hand say that it is illegal to take this drug, but on the other provide testing services. There is a clear illogicality. Even if the testing were provided and paid for by someone other than the government, could not the police simply wait at the out door, check and the arrest those coming through with drugs?
Yeah. So that happens then people stop getting their drugs checked and die.
And, from your arguments, are cool with that.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Even if the testing were provided and paid for by someone other than the government, could not the police simply wait at the out door, check and the arrest those coming through with drugs?
Not if the state instructed them not to. Amnesties are occasionally implemented by the state as a pragmatic way to remove firearms from circulation, for instance. Logically speaking the police could hover outside and question people, but they don't because the state has an interest in taking illegal firearms out of the market.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Well and good, but the illogicality remains.
What do you say about my comment that if it be right to allow drug testing at these festivals, you should allow it everywhere.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Well and good, but the illogicality remains.
It is not illogical. It has a very clear logic.
Logic:
quote:
reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
What do you say about my comment that if it be right to allow drug testing at these festivals, you should allow it everywhere.
Not necessarily. We allow gun or knife amnesties at certain points of time without feeling obliged to do it all the time. We have smoking zones and no-smoking zones. We have pedestrian-only areas in some cities but not in others. I don't see the axiomatic good in uniformity of application in time and place.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
The amnesties come closest to this, but not quite there. I can't see any analogy at all with the others - you might as well say that we allow cars to drive on roads but rarely on footpaths.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Well exactly. Why does a drug testing law have to be uniform and why aren't the gun amnesties quite there? You haven't made an argument.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Well exactly. Why does a drug testing law have to be uniform and why aren't the gun amnesties quite there? You haven't made an argument.
Very simple - the amnesty operates so as to stop a continuing breach of the law - the firearm is returned and the offence ceases. Drug testing operates on the basis that the law is to be broken when the drug is taken.
[ 28. July 2017, 03:49: Message edited by: Gee D ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
OK, I see that difference. And I can see why one could be internally consistent in supporting gun amnesties but not drug testing. But I don't see the leap from those differences to "That's why it's OK to have gun amnesties in some places but not others, and why we could only ever have drug testing if it applied everywhere all the time."
(A closer parallel to drug testing is the needle exchange programme, and although I think you are against those as well they seem to operate effectively in many countries without legal challenges.)
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
But surely a gun amnesty is jurisdiction wide? Here, an amnesty could be given for a period in a state, but not necessarily in other states at the same time. I don't know enough about devolved powers in the UK to comment about amnesties there.
I raised the question of the extent of drug testing to explore how you were thinking. It seems inconsistent behaviour for a government to say it will pay for or conduct drug testing at what are, after all, profit making private venture, but not do so in the carpark of a suburban hotel on a Saturday evening.
While I know that there have been needle exchange programmes here in the past, I don't know if they're still current. I would have problems with them were they to be organised or paid for by the state.
[ 28. July 2017, 07:18: Message edited by: Gee D ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
I think when you have a gun amnesty there are designated points where you can hand your gun in, and it doesn't work if you go over to police in other locations to hand your gun in.
I don't think it is inconsistent for a government to say it doesn't have gun collection facilities everywhere, and likewise that drug testing facilities are only available according to logistic constraints.
For drug testing there may be certain locations and patterns of provision that would be more prone to abuse (e.g. becoming a facilitation for pushers to demonstrate the value of their goods), and I would want to take that into account.
Needle exchange programmes are ongoing in Australia and the UK, and there are studies estimating the numbers of Hep C and HIV infections prevented.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
I have no idea of the logistics of gun amnesties, but with the lower population densities here imagine that it would be at any police station.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0