View Poll Results: Please chose the political directions you prefer

Voters
16. You may not vote on this poll
  • Drug Prohibition: Legalize, tax and use harm reduction approach

    8 50.00%
  • Drug Prohibition: Legalize and tax only certain drugs

    7 43.75%
  • Drug Prohibition: Become more aggressive in the war on drugs

    1 6.25%
  • Abortion: Women’s choice, w/ women’s responsibility

    7 43.75%
  • Abortion: Women’s choice w/ men and women’s responsibility

    6 37.50%
  • Abortion: Pro-Life, except in severe situations

    3 18.75%
  • Abortion: Pro-Life, no exceptions

    0 0%
  • Social Supports: Make transitioning to independent living graduall

    9 56.25%
  • Social Supports: Keep current cut-offs

    4 25.00%
  • Social Supports: Donations only

    1 6.25%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: Public Polocies Part 1

  1. #11
    Anti-Hypocrite
    molten_dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southeast Michigan
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,351

    Re: Public Polocies Part 1

    Quote Originally Posted by AreteCourage View Post
    Ok then do you say we should keep them on a criminal scale because I believe if we treated addicts as sick people rather than criminals then a lot of perception would change.
    Probably not for a first offense. Users should probably be punished relatively lightly at first, with the focus for a first offense on treatment rather than punishment, scaling more towards the punishment side of things with subsequent offenses. If the government pays for someone to go to rehab, and a month later they're arrested for use of the same drug again, chances are more treatment won't be effective, and would simply be a waste of money.

    And I only sort of agree with the idea that addicts should be treated as sick people. Most people don't choose to get sick. If someone chooses to use a drug that causes physical dependence, they choose to get addicted. It isn't an optional thing.
    If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.

    If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  2. #12
    Anti-Hypocrite
    molten_dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southeast Michigan
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,351

    Re: Public Polocies Part 1

    Quote Originally Posted by MusicAdventurer View Post
    I don't think allowing clinically supervised use of those "hard" drugs would be very encouraging.

    I tend to think that, because people now how damaging those drugs can be, those drugs would be the least likely to show an increase in use. jmo
    You could be right. As far as I know there aren't any countries that allow recreational use of drugs like heroin and methamphetamine, so there's no data on whether legalization increases or decreases use.
    If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.

    If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  3. #13
    Educator

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    08-15-13 @ 01:41 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,034

    Re: Public Polocies Part 1

    Quote Originally Posted by molten_dragon View Post
    Probably not for a first offense. Users should probably be punished relatively lightly at first, with the focus for a first offense on treatment rather than punishment, scaling more towards the punishment side of things with subsequent offenses. If the government pays for someone to go to rehab, and a month later they're arrested for use of the same drug again, chances are more treatment won't be effective, and would simply be a waste of money.

    And I only sort of agree with the idea that addicts should be treated as sick people. Most people don't choose to get sick. If someone chooses to use a drug that causes physical dependence, they choose to get addicted. It isn't an optional thing.
    Unfortunately, the psychological research regarding those assumptions do not support your argument. When thinking about psychology, we must remember that there is such a thing as cause and effect. Gene's are put together a certain way and certain tendencies emerge. The individual then applies those tendencies in life, thus interacting with his/her environment and eventually an individual with a unique psychological profile is formed. Therefore, if a person is born into poverty and/or is genetically at risk for mental health problems, it is likely that they will end up using drugs. Substance abuse is highly correlated with mental health disorders. This means that most problematic substance use cases are the result of individuals trying to treat a mental health disorder with drugs. It also means that some people use drugs just for the experience, but end up addicted and develop mental health disorders as a result. Cold punishments will only increase mental health problems, while a caring treatment approach leads to mental health. Unfortunately, that's just the way it works.

  4. #14
    Educator

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    08-15-13 @ 01:41 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,034

    Re: Public Polocies Part 1

    Quote Originally Posted by molten_dragon View Post
    You could be right. As far as I know there aren't any countries that allow recreational use of drugs like heroin and methamphetamine, so there's no data on whether legalization increases or decreases use.

    This is true, as far as recreational use is concerned. But we do know that crime rates decrease when drug replacement therapy treatment facilities (e.g. methadone clinics) move into communities. This is more what I mean by the harm reduction approach, availability of the substances, but with the stated purpose of treatment - what people use it for from there is up to them.

  5. #15
    Anti-Hypocrite
    molten_dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southeast Michigan
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,351

    Re: Public Polocies Part 1

    Quote Originally Posted by MusicAdventurer View Post
    Unfortunately, the psychological research regarding those assumptions do not support your argument. When thinking about psychology, we must remember that there is such a thing as cause and effect. Gene's are put together a certain way and certain tendencies emerge. The individual then applies those tendencies in life, thus interacting with his/her environment and eventually an individual with a unique psychological profile is formed. Therefore, if a person is born into poverty and/or is genetically at risk for mental health problems, it is likely that they will end up using drugs. Substance abuse is highly correlated with mental health disorders. This means that most problematic substance use cases are the result of individuals trying to treat a mental health disorder with drugs. It also means that some people use drugs just for the experience, but end up addicted and develop mental health disorders as a result. Cold punishments will only increase mental health problems, while a caring treatment approach leads to mental health. Unfortunately, that's just the way it works.
    Being genetically predisposed (or predisposed because of upbringing) does not mean someone doesn't have a choice about whether or not to do something. I'm overweight. I'm genetically predisposed to it, and predisposed to it from my upbringing, but I still make the choice to eat too much and exercise too little, and I could choose to do otherwise if I wished (in fact at the moment I am, we'll see if it lasts). Drug use is the same way. Some people might be predisposed to it, but unless they given the drug without their consent (which I'm fairly sure is extremely rare) they still make the choice to do it.
    If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.

    If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  6. #16
    Anti-Hypocrite
    molten_dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southeast Michigan
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,351

    Re: Public Polocies Part 1

    Quote Originally Posted by MusicAdventurer View Post
    This is true, as far as recreational use is concerned. But we do know that crime rates decrease when drug replacement therapy treatment facilities (e.g. methadone clinics) move into communities. This is more what I mean by the harm reduction approach, availability of the substances, but with the stated purpose of treatment - what people use it for from there is up to them.
    My problem with this is that the government is essentially giving people recreational drugs at that point, and I don't support my tax dollars going to that. I'd be fine with putting people in rehab and giving them drugs to wean them off as part of rehab, since I realize that some drugs can't be safely quit cold turkey, but I'm not okay with saying "here's some free heroin, do what you want with it" but they shouldn't just be handed out free with no requirement for other treatment. It may depend heavily on the clinic, but I've got a cousin that's been "quitting" heroin with the assistance of a methadone clinic for 20 years.
    If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.

    If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  7. #17
    Educator

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    08-15-13 @ 01:41 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,034

    Re: Public Polocies Part 1

    Quote Originally Posted by molten_dragon View Post
    My problem with this is that the government is essentially giving people recreational drugs at that point, and I don't support my tax dollars going to that. I'd be fine with putting people in rehab and giving them drugs to wean them off as part of rehab, since I realize that some drugs can't be safely quit cold turkey, but I'm not okay with saying "here's some free heroin, do what you want with it" but they shouldn't just be handed out free with no requirement for other treatment. It may depend heavily on the clinic, but I've got a cousin that's been "quitting" heroin with the assistance of a methadone clinic for 20 years.
    Yeah, I know what you mean. I think that if a person isn't already addicted, they should be able to acquire the drugs legally via purchase through licensed venders, where a mental health assessment is preformed prior to use. The clinical part comes in if they are trying to get off of or reduce their use of a substance. Many addicts' brain chemistry actually changes, making it extremely difficult for them to come off highly addictive drugs. Many addicts have mental health problems, the symptoms of which are often actually treated by the drug they are addicted to. If other medications or therapies do not relieve the symptoms, it would be very hard for them to quit the drug. We would actually save money as we wouldn't have to pay for the war on drugs and to pay for keeping people in prison. The only cost would be that of producing and providing the drugs, with some additional mental health related fees. Crime would also be reduced due to the reduced cost of the drugs. Thus money would be saved in law enforcement and in the courts as well. The benefits go on and on. Don't forget, the economy would be boosted as a result of sales and an increase in tax revenue. This is certainly not an ideal solution, but it seems like it is the greater of two "evils", so to speak.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •