Site > Harm Reduction Resources

Where do you draw the line?

(1/4) > >>

SubliminallyOveranalyzed:
If it's ok in principle, for the government to say, you cannot consume drugs because it will do you harm, then why is it not also ok to make things like over-eating, for example, a crime/punishment and/or legal issue as well (which by the way, kills A LOT more people EVERY year than all illicit drugs combined), or skydiving, skiing, surfing, state's/parishes or territories with no helmet laws for motorcycles, etc., etc., this list could easily go on and on(you get the point).......

So where do you draw the line? Simply where one CHOOSES to draw the line, is that the criteria?

Well, by definition then, a drug war is not about harm reduction in ANY way.

What then, is the real intent of a drug war?

What actual purpose is being served?

Just a thought


It is not heroin, meth or cocaine that makes one an addict. It is the need to escape from a harsh reality.—SHIRLEY CHISHOLM

quicksilver:
I sat here and pondered this for a few minutes, trying to think about it from a neutral standpoint. As an American, I see it from a couple different perspectives. A topic as broad as this can never be fully covered, as it spans from the individial's specific encounters to his or her lifestyle all the way to a national and eventually worldwide scope. The best one could do is draft a predictive model of models, which by working in the behavioral and economic realms, could be as much wrong as it could be right by erring in any aspect of the whole thing.

Of course there is the age-old argument that most drug traffic is in fact regulated by the CIA or whatever in the United States and thus most of the developed world and of course too-big-to-fail crime syndicates. The money being made stems from control, and in some instances it is more economically profitable for some things to be illegal instead of legal. Shifts in the market such as that of marijuana can maintain the profits for all (major [important]) parties involved by taking the right steps to change the legal status, and may even create a whole new level of profit short-term until it kind of comes back to where it was after some decades. Of course things like Oxycodone are controlled exclusively by Big Pharma and regualtion is to be expected once something else fun becomes legal.

As far as some harder drugs, well, for some, the physical and psychological health hazards are well-documented and known. Although it is a good case that man should have a right to choose how to live his life, laws such as these come into effect when it is necessary to prevent a lot of harm and justify the restriction on freedom. Obviously, laws can be stupid. No doubt. I kind of strayed from the economic part because I don't think it is the main reason at all, and also I don't know anything about economics, so nobody should really ready what I said and take it as completely accurate, but simply proposals to a big picture no one understands.

The main point I am thinking of is children. If there were no restrictions on drugs, they would undoubtedly be much more accessible to children. The simple widespread nature of the tobacco industry ensures people get hooked in adolescence. The 18 year old law is virtually a nonfactor (speaking from the U.S.), whereas harsh drug laws deter many (most?) from doing drugs. Those who do, typically do so not when they are early teenagers, but progress through say, tobacco as a gateway drug to weed which then is a gateway drug to more fun things. That simply takes time, so it delays these experiences until people are a bit more cognizant of their actions.

Also, although unfortunate, a stigma surrounds drug use and abuse, and although some studies may say otherwise, I'm sure with all things considered anti-drug programs and family upbringing instills a completely polarized view of drugs preventing many people from ever trying them. Those that do despite all of this either do so socially early on, or have to overcome predispositions by looking clearly at facts and making the informed decision to do so. These people have reached an age where they are able to deliberate and can do so responsibly, and are even so capable that they circumvent the drug laws and do so because their personal decided pleasure is not whimsical but involves risks they determined worth taking. Of course, this isn't all cut-and-dry. This is one big spectrum of ethical ambiguity, but generalizations are necessary to even touch on this matter.

If a significant percentage more of children were exposed to drugs at an early, impressionable,  and naive age, even a small percentage more really, the entire socioeconomic landscape of the nation and world would be impacted. Many who would have been good workers and brilliant minds would instead have their life paths changed dramatically. This then changes the construct of workforces, economies, etc. One would also have to examine where we came from.

In more developed nations, Christianity was the cornerstone of society and drug use was largely frowned upon. Propaganda surely enforced this. Also, a strong workforce was desired, family values were different and actually mattered, yada yada yada. The legislation is from a different time. There were like 1,000,000,000 people on this planet in like 1800, so the percentages potentially affected were much more significant in terms of importance to the world. Times are clearly changing, and the process of legalization across the board will be natural, set in motion by successful complete decriminalization in "test" countries so to speak. There is just inherently lag time for the process to begin let alone complete since there is so much involved.  Like hundreds of years potentially idk. Maybe not that long.

Essentially, although other things are unimpeded that are of higher risk for harm, they are at least regulated to the extent that one must have a working understanding of risks involved putting themselves (not others) at risk (a motorcyclist needs a permit, a skydiver needs instructing, and none are directed to kids). So personally I think it is in effect to MINIMZE (not eliminate) exposure to children who are incapable to make educated decisions to do drugs which could very well impact their entire life for better or for worse. The argument is for worse. The model in the information age with 7 billion people in the world is becomming obsolete and shifting to where legalization/regulation would be the most effective to keep the desired results consistent, but again a ton of things are involved and the shift will slide along the spectrum to compensate.

Sorry if my thoughts are disorganized. I just thought about it and these are my personal non-researched conclusions. It was just a meaty topic so I thought I'd start a-typin' and try to challenge myself to better understand why things are the way they are. I'm sure there is much more to it, including the fact that it is pure nonsense. But there are at least 2 sides to every story.

Feel free to say I'm wrong on all counts or whatever. But hey, who isn't excited for demand for MDMA to spike after weed legalization nationwide in the U.S. occurs? Markets can work for and against you. RIP neighborhood pot dealer. Or not. I truly don't know...


EDIT: I wasn't too clear on the whole precedent and shifting of cultural views. I'm of course not talking about the 1800's but it has been more of an exponential decline in those old ways of thinking through the mid 1900's to today,and we are hitting an upswing of intellect and information, and the common man is more independently informed rather than by family systems and social acceptance. This new age mindset is allowing the old taboos to become the new fads, and we are just at the crossroads of it, where acceptance is becoming the middle-ground. Ifthatmakesanysense.

likeiam:

--- Quote from: SubliminallyOveranalyzed on August 30, 2015, 06:49:34 PM ---What actual purpose is being served?

--- End quote ---

control.
try battling that one, now that's serious warfare

Lipbalm:
When I got one finger up one hooker's ass and my tongue up another's is where I draw the line for a substance. If it's not making me do that then it's ok.... which is why there are some drugs I stay away from.

SubliminallyOveranalyzed:
A basic premise of the ruling class of every society, is to keep the lower and middle classes fighting amongst ourselves, or otherwise distracted, so that they, the rich can run off with all the fucking money............fairly simple thing.... happens to work!! quite well actually

Whether its crack with the 80% black arrests.....or meth with the 80% white arrests...... and almost identical exaggerated social hysteria for the meth epidemic, that they used to get the public in a frenzy, by way of one of their all time best seller's,
illusion of perceived, but non-existent danger

These drugs weren't coincidentally the 2 random drugs that got demonized the most, they are a convenient means to an end, which is demonizing these drugs, allows them to focus law enforcement staff, resources, etc on both of these undesirable groups.....without being called into question for it.......

Cause get real, that's some of the most profiling , stereotyping, cherry picking discrimination since who knows when.......not to mention, embody's the very definition of "othering" (the not one of us mentality)

Take my word for it, I've resided in some state funded, state-catered, and fully state staffed resort getaways, the ones with very high barb-wire fences, and whose staff love to count.......on more than one occasion, and never for a mere weekend getaway; no unfortunately, these fine facilities require at least a 1 year stay to book a getaway with them

One watched violent charge, after pedophile, after manslaughter charge, after robbery 1st degree... all them charges routinely beat us non-violent drug offenders out the gate..... they seemed quite comfortable letting pedophiles out at least as fast as my possesion of controlled substance.....quite the spectacle, especially when they break into the repeat offender ranks of that same class of upstanding citizens, and portray equal amounts of couldn't give a fuck either way...

The real fuckups in a society weed themselves out .....anyone  that disregards your own self and well being and needed balance in your own life , as well as everyone and everything around you.......to the point of either causing yourself, others, or both, any kind of consistent and repeated harm, and without regard, eliminates themselvelves via the age old chart topper~self destruction.....such is never a matter of if.....merely a matter of when, and much more so than the obvious other universal applications of that same not if, but when, principle

Whether its un-moderated drug use, simple stress; a man's better half with a knife, gun, or poison, & a bottle of prozac for the blues and some notions of you getting the old rocks off elsewhere; unhealthily eating oneself into a grave; or as something as simple as a disregard to the need of overall balance in one's life, who doesn't even use drugs, or drink or smoke heavy, average person, that makes no effort to eat a balanced occasional or otherwise healthy meal, doesn't drink water, but instead coke and/or coffee all day every day, get's very little physical activity and no exercise, does not bother with supplements or health conscientiousness in any preventative though process.... that person's risk of developing pancreatic cancer alone, is 80 or so % higher, ONLY because they drink all that fucking coke and no water......

So along these lines, we can hand out blame that is much more deserving and unable to be used safely in any setting, safely, compared to these "hardest 4 drugs" that CAN, actually be used safely and without risk of any freakout or bad experience otherwise, if one simply is mindful to the factors and control variables that make such consistent safety a reality for these "hard" drugs, that they claim that is not even debatable........

As seemingly harmless as having pathological profiles as research focus may somewhat be, when evaluating these drugs....... and even considering how justified it may be in one regard(reporting harms), the unmentioned side note of that focus, is that the same pathology focus of the research skews the hell out of the data that we get fed and have all things associated with drugs and us based off of, and it's never called into account or even implicated for being a very, very big difference between the facts being an entirely different result reported as truth for this drug, meth for example, than if the the pathological profile is still a priority, but properly differentiating from the numbers that actually correlate to the real world, and typical use of the drug......not some exaggerated and isolated incident's numbers, which are almost always going to vary quite noticeably from the standard and more generally applicable numbers that are not even regarded as it pertains to us in any way

All we ever get reported as fact, truth, and standard, across the board for meth, for example, are those numbers that were produced reflecting the isolated and more extreme circumstances, which does happen, and I'm not trying to say otherwise, but that's a smaller percentage and inconsistent truth to universally apply as truth , on other use brackets that it is not applied to reflect nor account for across the board for that entirely different user setting, and entirely different parameters, which make is......

it's in more than just police's interest to continue saying that these drugs are bad, meaning all too quick will we point a finger at ol johnny law aka scumbag, but we seem to forget that the scientific community gains much from that same drug attitude, of keeping up the view that these drugs only have a pathological profile to base facts from.....by way of funding, it's increased progressively, while these drugs are still in limbo and essentially, still referred to and thought of as evil the fview still abounding as truth,

Stress with out mindframe will put me, you, and any other non-super human entity in a grave as quick or quicker than any other natural cause
.......

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page