I guess most people don’t consider chronic pain.
Similar in Switzerland and Zürich specifically. There used to be a horrible drug scene in Zürich (look up needle park), which was improved with similar techniques.
Even the Dutch way of handling things isn’t perfect though.
There are plenty of heroin addicted homeless who have to travel daily between shelter and those clinics. The problem is that they are on opposite sides of Amsterdam.
So they need to travel daily through the entire city without money to get their fix and be back to the shelter before evening. Most end up somewhere along the way to get an illegal dose instead.
Also the limit of 3 means a lot of full addicts still need to get the rest of their other fixes somewhere else.
But it is definitely better than most countries.
Glasgow (Scotland) has a single safe consumption room too, and Edinburgh is consulting on opening their own. Very slow progress.
UK’s first legal drug consumption room registers almost 600 users - BBC News
Dutch person here, yeah that mentallity towards problems works non-surprisingly across the board. Demonizing a problem is a way to ensure you never solve it.
Sweden is doing the complete opposite. It’s the one thing all of our political parties agree on; drugs are evil, people who do drugs are evil, and need to be put in jail (except if you work in parliament of course because politicians are good so their drug use is also good).
We also have some of the highest drug related deaths in Europe. That’s to say, currently drugs are winning the war on drugs.
What the fuck is happening in Sweden? You guys used to be cool!
We had a good reputation, but I don’t know if it’s entirely warranted. We had many years of social democrats and strong worker rights, but I’ve not seen that in my lifetime. We’ve been pretty right wing for the past two decades, and the social democrats are sliding right.
During WWII, our neutrality meant cooperation with the Nazis. We were also all-in on eugenics, which harmed our native population. Last time a eugenics law was overturned was back in 2013, which was regarding forced sterilisation of trans people. The neo-nazi party Sweden Democrats voted against that, and they were the second biggest party last election. This past election I think they slid down to third.
I think it’s similar to the whole mythos around the American dream and all the freedom Americans supposedly have. It’s just mythical.
You may have heard of the widely unpopular Chat Control bill? It was initially put forward by a Swedish social democrat. They’re heavily in favour of mass-surveillance.
Easy, all of our parents and grandparents were subject to government propaganda non-stop.
When we learned of propaganda in (American) Public Schools, it was always during the WWII lessons and Goebbels. Uncle Sam and Rosie the Riveter do not like talking about themselves or their family (nor do Uncle Ben and Aunt Jemima, for that matter).
I do remember learning the term “yellow journalism” in high school, in reference to fake news in the 1920s…but the lesson, as I remember it, compared it to modern conspiracy rags (i.e. The Enquirer).
Brace yourselves, because modern “yellow journalsim” is now individually curated based upon your purchases/browser history/driving habits/heartrate/what percentage of your oven cycles are 400F for 18-21 minutes/what color you set the mood-light to, and whatever else some billionaire put their grubby mitts into.
Man, we used to laugh at people who said “they” were secretly tracking us. The only crazy part turned out thinking that it’d be secret.
Same with giving condoms to teenagers. They’re not going to fuck more because the have condoms. They’re going to fuck the same amount but get pregnant less.
I had a zealot of a coworker saying teaching them sexual education and safe sex practices is giving them “permission” to engage in pre-marital sex. So instead, the increased risk of EVERYTHING sex related is better because apparently punishment?
That’s because nothing that comes from a religion makes any sense. Don’t try to understand it. It’s not possible to understand delusions.
I hear that’s quite literally and openly what certain types of religious people believe.
That’s like telling them to cross a busy street at night in block clothing and no illumination. She’s going to go sideways easily. Those people just seem like the opposite of logic and intelligence and it baffles me how one can revel in it.
Religious people I know, think that STDs are a good thing to punish bad people who have non-marital sex, especially young people.
In America, people are extremely sex negative, and anything outside procreative sex should be punished, not just discouraged.
I never understood this train of thought. If you go into ANY situation not knowing what you’re doing, chances are it will end in a fuck up. Be it sex, driving a car, working with electricity, whatever, if you are untrained you can screw up someone’s life.
It’s simple, really. They believe ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are something you are rather than something you do. So there are Good People and Bad People. Good People only do Good Things and only have Good Things happen to them, and Bad People only do Bad Things and have Bad Things happen to them. So anyone who gets an STD deserves it, because those are Bad Things, so it’s just a case of Bad People getting properly punished for being Bad.
This is also why they excuse infidelity, cheating, stealing, and even sometimes murder in their own group, but scream about people in the ‘out group’ daring to wear a tan suit. Because as Good People, they only hang out with and support other Good People, and if a Good Person does a bad thing it was definitely for a Good Reason. Anything a Bad Person does however, even if it appears innocuous or good, is always done for Bad Reasons and is not to be trusted.
no sex ed isn’t permission for premarital sex, there’s no need for permission for premarital sex as long as they do it safely
I’d say the only permission is for all parties involved to consent, but can you truly consent if you lack the understanding of what the act could cause?
You’re looking at it from a rational actor side of things though. This guy was immune to facts and logic, anything counter his viewpoint he shrugged off, ignore, or just made some weird bullshit argument. God, guy was an insufferable prick. I’m glad he got his comeuppance at work. Too bad for his kids though, he was vehemently anti-vaccine as well and modern medicine.
Without data from an intuitive standpoint I can see where she may think sex ed could lead to an increase in pre-marital (I assume teenage) sex, even if more but safer sex is still preferable to less but more risky sex. So I did a quick search and it appears that she’s just wrong anyway!
The premise still fails, it assumes teenagers are rational actors.
Are you really going to state that your Axiom is teenagers weigh risks and benefits from all available information?
It also assumes that people are dumber than the stupidest of animals. Who taught all of them to have sex? And some of them go at it like rabbits!
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090206081312.htm
teenagers consider the future less and prefer immediate rewards over delayed ones
I’m not disputing anything you said, I’m just adding on that “well, if they just don’t know what sex is” is a demonstrably false presumption. And sure, teenagers tend to not worry about the future as much, which only means that planning works better. If they might have sex and have condoms they will be far likelihood to have sex with condoms than either not having sex because they don’t have condoms or stopping in the heat of the moment to get condoms.
I’m confused. What I’m saying is that without looking at data I could totally see someone imagining a teenager saying “oh, cool, I don’t have to worry about having a kid if I just use a condom” then having more sex because of that. And if I could imagine that for one teen, then I could imagine it for many. That doesn’t seem to be the case though based on the link I shared.
Are you saying teenagers are incapable of weighing pros and cons? Because that wouldn’t make sense. That’s exactly what they’re doing when they play CoD(teens still play that, right?) and decide using a shotgun is the best choice on the Cargo map. Just because their reasoning is less developed doesn’t mean it’s not there.
don’t have to worry about having a kid
No. The current situation is they
don’t worry about having a kid
Adding info doesn’t change the fact that they are not considering consequences, or value the consequences so low vs the immediate result.
His argument isn’t based on any facts or logic, in fact this man was immune to it.
“The young adults i made having sex is going to have sex!”
So tired of humanity
So she certainly never engaged in pre-marital right?
Oh no, he as sure was a horn dog as he would talk about in his youth. He’s one of those found again Christian types that I feel are MORE dangerous than those who grew up that way.
Is your Y key broken?
But think of all the money that the private prisons lose. Won’t people think of the corporations that require crime to survive?
If we treated corporate crime even half as seriously as drug offenses, we’d have plenty of prisoners to satisfy those corporations’ needs. It’s win/win!
But you can’t put companies in prison…
Ah, but you can put executives in prison!
Just putting it out there that when Bulgaria made executives personally liable for prison time if their company committed tax evasion, tax collection went up by 15%.
Suddenly executives we’re a lot more concerned with whether their books were correct.
I mean, they are supposedly paid gor all the extra responsibilities they have to shoulder.
Why not? They’re “people” after all, at least according to my government.
shareholders. or owners if it’s a private company.
Not with that attitude!
I think the main problem is that some countries have private prisons. Luckily, I live in a sane country where prisons are public.
I mean, what could possibly go wrong with privately owned prison system…
This can be offset by increasing penalties and enforcement of financial crimes by corporations and the wealthy.
Well of course, the Dutch are clever.
Handing out Methadone and in the harder cases even Heroin, with clean needles in protected spaces, is what finally properly solved the extensive drug issues in the 90s here in Zürich too. The repression approach they tried first just moved the scene from Platzspitz (known in English as “Needle Park” I believe) to Letten. Harm reduction approaches were the true solution.
Same thing in Portugal since 2001 by the way.
I was just about to mention Portugal. When you give people help and a safe option to quit then many do quit.
The British have had a system of heroin maintenance since the 1920s. For decades it supplied a few hundred addicts nationwide, most of whom were doctors themselves. It was de-emphasized considerably during the 1960s-1980s as a result of the U.S.-led war on drugs.
Americans are confused, vulnerable people are for exploitation, not compassion in America.
Well put! Took a few tries to read, perhaps add a
;there next time.So, poorly put. Like good sentiment but they did not ‘put’ it well since it took a couple rereads.
Not polite that way
Lol sorry had a late night last night
angry upvote
That’s assuming that it’s a problem that governments want to resolve.
They’d rather throw more money at law enforcement/fascist paramilitaries and make laws that criminalize everything up to and including breathing.
America was involved in that trade at one point just ask the CIA and who said they ever quit?
It’s crazy to me that “the CIA sold drugs to poor and minority communities to keep poor people down” is still treated like a conspiracy theory.
They FULLY ADMIT TO IT!
Like MKULTRA it doesn’t matter what the truth is.
To be fair, they created crack cocaine, etc., and facilitated numerous other addiction crises both in the US and abroad. 🤢🤬
Wasn’t crack originally created by a low level LA dealer to make a bigger profit from the same product volume and THEN deliberately weaponized by the CIA to destroy (mostly black) neighborhoods?
Or did Snowfall take even bigger liberties with regard to historical accuracy than I realized?
TBF, they “investigated” themselves and found no criminal acts — despite admitting in “an internal report issued by the CIA” they were “at least aware of Contra involvement in drug trafficking, and in some cases dissuaded the DEA and other agencies from investigating the Contra supply networks involved.”
While I’m sure that’s technically factual, (ie. via “classifying” anything they don’t want to reveal to the voting public), damning evidence showed that the CIA’s "Contra drug links included, among other connections, payments to drug traffickers by the U.S. State Department of funds authorized by the Congress for humanitarian assistance to the Contras, and in some cases “after the traffickers had been indicted by federal law enforcement agencies on drug charges, in others while traffickers were under active investigation by these same agencies”
So, even though keeping themselves free of blame is essential to their agency’s very existence, we’re left with what “facts” they allow to be published.
tl; dr: They’re notorious for facilitating crime while technically staying clean of criminality themselves. They may not have cooked it up in their own labs, but they clearly funded and paved the way for those that could, instead.
Ergo, much as a parent is charged in shootings by a minor (finally!)(US), they are wholly complicit at best. 🤢🤕
ACAB, and ofc AFAB, too.
keeping themselves free of blame is essential to their agency’s very existence
Depending on your definition of blamelessness, that could logicallymean that it never actually existed 😉
The conspiracy theory is that it was to keep poor people down.
The reality is that they didn’t directly sell drugs, they just protected people who did to financially support terrorists, or prevented interdiction to protect traffickers who gave them information that could be used to stop drug trafficking.This was acceptable to them because they considered poor minority communities unimportant.
It’s kinda worse, but it wasn’t an attack on the poor. They weren’t considered important enough to attack.
They were just an acceptable loss if it meant some people had the money to machine gun Nicaraguan civilians.I mean, selling for profit during Iran-contra, sure.
But to pretend the CIA wasn’t directly attempting to hurt working class people and furthering class warfare is far too forgiving and naive.
I’m not sure it’s forgiving to say that they killed them out of expediency.
We have literal recordings of the motivations behind much of it, or cases where they documented the decision plainly. Poor communities don’t have the political pull to get a serious response, so directing traffickers they want to have continued funding there is a way to protect that trafficker.
The war on drugs was structured to target black people and anti-war groups.Is it really better to say they weren’t trying to hurt them, they just didn’t view them as people so were entirely unconcerned with what happened to them?
They didn’t sell drugs on the street. But they did take over the British cash-cropping system of opium production in Asia and ran large scale trafficking operations.
The conspiracy theory is that it was to keep poor people down
Which it was, however directly or indirectly.
The reality is that they didn’t directly sell drugs
Yeah they did. Bought drugs too.
they just protected people who did to financially support terrorists
And right wing foreign governments, and right wing guerillas. And to combat left wing governments, and left wing guerillas.
it wasn’t an attack on the poor
Yeah it was. A coordinated worldwide mission to oppress the left wing is a coordinated worldwide mission to prevent the poor from rising up and taking what’s rightfully theirs from their rich oppressors.
The implication was that they sold drugs to poor communities in America to keep poor communities in America surpressed. Recasting it by saying CIA activities in opposition to anything left of Pinochet are a directed attack on the poor is both shifting it to where I don’t think the statement was intended, and also reducing the complexity of their objective.
They didn’t give a shit about poor people. They cared about supporting the power structures that employed them. Hurting poor people was just an expedient means towards that end.
Yes, the power structures they supported were largely aligned with financial means because obviously they were, this is America.I lumped right wing dictators and guerilla groups under the umbrella of terrorism. If the shoe fits and all that.
Citation needed on the CIA directly buying and selling drugs.
The implication was that they sold drugs to poor communities in America to keep poor communities in America surpressed
They did that too.
CIA activities in opposition to
anythingeverything left of PinochetFixed it for you.
are a directed attack on the poor is both shifting it to where I don’t think the statement was intended, and also reducing the complexity of their objective.
On the contrary. I’m saying that attacking the poor was one of many goals of a multifaceted strategy, not the only one.
They didn’t give a shit about poor people.
That’s not quite true. They had no love for them, but they were not stupid enough not to fear them.
They cared about supporting the power structures that employed them.
And to do so is to actively suppress dissent from and agency of the poor
Hurting poor people was
just an expedient meansan absolutely crucial factor towards that end.Fixin’
Yes, the power structures they supported were largely aligned with financial means because obviously they were, this is America.
Yet you refuse to acknowledge that this necessarily means that they were opposed to poor people, or you’re just denying their awareness of it.
Citation needed on the CIA directly buying and selling drugs.
Operation Paperclip. Explains it all.
Oh yea we are totally still into that shit
Hey! It’s almost Christmas and I’m tired of asking via unencrypted email drafts on a commercial client.
I need drugs and operational funding if you want the stochastic chaos, my guys. Tell the Director it’s about time to flip back to chapter 1 on the playbook, we always found the last chapter the most boring part of the re-reads.
You and every other operative out there. Drumpfs been hosing us on funding
Do you guys have any of that government acid from the 60s left?
Nah we ran out during the Regan admin, Nanci was a beast!
Boooo
I would offer some ketamine but musk took all that shit too. I do have some THC gummies and a subway punch card with 7 punches.
Hook. It. Up.
Daily reminder:
“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people,” former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper’s writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday.
“You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities,” Ehrlichman said. “We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
To my knowledge, it was Portugal who pioneered this approach and it was championed by police forces, demanding they had more important rhings to do than chase down drug users. And it worked.
Afaik the policies in Portugal came into effect in the 00s or early 10s, while the Dutch policies to overcome the heroin epidemic was started in the 90s. I also believe they had different scopes, the Dutch policies had to do with minimizing the hinder caused by drug users (mainly begging, petty theft, home break-ins), where as the Portuguese policies were about wisely spending the available resources (money and time), like you mention. Both are good examples of healing addicts instead of criminalizing users, but i think both are two distinct things that were pioneered by different states for different reasons.
90’s as well; I was a teen then and it was lauded throughout schools.
Regardless, if the policies worked, let’s be happy for it and strive to improve them.
But then they can’t blow up stuff and commit war crimes!
Let’s cut to the chase: those that don’t employ effective solutions like this are in the drug trade.
They put up a “fight” against drugs, etc., but only as a legitimizing façade. This is the case with pharmaceuticals in those nations as well, of course. (No, their interests don’t stop at their national borders, either.)
Oh please.
I’m sure most public officials do genuinely want to improve peoples quality of life, but “giving away free heroin” is not a good election platform.
Yeah, that’s why most politicians are capitalists that have been degrading all of society for decades.
I mean look at France, they throw grenades at kids and get them mutilated and amputated, but it’s for their own good.
All drugs should be legal and regulated. The War on drugs causes more harm then the drugs they prohibit.
I guess it depends on what you mean by legal & regulated.
Available in clinics with strict licensing for things like HAT? Sure.
I support this idea, but isn’t #5 basically just what addiction is?
Former opioid addict here
Addiction can have a lot of layers number 5 is a single layer. Generally there are reasons underneath the withdrawal that is why they stick with it or go back after they kick it once. Most of those underlying problems relate to not being able to cope with life and that could be anything from neurodivergence to trauma.
An example I like to tell people is if you are a homeless addict that is forced to live in an environment with constant violence and suffering, your body is failing, and you have lost all hope, you getting a fix literally makes your day a good day. Doesn’t matter if you have limbs rotting off, and have abscessed teeth, that all goes away and you can exist without suffering for a few hours.
Drugs like fent and other opoids are so dangerous especially for the hopeless traumatized population. For some people it’s the better option between that and worse self harm
That makes a lot of sense. Thank you for the very open answer. Hopefully you are doing well now.
Been off opioids for over a decade still struggle with the coping part but still light years better than being a slave to a chemical lol
Gratz on the decade! I’m sorry you still struggle, but it’s impressive that you still do.
Yeah, except #2 and a few notes:
Why get it on the street? Because 3 bags a day isn’t enough for a lot of addicts, especially those deeper in. I avoided it but most of my friends got hit, one that’s still alive said he used 3 bags a shot iirc, he bought it in bundles for sure.
And also another reason is because of the “it’s pure” thing. Bro, they don’t want pure, they want the fent. Like actively, they’re seeking it out now, there’s straight up fent dealers that don’t even try to hide it in H or pressies anymore. When a junkie dies and the rest of them hear about it, the dealer’s business is BOOMING because, literally, “well if it killed Jimmy it must be some good shit, and I can handle it unlike Jimmy.” Seriously, that is actually how bad the mind of the true junkie has been twisted by the brown, it gets pretty bad.
So that’s why they’ll often still seek it elsewhere, but the free bags are a nice bonus of course.
But for the most part, yeah it gets them near counseling, clean works, and narcan in the room. That stuff is still good.
Here’s how science works: you collect data, use it to determine what’s effective, then you tell the politicians so they can implement a solution. Most of us would consider giving free heroin to people a bad thing. What we consider it is completely irrelevant because it’s based on our emotional reaction.
If the data shows that this approach is effective, especially if it’s more effective than what you’re currently doing, that’s what you do.
The only thing that matters here is: does it work?
At the most basic level: yes it really is that simple.
But there is some nuance here.
Science can tell you how to efficiently achieve your goals, but it can’t tell you what your goals should be.
And we have certain constraints that we want to uphold, even if they limit how effective we can be in achieving our goals. (Eugenics is a prime example there.)
And finally, the assumptions that we start with, the questions we decide to ask, and the explanatory models that we build are all culturally-defined. They aren’t completely arbitrary, but they do involve a degree of personal judgment.
I say this not to disparage science (I fucking love science), but to make sure that we understand that we aren’t off the hook for having moral agency even if we believe we are merely pursuing efficacy. We’ve seen regimes that decided to value efficacy above all else, and the inhuman results that can occur.
Also, Dr. Fatima’s videos have programmed me to think about this stuff automatically.
Some good ones:
thanks for the insight and the video recommendations!
Apparantly it does, it’s been done since 1998. The quality of life gets better for the addicts, and about half gets clean within five years. The program seems to be only for addicts above 35 years old with a habit for over 5 years, and only if earlier attempts to get clean (without medical heroin) failed.
What we consider it is completely irrelevant because it’s based on our emotional reaction.
Politics is all about emotional reactions though. Is it more important to you to reduce the harm of drug taking, or do you find the idea of drug taking to itself be so immoral that harm as a result is actually desirable?
do you find the idea of drug taking to itself be so immoral that harm as a result is actually desirable?
I find people taking this stance, shortighted and stupid. They complain about drug addicts, on the streets and stealing their shit, and all sorts of problems caused, harming themselves. And then they want even more of that, as a solution!
Yes, people often hold one thing to be negative, while finding a potential solution to that negative thing being even worse. That isn’t really stupid.
Fair! In this case I just think it is idiotic, since there is an alternative offered, that fixes a lot of the problems. But no, they do not want that, but rather suffer more. Not believing in scientific results, nor logic, is stupid! But yes, people often are, when it is about beliefs and emotions.
