Confine addicts?

[holo]

Dr. Drew for one. Real drug users for others. And no, it is not a threat. It is a consequence. There is a difference. Real drug users will change their ways when finally facing imprisonment. Approaching it only as a health issue is as myopic as approaching it only as a legal issue. It is both.

It it by nature a health issue. Whether it's a moral and legal issue is a choice. It doesn't have to be. Jail or any other punishment doesn't have to be a consequence for getting high. What does it accomplish? Is hurting people in order to make them stop hurting themselves the best we can do?

You won't find many former addicts who got clean because they went to jail or were threatened with it. If that worked, why not threaten alcoholics and smokers with it, or the morbidly obese for that matter? No, really, why not?

Again, people don't get addicted out of thin air or because the drugs themselves are addictive. Most people get high pretty often (especially on alcohol) and never get addicted. Those who do develop compulsive use do so because they're hurting in some way or other. That's what they need help with.

Not only does punishment simply not work, it makes everything worse. And I mean everything. Imagine if we put the resources spent on chasing drug users and small time dealers, on trafficking and rape

Something has gone fundamentally wrong when society looks at a drug addict (unless the drug is alcohol), and goes "hmm, this person has obviously not got enough trouble. Let's inflict some more pain on him, that'll solve it!"

 

[Subduction Zone]

It it by nature a health issue. Whether it's a moral and legal issue is a choice. It doesn't have to be. Jail or any other punishment doesn't have to be a consequence for getting high. What does it accomplish? Is hurting people in order to make them stop hurting themselves the best we can do?

You won't find many former addicts who got clean because they went to jail or were threatened with it. If that worked, why not threaten alcoholics and smokers with it, or the morbidly obese for that matter? No, really, why not?

Again, people don't get addicted out of thin air or because the drugs themselves are addictive. Most people get high pretty often (especially on alcohol) and never get addicted. Those who do develop compulsive use do so because they're hurting in some way or other. That's what they need help with.

Not only does punishment simply not work, it makes everything worse. And I mean everything. Imagine if we put the resources spent on chasing drug users and small time dealers, on trafficking and rape

Something has gone fundamentally wrong when society looks at a drug addict (unless the drug is alcohol), and goes "hmm, this person has obviously not got enough trouble. Let's inflict some more pain on him, that'll solve it!"

You are still trying to change the topic. Doing so is a tacit admission that one is wrong.

 

[holo]

You are still trying to change the topic. Doing so is a tacit admission that one is wrong.

Isn't the subject whether or not it's a good idea to punish addicts?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Isn't the subject whether or not it's a good idea to punish addicts?

Actually it is whether or not one should confine addicts. You keep trying to change the topic to either prohibition or more recently people reacting because addicts get high. That is not the case.

 

[holo]

Actually it is whether or not one should confine addicts. You keep trying to change the topic to either prohibition or more recently people reacting because addicts get high. That is not the case.

Well, prohibition is wrong from both a practical and principal standpoint, and confining addicted people is pretty much as strong as prohibition gets. In any case, confinement is the worst possible way of trying to treat addiction.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, prohibition is wrong from both a practical and principal standpoint, and confining addicted people is pretty much as strong as prohibition gets. In any case, confinement is the worst possible way of trying to treat addiction.

Your understanding is quite a few years off. Though some still advocate prohibition, people are not arrested for getting high very often. The incarceration arises from the crimes that they commit to support their addiction. One of the problems with addiction is that very few can be "functional addicts".

And no one is arguing for just confinement. Though confinement may be a necessary part of treatment for some.

 

[holo]

Your understanding is quite a few years off. Though some still advocate prohibition, people are not arrested for getting high very often. The incarceration arises from the crimes that they commit to support their addiction. One of the problems with addiction is that very few can be "functional addicts".

And no one is arguing for just confinement. Though confinement may be a necessary part of treatment for some.

Involuntary treatment may be the best option in some very very few cases when the alternative is basically death. If an addict is "functional," I really don't see how we can justify trying to force them out of using. And if they're not, punishment doesn't help then either. It's a hell of a job keeping someone away from drugs if they don't really want to, and more often than not, unless there's a good plan for rectifying the underlying problem (i.e. the reason they're getting high, basically pain of some sort) we're not really helping by treating them as criminals.

When people resort to crime to get high, that's mostly because the use is criminalized in the first place. Not many have to commit crimes to get their hands on booze, but since most other drugs are illegal, they have to get it from illicit sources, putting them in danger, driving them into the open arms of criminal gangs, who are the only ones profiting from prohibition. I don't know the law where you live and how it is enforced, but in Norway and many other countries people are routinely arrested and/or fined merely for using illegal drugs. It's a colossal waste of resources.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Involuntary treatment may be the best option in some very very few cases when the alternative is basically death. If an addict is "functional," I really don't see how we can justify trying to force them out of using. And if they're not, punishment doesn't help then either. It's a hell of a job keeping someone away from drugs if they don't really want to, and more often than not, unless there's a good plan for rectifying the underlying problem (i.e. the reason they're getting high, basically pain of some sort) we're not really helping by treating them as criminals.

When people resort to crime to get high, that's mostly because the use is criminalized in the first place. Not many have to commit crimes to get their hands on booze, but since most other drugs are illegal, they have to get it from illicit sources, putting them in danger, driving them into the open arms of criminal gangs, who are the only ones profiting from prohibition. I don't know the law where you live and how it is enforced, but in Norway and many other countries people are routinely arrested and/or fined merely for using illegal drugs. It's a colossal waste of resources.

The problem is that you appear to be in Norway where they do not have a problem with heroin and other opiates. Your number one "problem" appears to be from cannabis. You cannot compare the time spent going after users of cannabis to users of heroin and other opiates. For example it is all but impossible to overdose on cannabis but one can overdose on heroin quite easily. In fact in 2017 we hit what was hopefully our high of 70,237 deaths from opiate overdoses:

Products - Data Briefs - Number 356 - January 2020

It is very very difficult to be a functional addict when it comes to opiates or methamphetamine. People cannot hold jobs and end up Your problems are not our problems. And with limited treatment options available sometimes prison is the best alternative available.

The threat of prison has to be real to motivate those that are on opiates to get the help that they need. And even then there will be failures. For them prison with rehabilitation can work when noting else will.

 

[holo]

The problem is that you appear to be in Norway where they do not have a problem with heroin and other opiates.

We have a lot of opiate related deaths, among the highest in Europe (by percentage) if I'm not mistaken. Thankfully, we don't have the kind of crisis the US has now with prescribed opiates, but it's still high and probably the no. 1 killer after alcohol.

Your number one "problem" appears to be from cannabis. You cannot compare the time spent going after users of cannabis to users of heroin and other opiates. For example it is all but impossible to overdose on cannabis but one can overdose on heroin quite easily.

Why should we go after any of them?

It is very very difficult to be a functional addict when it comes to opiates or methamphetamine. People cannot hold jobs and end up Your problems are not our problems. And with limited treatment options available sometimes prison is the best alternative available.

How does it help?

The threat of prison has to be real to motivate those that are on opiates to get the help that they need.

And still, many if not most overdoses happen on the day people are let out of prison. They go straight back to using, but with a lower tolerance. I can't recall hearing of a single person who credited jail or other forms of punishment for helping them get clean. If it works, why don't we do it with alcoholics? Or the obese for that matter? Why is it different?

 

[Subduction Zone]

We have a lot of opiate related deaths, among the highest in Europe (by percentage) if I'm not mistaken. Thankfully, we don't have the kind of crisis the US has now with prescribed opiates, but it's still high and probably the no. 1 killer after alcohol.

From what I saw you really have no problem at all. Perhaps you could try to support your claims for once.

Why should we go after any of them?

Tsk, tsk. Not paying attention again. I did not even imply that one should go after them.

How does it help?

You are still not paying attention. It gives those arrested an incentive to get into treatment. For those that fail treatment it still gives them a chance to get their life straightened out.

And still, many if not most overdoses happen on the day people are let out of prison. They go straight back to using, but with a lower tolerance. I can't recall hearing of a single person who credited jail or other forms of punishment for helping them get clean. If it works, why don't we do it with alcoholics? Or the obese for that matter? Why is it different?

Citation needed. It is hard to take you at all seriously when you make claims like that.

 

[holo]

From what I saw you really have no problem at all. Perhaps you could try to support your claims for once.

Infographic: Drug deaths in Europe

I did not even imply that one should go after them.

Great. Glad to hear that. I was under the impression that you believe prosecution of drug users is a good thing.

It gives those arrested an incentive to get into treatment.

Does it really?

If it does, why do users typically go straight back to using when they get out?
If (negative) incentives were what they needed, one would think that health problems (such as infections, malnourishment, anxiety, depression etc), being harassed by police, shunned and despised by society in general, being homeless, out of a job, in debt and with a much higher risk of violence than the average population, would be good enough. If all those things aren't enough, why should we think locking them up would help?

Citation needed. It is hard to take you at all seriously when you make claims like that.

It's a well known problem.

Return to drug use and overdose after release from prison: a qualitative study of risk and protective factors

Former inmates are 40 times more likely to die from an opioid overdose two weeks after their release

The American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) from the American Public Health Association (APHA) publications

Former inmates at high risk for opioid overdose following prison release • UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health

"A recent study in North Carolina found that, in the first two weeks after being released from prison, former inmates were 40 times more likely to die of an opioid overdose than someone in the general population.

When restricted to heroin overdoses only, formerly incarcerated individuals’ likelihood of overdose death increased to 74 times the norm within the first two weeks after release."

Again, if jail or other forms of punishment works for drug addicts, is there any reason we shouldn't do the same with people who are addicted to alcohol, legal drugs, or sugar for that matter?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Infographic: Drug deaths in Europe

Thank you for supporting my claim. 75 deaths per million with a population of 5.4 million means roughly 400 deaths a year in your country. Our rate is over 200 deaths per million. It is at least three times the rate that you have.

ThatGreat. Glad to hear that. I was under the impression that you believe prosecution of drug users is a good thing.

Now this is a double fail on your part. You were once again not paying attention. This latest detour of yours was about going after cannabis users. The topic here is hard drug users. Worse yet I never even said that it was a "good thing" to prosecute drug users. What happens is that we are forced to do so. Prosecution is a needed option that even drug experts agree on.

Does it really?

If it does, why do users typically go straight back to using when they get out?
If (negative) incentives were what they needed, one would think that health problems (such as infections, malnourishment, anxiety, depression etc), being harassed by police, shunned and despised by society in general, being homeless, out of a job, in debt and with a much higher risk of violence than the average population, would be good enough. If all those things aren't enough, why should we think locking them up would help?

The problem is rather complex. And you are not paying attention again. You are only concentrating on the failures. There will be failures no matter how this is done. And please, try to be honest. It is not a matter of being "harassed by the police". You can do better than that. The police have better things to do. They go after drug users when they become a problem to the community. When drug abusers abuse the community of course the police will react. That is not harassment.

But getting back to those that fail. Often prison sentences are too short for many. A year or two is hardly enough to begin to recover. Opiates have a very strong attraction to them. Also one cannot just wash one's hands of inmates once they have served their time. Treatment needs to continue after they have been released. Usually the way to do that is have even a higher "term" of conviction with part of early release being the condition of continued monitoring. Granted if one simply locks people up that will not solve the problem.

It's a well known problem.

Return to drug use and overdose after release from prison: a qualitative study of risk and protective factors

Former inmates are 40 times more likely to die from an opioid overdose two weeks after their release

The American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) from the American Public Health Association (APHA) publications

Former inmates at high risk for opioid overdose following prison release • UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health

"A recent study in North Carolina found that, in the first two weeks after being released from prison, former inmates were 40 times more likely to die of an opioid overdose than someone in the general population.

When restricted to heroin overdoses only, formerly incarcerated individuals’ likelihood of overdose death increased to 74 times the norm within the first two weeks after release."

But that contradicts your earlier claim. Perhaps if you avoided hyperbole you might do better. Yes, the rates of overdose is much higher immediately after release. First you said "on the day" now it is two weeks and even that is not correct since even though the rates are higher it is not high enough to make your claim true even if it was extended to the two week period. Heroin is a long term addiction, usually years long so even a short spike is less than the amount over a lifetime of abuse. If a person is an addict for only two years that claim of yours fails.

Again, if jail or other forms of punishment works for drug addicts, is there any reason we shouldn't do the same with people who are addicted to alcohol, legal drugs, or sugar for that matter?

Because it is the activities that people do to support their drug habit that they are being arrested and imprisoned for. Not for actual use. Your argument is a strawman and fails. If a person had the same sort of behavior and it was not caused by drugs he would still face imprisonment. In fact in many cases the system is harder on those that break the law without the excuse of drugs. In the U.S. most non-violent criminals that have a drug abuse problem are offered "drug court" as an option. And it does lower the rate of recidivism. Instead of imprisonment they go through a period of monitoring (frequent urine testing for drug use) aided by counseling, help getting employment, and other measures.

And once again your argument is a strawman on more than one level. The argument is not that imprisonment itself works. It is that the threat of imprisonment will get people to go for treatment. Once again if you cannot debate the actual topic you as much as admit that you are wrong.

 

[holo]

Thank you for supporting my claim. 75 deaths per million with a population of 5.4 million means roughly 400 deaths a year in your country. Our rate is over 200 deaths per million. It is at least three times the rate that you have.

Well I think 400 is 400 too many, even if it's even worse where you live. The tragedy is that prohibition, just like it did with alcohol, does preciously little to prevent use, but just makes the use extremely more dangerous. Thankfully, it looks like all drug use will finally be decriminalized here in the near future. Hopefully at least some drugs will also be taken out of the hands of criminals and regulated more or less like alcohol.

Worse yet I never even said that it was a "good thing" to prosecute drug users.

Then I'm unsure what you actually think of criminalizing drug use.

What happens is that we are forced to do so.

What forces us to do something like that?

Prosecution is a needed option that even drug experts agree on.

Actually, the trend is clearly that drug experts, scientists and policy makers (like the UN) recommend decriminalization and/or regulation. Because not only does it simply not work as intended, it only makes everything worse. Ensuring the mafia stays rich and violent, for example.

The problem is rather complex. And you are not paying attention again. You are only concentrating on the failures. There will be failures no matter how this is done.

Sure. But criminalization hasn't been anything but a failure from beginning to end.

And please, try to be honest. It is not a matter of being "harassed by the police". You can do better than that. The police have better things to do. They go after drug users when they become a problem to the community. When drug abusers abuse the community of course the police will react. That is not harassment.

I hope that's how it is where you live. Here, users are being arrested all the time - because they are using.

In any case, even if the cops are nice, there are still all the other problems drug addicts will suffer under, and again, if all that isn't enough to make them quit, I hardly see how a jail sentence will make it better. When you're using drugs to numb pain, adding more pain is obviously not the best idea.

But getting back to those that fail. Often prison sentences are too short for many. A year or two is hardly enough to begin to recover. Opiates have a very strong attraction to them. Also one cannot just wash one's hands of inmates once they have served their time. Treatment needs to continue after they have been released. Usually the way to do that is have even a higher "term" of conviction with part of early release being the condition of continued monitoring. Granted if one simply locks people up that will not solve the problem.

But that seems to often be the case - punishment without treatment, or treatment as long as they're incarcerated. It is of course possible to help people who want to get clean.

But that contradicts your earlier claim. Perhaps if you avoided hyperbole you might do better. Yes, the rates of overdose is much higher immediately after release. First you said "on the day" now it is two weeks and even that is not correct since even though the rates are higher it is not high enough to make your claim true even if it was extended to the two week period. Heroin is a long term addiction, usually years long so even a short spike is less than the amount over a lifetime of abuse. If a person is an addict for only two years that claim of yours fails.

Yeah, "one day" was hyperbole, though I'm pretty sure it often is on the first day. But regardless, forcing people to go cold turkey and then releasing them is a huge risk factor for overdose and death.

Because it is the activities that people do to support their drug habit that they are being arrested and imprisoned for. Not for actual use.

Again, I really hope that's true where you live. Here, it's at the very least a fine, often arrest and searches.

And once again your argument is a strawman on more than one level. The argument is not that imprisonment itself works. It is that the threat of imprisonment will get people to go for treatment.

But does it? I'm not aware that people seek treatment because they've been arrested, except for when the sentence is reduced if they comply with some program.

And if it does work, does it work well enough that it's worth the enormous cost of prohibition?

If it works, is there any reason it shouldn't be utilised for other health problems and addictions as well?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well I think 400 is 400 too many, even if it's even worse where you live. The tragedy is that prohibition, just like it did with alcohol, does preciously little to prevent use, but just makes the use extremely more dangerous. Thankfully, it looks like all drug use will finally be decriminalized here in the near future. Hopefully at least some drugs will also be taken out of the hands of criminals and regulated more or less like alcohol.

That may help. Of course it depends on how greedy the government is. In my state cannabis is legal. One problem is that it is taxed rather heavily. Illegal pot is still slightly cheaper. And legalizing cannabis did come with a cost. There has been a small spike in driver death rates. Where people that smoked pot used to be to paranoid to drive some now think that it is legal to smoke and drive (it is not). We had a death rate increase due to our legalization. Though I voted for it and I still would.

Then I'm unsure what you actually think of criminalizing drug use.

I don't think it would do much good. Addict would still be addicts and they still would need to get money to get drugs. The problems from drug use would still be there.

What forces us to do something like that?

Theft is the number one reason. Drug dealing is another. Decriminalizing would not affect those crimes. You have the mistaken idea that drug users are put in prison for drug use. That is not the case.

Actually, the trend is clearly that drug experts, scientists and policy makers (like the UN) recommend decriminalization and/or regulation. Because not only does it simply not work as intended, it only makes everything worse. Ensuring the mafia stays rich and violent, for example.

Again you are focusing on the wrong part of the problem. This makes your argument a strawman.

Sure. But criminalization hasn't been anything but a failure from beginning to end.
I hope that's how it is where you live. Here, users are being arrested all the time - because they are using.

And still a strawman.

In any case, even if the cops are nice, there are still all the other problems drug addicts will suffer under, and again, if all that isn't enough to make them quit, I hardly see how a jail sentence will make it better. When you're using drugs to numb pain, adding more pain is obviously not the best idea.

You do not know too many addicts. Drug addicts are not idiots.

But that seems to often be the case - punishment without treatment, or treatment as long as they're incarcerated. It is of course possible to help people who want to get clean.

There very often is treatment without incarceration, but incarceration is still needed as a threat and an actual punishment for those that do not go along with the program. You are all carrot. That is a failed approach. The all stick approach is a failure too. And you can see that. But for some reason you won't let yourself see that the two working together have the best odds of getting a positive result.

Yeah, "one day" was hyperbole, though I'm pretty sure it often is on the first day. But regardless, forcing people to go cold turkey and then releasing them is a huge risk factor for overdose and death.

Yes, that is why treatment has to continue after they are released. Even when the stick has to be used one cannot cut off the carrots.

Again, I really hope that's true where you live. Here, it's at the very least a fine, often arrest and searches.

Right now we still have anything less than 2 grams of an illegal drug means that you get to walk. Confiscation is the worst that occurs. Though the current chief prosecutor can see that this does not work. More discretion in punishing people is needed. Let me repeat, what people are put in prison for are the acts that they do to support their drug habit. They are not put in prison for drug use.

But does it? I'm not aware that people seek treatment because they've been arrested, except for when the sentence is reduced if they comply with some program.[/

And if it does work, does it work well enough that it's worth the enormous cost of prohibition?

If it works, is there any reason it shouldn't be utilised for other health problems and addictions as well?

Again, the punishment is for acts that they do to support their drug use. Forget about the fact that drugs are illegal. Legalizing them would not make people immune from needing to get money to get drugs. Decriminalizing is probably not the solution either. More treatment along with sentences that force people to get help is probably the answer.

For example many people where I live can qualify for "drug court". That means that if they commit some crime, theft is usually the most common one, but there are others that apply:

Adult Drug Treatment Court | Snohomish County, WA - Official Website

If a person qualifies and 'graduates' the crimes that they committed that got them into drug court are taken off of their record. They are in effect innocent. This is an alternative to jail and many pass it. Many do not. They end up going to jail, yet even they tend to appreciate what was done for them.

People in the U.S. do not tend to get arrested for usage. They get arrested for either the crimes that they perform to get the money for drugs or for dealing in drugs. Usage itself is a misdemeanor at worst in many states.

 

[holo]

That may help. Of course it depends on how greedy the government is. In my state cannabis is legal. One problem is that it is taxed rather heavily. Illegal pot is still slightly cheaper. And legalizing cannabis did come with a cost. There has been a small spike in driver death rates. Where people that smoked pot used to be to paranoid to drive some now think that it is legal to smoke and drive (it is not). We had a death rate increase due to our legalization. Though I voted for it and I still would.

Decriminalization and especially legalization has do be done in a thought through manner. Legal drugs would of course not eradicate the black market, but there's something of a sweet spot when it comes to price and availability.

I don't think it would do much good. Addict would still be addicts and they still would need to get money to get drugs. The problems from drug use would still be there.

Yes, but the problems that come from criminalization wouldn't.

Theft is the number one reason. Drug dealing is another. Decriminalizing would not affect those crimes. You have the mistaken idea that drug users are put in prison for drug use. That is not the case.

Here at least, you can in fact risk jail when you accumulate enough debt from fines for drug use. Decriminalization solves a lot of problems, but not the issue of the drug market being 100% illegal, shady and unregulated. For that, we need some sort of legalization.

Our history with alcohol is a great example of how incredibly much better it is - for everybody - to have legal (but strictly controlled) booze and not leave users squeezed between criminals and the law.

Again you are focusing on the wrong part of the problem. This makes your argument a strawman

But the drug problem is, more than anything, a legal problem, that is, most of the trouble we have with drugs is a direct consequence of it being illegal and punishable.

You do not know too many addicts. Drug addicts are not idiots.

That's sort of my point
Forced treatment should be reserved for cases where the alternative is certain death. Where I live that practically means when people are about to commit suicide. Trying to force people to quit using, be it by jailing or fining them, only works contrary to the goal. If it were really effective, even when it's combined with some sort of support or treatment, it would be used for all kinds of problems.

Right now we still have anything less than 2 grams of an illegal drug means that you get to walk. Confiscation is the worst that occurs. Though the current chief prosecutor can see that this does not work. More discretion in punishing people is needed. Let me repeat, what people are put in prison for are the acts that they do to support their drug habit. They are not put in prison for drug use.

We've come a long way ("we" meaning the US, Canada and several European countries). Though it's hard to get jail time strictly for using, I don't see how any form of punishment helps. It would have to help a whole lot to be justifiable. I've never ever heard anyone cite the fear of arrest or fines as something that motivated them into getting sober.

More treatment along with sentences that force people to get help is probably the answer.

Then it should be used for obesity as well.