Just 4 miles from Center City, a heroin hellscape hidden in plain sight
philly.com
philly.com
We humans think that we are intelligent and just, yet I would love someone to explain the wisdom and/or logic behind this policy; to arrest someone who is addicted; to give someone a criminal record which removes any possibility of bettering oneself all for the so-called 'crime' of succumbing to an addictive drug. Even more appalling is that it is a subjectively produced list of drugs that will get you arrested, as other drugs won't.
The bigger issue here is that your perceived intent is very different from the perceived intent of the people behind such policies, or the historical "intent" of how such things form. It is not the intent of systems to allow people to better themselves.
We should be putting money into helping people rehabilitate. Help them kick their habit, get back on their feet, and get back to being a productive member of society.
Prison doesn't accomplish any of that because, in America, it is build for punishment, not rehabilitation.
Yes. Very much so. And at what stage does the word 'punitive' turn into it's next level of synonym: 'sadistic'?
Why arrest an addict? Its because by attaching a punishment to the behavior we attempt to alter the fundamental utility calculation that is taking place when someone decided to take a hit. That person knows it is illegal to take that hit, but they also know two additional things. First they are going to enjoy it, a lot. Secondly the chances of being caught are very slim. In an attempt balance this calculation on the side of "don't do the drugs" we make the penalty for getting caught harsher and harsher. The idea being if you make the penalty harsh enough eventually people will see its not worth it and they will choose not to do the drugs.
While you might immediately reply that this is nonsense since the addicts are not driven by rational thought in that moment when they are seeking their next fix there are many people who aren't as fatalistic about the rationality of people in that moment, and the penalty isn't really about _that_ person. Its about the person who is choosing to take their first hit, or who is on the rebound and is thinking about relapsing. That stiff penalty might just be the factor that makes a recovering addict not go back to his old habit.
The case against punitive policy's isn't as cut and dry as your comment might make it out to be, and unfortunately our understanding is still evolving. There is a lot that goes into policy making besides just what to do with someone addicted right there in that moment.
Are we still talking about heroin addicts?
Rather than being punitive, we should always offer treatment prominently so when addicts are not seeking their next hit, they can decide to enter treatment knowing they won't be stigmatised, and abused for it.
You can't determine whether we've succeeded unless you compare crime rates with and without particular laws, and that process is fraught with compounding factors since not only crime laws change.
Even if you just see that states with harsher laws also have higher crime rates, that may be because those states are dealing with other factors that cause crime, not because the laws aren't working.
I've always wondered what goes through the head of someone when they think "Hey! I think I'll try heroin for the first time! That seems like a good decision!"
survivorship bias. You dont know all the people who succumbed to it because they're dead.
I don't think I have that much better of an understanding, but still:
Addiction seems to be predominately a coping mechanism, not a recreation. AFAIK, you don't see "the drug makes me feel good" nearly as much as you see "the drug makes the pain go away". AFAIK, most addiction in the US is for painkillers that are or were originally prescribed by a doctor.
Addiction happens when you don't experience a choice (you have one, but are unable to take it). AFAIK, that's what makes it an addiction - so thinking in terms of "decided to take a hit" or "choose not to do the drugs" misses the reality. I know a few people who've kicked addictions basically by reclaiming and then exercising that choice.
That all said, I'm pretty sure you're right that such policies are about the potential users / addicts, not the ones already there. Reality indicates that this is ineffective (I'll dig up stats if you want em).
> The case against punitive policy's isn't as cut and dry as your comment might make it out to be, and unfortunately our understanding is still evolving
You are absolutely correct, and unfortunately, the US's (and, alas, most of the world's) understanding is far behind... ehh not "academia", but, "the people with the most understanding". Portugal is a good example.
Punishment isn't the right solution, but neither is enabling. Portugal isn't some drug free utopia, they have just shown that society's response to drug additions isn't linear
Thats true only for very early in the opiate addiction phase. Once dependency sets it, they are usually only doing it to prevent horrific sickness, or at best, just to feel normal.
But there is no benefit to society by incarcerating someone removing the possibilities of a functioning life. Does Louisiana benefit by having 1 out of 7 black men either in jail, or on parole? The private prison system, sure. But does Louisiana overall? Not a chance.
Isolated, perhaps, but safe? That's a whole different story.
A cell, a treadmill, some books and movies, and Skype privileged with your family on the outside. That's all you need. It's constraining enough to still be a punishment that you want to avoid, but it doesn't send you crazy like traditional solitary (which is more like sensory deprivation). You don't make contacts with other criminals, you don't risk getting shanked, and you sit out your sentence in an annoying yet humane state of boredom, like a waiting room.
Also, the descriptions of what it means to be "schedule xx" make a lot of sense, it's just not what's actually used to determine which goes where.
Personally I think that logic is twisted, and we should decriminalize drugs to focus on addiction treatment instead. But there's your explanation.
But if you drive around Philadelphia without knowing which areas to avoid, you'll quickly realize that no part of the city is more than a handful of blocks away from extreme poverty and all the mayhem that comes with it.
(Aside: one of my Philly cousins has a steel plate in his head after being attacked with a baseball bat near the Temple campus a few years ago; another one keeps a gun at work in North Philadelphia and has had to use it.)
The problem mentioned else where is gentrification. If you're kicking more and more people out. They live on the streets or abandoned houses. No jobs, then they just sell drugs. Temple area is a prime example. The school had like their own private force. Stay on campus fine, a couple blocks off nope. This was due to subsidized housing, where people were living at extremely low rates. The city was trying to fight this tooth and nail. Brewerytown was another example. Two property managers were buying up all the reality, and kicking people out. I didn't really want to step outside my apartment for fear of being harassed.
The surrounding neighborhoods as well were bad. Just from a filth standpoint. I forget the name but it was West Philly a few miles from 64th street station. I was cleaning up the streets making up for a DUI. There was trash all over, needles, diapers, etc.
Then there's the unspoken, or less spoken bit. The drug triangle between NYC, Baltimore, and Philly. Heroin came in on the docks in Philly from what I've gathered.
Living in Wilmington I got to see first hand the turf war between NYC and PHIL. There were constant drive-bys and you'd hear on the police scanner. Either NYC or PHIL license plates fleeing the scenes. The genius kids in Wilmington, decided to stop acting as a trading point along I95. And instead start making and selling their own stuff. That went over well.
So they're trying, but what's the solution when there are no real jobs to be had. People are being kicked out from their homes?
Heh. That must be deliberate.
It seems to me, however, that the overwhelming priority of our heroin policy should be ensuring that people who aren't already taking heroin don't start. Those who have already got hooked are pretty much doomed already, they should be a lower priority than those who can easily be saved. It seems to me that many people advocate a "softly softly" approach to drug users that fucks over the first group to help the second, and thus ensures that our drug problems continue instead of being wiped out.
That is definitely not true (you can recover from an addiction and there are examples all around you) and a really bad policy to follow if you really want to eradicate addiction, since you are basically marginalizing large groups of people. Saying that you need to "save" those who are not addicted implies that everyone is at risk, but the mechanics of addiction vary from person to person and are heavily influenced by socioeconomic background.
Please refer to professionals that work in this field before proposing approaches like this.
So I repeat my question: how are things working out in the Philippines? Are the harsh policies being pursued doing a good job of decreasing the drug problem? If they are, perhaps we can think about adopting aspects of those solutions while leaving out some of the more problematic aspects such as extrajudicial executions.
Drug use is no different from any other vice, and the nature of addictive behavior is that most people will find some object to attach themselves to if you removed all drugs from the picture ( perhaps it would be human trafficking or gambling, both of which are widespread ) essentially what the people have done is shown that by being presented with a present danger they will willingly give over the very decency that allows a society to function. So no even if mass slaughter did manage to end the drug problem in the Philippines there is no way it should be accepted anywhere else, because it's an inhumane policy.