Support NeoGAF

[chromhound]

Things are getting out of hand...

Cops seize enough deadly opioids to kill 50 million people in SoCal bust

A man and a woman were arrested in a massive drug bust that led to the seizure of enough of a powerful synthetic opioid to possibly kill more than 50 million people in southern California.

nypost.com

 

[QSD]

Thats the thing too.

A lot of drugs come from Latin and South America. Two areas that seem to have lots of drugs and are close to the US. So you watch all these drug shows and people smuggle in drugs in small planes and speedboats.

Drugs also follow the money and US people have money.

As for someone above who said Asian countries will kick the shit out of you for drugs, thats another reason too. US is lax. Its got so liberal, its basically a free for all what you can do. Most of the time it's a slap of the wrist. But you see those other countries and despite some of them having money too you dont see drug smugglers and traffickers gone wild over there since everyone knows if youre caught youre a dead duck.

Culture too. Its about self control and the US can be out of whack. You got some countries where drugs are decriminialized (Holland I think), other countries with people with high gun ownership etc.... yet other riche countries dont have druggies everywhere or gun sprees where people go shooting schools every other month. Goes back to what I said before about free for all mentality. Some places have control some dont. Switzerland used to have every guy part of the army for a year and all get a government issued handgun and assault rifle and bullets to go with it. If there's any place in the world where youd think pissed off people would go blasting people is Switzerland. Dont see it. Just imagine if the US gov gave every adult a box of battle gear. Would be crazy. Youd get mass shootings every 20 minutes.

So theres tons of factors.

The Netherlands doesn't actually have decriminalized drugs, we have a reputation because of our long-standing tolerance policy towards cannabis, but ATM Portugal is the most progressive country in the EU in that regard (mostly decriminalized). In fact many US states are more progressive than The Netherlands at the moment (having legalized weed when we only still just 'tolerate' it). The story about Switzerland is true though, met a Swiss girl in the philippines once who explained to me that (don't quote me on this) every swiss homeowner is required to have a 'gun cellar' where they have a rifle and some survival supplies (I don't think it's an assault rifle, just a regular manual reload thing). Whenever I see crazy discussions about guns in the US, I'm always reminded of her. IMHO they just keep trying to ban the guns because addressing/changing the culture would be even more difficult and impopular.

 

[highrider]

It is an impossible problem for a country like the US with over 100.000 miles of border.

The only way to fix the problem is to curb demand.

Wrong.

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

Wrong.

Again, it's been 40 years since the war on drugs officially started. When has drug supply ever been scarce?

You guys haven't learned the lesson from the Prohibition?

 

[highrider]

Again, it's been 40 years since the war on drugs officially started. When has drug supply ever been scarce?

You guys haven't learned the lesson from the Prohibition?

Who are you guys? It’s almost comical, your utter refusal to acknowledge any difference at all in 2021. I speak for myself dude, and you obviously aren’t looking for a discussion, just keep chirping your talking points. You’ve already dismissed border control as an impossibility, so really what are you even doing at this point. Interstellar travel will probably happen in the next 50 years, but nope, we can’t control land at all.

 

[NeoIkaruGAF]

Obesity could be either poor education about diet, bad lifestyle habits, or an addiction to simple carbohydrates. Regardless the answer is that the state should require you to exercise a certain number of hours a week and upload the results to an app like strava in order to get government funded healthcare. This is how we would institute universal healthcare if I was in charge of everything.

Username checks out.

I’d put a tax on parents of obese underage kids, at the very minimum. If your kid doesn’t have a diagnosed medical condition that makes them obese, then I consider it tantamount to child abuse. Obesity is by far the biggest (pun not intended) health problem in the world. Obesity leads to diabetes, early arthritis, sleep apneas, atherosclerosis just to name a few, all of which lead to more conditions in turn, putting a tremendous burden on healthcare. Billions could be saved if most people would just not get fat. But drug overdose makes for much better news stories, and our society isn’t so dumb yet as to invent drugshaming, while fatshaming is apparently a thing and morbidly obese people appear on magazine covers with a line that says “This is healthy!”

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Username checks out.

I’d put a tax on parents of obese underage kids, at the very minimum. If your kid doesn’t have a diagnosed medical condition that makes them obese, then I consider it tantamount to child abuse. Obesity is by far the biggest (pun not intended) health problem in the world. Obesity leads to diabetes, early arthritis, sleep apneas, atherosclerosis just to name a few, all of which lead to more conditions in turn, putting a tremendous burden on healthcare. Billions could be saved if most people would just not get fat. But drug overdose makes for much better news stories, and our society isn’t so dumb yet as to invent drugshaming, while fatshaming is apparently a thing and morbidly obese people appear on magazine covers with a line that says “This is healthy!”

Sounds noble. And not a bad idea.

However, government's view on life is to let people do what they want. It's up to them to do healthy or unhealthy things, be a criminal, not be a criminal, exercise or not. You'd think they'd educate kids more on health and nutrition and budgeting than the third boring geography and history class, but they prefer classic academics instead of life choices topics.

When I did high school in the 90s, mandatory gym class was only grade 9 (and maybe 10). I know for sure grade 11 and up was optional. But it could had been grade 10 optional too. Regardless, a kid can technically stop being active in school by about age 15 unless he keeps picking gym class throughout.

Then when it comes to consequences (especially in universal healthcare countries), even the biggest numbnut gets bailed out as much as possible. Out of the blue disease, car accidents, tripping on sidewalk jogging etc... some reason gets lumped into the same bail out mentality as a fat guy who cant move and has diabetes or a chronic smoker who now has lung cancer or irresponsible parents who are dumb and broke but somehow has 6 kids to support. You'd think out of the blue issues would be on a different platform than irresponsible people.

Since the majority of people have half decent jobs, combined with better off people and corporations and property tax etc.... it all gets lumped together where they bail out irresponsible people.

It's probably been like that since the first government made 1000s of years ago.

 

[Polelock]

Pain management. It's used in patch form a lot for chronic pain. It can also be used for severe breakthrough pain in people already getting pain meds that aren't working well, like in oncology treatment.

That's crazy about the "pain management" clinics. We never had those where I live. Seems to be a lot more common on the east coast states.

Yep, so what happens is people got hooked. Then they cracked down on opiods with a knee jerk reaction that got a lot of people off their meds, which means now experiencing withdrawls for the first time. They have over corrected. My wife works in Hospice. She had a patient with bone cancer and they were only allowed a 5mg Lortab. Bone cancer is one of, if not, the most painful cancers. Dr's are too afraid to prescribe. Its a bad time to be in pain in this country, and thats terrible. Do I think there was more overprescribing than needed? Absolutely. Patients need to be weened off, not cold turkeyed the way they were..if anyone is dealing with addiction, I'm hoping you get help if you can't get clean yourself.

 

[BadBurger]

Not an expert, but I have listened to a lot of commentary from Conservative thinkers that have broken down some of the causations.

An increasing liberalising society is probably part to blame. No orthodox culture around substance abuse, whether its drinking, weed or whatever, it's becoming more widely acceptable to do whatever the hell you want. This coupled with society these days very much moving away from passing moral judgements, that are very important and exist for people to recognise harmful behaviours in their lives.

Dude, it's running most rampant in communities that traditionally have not been homes to drug problems. That's what is making this particular drug epidemic so novel.

Aside from that your argument (probably a strong word) doesn't make any sense because all of the causes of this, root to stem, has absolutely nothing to do with politics.

 

[RJMacready73]

When you have millions of people with no access to a proper first world country free healthcare and social care system and they are in pain and need to continue work what do they do? They turn to highly addictive pain killers pumped into the market by ruthless people intent on exploiting the misery of others, I just can't wrap my head around Why youse haven't burned the US to the ground and rebuilt it to resemble a proper country

 

[Taxexemption]

Sounds noble. And not a bad idea.

However, government's view on life is to let people do what they want. It's up to them to do healthy or unhealthy things, be a criminal, not be a criminal, exercise or not. You'd think they'd educate kids more on health and nutrition and budgeting than the third boring geography and history class, but they prefer classic academics instead of life choices topics.

When I did high school in the 90s, mandatory gym class was only grade 9 (and maybe 10). I know for sure grade 11 and up was optional. But it could had been grade 10 optional too. Regardless, a kid can technically stop being active in school by about age 15 unless he keeps picking gym class throughout.

Then when it comes to consequences (especially in universal healthcare countries), even the biggest numbnut gets bailed out as much as possible. Out of the blue disease, car accidents, tripping on sidewalk jogging etc... some reason gets lumped into the same bail out mentality as a fat guy who cant move and has diabetes or a chronic smoker who now has lung cancer or irresponsible parents who are dumb and broke but somehow has 6 kids to support. You'd think out of the blue issues would be on a different platform than irresponsible people.

Since the majority of people have half decent jobs, combined with better off people and corporations and property tax etc.... it all gets lumped together where they bail out irresponsible people.

It's probably been like that since the first government made 1000s of years ago.

There are laws on how many chickens I can own depending on my property size. A city nearby me bans all businesses from selling less than six beers at a time to discourage the homeless who would usually rather buy one or two really big strong beers. There are laws about letting loose projectiles in your backyard in a nearby city that make it technically illegal to use most nerf guns within city limits.

The only parts of your life that are not regulated are the parts where we could actually do some good if we did. This idea that the governmeny cares about your freedom is absolutely ludicrous.

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

Who are you guys? It’s almost comical, your utter refusal to acknowledge any difference at all in 2021. I speak for myself dude, and you obviously aren’t looking for a discussion, just keep chirping your talking points. You’ve already dismissed border control as an impossibility, so really what are you even doing at this point. Interstellar travel will probably happen in the next 50 years, but nope, we can’t control land at all.

Please, answer my question.

When have drugs been scarce? Did alcohol stop flowing during the prohibition?

You either acknowledge reality and look towards the real problem (demand) or trap yourself in a web of false beliefs to justify untenable positions.

 

[Outlier]

There's two realistic options here.

1. We let people put the fate of their lives in their own hands, at the risk of dying.

2. We let the government decide what to do with people who engage in risking their own lives.

Does anyone have better ideas?


I too hate the idea of some people dying as a result of something that is very avoidable and understand why society might want to force it to stop.

However; Would it NOT be worse to live in a world where individuals do not have the freedom to choose what to do with their own bodies? Would it NOT be better if the people are better educated on the matters of self-risk, so that they may be better informed, BEFORE engaging in dangerous activities?

 

[highrider]

Please, answer my question.

When have drugs been scarce? Did alcohol stop flowing during the prohibition?

You either acknowledge reality and look towards the real problem (demand) or trap yourself in a web of false beliefs to justify untenable positions.

Pathetic.

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

Ooops sorry I didn't realise he got banned.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

However; Would it NOT be worse to live in a world where individuals do not have the freedom to choose what to do with their own bodies? Would it NOT be better if the people are better educated on the matters of self-risk, so that they may be better informed, BEFORE engaging in dangerous activities?

People should have freedom to do what they want as along as it's not criminal. Of course some people will say it should be farther than that and let people do whatever they want and even if it's being a drug lord or serial killer let them and let them face consequences.

But gov should at least put some more effort into health, budgeting/finance, and even something basic like having every young person in school have a quick course on jobs, resumes and career advice. Doesnt have to be giant all year or semester courses. I had none of that in high school and university. If gov doesnt want keep spending money on poor broke people with no job, then teach them early some job and money basics. Even just something simple like credit card compounded interest effect what happens if you dont pay your bills. Or what happens if you can save $1000/yr (more savings or lower loan rates) till you reach 65. Why should a bank or mortgage company be the ones educating people on that? You got a million math classes and none of them teach that. Instead it's.... calculate the distance a kite travels if it's at 10 km/hr accelerating to 20 km/hr at an angle of 42 degrees with the gravitational pull of the moon. 0.001% of people will use that math and formula. But 100% of people can use some common sense money knowledge.

Then at least more people would have some knowledge to know right from wrong. Doesn't mean they'll do the right thing. But no doubt some people would listen more.

Funny how the gov has no problems showing what happens if you smoke..... pics of disease and black lungs or throat cancer where you got to get a tube in your throat. But never has the balls to call out over eaters slobbing it to 400 lbs. Have some balls and call them out. It's not even strictly about disease because a giant person wont necessarily get diabetes. But being that fat, a person can barely even move around, walk up the stairs or get into/out of a car. Unless someone is rikishi or bam bam bigalow who can move around fast being giant, the average person that fat will have physical issues. Yet, never called out.

It was all on me and my parents nagging me with dinner time talk about not doing anything stupid. The only hardcore content my parents gave me about jobs and money was my dad showing me how to fill out tax forms and going through the tax return booklet and looking for supplementary forms to get as much cash back as possible. This was before the internet, so it was on everyone to figure it out themselves, do it by hand, go to gov offices for more booklets and mail it back.

Its easy now with the net giving you all the info and automated tax return software doing the math.

I cant imagine doing this shit for decades on your own with paper copies unless you were something like my dad who is analytical and went through it all best he could to figure it all out and teach us how to do it. It wasnt as easy as it looks just filling in boxes and following arrows. It's like the gov just expects you to figure it out yourself.

 

[highrider]

Ooops sorry I didn't realise he got banned.

Yeah that was interesting. I regularly see profanity laced insults but apparently saying I think a tact is pathetic is a two week no warning ban. 10 years I’ve never been banned. Whichever mod did that seriously, you’re a bitch dude and I’m done here

 

[Putonahappyface]

One person can smuggle in a million doses of fentanyl. A giant force field bubble wouldn't be enough to prevent it from coming in.

A million doses on one person thats crazy. If you think about the hassle that is used to smuggle thousands of kilos of heroin and cocaine via one man submarine etc, fentanyl is a much simpler drug to profit from it seems.

 

[Putonahappyface]

I remember seeing a billion "Pain Management" clinics during the hight of the oxy craze, they were everywhere in Florida.
They created a legion of addicts, and when the legislation passed to close the clinics down most of them turned to heroin.
Now that Fentanyl is on the scene it is killing people in droves. Something the size of a few grains of sand can kill you, it is some scary shit.
Oxys and morphine are already insanely potent, what in the hell is fent used for?

Do you have Disney Plus? They have a drama series called Dopesick covering the oxycontin epidemic from the very beginning, which is very compelling.

 

[DeepBreath87]

Anyone who supports making it easier for people to do drugs like heroin or meth is a moron who doesn’t understand addiction at all. These people are not “free” to do what they want. Their brain is telling them opiates (in the case of fentanyl) are more important than food. So important that they are willing to play Russian roulette with a bag of powder or a brown sludge that just might kill them if it’s got a milligram or two more fentanyl in it than it should.

And yes, we could allow them to buy pharmaceutical grade drugs which would decrease the number of ODs. But it would radically increase the number of addicts. All you need to look at as an example is what happened when they opened the oxycodone floodgates in the late 90s and early 2000s. These drugs work. Many, many who try them are going to like them and want to do more. They feel amazing. And by the time you realize you might be having a problem, you’re pretty fucked.

Obviously I speak from personal experience. I’ve also seen what they do to people more times than I should. I’m extremely fortunate to be clean for 3+ years. Drugs at this level need to be criminalized MORE, not less. Not to help the people already addicted to them, because unfortunately, many of them are lost, but to stop another generation from being lost to them.

 

[Deleted member 1159]

Anyone who supports making it easier for people to do drugs like heroin or meth is a moron who doesn’t understand addiction at all. These people are not “free” to do what they want. Their brain is telling them opiates (in the case of fentanyl) are more important than food. So important that they are willing to play Russian roulette with a bag of powder or a brown sludge that just might kill them if it’s got a milligram or two more fentanyl in it than it should.

And yes, we could allow them to buy pharmaceutical grade drugs which would decrease the number of ODs. But it would radically increase the number of addicts. All you need to look at as an example is what happened when they opened the oxycodone floodgates in the late 90s and early 2000s. These drugs work. Many, many who try them are going to like them and want to do more. They feel amazing. And by the time you realize you might be having a problem, you’re pretty fucked.

Obviously I speak from personal experience. I’ve also seen what they do to people more times than I should. I’m extremely fortunate to be clean for 3+ years. Drugs at this level need to be criminalized MORE, not less. Not to help the people already addicted to them, because unfortunately, many of them are lost, but to stop another generation from being lost to them.

Decriminalization isn’t the same as making possession to anyone free. It means not locking people up for being addicts, and providing actual treatment programs for those who have been caught in that web. Prison (at least in the US) isn’t a treatment program. If someone is willing to chance life or death on an unknown substance, the threat of a longer prison sentence isn’t going to stop them from using.

I’m fine with going after cartels or predatory pharma companies, but the users on the street need help, not increased punishment and stigmatization.

 

[DeepBreath87]

Decriminalization isn’t the same as making possession to anyone free. It means not locking people up for being addicts, and providing actual treatment programs for those who have been caught in that web. Prison (at least in the US) isn’t a treatment program. If someone is willing to chance life or death on an unknown substance, the threat of a longer prison sentence isn’t going to stop them from using.

I’m fine with going after cartels or predatory pharma companies, but the users on the street need help, not increased punishment and stigmatization.

Look, in a perfect world, sure. But the infrastructure just isn’t there. Maybe even more importantly, the lives of the addicts are such that they almost can’t be helped. It’s hard to get clean even when you want it. Many many addicts aren’t really interested in stopping. And even when they are, there lives are such a mess that they don’t have any support system. Yes, we can try to provide that system, but that is intensely complicated and requires a ton of resources. Plus it is still likely to fail because addiction is powerful.

I’m not sure what the answer is for current drug addicts. But I’m not as worried about them as I am about preventing the creation of more drug addicts. I think you start there because there is more hope in that endeavor.

 

[Deleted member 1159]

Look, in a perfect world, sure. But the infrastructure just isn’t there. Maybe even more importantly, the lives of the addicts are such that they almost can’t be helped. It’s hard to get clean even when you want it. Many many addicts aren’t really interested in stopping. And even when they are, there lives are such a mess that they don’t have any support system. Yes, we can try to provide that system, but that is intensely complicated and requires a ton of resources. Plus it is still likely to fail because addiction is powerful.

I’m not sure what the answer is for current drug addicts. But I’m not as worried about them as I am about preventing the creation of more drug addicts. I think you start there because there is more hope in that endeavor.

I don’t think you end up solving many problems when you see what needs to be done for a solution and just throw your hands up and say it can’t be done. The infrastructure not being there doesn’t mean you keep doing the failed experiment of increasing criminality. It means you build the infrastructure, the same way other countries with far fewer resources have done. Reallocate resources from locking people up, which isn’t cheap, to providing care. You don’t prevent future addicts by locking parents up and throwing their kids in a broken foster system, you just perpetuate the problem.

If every time I got told to find a way to do something at work I instead said “in a perfect world we could do that but oh well, let’s just double down on this failing strategy…” I don’t think I’d be kept around for very long.

 

[QSD]

Look, in a perfect world, sure. But the infrastructure just isn’t there. Maybe even more importantly, the lives of the addicts are such that they almost can’t be helped. It’s hard to get clean even when you want it. Many many addicts aren’t really interested in stopping. And even when they are, there lives are such a mess that they don’t have any support system. Yes, we can try to provide that system, but that is intensely complicated and requires a ton of resources. Plus it is still likely to fail because addiction is powerful.

I’m not sure what the answer is for current drug addicts. But I’m not as worried about them as I am about preventing the creation of more drug addicts. I think you start there because there is more hope in that endeavor.

Drug addiction is an extremely complicated problem for sure. I just can't see the current policies of prohibition and criminalization doing much to improve the situation. Certainly in this time of designer drug which you can just order legal analogues of existing scheduled drugs through the internet, the effectiveness of prohibitory policies is negligible and the costs (in police manpower etc) are huge. I agree with Bitmap Frogs that the best way to adress this problem is to adress demand, not supply. I'm a big fan of people like Johann Hari and Gabor Maté who emphasize the lack of social connectedness in the lives of addicts. IMHO thinking like that, trying to facilitate a greater degree of social connection and interdependence in lieu of individualism and isolation, is the approach which has the best chance of preventing more people from falling into the trap of addiction.

 

[Scotty W]

 

[DeepBreath87]

I don’t think you end up solving many problems when you see what needs to be done for a solution and just throw your hands up and say it can’t be done. The infrastructure not being there doesn’t mean you keep doing the failed experiment of increasing criminality. It means you build the infrastructure, the same way other countries with far fewer resources have done. Reallocate resources from locking people up, which isn’t cheap, to providing care. You don’t prevent future addicts by locking parents up and throwing their kids in a broken foster system, you just perpetuate the problem.

If every time I got told to find a way to do something at work I instead said “in a perfect world we could do that but oh well, let’s just double down on this failing strategy…” I don’t think I’d be kept around for very long.

I’d increase penalties for all distribution to the point where it becomes prohibitive. Not just for cartels but for everyone. We are moving towards “decriminalization” while providing no compulsion to curb use. It’s just “don’t punish the addicts”. That’s not going to make anything better.

Further the idea that leaving children with drug addicted parents is any better than the foster system is crazy. Drug addicts are terrible parents almost by definition. And the idea that a person who is addicted to heroin will be able to get clean and continue to be a parent during that process is not realistic in the vast majority of cases. The stress of parenting will actually decrease the chance they can maintain sobriety. Addicts cannot, generally speaking, maintain healthy relationships. It’s part of being an addict. Children need to be removed from that situation 99% of the time for the benefit of everyone.

 

[Deleted member 1159]

Further the idea that leaving children with drug addicted parents is any better than the foster system is crazy. Drug addicts are terrible parents almost by definition.

Well, there ya go. Foster care is continually shown to be a haven for abuse of all kinds and terrible for children, yet you're happy to just lump addicts as terrible parents "almost by definition?" That's absurd.

And the idea that a person who is addicted to heroin will be able to get clean and continue to be a parent during that process is not realistic in the vast majority of cases.

And locking them up is going to get them clean and continue to be a parent? What's the goal here? Even if you have an addict that needs their kids to be removed while they're in recovery, where's the best chance for recovery? Jail? If anything our system is set up to keep people addicted and harden them into worse offenders.

The stress of parenting will actually decrease the chance they can maintain sobriety. Addicts cannot, generally speaking, maintain healthy relationships. It’s part of being an addict.

I think you probably know far more addicts than you realize. The land whale who thinks screaming just a bit louder at her kids at Walmart will fix things is addicted to sugar, McDonald's and alcohol. You probably don't think every land whale who yells at her kids needs to have them removed from her custody, but apparently her tactic of just yelling louder until behavior changes is the right call?

 

[DeepBreath87]

Well, there ya go. Foster care is continually shown to be a haven for abuse of all kinds and terrible for children, yet you're happy to just lump addicts as terrible parents "almost by definition?" That's absurd.



And locking them up is going to get them clean and continue to be a parent? What's the goal here? Even if you have an addict that needs their kids to be removed while they're in recovery, where's the best chance for recovery? Jail? If anything our system is set up to keep people addicted and harden them into worse offenders.



I think you probably know far more addicts than you realize. The land whale who thinks screaming just a bit louder at her kids at Walmart will fix things is addicted to sugar, McDonald's and alcohol. You probably don't think every land whale who yells at her kids needs to have them removed from her custody, but apparently her tactic of just yelling louder until behavior changes is the right call?

There is a MASSIVE difference between being addicted to sugar or fast food compared to heroin or meth. Even alcoholism is far more manageable. I know plenty of what most would consider high functioning alcoholics who can maintain that state for years. There are vanishingly small numbers of high functioning heroin addicts and most people can’t maintain that addiction for long at all before their life begins to unravel. I shouldn’t even have to explain that. We are talking orders of magnitude between a person with a sugar problem and a heroin addict. Come on now. Saying something like that makes you look foolish and naive.

People addicted to “hard” drugs are bad parents in the vast vast majority of cases. Hard drug addictions are a TON of work. They require almost constant attention to maintain. They are always chasing. Always worried about where the next fix is coming from because their are consequences when they don’t. That doesn’t leave room for raising children. The reality of addiction to things like heroin and meth is that you cannot be a safe or effective parent.

 

[Deleted member 1159]

There is a MASSIVE difference between being addicted to sugar or fast food compared to heroin or meth. Even alcoholism is far more manageable. I know plenty of what most would consider high functioning alcoholics who can maintain that state for years. There are vanishingly small numbers of high functioning heroin addicts and most people can’t maintain that addiction for long at all before their life begins to unravel. I shouldn’t even have to explain that. We are talking orders of magnitude between a person with a sugar problem and a heroin addict. Come on now. Saying something like that makes you look foolish and naive.

People addicted to “hard” drugs are bad parents in the vast vast majority of cases. Hard drug addictions are a TON of work. They require almost constant attention to maintain. They are always chasing. Always worried about where the next fix is coming from because their are consequences when they don’t. That doesn’t leave room for raising children. The reality of addiction to things like heroin and meth is that you cannot be a safe or effective parent.

You’re not wrong about people in the end stages of addiction on those hard drugs, but what if they were offered more exit ramps prior to reaching that state? How many of the people who got to that state thought “this is bad, I need help” well before it got as bad as it did, but didn’t reach out because of the criminalization/stigma of using a hard drug? My point is, people earlier on in an addiction spiral might be more like that high functioning alcoholic and can get off their vice before they become compete junkies. The harder you punish that, though, the harder it is for someone to take that step to get help.

I feel like you’re treating all addicts like they’re constantly strung out and unable to function. Obviously people get to that point, but there are many points prior to that where people realize something is becoming a problem. If you increase the ability to do something about the problem earlier on in the process, you’ll have better outcomes. If you lock them up and throw their kids into foster care…? I don’t see how that’s anything other than throwing gasoline on a fire.

 

[DeepBreath87]

You’re not wrong about people in the end stages of addiction on those hard drugs, but what if they were offered more exit ramps prior to reaching that state? How many of the people who got to that state thought “this is bad, I need help” well before it got as bad as it did, but didn’t reach out because of the criminalization/stigma of using a hard drug? My point is, people earlier on in an addiction spiral might be more like that high functioning alcoholic and can get off their vice before they become compete junkies. The harder you punish that, though, the harder it is for someone to take that step to get help.

I feel like you’re treating all addicts like they’re constantly strung out and unable to function. Obviously people get to that point, but there are many points prior to that where people realize something is becoming a problem. If you increase the ability to do something about the problem earlier on in the process, you’ll have better outcomes. If you lock them up and throw their kids into foster care…? I don’t see how that’s anything other than throwing gasoline on a fire.

I get what you’re saying. It would be good if people reached out for help sooner. But you should consider that part of the reason people don’t do drugs is the stigma and concerns about addiction to those drugs. So removing that stigma might come with its own consequences.

I know this is a complicated thing. But treatment has to be compulsory. It has to be a choice between jail and monitored treatment with consequences for failure. It cannot just just be optional off ramps and no roadblocks. And removing the stigma around addiction seems like a step that might help some number of current addicts but could also create a bunch of new ones.

 

[Wildebeest]

Stigmatization does not rely on realistic data about the risks of drug use. All it does is give people irrational reasons for thinking that people who use drugs are weak, unreliable, dangerous, contagious, and so on. All it does lead to them suffering in secret or getting very inferior levels of care when they come forward.

If you want to prevent drug use, then look at when people are at vulnerable low spots and find ways to make sure they don't feel compelled to use "covert" strategies to cope, like substance use. People who are the most vulnerable might be people who are already stigmatized with homelessness, a criminal conviction, mental health issues, other medical problems, or just struggling to fit in at education or employment.

 

[DeepBreath87]

Stigmatization does not rely on realistic data about the risks of drug use. All it does is give people irrational reasons for thinking that people who use drugs are weak, unreliable, dangerous, contagious, and so on. All it does lead to them suffering in secret or getting very inferior levels of care when they come forward.

If you want to prevent drug use, then look at when people are at vulnerable low spots and find ways to make sure they don't feel compelled to use "covert" strategies to cope, like substance use. People who are the most vulnerable might be people who are already stigmatized with homelessness, a criminal conviction, mental health issues, other medical problems, or just struggling to fit in at education or employment.

Perhaps. But drug use is negative, correct? So stigma exists for a reason. And the stigma is part of the reason why people don’t use cocaine, for instance. Or Heroin. Removing the stigma of addiction would mean ignoring the reality of it. You need to remove the stigma of asking for help. Not of the drug use itself.

Also, addicts of drugs like heroin and meth are unreliable, often unstable to dangerous, certainly reckless. That’s not unfair stigma. It is borne out by reality every day. That stigma is earned.

 

[Wildebeest]

Perhaps. But drug use is negative, correct? So stigma exists for a reason. And the stigma is part of the reason why people don’t use cocaine, for instance. Or Heroin. Removing the stigma of addiction would mean ignoring the reality of it. You need to remove the stigma of asking for help. Not of the drug use itself.

Yes, all chemicals are negative, and the worst is dihydrogen monoxide. What do you mean? If you are talking about normative ethics, then not everyone has a such a clearly thought out framework. For me, I tend towards virtue ethics in that I think the intent matters when doing anything. If someone intends to take a drug for a good reason, like taking a psychedelic for therapeutic purposes, and they appear to be doing so in good faith, then I don't see it as unethical for them or people who help them.

 

[DeepBreath87]

Yes, all chemicals are negative, and the worst is dihydrogen monoxide. What do you mean? If you are talking about normative ethics, then not everyone has a such a clearly thought out framework. For me, I tend towards virtue ethics in that I think the intent matters when doing anything. If someone intends to take a drug for a good reason, like taking a psychedelic for therapeutic purposes, and they appear to be doing so in good faith, then I don't see it as unethical for them or people who help them.

We aren’t talking about psychedelics dude. We are talking about shit like fentanyl and meth. Shit that destroys lives and kills people. Not all drugs are the same. No one is trying to take your weed away here. We are talking about how we stop people from doing fentanyl and heroin, which we should definitely get them to do, because it’s killing them, destroying their lives, and the lives of those around them.

 

[Wildebeest]

We aren’t talking about psychedelics dude. We are talking about shit like fentanyl and meth. Shit that destroys lives and kills people.

Both opiates and amphetamines have valid uses. Controlled doses of amphetamines are apparently a big help to people with an ADHD diagnosis, and pain relief is a legitimate problem.

 

[DeepBreath87]

Both opiates and amphetamines have valid uses. Controlled doses of amphetamines are apparently a big help to people with an ADHD diagnosis, and pain relief is a legitimate problem.

Do you think the vast majority of the people that died of fentanyl ODs last year were taking it for pain relief? What the fuck are you talking about? No one is saying no one should ever take these drugs. We’re talking about substance abuse.

 

[Wildebeest]

Do you think the vast majority of the people that died of fentanyl ODs last year were taking it for pain relief? What the fuck are you talking about? No one is saying no one should ever take these drugs. We’re talking about substance abuse.

I've told you as clearly as I can how I would decide if a specific example of "drug use" is positive in an ethical sense. I'm not playing the game of saying "overall positive/negative" or "always positive/negative".

 

[DeepBreath87]

I've told you as clearly as I can how I would decide if a specific example of "drug use" is positive in an ethical sense. I'm not playing the game of saying "overall positive/negative" or "always positive/negative".

Look, you’re obviously a naive dumbass. Substance abuse directly killed 100,000 people last year and ruined the lives of 100,000s more. If your “ethics” don’t see how that is a problem, they aren’t worth a damn. But I can see your head is planted firmly up your ethical ass, so I’ll leave to enjoy that.

 

[Wildebeest]

Look, you’re obviously a naive dumbass. Substance abuse directly killed 100,000 people last year and ruined the lives of 100,000s more. If your “ethics” don’t see how that is a problem, they aren’t worth a damn. But I can see your head is planted firmly up your ethical ass, so I’ll leave to enjoy that.

But all I am doing is looking at people who genuinely appear to be working hard to help and seeing what they say. It doesn't help anyone to make people who were never the problem "pay" for the deaths of other people. The two practical solutions I found were to reduce stigmatization, so addicts can get more help and in terms of prevention to make sure people have more alternatives to substances when they need help. If these sound like the thoughts of "naive dumbasses" to you, then you have larger concerns than me, since I'm just forwarding the best information I can find.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Fentanyl overdoses become No. 1 cause of death among US adults, ages 18-45: 'A national emergency'

Fentanyl overdoses have surged to the leading cause of death among adults between the ages of 18 and 45, according to an analysis of U.S. government data from fentanyl awareness organization Families Against Fentanyl.

www.foxnews.com

 

[EverydayBeast]

To me Fentanyl is more deadly than covid I don't think the public knows about it, and the world has positioned itself where a lot of drugs are legal, cannabis shops have taken over street corners and Fentanyl still figures out how to kill people it's a very dangerous drug and for now you'll have to test your stuff.

Amazon.com : fentanyl test strips

 

[Nobody_Important]

To me Fentanyl is more deadly than covid I don't think the public knows about it, and the world has positioned itself where a lot of drugs are legal, cannabis shops have taken over street corners and Fentanyl still figures out how to kill people it's a very dangerous drug and for now you'll have to test your stuff.

Amazon.com : fentanyl test strips

What does the legalization of marijuana in some places have to do with fentanyl overdoses? People are buying more often from certified businesses. Not their local street dealers.

 

[Insane Metal]

Sad to see the US having an ongoing opioid crisis for so long and not much getting done. Things only get worse.

BTW have you guys seen the Netflix docuseries about it?

 

[*Nightwing]

What does the legalization of marijuana in some places have to do with fentanyl overdoses? People are buying more often from certified businesses. Not their local street dealers.

We’re in the misinformation age */shrug

 

[belmarduk]

To me Fentanyl is more deadly than covid I don't think the public knows about it, and the world has positioned itself where a lot of drugs are legal, cannabis shops have taken over street corners and Fentanyl still figures out how to kill people it's a very dangerous drug and for now you'll have to test your stuff.

Amazon.com : fentanyl test strips

Fentanyl and COVID are both serious problems which have killed a lot of people. One does not negate the other.

 

[HermitSperg691]

How is smoking marijuana and having a drink every now and then not enough for people? I don't understand why people want to do opiates. They're well known to be very addictive, dangerous, ruin lives, and cause death.

 

[DeepBreath87]

How is smoking marijuana and having a drink every now and then not enough for people? I don't understand why people want to do opiates. They're well known to be very addictive, dangerous, ruin lives, and cause death.

That’s like asking why some people buy sports cars instead of being satisfied with a nice Honda Civic. As someone who spent a pretty good chunk of my life addicted to opiates, I can tell you quite easily why people do it. Because when you first starting doing opiates, it’s like having a “feel good” button.

Have a headache? Not anymore. Feeling down? Fixed. Tired? They will pick you up. Sad? Anxious? Bored? They can be the answer to all those problems. Of course then they become all your problems later on, but when you’re 19, you’re thinking you can keep it under control. Plus the addiction happens quickly and subtly. You don’t even realize it’s happening. You’re just having fun and all the sudden it’s been a month and you’ve been doing oxycodone almost every day. Meanwhile your brain will make whatever excuse it needs to for you to keep going.

The bottom line is, people do opiates because they feel amazing. Maybe their aren’t everyone’s cup of tea, but for people who do like them, there is nothing else like it.

Now you’re right that the price you pay is too high and quitting usually requires some kind of terrible motivation like losing your job or family. Even then, some people are too far gone. I’m grateful I didn’t lose more than I did. But I can completely understand why people start messing around with them and why they become addicted.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

That’s like asking why some people buy sports cars instead of being satisfied with a nice Honda Civic. As someone who spent a pretty good chunk of my life addicted to opiates, I can tell you quite easily why people do it. Because when you first starting doing opiates, it’s like having a “feel good” button.

Have a headache? Not anymore. Feeling down? Fixed. Tired? They will pick you up. Sad? Anxious? Bored? They can be the answer to all those problems. Of course then they become all your problems later on, but when you’re 19, you’re thinking you can keep it under control. Plus the addiction happens quickly and subtly. You don’t even realize it’s happening. You’re just having fun and all the sudden it’s been a month and you’ve been doing oxycodone almost every day. Meanwhile your brain will make whatever excuse it needs to for you to keep going.

The bottom line is, people do opiates because they feel amazing. Maybe their aren’t everyone’s cup of tea, but for people who do like them, there is nothing else like it.

Now you’re right that the price you pay is too high and quitting usually requires some kind of terrible motivation like losing your job or family. Even then, some people are too far gone. I’m grateful I didn’t lose more than I did. But I can completely understand why people start messing around with them and why they become addicted.

I've never done drugs. Not even weed or ectasy pills at a club.

When it comes to hardcore shit, at what point does someone go from conscious minded to addicted addict with no control?

I dont see how someone taking fentanyl (similar to smokes o booze) being addicted after day one. But for smokes/booze it's a very social thing where it seems much safer than doing hardcore drugs, and pressure from friends or being at restaurants might make someone just order beer or wine and like it.

But for drugs, it seems more of a seclusion thing. Where the person's addiction seems more about their own control when to stop it or not before it becomes bad. Also, drugs are the type of thing where people drop dead on an overdose. You dont hear about someone dying out of the blue drinking or smoking. Also drugs cost money. Doesn't any consider the money part (I'm a cheap fuck so even losing $100 at a casino or race track I feel like shit). Also, it's not like drugs are as easy to buy as going to store or gas station and buying smokes/beer.

To me, there seems like a lot of barriers to doing drugs. Yet people do it. I can ujnderstand someone with a shitty life wanting to do it to pass time, but for all the people with some decent middle class or up kind of lifestyle (especially people with cash), I dont see how or why anyone would waste their time on this stuff unless it's that invincibility factor thinking do it once and no big deal.

 

[DeepBreath87]

I've never done drugs. Not even weed or ectasy pills at a club.

When it comes to hardcore shit, at what point does someone go from conscious minded to addicted addict with no control?

I dont see how someone taking fentanyl (similar to smokes o booze) being addicted after day one. But for smokes/booze it's a very social thing where it seems much safer than doing hardcore drugs, and pressure from friends or being at restaurants might make someone just order beer or wine and like it.

But for drugs, it seems more of a seclusion thing. Where the person's addiction seems more about their own control when to stop it or not before it becomes bad. Also, drugs are the type of thing where people drop dead on an overdose. You dont hear about someone dying out of the blue drinking or smoking. Also drugs cost money. Doesn't any consider the money part (I'm a cheap fuck so even losing $100 at a casino or race track I feel like shit). Also, it's not like drugs are as easy to buy as going to store or gas station and buying smokes/beer.

To me, there seems like a lot of barriers to doing drugs. Yet people do it. I can ujnderstand someone with a shitty life wanting to do it to pass time, but for all the people with some decent middle class or up kind of lifestyle (especially people with cash), I dont see how or why anyone would waste their time on this stuff unless it's that invincibility factor thinking do it once and no big deal.

So for me, the only barrier besides fear was availability. But I knew drug dealers because I smoked weed. I was already interested in trying some new things just because I think it was fun. So when my buddy at the time asked if I wanted to try Percocet, I was hesitant but interested. I pretty quickly decided it was WAY better than weed, and while I had heard of addiction, I had no experience with it and didn’t know anyone who was addicted in my personal life. So I had no frame of reference. I figured it was just a willpower thing.

I don’t know when it turned to an “addiction”. It definitely wasn’t all at once. I distinctly remember one day driving in my car to get more and it had been a few days. I felt like crap and didn’t really know why. I thought I was just sick or tired or something. Then I did my thing and suddenly felt like $1 million bucks again. I pretty much knew then.

Then you enter the phase where stopping gives you the flu+depression while at the same time there is this thing that doesn’t just cure all that, but makes you feel happy and better than anything else. That’s a pretty brutal thing to give up.

In terms of ODs, I’d guess the majority of them are a result of drugs that are spiked with fentanyl, rather than actual pharmaceuticals. I exclusively did drugs where I knew what I had and knew the dosages. Pressed counterfeits we’re very uncommon years ago. Obviously a still could’ve fucked up and I was an idiot, but doing heroin is significantly more risky because it’s literal just a powder or substance with no labels, no dosages, nothing.

Drug addiction just completely warps your thinking. It’s subtle at first. Because you’re doing something that makes you feel great. So you assume your desire to do the thing is based around how good it makes you feel. Which is true at first. But your brain is becoming dependent on the chemicals without your being consciously aware of it. By the time you realize it, you’re in for a world of hurt most times. Your brain decides this stuff is as necessary to your survival as food. So rational thinking isn’t an option.

It won’t make sense to someone who isn’t addicted because it doesn’t make sense unless you think of it like food or water. If you were dying of thirst and someone offered you ice cold water, you would immediately drink it because your body needs it. Drug addicts feel like their body needs drugs that way. Convincing them they don’t is hard because there are real, physical and psychological consequences to stopping. Not to mention, you become convinced that there is no life for you without the drugs. It’s vicious.

 

[Scotty W]

I've never done drugs. Not even weed or ectasy pills at a club.

When it comes to hardcore shit, at what point does someone go from conscious minded to addicted addict with no control?

I dont see how someone taking fentanyl (similar to smokes o booze) being addicted after day one. But for smokes/booze it's a very social thing where it seems much safer than doing hardcore drugs, and pressure from friends or being at restaurants might make someone just order beer or wine and like it.

But for drugs, it seems more of a seclusion thing. Where the person's addiction seems more about their own control when to stop it or not before it becomes bad. Also, drugs are the type of thing where people drop dead on an overdose. You dont hear about someone dying out of the blue drinking or smoking. Also drugs cost money. Doesn't any consider the money part (I'm a cheap fuck so even losing $100 at a casino or race track I feel like shit). Also, it's not like drugs are as easy to buy as going to store or gas station and buying smokes/beer.

To me, there seems like a lot of barriers to doing drugs. Yet people do it. I can ujnderstand someone with a shitty life wanting to do it to pass time, but for all the people with some decent middle class or up kind of lifestyle (especially people with cash), I dont see how or why anyone would waste their time on this stuff unless it's that invincibility factor thinking do it once and no big deal.

The biggest problem with fentanyl is that people don’t intend to do it most of the time. It gets put into their other drugs.