The Briefing Room
General Category => Editorial/Opinion/Blogs => Topic started by: aligncare on February 08, 2014, 04:22:23 am
-
Not familiar with Russell Brand or his work, but I share his point of view here in this opinion piece from the Guardian. Society must move away from looking at addiction as a matter for the police. Drug use is first a medical issue and should be treated apart from criminal behavior.
Brand had this to say about the death of Philip Seymour Hoffman from a self-administered injection of drugs:
"In spite of his life seeming superficially great, in spite of all the praise and accolades, in spite of all the loving friends and family, there is a predominant voice in the mind of an addict that supersedes all reason and that voice wants you dead. This voice is the unrelenting echo of an unfulfillable void.
"Addiction is a mental illness around which there is a great deal of confusion, which is hugely exacerbated by the laws that criminalise drug addicts.
"If drugs are illegal people who use drugs are criminals. We have set our moral compass on this erroneous premise, and we have strayed so far off course that the landscape we now inhabit provides us with no solutions and greatly increases the problem.
"This is an important moment in history; we know that prohibition does not work. We know that the people who devise drug laws are out of touch and have no idea how to reach a solution. Do they even have the inclination? The fact is their methods are so gallingly ineffective that it is difficult not to deduce that they are deliberately creating the worst imaginable circumstances to maximise the harm caused by substance misuse."
Read more at The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/06/russell-brand-philip-seymour-hoffman-drug-laws)
-
No, Hoffmann is a victim of his own bad decisions.
-
Philip Seymour Hoffman used illegal drugs.
Question. Was he a criminal? Or was he someone who needed some sort of help?
-
No, he wasn't a criminal. That said legalizing heroin is a recipe for disaster in this country. BTW Russell Brand is a total piece of dog pooh.... and that is being kind to dog pooh.
-
No, he wasn't a criminal. That said legalizing heroin is a recipe for disaster in this country. BTW Russell Brand is a total piece of dog pooh.... and that is being kind to dog pooh.
Okay. A sensible response. He wasn't a criminal. He needed help.
(By the way, I don't think anyone is suggesting legalizing heroin is the solution to drug abuse and addiction.)
-
(By the way, I don't think anyone is suggesting legalizing heroin is the solution to drug abuse and addiction.)
Sadly, there are. Many Librarians fully support making any and all drugs legal.
-
Yes there are folks who believe in legalizing drugs including the drug of alcohol. (My bad. Alcohol used to be prohibited, now it's legal.)
-
I think the heart of Brand's argument is that draconian drug laws have not solved the problem and it's time to look at new ways of dealing with it. (Dealing Oops, poor word choice.)
-
Okay. A sensible response. He wasn't a criminal. He needed help.
(By the way, I don't think anyone is suggesting legalizing heroin is the solution to drug abuse and addiction.)
What is sad is he was sober for something like 23 years and then (reportedly) he took a drink at the wrap party for The Master and the downward spiral started from there - went from alcohol (which seemingly he was still ingesting heavily up to his death) to pills and then to the hard drugs which killed him. His long time girlfriend and mother of his three children made him move out a couple of months ago (can't blame her with young children involved). The pictures of him in Atlanta and on the flight back to NY were just painful to view - and the stories about how messed up he was even going through screening, TSA had to help him on the plane. Alcoholics can't drink - not even one. And in this case it was the gateway back to drug use for Hoffman. I feel sorry for his young children more than anything.
If you think about it this is very much like the death of Heath Ledger - also in New York and also separated from his daughters mother because of his drug use.
-
"Messed up." Perfect description. People who are messed up need help – not jail time.
-
"Messed up." Perfect description. People who are messed up need help – not jail time.
The problem with Hollywood is they all game the rehab system. In fact, jail saved Robert Downey Jr's life... it took a brave judge to send him to prison instead of another stent in the local gray bar hotel with it's in the front and out the back policy (think Lohan).
-
Alcohol is one of those double edged swords.
It has been around for thousands, if not tens of thousands of years. Drugs like heroin, cocaine, etc. are inventions of the last 100 to 150 years. Heck, George Washington was the biggest whiskey producer in the United States for several years. It was legal long before prohibition and in every part of society. There was simply no way to remove it Drugs were not widely used until the 60s, the same time the outright bans were being put into place. Most were already illegal without a prescription, which was extremely difficult to be legally allowed to write. Even today, the vast majority of Americans do not use illegal drugs and would not even if they were legal.
One can drink a beer or shot and not drop dead, or even be impaired. Take one dose of cocaine, heroin, ecstasy, etc. and you're spaced out or worse.
-
Brand:
"A troubling component of this sad loss is the complete absence of hedonism. Like a lot of drug addicts, probably most, who "go over", Hoffman was alone when he died. This is an inescapably bleak circumstance. When we reflect on Bieber's Louis Vuitton embossed, Lamborghini cortege it is easy to equate addiction with indulgence and immorality. The great actor dying alone denies us this required narrative prang."
-
"Messed up." Perfect description. People who are messed up need help – not jail time.
Sometimes locking them up for a year or two is the only way for them to truly detox and get it completely out of their system.
Now, I'd rather just see big fines for pot use instead of jail time since most pot users are not violent. $500 fine the first time, and keep adding another $500 to the fine for each additional offense.
-
I just would never, ever, use Russell Brand to try and make a point. He uses this as an excuse for his own drug use.
Another very talented person who died from heroin abuse was Billie Holiday. Too many really talented people have been lost to that very insidious drug.
-
Johnny Cash - it took June Carter and her family guarding him while he totally detoxed and running the drug dealer off with a shot gun - and he did relapse once again and only cleaned up so he could keep his family.
George Jones........ from alcohol to drugs. His drug dealer literally controlled him and it wasn't until the woman he was married to at death stepped in and stopped them - and they threatened HER life for stopping them from selling him drugs - that he finally got clean.
-
The problem with Hollywood is they all game the rehab system. In fact, jail saved Robert Downey Jr's life... it took a brave judge to send him to prison instead of another stent in the local gray bar hotel with it's in the front and out the back policy (think Lohan).
Lohan, Downey, Hoffman. People with money and fame. The poor addict struggles and the stigma of jail only worsens his plight when no one will hire him.
-
Brand:
" The great actor dying alone denies us this required narrative prang."
This is what that great actor looked like on the flight last week from Atlanta to New York.. he was alone because he children could not be exposed to this and yet on Saturday when he went to see them he was higher than a kite.
(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1600950.1391527379!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/article-hoffman-addon1-0203.jpg)
-
These are the victims of his alcohol and drug abuse and death to drugs
(http://a.abcnews.com/images/Entertainment/SPL_seymour_hoffman_kids_tk_140203_16x9_992.jpg)
-
Brand is a recovering drug user.
From the comments section:
"Treating a health problem like a crime makes as much sense as sending doctors and nurses to investigate robberies."
-
Rich or poor heroin drags everyone into the gutter... there is nothing pretty or admirable about it.
-
"When politicians start dealing with social problems in terms of humanity, not legality and money, solutions to 'perpetual' problems such as 'the war on drugs' will be a lot easier to come by"
-
"When politicians start dealing with social problems in terms of humanity, not legality and money, solutions to 'perpetual' problems such as 'the war on drugs' will be a lot easier to come by"
The War on Drug's biggest achievement to date is the near destruction of the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution.
-
"Yes, but what's wrong with looking out for each other? Just because you are a 'mentally competent adult' doesn't mean you aren't fearful, stressed, sad, depressed... Oh i don't know, I just think this 'he brought it on himself' arguement is cold and it stinks."
-
Sometimes locking them up for a year or two is the only way for them to truly detox and get it completely out of their system.
You're missing the point. Addiction entails deeper issues that simple detox in jail cannot get at.
Addiction needs professional, competent, researched, mental health attention.
-
You're missing the point. Addiction entails deeper issues that simple detox in jail cannot get at.
Addiction needs professional, competent, researched, mental health attention.
It needs one other ingredient. The desire to quit from the addict himself. Without that, all the help in the world will not make a beans worth of difference.
-
You're missing the point. Addiction entails deeper issues that simple detox in jail cannot get at.
Addiction needs professional, competent, researched, mental health attention.
Yes it does, but these celebrity rehab places are a joke. Drugs are usually available inside.
Get them over the physical addition by locking them up for a while in a totally controlled environment. Then deal with the psychological ones.
-
It needs one other ingredient. The desire to quit from the addict himself. Without that, all the help in the world will not make a beans worth of difference.
That's where the draconian part of the legal system comes in? Threaten enough bad will happen to you so that when you are caught in possession you hit bottom?
-
That's where the draconian part of the legal system comes in? Threaten enough bad will happen to you so that when you are caught in possession you hit bottom?
Never said that. You know how to look and you can keep your addiction going in prison very easily. All I am saying is help is out there. Everyone knows it's there. But without the will to quit, the addict won't use it or will ignore it.
Lohan has been mentioned a couple times in thread - look how effective rehab has been for her. Court mandated, at that, so she couldn't just leave. Russel Brand only got serious about getting clean (metaphorically, he's greasier than a Texas oil field) when he nearly died.
-
Russel Brand only got serious about getting clean (metaphorically, he's greasier than a Texas oil field) when he nearly died.
and he left a lot of his brain cells on the field.
-
and he left a lot of his brain cells on the field.
Sadly, yes. There was a time when he was a wickedly funny observational comic, the hardest form of the hardest word art. Now he's an average actor more famous for who he is shacking up with than anything else.
-
I lost a very important person in my life to heroin. It's nasty sh!t. Prison does nothing to solve the problem. Location does nothing to solve the problem. Hang out friends aren't part of the problem. Even hitting rock bottom does nothing to solve the problem.
It's an insatiatiable craving until something clicks. You can't ever let down your guard. It's the monster at the door.
-
I lost a very important person in my life to heroin. It's nasty sh!t. Prison does nothing to solve the problem. Location does nothing to solve the problem. Hang out friends aren't part of the problem. Even hitting rock bottom does nothing to solve the problem.
It's an insatiatiable craving until something clicks. You can't ever let down your guard. It's the monster at the door.
I am so sorry.
-
Never said that. You know how to look and you can keep your addiction going in prison very easily. All I am saying is help is out there. Everyone knows it's there. But without the will to quit, the addict won't use it or will ignore it.
Lohan has been mentioned a couple times in thread - look how effective rehab has been for her. Court mandated, at that, so she couldn't just leave. Russel Brand only got serious about getting clean (metaphorically, he's greasier than a Texas oil field) when he nearly died.
I'm sorry. My comment wasn't sarcasm. I was agreeing with many who say that fear of legal retribution could indeed be the impetus to begin change. There is no question the individual has to begin the process in their own mind. There's nothing more powerful than a made-up mind.
-
Not familiar with Russell Brand or his work, but I share his point of view here in this opinion piece from the Guardian. Society must move away from looking at addiction as a matter for the police. Drug use is first a medical issue and should be treated apart from criminal behavior.
Brand had this to say about the death of Philip Seymour Hoffman from a self-administered injection of drugs:
"In spite of his life seeming superficially great, in spite of all the praise and accolades, in spite of all the loving friends and family, there is a predominant voice in the mind of an addict that supersedes all reason and that voice wants you dead. This voice is the unrelenting echo of an unfulfillable void.
"Addiction is a mental illness around which there is a great deal of confusion, which is hugely exacerbated by the laws that criminalise drug addicts.
"If drugs are illegal people who use drugs are criminals. We have set our moral compass on this erroneous premise, and we have strayed so far off course that the landscape we now inhabit provides us with no solutions and greatly increases the problem.
"This is an important moment in history; we know that prohibition does not work. We know that the people who devise drug laws are out of touch and have no idea how to reach a solution. Do they even have the inclination? The fact is their methods are so gallingly ineffective that it is difficult not to deduce that they are deliberately creating the worst imaginable circumstances to maximise the harm caused by substance misuse."
Read more at The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/06/russell-brand-philip-seymour-hoffman-drug-laws)
There's your problem! I need read no further than the first eight words to figure out why you posted this tripe. You should really do some research about who Russel Brand is, and then you might understand first of all that he is a Brit, why nothing he has to say on this topic means anything, and why this ran in the British press instead of the American.
Moving on....
-
I'm sorry. My comment wasn't sarcasm. I was agreeing with many who say that fear of legal retribution could indeed be the impetus to begin change. There is no question the individual has to begin the process in their own mind. There's nothing more powerful than a made-up mind.
No worries. Touchy subject for me.
You need all of it though. Friends, family, willpower, God, professional help, the company of other addicts - and still it is sometimes not enough.
-
I was agreeing with many who say that fear of legal retribution could indeed be the impetus to begin change.
Addiction is a disease.
Should we jail people addicted to nicotine in an attempt to control the consequences of their disease, A.K.A. cancer?
If the fear of cancer does nothing to stop many people from smoking, why would "legal retribution" be a more effective way to give addicted individuals that "impetus to begin change"?
P.S. I quit smoking years ago, but that only means that I wasn't afflicted with the disease of addiction, not that everyone can quit smoking because I was able to. I quit a few other things along the way, and the same reasoning applies.
-
The problem is more basic, why do these people start taking drugs known to be addictive in the first place? When I was in college long ago, when Moby Dick was a minnow, I was offered these drugs which I politely declined; they could have also. The decision making is the real problem. In schools today, students are taught WHAT to think, not HOW to think and it shows in situations like these.
-
i wood js luk to sy jfa fsaa and jdj no no! ssiii fdsa and no!
-
The problem is more basic, why do these people start taking drugs known to be addictive in the first place? When I was in college long ago, when Moby Dick was a minnow, I was offered these drugs which I politely declined; they could have also. The decision making is the real problem. In schools today, students are taught WHAT to think, not HOW to think and it shows in situations like these.
People have been making bad decisions long before there were schools. It's simply human nature.
I happen to think that jumping out of a perfectly good airplane in flight is a stupid decision. Some people think that's it is fun.
I bet that the basic response to the question "why did you start using _________?" would be "it seemed like a good idea at the time".
-
Addiction is a matter of exposure. No one is programmed to do anything. However, there are tendencies. I may be challenged on this point, because lately there has been talk of DNA memory. While do not agree or disagree with this, I believe that it is worthy of study.
But yes,
a person never exposed to smoking, will not smoke.
a person never exposed to alcohol will not drink
Exposure is the primary factor. Somebody, showed this guy what's up. And he took to it.. On his own.
-
My friend - you are so far wrong your couldn't find correct with a GPS on that.
-
Addiction is a matter of exposure. No one is programmed to do anything
Genesis 9:7: And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.
There few greater physiological needs for any species than procreation. It is even commanded by God.
The need to have sex exists independent of the exposure to the sex act.
There are sex addicts.
It is a disease.
-
We know some animals seek out intoxicants in nature. And we design experiments where mice would starve themselves rather than stop pushing a bar delivering a drug dose. Learned behavior? Genetically programmed?
We know dopamine receptors are prominent in the central nervous system of vertebrates and that dopamine is the primary neurotransmitter involved in the reward pathways in the brain. We are beginning to understand more about D1-D2 dopamine receptors and their role in drug craving.
But, why the moral stigma? Why does society criminalize what is probably a universal biological drive?
Ignorance.
Are mice criminals for pushing the bar? Is a two-martini lunch criminal activity? Was a brilliant actor a bad person? Or someone disoriented by brain chemistry? Until we accurately, precisely match the tools necessary to fix the problem – the problem will remain.
-
Apropos the subject and the interminable disagreement over punishment vs. tolerance vs. ?? comes this article from the Dec. 4 NYT:
Amsterdam Has a Deal for Alcoholics: Work Paid in Beer (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/world/europe/amsterdam-has-a-deal-for-alcoholics-work-paid-in-beer.html?_r=0)
By ANDREW HIGGINS
AMSTERDAM — After more than a decade out of work because of a back injury and chronic alcoholism, Fred Schiphorst finally landed a job last year and is determined to keep it. He gets up at 5:30 a.m., walks his dog and then puts on a red tie, ready to clean litter from the streets of eastern Amsterdam.
“You have to look sharp,” said Mr. Schiphorst, 60, a former construction worker.
His workday begins unfailingly at 9 a.m. — with two cans of beer, a down payment on a salary paid mostly in alcohol. He gets two more cans at lunch and then another can or, if all goes smoothly, two to round off a productive day.
“I’m not proud of being an alcoholic, but I am proud to have a job again,” said Mr. Schiphorst, the grateful beneficiary of an unusual government-funded program to lure alcoholics off the streets by paying them in beer to pick up trash.
In addition to beer — the brand varies depending on which brewery offers the best price — each member of the cleaning team gets half a packet of rolling tobacco, free lunch and 10 euros a day, or about $13.55.
* * *
The idea of providing alcoholics with beer in return for work, he said, was first tried in Canada. It took off in the Netherlands in part because the country has traditionally shunned “zero tolerance” in response to addiction. Amsterdam now has three districts running beer-for-work street cleaning programs, and a fourth discussing whether to follow suit. Other Dutch cities are looking into the idea, too.
The basic idea is to extend to alcoholics an approach first developed to help heroin addicts, who have for years been provided with free methadone, a less dangerous substitute, in a controlled environment that provides access to health workers and counselors.
“If you just say, ‘Stop drinking and we will help you,’ it doesn’t work,” said Mr. Wijnands, whose foundation gets 80 percent of its financing from the state and runs four drug consumption rooms with free needles for hardened addicts. “But if you say, ‘I will give you work for a few cans of beer during the day,’ they like it.”
* * *
To my way of thinking, the moral aspects as such, divorced from the consequences of an addiction, are red herrings. The real problem isn't that people use, it's that people who use can cause real havoc when they get out and try to do things like drive. Secondarily there is the problem of besotted users lying in the streets, too sh*tfaced to do anything else, making scenes, scaring (or assaulting) passersby, and making the place look like an asylum instead of a decent neighborhood.
That would suggest that a primary focus of the punitive approach should be based on the consequences of a user's actions, while using, and not the act of using by itself.
Another problem, it seems to me, is that penalizing mere possession, let alone using, necessarily forces users into a world inhabited by criminals - and not just people who are breaking the laws against possession, but people who engage in all sorts of wrongdoing, like theft, extortion, fraud, etc - and as such causes more of them to become criminals themselves - again, aside from the mere possession/use - which simply causes more grief on all sides.
A third problem is that, because possessing and selling are illegal, there are no controls on what sort of adulterants might be added to any particular substance - after all, if the seller cuts his "stuff" with something that isn't apparent, then he has more "stuff" to sell and makes a higher profit; unless purchasers carry around their own little mini chemical testing labs, they don't have any way to really know if the "stuff" is cut or not, and so it comes down to their appetite for risk. Also, there are no controls on sellers trying to do things like selling to minors.
There is also the matter of the degree to which a substance incapacitates the user: a pothead who sits around with a few others and tokes up is not nearly as incapacitated as a long-time heroin user who lies comatose after shooting up. In other words, heroin is, in a certain sense, more serious - more dangerous - than pot and therefore arguably requires more careful attention to the users.
As to the matter of the government selling intoxicating substances to people: Virginia has a Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (http://www.abc.virginia.gov/), the "ABC". Distilled spirits can only be sold at ABC stores and, by the looks of their website, http://www.abc.virginia.gov/, they are quite adept at advertising the wonders of their products to consumers. I lived many years in Virginia and I don't recall hearing too much noise about the immorality of government selling hard liquour - and advertising to beat the band by the looks of it - so I have to question a little the rationale behind the arguments that government selling other intoxicating substances is fraught with the sort of moral peril that apparently doesn't apply to alcohol.
I don't really have any answers here, just thoughts and opinions, but it does seem to me that the old paradigm of moral approbation coupled with criminal penalties doesn't work; it clearly didn't work with alcohol during Prohibition and it doesn't seem to work with these other substances either.
-
That is a sensible program for alcoholics. 5 to 6 beers spaced out over 10 hours - enough to take the edge off without being dangerous. A lunch provided, betting it is high in protein and carbs too,to give a buffer. A small payment, not enough to pick up a bottle after work, not if he's got a dog to feed.
It's a little help. Not a cure - there isn't one - but help for someone who'd otherwise be a liability to society as a whole.
-
That is a sensible program for alcoholics. 5 to 6 beers spaced out over 10 hours - enough to take the edge off without being dangerous. A lunch provided, betting it is high in protein and carbs too,to give a buffer. A small payment, not enough to pick up a bottle after work, not if he's got a dog to feed.
It's a little help. Not a cure - there isn't one - but help for someone who'd otherwise be a liability to society as a whole.
It also gets them out in the fresh air, a little physical exercise, some simple contact with other people - perhaps a wave and a smile from someone who knows you because they see you every day out there picking up the litter. It is an interesting program; I'd like to know how it works out long term.
-
It also gets them out in the fresh air, a little physical exercise, some simple contact with other people - perhaps a wave and a smile from someone who knows you because they see you every day out there picking up the litter. It is an interesting program; I'd like to know how it works out long term.
That is a huge thing. Not mentioning names, it's from meetings, but many alcoholics or drug addicts shun people. They avoid contact if at all possible.
Amsterdam has a pretty good history of working with addicts, from needle exchanges to methadone clinics. The fact they are more relaxed about the minor drugs helps - I've had joints in more than a few cafe's there, where it is on the menu next to the coffees. I would expect it to work out well. You are going to get the odd one who slips again. Human nature, that. But it gives a little bit of pride to people who really have none. Look at the way he describes putting on his tie, for example.
-
That is a huge thing. Not mentioning names, it's from meetings, but many alcoholics or drug addicts shun people. They avoid contact if at all possible.
Amsterdam has a pretty good history of working with addicts, from needle exchanges to methadone clinics. The fact they are more relaxed about the minor drugs helps - I've had joints in more than a few cafe's there, where it is on the menu next to the coffees. I would expect it to work out well. You are going to get the odd one who slips again. Human nature, that. But it gives a little bit of pride to people who really have none. Look at the way he describes putting on his tie, for example.
The only concern I would have about spending time in a cafe where they smoke pot is - you guessed it - second-hand smoke. I tried pot a few times - inhaled even - and the last time came away with a very, very bad reaction that permanently turned me off it. So while it doesn't particularly bother me if folks want to hang out in a cafe and get stoned, I'd rather that it not be allowed in every cafe and bar because then I might unwittingly end up inhaling when I really didn't want to. That idea, taken to the next level, clearly supports the argument in favor of strongly regulating cigarette smoking in cafes and bars; not that it should be banned 100%, but perhaps should be limited to smoking "clubs" where if you go in you know exactly what you're going into.
-
The only concern I would have about spending time in a cafe where they smoke pot is - you guessed it - second-hand smoke. I tried pot a few times - inhaled even - and the last time came away with a very, very bad reaction that permanently turned me off it. So while it doesn't particularly bother me if folks want to hang out in a cafe and get stoned, I'd rather that it not be allowed in every cafe and bar because then I might unwittingly end up inhaling when I really didn't want to. That idea, taken to the next level, clearly supports the argument in favor of strongly regulating cigarette smoking in cafes and bars; not that it should be banned 100%, but perhaps should be limited to smoking "clubs" where if you go in you know exactly what you're going into.
You get a bad batch sometimes. It's not as if it is quality controlled! :laugh:
Here you can not smoke in pubs, bars, cafes or restaurants - full stop. It has pretty much killed the entire pub trade. We had 15 pubs in my neighborhood within a 20 minute walk, before the smoking ban. Now we have three.
-
Well, take away the damage to other people, auto crashes, theft, murder, destruction of family unit, all around dickheadedness and addiction isn't all bad.
-
It's a sad sight. Addicted smokers standing outside a club on a freezing midnight in Manhattan. Maybe in rain or snow. Personally hate cigarette smoke, but ban smoking in bars? Did planners not get the bar experience? Of course restaurants are different. A couple or family goes in, eats, gets out.
But going to a bar is an extended experience, and with hundreds within walking distance in Manhattan, bar owners (and ultimately customers), should be free to decide whether a club is smoking or non-smoking. I suspect the market would have made the decision for the owner either way.
-
Well, take away the damage to other people, auto crashes, theft, murder, destruction of family unit, all around dickheadedness and addiction isn't all bad.
:beer:
-
Well, take away the damage to other people, auto crashes, theft, murder, destruction of family unit, all around dickheadedness and addiction isn't all bad.
Chalk up theft and murder to prohibition, auto crashes and destruction of family unit to the legal drug, alcohol. All-around dickheadedness? Comes with being human.
-
Sometimes locking them up for a year or two is the only way for them to truly detox and get it completely out of their system.
Now, I'd rather just see big fines for pot use instead of jail time since most pot users are not violent. $500 fine the first time, and keep adding another $500 to the fine for each additional offense.
Drugs are widely available in jails and prisons.
-
You get a bad batch sometimes. It's not as if it is quality controlled! :laugh:
Here you can not smoke in pubs, bars, cafes or restaurants - full stop. It has pretty much killed the entire pub trade. We had 15 pubs in my neighborhood within a 20 minute walk, before the smoking ban. Now we have three.
NYC has had a ban on smoking in bars for a while now (smoking wasn't permitted in cafes for a lot longer) and that doesn't seem to have put a serious hamper on the number of bars in Gomorrah (or is it Sodom) nor the number of their patrons. I'm sure it reduced them some, but it didn't kill them off.
-
Well, take away the damage to other people, auto crashes, theft, murder, destruction of family unit, all around dickheadedness and addiction isn't all bad.
I wouldn't say that it isn't "all bad" but I would say that penal consequences should depend on actual or threatened harm to the public at large and that the rest is a matter of medical treatment or non-criminal governmental social policy (such as the Amsterdam program for alcoholics).