But think of all the money that the private prisons lose. Won't people think of the corporations that require crime to survive?
post
Same with giving condoms to teenagers. The're not going to fuck more because the have condoms. The're going to fuck the same amount but get pregnant less.
I had a zealot of a coworker saying teaching them sexual education and safe sex practices is giving them "permission" to engage in pre-marital sex. So instead, the increased risk of EVERYTHING sex related is better because apparently punishment?
Religious people I know, think that STDs are a good thing to punish bad people who have non-marital sex, especially young people.
In America, people are extremely sex negative, and anything outside procreative sex should be punished, not just discouraged.
Without data from an intuitive standpoint I can see where she may think sex ed could lead to an increase in pre-marital (I assume teenage) sex, even if more but safer sex is still preferable to less but more risky sex. So I did a quick search and it appears that she’s just wrong anyway!
Well of course, the Dutch are clever.
Handing out Methadone and in the harder cases even Heroin, with clean needles in protected spaces, is what finally properly solved the extensive drug issues in the 90s here in Zürich too. The repression approach they tried first just moved the scene from Platzspitz (known in English as "Needle Park" I believe) to Letten. Harm reduction approaches were the true solution.
Same thing in Portugal since 2001 by the way.
That's assuming that it's a problem that governments want to resolve.
They'd rather throw more money at law enforcement/fascist paramilitaries and make laws that criminalize everything up to and including breathing.
America was involved in that trade at one point just ask the CIA and who said they ever quit?
It's crazy to me that "the CIA sold drugs to poor and minority communities to keep poor people down" is still treated like a conspiracy theory.
They FULLY ADMIT TO IT!
Like MKULTRA it doesn't matter what the truth is.
To be fair, they created crack cocaine, etc., and facilitated numerous other addiction crises both in the US and abroad. 🤢🤬
Wasn't crack originally created by a low level LA dealer to make a bigger profit from the same product volume and THEN deliberately weaponized by the CIA to destroy (mostly black) neighborhoods?
Or did Snowfall take even bigger liberties with regard to historical accuracy than I realized?
The conspiracy theory is that it was to keep poor people down.
The reality is that they didn't directly sell drugs, they just protected people who did to financially support terrorists, or prevented interdiction to protect traffickers who gave them information that could be used to stop drug trafficking.
This was acceptable to them because they considered poor minority communities unimportant.
It's kinda worse, but it wasn't an attack on the poor. They weren't considered important enough to attack.
They were just an acceptable loss if it meant some people had the money to machine gun Nicaraguan civilians.
I mean, selling for profit during Iran-contra, sure.
But to pretend the CIA wasn't directly attempting to hurt working class people and furthering class warfare is far too forgiving and naive.
They didn't sell drugs on the street. But they did take over the British cash-cropping system of opium production in Asia and ran large scale trafficking operations.
The conspiracy theory is that it was to keep poor people down
Which it was, however directly or indirectly.
The reality is that they didn't directly sell drugs
Yeah they did. Bought drugs too.
they just protected people who did to financially support terrorists
And right wing foreign governments, and right wing guerillas. And to combat left wing governments, and left wing guerillas.
it wasn't an attack on the poor
Yeah it was. A coordinated worldwide mission to oppress the left wing is a coordinated worldwide mission to prevent the poor from rising up and taking what's rightfully theirs from their rich oppressors.
Oh yea we are totally still into that shit
Hey! It's almost Christmas and I'm tired of asking via unencrypted email drafts on a commercial client.
I need drugs and operational funding if you want the stochastic chaos, my guys. Tell the Director it's about time to flip back to chapter 1 on the playbook, we always found the last chapter the most boring part of the re-reads.
Daily reminder:
“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people,” former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper’s writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday.
“You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities,” Ehrlichman said. “We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
To my knowledge, it was Portugal who pioneered this approach and it was championed by police forces, demanding they had more important rhings to do than chase down drug users. And it worked.
Afaik the policies in Portugal came into effect in the 00s or early 10s, while the Dutch policies to overcome the heroin epidemic was started in the 90s. I also believe they had different scopes, the Dutch policies had to do with minimizing the hinder caused by drug users (mainly begging, petty theft, home break-ins), where as the Portuguese policies were about wisely spending the available resources (money and time), like you mention. Both are good examples of healing addicts instead of criminalizing users, but i think both are two distinct things that were pioneered by different states for different reasons.
Let's cut to the chase: those that don't employ effective solutions like this are in the drug trade.
They put up a "fight" against drugs, etc., but only as a legitimizing façade. This is the case with pharmaceuticals in those nations as well, of course. (No, their interests don't stop at their national borders, either.)
Plus, this stops lots of violent crimes from happening. Addicts don't have to come up with fast big money just to not feel sick, and dealers won't be fighting for turf.
Here's how science works: you collect data, use it to determine what's effective, then you tell the politicians so they can implement a solution. Most of us would consider giving free heroin to people a bad thing. What we consider it is completely irrelevant because it's based on our emotional reaction.
If the data shows that this approach is effective, especially if it's more effective than what you're currently doing, that's what you do.
The only thing that matters here is: does it work?
Apparantly it does, it's been done since 1998. The quality of life gets better for the addicts, and about half gets clean within five years. The program seems to be only for addicts above 35 years old with a habit for over 5 years, and only if earlier attempts to get clean (without medical heroin) failed.
At the most basic level: yes it really is that simple.
But there is some nuance here.
Science can tell you how to efficiently achieve your goals, but it can’t tell you what your goals should be.
And we have certain constraints that we want to uphold, even if they limit how effective we can be in achieving our goals. (Eugenics is a prime example there.)
And finally, the assumptions that we start with, the questions we decide to ask, and the explanatory models that we build are all culturally-defined. They aren’t completely arbitrary, but they do involve a degree of personal judgment.
I say this not to disparage science (I fucking love science), but to make sure that we understand that we aren’t off the hook for having moral agency even if we believe we are merely pursuing efficacy. We’ve seen regimes that decided to value efficacy above all else, and the inhuman results that can occur.
Also, Dr. Fatima’s videos have programmed me to think about this stuff automatically.
Some good ones:
What we consider it is completely irrelevant because it’s based on our emotional reaction.
Politics is all about emotional reactions though. Is it more important to you to reduce the harm of drug taking, or do you find the idea of drug taking to itself be so immoral that harm as a result is actually desirable?
Parts of Canada do that too, sporadically. Then some "tough on crime" populists get into office and decide "those people" are a burden and that "our (city/province) will not facilitate illegal drug use" and the safe sites are shut down.
Aaaaaaaand repeat.
I'm not sure specifically about Canada, but I did look into how needle swap programs and harm reduction were handled in some US cities: it was a train wreck. This approach does not work without adequate rehab therapists and resources to help people quit. If it's just decriminalization and needle swaps with no rehab, drug use goes up.
The fact that US citizens look at these programs failing due to insufficient resources on the things that matter and conclude the whole thing is bunk is a separate problem.
My conservative family: “If you’re addicted to drugs it’s a moral failing and you’re a bad person, and you deserve to die from an overdose”
Then you get Sweden where the government will go out of their way to destroy your life for you if you have drugs in your system.
But if we did that in the USA, how would we fill all the private prisons with drug offenders?! The fact that people in the USA have a hard on to punish people is why this may never take route. A puritanical thought process on unwanted behaviors made illegal.
This feels like one of those things that gets spread around americentric forums but either don't actually exist or is being extremely misrepresented.
I had a hard time finding recent articles, but the articles I did find all agree Heroin Assisted Treatment, HAT, was good for the addict and the community. It was more effective and cheaper than the alternatives. That said, of the ones I found, they sampled only treatment resistant patients. Meaning conventional means such as rehab & therapy had already been attempted and they failed. So it's like a last-straw form of treatment.
It indeed is a bit more complicated then "the government gives out heroin"
For the people interested these are the relevant documents: (in dutch)
This article (likely the one you found) is only about a year old. You're absolutely right though. The HAT treatment is only available to addicts who do not respond to other treatments. This tracks with everything I've ever heard about the program. People post about free heroin for addicts, but it is not that simple at all.
The only other thing I've heard, that I didn't see in this article, is that the dosage provided is typically not enough to get high, but enough to resolve the withdrawal symptoms. Maybe I'm wrong about that, though.
I imagine they scale it for the addicts tolerance? I know for alcohol addicts they will prescribe beer and other alcohols but the dosage is correlated with the amount you were consuming before starting treatment. It's basically just a schedule that is backed by medical research for safe rates to get clean.
I think giving them enough to get high just wouldn't really count as treatment, so I agree it is likely the case that they cut the dose way below what the addict would ""Want""
I was informed by a hivemind of ml tankies that "harm reduction" doesn't work, in any sense.
They made it uncool to do basically
I'm trying to say this without being mean because those who haven't seen it personally often don't know, but it sounds like you don't really have much experience with addicts. I can assure you that they don't care about cool or uncool like that.
However they get into it, peer pressure or to numb pain or just pain killer addiction, from them on it's about not feeling like shit, either because the drugs helped numb things or because as the original post mentioned the withdrawals suck.
Addicts aren't demonized, they are monetized and politicized. They have their uses, which is why there is no treatment for the disease.
Is it available to tourists?
No.
5.3 Onderhoudsbehandeling heroïne
Indicatiecriteria voor heroïne op medisch voorschrift
De behandelend arts voorafgaand aan de heroïnebehandeling heeft vastgesteld dat voor de cliënten die worden behandeld op een behandelplaats van de behandeleenheid geldt dat de cliënt:
1 de Nederlandse nationaliteit bezit, op grond van een wettelijke bepaling als Nederlander wordt behandeld of vreemdeling is en rechtmatig verblijf geniet als bedoeld in artikel 8 van de Vreemdelingenwet 2000.
Translation:
5.3 Heroin maintenance treatment
Criteria for prescribing heroin on medical prescription
Prior to the commencement of heroin treatment, the treating doctor has established that, for clients being treated at a treatment centre within the treatment unit, the client:
1 holds Dutch nationality, is treated as a Dutch national by virtue of a statutory provision, or is a foreign national and is lawfully resident as referred to in Article 8 of the Aliens Act 2000.
all 63 comments