File: 1574483915078.jpg (82.85 KB, 478x653, 478:653, house-face-92.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
I saw this posted elsewhere on the Internet, and I thought it might spur a good discussion:
I think it would be interesting to make a "voluntary prison" where anyone can go inside and receive free recreational drugs, meals and housing, but they have to have a clean pee test to get out.
If people want to lay around doing clean heroin, watching TV and hanging out with other addicts, give them a safe space to do so with minimal drain on the rest of society. Attach a minimum wage waiver so manufacturers could set up low skill jobs within, and addicts can save up for when they want to leave. Concentrate drug treatment, health, social and educational programs for economies of scale. Tie dose dispensation to biometric data to prevent people from receiving OD-levels of drugs, but allow them to slowly ratchet up if they wish to do so as tolerance builds. I'd imagine this could achieve a net-savings in cost of anti-drug programs and policing, and could be funded by cities which want to export their derelict addicts.
It would be an ugly business, but I think with proper considerations it could be more empathetic than current drug policy.
Do you agree? Disagree? Have any different-but-related ideas?
I disagree so far as the motivation of it. I think it would be better practiced to try and promote fun, healthy drug experiences and maybe exploring the psyche or something.
I am all for trying to provide a safe, clean, environment for people who are addicted to hard drugs to get a shot and some help with the detox, but no one shoots up all day just to party. People, [and remember there's always an exception to the rules; I'm not counting that exception], who do hard drugs and alcohol all day every day are trying to avoid some other form of pain. Mental, physical, trauma, whatever. I think that pain should be the focus of acceptance and trying to get them help, so they don't feel like they have to do these drugs to numb it.
Oh and I forgot to include, forcing people to stay until they are clean is just another form of prison in my eyes.
You can't force a drunk to stay at the bar until they are sober, nor should you. Yes, stop people frok driving drunk, yes, stop people who are causing damage while drunk, but don't enslave. I do not think that is ever a good method that really does anything unless the person being imprisoned is incapable of being a functioning society member.
File: 1574575785696.png (380.79 KB, 800x800, 1:1, Buratei.png) ImgOps Google
>>4255>You do know that drugs are addictive right?
Some are. But I don't think marijuana is very addictive. At least not much more addictive than sugar.
File: 1574592681538.png (325.63 KB, 1080x1080, 1:1, image.php.png) ImgOps Google
I don't know. From what I see, people of all sorts do drugs of some sort recreationally, and for the most part those people function just fine. >>4252
"people who do hard drugs and alcohol all day every day are trying to avoid some other form of pain." Yes, I think that's part of it, for some, drugs are not central but a way of coping. >>4255
I have read books about heroin and opioids, which seem like they can be sufficiently addictive to be a primary issue for someone. I got the impression affordable sober facilities that allowed people to stay longer, or that offered better transitional services as people moved out on their own would be most helpful. I'd admit your multi-line string suggesting a drug-reservation might be better for people than prison or homelessness. I try not to be judgemental about drugs like marijuana or meth, which people seem to be able to handle, but it's hard for me to...support...heroin, so I'd like to see more encouragement to reduce doses of heroin (or I guess be shown evidence that people on heroin can be pretty OK and happy).
meth is pretty damaging to people and their health, I'm not sure where you are getting that people can "handle" it. If we leave out marijuana from this equation, all the drugs we are talking about a very addictive on a chemical level and very hard to kick as a habit. So I think it's irresponsible, inhumane even, to just give these people a place to whither away out of sight of the public. It doesn't address the real problem, and it assumes drug addicts are actively choosing to be the way they are. There's also the issue of the psychological component someone mentioned. That some addicts are using drugs as an escape.
In either case, there are many, many drug addicts who could be happier, healthier people if they were given assistance to get off drugs and work through their trauma. I think the addictive nature of drugs is giving a false idea that this is what they "want", when its more, this is all they know and they see no way out.
>>4259>I'm not sure where you are getting that people can "handle" it.
In this case, coworkers use it on occasion, but remain employed and I would judge not addicted. Small sample, granted. I'm not saying it's healthy, but this thread seems to be about people who become so involved in drugs that, in the words of the quote, they become a 'drain on the rest of society.'
Although I guess the book on Oxycotin and Heroin did say not everyone is quite as susceptible to addiction as others, given the people I know are already employed, perhaps this is sample bias. I defer to a larger or more random sample.
That's not really a good indicator of anything. Your coworkers might be in the early stages of drug addiction. That's how drug addiction works. You start off OK, but as time goes on you need more and more to even function.
As for the OP dismissing them a "drain on society", that really is lacking in empathy or consideration. I belive most people do not WANT to be addicted to drugs. It's not an active choice. Saying that it is is also saying that they could quit being on drugs at any time if they wanted to. It doesn't work that way.
>>4263>You start off OK, but as time goes on you need more and more to even function.
Hmm...guess there's a question that seems at the basis of deciding what to do about drugs. Wonderful Lizard said meth is unhealthy. And, you know, lots of things are unhealthy -- watching TV all day, smoking cigarettes, drinking pop. But then a line is created between unhealthy things people are at liberty to choose -- things that you'd be rude to interfere with, and very bad things. I can't really render my co-workers to the authorities on hearsay, and don't want to, but perhaps they are suffering and would get the help they needed. A lot of people use drugs, though, so you could turn in about everyone. You'd definitely not have any friends, but maybe that'd be a kind of kindness. I think for now, I'm going to be as passive as possible, hope people find their path on their own. The state's prerogative is to render justice, to help people in cases where it would be inappropriate for an individual, but that's not my job, and I don't think justice is my special skill.
I'm Wonderful Lizard. Not sure why my name changed.
As for what you said, I think the issue here is that drugs are addictive. Like chemically addictive. Watching TV and drinking soda are unhealthy if you do too much of it, but it's a choice people make. Drugs aren't really a choice BECAUSE of their addictive nature.
File: 1574674126735.png (609.05 KB, 971x579, 971:579, 2200067.png) ImgOps Google
Well, if we admit individuals must not be allowed to become addicted, and that some or many drugs are addictive, then OP's idea must be bad for contributing to or allowing addiction. I'll admit I don't know much about meth, so if people who know more say it's additive, so be it, then I guess we should discourage people from using it. OK. Well, when I can do it without being a troll, anyway.
If it allows for any profit motive at all, we're going to end up incentivizing these companies to get people hooked on drugs. If they can't leave, it seems these organizations could do whatever they want to them unless there's regular government audits or open doors for journalists to come and go as they please, just something to check on the people inside.
I don't know, i think there's too many ways for this to go horribly, horribly wrong.