Drugs win the War on Drugs

[956 Worldwide 34,444]

15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

But bad policy that is first filtered through a moralistic lens long predates the current theocratic uprising.  It was but a blip on the far horizon when Nixon commenced the War on Drugs.

956 is addressing something that's been an issue pretty much from the beginning.

One of the things I think doesn’t get mentioned enough is that Prohibition got passed through a union of Evangelical Bible thumpers and early-twentieth century Progressive social justice activists.  They needed each other. The first thought alcohol was sinful and the second believed it ruined the lives of the poor and vulnerable (women, children, etc). The moralizing impulse runs strong and no wing is immune. 

[Brisketexan 104,628]

41 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

One of the things I think doesn’t get mentioned enough is that Prohibition got passed through a union of Evangelical Bible thumpers and early-twentieth century Progressive social justice activists.  They needed each other. The first thought alcohol was sinful and the second believed it ruined the lives of the poor and vulnerable (women, children, etc). The moralizing impulse runs strong and no wing is immune. 

Horseshoe theory.  We see it with the anti-vax movement, for example.  Nutbar left and nutbar right go so far around, they link up in nutbar land.

[NeverMarryAStripper 21,781]

Nutbar land is soon to renamed The United States of America

[High Plains Drifter 10,978]

On 2/1/2024 at 11:48 AM, Incredulity said:

O

Addiction and homelessness require assistance and treatment.  That assistance and treatment needs to be able to be compelled as the majority absolutely will not seek help voluntarily.  What they are doing now is facilitating more of the problem.

 

On 2/1/2024 at 12:44 PM, We’reTexas said:

Well, Housing First is a pretty good example of the moral hang up in our politics. It’s not a radical concept - W.’s administration adopted it as HUD’s housing policy, for chrissakes. It has shown success, but its successful implementations have shown that it requires substantial and sustained federal and state alignment and investment. But for some reason, conservatives have for years opposed it on some fundamental discomfort with what they perceive to be a handout to enable drug use. Progressives, on the other hand, have pushed initiatives in localities totally unequipped to handle the enormity of the task on the grounds that, despite its practical unfeasibility, it’s the right thing to do (see: basically every major West Coast city). There’s not really a pragmatic conversation going on. 

 

According the article linked below, NY City has had some success with Housing AND Treatment (drug or mental health or both), which for some reason is incorrectly called "Housing First". Success being defined as getting a large (not all) number of homeless off the streets. 

Yes, it is expensive, requires caseworkers, social workers, etc. But when done right, it does seem to work. One thing it does not do is force homeless people to into the program against their will. And if every NYC homeless person did willingly enter the program, it would be vastly inadequate. 

Funding seems to be a mix of city, state, corporate, and federal, along with a lot of volunteer work. 

 

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/09/18/a-journey-from-homelessness-to-a-room-of-ones-own

 

Warning: Long read of a complex problem. 

 

I found these snippets interesting (bolded is mine: 

 

This strategy, known as “housing first,” was pioneered in New York, in the early nineteen-nineties, by Sam Tsemberis, a psychologist whose organization, Pathways to Housing, began renting apartments for homeless people with mental-health diagnoses and delivering medical and psychiatric services to them at their new residences—debunking the prevailing belief that people could not remain stably housed without having first undergone treatment. Study after study showed Tsemberis’s approach to be far more successful than requiring treatment in advance. Housing first became a federal policy in the United States with passage of the HEARTH Act, in 2009, though advocates say that its implementation is spotty.

...

New York State has the second-highest number of homeless people in the nation (largely living in New York City) after California, but whereas almost seventy per cent of California’s homeless live on the street (a sizable portion in vehicles), fewer than six per cent of New York’s do, making homelessness far less visible here. Many factors account for this disparity, chief among them the fact that New York City is the only municipality in America to guarantee a legal right to shelter for individuals and families—the result of court-approved agreements between advocates and the city that date back to the nineteen-eighties. (Massachusetts has a right to shelter for families.) Research disproves the notion that homeless people migrate to the West Coast for the weather; rather, a comparative paucity of shelter beds likely explains the more overt presence of homelessness there.

 

Anyway, if you really give a shit about homelessness and the drug addiction that goes with it, you should read the article. 

 

 

[Hermanator 6,945]

Just read about this today and thought "what were they thinking?" You can somewhat get away with stuff like this in small places like Portugal, but the US culture is WAY too self centered, materialistic, and fractured for it to work here. 

Also, you can't just decriminalize and be done with it. You can't offer voluntary treatment. Harsh prison sentences need to be replaced by aggressive, mandatory treatment requirements that are partly funded by the money no longer needed for the prison system. But in reality none of it matters that much when a culture is completely broken. 

Portugal's was working well until social media and smart phones came along and wrecked havoc on their culture. Now it's not looking so great anymore either. 

Drug problems and mental health problems/suicide will always be a major problem as long as social media is allowed in it's current form. Limit it severely and eliminate the use of algorithms to suggest content and possibly it might get a little better. 

[David Dennison 18,661]

3 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

Just read about this today and thought "what were they thinking?" You can somewhat get away with stuff like this in small places like Portugal, but the US culture is WAY too self centered, materialistic, and fractured for it to work here. 

Also, you can't just decriminalize and be done with it. You can't offer voluntary treatment. Harsh prison sentences need to be replaced by aggressive, mandatory treatment requirements that are partly funded by the money no longer needed for the prison system. But in reality none of it matters that much when a culture is completely broken. 

Portugal's was working well until social media and smart phones came along and wrecked havoc on their culture. Now it's not looking so great anymore either. 

Drug problems and mental health problems/suicide will always be a major problem as long as social media is allowed in it's current form. Limit it severely and eliminate the use of algorithms to suggest content and possibly it might get a little better. 

Then there's the pink elephant in the room: alcohol.

[Foosters 17,734]

It can be done. I coordinate a diversion program out of a court that accepts clients charged with crimes that have a nexus between the offense and the diagnosis (can be alcoholism or addiction.) They are linked to a case manager, a program serving their individual needs, and they have regular court dates for progress reports. We just celebrated our 2000th graduation and have a non-recidivism rate of just over 90%. Services can remain in place even after the case is dismissed.

Wouldn't be possible but for a statute passed by the CA leg that our office helped write and push through.