HARD or SOFT DRUGS? GAOL or THERAPY??
April 19th 2008 05:29
This is the question! The idea against legalizing all drugs, as some of you quite rightly pointed out, is the effect it would have on the families and communities of these people. Some drugs, like methamphetamine, destroy the mental health of drug addicts, even social users can get problems with it.
However, we do need to categorise, for there are several types of drug users; addict, heavy, social and light occasional.
The addict is what we all immediately identify with. But they are not the only ones that use drugs, and remember, alcohol and tobacco are drugs too!
It is the addict that cannot physically stop using, even soft drugs like marijuana and hashish. They all need medical and spiritual help.
The heavy user needs medical advice, and they will cut down, or stop, once the health/social aspects of their behaviour is pointed out. The social and light users do not have societal problems, either in their workplace, in public places, or homes. Many of you reading these words fall into the category of light/social users. If you are a practising addict, do not tell me, for your own legal sake, but I advise you strongly to approach AA (Alcoholics Anonymous) and/or NA (Narcotics Anonymous) to get the assistance that will help you in all the personal areas that you currently suffer. By the way, sometimes psychiatric assistance is also needed, for many people with exisitng psychiatric problems used drugs to alieviate the symptoms.
However, regarding responses to my previous post, "Should we legalize all drugs?", I have this to say;
Ruby and Gaye both picked up on key areas of difficulty regarding openly legalizing all drugs, that being; the addict parent, the addict driver, the addict public nuisance, the addict robber.
The current laws already deal with these problem areas in the same way they would a drunk behind the wheel, in the street etc. Any illegal behaviour should be dealt with by the law, just as it is in Amsterdam.
However, is legalised/decriminalised drug use going to increase the existing addict population?
I am currently trying to elicit some street research in this area, I am still waiting for a response from Amsterdam cafe owners, yes THOSE cafes!
My mini-research approach is, to not just rely on government funded statistical surveys, but to hear from ordinary folk and what they think life is like in Amsterdam today, and whether those old enough, to remember the days before the drug law changes, feel things have gotten worse since the laws allowed soft drug possession, sale and personal use.
Amsterdam is dead against hard drugs. The government believed many new users, and existing soft drug users, would not progress to harder drugs if soft versions, like grass and hash, were freely available and decriminalised to a degree. In Amsterdam, large quantities of hash or grass, above 30 grams on a person, and above 5 grams sold in a cafe, is still illegal.
The idea in Australia, (and in the USA, Britain etc), is that contact between illegal drug dealers and the drug user, will possibly bring that person into contact with harder drugs, although this was not my experience, as coke and heroin dealers were always separate from dope dealers.
In fact, back in my 'hey day' in the seventies, it was rumoured that a deal was struck between the crims and crooked cops, so every Christmas they would conspire to dry up the grass and hash, (busting crops etc) and then they would flood the market with smack, (heroin).
So far in Amsterdam, at least statistically, I have seen that the soft drug user population has not increased much, but the average age of the users is getting older.
The real problem seems to be, as Morgan points out, the growing use of meth-amphetamine, which is seriously damaging the mental health of users, even in the very early stages of their use of this drug group.
Such damage is usually permanent, medicos are now finding out, as it has been around long enough for them to follow long term use case studies. "Rave Parties" have produced some terrible incidents where severely dehydrated party goers, on methamphetamines, have compounded the problem with severe dehydration, leaving some people seriously brain damaged, just from one night's dose!
Obviously a blanket decriminalisation will not work, (especially mental health wise), so we MUST try and rid the markets of methamphetamine in particular, if possible, and I see the only way to do that is to decriminalise soft drugs use, (hash and marijuana), thus freeing up the various agencies, of both legal and medical disciplines, to deal with the hard drug areas.
As for Damo and Raven's comments, of course it does seem like we are opening up a Pandora's box, however, I counter that with this, what we have is NOT working, and it is getting worse.
In Amsterdam, again by statistics, dope smokers are not a problem for the community. The speed users, heroin users and the alcohol users certainly are, same as they are in every community.
In closing, the gaoling of these users is of no value whatsoever. We should gaol the big dealers however, and put them away for a very long time. In fact, charge them with manslaughter if a 'client' dies would also be a good idea, and no parole!
But for small time dealers who are supporting their own habit, and their user addict clients, they are victims of their addiction.
I know, I was a drug user, and knew many people who dealed dope over the years, some were even friends. They did it so they could have some free dope for themselves.
I was too scared to be a dealer, besides, I knew I would probably smoke it all before I got to sell any!!.
Addicts need help, some more than others, depending on the drug and their stage of addiction.
Importantly, there is a difference.
Again, I think if a parent of young children is found to be using hard drugs, they should be severely disciplined legally, and the children returned when the parent(s) is two years clean and sober.
On that point I see, instead of gaol, which does nothing really for the addict as drugs are freely available there anyway, that they need to be placed in a gaol specifically designed for drug rehabilitation.
The term of internment should be long, as many addicts have huge issues that they will need a long time to deal with, so they may achieve a solid, lasting sobriety. It should be both AA (Alcoholics Anonymous) and NA (Narcotics Anonymous) based, coupled with medical/psychiatric treatment.
Only with common sense and compassion do we have any chance, at all, of bringing those who have harmed themselves, or others, to a sense of responsibility and totally committed sobriety.
cheers all, and have a lovely sober weekend...hehe!
I know I am going to...tee hee!!
fog
Nepalese Temple Ball Hashish. motto: "Blows the mind, cools the head."
However, we do need to categorise, for there are several types of drug users; addict, heavy, social and light occasional.
The addict is what we all immediately identify with. But they are not the only ones that use drugs, and remember, alcohol and tobacco are drugs too!
It is the addict that cannot physically stop using, even soft drugs like marijuana and hashish. They all need medical and spiritual help.
The heavy user needs medical advice, and they will cut down, or stop, once the health/social aspects of their behaviour is pointed out. The social and light users do not have societal problems, either in their workplace, in public places, or homes. Many of you reading these words fall into the category of light/social users. If you are a practising addict, do not tell me, for your own legal sake, but I advise you strongly to approach AA (Alcoholics Anonymous) and/or NA (Narcotics Anonymous) to get the assistance that will help you in all the personal areas that you currently suffer. By the way, sometimes psychiatric assistance is also needed, for many people with exisitng psychiatric problems used drugs to alieviate the symptoms.
However, regarding responses to my previous post, "Should we legalize all drugs?", I have this to say;
Ruby and Gaye both picked up on key areas of difficulty regarding openly legalizing all drugs, that being; the addict parent, the addict driver, the addict public nuisance, the addict robber.
The current laws already deal with these problem areas in the same way they would a drunk behind the wheel, in the street etc. Any illegal behaviour should be dealt with by the law, just as it is in Amsterdam.
However, is legalised/decriminalised drug use going to increase the existing addict population?
I am currently trying to elicit some street research in this area, I am still waiting for a response from Amsterdam cafe owners, yes THOSE cafes!
My mini-research approach is, to not just rely on government funded statistical surveys, but to hear from ordinary folk and what they think life is like in Amsterdam today, and whether those old enough, to remember the days before the drug law changes, feel things have gotten worse since the laws allowed soft drug possession, sale and personal use.
Amsterdam is dead against hard drugs. The government believed many new users, and existing soft drug users, would not progress to harder drugs if soft versions, like grass and hash, were freely available and decriminalised to a degree. In Amsterdam, large quantities of hash or grass, above 30 grams on a person, and above 5 grams sold in a cafe, is still illegal.
The idea in Australia, (and in the USA, Britain etc), is that contact between illegal drug dealers and the drug user, will possibly bring that person into contact with harder drugs, although this was not my experience, as coke and heroin dealers were always separate from dope dealers.
In fact, back in my 'hey day' in the seventies, it was rumoured that a deal was struck between the crims and crooked cops, so every Christmas they would conspire to dry up the grass and hash, (busting crops etc) and then they would flood the market with smack, (heroin).
So far in Amsterdam, at least statistically, I have seen that the soft drug user population has not increased much, but the average age of the users is getting older.
The real problem seems to be, as Morgan points out, the growing use of meth-amphetamine, which is seriously damaging the mental health of users, even in the very early stages of their use of this drug group.
Such damage is usually permanent, medicos are now finding out, as it has been around long enough for them to follow long term use case studies. "Rave Parties" have produced some terrible incidents where severely dehydrated party goers, on methamphetamines, have compounded the problem with severe dehydration, leaving some people seriously brain damaged, just from one night's dose!
Obviously a blanket decriminalisation will not work, (especially mental health wise), so we MUST try and rid the markets of methamphetamine in particular, if possible, and I see the only way to do that is to decriminalise soft drugs use, (hash and marijuana), thus freeing up the various agencies, of both legal and medical disciplines, to deal with the hard drug areas.
As for Damo and Raven's comments, of course it does seem like we are opening up a Pandora's box, however, I counter that with this, what we have is NOT working, and it is getting worse.
In Amsterdam, again by statistics, dope smokers are not a problem for the community. The speed users, heroin users and the alcohol users certainly are, same as they are in every community.
In closing, the gaoling of these users is of no value whatsoever. We should gaol the big dealers however, and put them away for a very long time. In fact, charge them with manslaughter if a 'client' dies would also be a good idea, and no parole!
But for small time dealers who are supporting their own habit, and their user addict clients, they are victims of their addiction.
I know, I was a drug user, and knew many people who dealed dope over the years, some were even friends. They did it so they could have some free dope for themselves.
I was too scared to be a dealer, besides, I knew I would probably smoke it all before I got to sell any!!.
Addicts need help, some more than others, depending on the drug and their stage of addiction.
Importantly, there is a difference.
Again, I think if a parent of young children is found to be using hard drugs, they should be severely disciplined legally, and the children returned when the parent(s) is two years clean and sober.
On that point I see, instead of gaol, which does nothing really for the addict as drugs are freely available there anyway, that they need to be placed in a gaol specifically designed for drug rehabilitation.
The term of internment should be long, as many addicts have huge issues that they will need a long time to deal with, so they may achieve a solid, lasting sobriety. It should be both AA (Alcoholics Anonymous) and NA (Narcotics Anonymous) based, coupled with medical/psychiatric treatment.
Only with common sense and compassion do we have any chance, at all, of bringing those who have harmed themselves, or others, to a sense of responsibility and totally committed sobriety.
cheers all, and have a lovely sober weekend...hehe!
I know I am going to...tee hee!!
fog
| 70 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
and id just like to mention the campaigns linking how child abuse victims suffer from drug addiction and homelessness later in life . . . as a society, preventing the misery that leads people to drugs early in life may be better in the long run that only treating the adult addicts
Comment by tlcorbin
Stopping the use of recreational drugs isn't possible, all that can be done is to take the mystic from it. That may help reduce it's lure as a forbidden fruit.
Raven
Comment by Mountain Fog
Infognito
Screen Trek
QUOTE ME NO QUOTES!
thanks and yes, I agree wholeheartedly, that we need to focus on the early years of development, with a rational, objective and psychologically balanced approach, to intervention and treatment of the young.
Prevention is always better than cure.
However, we also need strategies to help the perpetrators readjust to a normal behaviour, and I do not see this being achieved in gaols.
Hampering developing a more effective campaign is the knee jerk reaction by politicians, who pander to the 'lock em up' brigade, which is also the least costly and sadly the least effective. Politicians just make their hollow, voter pandering, TV sound-bite remarks, instead of committing the finances necessary, to seriously and scientifically study child abuse and its origins.
I see it as a psycho-medical problem. It is certainly a grotesque and unpalatable area, however, if we as a community continue to play the same cards, in the way we have dealt with it so far, we will get the same bad results.
I see this area, of abuse, as needing social/psychiatric treatments for both victims and perpetrators, in properly designed medical facilities, if we are to have a chance of eliminating the problem.
cheers
fog
Comment by Mountain Fog
Infognito
Screen Trek
QUOTE ME NO QUOTES!
yes, those are some wise words you type!
You would think, by now, governemnts would have worked this out. However, one must be aware that there are powerful, yet subtle and furtive forces at work, within our governments and their agencies, to keep it all illegal.
Sadly, there is just too much money in it.
cheers
fog
Comment by Damo
The rest of the world could carry on without them and see who lives longer.
That way we satisfy both groups.
The druggies get what they want and non-druggies are free of druggies.
Win-win.
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
Comment by Damo
Comment by Mountain Fog
Infognito
Screen Trek
QUOTE ME NO QUOTES!
Dammit...I NEVER made it to Nimbin!!!
I made plans, for the annual harvest festival, many of my pals did, and all had a ball...or they think they did, as no one can remember a damn thing about it, except for the first day, lining up with lots of others outside one of the cafes, (or originally just one cafe I think), and buying an ounce of pure A grade head (marijuana), for $20-, and that was the top price, for lesser strengths, you paid $10- to $15-.
The cops in those days would not hassle anyone, except if you created a nuisance.
Those were the days!
cheers
fog