The problem with american's prison systems

[Gilgamesh]

(25-04-2016 02:21 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  

(25-04-2016 02:13 AM)Gilgamesh Wrote:  I can't find sympathy for those who act solely for immediate pleasure and then find themselfs regretting it only after they are faced to reap what they've sown, which is the story of every addict I've known.

So you've never know one who was fighting depression, anxiety, or other untreated psychological problems? Lucky you...

My statement still holds true whether I have or not.. and I have. What addict doesn't identify as being depressed or anxious? No shit you're depressed; you're addicted to a substance that is destroying your body, mind, assets, relationships, aspirations and prospects. Whether they turn to substance abuse to cope with mentall illness is irrelevant to the fact that their own agency ultimately decided to risk it.

You reap what you sow. Initially turning to using the substance, for whatever reason, is the sowing part; Living as an addict to that substance is the reaping part. Nobody just becomes an addict instantaneously. At some point they made the conscious decision to use, before being addicted yet, knowing full-well what using can lead to. They wagered they were above addiction. They lost that wager. I'm not going to sympathise with that.

(Note: of course I acknowledge that there are instances in which an addict literally has no clue that their substance had addictive properties, and that my reasoning wouldn't apply to them.)

[EvolutionKills]

(25-04-2016 02:56 AM)Gilgamesh Wrote:  

(25-04-2016 02:21 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  So you've never know one who was fighting depression, anxiety, or other untreated psychological problems? Lucky you...

My statement still holds true whether I have or not.. and I have. What addict doesn't identify as being depressed or anxious? No shit you're depressed; you're addicted to a substance that is destroying your body, mind, assets, relationships, aspirations and prospects. Whether they turn to substance abuse to cope with mentall illness is irrelevant to the fact that their own agency ultimately decided to risk it.

An agency affected and colored by their depression or other psychological issues.

(25-04-2016 02:56 AM)Gilgamesh Wrote:  You reap what you sow.

People with genetics that offset their brain chemistry are not at fault for their genes.

(25-04-2016 02:56 AM)Gilgamesh Wrote:  Initially turning to using the substance, for whatever reason, is the sowing part;

So context doesn't matter? Your argument would hold up if we had a entirely free and robust mental health services widely available to the public and such services and the afflictions they treated weren't culturally stigmatized. But that's not the world we live in, now is it?

(25-04-2016 02:56 AM)Gilgamesh Wrote:  Living as an addict to that substance is the reaping part. Nobody just becomes an addict instantaneously.

Nobody chooses to be dependent upon a substance either. That's why it's an addiction.

(25-04-2016 02:56 AM)Gilgamesh Wrote:  At some point they made the conscious decision to use, before being addicted yet, knowing full-well what using can lead to.

You simply cannot know that. Vicodin or morphine abuse can start out simply as not being careful enough with medications or a desire to relieve otherwise chronic pain. It's possible for people to be exposed to drugs unknowingly. Someone who takes a hit of ecstasy at a rave probably isn't planing to become addicted, do cocaine, or get raped; even though those are all possibilities, even if you swapped out the ecstasy for alcohol. People also have different physiologies, and what might have no affect on one person can lead to a seriously painful physical addiction in another.

Addiction can happen with a single dose, intentional or otherwise.

(25-04-2016 02:56 AM)Gilgamesh Wrote:  They wagered they were above addiction. They lost that wager. I'm not going to sympathise with that.

So you have no empathy?

(25-04-2016 02:56 AM)Gilgamesh Wrote:  (Note: of course I acknowledge that there are instances in which an addict literally has no clue that their substance had addictive properties, and that my reasoning wouldn't apply to them.)

Oh good, a single caveat. How magnanimous of you.

[onlinebiker]

(24-04-2016 02:59 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  SYZ,

Just curious, would you prefer that alcohol be illegal?

It is kind of silly ---

I've yet to see somebody go home on Friday, toke up some reefer for a couple hours and then beat the shit of his wife and kids..................

Alcohol on the other hand.............................................

...

[Gilgamesh]

(25-04-2016 03:54 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  

(25-04-2016 02:56 AM)Gilgamesh Wrote:  My statement still holds true whether I have or not.. and I have. What addict doesn't identify as being depressed or anxious? No shit you're depressed; you're addicted to a substance that is destroying your body, mind, assets, relationships, aspirations and prospects. Whether they turn to substance abuse to cope with mentall illness is irrelevant to the fact that their own agency ultimately decided to risk it.

An agency affected and colored by their depression or other psychological issues.

(25-04-2016 02:56 AM)Gilgamesh Wrote:  You reap what you sow.

People with genetics that offset their brain chemistry are not at fault for their genes.

(25-04-2016 02:56 AM)Gilgamesh Wrote:  Initially turning to using the substance, for whatever reason, is the sowing part;

So context doesn't matter? Your argument would hold up if we had a entirely free and robust mental health services widely available to the public and such services and the afflictions they treated weren't culturally stigmatized. But that's not the world we live in, now is it?

(25-04-2016 02:56 AM)Gilgamesh Wrote:  Living as an addict to that substance is the reaping part. Nobody just becomes an addict instantaneously.

Nobody chooses to be dependent upon a substance either. That's why it's an addiction.

(25-04-2016 02:56 AM)Gilgamesh Wrote:  At some point they made the conscious decision to use, before being addicted yet, knowing full-well what using can lead to.

You simply cannot know that. Vicodin or morphine abuse can start out simply as not being careful enough with medications or a desire to relieve otherwise chronic pain. It's possible for people to be exposed to drugs unknowingly. Someone who takes a hit of ecstasy at a rave probably isn't planing to become addicted, do cocaine, or get raped; even though those are all possibilities, even if you swapped out the ecstasy for alcohol. People also have different physiologies, and what might have no affect on one person can lead another to a seriously painful physical addiction in another.

Addiction can happen with a single dose, intentional or otherwise.

(25-04-2016 02:56 AM)Gilgamesh Wrote:  They wagered they were above addiction. They lost that wager. I'm not going to sympathise with that.

So you have no empathy?

(25-04-2016 02:56 AM)Gilgamesh Wrote:  (Note: of course I acknowledge that there are instances in which an addict literally has no clue that their substance had addictive properties, and that my reasoning wouldn't apply to them.)

Oh good, a single caveat. How magnanimous of you.

Seperating two paragraphs into many more single quotes is not conducive to goal-oriented discussion. If you were actually trying to understand what one is thinking, rather than getting hung up on finding 'gotcha' points, you'd be seeing less gotcha points. For example:

"An agency affected and colored by their depression or other psychological issues" doesn't sit at odds with that which you directed it at. It doesn't even expand upon my thoughts; I acknowledged mental illnesses influence right there already. You failed to follow the logical struture of that paragraph, which was contending the opposite of mental illnesses influence on agency being relevant at all.

"People with genetics that offset their brain chemistry are not at fault for their genes" if you were actually trying to understand what was said, this wouldn't have been here either. Again, it doesn't sit at odds with anything I said. When you include that sentence with what follows, it's very obvious that it's not referring to genetics. Hell, even if my post ended there it wouldn't imply such - unless you think mentally ill people have no agency; that their illness affects their actions directly without any mediating ego. I mean that's retarded but it seems to be where you're going.

Aand it is:
"So context doesn't matter? Your argument would hold up if we had a entirely free and robust mental health services widely available to the public and such services and the afflictions they treated weren't culturally stigmatized. But that's not the world we live in, now is it?"
My argument is that human agency, no matter how shit its context is, is the ultimate deciding factor in any non-forced substance use. Unless something/someone is physically enroaching upon a person, he is the cause for putting substance in himself. That's fact. Context influences disposition, and disposition influences action, and even still it is fact. And it's fact even when the social services are shit.

We are too far removed in worldview that its fruitless to have an exchange on certain things. Judging from your rhetoric thus far, I'm sure you won't be convincing me of anything, here; nore will I you.

So as a final say on the matter: Too much bleeding heart liberal bullshit/10. Sometimes it's just as simple as people having problems that they themselves are responsible for man.

[BnW]

(24-04-2016 07:52 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  

(24-04-2016 03:50 PM)BnW Wrote:  I'm ok with an approach similar to what Portugal did.

If you're ok with drug decriminalization then we really don't have much to argue about.

You don't like to read past the headline, do you? You're like an evangelical, immune to argument and facts, and this issue is your religion.

[Worom]

(24-04-2016 02:54 PM)SYZ Wrote:  

(24-04-2016 12:25 PM)Mittens Deluxe Wrote:  It's not a matter of whether or not I think drugs are safe, I do not advocate the use of drugs.

I'm not quite sure of your stance on this. Firstly you say that all illicit drugs should be decriminalised, and that people should be free to use whatever drugs they choose without any sanctions from other people or the legal system.

But now you say you're not advocating the use of drugs. "Advocating" means supporting or being in favour of, recommending or promoting.

And I find it ludicrous that you see unrestrainedly using illicit drugs in the same light as eating Maccas or drinking Coke. Have you ever known anyone to overdose on hamburgers and soft drinks?

Quote:Not to mention the drug war has FAILED and cost us billions of dollars and not kept drugs out of the hands of people.

Citation please.

Quote:I'd also wager that prescription drugs are just as dangerous, but those are legal.

Uh... yes and yes. What's your point?

Quote:Opiates are killing people and that's an epidemic in America.

Citation please.

Quote:Do you want to ban Pharmaceutical companies too?

I have no idea what you're suggesting here? Pharmaceuticals save—literally—millions of lives every year all across the planet. Prescription drugs were involved in 315 deaths investigated by the Victorian coroner’s court in 2014, according to the International Medicine in Addiction conference in Melbourne last year. This compares with just over 2,025 deaths due to illicit drug overdosing in 2015, putting Australia 7th in the world listing (the US is 3rd with 60,865 deaths).

I noticed that I didn't see any sourced posted in the thread to answer your questions so here we go

Drug war was designed to target African American and low-income communities
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nixo...640a6bbda1

This one is about increasing cartel violence, every time a leader is taken out it just makes things worse and doesn't solve the core problem.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/13/world/...pikes.html

80-90% of people who use drugs do so moderately without becoming addicts
http://www.rawstory.com/2014/09/neurosci...-is-wrong/

1 Trillion dollars spent on drug war and it's an abject failure.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/06/opinion/br...-on-drugs/

And last but not least some data on the U.S. Opioid epidemic
https://www.drugabuse.gov/about-nida/leg...drug-abuse

[Thumpalumpacus]

(24-04-2016 08:02 PM)Banjo Wrote:  

(24-04-2016 11:48 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  End the drug war?

Why?

So even more people will get addicted to meth and neglect, abuse, or kill their own kids? So even more people can become junkies and become full blown losers? So even more people can walk around picking scabs on their face, robbing people to buy more drugs?

No. Give anyone caught with drugs life in prison after the 3rd offense. I'm fine with marijuana but fuck the rest of them.

"The war on drugs" is a propaganda/media ploy. You can read the history here.

He's a cop. His very career relies on the "war".

You may as well lob spitballs at a battleship for all the honest consideration you're going to get from him.