Drugs at Dance Parties

[Deleted]

People are idiots and think "That's them and not me... I would never get addicted!" and other such bullshit... People don't just start doing drugs one day like "I definitely want to get addicted, here I go!"

And most users don't get arrested for their drug use and if they do it is usually a misdemeanor or nothing at all for first offenses. The users that go to jail usually have large quantities or multiple offenses.

Like I said, right now the only deterrent is the risk of addiction we hammer into people... A deterrent that has done nothing to stop people from getting into drugs and alcohol.

So as he asks, what do you actually want to do? Hilarious out of proportion prison sentences like you already have? Because clearly that's working.

Stop stigmatizing the drugs so hard and inform people correctly instead of just trying to scare them. Hasn't worked in decades and it never will.

[Acidbaron]

People are idiots and think "That's them and not me... I would never get addicted!" and other such bullshit... People don't just start doing drugs one day like "I definitely want to get addicted, here I go!"

And most users don't get arrested for their drug use and if they do it is usually a misdemeanor or nothing at all for first offenses. The users that go to jail usually have large quantities or multiple offenses.

Like I said, right now the only deterrent is the risk of addiction we hammer into people... A deterrent that has done nothing to stop people from getting into drugs and alcohol.

Drug use that leads to drug abuse is generally caused by underlying issues of the person. Drug addiction is something that is build up over time and a whole lot more complex and something i'm not going to delve too deep in for that reason beyond simply stating that addiction is not tied to how intelligent you are. It's a bit of a stereotypical image.

In any case to answer on your suggestion for me it's far to intrusive, it will again put people on lists, damning them again further pushing them out of society, you don't aid anyone in a hopeless situation by driving them further into the ground, that's something that belongs in hollywood movies and is not realistic.

Beyond that i find that such an idea is too much "1984" for me, far too much big brother. to build even further on what i said above people with a criminal record have already a harder time to get work, this would apply also to drug users and i don't even want to start of how poorly government protection of such information is, so such lists would become public.

Would you think a person that is not only sick also put a big label around them? That person will be lost to society completely and it's that sort of ideology why the US healthcare system is in such a dire state as it is. Also don't forget the cost of not such tests and also enforcing it will always far greater exceed the cost of support for the simple reason you're pouring money into a bottomless well as has shown from the 80's stigmatization does not work.

So again IF JAIL DOES NOT WORK TAKING AWAY WELLFARE WONT WORK EITHER SINCE LOSS OF FREEDOM IS A MUCH BIGGER DETERRENT THAN MONEY.

[ParanoiD84]

Drugs are/where very common on partys here, ghb, extacy, amphetamine, cocaine etc etc. When at techno partys it's all over the place. Id say cocain is what most clubbers use today, like normal folks.

Should add that I've been to tons of raves/techno party's and festivals around the world and never seen someone die, I've lost friends to heroin though. Sure you have heard about people dying from media after on stuff like roskilde festival but there is hundreds of thousands of people there and still only like one or two deaths from drugs.

[I Push Buttons]

Drug use that leads to drug abuse is generally caused by underlying issues of the person. Drug addiction is something that is build up over time and a whole lot more complex and something i'm not going to delve too deep in for that reason beyond simply stating that addiction is not tied to how intelligent you are. It's a bit of a stereotypical image.

In any case to answer on your suggestion for me it's far to intrusive, it will again put people on lists, damning them again further pushing them out of society, you don't aid anyone in a hopeless situation by driving them further into the ground, that's something that belongs in hollywood movies and is not realistic.

Beyond that i find that such an idea is too much "1984" for me, far too much big brother. to build even further on what i said above people with a criminal record have already a harder time to get work, this would apply also to drug users and i don't even want to start of how poorly government protection of such information is, so such lists would become public.

Would you think a person that is not only sick also put a big label around them? That person will be lost to society completely and it's that sort of ideology why the US healthcare system is in such a dire state as it is. Also don't forget the cost of not such tests and also enforcing it will always far greater exceed the cost of support for the simple reason you're pouring money into a bottomless well as has shown from the 80's stigmatization does not work.

So again IF JAIL DOES NOT WORK TAKING AWAY WELLFARE WONT WORK EITHER SINCE LOSS OF FREEDOM IS A MUCH BIGGER DETERRENT THAN MONEY.

That is already the case.

Why do you think hardcore addicts congregate in crack houses and the like...? Are you telling me you look fondly onto meth addicts with their skin falling off and all their teeth rotted out?

Those people are already pariahs. The only difference between right now and what I suggest is we no longer provide them a means to maintain their lifestyle... Which after a while, would hopefully let would be drug users know that regardless of whether they get in legal trouble (which is highly unlikely), they forfeit society's protection should they ever need it... Something I would assume most people would not want to do...

---
Compare such a system to like Selective Service... All males in the US are legally required to register when they turn 18. If they don't they are breaking the law and could be prosecuted (likewise highly unlikely, pretty much impossible)... But they also forfeit access to some government benefits (like student aid, access to government jobs, etc...)

The vast majority of people register.

Would be male college students for example... I doubt most of them, any of them really, would want to get drafted and go fight in a war... They also don't care about the criminal risk of not registering since it is basically impossible for them to be arrested and tried... But they do care about student aid. The prospect of not being able to get government loans and go to college is what makes them comply...

[Deleted]

Maybe we should just let these pill poppers die . After all , It was there choice to take the drug

They are blocking medical treatment for people who have had an accident or medical emergency , which aint there own fault.

As long as you also ban anyone with sporting injuries or car accidents. After all its their choice to drive cars/play dangerous sports.

And lets ban stairs and trousers, as more people are killed/injured by them than drugs.

A lot of people on here seem very interested in banning things that do no harm to anyone but the individual themself.

[I Push Buttons]

As long as you also ban anyone with sporting injuries or car accidents. After all its their choice to drive cars/play dangerous sports.

And lets ban stairs and trousers, as more people are killed/injured by them than drugs.

A lot of people on here seem very interested in banning things that do no harm to anyone but the individual themself.

Indeed.

No one has ever been driving under the influence of mind altering substances and killed someone else.

[Acidbaron]

That is already the case.

Why do you think hardcore addicts congregate in crack houses and the like...? Are you telling me you look fondly onto meth addicts with their skin falling off and all their teeth rotted out?

Those people are already pariahs. The only difference between right now and what I suggest is we no longer provide them a means to maintain their lifestyle... Which after a while, would hopefully let would be drug users know that regardless of whether they get in legal trouble (which is highly unlikely), they forfeit society's protection should they ever need it... Something I would assume most people would not want to do...

---
Compare such a system to like Selective Service... All males in the US are legally required to register when they turn 18. If they don't they are breaking the law and could be prosecuted (likewise highly unlikely, pretty much impossible)... But they also forfeit access to some government benefits (like student aid, access to government jobs, etc...)

The vast majority of people register.

Would be male college students for example... I doubt most of them, any of them really, would want to get drafted and go fight in a war... They also don't care about the criminal risk of not registering since it is basically impossible for them to be arrested and tried... But they do care about student aid. The prospect of not being able to get government loans and go to college is what makes them comply...

You seem to think in absolutes and extremes, addiction manifest itself long before it becomes visible to the eye of the average person. Your suggestion would put those on a fast track from functioning addicts to homeless addicts. Seems to me you are only ever have been confronted with addiction in the form of the stereotype.

That system to me explain a lot. Once convicted in your nation you are no longer a human being but you are a lesser being, no wonder crime has manifested as it is, since it's all build around punishment once a criminal you are one your entire life even from young age, you forsake any and all rights. If i had to look up the US recidivism i would dare to bet that they are probably the highest in all of the western world.

As i wrote this i looked it up, holy shit. It is over 40%.

[I Push Buttons]

You seem to think in absolutes and extremes, addiction manifest itself long before it becomes visible to the eye of the average person. Your suggestion would put those on a fast track from functioning addicts to homeless addicts. Seems to me you are only ever have been confronted with addiction in the form of the stereotype.

That system to me explain a lot. Once convicted in your nation you are no longer a human being but you are a lesser being, no wonder crime has manifested as it is, since it's all build around punishment once a criminal you are one your entire life even from young age, you forsake any and all rights. If i had to look up the US recidivism i would dare to bet that they are probably the highest in all of the western world.

As i wrote this i looked it up, holy shit. It is over 40%.

What I have suggested only affects the extremes.

If you are a well to do person with your life together who is casual user or even an addict, nothing I have said would affect you... I have not suggested we just blanket drug test everyone... Just those wish to utilize the safety net programs.

And what does recidivism have to do with this? Sure, convicted felons are screwed and probably likely to offend again because of their record preventing them from getting on track... But I haven't suggested any criminal penalties, any convictions... I have suggested the opposite, legalize it all.

So its up to the individual, do they want the social insurance being a citizen of a welfare states offers them...? Or do they want to get high/drunk?

[Acidbaron]

What I have suggested only affects the extremes.

If you are a well to do person with your life together who is casual user or even an addict, nothing I have said would affect you... I have not suggested we just blanket drug test everyone... Just those wish to utilize the safety net programs.

And what does recidivism have to do with this? Sure, convicted felons are screwed and probably likely to offend again because of their record preventing them from getting on track... But I haven't suggested any criminal penalties, any convictions... I have suggested the opposite, legalize it all.

So its up to the individual, do they want the social insurance being a citizen of a welfare states offers them...? Or do they want to get high/drunk?

A person using under your suggestion would become a pariah the instant they needed to make use of aid in form of well fare. They would be categorized as a user regardless. If you can't see how that would lead to more troubles it's best to end this conversation here.

[falagar112]

Deterrents achieve the opposite when it comes to any form of drugs.

The war on drugs should have shown that by now?

My country has had a long history with drugs. Marihuana has been "legal" since the 1960s, most other drugs are illegal but as long as you're not a high end producer, it's kinda allowed too.

Dance parties here are full of people doing anything from GHB to XTC too. We also have people dying from said drugs. Mainly tourists. Why?
Is it the drugs? No not really. It's the random dealers on the streetcorners. You don't know what you're buying anymore. They might have mixed it with something dangerous. So people die.

Now the solution to this is just to legalize it all. Because if it's legal, it has to go through our "Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority" (FDA) to be sold. In other words, it will be checked for harmful additives.

This is also a big problem in our current Marihuana laws, where nothing is tested, and a lot of our coffeeshops sell really bad quality that you really don't want to smoke.

Just to emphasize how big this problem is:

[KrazyK923]

Legalize, and tax, most recreational drugs, and open up some public rehabilitation centers.

Problem almost entirely solved based on data from countries who have done things similar to this.

[I Push Buttons]

A person using under your suggestion would become a pariah the instant they needed to make use of aid in form of well fare. They would be categorized as a user regardless. If you can't see how that would lead to more troubles it's best to end this conversation here.

As I have said numerous times, they are already pariahs if they are so far along people know they are addicts. Nothing changes. I haven't suggested they wear an armband with a syringe on it or get a tattoo on their forehead that says "drug addict don't help"...

If anything such measures would actually move some people out of the so-called "pariah" status you keep mentioning... As you may or may not have noticed on this forum among the right-wingers... Utilizing safety net programs (welfare, disability, medicaid, food stamps, etc...) in and of itself is highly stigmatized in our country. The 'bootstrap' mindset people view anyone receiving any kind of handout as trash, bums, leeches, etc...

Such measures as I have suggested would allow those people (who represent a large portion of the country) to rest easy and lay off the hate of safety net programs knowing they weren't proving for addicts to keep being addicts... Something that obviously bothers them given Republican efforts several times in the past to drug test welfare recipients.

Though their reasons for doing so were to punish and shame welfare recipients (given such measures were suggested alongside lists of people on welfare to name and shame and other such nonsense) while my suggestion is simply to give people an incentive not to do drugs.

[Acidbaron]

As I have said numerous times, they are already pariahs if they are so far along people know they are addicts. Nothing changes. I haven't suggested they wear an armband with a syringe on it or get a tattoo on their forehead that says "drug addict don't help"...

If anything such measures would actually move some people out of the so-called "pariah" status you keep mentioning... As you may or may not have noticed on this forum among the right-wingers... Utilizing safety net programs (welfare, disability, medicaid, food stamps, etc...) in and of itself is highly stigmatized in our country. The 'bootstrap' mindset people view anyone receiving any kind of handout as trash, bums, leeches, etc...

Such measures as I have suggested would allow those people (who represent a large portion of the country) to rest easy and lay off the hate of safety net programs knowing they weren't proving for addicts to keep being addicts... Something that obviously bothers them given Republican efforts several times in the past to drug test welfare recipients.

Though their reasons for doing so were to punish and shame welfare recipients (given such measures were suggested alongside lists of people on welfare to name and shame and other such nonsense) while my suggestion is simply to give people an incentive not to do drugs.

Nope any form of use would classify the person as a user removing any rights they might have.

Anyhow as i said before if you can't see this and i also have no doubt that you don't know what addiction actually is, so i'm not going to go forward on this with you.

[falagar112]

As I have said numerous times, they are already pariahs if they are so far along people know they are addicts. Nothing changes. I haven't suggested they wear an armband with a syringe on it or get a tattoo on their forehead that says "drug addict don't help"...

If anything such measures would actually move some people out of the so-called "pariah" status you keep mentioning... As you may or may not have noticed on this forum among the right-wingers... Utilizing safety net programs (welfare, disability, medicaid, food stamps, etc...) in and of itself is highly stigmatized in our country. The 'bootstrap' mindset people view anyone receiving any kind of handout as trash, bums, leeches, etc...

Such measures as I have suggested would allow those people (who represent a large portion of the country) to rest easy and lay off the hate of safety net programs knowing they weren't proving for addicts to keep being addicts... Something that obviously bothers them given Republican efforts several times in the past to drug test welfare recipients.

Though their reasons for doing so were to punish and shame welfare recipients (given such measures were suggested alongside lists of people on welfare to name and shame and other such nonsense) while my suggestion is simply to give people an incentive not to do drugs.

Now would you share Marihuana on that list out of curiosity?

I ask because there are many people on welfare that smoke weed not because they are addicted to weed but because it's both a great natural painkiller (for those that are on welfare for legitimate physical issues, many use it for that reason, it's better then actual painkillers) but also a great stress reliever - for those on welfare that don't want to be on welfare and are stressed out every day trying to find a job.

I don't see how that is any different to the bank CEO doing a line of cocaine a day to get through the day. But that bank CEO wouldn't be affected by your "no welfare for users" regulation. The poor will.

That is why this wouldn't work, and is actually counterproductive.

On top of that, as people have said before. It's the countries where it's legal, where the least amount of consuming takes place. Netherlands is a great example. You can buy weed everywhere yet we have one of the lowest % of people using weed in Europe. It's not as exciting to the youth to start doing something that is already legal. As soon as you make it illegal it's those youth that do it. That's just kids being kids.

Our drinking law used to be 16 and up, they made it 18 and up a while ago. Drinking underage is suddenly an issue..

Rules and regulations are nonsense. Live and let live.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

Yeah.. I bet most drug abusers are on some sort of welfare right...?

For sure those going to a teenage dance club. I mean odds are they are so hood ridden and poor that mom and dad are collecting hardcore from the state. Right.. odds are more likely they are well to do or even rich kids just spending their parents money.

[falagar112]

Yeah.. I bet most drug abusers are on some sort of welfare right...?

For sure those going to a teenage dance club. I mean odds are they are so hood ridden and poor that mom and dad are collecting hardcore from the state. Right.. odds are more likely they are well to do or even rich kids just spending their parents money.

Speaking as someone who sees a lot of (hard)drugs being consumed around me on a daily basis - that is the biggest misconception ever. Leaving weed out of the picture (as it's cheap compared to the rest) - it's the rich people that use the most. And are best at hiding it... because they can afford it.

And when I say afford it, if you're on welfare, you really cannot afford this without supplementing your income. I've seen someone burn through a 200k inheritance in a little over 3 years of drugs/alcohol.

Most in my friends circle that use, own a house, are living together/married, have a good job... you would never say they are users because they don't look like one.

[primalmatter]

Long as they don't actively drug other people I could not care less if a person I don't know poisons themselves.

[Sail into the wind]

Music and drugs make up for an experience that is absolutely worth living for. And anything worth living for...

[Pipebomb]

People should not be afraid to go to the hospital or call an ambulance. I know organizations like MAPS will organize a tent at festivals for handling overdoses. Decriminalization and regulation is the best harm reduction option we have imo.

The war on drugs is NOT working. We can't even keep drugs out of prisons...

[Deleted]

Indeed.

No one has ever been driving under the influence of mind altering substances and killed someone else.

Driving under the influence is often illegal in most countries. Move along.