I don't know COH. The entire thing is a mess. Check this out. We've had 7 overdose deaths in less than a week. Two apartment buildings. This isn't really the hood either, it's Stl so not great, but Central West End is probably the best part of the city - certainly the neatest.
fox2now.com
Slouching towards Dystopia.I don't know COH. The entire thing is a mess. Check this out. We've had 7 overdose deaths in less than a week. Two apartment buildings. This isn't really the hood either, it's Stl so not great, but Central West End is probably the best part of the city - certainly the neatest.
7th person dies from suspected overdose in Central West End
The death toll has now climbed to seven from an apparent lethal strain of fentanyl in St. Louis.
transformdrugs.org
Very interestingIn 2001, Portugal decriminalised the personal possession of all drugs as part of a wider
re-orientation of policy towards a health-led approach. Possessing drugs for personal use is instead treated as an administrative offence, meaning it is no longer punishable by imprisonment and does not result in a criminal record and associated stigma.1 Drugs are, however, still confiscated and possession may result in administrative penalties such as fines or community service.
Whether such a penalty is applied is decided by district-level panels made up of legal, health and social work professionals, known as ‘Commissions for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction’. Where an individual is referred to a Commission for the first time and their drug use is assessed as non-problematic (low risk), the law requires their case to be ‘suspended’, meaning no further action is taken. Fines can be issued for subsequent referrals. Where some problematic trends are identified (moderate risk), brief interventions are proposed — including counselling — but these are non-mandatory. In ‘high risk’ cases, where more serious problematic behaviours and dependence are identified, individuals may receive non-mandatory referrals to specialised treatment services.2
In the vast majority of instances, problematic drug use is not identified, and cases are simply ‘suspended’.3 Individuals referred to the Commissions overwhelmingly view their purpose as helping to reduce use and educate on drug risks.4 They are non-judgemental in nature, and a primary focus is safeguarding the right to health of those referred.5
Importantly, the decriminalisation of personal possession is only one part of broader health-centred drug policy reforms that involve an increased focus on harm reduction and treatment provision.6 By ‘accepting the reality of drug use rather than eternally hoping that it will disappear as a result of repressive legislation’, Portuguese reform allows drugs to be treated as a health, rather than criminal justice, issue.7 The benefits of these reforms, therefore, arise from both decriminalisation itself and the establishment of a wider health-based response to drug problems.
Portugal was not the first country to decriminalise some or all drugs, and it has not been the last.8 However, it is one of the most prominent and influential. The Portuguese model directly influenced the 2020 decriminalisation measure passed in Oregon, for example, as well as proposed decriminalisation in Norway.9 Portugal is regularly held up as the leading example of drug decriminalisation, so understanding the outcomes is vital.
Drug decriminalisation in Portugal: setting the record straight. | Transform
Are their stats on violent crime rates in Portugal the last 20 Years? This quick look shows it to be down as 2018 vs. 2001. Obviously not the whole picture. And there is some spike years mixed in. However it doesn't seem to be some dystopian hell scape that some here think it would be.In 2001, Portugal decriminalised the personal possession of all drugs as part of a wider
re-orientation of policy towards a health-led approach. Possessing drugs for personal use is instead treated as an administrative offence, meaning it is no longer punishable by imprisonment and does not result in a criminal record and associated stigma.1 Drugs are, however, still confiscated and possession may result in administrative penalties such as fines or community service.
Whether such a penalty is applied is decided by district-level panels made up of legal, health and social work professionals, known as ‘Commissions for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction’. Where an individual is referred to a Commission for the first time and their drug use is assessed as non-problematic (low risk), the law requires their case to be ‘suspended’, meaning no further action is taken. Fines can be issued for subsequent referrals. Where some problematic trends are identified (moderate risk), brief interventions are proposed — including counselling — but these are non-mandatory. In ‘high risk’ cases, where more serious problematic behaviours and dependence are identified, individuals may receive non-mandatory referrals to specialised treatment services.2
In the vast majority of instances, problematic drug use is not identified, and cases are simply ‘suspended’.3 Individuals referred to the Commissions overwhelmingly view their purpose as helping to reduce use and educate on drug risks.4 They are non-judgemental in nature, and a primary focus is safeguarding the right to health of those referred.5
Importantly, the decriminalisation of personal possession is only one part of broader health-centred drug policy reforms that involve an increased focus on harm reduction and treatment provision.6 By ‘accepting the reality of drug use rather than eternally hoping that it will disappear as a result of repressive legislation’, Portuguese reform allows drugs to be treated as a health, rather than criminal justice, issue.7 The benefits of these reforms, therefore, arise from both decriminalisation itself and the establishment of a wider health-based response to drug problems.
Portugal was not the first country to decriminalise some or all drugs, and it has not been the last.8 However, it is one of the most prominent and influential. The Portuguese model directly influenced the 2020 decriminalisation measure passed in Oregon, for example, as well as proposed decriminalisation in Norway.9 Portugal is regularly held up as the leading example of drug decriminalisation, so understanding the outcomes is vital.
Drug decriminalisation in Portugal: setting the record straight. | Transform
I don't have an answer to that, but will note the exact same problem exists with everything. Do you want nuclear power? Do you want a reactor across the street? A coal powered plant? A prison? But there are people living near all those.
No, those things do not need to be built across the street. We have quite a bit of open land where you could place those items. Now, will there invariably be some people nearby? Yes, you need workers. However, by it's very nature, a free needle and pipe clinic has to be near people.
Honestly if they built one of these centers where I live it would predominantly be used by white people between teh ages of 18-50 who likely come from middle class to upper middle class families. So the argument of "do you want this kind of thing (drug injection site) in my neighborhood" would be muted. I doubt crime woudl skyrocket or the area would become run down, etc. The community wouldn't allow it. I mean, Brainerd needs his photo ops to look good after all.
But don't you think the residents of poor inner-city areas want addiction addressed? I have no idea if this will work, it may well not. But I think all Americans have a vested interest in seeing drug addiction reduced and it seems that arresting our way out of it hasn't been entirely successful.
Something setup on Wall Street might attract a lot of 20-somethings with seven-figure incomes. I could see neighborhoods fighting for one.
Is there any proof that these places reduce addiction? From what I have read, they seem to be more focused on trying to reduce other health issues surrounding addiction as opposed to reducing the addiction itself.
This is not a white or black thing. It is a "do you want a drug addict magnet in your neighborhood". Carmel is not bringing that in, you and I both know that. We also both know that people get picked up for drug use in Hamilton County on a rather regular basis.
Talk to me about the methadone clinics that mcm was highlighting earlier in the thread.
Drug addiction is very often a byproduct of mental and emotional health issues coupled with physical dependency. It's very fashionable to talk about the mental health crisis in this country and demand that we be better about addressing it, but it doesn't seem like it's very fashionable (yet) to actually do things to address it.
I thought they require counseling, but no, I don't know if they do. But even reducing AIDS is worth doing, see Pence doing free needles as governor (and it was a good thing).
Translation = that's way more of a detailed, informative, and thought-provoking post than we are used to here at the Cooler. I'm going to need a minute to process that and I suspect in that time that hoosboot will come in and give me shit, but that's just a cover for him not being able to intelligently respond yet either.
I"m not saying it's a black/white thing. But if these centers were to be community based, that's what it woudl look like in Carmel. And, to your point, Carmel probably wouldn't even allow it.
LMAO it's so much more than what we're used to here that I may take a permanent pass on it. I need this to be akin to Twitter where I can read fast and respond fast otherwise it interferes too much with work. But it is interesting, and particularly to me as I have a good buddy from Portugal who is on our group chat and a wayyyyyyy far lefty. He refers to Portugal often. I always wonder, and in particular in response to that good post, how much we can learn and adopt (best practices type stuff) from a small, homogenous place like Portugal. Or is it really just apples and oranges
I've seen Delray. And I've seen medicinal pot dispensaries in Bangor and other places and I disagree Lars. You get more people loitering around than a dentist's office.... I'm not saying that's a disqualifier, but I do believe it to be the case
Well I think we're going to need Indiana to legalize so we can do our own research....
Yeah I'm guessing that will never happen. One thing Indiana sucks at.
Sam Kinison had a great line about the Betty Ford Clinic. The Betty Ford Clinic is ten grand a month! If you still have ten grand you don't have a drug problem!
Hey, what's that the libs here always say about the unvaccinated dying? Darwinism?
Don't worry. The pressure of their policies and administration is getting to them. Did you see Marv lash out this morning? It's only a matter of time now....
Yeah, Mr. Reasonable was getting down in the gutter with the rest of us.
Hahahaha. I think he has a ways to go before he can take up residency with the rest of us
There was a poster who hung around here who was an expert on the habits of crack whores....I just can't recall the handle....
What do you want me to talk to you about them. Again, hate on what I am saying all you want, nobody wants a crack pipe dispensary in their neighborhood. The program is to hand out crack pipes because of the unclean nature of the ones that junkies fashion for themselves and the inherent diseases that come along with that nastiness. I don't see anything that says, "we are controlling your drug intake and we are forcing you to try and get clean" it just appears to be, have some pipes and watch some diseases associated with dirty crack pipes disappear.
But not HCQ or Ivermectin, right?
