Xylazine is not an opiate and has its own withdrawal effects. Also people are often not well educated on drugs or even know what is in the drugs they take. It is an adulterant and it is a street drug, so switching to 'another opiate' without an adulterant in it isn't going to be easy. Even pills are fake nowadays.
There is absolutely no valid reason we can't treat people with suboxone, which will allow them to maintain their addiction without getting high. However it needs a prescription and doctors usually won't just prescribe it to addicts, especially for extended time periods.
This could all be 'fixed' if people didn't have a subconscious need to make people 'pay' for doing things they feel are wrong.
A good example of this is when I got a complete workup done by a liver specialist, having been a very hard drinker earlier in life. Upon telling a close family member that everything came up fine and there were no lasting effects they commented 'that shouldn't be right' as if I had cheated society somehow by not having health consequences for being an alcoholic.
> There is absolutely no valid reason we can't treat people with suboxone
You're absolutely 100% right about this. This should be the first part of any treatment, to make it easier to separate the druggie from the drug camp and then come off, if possible, at a reasonable time as decided on by them and their team. This is one of the cores of the Portuguese system, to use some drugs to wean people off the dangerous ones.
> This could all be 'fixed' if people didn't have a subconscious need to make people 'pay' for doing things they feel are wrong.
I know some people like this, but I see more people saying this in that we shouldn't forgive the violent and non-drug related crimes people committed while resisting being removed from the streets. They don't want them not treated, but they want them jailed instead of released once they're clean. It's hard to argue - I've personally helped two old female shopkeepers chase thieves out of their store. Threatening and obviously disrespectful and non-needs related thieves too, not someone simply trying to take a bottle of water and food.
>they commented 'that shouldn't be right' as if I had cheated society somehow by not having health consequences for being an alcoholic.
That's not my interpretation of it, which is that "that shouldn't be right" refers to an unexpected outcome given the assumptions, rather than some sort of sense of justice being violated.
> There’s people creating drugs that turn people into zombies
Because there is no safe, above-ground supply chain for those drugs with actual quality control and penalties for contaminated supply.
> there’s people taking drugs where they don’t even know what’s in the drugs
It's not like those addicts have a choice of walking into a pharmacy and being able to buy a safe drug manufactured by a reputable pharma company with a datasheet of exactly what's in it.
Both of these problems are caused by the stupid "war on drugs".
I doubt most addicts would have the means to buy high quality substances. And of those who had, some may still chose the cheaper street stuff. And this is where society often is asked to pick up the bill. With guaranteed payment out of tax dollars the pharmacy company producing the substitute now has an incentive to get people on it. The problem will never be solved but now it is even more expensive. This is a misallocation of tax money in my opinion.
Singapore doesn’t seem to have a huge drug problem, and they went all in on what you call “the war on drugs”. So maybe there is a winning strategy there, at least for Singapore?
What works for Singapore works for Singapore; the US is a very different country. As for the failings of the "War on Drugs" in the US, these have been well documented by multiple levels of social research.
1) there will always be demand for drugs, thus fulfiling that demand legally will reduce the harm caused by low-quality/tainted drugs, the side-effects of the underground drug trade (violence, weapons smuggling and gangs branching out into other crime) and can be offset by taxation (as long as the total price including tax is still lower than what the black market offers).
2) existing users who are addicted can't just quit cold-turkey, they will need a certain dose of the original drug or an adequate medical substitute for a period of time - that dose can be lowered over time as part of a recovery/rehab program but cutting those users off forcibly will hurt them physically and force them to seek out black-market sources.
You are misunderstanding my point. It isn't 'let them have all the drugs they want', it's 'what do we do when they want to stop'. It would be easy to give them access to drugs that allow them maintain their addiction, even for the rest of their lives, with no withdrawals (for the opiates, anyway).
Even without that, the process for getting clean is not easy. You can't walk into a hospital with withdrawals and expect to be admitted -- unless it is alcohol or benzos they won't do anything at all for you.
We should as a society stop saying 'they chose their fate' and instead give them options for a softer landing when they decide that they had enough.
What the bible says and how christendom are observed to behave are very, very different things.
While I'm sure you could point out this is true for other beliefs, they aren't being followed by virtually everyone in government where this is happening.
I somewhat agree with your point - there is a lot of Old Testament morality going around - enough being spouted from various confused people (especially in the US, where your point may be truer) that it then confuses the antis into attacking Christians on the spurious grounds of eating shellfish or whatever.
Not to mention he became co emperor of the universe and got to go back and hang out with his dad / self.
I can't imagine crucifixion feels good, but this "sacrifice" pales in comparison to what the parents of CMH recipients endure; let alone what the recipients themselves did to save their friends.
They knew they risked death and torture with no foreknowledge they would be worshipped by billions for all eternity.
> Perhaps you'd like to attack Judaism instead, but that isn't as fashionable, is it
Judaism (as a religion) is largely unconcerned with the behaviour of non-Jewish people. The "gentiles" are not expected in any way to follow the laws of the old testament, and also don't benefit from doing so in any way
Well, the Noachide laws at least. Sorry, comment wasn't aimed at Judaism, more that Christianity explicitly overturned the concept of atonement so the original comment could literally be no more wrong.
This is obviously not true - or at least, not true across the board. There might be some that don't do punishment.
But... we have places like the Salvation Army that would rather have folks die instead of giving a trans person shelter and help.
There are abusive homeless shelters peppered across the US, some of which have forced church, forced drug classes, and forced work. Some of these will take away your possessions or turn away a man with children because the shelter that allows children has a strict "no man" policy.
Right this very moment, people are passing laws to ban trans folks and take rights away from queer people in general.
It doesn't really matter what you think the point is, it obviously either isn't shared or doesn't show in people's actions. There are plenty of examples of christians actively doing harm in real time.
It really isn't "obviously untrue". I can't speak for the Salvation Army but they need to examine themselves if they aren't unconditionally offering help to those in need.
I appreciate that I'm in danger of doing a "No True Scotsman" fallacy here, but my original point stands. This is evidence of a lack of the core precept of Christianity.
It doesn't really matter what you think the core precept of Christianity is. It is great if you practice differently. I know some people do try to be kind.
As I said, "At least it isn't true across the board".
It is very obvious that folks aren't unconditionally offering help to those in need, using the banner of Christianity to justify it. And to justify homophobia, racism, misogyny, and a slew of other things.
And what I've seen very little of is other folks speaking out. I see folks protesting comprehensive sex ed and birth control, while these shelters (and others) get no pushback.
Do better if you want views like this to change. Be loud and help folks.
The original point was about a desire for drug users to "atone" for their behaviour in order to get help. It's utterly unchristian, literally flies in the face of the core Christian value.
There are a bunch of noisy people in the southern states of the US who don't understand why the Old Testament is included in the Bible. It's a huge problem, and it's showing up in this conversation.
The thing is that so much atrocities has been done under the banner of Christianity that it delutes the good people who seem honestly committed to the core value “love your neighbor”
Often that tenet is being absolutely debased by making it “love your neighbor, except if he is gay, trans, woke, liberal, communist, black, fill in the blank”
Jesus himself proclaimed “love god and love your neighbor” to be the core and heart of his teaching, yet instead you have people fighting over the stupidest things in the bible just to be “right”, creating tons of denominations that make no sense at all.
If Jesus values are just, they should be universal values. And his core teaching does echo tenets of reciprocation.
> yet instead you have people fighting over the stupidest things in the bible just to be “right”, creating tons of denominations that make no sense at all.
Isn't that what we want? People laying our their reasoning and their ideology on paper, and leaving a parent group whose actions they can't condone? This is the calling them out. Compare and contrast to ideologies and areas where people who published these opinions would be killed for their heresy.
No doubt many/most of the sects are stupider than what they broke away from, but sometimes, critically, they are vastly superior. I'm not religious but for example I can recognize the value of Martin Luther's reformation.
I see where you are coming from. I think the distinction is either whether to look at it from an ideological or core tennet perspective or a more political/ organizational perspective.
So arguing from the second perspective the problem with the breakaway reformations we have seen is that they often tend to deal with the “true scotsman” fallacy, where they double down on rules and regulations in the bible just to be worthy and a “true” Christian, sometimes coupled with a “holier than thou” attitude. (Obviously generalizing centuries of history here)
Instead of the movement to a more universal “love thy neighbor” seems a more fitting approach, if it’s truly universal as Christianity claims.
> the problem with the breakaway reformations we have seen is that they often tend to deal with the “true scotsman” fallacy, where they double down on rules and regulations in the bible just to be worthy and a “true” Christian ... Instead of the movement to a more universal “love thy neighbor” seems a more fitting approach
It feels that's exactly what you did though. Pick a favored feature and declare that people not doing it predominantly that way are wrong.
> if it’s truly universal as Christianity claims.
Even if they believe that you should love the sinner I don't see where their traditions say they should lay down and let themselves be victimized because they can't regulate people they "love".
> “true” Christian, sometimes coupled with a “holier than thou” attitude. (Obviously generalizing centuries of history here)
Those centuries of history led to here, where in a country founded largely by Christians on Christian principles, you're allowed to say you don't think any of them are doing right. And you and I - total heathens, receive no threats, no hate.
I like to focus on your first remark, in order not to digress too much, I was raised in a Christian environment and even got some affirmations in them, and I had a few teachers who studied theology. Only later I left that environment as I became an adult.
“Love thy neighbor” is not just a favored feature, it’s the pivotal commandment that Jesus himself stressed after being asked “ One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
As how we should execute that command is a different discussion I feel, and what kind of societal impact it would have. So my core argument is that this commandment hasn’t always received the proper adherence (imo)
I think both of you are right. Core concept of christianity is universal love, just like all other religions regardless what mass media make you believe.
But all of them fall pretty damn hard when meeting reality of (heavily) flawed humans, who ride most of their lives much more on emotions rather than being rational. So we have folks like Mother Theresa refusing help to people with leprosis because suffering is good and brings you closer to christian God (kind of pointless for hindus), or due to refusing to convert to christianity. How can such a person be celebrated is beyond my understanding, even ignoring those millions of dollars that disappeared under her management, that is kind of tradition in nonprofits.
I've seen personally horrible treatment by self-entitled people very deep in christianity, considering all others unworthy beings and treating them as such. Those tend to behave in very subpar manners while shroudinging themselves in righteousness that goes against the core principles of any religion, and rather stand as an insult to it.
Or to put it in a different way, if existence would end according to christianity heaven would be pretty empty place, most people are failing 10 commandements pretty hard (since sins are sins and they stand through the times, no priest has any actual right or ability to manage those, so plenty of rituals are utterly pointless if you think about them a bit).
Religions are weird, simple great core ideas consistently twisted into obscure made up rules and absolutely pointless power structures. Always go against personal responsibility, critical thinking, and are hopelessly beyond modern morals. Maybe enough for simpler minds but mental gymnastics that smart people have to constantly do to stay true believers while accepting modern science understanding is quite a burden, and most fail there
Are non-religious homeless shelters any better/worse? Obiously not all christians are saints and not everyone who calls himself a christian follows christ.
Most homeless shelters that I'm familiar with are in the US, and most of those are Christian. I really couldn't tell you. I stopped hearing so much about them when I moved to Northern Europe. I don't know if it is a language barrier, the culture, or if they are better.
I'm not going to distinguish between the folks that "follow christ" and who does not - many are going to claim it and I'm not really willing to engage some of these folks to see if they are "true" or not. Living in the US, there wasn't a big outcry against folks discriminating. You were told to just be normal. Don't be gay. (I'm bisexual). In the 90s and before, a lot of folks used it to justify outright racism. And there isn't enough outcry now or then.
Granted, this isn't just Christianity. But I'm not going to give Christianity a break because they aren't special when folks are glossing over the harms.
> Are non-religious homeless shelters any better/worse?
Well, I have worked with organisations here that originated from the communist party (in a Western country without a "complicated" history with communism) and they just don't discriminate at all. Not even against people who might be "not poor enough" to actually need them. It seems to me quite better indeed than Christians denying help to trans or gay persons.
Ah, well each new brand of communism comes with its own group of people who are more equal than others. It seems to always turn into some sort of horror story eventually, once they get free rein to implement their utopia. I would view that with a strong dose of skepticism.
Name one. One single such law. The proposed laws are to return to enforcing sex-based policies. Males weren't welcome in female washrooms, sports, shelters, or prisons before but were forced in by the intentional conflation of identity with physicality.
If you mean bills enforcing no drugging or surgery of minors, well we're being assured that doesn't happen so the laws obviously don't matter.
> and take rights away from queer people in general
Again, name one. What right?
There's a lot of conflation going on, claiming parents want to ban drag shows when they want to ban all sexual shows - burlesque as well - in public places where children might go. Nobody is coming for the drag queens, etc.
But, thank you for being clear that you're talking about TQ+ laws and rights, instead of tying them to LGB sex-based rights as if the rainbow is monolithic in politics. Lesbians face street violence for saying that lesbianism is female and demanding the right to male-free spaces.
You're already living in it, killer. Caffeine, for example, is a pretty powerful stimulant. Ditto for nicotine.
Alcohol is everywhere. Alcohol consumption correlates heavily, like crazy heavily, with assaults, rape, murder, domestic violence, accidents, and serious or fatal car crashes.
Weed is now legal or legal-ish in many places, essentially all of the big population centers in N. America. Edibles and vapes mean you don't even have to smell it.
And let's not forget all of those articles about SV wunderkunds "micro-dosing".
The addicts that the OP was discussing have serious withdrawal issues and are, compared to things like booze or marijuana, trivial in terms of overall population.
They're already doing it. At least this way they won't have as many horrible skin ulcers. The situation is inhumane.
Consider the principles from another perspective. The leading causes of death in the US are diabetes, heart disease and obesity related conditions. Should we prohibit fast-food franchises, TV dinners and sedentary lifestyles?
As you said, "Do you want to live in an obese society?"
Logically, opposing prohibition isn't the same as endorsing obesity or drug abuse. There is an important distinction here.
It's the world we already live in. Continuation of the war on drugs mentality just leads to horrific outcomes like the one being discussed. And those outcomes have a wildly outsized impact on people who were born into unfortunate circumstances.
It impacts us all as members of society. Adulterated drugs are killing US addicts in record numbers.
There is a direct social cost in terms of health care, law enforcement, crimes committed to obtain drugs, fallout from broken families resulting in further dysfunction and more.
Then there is also the unseen cost of lost productivity. If users, deceased users, imprisoned users, distributors, deceased distributors, imprisoned distributors, and law enforcement personnel were not engaged in these activities, their efforts could be focused on more productive areas of the economy. We all pay for this policy socially and economically.
Same concerns about anti-depressants, which commonly make you unable to cry, have sex and are associated with increase frequency of mass shootings and suicide?
Why would they be cheaper? Lab quality would require lab grade testing and safety, and lab grade ingredients, not to mention taxes on recreational drugs are usually astronomical.
And I doubt it would be easier to get either since they're unlikely to hand out an unlimited quantity to anyone who pays for it even if it were legal.
1. You can buy shopping carts full of alcohol at one time if you want. I've watched people purchase thousands of cigarettes in one purchase. Having essentially unlimited access to addictive drugs wouldn't be out of the social norm.
2. I think some drugs would become cheaper, and other drugs would become more expensive. Drugs with limited supply would become cheaper as more production/supply chains open up. Think cocaine, heroin, and some pharmaceuticals without large overseas labs. There are inefficiencies in the illegal drug trade that legal trade could smooth over as well: better payment methods, more open price negotiations, legal settlement for disputes, reduced employee churn from violence/arrest, reduced bribes/corruption related charges.
3. Regardless of the price of drugs, the overall price would be smaller, as illegal drug use has huge externalized costs. Everything from corrupt governments to increased health care utilization to wasted law enforcement resources to destroyed human capital.
4. The existence of an available quality tested market would force the black market to compete more on quality.
You do know that xylazine is an adulterant? It is put in there because it is tough to get cheap heroin and fentanyl tends to kill their client base a lot faster than tranq.
Tranq is cheaper because it is available for animals, and not 'seizing and destroying something while putting the people who possess it in prison' is a great market force for lowering prices.
Ergo, don't criminalize heroin and tranq stops appearing in it.
Industrial small-molecule chemistry is extremely efficient. All of these drugs could be produced by the kiloton for small amounts of money if that was the objective. It would not require anything special.
We already see this with alcohol. Most liquor is tarted-up industrial ethanol, delivered by train tankers to the bottling plants, with some marketing and branding wrapped around it. Industrial ethanol is very inexpensive to produce, around $1/liter; the price of consumption alcohol is downstream of excise taxes and branding.
Cost is not a relevant factor. We can produce all of these chemicals for so little that it is a rounding error. This is a matter of policy.
