Connect with us

Health & Society

Does Removing Criminal Penalties for Drug Use Lead to More Drug Use?

Published

on

The debate over drug use legalization has gone on for years, with little progress being made towards a compromise that meets the interests of all sides.

On the one hand, some people support the idea of completely legalizing all drugs or, at the very least, decriminalizing them. However, if drugs are legal, it’s pretty safe to assume that more people will use them since they will be more accessible and won’t carry such a negative connotation. If the goal is to create a drug-free society, it doesn’t seem that making drugs more accessible is the right way to go.

At the other side of the spectrum, some people support the idea of continuing with the existing system, which is to criminalize people for using drugs. However, almost 50 years of War on Drugs policies have completely failed to reduce drug use in America with drug statistics worsening each year, not improving. Meanwhile, the criminalization of drug addiction has resulted in a bloated criminal justice system and the largest prison population in the world.

The goal, of course, must be to reduce drug use and help addicts get better, not criminalize them. But it is unlikely that the current approach or a blanket legalization approach will accomplish this goal. It may be possible that a compromise could create a better state of affairs. Such a system would decriminalize drug use to some extent while still leaving certain penalties in place that would act as incentives for addicts to seek treatment.

Perhaps the solution is neither 100% legalization nor 100% criminalization, rather a carefully constructed system that utilizes some penalties for transgressions while consistently supporting, encouraging, and insisting on treatment.

Analyzing Both Arguments

Some evidence suggests that legalizing cannabis led to more cannabis use in the states that legalized it. Further, some evidence also suggests that the use of other drugs, such as opioids, also went up in states that legalized them. Granted, opioid use has been going up across the nation, which makes it impossible to ascertain if the surge in opioid abuse in those states is the effect of cannabis legalization.

People who oppose legalization also argue that drug use and crime go hand-in-hand. However, this side of the argument is likely nullified in a proposed world where all drugs are legal. Still, drug use is immensely harmful no matter the legal context, and even if drugs were legal, addicts would still suffer, people who use drugs would still die, and addiction would still ruin families.

Conversely, some evidence suggests drug decriminalization and/or legalization makes treatment more available for addicts, reduces drug use, significantly reduces the stigma associated with addiction, and shifts the public focus regarding addiction to one of addiction being a health issue, not a criminal inclination. With the goal being the treatment of addiction and the recovery of those who suffer from drug abuse, a more compassionate and health-oriented approach to addiction would be a beneficial development.

Unfortunately, in places in the U.S. where decriminalization or legalization have been piloted, there have been mixed results at best. The most recent example is in Oregon, which just released disappointing statistics on drug addiction, treatment, and overdoses following one year of drug decriminalization in that state. Summarized, the state did not experience the uptick in addiction treatment or the downward trend in overdoses that it was hoping decriminalization measures would bring about.

It’s almost certain that a program that does not incarcerate drug users yet which compels them to seek treatment would be the ideal compromise. Such an approach would still put forth the notion that drug use is not okay, but it would do so from the perspective that addicts must seek treatment and get better. It would be a compassionate yet firm approach.

Perhaps leaving some penalties in place but altering or lessening them if treatment is completed is the best route possible. It walks the middle ground and neither legalizes drugs nor normalizes their use, nor does it criminalize people for having an addiction. In Oregon, the recent ballot measure to decriminalize drugs seems not to be working because there was no incentive put in place to compel addicts to seek treatment if apprehended. Rather, an approach like Oregon’s model but with a better system for directing addicts into treatment may be the answer.

Programs that Lead to Treatment and Recovery are the Answer

It’s important to have a nuanced discussion about how, on the one hand, heavily criminalizing addiction is not the correct answer, but neither is blanket legalization with no programs in place for helping addicts, and neither is merely incentivizing treatment as a part of the repercussions of using drugs. Rather, a compromise that reduces criminal penalties for drug possession and use while compelling those apprehended with drugs to seek treatment is likely a better approach.

Perhaps the most workable solution would be to set up diversion programs that could send drug offenders to treatment, rather than prison. Such a model has been implemented with some success in places like Seattle, Washington and Baltimore, Maryland.

Addiction is not a problem that goes away, even for those who try very hard to stop using drugs. If you know someone who is using drugs, please do everything you can to get them help.


References:

  • https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2784528
  • https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1903434116
  • https://drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/DPA_Fact_Sheet_Portugal_Decriminalization_Feb2015.pdf
  • https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radical-drugs-policy-is-working-why-hasnt-the-world-copied-it
  • https://apnews.com/article/health-business-europe-oregon-salem-158728e57e1d48bc957c5b907bcda5f5
  • https://leadkingcounty.org/
  • https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/bs-md-ci-drug-diversion-program-20170206-story.html

Reviewed an edited by Claire Pinelli; ICAADC, ICCS, LADC, RAS, MCAP, LCDC

Article first published here.

Author

Health & Society

EU treading Dangerous Waters: The Perils of Psychedelics in Therapeutic Use

Published

on

The European Commission is getting ready to review citizens’ proposals and one controversial idea on the table is the ‘PsychedeliCare’ initiative that supports the exploration and implementation of psychedelic treatments for mental wellbeing issues. Advocates of this initiative highlight the advantages of using psychedelics in addressing mental health concerns; however it’s crucial to carefully assess the consequences of making these substances mainstream for therapeutic use, it already happened with way too many “pharma products” and end up being dangerous street drugs, as this is what they actually were from the beginning.

The Illusory Promise of Psychedelics

Supporters of this “therapies” frequently promote these substances as amazing remedies for profound mental health challenges like depression and anxiety disorders such as PTSD are regularly highlighted by them in support of their claims. However, these early research findings are willfully misinterpreted and exaggerated. The “positive outcomes” observed in limited research studies do not automatically translate to safety and effectiveness across wider and more varied demographic groups, often the contrary. Throughout history the fascination with a quick fix for mental health issues has often resulted in disappointment and harm, if not death.

A Lack of Comprehensive Understanding

The insufficient scientific knowledge about psychedelics raises concerns within the community as the intricate workings of the human brain remain a mystery when influenced by these substances. There are risks such as psychological distress and worsening of preexisting mental health conditions that make it unthinkable to integrate psychedelics into mainstream therapy practices at all. It is crucial to acknowledge the variations in individual experiences and biological compositions to prevent unintended harm rather than aiding in treatment efforts.

Regulatory and Ethical Concerns

The push for government endorsement of psychedelic therapies raises numerous ethical questions. Should substances with known psychoactive properties be part of mainstream health care? The regulatory environment surrounding these compounds is fraught with challenges, including ensuring quality control, standardizing dosages, and preventing misuse. With the legalization movements in various regions, the potential for recreational abuse expands, risking public health and safety.

Historical Context and Social Implications

Looking back, the late 1960s and early 1970s were marked by a psychedelic counterculture that resulted in societal turmoil and increased drug abuse. The legacy of this era still looms large; many young individuals romanticize psychedelic use without regarding the severe consequences that accompanied its earlier popularity, including addiction, mental health crises, and a societal disregard for safety protocols.

A Dangerous Precedent

By calling for a more prominent role for psychedelics in treatment protocols, the advocates of the ‘PsychedeliCare’ initiative may unintentionally set a dangerous precedent. Replacing established, evidence-based treatments with unproven psychedelic therapies could detract from the very real progress made in mental health care. It could shift focus away from holistic approaches that consider lifestyle, therapeutic counseling, and medication tailored to individual needs.

Conclusion

The debate surrounding the ‘PsychedeliCare’ initiative should prompt a vigilant and cautious examination of the implications of endorsing psychedelics as treatment options. While there is a critical need for innovative approaches in mental health care, rushing to embrace unproven therapies poses significant risks. It is paramount that we prioritize rigorous scientific scrutiny, ethical considerations, and the well-being of individuals over the allure of quick solutions. The only clear path forward is one grounded in proven therapies, comprehensive research, and unwavering commitment to public health.

Author

Continue Reading

Health & Society

Why chocolate should not be given to dogs

Published

on

Chocolate is a favorite delicacy for people, but for cats and dogs it is a real poison, writes the magazine ” Sciences et Avenir” and explains why pets should not be “pampered” with chocolate under any circumstances.

For them, chocolate is toxic, because it is not properly absorbed by their body. This is due to the alkaloid theobromine, which is contained in cocoa and therefore in chocolate.

The substance becomes dangerous to health when large amounts of it are stored in the liver. About 12 grams of theobromine are contained in dark chocolate, twice as much in milk chocolate, and very small amounts in white chocolate.

Theobromine does not harm humans, as the human body manages to break it down quickly.

However, it takes 20 hours for dogs to get rid of this molecule. It can build up in their liver and cause poisoning if large amounts of chocolate are ingested at once.

Among the symptoms are vomiting, diarrhea, rapid pulse, convulsions.

The same is true for cats. However, they are less attracted to chocolate than dogs because they cannot taste sweets with their tongues, although there are exceptions.

In addition, pet obesity is the subject of a number of educational campaigns aimed at owners.

A court in North West England has banned a British man from keeping pets for the next 10 years because his Dalmatian became too fat. wrote the English tabloid “Sun” in November 2009.

40-year-old man John Green, a resident of Macclesfield in Cheshire, showed extreme irresponsibility towards his dog Barney and fed him chips and chocolate.

Thus, in just three months, it became several times fatter than normal for its breed and reached 70 kg.

Green was tipped off by alarmed, vigilant fellow citizens.

Animal control officials warned Green that his dog’s health was in danger and recommended that he be put on a diet.

However, he did not follow the recommendations and the dog continued to gain weight.

The Dalmatian was eventually removed from his owner’s home in June and put on a diet in a private kennel, where staff made sure he got enough exercise.

As a result, Barney, who is eight years old, lost 40 kg.

Green pleaded guilty to causing his dog unnecessary suffering, but the court found some mitigating circumstances because the man treated Barney more like a friend than a dog and did not realize he was harming him.

That’s why Green was only sentenced to 200 hours of community service and to pay £780 in costs.

Illustrative Photo by Glenn: https://www.pexels.com/photo/high-angle-photo-of-a-corgi-looking-upwards-2664417/

Author

Continue Reading

Health & Society

Russian Orthodox Church calls on mass culture to abandon ‘images promoting alcoholism’

Published

on

On the occasion of the Day of Sobriety celebrated in the country today, the Russian Orthodox Church called on mass culture not to promote alcoholism, TASS reported.

The agency recalls that the All-Russian Day of Sobriety is celebrated on the initiative of the Russian Orthodox Church on September 11 to remind people of the harm caused by alcohol. On this day, in some parts of Russia, the sale of alcohol is limited or completely prohibited.

“The culture of attitude towards this is very important. There are many “nice jokes” about alcoholism in our everyday culture. There is nothing good about that. We know what the state of intoxication leads to. Those who deal with mass culture should make an effort that the image of the “dear drunkard” should still leave our mass culture,” said the head of the synodal department of the Moscow Patriarchate for Church Interaction on the sidelines of the St. Petersburg Forum of United Cultures with society and media Vladimir Legoida.

Asked whether it would be appropriate to ban or restrict the sale of alcohol across the country, he said “that would be wonderful”. “But it is important that people do this consciously, independently, not because someone is forcing them, and also that there is, as it is customary to say, a public consensus,” he stated.

Legoida noted that the category of “sobriety” is important for the church in general, which refers not only to abstinence from alcohol.

Meanwhile, during a press conference dedicated to the All-Russian Day of Sobriety, Russia’s Deputy Health Minister Oleg Salagai said that alcohol abuse can reduce a man’s life expectancy by six years and a woman by five years.

“The systemic measures that were adopted allowed us to really reduce alcohol consumption. Today, it can be confidently said that Russia is not one of the most drinking countries in the world,” said the deputy minister, who pointed out that in 2023 alcohol consumption in the country was about 8.4 liters per person, while at the beginning of the century the indicator was in double digits.

Illustrative Photo by EVG Kowalievska: https://www.pexels.com/photo/selective-focus-photography-of-assorted-brand-liquor-bottles-1128259/

Author

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2023 EuroTimes

Exit mobile version