Is drug use still a taboo subject in the USA?

Olivia Martinez20 said:I assume you realize that not all drugs are addictive, right? 😕 Ecstasy, cannabis, amyl nitrites, PMA, ketamine, and so on are substances that don't necessarily lead to addiction. Making sweeping generalizations about drugs is dangerous if we actually want to have an accurate and informed discussion.

No, I really don't know... I don't use drugs, nor have I ever experimented with them... To me, all drugs are bad, and I have no desire to use them or even hear that one maybe won't be dangerous to me...

You seem to be speaking from the perspective (if I haven't misread you, sorry) of someone who has consumed and experimented with drugs and feels there's nothing wrong with it. If that's the case, then I'm glad you've only had positive experiences... But personally, I'd much rather avoid them altogether. As for the education you mentioned—perhaps adults could process it the way it's intended to be heard, but teenagers will simply cherry-pick the parts they want to believe rather than the whole truth. That is why I still maintain that the only kind of education that should exist is strictly focused on the harmful effects of drugs...

Noah Cook5 said:No, I really don't know... I don't use drugs, nor have I ever experimented with them... To me, all drugs are bad, and I have no desire to use them or even deal with the possibility that some maybe won't be dangerous to me...

Don't you think that such a massive generalization is exactly what prevents you from reacting appropriately? Surely you realize the world isn't just black and white. Personally, I find it deeply concerning when someone fails to grasp that certain substances are simply not addictive.

And please, spare me the response that you shouldn't need to know anything about this because you want nothing to do with drugs. Substance abuse isn't just an issue for those using them; it's a burden on society as a whole. I don't know if you're a parent, but if you are, I sincerely hope you recognize how vital it is to stay informed. If you aren't, I hope you'll see the necessity in due course. Perhaps by then, this sluggish government will finally understand how crucial it is to educate parents.

Noah Cook5 said:You're speaking from the perspective (if I've misunderstood you, my apologies) of someone who has consumed and experimented with drugs and believes there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

I believe my personal experience is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. I am speaking from the standpoint of an informed individual, and precisely how I obtained that information is secondary. One can learn a great deal through reading, by the way—you certainly don't need to inject something to become well-informed.😁

Furthermore, one learns quite a lot from discussions that aren't treated as taboo topics.😉

Noah Cook5 said:The education you're mentioning might be understood correctly by adults, but teenagers will only absorb the parts they choose to hear rather than the full picture; that's why I still maintain that the only education that should exist is strictly focused on the harmfulness of drugs...

Ah, but in that scenario, teenagers will simply cherry-pick the parts they want anyway, won't they? Or reject the message entirely. So, you haven't actually solved anything.

In my view, we shouldn't underestimate teenagers and young people by treating them with such paternalism—that "we know what's best for you" attitude. They are perfectly capable of determining what is good for them themselves, provided we offer them actual information and help them reach their own conclusions.

Such an approach is far more effective and, if you prefer, pedagogically sound.

Olivia Martinez20 said:I don't think we should underestimate teenagers and young adults by treating them with this patronizing "we know what's best for you" attitude. They are perfectly capable of making their own decisions if we simply provide them with the right information and help guide them toward their own conclusions.

That kind of approach is much more effective and, if you will, pedagogically sound.

I am speaking strictly from my own perspective—specifically, how I personally reacted to certain information during my teenage years versus how I would process that exact same information today...

I have personally dealt with the death of a friend due to an overdose... And honestly, I find it hard to believe that the sort of education you mentioned would have helped him; if anything, I suspect it might have just increased the number of people in my circle using drugs, thereby raising the statistical likelihood of tragic consequences...

And by the way, while we are on the subject of ecstasy, are you suggesting it doesn't leave any lasting negative impact on the human body at all?

Noah Cook5 said:I’ve personally dealt with the death of a friend from an overdose... and frankly, I don't believe the kind of education you're talking about would have helped him; if anything, I think it would just increase the number of people around me using drugs, thereby raising the likelihood of more tragic outcomes...

I am truly sorry you had to go through such a tragedy. 😢 😢

However, I remain firmly convinced that the type of education I am advocating for—which encompasses harm reduction for active users without being strictly limited to it—would have ensured your friend was at least still alive today through safer usage practices. It is my belief that your friend should not have died, and quite possibly, he wouldn't have even passed away if he were in a different country.

Noah Cook5 said:And by the way, since we are bringing up ecstasy, are you suggesting it leaves absolutely no negative impact on the human body?

Why are you suddenly assuming that is my position? I never stated that. While it isn't addictive, it certainly carries adverse effects, much like any other drug in the broadest sense of the word. I am well aware of the eight specific risks associated with ecstasy, one of which is death. What about you?

I am perfectly willing to discuss both the positive and negative consequences of drug use; for me, neither side is off-limits or taboo.

Olivia Martinez20 said:Why on earth are you assuming that's my intention? I never said that. It isn't addictive, though obviously, it carries harmful consequences just like any other drug in the broadest sense of the word. I am well aware of the eight risks associated with ecstasy, one of which is death. What about you?

I am perfectly willing to discuss both the positive and negative effects of drugs; in my view, neither side should be considered taboo.

That was simply the impression I gathered, though naturally, impressions aren't always accurate...

Personally, I'm open to talking about drugs—and one day, when I have children, I intend to talk to them about it too. I don't believe it needs to be a forbidden topic; rather, it’s all about how one approaches the issue.

But what exactly are the "positive" effects of drugs? Honestly, as far as I can tell, they don't exist, or at least I'm certainly not aware of them...

Olivia Martinez20 said:I guess you're drawing the wrong conclusion from that source.
It says here that only a tiny fraction of people being treated for drug use actually finished college. I don't guess that drugs are the reason they didn't graduate, though. To me, it just looks like the more educated someone is, the less likely they are to end up in rehab. The report shows that back in 2004, only 2.1% of those being treated had a degree. Some people might argue that the number is low because of age—like, older teens might be less prone to using—but I honestly think it’s just because they have access to better information.

Not really. I mean, with Google nowadays, getting info is basically instant. If you actually want to learn something, it’s never been easier. Those days when having information was some exclusive privilege for the elite? That's totally over. I guess the low number of college grads now just shows how priorities have shifted or maybe people just aren't as motivated as they used to be. And if your hypothesis is right—that most of them, like more than 50%, should just be left alone to live their lives and keep studying—then so be it.
There's actually another chart in that report showing the age breakdown. If I remember right, the biggest group of addicts falls between 25 and 35. That pretty much means their chances of finishing college are probably slim to none.

The whole point of this campaign isn't even about spreading info—if that was the goal, they would’ve missed the mark from day one. It's more about setting a certain vibe, or maybe just creating this non-committal atmosphere. Honestly, I never really cared much about this stuff, but reading through it now... I guess the campaign isn't even half as aggressive or dark or dramatic as it actually needs to be if it wants to reflect what's really going on.

Olivia Martinez20 said:And that’s exactly my point—it's always about the kids. Maybe just... chill? I don't know. Just relax. They don't really buy what they're being taught in school. I guess 62% end up doing the opposite anyway. The campaign SUCKS!

Alright, we've already been through that part. The issue is just way bigger than some single campaign. Especially when you look at all the stats—it's just one mild, benevolent campaign. 🙂

Olivia Martinez20 said:So, the whole point of this thread is basically how taboo this stuff is and just how bad the communication around it has become. I guess.
I mean, I’m just asking... why doesn't US Congress even have a competent enough committee to actually get things done? So, I was looking at this study on the risks of using cannabis for medical versus recreational purposes. I guess it's worth checking out.???

Look, it’s because I’m a taxpayer and I don't want my tax dollars going toward some government study that seems totally pointless. I mean, you could probably just Google the results in like two minutes anyway. OK?

Olivia Martinez20 said:Why isn't there more public debate here about where we actually draw the line on risk-taking? Like, alcohol and cigarettes are risky too, but they aren't banned. I'm not even talking about legalizing cannabis, I'm just talking about having an actual conversation about any kind of drug.

Public debates don't hurt anyone, true. Actually, we could probably use more of them.
Besides, we already touched on that point. If alcohol and cigarettes are just as harmful and drain the budget just as much, then the answer isn't raising the tolerance for drugs to match them—it’d probably be the opposite, lowering the tolerance for those two instead.

Olivia Martinez20 said:When the media discusses drugs today, like on International Fight Day (let's use cannabis as the easy example), why don't we talk about everything? The psychological stuff, reproduction issues, behavioral impacts, diseases it can trigger, the risks compared to smoking, cancer risks, cannabis and driving...

People do talk about it, it's just that you feel like the discussions are one-sided and unsatisfying. Again, I'd love to see a link to something that shows the other side of the coin.

Olivia Martinez20 said:We have to talk about drugs. I get the feeling the American public is ashamed or scared, and most of the time the government just looks the other way.
So, in our neck of the woods, parents have started taking matters into their own hands because the government isn't doing anything! The state offers these patronizing campaigns, a heavy hand when it comes to cracking down on small-time users, tiny budgets for scientific research, a bunch of constantly changing laws, zero local prevention measures within communities, no programs to educate parents (who honestly have no clue about drugs), and just a whole lot of nothing else.

Hear hear! I’m also all for a heavy hand when it comes to the big fish. You know, the ones tied to the top of the military and police. And prevention measures. Designed with experts, obviously. And a rule of law, too.

rapidheron said:The whole point of the campaign isn't information—if that were the case, the entire endeavor would have been fundamentally misguided from the jump. The actual goal is to steer public perception or, more accurately, to cultivate a non-affirmative atmosphere.

However, a significant number of other nations would strongly disagree with you. They operate under the conviction that true power lies in raw data, believing the emphasis should remain squarely on providing facts rather than manufacturing an atmosphere of disapproval, which simply fails to yield satisfactory results. We just saw the results of this latest "non-affirmative campaign" released today, and if we're measuring success by the numbers, we're sitting at a whopping 15%, aren't we?

The current legislation explicitly works to foster that negative atmosphere—we all know that such tactics are both prohibited and counterproductive. But if we simply repeat the same tired warnings in another campaign, we haven't actually moved the needle an inch.

Essentially, this legal framework fails to align with the evolving social consciousness of young people who lack the foundational information required to build their own perspectives; instead, these views are effectively forced upon them. If we double down on this heavy-handed imposition, we aren't going to achieve anything.

rapidheron said:If alcohol and cigarettes are just as detrimental and costly to the national budget, then the solution isn't to raise drug tolerance to match theirs; it’s quite clearly the opposite—we should be lowering the tolerance for those two.

But that is precisely what is unfolding right now—a massive wave of total bans on smoking in public spaces is gaining momentum. Yet, when it comes to deciding on such measures, we actually get a seat at the table; the debates are far more frequent, intense, and informed. When zero tolerance for drunk driving was being implemented here in the States, we had a legitimate public discourse. Regarding drugs, however, we simply don't see these kinds of massive public debates, and as a result, society fails to participate sufficiently.

That is why I cannot agree with your assertion that they aren't lacking. They are absolutely lacking, through and through.

rapidheron said:There is plenty of discussion happening; it's just that you seem to think these debates are one-sided and utterly unsatisfying. For the record, I would personally welcome a single link to anything that presents the other side of the coin.

And they are indeed one-sided, unsatisfying, and incomplete. Much like the approach to drugs in general.

There is never any mention of what specific steps are being taken to assist those who are already using drugs. Whenever the topic of drugs arises, the conversation is saturated with prejudice and sweeping generalizations ("all users are lost causes"—you see similar logic even in this thread). There are individuals who believe—partly due to their own choices and partly due to external circumstances—that one can become addicted to any substance. In the media, we are silent: why don't we have a hard-hitting investigative program addressing the massive failure of American policy regarding drugs given these dismal results?? Where are you, Hlo?? 😁 Where has the media's responsibility vanished to—the responsibility to call out those implementing national programs that produce nothing but failure?

rapidheron said:Because as a taxpayer, I have absolutely zero interest in seeing my already overburdened budget wasted on funding studies that strike me as utterly absurd—especially when you can find the results online in about two minutes. Got it?

Well, by all means, feel free to write a letter to the Senators and tell them they can just download everything from the internet instead!

I suppose those idiots wouldn't know what to do with that information anyway...🙄 😁

Olivia Martinez20 said:A ton of other countries don't see eye to eye with you. They think true power lies in the data itself—that we should be focusing on raw information rather than trying to build this non-affirmative atmosphere, which just doesn't cut it. It’s not getting us anywhere. I mean, they just released the results from that "non-affirmative campaign" today, and look how much we've achieved... a whopping 15%. Pretty great, right?

I mean, how is that even possible when compared to those other countries where addiction numbers are constantly dropping?

Olivia Martinez20 said:The law definitely creates this negative vibe—everyone knows that kind of stuff is banned and just wrong. But if they just hit us with the same old talking points in the next campaign, I guess we haven't really moved the needle at all.

Maybe "say no" just doesn't hit as hard as "quote this article from the Official Gazette," I guess.

Olivia Martinez20 said:The thing is, this legal stuff doesn't really line up with how young people actually think. They just don't have the right info to form their own opinions, so the rules basically get forced on them. If we start pushing things even harder, we're never going to get anywhere. And that’s exactly what’s happening right now—this massive wave of banning smoking in public places. I mean, we at least get a say when decisions like that happen; the debates are way more frequent, heated, and actually informed. Like, when the US introduced zero tolerance for drunk driving, there was a huge national conversation about it. But with drugs? We just don't have those kinds of massive public debates, and I guess society isn't really stepping up to participate enough.

Alright, I guess I could list a few facts about drugs that might help kids—and honestly, just regular people too—form a better perspective on things. There’s stuff out there that most folks don't really know.
Besides that, what’s actually the difference between a smoking ban or a zero tolerance limit, since you brought them up? The government already passed—or is about to pass—a regulation or law, and honestly, people can debate it all they want. It's just like it is with drugs.

Olivia Martinez20 said:It doesn't even say what we're actually doing to help, I guess. For those who are already using drugs. Whenever we talk about drugs, it’s just constant bias and generalizations. Like, everyone assumes all users are basically lost causes—you see that kind of stuff all over this thread. And then there are people who think—maybe because of their own views or just what they've heard—that you can get addicted to absolutely anything. I guess.

I guess... if everyone actually realized that only a tiny handful of drugs are truly addictive, maybe fewer people would feel like taking the plunge? I don't know. And look, we aren't even on the same page here—there's also the whole category of psychological addiction to deal with.

Look, if not everyone here is looking to be enlightened, then just go ahead and tell me straight—maybe I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the percentage of criminals among addicts isn't actually higher than it is in the rest of the population. Or that drugs aren't linked to crime, aside from the fact that buying stuff for yourself is technically breaking the law.

Olivia Martinez20 said:Well, maybe you should just write to the Senators in the US Congress and tell them they can take it off the internet then!!
I guess those idiots don't know any better...🙄 😁

Look, I don't really follow this stuff closely or anything, but even I noticed some research a few years back where they tested how cannabis oil might help people with MS—thousands of volunteers—and it turned out it didn't do much. Or like, just a few days ago, there was news on the Pfizer website about whether smoking marijuana is worse than cigarettes, and apparently, it is. So, I guess if someone actually cared, they could probably find plenty of info just by Googling published studies (not that I feel like doing that). The weight of that one specific study is pretty minor, honestly. And I'm glad our government isn't wasting taxpayer money on this kind of thing either.

I haven't had a chance to read through all the posts yet, so please, let me know if I start repeating myself.

I’ve always been totally fascinated by the Swiss model. Back in 1990, Switzerland had one of the highest rates of registered addicts out there—and you won't believe what the government actually did about it. They started handing out heroin to addicts. Seriously. They opened up centers where people could use under medical supervision. And the result? The black market for heroin just evaporated. RIP to the smugglers! I mean, why would an addict pay $100 a pop for a gram when the state is giving it to them for free? Another huge plus is that crime linked to drug use basically vanished. Just look at things here in the States—every other day someone’s breaking into a convenience store, robbing a betting parlor, or snatching a purse... it's constant. Third thing: overdose deaths pretty much stopped because everyone is injecting in those supervised centers under a doctor's eye. Fourthly, the number of addicts dropped by 80% by 2005 because using drugs wasn't "cool" anymore—it was treated like the actual disease it is. Part of the reason is that these centers worked systematically with users to help them kick the habit. I don't know how they handle other drugs in Switzerland, but I saw this on TV and was honestly floored by how deep they went into the issue and how much they actually achieved.
Around here, the people in charge of these issues definitely know about this model, but I don't think there's any actual will to do it. Why would there be? Everyone from the cops to the doctors is getting their own little cut from the sales.

I suspect some people here might actually agree with this study. Unfortunately, they’re just proving how little they really know about the subject matter... 😬

http://www.nytimes.com/news/science/drug_research_article_link

silentgull13 said:I didn't read all the posts, so let me know if I'm repeating stuff.

I was always pretty fascinated by the Swiss model. Back in 1990, Switzerland had one of the highest rates of registered addicts. And here’s what the government did. They started providing heroin to addicts. They opened centers where people could use under medical supervision. The result? The black market for heroin just vanished. RIP to the smugglers, I guess. Why would an addict pay $100 for a gram when the state gives it to them for free? Another thing is that crime tied to addiction almost disappeared. Look at how things work here—every other day someone hits a convenience store, robs a betting shop, or snatches a purse... Third, there aren't overdoses because people are injecting in those supervised centers with doctors watching. Fourth, the number of addicts dropped by 80% by 2005 because using wasn't "cool" anymore; it was treated like a disease. Part of that was because the centers actually worked with people to help them get clean. I don't know about other drugs in Switzerland, but I saw this on TV and was honestly shocked by how deep they went and how much they actually achieved.
Around here, I bet the people handling this stuff definitely know about that model, but I don't think there's any will to do it. Seems like everyone involved gets their own little kickback from the sales, from the cops all the way up to the doctors.

People were already talking about that model in another thread. Someone joked that if we did that, we might as well just start handing out cars and laptops to thieves, or giving cash to betting shop robbers, or giving politicians apartments and luxury vehicles (oh wait, we basically already do that).
The thing is, maybe only a wealthy country with a rock-solid social safety net can afford that. I mean, who would even fund it here? The same Medicare that can barely cover basic medical supplies in our hospitals?
Plus, based on what people are saying in this thread, addicts aren't really the ones behind petty crime anyway.😁

🙂

Look, it's not even the same thing. The people you're talking about are straight-up criminals, whereas the ones I’m bringing up are actually sick. You'd only be making a valid point if they were handing out drugs to dealers instead of addicts—and I mean under controlled conditions, too. There's a massive difference there.

And don't even get me started on how it's funded. You really think they're just burning through cash? Man, the government has enough drug money flowing in to bury us all.

Jeffrey Long said:http://www.nytimes.com/news/article/drug_trends_study,32747.jl

😁 😁

In my previous post, I refrained from attacking the subpar scientific standards of the CDC because I assumed my critique might be taken out of context.

However, once you read this article, any data coming out of the CDC effectively loses all relevance to a serious discussion if this represents the standard level of scientific understanding applied to drugs. To assert that watching a specific TV show or series increases the risk of drug consumption is nothing short of absurd. A correlation might exist, certainly, but there is absolutely no evidence of a causal link.

It is an absolute catastrophe that charlatans are the ones worrying about such a critical issue. 👎

Absolute disaster 👎 I’m already seeing two wannabe psychology students who ran a "study" and somehow stumbled upon these incredibly "innovative" findings. Honestly, my heart just goes out to the kids who are going to be under a microscope because some clueless parents read this garbage and decide they need to crack down just because they watch South Park.

I seriously don't get how they aren't embarrassed to be presenting this kind of nonsense—especially with the CDC backing it up.
Sure, there might be some vague hints—like, maybe people hitting up techno raves use more amphetamines than kids singing in church choirs—but if you want actual scientific proof, you need a damn rigorous study, not just a random assumption. Besides, I get the feeling there's less ecstasy at a warehouse rave these days than there is being peddled on street corners. So, this whole thing where they generalize and stigmatize an entire social group as being prone to drugs or specific substances is totally 🤮

rapidheron said:And how exactly does that square with those other countries where addiction rates are in a constant state of decline?

So, what exactly is that supposed to be—some sort of convenient excuse for our disastrous performance? Are we really meant to just blame it all on the invisible hand of globalization?

rapidheron said:Alright, let's lay out a few facts regarding drugs that I believe could actually shape a more informed perspective among our youth—details that the general public remains blissfully, or perhaps willfully, ignorant of.

I believe I have already provided several examples via links in my earlier posts that sufficiently illustrate exactly what kind of facts we are dealing with here.

rapidheron said:Look, I don't exactly spend my free time obsessively tracking these medical debates, but even I couldn't miss a couple of those glaringly inconsistent studies that have popped up lately. For instance, there was that widely publicized research from a few years back involving several thousand volunteers, which claimed cannabis oil could provide some sort of therapeutic benefit for people living with multiple sclerosis—only for the whole thing to fall completely flat. Then, just a few days ago, the Pfizer website published findings regarding whether marijuana use is actually less harmful than smoking cigarettes, and predictably, the results confirmed that it's just as bad.

Oh, naturally, though it comes as absolutely no surprise that these studies caught your eye—a situation for which the American media is entirely responsible, given their convenient silence on the matter:
Study Says U. S. study sees Cannabidiol Dramatically Inhibits Breast Cancer Cell Growth
Study Says U. S. study sees no marijuana link to lung cancer
Study Says U. S. study sees report Extract fra The cannabis Plant is able to Help heal cancer Marijuan Smokers faca Nicotine pot Smoking not major Lung Cancer Threat
According to the latest findings, an extract derived from the cannabis plant may actually possess the capability to assist in healing cancer.
It is an undeniable reality that marijuana smokers face nicotine addiction, a connection that many choose to ignore despite the mounting evidence. While much of the public discourse focuses on the perceived purity of cannabis use, the physiological overlap between these two substances creates a dangerous gateway for dependency. One cannot simply separate the habit from the chemical pull; the reality is far more intertwined than most people care to admit.

Why? Simply because our mainstream media refused to cover it.

Let’s be clear: I am not claiming that any single one of these studies is absolutely irrefutable, primarily because I lack the academic credentials to make such an authoritative judgment. However, the fundamental issue here is that reports of this nature are virtually non-existent in our domestic media landscape—they are being systematically self-censored. If a powerhouse like Reuters is picking up a story, why is the Associated Press choosing to ignore it entirely? When the global press is actively debating these findings, why is there such a deafening silence from the American media? Cannabis might be illegal, but for heaven's sake, discussing it shouldn't be a crime.

Drug use remains an absolute social taboo.

rapidheron said:If we aren't all going to pretend to be enlightened geniuses here, then why don't you just go ahead and confidently assert—with whatever peace of mind you can muster—that the percentage of criminals among addicts isn't actually higher than in the rest of the general population. Or perhaps you'd prefer to argue that drugs have absolutely nothing to do with crime, aside from the minor detail that purchasing them for personal use is technically a violation of the law.

Beyond being taboo, this argument is also heavily reliant on sweeping generalizations. 😠

Given the rising standards of living in America and the plummeting prices of narcotics, drugs have become increasingly accessible. You no longer need to pilfer cash from your mother’s purse to score some weed or candy, you don't have to break into cars for speed, and you certainly don't need to resort to prostitution for heroin— the image of "junkies hanging around the train station is a convenient, albeit hopelessly outdated, caricature of addiction.

Today's users are often successful professionals who have absolutely nothing to do with the criminal underworld (aside from their substance use), just like anyone else. Sakoman has made timid attempts to convey this message over the last few weeks, but he's struggling, even with the help of the Paol Valic project.

On a practical level, the link between crime and drugs exists because the American response to crime is inextricably tied to drugs and "addicts" who are treated as sub-human. The strategy is overly simplistic: crack down with a heavy hand and squeeze the supply. But if we actually want to reduce drug-related crime, the "heavy hand" approach is just as insufficient as neglecting prevention among the youth (which, I will reiterate, has seen a 15% increase in users this year) and failing to provide support (which usually amounts to turning a blind eye) and inadequate treatment (where instead of specialized facilities, American addicts are funneled into general psychiatric wards). In the US, incarceration still reigns supreme over rehabilitation as a primary response, even though treatment would ultimately save money since it is far cheaper to rehabilitate someone than to house them in prison.

On a theoretical level, while there is a consensus that a significant number of those arrested for various offenses are frequent users of illegal substances, the debate over whether drugs are truly the cause of that criminality remains unsettled.

There is research both in Australia and internationally which shows that a significant proportion of those apprehended for a range of criminal offences are frequent illicit drug users. However, whether drug use is a causal factor for crime continues to be debated.
link

I am not disputing that drugs and crime are linked. However, we haven't finished debating the nature of that correlation: does A cause B, does B cause A, or perhaps A and B share a common underlying cause?

Drugs and crime walk hand in hand. But so does watching TV and me falling asleep every night. That doesn't mean the television is the literal cause of my sleepiness.

Though, when it comes to networks like ABC... hm... 😁

rapidheron said:Besides, what exactly is the difference between a ban on smoking or a zero-tolerance policy when you mention them? The government passes a regulation or a law, and the public is left to debate it as much as they please. It's the same with drugs.

This is where we differ in our understanding of democracy. In a true democracy and a developed society, deliberation precedes legislation. In America, the ruling party dictates how things will be, and then the people can debate all they want... under the guise of "freedom of speech," naturally. 🙄

But let's not get too bogged down in such broad strokes.

rapidheron
I’m actually quite pleased that our government isn't authorizing the squandering of taxpayer dollars on such pursuits.

Hmm... looks like I've caught you slipping into political correctness again, putting me up 2:0. 😉

You seem relieved that the government isn't pouring money into researching a problem that doesn't personally affect you—or so I assume, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong—and you seem to believe the debate is already settled. But the reality is, the conversation hasn't even truly begun in America. To you, developing and maintaining a cohesive strategy—which involves systematic research and serves as a cornerstone of any national drug policy—is nothing more than "wasting budget funds." Apparently, America is far wiser than other nations, choosing not to waste cash on trifles. In other words, when it comes to drugs, you take a "stingy" approach; you wouldn't want to overspend or "waste" resources because you simply fail to see the point of the discussion in the first place. (My apologies if I've misinterpreted your stance, but that is certainly how it reads from your posts)

I hold the exact opposite view. I believe the drug issue is critically important and demands massive investment because it serves everyone's interest, especially since the situation in America is so dire. It is my firm conviction that we need to discuss this matter much more deeply and transparently at every single level of society.

Olivia Martinez20, seriously, props to you for having the patience and guts to write all this out.
Reading through this whole thread, I went from feeling super annoyed and pissed off to just finding some people here totally ridiculous. Now that I’ve reached the end, it actually feels kind of tragic, because it hit me that I’ll probably have kids one day, and they’re just going to be fed all this quasi-info and those "just say no" style campaigns that, honestly, I think just backfire. They’re so goofy it almost makes you want to light up a joint just out of spite, or at least to see what the big deal is. Maybe that stuff works on 4 or 5-year-olds, but once they hit school age, that approach is basically a lost cause.

Olivia Martinez20 said:Like, is that just some excuse for our terrible results? Blame it on the invisible globalization hand?

Nah, I mean, why would our campaign be worse than something in the West if their results are even worse? Why even follow that kind of strategy?

Olivia Martinez20 said:I think I mentioned a few examples (in links) in earlier posts that pretty clearly show what kind of facts we're dealing with.

Eh, giving a link is only half the info. Like, even you didn't really look at my link until we started arguing about it. I guess, if we're trying to have a real discussion, 😁 it wouldn't hurt to include a quick summary somewhere in the thread.
Here's me starting:

- most people don't realize that most drugs aren't addictive (which I don't agree with, like I said before, and I don't see how that helps anyone decide not to use stuff)

- marijuana isn't really the gateway drug anymore. Amphetamines pushed it out of that spot (OK, that's basically the same thing, maybe not super new, but whatever, it's clearer)

- the small-time crime side is mostly heroin and crack addicts, who are the toughest cases but actually a minority

- most addicts (okay, okay, I know you'll say they aren't addicts) today are actually addicted 😍 to amphetamine derivatives. There, useful info. Maybe you're right, a strategy could be built on stuff like that. Assuming the situation there is like ours, since this is from a BBC show you linked.

Olivia Martinez20 said:Oh, sure, and predictably you noticed (thanks to the American media staying quiet) these studies:

Yeah, that thing about lung cancer caught my eye, especially since the authors themselves said the study doesn't really matter, because unlike cigarettes, there aren't many joint chain-smokers.🙂

Olivia Martinez20 said:Today's users are just as successful as anyone else and have nothing to do with crime (besides using), just like everyone else. Sakoman tried shyly to get that message across lately, but he's not great at it, even with the Paol Valic project.

What kind of impact do they even have on the social system, prevention strategy, or campaign design? For that specific group, I'm honestly indifferent. Unless it's used as context for "here's why drugs aren't bad," which is basically just providing incomplete info.

Olivia Martinez20 said:But if we actually want to cut down on drug-related crime, reducing supply matters just as much as youth prevention (which, just so you know, saw a 15% spike in users here this year), plus support (which usually just means turning a blind eye) and treatment (instead of specialized centers, Americans are often treated in general psychiatric wards). In the US, jail still tends to be the go-to response over treatment, even though treatment actually saves money because it’s cheaper in the long run than locking someone up.

We've been talking about prevention forever and still haven't really landed anywhere. 🙂

I guess the thing about specialized centers might work. Probably give psychiatrists some breathing room too. Just don't really get how that ends up being cheaper.

Olivia Martinez20 said:On a theoretical level, even though there's a consensus that a huge number of people arrested for various crimes are frequent illegal drug users, the debate over whether drugs are truly the cause isn't settled. Drugs and crime are linked, I'm not arguing that. But we haven't finished the discussion on what kind of correlation it is: does A cause B, does B cause A, or maybe A and B share the same root cause?

Well, out of those three, it seems least likely that someone takes drugs just so they can commit a crime.
But whatever, that specific level of crime isn't even that interesting, and honestly, we've pretty much covered that already—it's not a big mystery. It obviously comes down to the environment people grow up in.

Olivia Martinez20 said:Drugs and crime go hand in hand. But so does watching TV for me every night to help me fall asleep. That doesn't mean TV is the reason I fell asleep.

Fine then, just toss the TV out the window. 😛

Olivia Martinez20 said:In other words, you're being "stingy" when it comes to drugs—you wouldn't want to spend too much or "waste" money because you don't even see the point of the discussion. (sorry if I'm misreading you, but that's how it feels from your posts)
I believe the opposite. I think the drug issue is extremely important and we should be pouring tons of money into it since it benefits everyone, and in the US, the problem is massive. And I think we need to talk about it way more deeply and openly at every level.

I'm not against discussing it (though this whole "massive funding" thing doesn't quite sit right with me
), but I don't think the tone of everything we've seen so far is wrong. You bring up that 15% again, but you gotta provide some context. Like, compared to Eastern Europe, or Europe in general? Or the Western world? Because for a lot of places, things aren't getting much better.😁