mike4ty4 · HackerTrans

Another thing. The problem is addiction, so why not more directly target that? Much like with added sugar. We should not put people for years in jail then call them a permanent risk to kids no matter where they actually are after, simply for possessing sugar, but it should not be so cheap. So make the addictive stuff cost a lot of bank by heavy taxation (say 300%, of which 100% then goes to funding rehab and services), make mental health services very easily available by comparison, and if coercive interventions are to be added, make them in a form of actual restraint more than punishment, i.e. the intent is not to cause suffering so much as to physically keep the drug away (e.g. putting people around them and/or working with their surrounding community to literally keep the drugs away from them [incl. by snatching it from their hand if it comes to that] instead of putting them in a dungeon where they are fed food that is intentionally chosen to be dangerous or with rapists that could very well lead to a fatal outcome).

mike4ty4

3 年前議論

This is a good/interesting way to look at it ... add up the total misery level instead of pretending that in either case "the misery" has stopped because you deliberately exclude one or the other miseries from the accounting.

Punishment does deter things. Whether it is the only thing that can is a different matter. But I think a lot of those who want alternatives need to get out of the "punishment does not deter" narrative, which is about as silly as saying that oil and gas don't provide energy because they are bad for the environment.

mike4ty4

3 年前議論

So what if you remove the vat of cocaine water by just removing the vat instead of by permanently crippling the other "rats" with 40,000 life-long collateral penalties after a jail where they could easily have been killed inside of?

mike4ty4

3 年前議論

What if we make treatment basically consist of some sort of genetic or other biotechnological intervention that essentially tweaks the vulnerability? Can't be worse than a jail + thousands of never-terminating under any circumstance collateral penalties.

mike4ty4

3 年前議論

The trick is to not assume that "feeding" it will solve it but to create alternative actions, doing research to do so while enduring the destruction patiently for as long as that takes.

mike4ty4

3 年前議論

What if we make it not simple, but "simply" exclude just one solution - lifetime punishment (prison + 40,000 collateral consequences, life imprisonment, or a death penalty) - directed against the persons with the problem, from the mix, and leave everything else as wide open as ever for consideration?

mike4ty4

3 年前議論

Yep, exactly - get rid of the alternative methods and leave no method and then that's a problem.

mike4ty4

3 年前議論

However, even if there is, why does that mean the answer needs to be the _specific_ extraordinarily-severe-by-nature method of criminal punishment? It seems the article, again, was basically suggesting the problem was there is no sort of incentive AT ALL, when it should be that we should be looking for "neither-nor" solutions that are neither the old method nor "just sit back and do nothing".

mike4ty4

3 年前議論

This seems like a big part of the issue:

> state-funded nongovernmental organizations that have largely taken over responding to the people with addiction seem less concerned with treatment than affirming that lifetime drug use should be seen as a human right.

When it should be that addictive use should be seen as a health problem, to be taken care of with treatment, instead of either a "human right" OR something to be treated by intentionally inflicting MASSIVE suffering (jail + esp. the post-jail 'collateral penalties').

mike4ty4

3 年前議論

This is a big valid point here - absolutely none of us (myself included) have presented any real evidence. So it's all just circlejerking.

mike4ty4

3 年前議論

Spend more of your hard earned cash to do the upkeep. YOU suffer a little more for it and I'm all down for that happening to you because we gotta spread the burden around given it's going to be there, period.

mike4ty4

3 年前議論

If you say they are just self-destroying and "want to create suicide" and "don't want to help those who don't want help" then why not both not help AND not punish at the same time, and just let "nature" do it all? That is, you have elective suicide AND you say they have a free pass out of punishment (basically they can whinny out of public use without ANYTHING adverse), and because "life is misery" just you yourself endure the misery of living in a society where that dealing with the externalities of their highly public drug use as they die/don't "want to climb out" is just a part and parcel of YOUR life. Suffer a little by NOT punishing. You're already doing it, so just do more of it and screw your complaining.

Basically, that is, do everything you say while NOT punishing the public drug use and you just eating the social cost of that as part of life's natural consequences (or else, if you do criminalize it, make a criminal conviction for it both not affect the availability of rehab at all and make the conviction vanish entirely upon successful completion of the rehab and then eat and endure permanently the social consequences of THAT on the "life is misery by default" logic).

コメント