Just 4 miles from Center City, a heroin hellscape hidden in plain sight(philly.com)
philly.com
Just 4 miles from Center City, a heroin hellscape hidden in plain sight
http://www.philly.com/philly/health/addiction/A_hidden_heroin_hellscape.html
57 comments
I'll give it a try.
Why arrest an addict? Its because by attaching a punishment to the behavior we attempt to alter the fundamental utility calculation that is taking place when someone decided to take a hit. That person knows it is illegal to take that hit, but they also know two additional things. First they are going to enjoy it, a lot. Secondly the chances of being caught are very slim. In an attempt balance this calculation on the side of "don't do the drugs" we make the penalty for getting caught harsher and harsher. The idea being if you make the penalty harsh enough eventually people will see its not worth it and they will choose not to do the drugs.
While you might immediately reply that this is nonsense since the addicts are not driven by rational thought in that moment when they are seeking their next fix there are many people who aren't as fatalistic about the rationality of people in that moment, and the penalty isn't really about _that_ person. Its about the person who is choosing to take their first hit, or who is on the rebound and is thinking about relapsing. That stiff penalty might just be the factor that makes a recovering addict not go back to his old habit.
The case against punitive policy's isn't as cut and dry as your comment might make it out to be, and unfortunately our understanding is still evolving. There is a lot that goes into policy making besides just what to do with someone addicted right there in that moment.
Why arrest an addict? Its because by attaching a punishment to the behavior we attempt to alter the fundamental utility calculation that is taking place when someone decided to take a hit. That person knows it is illegal to take that hit, but they also know two additional things. First they are going to enjoy it, a lot. Secondly the chances of being caught are very slim. In an attempt balance this calculation on the side of "don't do the drugs" we make the penalty for getting caught harsher and harsher. The idea being if you make the penalty harsh enough eventually people will see its not worth it and they will choose not to do the drugs.
While you might immediately reply that this is nonsense since the addicts are not driven by rational thought in that moment when they are seeking their next fix there are many people who aren't as fatalistic about the rationality of people in that moment, and the penalty isn't really about _that_ person. Its about the person who is choosing to take their first hit, or who is on the rebound and is thinking about relapsing. That stiff penalty might just be the factor that makes a recovering addict not go back to his old habit.
The case against punitive policy's isn't as cut and dry as your comment might make it out to be, and unfortunately our understanding is still evolving. There is a lot that goes into policy making besides just what to do with someone addicted right there in that moment.
> they are going to enjoy it, a lot
Thats true only for very early in the opiate addiction phase. Once dependency sets it, they are usually only doing it to prevent horrific sickness, or at best, just to feel normal.
Thats true only for very early in the opiate addiction phase. Once dependency sets it, they are usually only doing it to prevent horrific sickness, or at best, just to feel normal.
This strategy has been a notable success in the 50 years it's been tried for illicit drugs, and for alcohol before that.
"the fundamental utility calculation that is taking place when someone decided to take a hit"
Are we still talking about heroin addicts?
Are we still talking about heroin addicts?
What about changing the calculus for anyone who isn't yet an addict?
If we can't make it easier to catch drug users, we should severely limit the punishments so that society isn't worse off for pursuing drug users than it would be if drug users were simply allowed treatment instead.
Rather than being punitive, we should always offer treatment prominently so when addicts are not seeking their next hit, they can decide to enter treatment knowing they won't be stigmatised, and abused for it.
Rather than being punitive, we should always offer treatment prominently so when addicts are not seeking their next hit, they can decide to enter treatment knowing they won't be stigmatised, and abused for it.
A major activity of drug use harm reduction at festivals is educated people that the paramedics will NOT turn them over to the cops.
The idea that "if you make the penalty harsh enough eventually people see its not worth it" has been fundamentally disproven by people still committing offenses punishable by the death penalty or life sentences, surely?
Not if you view the process as being stochastic and imperfect.
You can't determine whether we've succeeded unless you compare crime rates with and without particular laws, and that process is fraught with compounding factors since not only crime laws change.
Even if you just see that states with harsher laws also have higher crime rates, that may be because those states are dealing with other factors that cause crime, not because the laws aren't working.
You can't determine whether we've succeeded unless you compare crime rates with and without particular laws, and that process is fraught with compounding factors since not only crime laws change.
Even if you just see that states with harsher laws also have higher crime rates, that may be because those states are dealing with other factors that cause crime, not because the laws aren't working.
When someone is already an addict, the addiction almost always wins the "fundamental utility calculation."
The addiction doesn't always win. I personally know people who have kicked a heroin habit. From talking with them one thing they will tell you is that while the addiction doesn't always win, it never gives up trying either.
> I personally know people
survivorship bias. You dont know all the people who succumbed to it because they're dead.
survivorship bias. You dont know all the people who succumbed to it because they're dead.
Which is why I used the word "almost"
And those people would be the first to tell you that it almost always wins, because it likely did until they finally kicked it.
Exactly. Which is why you need to stop it somewhere before they get addicted.
I've always wondered what goes through the head of someone when they think "Hey! I think I'll try heroin for the first time! That seems like a good decision!"
I've always wondered what goes through the head of someone when they think "Hey! I think I'll try heroin for the first time! That seems like a good decision!"
Probably the same thing that goes though someone's mind when they drive drunk, or dont wear a seatbelt, ride a motorcycle without a helmet, or partake in any other risky behavior: I saw someone do it before and they were fine, nothing bad will happen to me, I can do it safely. Taking one dose of herion won't instantly kill you, thats why it's so insidious. You can take it many times and there will be no consequences. But it takes ahold of you before you know it, and at that point its too late to simply stop. check out /r/opiates if you want to take a peek into an opiate addict's life
Many heroin addicts started the addiction process when a physician prescribed them opioid painkillers after an injury or surgery. They get hooked, and then when they can't obtain prescription drugs anymore they turn to heroin (or similar illegal drugs) as the only available option to satisfy their addiction.
Thank you for your try, but I think that your understanding of the state of addiction is lacking - but for realsies, thanks for trying, it was a good try, and well meant.
I don't think I have that much better of an understanding, but still:
Addiction seems to be predominately a coping mechanism, not a recreation. AFAIK, you don't see "the drug makes me feel good" nearly as much as you see "the drug makes the pain go away". AFAIK, most addiction in the US is for painkillers that are or were originally prescribed by a doctor.
Addiction happens when you don't experience a choice (you have one, but are unable to take it). AFAIK, that's what makes it an addiction - so thinking in terms of "decided to take a hit" or "choose not to do the drugs" misses the reality. I know a few people who've kicked addictions basically by reclaiming and then exercising that choice.
That all said, I'm pretty sure you're right that such policies are about the potential users / addicts, not the ones already there. Reality indicates that this is ineffective (I'll dig up stats if you want em).
> The case against punitive policy's isn't as cut and dry as your comment might make it out to be, and unfortunately our understanding is still evolving
You are absolutely correct, and unfortunately, the US's (and, alas, most of the world's) understanding is far behind... ehh not "academia", but, "the people with the most understanding". Portugal is a good example.
I don't think I have that much better of an understanding, but still:
Addiction seems to be predominately a coping mechanism, not a recreation. AFAIK, you don't see "the drug makes me feel good" nearly as much as you see "the drug makes the pain go away". AFAIK, most addiction in the US is for painkillers that are or were originally prescribed by a doctor.
Addiction happens when you don't experience a choice (you have one, but are unable to take it). AFAIK, that's what makes it an addiction - so thinking in terms of "decided to take a hit" or "choose not to do the drugs" misses the reality. I know a few people who've kicked addictions basically by reclaiming and then exercising that choice.
That all said, I'm pretty sure you're right that such policies are about the potential users / addicts, not the ones already there. Reality indicates that this is ineffective (I'll dig up stats if you want em).
> The case against punitive policy's isn't as cut and dry as your comment might make it out to be, and unfortunately our understanding is still evolving
You are absolutely correct, and unfortunately, the US's (and, alas, most of the world's) understanding is far behind... ehh not "academia", but, "the people with the most understanding". Portugal is a good example.
I think your view of addition is not just lacking, but wrong. There is a school of thought that addicts don't have a choice, but if you follow that view and take rational choices you end up with even more punitive policies. The reality is you have a choice, and punitive measures don't really effect your choice that much. In fact given the option most addicts would choose to take real effective steps that would reduce their substance dependence if it were offered.
Punishment isn't the right solution, but neither is enabling. Portugal isn't some drug free utopia, they have just shown that society's response to drug additions isn't linear
Punishment isn't the right solution, but neither is enabling. Portugal isn't some drug free utopia, they have just shown that society's response to drug additions isn't linear
Because politicians like to appear "tough on crime". Because prisons make money when we lock up drug addicts. And because Americans are somewhat punitive in nature.
We should be putting money into helping people rehabilitate. Help them kick their habit, get back on their feet, and get back to being a productive member of society.
Prison doesn't accomplish any of that because, in America, it is build for punishment, not rehabilitation.
We should be putting money into helping people rehabilitate. Help them kick their habit, get back on their feet, and get back to being a productive member of society.
Prison doesn't accomplish any of that because, in America, it is build for punishment, not rehabilitation.
Private prisons are illegal in Pennsylvania and have been for awhile. The Pennsylvania AG even sent intervened to stop an illegal private prison construction in the 1990s: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pennsylvania-attorne....
> And because Americans are somewhat punitive in nature.
Yes. Very much so. And at what stage does the word 'punitive' turn into it's next level of synonym: 'sadistic'?
Yes. Very much so. And at what stage does the word 'punitive' turn into it's next level of synonym: 'sadistic'?
The purpose of laws is to create norms. Criminal law would be pointless if it was merely about the deterrent effect on a specific individual contemplating a specific crime. By then it's too late. The point is to convey to individuals the degree to which certain conduct is socially unacceptable. Humans being social animals, will usually abide.
Not arresting someone who is doing something illegal (drugs, or anything else) then sets a precedence that it's ok to engage in that behaviour. So while not arresting that one particular person might be beneficial to them, it doesn't benefit society as a whole and may end up normalising undesirable behaviour.
> it doesn't benefit society as a whole...
But there is no benefit to society by incarcerating someone removing the possibilities of a functioning life. Does Louisiana benefit by having 1 out of 7 black men either in jail, or on parole? The private prison system, sure. But does Louisiana overall? Not a chance.
But there is no benefit to society by incarcerating someone removing the possibilities of a functioning life. Does Louisiana benefit by having 1 out of 7 black men either in jail, or on parole? The private prison system, sure. But does Louisiana overall? Not a chance.
We could arrest them but not send them into prison. Drug use should be a misdemeanour offence that simply forces you into increasingly more intensive therapy, rather than going with the 'therapy' of jailtime and cold-turkey.
In the Venn Diagram of "People who use or sell addictive drugs" and "People who commit other crimes" there is a very large overlap between those two sets. Law enforcement doesn't always have resources to investigate those other crimes but when they catch someone in possession of illegal drugs it's an open-and-shut case. So that serves as a useful proxy to keep habitual criminals locked up and prevent them from committing additional more serious crimes.
Personally I think that logic is twisted, and we should decriminalize drugs to focus on addiction treatment instead. But there's your explanation.
Personally I think that logic is twisted, and we should decriminalize drugs to focus on addiction treatment instead. But there's your explanation.
Did you intend to change language from "addictive drugs" to "illegal drugs"? Many non-addictive drugs are also illegal.
Well, intelligence and wisdom are not the same thing. Intelligence, like power, makes you better at doing things. But it doesn't mean that the things you're doing are the right ones.
The bigger issue here is that your perceived intent is very different from the perceived intent of the people behind such policies, or the historical "intent" of how such things form. It is not the intent of systems to allow people to better themselves.
The bigger issue here is that your perceived intent is very different from the perceived intent of the people behind such policies, or the historical "intent" of how such things form. It is not the intent of systems to allow people to better themselves.
In theory at least, prison is a safe and isolated place to put someone while they detox. Much like with crazy people, isolating them where they can't hurt other people or be hurt isn't a terrible idea. I would say the criminal record and it's repercussions is a separate issue.
> In theory at least, prison is a safe and isolated place to put someone while they detox.
Isolated, perhaps, but safe? That's a whole different story.
Isolated, perhaps, but safe? That's a whole different story.
That's why I added "in theory". There is definitely some room for improvement in the implementation, but the basic idea is not a bad one.
It seems to me that most of the problems with prisons can be solved by eliminating contact between prisoners.
A cell, a treadmill, some books and movies, and Skype privileged with your family on the outside. That's all you need. It's constraining enough to still be a punishment that you want to avoid, but it doesn't send you crazy like traditional solitary (which is more like sensory deprivation). You don't make contacts with other criminals, you don't risk getting shanked, and you sit out your sentence in an annoying yet humane state of boredom, like a waiting room.
A cell, a treadmill, some books and movies, and Skype privileged with your family on the outside. That's all you need. It's constraining enough to still be a punishment that you want to avoid, but it doesn't send you crazy like traditional solitary (which is more like sensory deprivation). You don't make contacts with other criminals, you don't risk getting shanked, and you sit out your sentence in an annoying yet humane state of boredom, like a waiting room.
I've thought this too. They say prison "breaks you down" and the contact with other ruffians "hardens you", well, maybe if they structured prison the opposite, and give them a ladder to climb up. So that through years of operant conditioning, an inmate can go from a tiny cell and many hours of lockdown, and gradually earn those privileges by not misbehaving, getting a GED, mentoring new prisoners, etc etc. Earn privileges all the way up to better food, having a pet, limited internet access, music, free college education, family visitation , etc. You could probably get true rehabilitation by "breaking them up" instead of down.
See: Portugal's drug policy
Also, the descriptions of what it means to be "schedule xx" make a lot of sense, it's just not what's actually used to determine which goes where.
Also, the descriptions of what it means to be "schedule xx" make a lot of sense, it's just not what's actually used to determine which goes where.
Open-air drug situations always get the attention (google Philadelphia Badlands for previous coverage).
But if you drive around Philadelphia without knowing which areas to avoid, you'll quickly realize that no part of the city is more than a handful of blocks away from extreme poverty and all the mayhem that comes with it.
(Aside: one of my Philly cousins has a steel plate in his head after being attacked with a baseball bat near the Temple campus a few years ago; another one keeps a gun at work in North Philadelphia and has had to use it.)
But if you drive around Philadelphia without knowing which areas to avoid, you'll quickly realize that no part of the city is more than a handful of blocks away from extreme poverty and all the mayhem that comes with it.
(Aside: one of my Philly cousins has a steel plate in his head after being attacked with a baseball bat near the Temple campus a few years ago; another one keeps a gun at work in North Philadelphia and has had to use it.)
Philadelphia like most cities, is good every couple of blocks. North and west got bad pretty quickly. I had a coworker, who bought and sold drugs. He was openly doing this in the break room. He mentioned places where the cops just ignored drugs, and focused on violence. Knowing they couldn't curtail the drug use. I know on the weekend in Rittenhouse pot was sold in plain sight. Cops were on patrol but didn't do anything about it.
The problem mentioned else where is gentrification. If you're kicking more and more people out. They live on the streets or abandoned houses. No jobs, then they just sell drugs. Temple area is a prime example. The school had like their own private force. Stay on campus fine, a couple blocks off nope. This was due to subsidized housing, where people were living at extremely low rates. The city was trying to fight this tooth and nail. Brewerytown was another example. Two property managers were buying up all the reality, and kicking people out. I didn't really want to step outside my apartment for fear of being harassed.
The surrounding neighborhoods as well were bad. Just from a filth standpoint. I forget the name but it was West Philly a few miles from 64th street station. I was cleaning up the streets making up for a DUI. There was trash all over, needles, diapers, etc.
Then there's the unspoken, or less spoken bit. The drug triangle between NYC, Baltimore, and Philly. Heroin came in on the docks in Philly from what I've gathered.
Living in Wilmington I got to see first hand the turf war between NYC and PHIL. There were constant drive-bys and you'd hear on the police scanner. Either NYC or PHIL license plates fleeing the scenes. The genius kids in Wilmington, decided to stop acting as a trading point along I95. And instead start making and selling their own stuff. That went over well.
So they're trying, but what's the solution when there are no real jobs to be had. People are being kicked out from their homes?
The problem mentioned else where is gentrification. If you're kicking more and more people out. They live on the streets or abandoned houses. No jobs, then they just sell drugs. Temple area is a prime example. The school had like their own private force. Stay on campus fine, a couple blocks off nope. This was due to subsidized housing, where people were living at extremely low rates. The city was trying to fight this tooth and nail. Brewerytown was another example. Two property managers were buying up all the reality, and kicking people out. I didn't really want to step outside my apartment for fear of being harassed.
The surrounding neighborhoods as well were bad. Just from a filth standpoint. I forget the name but it was West Philly a few miles from 64th street station. I was cleaning up the streets making up for a DUI. There was trash all over, needles, diapers, etc.
Then there's the unspoken, or less spoken bit. The drug triangle between NYC, Baltimore, and Philly. Heroin came in on the docks in Philly from what I've gathered.
Living in Wilmington I got to see first hand the turf war between NYC and PHIL. There were constant drive-bys and you'd hear on the police scanner. Either NYC or PHIL license plates fleeing the scenes. The genius kids in Wilmington, decided to stop acting as a trading point along I95. And instead start making and selling their own stuff. That went over well.
So they're trying, but what's the solution when there are no real jobs to be had. People are being kicked out from their homes?
I visited Philly a couple of times last year while staying in NJ. I was really impressed with the downtown area, it was clearly a nice city with tonnes of potential. Then we went for an excursion to somewhere on the west side of the river and wound up driving for a few miles through a hellscape of run down poor urban neighborhoods that were depressing, and frankly scary. It blew my mind that an area like that existed. It surprised me such a well laid out urban area right on the fringe of a major city would be in such bad shape, I expected it to be full of hipsters.
Let me guess, you're not from the U.S.? This is a fundamental thing with U.S. cities, the nice parts and the shady parts are so close, just blocks from each other in parts. In other places (with welfare, wealth redistribution, and suchlike), the gradient between the nice and shady parts of town is so much more gradual.
West Philadelphia is mostly students from Penn and Drexel, at least up until 45th St. or so. The "hipsters" you're talking about mostly live in south/east Philly (Italian market, fishtown areas). Both are being gentrified at an accelerating rate.
Philly is late to the gentrification that most other cities are dealing with, its going to take a bit longer for the really prime places to price out people who are willing to move into the seeder neighborhoods.
4 miles? In San Francisco, they are shooting up right on Market St in the middle of the city. And recruiters wonder why I am not willing to re-locate to SF for an incredible opportunity.
At 6th and Market, a woman was screaming at her (boyfriend?) about the people whose dicks she'd sucked to get (I'm not quite sure), and he'd run off and used it all without sharing just after buying it. I was honestly tempted to give her money to get her whatever it was she needed so badly.
> ... heroin market, smack dab ...
Heh. That must be deliberate.
Heh. That must be deliberate.
You could find something like this in or around most major areas.
What about Manila? Do people take drugs openly in Manila?
Are you seriously suggested we kill these people? They are people for fucks sake.
I'm just asking whether the Philippines' policies are sufficient to deter people from taking drugs. You're the one who is inferring anything on top of that.
It seems to me, however, that the overwhelming priority of our heroin policy should be ensuring that people who aren't already taking heroin don't start. Those who have already got hooked are pretty much doomed already, they should be a lower priority than those who can easily be saved. It seems to me that many people advocate a "softly softly" approach to drug users that fucks over the first group to help the second, and thus ensures that our drug problems continue instead of being wiped out.
It seems to me, however, that the overwhelming priority of our heroin policy should be ensuring that people who aren't already taking heroin don't start. Those who have already got hooked are pretty much doomed already, they should be a lower priority than those who can easily be saved. It seems to me that many people advocate a "softly softly" approach to drug users that fucks over the first group to help the second, and thus ensures that our drug problems continue instead of being wiped out.
> Those who have already got hooked are pretty much doomed already
That is definitely not true (you can recover from an addiction and there are examples all around you) and a really bad policy to follow if you really want to eradicate addiction, since you are basically marginalizing large groups of people. Saying that you need to "save" those who are not addicted implies that everyone is at risk, but the mechanics of addiction vary from person to person and are heavily influenced by socioeconomic background.
Please refer to professionals that work in this field before proposing approaches like this.
That is definitely not true (you can recover from an addiction and there are examples all around you) and a really bad policy to follow if you really want to eradicate addiction, since you are basically marginalizing large groups of people. Saying that you need to "save" those who are not addicted implies that everyone is at risk, but the mechanics of addiction vary from person to person and are heavily influenced by socioeconomic background.
Please refer to professionals that work in this field before proposing approaches like this.
Argument from authority? Is that the best you can do? Those "professionals" don't have a great track record, which is why drugs are still a huge problem.
So I repeat my question: how are things working out in the Philippines? Are the harsh policies being pursued doing a good job of decreasing the drug problem? If they are, perhaps we can think about adopting aspects of those solutions while leaving out some of the more problematic aspects such as extrajudicial executions.
So I repeat my question: how are things working out in the Philippines? Are the harsh policies being pursued doing a good job of decreasing the drug problem? If they are, perhaps we can think about adopting aspects of those solutions while leaving out some of the more problematic aspects such as extrajudicial executions.
In the eyes of most of the rest of the world the policies in the Philippines are doing a good job of slaughtering citizens for morally dubious causes. The drugs are being fronted as a way to usher in dictatorial authority for the state and corrupt criminal elements.
Drug use is no different from any other vice, and the nature of addictive behavior is that most people will find some object to attach themselves to if you removed all drugs from the picture ( perhaps it would be human trafficking or gambling, both of which are widespread ) essentially what the people have done is shown that by being presented with a present danger they will willingly give over the very decency that allows a society to function. So no even if mass slaughter did manage to end the drug problem in the Philippines there is no way it should be accepted anywhere else, because it's an inhumane policy.
Drug use is no different from any other vice, and the nature of addictive behavior is that most people will find some object to attach themselves to if you removed all drugs from the picture ( perhaps it would be human trafficking or gambling, both of which are widespread ) essentially what the people have done is shown that by being presented with a present danger they will willingly give over the very decency that allows a society to function. So no even if mass slaughter did manage to end the drug problem in the Philippines there is no way it should be accepted anywhere else, because it's an inhumane policy.
The internet means you can ignore this, and this is why Trump won. You don't have to see it if you stay home and commune electronically with people with the same backgrounds who agree with you.
A lot of us walk past it everyday and still ignore it. The internet and Trump is nothing new here.
We humans think that we are intelligent and just, yet I would love someone to explain the wisdom and/or logic behind this policy; to arrest someone who is addicted; to give someone a criminal record which removes any possibility of bettering oneself all for the so-called 'crime' of succumbing to an addictive drug. Even more appalling is that it is a subjectively produced list of drugs that will get you arrested, as other drugs won't.