We tried this cruel inhumane policy for the decades called thew war on drugs and it was one of the worst failures in US history

Singapore has been successful so clearly we’re doing it wrong and focusing on the wrong things.

Ooh, is it the Bill of Rights!?

The Bill of Rights doesn't say anything about not locking up junkies. You just have to give them due process.

Singapore doesn’t just lock people up…

In many American states and the federal level, we execute murderers. The Bill of Rights plainly permits this. Executing drug dealers isn't over the line either if we consider the number of people killed by drugs and the drug trade, and if we make a regular habit of it.

As for flogging people, this is arguably less cruel than imprisonment and is a good option for the sort of criminals the public doesn't need to be protected from (not suitable for violent criminals who will likely reoffend.) It doesn't keep people away from their families for years, let's them stay current in their job training, etc. It is nevertheless a strong deterrent but it does less damage to the rest of society.

Singapore gets results and most of their policies don't violate the letter of Bill of Rights except in a purely subjective sense, but most people in America aren't ready to give real progressive reform serious consideration.

It is a hard problem to solve. Criminalizing drugs and throwing addicts in jail doesn't resolve the problem.

...apart from in every country that does this and doesn't have lots of addicts?

It is quite strange because you go almost anywhere else in the world...no addicts, no-one uses drugs, they find it strange that anyone would use drugs...go to the US, you not only have drug addicts but a whole industry dedicated to offering very knowledgeable-sounding opinions about what should work...it never is explained why the drug problem in the US is so out of control with so many people who know what "should" work.

The only places where I have ever been that have had lots of drug addicts have been places that have tried to decriminalize (for some reason, almost always with help from the police who just want this stuff off their books altogether).

AFAIK there are drug addicts all over the world, including in the Middle East and Philippines where drug addicts are met with severe punishments. The problem is IMO more the availability of drugs vs the potential punishments people face. People are willing to take risks to do drugs. Unless a government completely controls everyone's private life there remains an ability to evade detection and take drugs while telling oneself that one will not be caught.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/02/middleeast/saudi-drug-capital...

It's not a total solution, but a jailed addict isn't breaking into your car, robbing people at knifepoint, or resorting to prostitution to fund their habit. And they should have much more limited in access to drugs.

To help the addicts and reduce reoffending, what we probably need is better jails that are less a punishment and more an enforced rehab program with high-quality mental health support. And then a better path from jail back into society.

But that's expensive.

Just curious if you'd include alcohol in that list? What about prescription pain-killers? Just curious where you draw the line on what's criminal, and what's not.

Personally, I'd rather criminalize the negative behavior, rather than the drugs themselves. Like DUI laws, for example.

This is slightly smarter. I have zero issues with people being addicted to whatever they want, so long as it doesn't negatively affect others. You do fentanyl in the privacy of your own home, then go to work in the morning? Cool.

> Personally, I'd rather criminalize the negative behavior, rather than the drugs themselves. Like DUI laws, for example.

How do you punish a homeless drug addict living on the streets with no assets or income?

Well that's the rub ain't it? Punishment, at its root, is just a method for control. The more brutal the punishment, the more fear is created, and fearful people will then obey commands (laws).

It's such an infantile mindset, I'm frankly surprised it has stuck around this long.

We all just want to live, and enjoy the fruits of our lives, our friends, our families, our work. When a social break happens due to anti-evolutionary behavior, that situation needs to be corrected. Threat of punishment never needs to come into it.

Yes, I meant addicts who cause trouble. If you don't bother anybody do whatever you want.

Hell, why not just summarily execute them. No more homeless problem!

Sounds like you’re volunteering to take them in. Good for you.

I don’t see how his comment implied that. Perhaps you can explain?

P is a sarcastic rejoinder to the GP with approximate intent of: don't put down others' solutions without a solution of your own / don't minimize others'[0] suffering because you don't have skin in the game.

[0]That of people victimized by the homeless/addicts.

I'd think that but GP sounds just as sarcastic to me.

I don’t like having my own very not-homeless and not drug addict family members for extended stay…

Not wanting houseguests doesn’t somehow mean we aren’t collectively smart enough to figure out which levers need some tweaking to mitigate drug addiction and housing issues.