Are you in favor of unfettered capitalist exploitation of addicts?
Because "full legalization" means bringing the full firepower of commercial enterprise to bear in order to create addicts, and then profit from the "personal choices" the addicts were statistically guaranteed to make.
If I advocate for decriminalization and limited sale exclusively through state-run shops forbidden from marketing their products... does that make me a "puritan"?
I lean more towards government run free drugs. though people will always want more mdma and coke etc than a government would likely consider a 'safe' dose so maybe some type of hybrid. And yes ban all drug advertisements period including alcohol and tobacco.
Though simply having government inspected pure drugs in set pre-sized doses + no ads would be huge for ODs and communicable diseases ('kit' included).
Speaking of religion dominating this debate, lots of southern states and utah have state run or heavily regulated alcohol laws. Maybe similar to that model in that there is still a 'free market' but the middle man is the gov.
On the last. No.
I'm talking about how the base of a lot of addiction services is founded by or based in religion.
How lots of homeless shelters - in some cities the only spaces - are run by religious orgs with mandates to receive services.
When I talk with people who are not in the recovery community I often hear things like, 'i'm not going to give money to that homeless person because they'll just spend it on drugs.'
Or why should they get free housing. They're just going to get high in it. They don't deserve what I consider basic human necessities.
That whole construct - which sounds like maybe you and I have some similar views - drives an us against them frame, instead of looking wider at the commercial 'who' interests.
When housing is a profit driver and artificially limited, it's better for the capital that we fight amongst ourselves instead of pushing that we should all have affordable (in many cases that means free) access to housing.
I also hear similar puritan - in the sense these opinion holders think they are saving, purifying, rebirthing, baptizing to reform whatever.
Like jails & criminalizing behavior & poverty as a vehicle for what they consider fixing peoples lives.
'they are their own maker,' 'god is guiding everything is a lesson tough love,' as addicts are forcefully detoxed in solitary or dangerous jails without medical supervision (which is torture for this convo on opiates. and can be very dangerous for other kinds of gaba drugs).
Elected sheriffs are the worst... Often preaching their own religious beliefs to win elections because that's what their county constituents believe. Arpaio as an example of inhumane and illegal treatment.
Alcohol is legal, sometimes is sold in state-run shops, and has controls to keep some of the capitalist stuff in check. You know, not advertising to children and stuff.
Besides, we already have the capitalist exploitation of addicts in the form of rehab.
Having alcohol illegal - or even just simply decriminalized - doesn't stop that. In fact, we were worse off since it allowed violent crime to rise instead of doing stuff like solving domestic abuse (this was one of the arguments for prohibition). Folks died since strength and purity wasn't regulated.
Which realistically hits at the point of the exchange - effects of legalisation.
Because "full legalization" means bringing the full firepower of commercial enterprise to bear in order to create addicts, and then profit from the "personal choices" the addicts were statistically guaranteed to make.
If I advocate for decriminalization and limited sale exclusively through state-run shops forbidden from marketing their products... does that make me a "puritan"?