site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   3950 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for July 23, 2023

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

crime is a result of social deprivation and social workers are a better use of money than police for solving it

I would slightly incline towards "the first part of this sentence is in part true" but the second part is "oh hell no" after yet another anecdote from work involving druggie parents, kids, and social workers.

Before getting started: this is what a small town is like - everybody knows your business.

Okay, so: childcare service. Separated (if ever married in the first place) parents. Mother has a drug habit, and maybe a new drug-dealer boyfriend. Father isn't that great situation himself, but he is trying and he does want to be responsible for the kid - I'm not sure if he has custody or not. Everybody is what I suppose would be called the underclass, or maybe dad is working class if he can get/has a job.

Mother promises that this time, for sure, she will come and pick up the kid from daycare. Uh-huh, right.

Collection time is coming, and one of the service managers is on the bus to Da City (not a big city, but it's our county capital). And she rings the service about "Didn't A say she was picking up Kid today? Well, she's all dressed up, on the bus going to Da City, and is with a guy who could be her dealer".

Three guesses as to whether she ever turned up to collect the kid.

Dad can complain all he likes to the social worker handling the case about things like this, and about mom doing drugs (including stuff like coke) around the kid. Reply? "Sure, drugs are normal nowadays".

So that is why (1) I would like to know what the fuck they are teaching them in college before they turn them loose into the real world (2) yeah my arse social workers are going to be better than cops and (3) the next time somebody bangs on about decriminalising/legalising Fun Party Harmless Substances, they should be made stand in front of a crying five year old to explain "It's your mother's natural human right to prioritise getting and using Fun Party Harmless Substances over taking care of you, and you have no right to try and impose your morals on her with "don't you love me, mommy?"

Rant over.

Theoretical drug policy has been a hobbyhorse of mine lately so I’m going to push back a little on a few parts of your comment.

the next time somebody bangs on about decriminalising/legalising Fun Party Harmless Substances, they should be made stand in front of a crying five year old

Coke is illegal now and the bad outcome still happened. The law did not prevent the mom from using drugs and causing bad outcomes for her child. In this example Coke being illegal makes the situation worse because the mom faces stigma and potential legal consequences for using coke that make it harder to dig out of the hole (such as making it harder to find jobs/shelter if convicted of drug possession).

Now you might say making coke legal would make the bad outcome more prevalent but some people are just bad parents and will mess up their child regardless of what the laws are. Instead of being a cokehead they become an alcoholic. If alcohol was illegal they would find some other form of escapism such as getting high off chemicals from the hardware store or gambling.

But the thing that frustrates me most about drug debates is this tendency to group all illegal drugs together and make arguments that they should be treated the same (either legal or illegal). This prevents us from having any sort of sensible drug policy if we group all the Schedule 1 substance together and then apply the same laws to them. Some should be legal, some should be legal only under the supervision of medical professional, some should remain illegal. The ones that mess up more lives should be treated more harshly than the other ones.

Going through some of the main drugs:

  • Marijuana should be legal and treated similar to how alcohol is.
  • The psychedelics (LSD, Mescaline, Psilocybin) are medicines that allow people to quit more dangerous drugs like alcohol. They can inspire users to invent things, become more connected with the world, or feel a greater sense of purpose. They are non-addictive and physically safer than other drugs. Psychedelics should be legal.
  • MDMA has a track record of being used successfully in conjunction with therapy. It is showing promising results in clinical trials for PTSD. However, it is addictive and can be physically dangerous in high doses (serotonin syndrome, high blood pressure). It should be legal under medical supervision and follow a similar model as Ketamine therapy.
  • Coke/Meth/Opioids – These are the ones that seems to ruin the most lives and cause the most problems. They should remain on Schedule I/II and not be used outside of their current medically accepted uses.
  • All the other Schedule 1 drugs – I’m not informed enough on but they should probably stay illegal because they are physically dangerous/addictive.

Mostly concur, but would like to add a dose of your own (well stated!) nuance.

I don't like the bright line distinction between "legal" drug and "illegal drug." The fact of the matter is that while it is easy to say "hey, if we all just use drugs safely and don't put ourselves in the position to harm others, we can legalize all but the most chemically addictive / mind altering," there is going to he a HUGE percentage of the population that just can't adhere to those guardrails and, worse, will cause disproportionate negative impact to the rest of society. It can't just be 0-or-100 legal versus illegal for substances. I much prefer the illegal-decriminalized-legal spectrum, as well as penalties on associated behaviors.

The best example is alcohol. If I'm hammered inside of a bar (legal) and then go outside, I'm now drunk in public. This is anywhere from a fine to misdemeanor offense in most jurisdictions but, most importantly, is often not aggressively enforced. It's used as an automatic gotcha when someone who is technically drunk in public starts engaging in antisocial behavior; accosting passers by, opening urinating / defecating, dangerous pedestrian conduct around traffic etc. For most people who just sort of stumble home - even if they're truly wasted - they probably won't catch the charge.

So, for substances like weed, psychedelics, MDMA, I'd like to see something similar and heavily tilted towards fines instead of "on your permanent record!" charges. Let's say you take some mushrooms and stare at your hand in the park for hours. Cool, guy. Have fun. But if you take a bunch of mushrooms and run around naked and shouting, I'd like to see not only the disorderly conduct charge, but also something along the lines of "psychedlic safety fine." This goes towards sending a signal - and imposing a real material cost - that might modulate the behavior of marginal users (hardcore addicts / abusers is a different story and I acknowledge that ... as should we all). If you're on the borderline between problem usage and harmless recreation fun, I really want there to be a feedback loop for you to conclude, "every time I take mushrooms, I get a ticket, a summons, and it costs be $300 extra bucks. I can't keep afford to act this way.)

I haven't totally thought through the second order effects of these ideas, so if I've missed an obvious anti-pattern, I'll wipe the egg off my face.

I like the idea of a “psychedelic safety fine”. You could even design it so that it escalates if you get repeat offenses. Maybe on the first offense the fine is very small and you have to take a drug education course. Then if you get fined again it goes up to $500 and any future offenses would increase in dollar amount.

As you have noticed there is a lot of nuance and things to be worked out when it comes to psychedelic policy. One other thing I think about a lot is how to you encourage people to take psychedelics with a sober trip sitter? I think that would prevent a lot of the bad outcomes, but at the same time there are many people who can take psychedelics without a trip sitter and not experience any problems.

For now I’m just in favor in anything that moves psychedelics directionally toward decriminalization or legalization. There will be many things to optimize as the legal status changes.

If psychedelics become legal here are some other policy optimization considerations:

  • Affordable access – If psychedelics can only be done in clinical settings and insurers don’t cover the cost then how do you make it affordable for those in need?
  • What to do about things like Peyote and the Sonoran Desert toad that produce psychedelic compounds but are in danger of being overharvested. Synthetic analog compounds exist so maybe different policies are needed from an environmental conversation perspective.

It seems like "getting idiot social workers out of the decision loop" is the obvious solution to this scenario.

Your point (3) could be applied ten times over to alcohol.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats