swirlsofhistory posted:

le_nelson_mandela_face posted:

animedad posted:

swirlsofhistory posted:

I'm reading some Ivan Illich and noticing around me the symptoms of what he calls social iatrogenesis. People I know who talk about themselves as if their afflictions or disorders are more in control than they are. "My anxiety makes me..." They'll call in sick for the most minor complaints, and it's easy to put this down to being lazy or workshy, but talking to them I think they actually believe they are victims of their personified illnesses. Would a lazy person waste time off obsessing over their exaggerated illness, and generally being more miserable about their situation than that they are shirking? They really go to the doctor to get counseling and medical relief for feelings of anxiety or depression when their problems are things like being overworked, stress, loneliness, failed ambitions or no ambitions at all. The difficulties have to do with living as a social animal, the tangible things like the healthiness of a person's relationships with others, their finances; all things that a person has to use their willpower if they want to change. Social iatrogenesis becomes a real problem when a person who might've protested against their conditions, fought for their rights against others taking advantage of them, is totally atomized into a struggle between themselves and their pathology. It's not good for others around them trying to build solidarity, and it's not good for them as individuals. Some of these people can't even quit jobs they obviously hate and are being taken advantage of at without consulting the doctor. When they are at the point they think like that, does the answer even matter? The worst thing is I feel being drawn in myself. I've spent more time in doctors offices in the last year than most, and there's a warm feeling of relief in the doctor assuring you you're sick and you are free from responsibilities until you get better. You don't have to tell someone you don't want to do something anymore, or you won't because it's unfair-- you can't because the doctor said so.

that's the neoliberal solution to things: it's all the individual's burden, which can only be described officially by professionsals.

that isn't accurate. the pathologization of personal failings is the liberal attempt to make no one responsible for their own behavior

Indeed, the liberal solution is the one that costs the least in the short term. Free will is often too expensive. Advocates of 'harm reduction' are big pushers of the idea that addiction is a disease (though it has no objective characteristics) that has the ability to hijack a person's ability to choose (though strangely no use to MKULTRA mind control). If that's true, then money could be saved by streamlining the justice system: drug courts, decriminalization, methadone. It's counterproductive to jail the junkie; it's cheaper to give him free drugs and needles than deter. New study shows how much we could save a year by giving up on civilization...

american spectator comments section

Urbandale posted:

I don't think harm reduction is a thing we should be so quick to turn our noses up at. Most of the stats I've seen coming out of clinics in Canada are very positive - reduced use, increase in employment, etc. They may not be entirely sure what addiction is or even drug abuse, but itheyre doing a damn sight better than status quo and its a good base to improve from imo

Yeah the whole addiction discourse is really muddy but the actual material results indicate that the programs are effective and there is no sane reason to oppose them other than the state and prison industrial complex having a vested interest in maintaining an impoverished criminalized class.

swirlsofhistory posted:

or they were scared straight?

were you educated by reality tv

swirlsofhistory posted:

Likely best-fit advocacy research. Sure it's healthier for the addict if they are sticking themselves with a clean needle rather than a used one-- what if they weren't using at all because they never started or they were scared straight? It's shifting baselines from how well we are dealing with drug addiction to how well we are dealing with the costs of drug addiction. Is there a moral hazard in harm reduction? It's too soon to tell.

what if we had strict and draconian drug possession and dealing laws that were - get this - actually enforced against bougie whites too and not a blatant excuse to throw poors and minorities in jail

littlegreenpills posted:

swirlsofhistory posted:

Likely best-fit advocacy research. Sure it's healthier for the addict if they are sticking themselves with a clean needle rather than a used one-- what if they weren't using at all because they never started or they were scared straight? It's shifting baselines from how well we are dealing with drug addiction to how well we are dealing with the costs of drug addiction. Is there a moral hazard in harm reduction? It's too soon to tell.

what if we had strict and draconian drug possession and dealing laws that were - get this - actually enforced against bougie whites too and not a blatant excuse to throw poors and minorities in jail

Exactly. Decriminalized possession is racist as fuck. Besides, the actual harm is done in using the drug, not dealing it.

swirlsofhistory posted:

Sure it's healthier for the addict if they are sticking themselves with a clean needle rather than a used one-- what if they weren't using at all because they never started or they were scared straight? It's shifting baselines from how well we are dealing with drug addiction to how well we are dealing with the costs of drug addiction. Is there a moral hazard in harm reduction? It's too soon to tell.

Sounds like useless lifestyle criticism to me. Drug addiction is going to occur in the face of drug availability. The pre-emptive solution you're looking for is to end American imperialism, which maintains the narcotics trade.

swirlsofhistory posted:

le_nelson_mandela_face posted:

animedad posted:

swirlsofhistory posted:

I'm reading some Ivan Illich and noticing around me the symptoms of what he calls social iatrogenesis. People I know who talk about themselves as if their afflictions or disorders are more in control than they are. "My anxiety makes me..." They'll call in sick for the most minor complaints, and it's easy to put this down to being lazy or workshy, but talking to them I think they actually believe they are victims of their personified illnesses. Would a lazy person waste time off obsessing over their exaggerated illness, and generally being more miserable about their situation than that they are shirking? They really go to the doctor to get counseling and medical relief for feelings of anxiety or depression when their problems are things like being overworked, stress, loneliness, failed ambitions or no ambitions at all. The difficulties have to do with living as a social animal, the tangible things like the healthiness of a person's relationships with others, their finances; all things that a person has to use their willpower if they want to change. Social iatrogenesis becomes a real problem when a person who might've protested against their conditions, fought for their rights against others taking advantage of them, is totally atomized into a struggle between themselves and their pathology. It's not good for others around them trying to build solidarity, and it's not good for them as individuals. Some of these people can't even quit jobs they obviously hate and are being taken advantage of at without consulting the doctor. When they are at the point they think like that, does the answer even matter? The worst thing is I feel being drawn in myself. I've spent more time in doctors offices in the last year than most, and there's a warm feeling of relief in the doctor assuring you you're sick and you are free from responsibilities until you get better. You don't have to tell someone you don't want to do something anymore, or you won't because it's unfair-- you can't because the doctor said so.

that's the neoliberal solution to things: it's all the individual's burden, which can only be described officially by professionsals.

that isn't accurate. the pathologization of personal failings is the liberal attempt to make no one responsible for their own behavior

Indeed, the liberal solution is the one that costs the least in the short term. Free will is often too expensive. Advocates of 'harm reduction' are big pushers of the idea that addiction is a disease (though it has no objective characteristics) that has the ability to hijack a person's ability to choose (though strangely no use to MKULTRA mind control). If that's true, then money could be saved by streamlining the justice system: drug courts, decriminalization, methadone. It's counterproductive to jail the junkie; it's cheaper to give him free drugs and needles than deter. New study shows how much we could save a year by giving up on civilization...

lol

Urbandale posted:

its much easier to drive or walk something across a border than it is to ship it across an ocean and most drug smuggling occurs along land borders. are you trolling or just struck with a bad opinion

http://www.unodc.org/documents/wdr/WDR_2009/WDR2009_eng_web.pdf

Including Scotland and Northern
Ireland, the United Kingdom is estimated to have about
1 million cocaine users. The UK thus continues to be
– in absolute numbers – Europe’s largest cocaine market,
with its second highest cocaine use prevalence rate.