Why dont people who overdose get jailed?

[mikeymikec]

I bet making suicide illegal will make some people think twice... wait, that's already been tried as well.

smh

 

[MongGrel]

You don't want to know what I'd do to pushers and users.

Most people do not care to hear you opinions on a lot of things, but you still post.

Jailed for what ? Innocent until proven guilty has always been a thing, but if someone has a prior record might be more likely. Someone could get dosed.

 

[DaTT]

We don't have laws in an attempt to modify behavior, you can't legislate morality. We have laws to protect society from harm. You're an idiot.

He really is.

 

[CZroe]

Patient Protection and Privacy. It's law.

 

[mikeymikec]

Patient Protection and Privacy. It's law.

As I understand it, if someone in the US is shot and goes to/ends up in hospital for treatment, the incident must be reported to the police? Please confirm.

 

[WelshBloke]

You know, it's not so much that you're a troll, it's that you're a bad one.

He's not so much a troll as a genuine idiot. I did consider putting him on ignore but once you realise that he's actually such an idiot that he genuinely believes what he posts he becomes quite fascinating.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Ask yourself something. Would you sell coke if it meant risking a 25 year sentence? Look at South East Asia. Think they fucking have our laws?

Sounds kind of fascist. Why is it so important to control what someone chooses to put in their body? Are you for banning big sodas too because they aren't healthy?

 

[SearchMaster]

Taking drugs isn't illegal. Possession and distribution are illegal.

I know for a fact that some prosecutors will go after underage drunk kids for "possession of alcohol by a minor" because it's in their stomach/bloodstream.

I also know for a fact that there are judges who realize that college kids drink alcohol sometimes and will yell at the prosecutor and throw the case out.

 

[TechBoyJK]

So do some coke. What's stopping you idiots?

Talk about stupid. Do you know how many people that are in rehab right now wish they never even touched the shit?

tobacco is worse than coke, imho.

 

[interchange]

The majority of people who are drug offenders are drug addicts, not people who are involved in the large scale distribution of drugs and whose motivation is money. The largest motivation is access to more drugs (not necessarily escalating use, just ensuring that you can prevent the crash).

Police generally take their job as an either-or. Either take them to hospital for treatment or arrest them and bring them to jail. It is possible, of course, to arrest and then bring to hospital for treatment. However, the meaningful treatment is residential/outpatient, and hospitals have no means to provide that for someone under custody. That would be up to the legal system. There is drug court and mental health court, of course. But the resources are very limited and much depends on the motivation of the individual, which is obviously lacking in most cases.

The legal system is an overcrowded morass. The only purpose jails serve is to remove people from the public eye. But there is no rehabilitation at all, and the more likely outcome is further institutionalization and dependence upon the system, not to mention opportunity to share knowledge of how to further commit crimes or cheat the system.

So, by prosecuting people who have medical complications of drug use, the only function you are serving is removing them from society for a short time. Their best chance of success is to get medical treatment and further substance abuse treatment. Of course, the yield here is extremely low as well.

 

[Linflas]

We don't have laws in an attempt to modify behavior, you can't legislate morality. We have laws to protect society from harm. You're an idiot.

No we have the tax code for modifying human behavior . Personally I am all for shutting down the war against drugs and the DEA so long as the corollary that society is not responsible for saving and supporting those who get themselves addicted to them is understood.

 

[interchange]

I'm also assuming by overdose you mean accidental over-ingestion of illicit drugs, rather than suicidal intent.

 

[DesiPower]

I'm also assuming by overdose you mean accidental over-ingestion of illicit drugs, rather than suicidal intent.

Either way, doesn't matter, strictly logically speaking, it clearly shows that the person willingly possessed illegal substance.
Maybe the broader question is, possession vs consumption, why are they treated differently.

 

[Dirigible]

We don't have laws in an attempt to modify behavior, you can't legislate morality. We have laws to protect society from harm. You're an idiot.

He just loves big government, loves taxes to pay for big government, and hates personal freedom, that's all.

More laws controlling what people can do and more government expenditures to enforce those laws and for punishment!

 

[interchange]

Either way, doesn't matter, strictly logically speaking, it clearly shows that the person willingly possessed illegal substance.
Maybe the broader question is, possession vs consumption, why are they treated differently.

Most overdoses have absolutely nothing to do with illicit substances.

Assuming we restrict it to those who overdose on illicit drugs, then your explanation is factually correct. We would have definitive evidence that they possessed illicit substance*, but your thinking is incredibly concrete. As concrete as "why don't we pull over every speeder and give them a ticket". The relevant questions are: 1. what good does it do to the individual, 2. to society at large, and 3. how much does it cost to implement the intervention? The answers are 1. nothing 2. very little other than to isolate them from harming the public for a small period of time and 3. much more than we are willing to spend.

*not actually definitive: "Hey, that dude told me it was Tylenol". Or "I ate a bunch of poppy seeds, I didn't use heroin", etc.

 

[Ruptga]

He's not so much a troll as a genuine idiot. I did consider putting him on ignore but once you realise that he's actually such an idiot that he genuinely believes what he posts he becomes quite fascinating.

Entire regions of our country are filled with people exactly like him. Maybe for you he's a curiosity, but for many of us he's an incessant reminder of why we can't have nice things.

 

[WelshBloke]

Entire regions of our country are filled with people exactly like him. Maybe for you he's a curiosity, but for many of us he's an incessant reminder of why we can't have nice things.

Yeah but its easier to listen to him here rather than IRL. You can turn him off here. Imagine if he knew where you lived and kept coming round for a chat?

 

[syntropic]

As I understand it, if someone in the US is shot and goes to/ends up in hospital for treatment, the incident must be reported to the police? Please confirm.

I'll just jump in on this and use one of my favorite movies as illustration. Although I love the movie "Requiem For A Dream", it is disturbing how inaccurate it is with respect to drug use and it's consequences (the novel it was drawn from was written in the 1980s, so it's easy to see why). It distorts the harm of drugs and misleadingly links punishment under drug laws to the harms due to drugs themselves.

In that movie Jared Leto, who is addicted to heroin, develops gangrene (ostensibly due to an infection which irl happens because of the unavailability of clean syringes). He goes to the ER. The doctor walks in and looks at him disgustingly, turns around and leaves. Moments later, two cops enter, arrest him, and take him to jail. We see him the following day and are shocked to see his arm has been amputated.

This is all DRUG WAR PROPAGANDA.

First, there is a doctor-patient privilege that is created immediately. The doctor, with very few exceptions, cannot tell the police about anyone's alleged crimes if they have come to him for treatment. Second, the Hippocratic Oath, which all doctors pledge when they get their license, begins "First, do no harm..." Neither of these things are done/followed in that movie.

Secondly, Jared Leto would not have been arrested unless he had heroin in his possession, and lastly, Jared Leto's character would be a rich man as he could simply sue that doctor for the loss of his arm as he was not treated immediately and instead handed over to the police.

But..then, and even now, drug warriors never let truth get in the way of their war on drugs. It's pathetic and obscene how much harm our drug war has caused. The harms suffered as a result of the laws enacted to perpetuate the war on drugs are far, far more harmful than ANY pharmacological features of any of the drugs which are illegal. And to the extent the drugs are harmful, that harm would be vastly mitigated if they were regulated and clean, and people received the full truth about the use of them.

Cigarettes have been known as the highest cause of preventable death. In the 1950s, 54% of adults smoked cigarettes. Today that number is down around ~13%. Pretty big drop, right? To accomplish this, did we have to arrest anyone caught with a cigarette or a pack and give them a 5 or 10 year jail sentence? No. We just needed to inform people of the truth. The complete truth.

So that should answer your question.

 

[WelshBloke]

In that movie Jared Leto, who is addicted to heroin, develops gangrene (ostensibly due to an infection which irl happens because of the unavailability of clean syringes). /QUOTE]

Your more likely to get an access due to the crap that you're injecting or that you're injecting in the wrong place.

I've been treating a young lad this week whose femoral artery exploded because he ran out of useful places to inject. Ended up giving himself a pseudoaneurysm that popped!

 

[Rakehellion]

Ask yourself something. Would you sell coke if it meant risking a 25 year sentence?

People do it every day, moron.

 

[John Connor]

Moron, I said if it meant a 25 year sentence.

 

[TheGardener]

China has a death penalty for illicit drug use. They migrated from shooting violators to lethal injection. Bottomline is that it doesn't deter all people.

Aside from the lack of deterrence from going to jail, politicians like to get re-elected. Too many drug users and their families and sympathizers seem to show up at the voting booths to make your suggestion impracticable.

 

[DesiPower]

I think we should outsource our prison system. China, Mexico, India, Brazil, Russia, these country would be more than willing to do it and we would save a ton of money and can jail more people. I think 99% plus people who are caught either selling or taking drugs are no good for the society anyways, they will never contribute anything meaningful. Since they are in prison the location doesn't really matter. Many prisons are experimenting with video visitation so that takes care of that. We can do it people.

 

[Rakehellion]

Moron, I said if it meant a 25 year sentence.

People smuggle hundreds of kilos all the time, dipshit. How do you think it gets into the country?

And a 10 year sentence really isn't any different than 25 years. You're still screwed for the rest of your life.



Furthermore, a lot of drug dealers pretty routinely murder each other. Why? Because drugs are worth a lot more money since they're illegal.

 

[John Connor]

People smuggle hundreds of kilos all the time, dipshit. How do you think it gets into the country?

You're quite the little kid with those big word insults, aren't you?

I woud have a wall on the border like Trump wants. Combined with drones using FLIR it can be greatly diminished.

25 to life for a pusher gives them something to think about.