Power to the People Who Use Drugs: America’s Drug User Unions

[Jackeh]

^ That's just not true. Many people dislike being called what they aren't, simply because it's not the truth. Even as far back as being a child, if you were a guy and someone called you a girl or something - you may not actually be a girl but some guys would get annoyed at this. A really silly stupid example but one nonetheless that happens in the real world.

 

[421]

Yes children are very dependent on external approval. Adults with decent self-esteem shouldn't be. But yeah, society of grown up brats.

 

['medicine cabinet']

Kinda funny the meeting is in Baltimore. They would get so maany ppl it would be crazy. And its true that addicts are marginalized AMD never really able to reach their full potential with that stigma on their back...I feel like I'm an example of that....I forget where I heard this but "once you do what you HAVE to do, they'll never let you do what you WANT to do"

 

[nuttynutskin]

People are going to label people, that's just life. I don't see what makes drug users so special. My only real argument tho is that I don't see what the point in glorifying hard drug use is. I guess it's easy to blame everyone else when you can't get a job because you're strung out on smack.

 

[neversickanymore]

So this is reason to back and continue a system that makes an already difficult task, which already contains plenty of the aspects you mentioned, even harder.

Give me one legitimate reason not to adopt a path back to full citizenship. Give me a list of positive results from jacketing a drug user with a felony jacket.



Yawn, You know what's hard.. defending the utterly failed system. Probably why you chose to post this instead of attempting a legitimate defense.

Its easy to try and justify an utterly failed greed driven system by blaming its awful results on its victims. Now try and justly, justify that system??



When a person is in a subculture thats exploited, demonized, and deals with a huge amount of stigma and prejudice they need to find pride in themselves and their lives. I guess someone with different morals and values than yours deserves not to find pride in themselves or their lives?

So being all we "can be" is what determines success and value in our lives. So what.. the person who rises to the highest social status, most respected professional status, biggest house, most material junk.

So what does "being all they can be" entail in your opinion.



Depending on your answer to the "be all you can be" question I will let you know if your making much progress.

Thats what I thought 421.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Re72di5phM0

Grown up brats also ignore their mistakes and keep making them over and over. While still touting their flawed thinking and approach.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Grown up brats also ignore their mistakes and keep making them over and over. While still touting their flawed thinking and approach.

So very well said. They're also really good at making assumptions, the mother of fuck ups.

Keep it up 421. I'm interested to see how deep into the rabbit hole you'll go with this.

 

[nuttynutskin]

421 made some good points, I don't understand why he's getting blasted.

 

[neversickanymore]

He is not, his unbacked opinions are.

 

[nuttynutskin]

No offense but the entire article is basically an "unbacked opinion". The notion that hard drugs are ever going to be embraced by society is nothing more than a pipe dream for a lot of reasons.

 

[Jabberwocky]

No offense but the entire article is basically an "unbacked opinion". The notion that hard drugs are ever going to be embraced by society is nothing more than a pipe dream for a lot of reasons.

I don't see anywhere where the author(s) argue that drugs should be accepted by society in the sense the should be embraced, or that even these "unions" all (perhaps some do) argue such a silly thing.

But to argue that drug should be accepted by society (for what they actually are) as opposed to reviled by it seem pretty fucking reasonable to me - and not just that, but the that this is the only framework one can come from if one is genuinely concerned about the war on drugs et al.

So it's hard for a number of us to see that you don't in fact support the status quo of the war on drugs and the current ways in which society reviles and misunderstand/misrepresents drugs can be frustrating.

Especially when one also says something ridiculous like, "I don't agree with the war on drugs, but cannabis/cocaine/heroin/opium/etc etc is bad and you should go to jail for possession of it and that's self evident and it's the way it's always been but our society today is just more enlightened that it was a century ago when these were all legal and the concept of "addiction" did not exist."

It's understandable why someone would think that's a reasonable argument, because that's exactly what the war on drug propaganda would have you believe. The only problem is that it's totally, completely removed from the reality of the war itself.

Hubris might be the word? Certainly comes off sounding that way, if not plain moronic as well. Someone one said that believing there is some solution is our whole fucking problem to begin with, and now we're just trying to survive.

 

[neversickanymore]

No offense but the entire article is basically an "unbacked opinion". The notion that hard drugs are ever going to be embraced by society is nothing more than a pipe dream for a lot of reasons.

no offense taken, the purpose of a union is to effect power and change on a larger group of people.

Everythings a pipe dream untill its made a reality.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

The big empty chair in this room belongs to a widely-accepted and fairly clear cut social code about what patterns of use and of life in general constitute acceptable use of [currently illegal +/- "hard" drug X], and which ones do not. That fairly clear line which may not be crossed is definitely there for alcohol, and if that's any example, I wonder if this is the sort of thing that best evolves naturally over the course of many years -- nay, generations -- of trial and error, lore and legend.

Maybe the formation and early culling, and later consolidation and stabilization of these unions will have something of a pressure cooker effect, forcing both the communities of users and society in general to have a long hard look at what deeds and lifestyles can be borne by our world and should be treated with tolerance, and which cannot and therefore should not be tolerated.

I think nuttynutskin and 421 have a point, they just didn't articulate it well. I'll try: Some people use drugs in patterns and with consequences that burden others with needless suffering. Of these, some are too far too entrenched in their lifestyle, the logical structure they've built to support it, and their habitual avoidance of certain emotionally painful thing to notice that they're living the way they live at someone else's (or in some cases many other people's) expense. And then there are those who are fully aware, but just don't give a fuck. I think the idea of drug users coming together in fraternity and solidarity is a beautiful thing (Look where I'm hanging out FFS). But going public using our real names and faces, and seeking the unreserved acceptance of the larger society who will never do as we do and never get why we do what we do, is a whole other kettle of worms.

It is absolutely imperative that any above-ground institution with a less-than-anonymous roll call aiming to dignify recreational drug use be active -- if not downright showy -- in refusing safe harbor to those with well documented records of going about their drug use in a way that victimizes others. Because there will always be these people, regardless of the legal status of their drug of choice. Some of them can be swayed by appeals to kindness to one's fellow man and transitioned into stable patterns of use of their DOC that do not burden other people. Others cannot. Any order of odd fellows with odd things in their brains and veins that fails to make these distinctions, either through naivete or through willful and misguided ignorance, will quickly establish a reputation as a safe haven for complete parasites who hide behind banners that say "equal rights". Membership will quickly become a scarlet letter that nobody with aspirations in the larger world would possibly want their name attached to.

 

[Jabberwocky]

It is absolutely imperative that any above-ground institution with a less-than-anonymous roll call aiming to dignify recreational drug use be active -- if not downright showy -- in refusing safe harbor to those with well documented records of going about their drug use in a way that victimizes others. Because there will always be these people, regardless of the legal status of their drug of choice. Some of them can be swayed by appeals to kindness to one's fellow man and transitioned into stable patterns of use of their DOC that do not burden other people. Others cannot. Any order of odd fellows with odd things in their brains and veins that fails to make these distinctions, either through naivete or through willful and misguided ignorance, will quickly establish a reputation as a safe haven for complete parasites who hide behind banners that say "equal rights". Membership will quickly become a scarlet letter that nobody with aspirations in the larger world would possibly want their name attached to.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I see especially your first sentence in the quote as very problematic. I would change "some" in the portion I underlined to "most" however. The following will explain my perspective a bit more.

From my experience, the issue isn't so much the problems as related to how people use drugs but how people find themselves, are forced or coerced into using drugs in their societies. The systems and communities that our societies revolve around (e.g. medical/legal institutions) where we use drugs in and hold membership are actively organized such that certain types and patterns of drug use will, sometime are designed, to cause more harm than if our communities were otherwise organized (see the legalizing vs criminalizing IDUs), whereas other simply aren't (intentionally or otherwise).

Can on organize the whole world? I can't help to see that as even more problematic and naive. But could one act to organize their personal and shared communities (e.g. whatever community(s) they find themselves a part of)? Now that's more of an open ended question. I'd like to hear about from you folks.

What I'm getting at is what has created and recreates this/these social code/s you wisely mention.