Staying away from the social issues I have with the war on drugs; the ad agency that charged the state $449,000 must have been laughing their asses off.
Does Minnesota have some sort of weird deep seated rivalry with South Dakota?
Staying away from the social issues I have with the war on drugs; the ad agency that charged the state $449,000 must have been laughing their asses off.
Does Minnesota have some sort of weird deep seated rivalry with South Dakota?
aircooled said:Hah! $27,000 a year. In CA, we do everything "better". Last I heard it was around $80,000 a year here! (might include costs of "benefits"). You also have to consider the other side and the cost of them in public such as law enforcement, medical, criminal activity and of course crimes and violence visited on the innocent public (generally not a dollar figure of course).
Certainly not saying traditional prisons are any kind of total solution, but eliminating them in the process without a viable option is a pretty bad idea (in the least, as noted, it supplies some sort of motivation). Of note, from what I have read, treatment programs for meth are generally very ineffective. I am sure that will in no way stop massive amounts of money being thrown at programs that have no known viability.
The program mentioned in the OP is of course just an awareness campaign. Not sure how much awareness is actually needed (I suspect most who are in anyway affected are well aware). What is really need is some sort of actual, at least partially, effective solution. "Just say no" has some minor effect, but I think is well proven to be mostly ineffective.
At some point, as with traditional criminals, there really is a point where removal from society is the best option for everyone involved based on the options currently available / allowed. Doesn't mean you can't / shouldn't try to treat them though.
As with most things, the true answer likely lies somewhere in between...
I'm aware of California costs. The scary part is when you calculate how much of your taxes goes to prisons and what you could do if there wasn't so many in Jail. 2 million, a greater percentage of our population than any other country.
We agree there is no one simple answer. Can't let them run free, can't afford to lock-em-up.
Right now everyone doing something wrong is the nail the justice system hammer is looking to pound.
Some countries with different cultures have a much smaller problem. Japan comes to mind. But even Japan has their share of drug addicts and alcoholics.
I know Spain has done some interesting things with regard to addiction.
The trouble is for Profit Prisons have the incentive and financial capability to muddy the water pointing out less than total success with anything (including locking them up )
I used to use drugs (weed is not a drug but is illegal so...) and alcohol as an escape. My feeling is that people abuse substances because they are not happy with their reality, can't face their reality, or some other similar subconscious reason to not be in their real situation so they opt for a drug or alcohol induced fantasy world. Until people can be "satisfied" with reality they will look for a way out. Anyone who tries cocaine, meth, crack, heroin all know the probable outcome is addiction and until addiction is worse than reality AND there's enough left of them to see that, there will be no desire to quit and rejoin us. Then once they try to quit the drugs, their peers and their habits have a very strong hold on them so its very hard to pull free of the problem. Locked up either in jail or rehab AND THEN RELOCATED either from that town or that group of people is important to me as i have seen many acquaintances go back and forth until they have the desire, the help, and a way out of the environment to stay clean.
I'll have to accept your word. I've never had a problem and for me or anyone else to tell you what to do is unrealistic.
Society though does have a problem dealing with addiction. Not just the cost of dealing with it but the near complete lack of success with various solutions.
Telling the tax payer that we just have to be patient and wait until the addict is ready is usually the straw that Forces the tax payer to just put the addicts into jail.
In my EMS exprience, people turn to illicit drugs as treatments first and cheap thrills second. Meth in particular has exploded amongst housewives- it gives you the energy and time to take care of your kids, and do everything you want on 4-6 hours of sleep a night. When you then realize that 13 million of us work 2 jobs OR work more than 50 hours per week, you realize why states like Nebraska have meth rates up to 1 in 6 in most rural areas.
Don't even get me started on the private prison system. If there was anything I could be an extremist about- it's complete abolishment and takeover by the state- it's that. Even California uses theirs as a cheap source of labor, to the point where detractors calling it slavery have a point.
frenchyd said:Society though does have a problem dealing with addiction. Not just the cost of dealing with it but the near complete lack of success with various solutions.
It's called the Florida Shuffle. Lots of people getting rich off of keeping addicts addicted, so don't look for that to change. Just another day in the oligarchy.
Back on the original topic, I say these are ad geniuses. Not every agency is alert enough to realize the governor there does, indeed, look like he's on meth.
Margie
Justjim75 said:I used to use drugs (weed is not a drug but is illegal so...) and alcohol as an escape.
I know what you're trying to say*, but words matter. weed, meaning cannabis, is definitely a drug. As is alcohol and caffiene.
*I'm working under the assumption that you're trying to say that weed is not physically addictive and its use is not inherently dangerous like an opiod or meth (or at least to the same degree as those)
GIRTHQUAKE said:Meth... it gives you the energy and time to take care of your kids, and do everything you want on 4-6 hours of sleep a night.
Never taken drugs, drank caffeine, smoked, vaped, or drank alcohol. But after reading this, and how beneficial this would be to my life, I am inclined, for the first time in my life, to learn more about drugs!
"Meth. We're on it."...From the ad company that brought you such classics as "Got crack?" and "A friend with weed, is a friend indeed."
So they've spent half a million dollars to come up with an ad campaign that is not clearly anti-meth or pro-meth, but gets people talking due to its sheer absurdity...And yet they only have twice their ad budget set aside towards actually treating addiction. Is the basis of their plan to talk the problem away?
Driven5 said:Is the basis of their plan to talk the problem away?
AMERICA BAYBEE
I like how the guy in the picture looks like a guy that's doing OK and probably gets a lot of things done. Likely not the intended message.
aircooled said:Hah! $27,000 a year. In CA, we do everything "better". Last I heard it was around $80,000 a year here! (might include costs of "benefits"). You also have to consider the other side and the cost of them in public such as law enforcement, medical, criminal activity and of course crimes and violence visited on the innocent public (generally not a dollar figure of course).
Certainly not saying traditional prisons are any kind of total solution, but eliminating them in the process without a viable option is a pretty bad idea (in the least, as noted, it supplies some sort of motivation). Of note, from what I have read, treatment programs for meth are generally very ineffective. I am sure that will in no way stop massive amounts of money being thrown at programs that have no known viability.
The program mentioned in the OP is of course just an awareness campaign. Not sure how much awareness is actually needed (I suspect most who are in anyway affected are well aware). What is really need is some sort of actual, at least partially, effective solution. "Just say no" has some minor effect, but I think is well proven to be mostly ineffective.
At some point, as with traditional criminals, there really is a point where removal from society is the best option for everyone involved based on the options currently available / allowed. Doesn't mean you can't / shouldn't try to treat them though.
As with most things, the true answer likely lies somewhere in between...
I didn't see anyone say anything about completely abolishing all incarceration facilities. There is still very much a need to lock up violent offenders. There are certain crimes where I don't think we should be paying to house them, and instead should be under Margie's patio, but I won't get into that.
But, addiction in non-violent drug offenders needs to be treated as the health problem it is vs a criminal concern.
Marjorie Suddard said:frenchyd said:Society though does have a problem dealing with addiction. Not just the cost of dealing with it but the near complete lack of success with various solutions.
It's called the Florida Shuffle. Lots of people getting rich off of keeping addicts addicted, so don't look for that to change. Just another day in the oligarchy.
holy E36 M3
z31maniac said:aircooled said:Hah! $27,000 a year. In CA, we do everything "better". Last I heard it was around $80,000 a year here! (might include costs of "benefits"). You also have to consider the other side and the cost of them in public such as law enforcement, medical, criminal activity and of course crimes and violence visited on the innocent public (generally not a dollar figure of course).
Certainly not saying traditional prisons are any kind of total solution, but eliminating them in the process without a viable option is a pretty bad idea (in the least, as noted, it supplies some sort of motivation). Of note, from what I have read, treatment programs for meth are generally very ineffective. I am sure that will in no way stop massive amounts of money being thrown at programs that have no known viability.
The program mentioned in the OP is of course just an awareness campaign. Not sure how much awareness is actually needed (I suspect most who are in anyway affected are well aware). What is really need is some sort of actual, at least partially, effective solution. "Just say no" has some minor effect, but I think is well proven to be mostly ineffective.
At some point, as with traditional criminals, there really is a point where removal from society is the best option for everyone involved based on the options currently available / allowed. Doesn't mean you can't / shouldn't try to treat them though.
As with most things, the true answer likely lies somewhere in between...
I didn't see anyone say anything about completely abolishing all incarceration facilities. There is still very much a need to lock up violent offenders. There are certain crimes where I don't think we should be paying to house them, and instead should be under Margie's patio, but I won't get into that.
But, addiction in non-violent drug offenders needs to be treated as the health problem it is vs a criminal concern.
z31maniac said:I didn't see anyone say anything about completely abolishing all incarceration facilities. There is still very much a need to lock up violent offenders. There are certain crimes where I don't think we should be paying to house them, and instead should be under Margie's patio, but I won't get into that.
But, addiction in non-violent drug offenders needs to be treated as the health problem it is vs a criminal concern.
I was not talking about all offenders, I was referring to meth addicts and drug offenders, specifically those who pose a risk to society. I certainly don't condone locking up "non-problem" drug users.
The private jail system certainly encourages bad things, but guess how most of the drug treatment programs are handled? And yes, there was recently a large prosecution of a company scamming the treatment system in CA (even bringing in people from out of state, lovely).
AngryCorvair said:Marjorie Suddard said:frenchyd said:Society though does have a problem dealing with addiction. Not just the cost of dealing with it but the near complete lack of success with various solutions.
It's called the Florida Shuffle. Lots of people getting rich off of keeping addicts addicted, so don't look for that to change. Just another day in the oligarchy.
holy E36 M3
Yeah. Don't get me started.
poopshovel again said:AngryCorvair said:Marjorie Suddard said:frenchyd said:Society though does have a problem dealing with addiction. Not just the cost of dealing with it but the near complete lack of success with various solutions.
It's called the Florida Shuffle. Lots of people getting rich off of keeping addicts addicted, so don't look for that to change. Just another day in the oligarchy.
holy E36 M3
Yeah. Don't get me started.
That is a highly disturbing read, and
I really have no words.
The0retical said:z31maniac said:aircooled said:Hah! $27,000 a year. In CA, we do everything "better". Last I heard it was around $80,000 a year here! (might include costs of "benefits"). You also have to consider the other side and the cost of them in public such as law enforcement, medical, criminal activity and of course crimes and violence visited on the innocent public (generally not a dollar figure of course).
Certainly not saying traditional prisons are any kind of total solution, but eliminating them in the process without a viable option is a pretty bad idea (in the least, as noted, it supplies some sort of motivation). Of note, from what I have read, treatment programs for meth are generally very ineffective. I am sure that will in no way stop massive amounts of money being thrown at programs that have no known viability.
The program mentioned in the OP is of course just an awareness campaign. Not sure how much awareness is actually needed (I suspect most who are in anyway affected are well aware). What is really need is some sort of actual, at least partially, effective solution. "Just say no" has some minor effect, but I think is well proven to be mostly ineffective.
At some point, as with traditional criminals, there really is a point where removal from society is the best option for everyone involved based on the options currently available / allowed. Doesn't mean you can't / shouldn't try to treat them though.
As with most things, the true answer likely lies somewhere in between...
I didn't see anyone say anything about completely abolishing all incarceration facilities. There is still very much a need to lock up violent offenders. There are certain crimes where I don't think we should be paying to house them, and instead should be under Margie's patio, but I won't get into that.
But, addiction in non-violent drug offenders needs to be treated as the health problem it is vs a criminal concern.
I used their research for a persuasive speech class in college, like 2004-ish, saying we should follow in their foot steps.
Unfortunately, there are too many people making money off the drug drug war.
I could on for days with a "chicken/egg" rant about the BS "War on Drugs" and the Prison Industrial Complex, but it would be flirting with "political discussion."
I will say I strongly believe in decriminalization of most drugs that are currently illegal, tickets/fines for non-violent, non "production/trafficking" drug offenses, and taxpayer-funded TREATMENT vs incarceration/probation for those with real addiction problems.
The amount of people in jail or "in the system" for non-violent BS drug and alcohol offenses in this country is truly disgusting, and it's doing NOTHING to actually rehabilitate people or keep us "safe." It is only lining the pockets of politicians, drug/insurance companies, CCA, GEO, et al.
PS: My "real world" experience living out in the sticks is that opioid addiction replaced meth years ago; not to say there aren't still people producing/using meth, but there are exponentially more pill-heads than crank-heads these days.
In reply to mtn :
Correct
You'll need to log in to post.
