Church Group Prays For Addicts, ‘Helps’ Them Even More By Asking People to Narc On Them to SWAT Unit

I suppose the pastor will also pray for the souls of the users killed by the SWAT team he rated them to…

The most entertaining aspect of DARE, to me, was also shared on a radio station a few weeks ago. A group of parents and administrators were clucking their tongues over the outbreak of children snorting crushed mentos and pixie sticks like they were cocaine. A younger caller pointed out that he and his friends wouldn’t have given a second though to snorting anything through their nose at that age had the DARE program not introduced the idea of getting high by snorting chemicals in the first place.

I wonder if Jesus wore a balaclava during his sermon on the mount?

Lovely that the pastor sees nothing wrong with reporting people for crimes to the state in order to “help” them. As long as the person is not harming me I have no problem with them doing whatever drugs they want to.

The Stalin regime as well. They would encourage children to rat on their parents.

What’s worse, they will have learned some sneaky tricks for when they get out.

It’s a trait many totalitarian governments share.

It’d be more fun if he’d worn Baklava instead.

Report drug activities OR…OR…OR get help with addiction. So?

Preaching the Word of Judas!

Hallelujah!

.

From what I’ve heard its actually entirely practical. Using a suppressor means that the gun is quiet enough that they can fire it without needing hearing protection or getting hearing damage. I imagine going into a raid wearing earplugs could be a bit inconvenient.

Please remember that the vast majorities of drug users are not also thieves, though, and that the whole policy of criminalising drug use creates a link between drugs and violent/acquisitive crime where none would have existed otherwise. To the extent that prohibition drives up the price of a drug, it makes it less affordable so that those who are most desperate to get it are more likely to be tempted to steal to raise funds. And of course, if you are already branded a criminal simply for using a drug, you may well consider that you have less to lose by stealing than someone whose drug of choice was legal (like alcohol, say).

Also, sending someone to jail is a terrible way of addressing problematic drug use (if they even were a problematic user in the first place). It is almost always far better to make treatment available to those whose drug use is a problem, rather than leaving them to rot in a prison environment where there is little else to do for entertainment apart from taking drugs, and where people often end up using far more dangerous drugs than they were when they went in. And of course, it is also important that no one be compelled to attent drug treatment unless their drug use is actually a problem – exactly the same as how you can support making treatment available for alcoholics without thinking that anyone who ever drinks alcohol must be in need of treatment.

And that’s before you even get on to the matter of the fact that prohibition puts the entire market into the hands of criminals who often have no options other than violence to resolve their disputes, whereas if they were sold by licenced legal outlets, with appropriate restrictions, drugs could be made safer and the black market massively undercut, making life safer for users and non-users alike.

Tl;dr – sure, drug problems, especially among the poor, can make a neighbourhood unpleasant. But there is basically no good evidence that the policy of sending people to jail for using drugs is an effective way of addressing those problems, and quite a lot of evidence that it makes them worse.

Worse than that:

But the motives Gellately found were banal—greed, jealousy, and petty differences.

He found cases of partners in business turning in associates to gain
full ownership; jealous boyfriends informing on rival suitors; neighbors
betraying entire families who chronically left shared bathrooms unclean
or who occupied desirable apartments.

And then there were those who informed because for the first time in
their lives someone in authority would listen to them and value what
they said.

Careful of the wanting to ‘try’ something. My ex had no problem with recreational drugs, until he did. He’d always wanted to try heroin. Then he did. Now he’s lost everything because of the mindset of “I just want to try it once”.

Oh. So you’re one of those assholes who think smoking a joint on Friday means you’ll be addicted to heroin by Monday.

/IGNORE

He took anything out of the house he thought he could trade or sell for drugs. Wedding presents? No problem. Our kid’s toys and games or money they were saving? No problem. His wife’s jewelry? No problem. Tools, a freezer, furniture, anything. Plus he spent every penny I made and got for tax returns. We lost our house, we had no car for me to get to work. He tried to make me feel it was all my problem, that he was just having fun. I had to get a court order to get him out of the house. Even now he thinks he didn’t do anything wrong. This is what can happen to someone that a drug user supposedly “loves”. Drugs for “recreational” purposes are stupid.

He wasn’t like that before he was an addict. His choice of doing drugs led to all the other “choices” he made. He no longer has control. He no longer wants to have control, he no longer cares if he has control. He is entirely to blame for the choices he makes. I’m just saying that it can control his life is ways he never dreamed. So the thinking that it’s no big deal at first is a very dangerous thing. I am able to understand a bit of what he has gone through without condoning it in any way.