Drugs Policy - With Recovery Position Etc: Fill & Download for Free

This is a great post I saw on reddit regarding Thatcher's economic policies -During the 70's the UK was in the process of imploding. Some of the highlights of this included;The UK had a 3 day work week for most of 1974 as the miners union was striking so electricity was only available for transport and businesses 3 days a week.The top rate of tax reached 98%. There was nearly no investment activity in the UK as a result and so no growth.Inflation was out of control. The highest yearly average was 24.2% (in British history it has only been higher once) but in July 1978 it hit 38% (the highest monthly average in British history). As a result no one was saving, pay was having to be raised weekly and prices in stores would change daily. At gas stations people were paid to stand outside with big chalk boards and a radio so the price could be updated hourly.By 1979 a very large percentage of the country was on strike. Half of the hospitals were closed to non-emergencies, trash was piling uphttp://... around the country as service was reduced to monthly and most of the public transport system was operating with a 10% schedule.While unemployment was very low there was massive job duplication in the public sector, in some cases there was 5 people filling what would have been a full time role for one person.There was huge resistance against economic modernization, when you left school the opportunities to go in to a skilled field were extremely limited as a result. As an example of this by 1979 the UK was consuming or exporting only about half of the coal that it mined but as a result of the political power the miners union wielded it was impossible to close down mines and the labor force used in mining was actually increasing despite improved equipment.Thesehttp://... hideous blocks of identical housing which were rife with crime. During the 60's and 70's government housing policy was attempting to push as many people in to these blocks as possible on the premise that if people were all forced to live in the same kind of housing then society would become more equal.The end of the Breton Woods system meant the GBP was massively overvalued. The loss in value collapsed the import market, it was to expensive to import new technologies from the US so the UK behind to bag behind in technology development hugely.By 1976 the UK was months away from bankruptcy. An IMF bailout was secured which would have kept the country running until 1981 but that would be the only credit available, no one was buying British bonds because the continued fall in GBP value, Europe had already turned down the UK for a loan and the IMF had stated they would be unwilling to extend further credit.if the government had continued operating in the same manner then when 1981 rolled around and the government ran out of money to operate there would have been the largest economic depression in British history which would have eviscerated about 55% of output (the US great depression peaked at a 38% drop for comparison) followed by a recovery to a much lower average industrial output.Edit:If someone likes her or loves her is going to come down to politics but those suggesting she "destroyed" the country are ignoring her policies from 1979 to 1984 are the only reason they have the opportunities they do today.The policies which usually are controversial are;She put a cap on education related spending and created a funding agency for schools which had the power to shut down or cut funding for poorly performing schools.She cut social services and social housing. The speech see gave which is often quoted ("There is no society") was in relation to this, the policy set was designed to give people tools to help themselves rather then have them rely on government services.Her most unpopular policy was reforming the property tax to a resident tax (AKA the Poll Tax). Instead of your local services (Trash pickup etc) being funded based on the value of your property it was based on how many adults lived in a household. This caused rioting all over the country. The current council tax system is a fusion of this and the previous system, the amount of council tax you pay is based on the value of your home and the number of people who live in it.She crushed the unions. There were very few restrictions on industrial action until her premiership so unions could call action without even a ballot of their members, the political effects of this over the previous few decades had been devastating with the large unions able to bring down governments at any time they chose. The head of one of the miners union (NUM) called a strike in 1984 without calling a ballot (as he had been unsuccessful three times in the past). The strike was declared illegal, broken up by the police and she ended up closing down 150 mines to break the back of the NUM.Adopted a policy allowing individuals to buy their state housing with government backed mortgages.About 60% of what had been public sector jobs in 1978 became private sector jobs by 1990. Gas, Electricity, Water, Steel, Airlines, Telecoms and anything else that didn't seem appropriate for public ownership as spun in to a GSE and then either sold or floated.Draconian security restrictions while dealing with the IRA, if you had an Irish accent in London during the 80's it wasn't unusual to be detained by the police for hours. The IRA tried to assassinate her twice despite the fact she was pro-unionization, the population of Northern Ireland did (and still do) poll more unfavorably to unification then Britons as a whole so this was never really pursued.Lots of military spending, too much for a relatively small country. The Falklands dispute could have been resolved with the threat of nuclear action against Argentina but she wanted to build British morale by kicking the crap out of a third world dictatorship.She supported South Africa, Khmer Rouge and a number of other very questionable regimes around the world.My personal view on her is somewhat mixed. I, and indeed most other economists, would agree with most of her economic policy (but perhaps not the sequence or the timetable for it) but her social & foreign policy was extremely "old fashioned" and really out of place. I hugely respect her fortitude and political avoidance though even when I disagree with the policies she was supporting, the quality to stand up for what you believe in even against your own party is a quality that's sadly lacking in most politicians around the world (famously when her approval rating dropped to 23% and the conservatives were pleading with her to pull back on some of her policies she stated "To those waiting with bated breath for that favourite media catchphrase, the U-turn, I have only one thing to say: You turn if you want to. The lady's not for turning!")Edit 2:A couple of positive aspects of her premiership;She was a huge advocate of evidence based policy and was renowned for her hatred of those attempting to use morality to justify a political position. Drug policy was removed from political control and placed it with the hands of Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs which instituted the worlds first general needle exchange program to control HIV spread and moved from enforcement to treatment. If subsequent administrations had maintained this policy of a hands-off evidence based approach to drug policy then the only drugs that would still be illegal in the UK today would be Heroin, Meth, Crack and Coke as these are the only drugs the council continues to recommend prohibition for.Prior to her premiership the conservatives were hostile to both abortion and homosexuality. She had voted against her party to decriminalize both going back to the 50's and she provided the momentum for the cultural change which transformed them in to a party that supports both today.Her distrust of the EU and the joint currency is primarily what kept the UK out of the Euro thus avoiding the current Euro crisis. One of the reasons she was removed from power by her party was her opposition to the ERM (predecessor to the Euro), the UK joining the ERM caused Black Wednesday which brought on a recession (as well as earning George Sorros ~$2b) and led to the political infighting which caused the conservative loss in '97.She was one of the first world leaders to seek an end to the cold war when the Gorbachev reforms started. She considered the cold war over in 1986. Both Reagan and Gorbachev credit thatcher with laying down the foundations that led to the eventual summit and official end of the cold war.Source : So what's the deal with Margaret Thatcher?

There are many organizations made up of mothers, fathers, siblings, spouses, friends, partners, companions, etc. who have formed grass roots organizations to combat not just the opioid crisis but the broader drug and alcohol crisis which can take their loved ones and destroy numerous lives. Those organizations formed previous to the opioid crisis in general share a broader perspective though they may have chosen to take up the mantle of finding a solution to the deadly epidemic sweeping our country. Those organizations formed because of the opioid crisis have a more targeted view.In 2001 a group of people met and talked and expressed the desire to see “recovery” become a respected act. Out of this meeting the national non-profit “Friends and Voices of Recovery” was born. Their stated and unstated mission was to bring people in recovery together to speak out about their recovery and show that it is not only possible but possible to live a meaningful life affirming existence despite their battle with abstaining from alcohol and other drugs. From their website: “Together, we can eliminate the stigma and discrimination so often faced by individuals and families impacted by alcohol and drug addiction. Supporters like you make it possible to celebrate recovery and make a better future for generations to come.’ The organization spawned smaller Statewide organizations like FOR-NY (Friends of Recovery) with much the same purpose. They advocate for policies which enable people in recovery to access the best treatment and care. They’ve fought for Criminal Justice reform arguing that you can’t treat addiction by putting everyone in jail. And finally this week a bill was passed looking to make major policy changes to how we deal with those who have a dependence upon illicit substances, or legal substances used illegally.And when the opioid crisis came about many mother’s of children dependent upon opioids like oxycontin or oxycodone or vicodin desperately fought to save their children or other mother’s children since their own had already passed. They formed self-help groups and mutual aid groups. Their still remains groups like Moms United to End the War on Drugs begun by Gretchen Burns Bergman who points to the idea that “Whole communities are decimated by the prohibition of drugs and the war on drugs.” There is Leslie McBain, co-founder of the harm reduction advocacy group ‘Moms Stop the Harm.” It’s not just mother’s of course. Gary Mendell founded “Shaterproof,” after losing his own son to this deadly disease. He points out “For every disease, there's an organization devoted to funding the discovery and implementation protocols and programs related to prevention, treatment and recovery, changing public policies and supporting families as they navigate some of the most trying times that they will ever face. For every major disease, but not for addiction.”Then there are the national / international organizations like “The Drug Policy Alliance” According to their website, Arnold S. Trebach, JD, PhD, a professor at American University, and Kevin B. Zeese, an attorney who had directed the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws in the early 1980s, founded The Drug Policy Foundation (DPF), In 1994 Ethan Nadelmann, JD, PhD, a professor of politics at Princeton University founded The Lindesmith Center (TLC). The Lindesmith Center was named after Prof. Alfred Lindesmith, an Indiana University professor who was the first prominent scholar in the U.S. to challenge conventional thinking about drugs, addiction and drug policy. It became the first domestic project of George Soros’ Open Society Foundations and rapidly emerged as the leading drug policy reform advocacy institute in the United States. In 2000 the Lindesmith Center merged with DPF to create the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA). According to their website “DPA became the world’s leading drug policy reform organization working to end the war on drugs.”And then there are the little folk, like me, who began and facilitated a support group for parents, siblings, friends of loved ones who were struggling with addiction and/or mental illness, I called “It takes a village.” A group of 5 to 8 individuals personally and devastatingly touched by mental health and substance use disorders. A group of peers who brought hope and concern and the faith that if they talked about it their shame was reduced and positive thoughts could bring about hope.There are thousands of places to reach out to. If you want one near you just Google the idea “advocates to end the opioid crisis,” anytown, usa and see what comes up.Good luck to all of us on the front lines.

The answer is SHOCKINGLY easy believe it or not…..1) First, lets understand why the war on drugs started.It was actually a cynical political ploy by Nixon to target Hippies and Blacks for his political gain. He saw them as a threat and devised it as a way to neutralise them by labelling them as criminals. [1]A top Nixon aide, John Ehrlichman, later admitted: “You want to know what this was really all about. The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people.”[2]“We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or blacks, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. “2) Then lets check the benefits.By making drugs illegal, the US has:Put half a million people in prison : $10 Billion a yearSpent billions annually for expanded law enforcementFomented violence and death (in gang turf wars, overdoses from uncontrolled drug potency & shared needles/AIDS)Eroded civil rights (property can be confiscated from you BEFORE you are found guilty; search and wiretap authority has expanded.)Enriched criminal organizations - Massive amounts of US wealth is being transferred overseas.[3]3) Where are the victims?It is easy to establish many of those those killed and their families by drugs gangs as victims.What about the users themselves? Just as maltreating patients in a hospital would have poor outcomes, those who have little sympathy for drug users are surprised at poor outcomes when drug users are maltreated by society. [Ostracized, Criminalized, Dehumanized, Imprisoned, etc]“Lock ’em up throw away the key, build a wall, double the cops in the DEA”, Nuke the Cartels”. Even if you think like that, don’t we finally have enough history that shows all that adds is cost, victims, crime and sorrow.4) What do we know about addiction?People were very surprised when the soliders who had been doing crazy amounts of drugs in Vietnam immediately stopped when they returned to their families. The prior assumption was if you were hooked on drugs if was a chemical bond. People did NOT consider that it might have been the terrible environment, rather than the drugs themselves that caused the addiction. This effect has also been tested in animals. It is by improving the social environment of the addict that drug use will stop.I recommend this brilliant Ted talk on the subject. Everything you think you know about addiction is wrongSo, should it REALLY be a surprise that if you humanize rather than demonize that addiction will drop?5) YES, you do need to legalize consumption to reduce it.This really sticks in the craw of the hardliners, it seems wrong on EVERY level. Justice and Vengeance are not served. But when was justice and vengeance ever useful in treating someone with a problem.We should ask the evangelicals, what, indeed, would Jesus do? Being conservative always means fear of change. Much of the time it is a useful characteristic, in this case it is not. It is fear that perpetuates the madness.6) Has it ever been shown to be successful to legalise drug consumption?You could argue about prohibition and the Volstead act. The greatest unintended consequence of Prohibition was the plainest to see. For over a decade, the law that was meant to foster temperance instead fostered intemperance and excess.[4]So what about Portugal where they were finally forced into legalization in 2001. A very important thing was that Portugal then shifted expenditures from Supply reduction (Law enforcement, etc) to Demand reduction (Helping the victims, providing effective support).“The opioid crisis soon stabilised, and the ensuing years saw dramatic drops in problematic drug use, HIV and hepatitis infection rates, overdose deaths, drug-related crime and incarceration rates. HIV infection plummeted from an all-time high in 2000 of 104.2 new cases per million to 4.2 cases per million in 2015. The data behind these changes has been studied and cited as evidence by harm-reduction movements around the globe.It’s misleading, however, to credit these positive results entirely to a change in law.Portugal’s remarkable recovery, and the fact that it has held steady through several changes in government – INCLUDING conservative leaders who would have preferred to return to the US-style war on drugs – could not have happened without an enormous cultural shift, and a change in how the country viewed drugs, addiction – and itself. “[5]Here’s what the not-so-lefty Rand Corporation had to say about expenditure on the War on Drugs. "This study found that the savings of supply-control programs are smaller than the control costs (an estimated 15 cents on the dollar for source-country control, 32 cents on the dollar for interdiction, and 52 cents on the dollar for domestic enforcement). In contrast, the savings of treatment programs are larger than the control costs; we estimate that the costs of crime and lost productivity are reduced by $7.46 for every dollar spend on treatment."THAT COST WORKS OUT AT >$75bn ANNUALLY!!!!!!7) Where to next?It can somehow still feel good to some to support a racist, murderous, ineffective, expensive, uncaring drug enforcement policy. Those on the side of the “Righteous” can continue to force all of us to write the big checks.I will continue to side with logic, humanity and reason. I hope you will too.Footnotes[1] http://www.aei.org/publication/the-shocking-and-sickening-story-behind-nixons-war-on-drugs-that-targeted-blacks-and-anti-war-activists/ (http://www.aei.org/publication/the-shocking-and-sickening-story-behind-nixons-war-on-drugs-that-targeted-blacks-and-anti-war-activists/)[2] A Brief History of the Drug War[3] The United States War on Drugs[4] Unintended Consequences[5] Portugal’s radical drugs policy is working. Why hasn’t the world copied it?