Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsMonday, August 24, 2009
Drugs Ask a Heroin Addict
Posted by Dominic Holden on Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 1:31 PM
When the New York Times reported on the impacts of Mexico's four-day-old law to decriminalize the possession of small amount of drugs, they went to the most credible person first. They talked to someone who understands the cost of running a corrupt and expensive criminal-justice system, an expert on the medical treatment of health and social problems, and a person who understands how to undermine murderous cartels: a heroin and cocaine addict living on the streets of Tijuana.
Yolanda Espinosa’s eyes darted this way and that. Her hands trembled. For Ms. Espinosa, a cocaine and heroin addict in desperate need of a fix, a new Mexican law decriminalizing the possession of small quantities of drugs had a definite appeal.“That’s good,” she said in her mile-a-minute speaking style. “Real good.”
But as someone fed up with her life in Tijuana’s red light district, where she and hundreds of other addicts live in flophouses and traipse through the streets in search of their next dose, Ms. Espinosa also had her doubts about what Mexico’s politicians had done.
“No one should live like I live,” she said. “It’s an awful life. You do anything to satisfy your urge. You sell your body. It ruins you. I hope this won’t make more people live like this.”
Look out, says the NYT, decriminalizing drugs first and foremost is "real good" for drug addicts and it could lead to more sorry souls like Espinosa. Uh, hello, Espinosa became a drug addict while drug possession was illegal. And rather than provide her treatment, the Mexican government has treated her as a criminal, and she ended up a paranoid mess. She may not be the most credible person to talk about this, ya know? No one doubts that drugs can destroy people's lives—or, in more cases, that people seeking to destroy their lives can do it by abusing drugs—but this is shameless fear-mongering. And it's not just the NYT, the same "it sends the wrong" message is reported by other media outlets here and here.
Of course, eliminating penalties will allow some people who wouldn't have otherwise tried drugs—for fear of arrest—to try them. But it also means that if those people do become addicts they won't run from police and the government backed services that can help them. In Portugal, which decriminalized drug possession in 2001, drug use declined, HIV transmission dropped, and treatment increased.
Clearly, lots of people were involved in the decision to decriminalize drugs in Mexico—experts on treating drug abuse, reducing government spending, and cracking down on murderous cartels—but their logic is almost absent in this article. There are a couple quotes from Americans who talk about this as the first step in the right direction, but they're sandwiched between the fear-mongering woes of Espinosa and out of context facts (like the lack of penalties for failing to get treatment).
If the NYT wants to write an article that says decriminalization can lead to more drug abuse in Mexico, do it. But do it when there's proof. Do it four years after the policy is in place—and cite the statistics to back it up—not four days after the law goes into effect and propping the article on a babbling crack whore. This is a change from a drug war that has failed in every nation that it has ever been tried. The old policy in Mexico sure wasn't working for Espinosa and it hasn't been working for us in the US. Give it a chance, NYT: apply the facts before spewing this bullshit.
Nice job cleaning up the "Portugal" quote since it first ran, Dom.
Guess you're not a total loser.
The NYT employees the best journalist in the business.
They say so right there in the ad trying to sell subscriptions to the Weekend Package.
Are we going to believe the Bible of the Liberal Left or you?
4
Why? Nobody else in the dying industry is bothering.
"Are we going to believe the Bible of the Liberal Left or you?"
Keep regurgitating those Fox talking points, we on the "liberal left" love 'em.
6
9
10
I'm about as liberal as you can get, and drugs are for assholes.
12
Because we, unlike you actually care about societal good.
"I'm about as liberal as you can get"
Saying it doesn't make it true.
"and drugs are for assholes."
You're also a pretty shallow thinker.
Color me unsurprised.
16
I am liberal because I say so, believe so and vote so. How could you question someone you don't know? Stupid.
I care about societal good and that is why I say drugs are for losers.
Drug users often go to such lengths to justify stupid behaviors and attitudes.
So I'm an asshole am I? I take drugs, lots and lots of drugs - Talacen, Skelaxin, Daypro, Provigil, Abilify and Morphine are just a few of my 16 monthly presriptions.
Oh, you mean ILLEGAL drugs? Well, marijuanna helps my chronic pain more than the morphine does, but the DEA would rather I take something addictive instead of something that isn't.
And, yeah, the marijuanna helps me think. When I'm in pain I can't think of anything else. I can't DO anything except creep around and moan. When I'm not in pain I can get out of the house, interact with people, shop, do laundry - you know, normal everyday stuff.
Or am I just another stupid drug user who is going to 'such lengths to justify stupid behaviors'?
Look in the mirror before you start calling names.
Maybe you just mean illegal drugs. Even there, you're talking about a wide range of substances. Virtually everyone will agree that using heroin or PCP is just plain stupid. But millions of people all over the world have smoked marijuana, and there have undoubtedly been deep thinkers, great artists, and successful people from every walk of life among them. Are you familiar with the Beatles, or Louis Armstrong? How about Carl Sagan? He was a pretty deep thinker, and he liked a joint now and then.
Some drugs are dangerous. Some are addictive. Some are harmless. And some can be downright beneficial to some people.
19
Using drugs or not using drugs doesn't make you a deep thinker. Examining all aspects of a societal problem does. You're just a shallow, dull witted person.
"I am liberal because I say so, believe so and vote so. How could you question someone you don't know? Stupid."
You may say so and vote so, but you don't think so.
"I care about societal good and that is why I say drugs are for losers."
Again, you choose a simplistic answer, devoid of all externalities into a simple "DRUGS GOOD DRUGS BAD" dichotomy.
"Drug users often go to such lengths to justify stupid behaviors and attitudes."
Even if you don't like drugs, the response of the government and certain stigmas are more counterproductive than the addictive behaviors themselves. You're again narrowing a very complex subject down to "just say no!" like a childish Reaganite.
20
You can call yourself a liberal all you want, but regressive, conservative, maintaining of status quo, and rule of law/anti consensual "crime" arguments aren't particularly convincing.
Do you believe that you're a liberal? Sure, I suppose.
Do you bother to think about what that means in regards to challenging your beliefs and fostering empathy towards others? Nope.
24
I'm glad she's dead and wish her ideas would die alongside.
"21
Way to go, Will! "
Way to be too dumb to argue with anything put forth.
"Dead bored? Why not just be DEAD?
TRY HEROIN!
Ten million dead junkies can't be wrong! "
Junkies die because of the illicit drug trade. Drug treatment and/or controlled doses of heroin prevent that from being the case. Yet another example of Reaganite philosophy winning out over reality.
26
The question I ask is: Was the policy change in Mexico a result of a thoughtful government seeking to reduce drug problems, or a triumph of the drug cartels that apparently run the country now? Morality aside, is this just more proof that "rule of law" is disappearing in that country?
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
Dear Huffington Post... by Dan Savage
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
The Rick Santorum Rally in Tacoma Probably Could Have Gone Better by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Because Guns Make Us More Safer by Goldy
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (28) RSS