Some things cannot be denied as fact. The laws of thermodynamics are just four of them. The war on drugs is another. However, unlike the laws of thermodynamics it's undeniably not working. Imprisoning addicts and low level drug pushers - who make up 80% of people imprisoned for drug related offenses - is not going to solve the problem. It's an expensive waste of resources. Furthermore, since the drug laws in the USA are completely fucking ******ed, people who committed more serious crimes are released early to make room in overcrowded prisons for more junkies and low level pushers.
However, just because I think that the laws are ******ed doesn't mean I believe stuff like Heroin should be legal. I can say with absolute certainty that I know how dangerous it is and that it is not something that should be freely available to anyone and everyone. I vehemently oppose the legalisation of anything harder than weed (which I am openly indifferent about).
What I am in favour of however, is harm reduction and medicalisation. The former is very simple. It's about reducing the dangers of addiction for the addicts. Things needle exchanges (taking in and disposing of used needles and syringes and distributing sterile ones) to stop the spread of HIV, hepatitis and other such blood borne diseases and distributing Naloxone (an opiate blocker) which can save the life of someone who ODs on Heroin, or any other opiate.
Medicalisation is taking the supply of drugs out of the street and into a controlled medical environment. Addicts are supplied with calculated quantities of pharmaceutical grade drugs which they can take in a clean area where medical professionals can intervene if anything goes wrong. This would ideally be free for the addicts, as this adds an incentive for addicts to enter treatment rather than paying for their high. On the surface this might sound insane, paying for addicts to shoot up. However, if you think about it for longer it's not for two reasons.
1) If addicts aren't paying for their drugs, they have no incentive to commit crimes in order to fund their addiction. This reduction in drug related crime means that less money is spent trying, and incarcerating drug addicts, which eases the strain on prisons and the tax payer. Switzerland, who have a programme exactly like this made savings of double the cost of the drugs due to not having to pay to keep addicts locked up. This rather nifty graph sums it up nicely.
2) If addicts are getting their drugs from government sources, they aren't getting it from drug runners. One of the biggest problems or law enforcement is that no matter how hard they try, vast quantities of illegal drugs are going to make it across borders and onto the streets of every country. The drug cartels are too big, powerful and determined to be stopped with blunt force. For every coke factory in Columbia burned down, another will be built. For every shipment of Heroin intercepted on the Afghan/Iranian border seized, another six won't be.
However, if the government steps in to meet the demand for illegal drugs, this becomes a non-issue. The market for the drugs drasticly shrinks, and the profitability of supplying drugs illegally drops like a stone, potentially making it uneconomical to continue their activities.
In short, the only sure fire way to win the war on drugs is to give addicts drugs.
What is your stance on the War on Drugs?
Do you consider law enforcement to be the most effective way to deal with drug addicts, and drug related crime?
If not, what do you think should be done with drug addicts?
However, just because I think that the laws are ******ed doesn't mean I believe stuff like Heroin should be legal. I can say with absolute certainty that I know how dangerous it is and that it is not something that should be freely available to anyone and everyone. I vehemently oppose the legalisation of anything harder than weed (which I am openly indifferent about).
What I am in favour of however, is harm reduction and medicalisation. The former is very simple. It's about reducing the dangers of addiction for the addicts. Things needle exchanges (taking in and disposing of used needles and syringes and distributing sterile ones) to stop the spread of HIV, hepatitis and other such blood borne diseases and distributing Naloxone (an opiate blocker) which can save the life of someone who ODs on Heroin, or any other opiate.
Medicalisation is taking the supply of drugs out of the street and into a controlled medical environment. Addicts are supplied with calculated quantities of pharmaceutical grade drugs which they can take in a clean area where medical professionals can intervene if anything goes wrong. This would ideally be free for the addicts, as this adds an incentive for addicts to enter treatment rather than paying for their high. On the surface this might sound insane, paying for addicts to shoot up. However, if you think about it for longer it's not for two reasons.
1) If addicts aren't paying for their drugs, they have no incentive to commit crimes in order to fund their addiction. This reduction in drug related crime means that less money is spent trying, and incarcerating drug addicts, which eases the strain on prisons and the tax payer. Switzerland, who have a programme exactly like this made savings of double the cost of the drugs due to not having to pay to keep addicts locked up. This rather nifty graph sums it up nicely.
2) If addicts are getting their drugs from government sources, they aren't getting it from drug runners. One of the biggest problems or law enforcement is that no matter how hard they try, vast quantities of illegal drugs are going to make it across borders and onto the streets of every country. The drug cartels are too big, powerful and determined to be stopped with blunt force. For every coke factory in Columbia burned down, another will be built. For every shipment of Heroin intercepted on the Afghan/Iranian border seized, another six won't be.
However, if the government steps in to meet the demand for illegal drugs, this becomes a non-issue. The market for the drugs drasticly shrinks, and the profitability of supplying drugs illegally drops like a stone, potentially making it uneconomical to continue their activities.
In short, the only sure fire way to win the war on drugs is to give addicts drugs.
What is your stance on the War on Drugs?
Do you consider law enforcement to be the most effective way to deal with drug addicts, and drug related crime?
If not, what do you think should be done with drug addicts?