Good drugs, bad drugs, legal drugs, illegal drugs

From that link:

quote:

---

In this case, behaviors by family members allow individuals with substance use problems to avoid the negative consequences that may accompany their actions.

---

Again, you equivocate between 'non-professionals enabling their friends' and 'professionals enabling their patients'.
No-one is advocating that amateurs go around treating addicts.

What's the difference? Enabling behavior is enabling behavior regardless of where it's coming from.

---

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

Because it's not a role of the government. The government should not be waging wars on its citizens over drugs, nor should it expect its citizens to pay for the treatment of others.People tend to be very generous with other people's money, and very frugal with their own.

---

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

Wow - you only managed one sentence addressing my question before veering off into stuff about friends and family and tax payers.
*sigh*
Meh...I don't care enough to continue asking you for an answer you are either unable or unwilling to give.

Read the link that YOU provided...it explains.

Give me a break. YOU created the false dichotomy, not me. I answered your question fully.YES, clinicians who administer drugs to patients are very much responsible for the health and well-being of their patients, just like any other health care professional would be. I mean, the question is so asinine that it's pointless to even address.Are you satisfied now, or are you going to continue to derail progress of the thread with useless semantics?

---

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

Again, it is a matter of enlightened self interest.There is only one organization that has authority and presence nationwide, and that is the Federal Government.Producing what today are illicit drugs can be done in a very cost effective manor and distribution through a national health care clinic system would also add the education component needed.You mentioned that Meth was a particular problem because it was destructive, extremely habit forming but CHEAP. Well, free is even cheaper than CHEAP.By using the system I recommend the CHEAP excuse gets removed. It will the be easier for the health care folk to redirect users from the cheap alternative to safer alternatives.The ultimate goal is of course to move people from being non-productive and even destructive to productive lives.The return that citizens would get on their investment in the system I describe would be reduced costs, reduced crime, more productive citizens and new business opportunities for those growing and manufacturing the drugs. For the users it would provide counseling, health care, remove the need to earn the fix through other illicit activities such as theft, prostitution, robbery.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Panda: Are you still claiming that people that faciltate safe drug use ensure the death of the addicts?
Hyroglyphx: YES, clinicians who administer drugs to patients are very much responsible for the health and well-being of their patients,LOL! Really LOL!Panda: What is the time?
Hyroglyphx: I have a really nice wrist-watch.Too funny.

You recommend legalisation and easing of access.A general rule of thumb when it comes to consumables tells us that as access simplifies > consumption goes up. In the case of illicit drugs the simplification of access would take the form of legalisation (dismantling the current restraint supplied by illicitedness), reduced price (enabled by removal of the drugs cartels and production by efficient methods), ease of access ( available on the street corner instead of down dark alleyways), reduction of hazard (enabled by certainty of source).What you suggest would , it would seem, result in an increase in consumption by people currently prohibited from partaking by the above restraints. Have you take account of this in your forecast?

Any empirical evidence for this rule of thumb?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

His thumb.Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.

---

I know there's a balance, I see it when I swing past.
-J. Mellencamp

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

dvd players, automobiles, organic food, paracetamol, alcohol, blue-ray. I'm waiting for the price of ipads to fall to a fraction of the current price myself. It's kind of self-evident really: remove reasons to abstain from the consumption of that which is attractive and consumption will increase. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Cigarettes?
Alcohol?
(Oh...you said alcohol. Should we go with your figures or with HM Revenue & Customs'?)You might need to have your thumb recalibrated.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

I don't think it has been tried for all drugs, but various trial-runs have been performed for drugs such as heroin. It costs about 15,000 a year to provide a heroin addict with their fix (plus overheads) but it costs 44,000 a year to put them in prison. So if it works better than prison - it is certainly worth considering it seriously. As has been pointed out already - society is already paying for the drugs of many addicts (via property crime) AND some of their housing, security, treatment (via prison) etc. The fact is that addicts are going to cost us money - so we should be looking at how to reduce that where possible.Not reason alone to try the system, obviously (if it increased crimerates for instance, we might reconsider), but when it transpires that it serves to reduce the use of heroin and lowers associated crimes such as robbery....I think it deserves a little more attention.

quote:

---

The trial started three years ago and yielded benefits within months. Early results showed crimes committed by the addicts dropped from about 40 to six a month, after six months of treatment. A third of the addicts stopped using street heroin and the number of occasions when the rest "scored" dropped from every day to four to five times a month.

​

The programme was modelled on one in Switzerland where introduction of injecting-clinics "medicalised" heroin use, removing its glamour and transforming it from an act of rebellion to an illness requiring treatment. Last year, Swiss voters backed the scheme in a referendum, proving it could be a vote-winner. Similar clinics have also been established in France, Germany and Canada.

​

The first British injecting clinic, run by the Maudsley Hospital, opened on a south London high street in 2005. Heroin addicts who had failed on all other treatments and served repeated prison sentences for shoplifting and other crimes attended twice a day and received a dose of diamorphine (pharmaceutical grade heroin) which they injected themselves, under supervision.

---

Source.Common sense notions on how addicts will react to certain things are probably borne out of media representations of addicts as depraved people that will lie, steal, manipulate, cajole and commit just about any act for a fix. These dimensions are obviously apparent, and certainly are the flaws that make for a good story...but there are many more dimensions to consider to the human that is addicted.The reality may well be more complicated than our prejudiced expectations of addicts, and that other factors lead to continued usage. Surely, the evidence isn't really compelling enough to have a free for all policy on any and all drugs circimstances notwithstanding - but also the evidence shows we shouldn't dismiss the notion government handing out drugs to at least certain kinds of addicts rather than allowing them to acquire them on the black market.The addicts the above cited study were all hardened addicts, other treatments had failed and they had become repeat offenders in crimes of acquisition. It may be ineffective against those kinds of addicts that would otherwise have done well with substitutes like methadone, or group therapy or what have you. Clearly, studies in this area are very difficult - ethical concerns raise their head left right and centre...but the more we know, the better the policies we can create.It should be remembered though that humans are wierd and irrational beings, and that legitimising behaviour can sometimes be a better modifier of behaviour than prohibiting it - if it is handled correctly (just ask any parent).

Consumption is falling. And? Ditto above.AbE: Overall consumption falling doesn't necessarily alter the fact that the elimination of restraining factors causes an (relative to what otherwise would be the case) increase in consumption.

quote:

---

AIMS: We conducted a systematic review of studies examining relationships between measures of beverage alcohol tax or price levels and alcohol sales or self-reported drinking. A total of 112 studies of alcohol tax or price effects were found, containing 1003 estimates of the tax/price-consumption relationship.

---

quote:

---

CONCLUSIONS: A large literature establishes that beverage alcohol prices and taxes are related inversely to drinking. Effects are large compared to other prevention policies and programs. Public policies that raise prices of alcohol are an effective means to reduce drinking.

---

SourceEdited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.