Good drugs, bad drugs, legal drugs, illegal drugs

The hypocrisy of society on the subject of drugs and the allure of outlaw behavior promote experimentation with addictive drugs.A society that treats addicts as what they are--ill--removes both.On the other hand, perhaps the best thing is to imprison drug users of all stripes, where they can be raped, generally brutalized and rendered nearly unemployable.Our prisons are overcrowded to inhumane levels because of our irrational drug policies. There are still states where you'll do more time for giving your neighbor a joint than for raping her.Jar's prescriptions are superbly rational. Until we tackle the problem of addiction with reason and compassion, the situation will continue to worsen.

---

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

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

My sincere apologies--I have now read upthread. My passion on the subject spilled over unfairly on you.Sorry 'bout that. I usually do try to read at least a fair amount of a thread before posting in it. You've reminded me why. Drugs, even addictive drugs, are not poison; mercury is not eaten by choice (it's mostly absorbed by children due to Republican environmental policy).The only true poisons involved are the poisons added to black market drugs, almost always adulterated with chemicals or drugs often more hazardous then the addictive drug itself.In my opinion (and experience), the only way to kill the black market in addictive drugs is to supplant it with an irresistibly superior choice. A state clinic can provide the drug free in return for participation in health programs: psych counselling, HIV prevention/treatment, employment counseling, etc. This also removes the addict from the criminal milieu: if addicts are chasing street drugs, they are also chasing crime.If the state sells drugs, there will be black market competition. The cost of manufacturing the drugs is trivial--sell them cheap at the state store, and the street dealers will beat that price. But dealers won't give it away.Why is it better to spend billions to combat street drugs than millions to provide free, safe drugs in a health care environment? Simple decriminalization alone will not address the street supply of drugs of uncertain quality and potency, nor will it remove gang criminality from what is essentially a health care issue.I understand that you feel you are adopting a principled, moral stand, but I don't see what is more moral about a situation that costs the taxpayers much more than jar's pragmatic solution.Of note, nations which adopt jar's plan would also disrupt black market supplies by purchasing at the source. Afghan opium, for example, would no longer profit the Taliban but would rather reduce U.S. crime rates and police costs. In passing, let me also note that the war on drugs, e.g., the no-knock warrant, began eroding our civil liberties long before the war on terrorism. The expense that "everyone else" pays now is extortionate. C'mon, Hyro, that analogy fails so badly I hardly have the heart to hurt it. The real loaded gun is the addict unable to obtain a fix because he can't afford it.What, you think he's just going to give it up?A better comparison would be refusing free medication to violent paranoid schizophrenics because it's unfair to do it at "everyone else's" expense--as though sick people should pay for their meds like everyone else, even if they're killing people to get the money.The first medicine an addict needs is her drug. You can't argue with the monkey on her back; feed it, put it to sleep, and you can at least talk to her.If she is reporting to health care providers to get her fix, the next medicine she'll get is the comprehensive treatment she needs.

---

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

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

I can't see how free addict clinics could possibly be more expensive than the current societal costs. As I said, drugs are cheap. We are presently in the realm of the heavy net loss. Sorry, I broke the boob tube addiction years ago. I'll see if I can find a torrent. The tough love paradigm is an American mythos I find unpersuasive: sure, some folks respond, but I doubt the majority do, or we'd have no problem now...our love has been pretty tough. I expect the episodes of Intervention feature carefully selected addicts and outcomes. It's entertainment.As to sociologists on the subject: No, I don't think they would say the same thing. I'd appreciate evidence of that kind of consensus. Jesus wept.When the government stops allowing the promotion and distribution of addictive, harmful substances/modes of delivery, I'll take your analogy more seriously. Besides, once chronic is legal, alcoholism will naturally decline. By the way, in response to your comments about nicotine to jar ('we've learned it is fatal')--in fact nicotine is not a pernicious drug. See my Message 40, Noble Nicotine, for a summary of its salutary effects.The problem is with modes of delivery, smoking or chewing, that cause the cancer, emphysema, etc., with which nicotine is associated. As I noted in Noble Nicotine, patches are sometimes quite useful.Insanely, the FDA opposes the development of harmless modes of nicotine delivery. I think it's a moral stand, much like yours. I know a number of physicians who refuse to prescribe nicotine patches--because nicotine addiction is bad--despite the tremendous pulmonary benefits even in a patient who uses patches forever. Theirs is a moral stand as well, completely without clinical justification. 1. That kind of initial commitment from an addict is meaningless.2. An addict can make only one mistake?3. We're going to cut your dose daily?Yes, let's design a program that no addict would find in the least bit attractive. That should work.Perhaps the greatest benefit of free clinics hasn't been mentioned. By largely destroying the black market for drugs, free clinics would also drastically reduce the number of new addicts.The key to a free clinic approach is to get the addict into an environment where she can be educated and counseled. A treatment plan similar to what you describe--a strong commitment to a schedule of withdrawal--is where you would hope to arrive.My surgeon prescribed drugs and extensive physical therapy, both at Rehab and at home, after my spine surgery. When I got tired or discouraged and failed to do my exercises or missed some doses, he didn't refuse to see me again.Addiction is a disease; moralistic demands that the addict cure herself by an act of will or face the consequences are doomed to failure. That's what we do now.

---

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

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

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

Hi, iano. Your market analysis seems to have some counterintuitive elements. How would addicts receiving free fixes at a state clinic have any price effect elsewhere?If the free clinics are devastating to black market drug supplies (and you seem to agree they would be), what other source of drugs could become cheaper? How would addicts receiving free fixes at a state clinic have any impact on street corners or alleyways?It's not as if folks would be able to present themselves to the clinic and say, "I'd like to become an addict, please."

---

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

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

Well, I'd not have the government supply "soft" drugs--just get out of the way, and let our gardening genius operate.Drug cartels can't compete with the homegrown movement. So we're probably ships passing while preparing broadsides at all ports.

---

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

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

Hi again, Hyro.I read your Case in Point. I found lots of outrage from tax critics, but I didn't find any suggested alternatives, nor an argument for why it would be cheaper to let addicts miss their methadone appointments, increasing the odds that they will relapse.Methadone impairs driving ability. Its long-acting effect on opioid receptors is what makes it useful for treating addicts, so having the addict wait until she is competent to drive home is impractical: I can hear you now, should the state give them hots and cots for the night.Nor are recovering addicts generally allowed to have doses of methadone at home, because there is a street market for it.The laws establishing these programs--including the shuttling of addicts to clinics for methadone administration--were passed because economic analysis showed it was cheaper to treat addicts than to accept the economic burden of their behavior when they are free and the huge cost of incarcerating them.So what would be better? How much economic damage would all those Bean & Cod addicts do if they fell off the methadone wagon? How much would it cost to incarcerate them?Tax and government critics are generally opposed to programs that don't benefit them directly, and, IMHO, they do poorly at understanding indirect, complex benefits. They tend to throw around quotes of costs without offering a more economical solution.Do you have one?

---

Dost thou think, because thou art virtuous, there shall be no more cakes and ale?
-Shakespeare

​

Real things always push back.
-William James