Good drugs, bad drugs, legal drugs, illegal drugs

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).

Because it's the people's problem, and the people benefit from the solutions so the people should be the ones to implement the solutions. Nobody else can be a stakeholder with enough interest to justify getting involved. But the police is run under the government. The prisons are run under the government. The hospitals are run under the government. If there is a way for the government to reduce spending on these things - to the benefit of the taxpayers, they should consider it - yes? Not suggesting that it is something to scoff at. If some group wants to contribute costs or subsidise the schemes entirely, I'd be perfectly happy with that. You make it sound like private companies can manage their own books or something, and that the economic problems are not in anyway influenced by the corruption,greed or incompetence of private companies.But either way it is not relevant. I pointed out a government run scheme that reduced crime rates, reduced addiction, reduced usage for people who had failed all other known treatments previously.Do you want to pay $120,000 to house each person in a secure building, pay for legal feess, feed them for a year every time they get caught or would you rather to pay $30,000 a year and stand a fairly good chance at reducing the amount of crime they commit, the amount of victims of emotionally charged crimes, the profits of organised criminals and terrorists etc etc? I have - I pay taxes that go towards prescribing heroin to certain types of heroin addicts for instance. Did you read what I posted?And you have too - you pay taxes to the police, you pay property insurance companies, pay for ambulance and fire services. You pay for coroners. You pay a crap load of your own hard earned cash for one of the largest prison population per capita in the civilised world (and uncivilised one for that matter). You already contribute for the social impact that drugs have on America - I'm just suggesting there may be more cost effective methods out there and you shouldn't dismiss them on the grounds that it involves the government because the current system you have already involves the government (prison, court costs etc).So - Hyro - address what I actually said which was about saving the people money - not making them spend more.

Food distribution, storage, and management is very much a government concern. The fact remains it presently is a burden to the tax payer. And the case I brought forward shows alternatives might be a lesser burden.I'm not interested in a debate about the role of government, just ways for the taxpayer to be less out of pocket. Whatever happens - other people will pay a price for others addictions. Drug addiction is a social burden... ignoring it doesn't work, an iron fist doesn't always work, and where it fails, providing a drug in a medical environment can succeed. But I presented empirical evidence for how. Obviously the American government aren't doing it, this isn't a competence hearing for your elected officials. This was a suggestion for a policy that might lower costs, not one that American politicians are likely to find attractive! (Though if you read the article I posted you would note that it has won votes in at least one country, and it is - to a limited extent, law in the UK) The people I referenced are habitual offenders, and this system reduces their criminal activities and reduces the money they pump to organised crime, terrorism etc. This is an empirical claim for which there is some evidence. It doesn't matter who is involved - the point is that the tax payers presently lose money because of addicts. They lose money putting them in prison when they commit property crimes. They lose money by having to pay increased insurance premiums (or just losing their stuff/cash etc). They lose money paying for police officer to protect them from black market interests.The tax payer is losing money. I have proposed a method where the tax payer could be losing less money.I didnt think you'd be objecting to that. Whether or not your idea is better, depends on your benchmarks - but if burden to the good people of the USA is one of them, surely you agree that my suggestion could be better than the present system you guys have?Since it is our mutual problem - how do you suggest we all work together to sort it out? What evidence do you have that it will work better than the idea I presented?