Giving drugs to drug addicts

[metadigital]

I don't think everyone in prison for drug related offences would be 'straight' without the drugs offences. But I certainly think that a large percentage of them would be outside and pretty much crime free with the drug.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, and then they will be convicted of real crimes, and serve time for them.

 

There is an interesting observation here in Britain at the moment about the recidivism of serious offenders (rapists, murderers) on parole, because:

• recidivistic rates have more than doubled (rapes by paroled convicts in 2003: 26; and in 2005-6 over 100); and
  
• because of the overcrowding in jails (more people being convicted of crimes and more severe sentences) it is much more common to convert custodial sentences to parole, earlier.
  

What it doesn't consider is that, as well as insufficient monitoring by the government (that's a given), these recivistic trends were not even recorded beforehand (the convicts just served out there terms and were released, no further records kept).

 

Point is: the vast majority of crime is committed by the same people.

 

Commence Root-Cause Analysis as to why, now ...

[Walsingham]

I thought is was well known that a vast percentage of crime is committed by a very small percentage of people. Probably even more if we actually caught a lot of the pirates in pinstripe.

[metadigital]

Sure, hence the success of the zero-tolerance approach in NYC, for example. I was interested in the hard data (haven't seen a lot of it before for recidivism).

[Walsingham]

We're getting onto another subject there. I'm simply saying that if you really have tried hard to stop a crime, and people keep doing it IN THEIR MILLIONS, thereby funding foreign and domestic enemies to teh tune of billions of dollars a year

 

... And someone gives you the notion of decriminalising the activity and in fact making it completely free...

 

then it's a plan.

 

EDIT: Just to prove my intellectual cojones I'd like to use a Waterworld analogy. The world begins to fill up with water. We can try at vast expense to shore up our borders, and that's not a bad idea. But if it turns out that the sea defences just aren't working maybe it's times to grow gills and live in that fabulous kingdom under the sea. It's not how grandad thought we'd be living, but it might be quite nice.

[metadigital]

Well, otherwise the (let's assume) minority who desire the RIGHT to intoxicate themselves however they wish are held under a tyranny of the remaining majority.

 

Hence free societies are inherently fairer.

[Walsingham]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6175759.stm

 

We've been having a sequence of murders here in the UK, which you may have heard of. I append this article, which observes that many of the women working the sex trade are doing so purely to fund their drug habit.

 

Arresting a prostitute ONCE and cautioning her (not even giving her any penalty)costs more than simply giving her heroin for a year.

[Gfted1]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6175759.stm

 

Arresting a prostitute ONCE and cautioning her (not even giving her any penalty)costs more than simply giving her heroin for a year.

 

As I didnt see this in the article, I can only guess your pulling it out of thin air. Unless the UK police force is so unbelievably inept as to cost themselves tens of thousands of pounds in the process of typing a single report, there is no way this can be true.

Edited December 13, 2006 by Gfted1

[metadigital]

Actually the police are well known to be drowning in paperwork: they only get out on the street about 2 days a wek (the rest is behind a desk writing everything up).

 

Sorry for the guestimates, but I haven't kept up with the stats. If you are interested, there is an anonymous policeman who has been writing a blog about the trials and tribulations of being a copper in the UK.

 

[alanschu]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6175759.stm

 

Arresting a prostitute ONCE and cautioning her (not even giving her any penalty)costs more than simply giving her heroin for a year.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As I didnt see this in the article, I can only guess your pulling it out of thin air. Unless the UK police force is so unbelievably inept as to cost themselves tens of thousands of pounds in the process of typing a single report, there is no way this can be true.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Why would heroin cost tens of thousands of pounds to make?

[Gfted1]

Actually the police are well known to be drowning in paperwork: they only get out on the street about 2 days a wek (the rest is behind a desk writing everything up).

 

Sorry for the guestimates, but I haven't kept up with the stats. If you are interested, there is an anonymous policeman who has been writing a blog about the trials and tribulations of being a copper in the UK.

 

 

 

If this was directed at me, I dont think I understand you meta. Im sure all cops worldwide have mountains of paperwork to write-up each day that detail the crimes deal with but how does that tie into Walshingham's post?

 

Using his article as a basis, lets assume the average junkie spends $60 per fix. Lets also assume they only need one fix a day. That comes to $21,900.00/year. I find it nigh impossible that arresting one person one time and not even sending them to court (penalty phase) cost the city where the offence took place more then $22k. While I dont know this for a fact nor do I have any references to link to I would also say the numbers used above are extremely conservative and the average junkie spends far in excess of $60.00/day.

[Gfted1]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6175759.stm

 

Arresting a prostitute ONCE and cautioning her (not even giving her any penalty)costs more than simply giving her heroin for a year.

 

As I didnt see this in the article, I can only guess your pulling it out of thin air. Unless the UK police force is so unbelievably inept as to cost themselves tens of thousands of pounds in the process of typing a single report, there is no way this can be true.

 

 

Why would heroin cost tens of thousands of pounds to make?

 

Ingredients? Delivery system? Infrastructure?

 

I dont know how much the manufacture of heroin would cost the govornment, I was basing that cost on $60.00/day x 1 year (explained in slightly more detail above).

[alanschu]

Except that the fact the substance is illegal inflates its price.

 

I'd imagine the $60 a day, like a lot of drugs, involves insane markups.

Edited December 13, 2006 by alanschu

[deganawida]

Except that the fact the substance is illegal inflates its price.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Having the government involved in its production and distribution would inflate it even more...

[Gfted1]

I wonder how the U.S. govornment would deal with the liability of becoming a drug dealer. I can see lawsuit's out the wazoo. Here its currently possible for a bar (or private citizen) to be sued, and found liable, for "over serving" a patron who leaves drunk and wraps his car around a tree. What happens when Junkie McSmack wrecks into a bus full of handicapped? Thats right, "Its not my fault! The govornment gave me the heroin which caused me to crash my car!"

[alanschu]

I wonder how the U.S. govornment would deal with the liability of becoming a drug dealer. I can see lawsuit's out the wazoo. Here its currently possible for a bar (or private citizen) to be sued, and found liable, for "over serving" a patron who leaves drunk and wraps his car around a tree. What happens when Junkie McSmack wrecks into a bus full of handicapped? Thats right, "Its not my fault! The govornment gave me the heroin which caused me to crash my car!"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Err, we're talking about the prospect of providing these drugs to drug addicts, through government channels.

 

Just now you decide to bring this up?

 

Besides, you make it sound like heroin would become available at your local drugstore.

 

 

 

Having the government involved in its production and distribution would inflate it even more...

 

Unlikely.

[Gfted1]

I wonder how the U.S. govornment would deal with the liability of becoming a drug dealer. I can see lawsuit's out the wazoo. Here its currently possible for a bar (or private citizen) to be sued, and found liable, for "over serving" a patron who leaves drunk and wraps his car around a tree. What happens when Junkie McSmack wrecks into a bus full of handicapped? Thats right, "Its not my fault! The govornment gave me the heroin which caused me to crash my car!"

 

 

Err, we're talking about the prospect of providing these drugs to drug addicts, through government channels.

 

Just now you decide to bring this up?

 

Besides, you make it sound like heroin would become available at your local drugstore.

 

I dunno, I just thought of it. What does the timing of the question have to do with anything?

 

Another point I brought up earlier in the thread got lost in the discussion. I think methodone clinics are available in every major city that, afaik, give the stuff away. Why hasnt this "taken a bite out of crime"?

[metadigital]

I wonder how the U.S. govornment would deal with the liability of becoming a drug dealer. I can see lawsuit's out the wazoo. Here its currently possible for a bar (or private citizen) to be sued, and found liable, for "over serving" a patron who leaves drunk and wraps his car around a tree. What happens when Junkie McSmack wrecks into a bus full of handicapped? Thats right, "Its not my fault! The govornment gave me the heroin which caused me to crash my car!"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Same thing that happens when a drunk hits a busload of schoolchildren: he gets the electric chair.

[alanschu]

Another point I brought up earlier in the thread got lost in the discussion. I think methodone clinics are available in every major city that, afaik, give the stuff away. Why hasnt this "taken a bite out of crime"?

 

Who says it hasn't?

[~Di]

There is a huge difference between a paternalistic government legislating what competent, consenting adult citizens can and cannot do with and to their own bodies, and legislating what activities an impaired person, either drunk or stoned, can do in public that will affect other citizens. Hence, it is legal to drink alcohol; it is not legal to drive a car while intoxicated.

 

I don't see why it wouldn't be the same for people who use drugs. If they want to use them, fine. Make drugs legal, cut out the criminal middle-men, open a bunch of rehab centers paid for by the cost of now-legal drugs (whether paid for by drug users, taxpayers or both) and the cost savings from the judicial and penal system of incarcerating millions of non-violent drug offenders for decades and decades and decades.

 

To me it's a no brainer. People have a right to make bad choices about their own bodies and their own personal habits. They have to pay the consequences for those choices in the way of being socially ostracized (smokers!) and being held accountable if their choices affect others (driving while under the influence, or being unable to function at one's job)... but it wouldn't be any different than it is now. People can drink and smoke, but they have to pay the social and legal price if their habit infringes upon others. Just add drug users to that list.

 

There simply is no down-side that I can see, other than people continue to want to use the power of government to press their personal morality on all of society... at enormous, ENORMOUS cost to us all.

[Gfted1]

Another point I brought up earlier in the thread got lost in the discussion. I think methodone clinics are available in every major city that, afaik, give the stuff away. Why hasnt this "taken a bite out of crime"?

 

Who says it hasn't?

 

Well, obviously it hasnt since we're so vigorously discussing what a pancea "free drugs" would be.

[Gfted1]

There is a huge difference between a paternalistic government legislating what competent, consenting adult citizens can and cannot do with and to their own bodies, and legislating what activities an impaired person, either drunk or stoned, can do in public that will affect other citizens.  Hence, it is legal to drink alcohol; it is not legal to drive a car while intoxicated.

 

I don't see why it wouldn't be the same for people who use drugs.  If they want to use them, fine.  Make drugs legal, cut out the criminal middle-men, open a bunch of rehab centers paid for by the cost of now-legal drugs (whether paid for by drug users, taxpayers or both) and the cost savings from the judicial and penal system of incarcerating millions of non-violent drug offenders for decades and decades and decades.

 

To me it's a no brainer.  People have a right to make bad choices about their own bodies and their own personal habits.  They have to pay the consequences for those choices in the way of being socially ostracized (smokers!) and being held accountable if their choices affect others (driving while under the influence, or being unable to function at one's job)... but it wouldn't be any different than it is now.  People can drink and smoke, but they have to pay the social and legal price if their habit infringes upon others.  Just add drug users to that list. 

 

There simply is no down-side that I can see, other than people continue to want to use the power of government to press their personal morality on all of society... at enormous, ENORMOUS cost to us all.

 

Nice sidestep.

 

I think you know I not talking about the perp, but the victims. Its already on the books that a victim or their family may sue an establisment or private citizen because they "over served" a person that later commited a vehicular crime due to intoxication.

 

Now, lets take it a step futher. Little Johnny's family is righfully enraged that some fool who just got high at The Govornment Smack Institute ran over little Johnny while he was out playing with little Sally. They, using the tools already at their disposal, sue the govornment for 1 BILLION DOLLARS. Now multiply this by the number of times it happens. I think we all see where this is going.

[metadigital]

The drug policy of the Netherlands is based on 2 principles:

1. Drug use is a public health issue, not a criminal matter
    
   
2. A distinction between hard drugs and soft drugs exists
   

It is a pragmatic policy. Most policymakers in the Netherlands believe that if a problem has proved to be unsolvable, it is better to try controlling it instead of continuing to enforce laws with mixed results. By comparison, most other countries take the point of view that drugs are detrimental to society and must therefore be outlawed, even when such policies fail to eliminate drug use.

 

Even in the Netherlands, though:

Hard drugs/soft drugs

A distinction is drawn between hard drugs (which bear "unacceptable" risks; e.g. cocaine, heroin and ecstasy) and soft drugs such as the psychedelic psilocybin mushrooms as well as cannabis products: hashish and marijuana (as defined in the Dutch Opium Act). The distinction is drawn on whether the substance is only psychologically addictive (i.e. producing no worse effect than moderate craving when withdrawn) or also physically addictive. One of the main aims of this policy is to separate the markets for soft and hard drugs so that soft drug users are less likely to come into contact with hard drugs. This policy also aims to take the soft drug market out of the hands of the criminals, thus reducing crime.

and the results (sorry, no citations):

In contrast with most countries' policies, the Dutch policy has yielded positive results in the war against drugs. The Netherlands spends more than

[~Di]

Nice sidestep.

 

I think you know I not talking about the perp, but the victims. Its already on the books that a victim or their family may sue an establisment or private citizen because they "over served" a person that later commited a vehicular crime due to intoxication.

 

Now, lets take it a step futher. Little Johnny's family is righfully enraged that some fool who just got high at The Govornment Smack Institute ran over little Johnny while he was out playing with little Sally. They, using the tools already at their disposal, sue the govornment for 1 BILLION DOLLARS. Now multiply this by the number of times it happens. I think we all see where this is going.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No sidestep at all, sugar-bug! Apples and oranges. Just as I think laws prohibiting drug use (or suicide or prostitution or any damned thing that a person does to himself that doesn't infringe on the rights of others) are wrong, I also think making Joe the Bartender liable for Dennis the Drunk's behavior is flat out wrong.

 

Repeal both laws. Allow people to make their own mistakes, and hold them personally accountable for any harm they do to others. Period.

[alanschu]

Another point I brought up earlier in the thread got lost in the discussion. I think methodone clinics are available in every major city that, afaik, give the stuff away. Why hasnt this "taken a bite out of crime"?

 

Who says it hasn't?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, obviously it hasnt since we're so vigorously discussing what a pancea "free drugs" would be.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I don't recall anyone vigorously discussing what a panacea it would result in. You're taking things as an absolute extreme to strengthen your position.

 

However, since you think this already exists, dig up some simple crime statistics.

 

 

Now, lets take it a step futher. Little Johnny's family is righfully enraged that some fool who just got high at The Govornment Smack Institute ran over little Johnny while he was out playing with little Sally. They, using the tools already at their disposal, sue the govornment for 1 BILLION DOLLARS. Now multiply this by the number of times it happens. I think we all see where this is going.

 

Curious where you got the 1 billion dollar value from?

 

How frequently does someone sue a liquor establishment during a vehicular homicide under the influence of alcohol? What about the circumstances. You're assuming that the clinic that provides this would allow people to just go off driving away. It's not like it's a for profit organization where a bar owner sees monetary benefit for continuing to serve alcohol to someone that has already drank too much. The bar gets more money, and by not ratting out a regular customer, continued money. That's what that can be seen as a problem.

 

There's no financial interest in a clinic for people with drug addictions to allow someone to drive intoxicated, or to continue serving them drugs beyond what they need.

Edited December 14, 2006 by alanschu

[Sand]

How frequently does someone sue a liquor establishment during a vehicular homicide under the influence of alcohol?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That is a good question but I will tell you this much, if someone shows up at my store drunk and wants to buy alcohol I will refuse the person the sale and if he or she was driving I will call the cops on him or her.