Giving drugs to drug addicts

[metadigital]

Just as a further ramble to my previous post, using the data for cannabis sativa:

Some 11 per cent of the US population over the age of 12 uses cannabis annually, including 28 per cent of people aged 18-2512 and over a third of children in their final year of high school.13 The United States Office of National Drug Control Policy has estimated that these users consumed, on average, a remarkable 19 joints a month containing 0.4 grams of cannabis in 2000, for a total consumption of over 1,000 metric tons of cannabis. While the amount of cannabis consumed per user seems remarkably high, given that a large share of these are casual users, the total consumed is rather low, about a third of the lowest estimates of domestic production alone, let alone imports.

Even in the United States, a country with a regular household survey on drug use, a large eradication programme, and well-developed criminal intelligence, recent official estimates of the extent of domestic cultivation vary by more than a factor of six.

The UNODC estimate of global annual adult prevalence for cannabis use is 4 per cent, or about 162 million people. Use rates vary substantially by region, but for the rough estimate made here, regional differences in consumption patterns are not taken into account.

Sources from a wide range of countries suggest that about 14 per cent of annual cannabis users are daily users, a higher figure than many would expect. If these figures could be generalized to the total global population, this suggests that about 22.5 million people use cannabis daily or near-daily, with the other 138.5 million using it less often.

...

One can estimate that of the 162 million people who use cannabis each year, about 75 million could be classed

wdr2006_chap2_biggest_market.pdf

[Walsingham]

Gfted1, I'm a little narked that you don't seem to have listened to very much of what I've been saying. A year's supply of heroin only costs thousands because it is illegal. It's the only reason. In its unlegislated form it is easier and cheaper to create than wheat flour. Imagine for a moment that someone was commiting crimes to fund a debilitating cardboard habit. What we're saying is, just give them the damn cardboard.

 

Methadone, on the other hand, being an artificial chemical, actually _is_ expensive to make, and is far worse for you, encouraging among other things, bone cancer [i've no facts on the bone cancer thing, but I've heard it so many plces I haven't bothered checking].

[Gfted1]

Gfted1, I'm a little narked that you don't seem to have listened to very much of what I've been saying. A year's supply of heroin only costs thousands because it is illegal. It's the only reason. In its unlegislated form it is easier and cheaper to create than wheat flour. Imagine for a moment that someone was commiting crimes to fund a debilitating cardboard habit. What we're saying is, just give them the damn cardboard.

 

Well, Im sorry to see that you are "narked" but if you expect me to take your "facts" at your word without you providing any sources then most likely any serious discussion you and I have will end in you becoming narked. If you come in and throw random numbers around (that sound absurd to me), I will question you on it. It doesnt mean I dont "get you".

 

Ive read and understood your point, I simply disagree.

 

Methadone, on the other hand, being an artificial chemical, actually _is_ expensive to make, and is far worse for you, encouraging among other things, bone cancer [i've no facts on the bone cancer thing, but I've heard it so many plces I haven't bothered checking].

 

While that may be true, its beyond the scope of our discussion. You say free drugs is the cure to: 80% of prison overpopulation, organized crime, prostitution, bad breath, etc... Fine. I say free drugs are already readily available and yet these conditionas still exist. What gives?

 

Curious where you got the 1 billion dollar value from?

 

Austin Powers: International Man Of Mysters. Or it could have been Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me. I cant remember which.

 

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.

 

Your not advocating that the junkie hang out on the property until they sober up are you? Now you will need rooms for them, and a nurse/doctor to make sure they dont drown in their own vomit. Oh, and dont forget the niceties such as bathrooms and the people to keep all this all running.

 

Better be careful or your sub $60 heroin habit is going to quickly spiral out of control.

Edited December 14, 2006 by Gfted1

[metadigital]

Gfted1, I'm a little narked that you don't seem to have listened to very much of what I've been saying. A year's supply of heroin only costs thousands because it is illegal. It's the only reason. In its unlegislated form it is easier and cheaper to create than wheat flour. Imagine for a moment that someone was commiting crimes to fund a debilitating cardboard habit. What we're saying is, just give them the damn cardboard.

Well, Im sorry to see that you are "narked" but if you expect me to take your "facts" at your word without you providing any sources then most likely any serious discussion you and I have will end in you becoming narked. If you come in and throw random numbers around (that sound absurd to me), I will question you on it. It doesnt mean I dont "get you".

 

Ive read and understood your point, I simply disagree.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What are you calculating as part of the costs? Because the poppy is tantamount to a weed that grows prolifically: the most expensive part of the process is cultivating the crop (which is currently done mostly by hand).

 

The cost-to-market would be comparable to any grain. And that's not supposing the West just purchase the existing crops from Afghanistan, to remove the Taliban from the process. (Helping prevent the use of more funds and young soldiers' lives to keep the Armed Forces over there.)

Methadone, on the other hand, being an artificial chemical, actually _is_ expensive to make, and is far worse for you, encouraging among other things, bone cancer [i've no facts on the bone cancer thing, but I've heard it so many plces I haven't bothered checking].

While that may be true, its beyond the scope of our discussion. You say free drugs is the cure to: 80% of prison overpopulation, organized crime, prostitution, bad breath, etc... Fine. I say free drugs are already readily available and yet these conditionas still exist. What gives?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It does make a difference but, because of the limited scope of drug rehabilitation schemes, lots more is needed. So you can provide more expensive and equally toxic methadone, or cheap heroine.

 

Recall that article I posted above(<{POST_SNAPBACK}>):

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

[Walsingham]

I'm not narked that you don't agree. I thought weren't paying attention. And it's fair enough that you want a source for the figures. I'm basing my argument on:

 

1) The opium poppy grows with no encouragement on land too harsh for any other crops. It is fantastically easy to harvest the sap and treat it until it is No 3 grade. No 4 grade is only marginally harder to achieve. - Choose your own sources for this. Pretty clear.

2) The 'wholesale' price in Afghanistan in particular is around

[Gfted1]

What are you calculating as part of the costs? Because the poppy is tantamount to a weed that grows prolifically: the most expensive part of the process is cultivating the crop (which is currently done mostly by hand).

 

My estimates were calculated purely on the numbers provided in the article Walshingham linked us to about the ex-hooker/junkie who stated approximately $60.00/fix was needed for the habit.

 

It does make a difference but, because of the limited scope of drug rehabilitation schemes, lots more is needed. So you can provide more expensive and equally toxic methadone, or cheap heroine.

 

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

Edited December 14, 2006 by Gfted1

[Walsingham]

Thanks for taking the time to go through al that, mate. I appreciate it.

 

Like you I get pretty finicky where my taxes are concerned. I get finicky about people getting stuff on my dollar, and get furious about people taking from me and the country and doing sweet FA in return. But I'm also a realist (as I see things ) and I am prepared to bite a small price over a big one. I am particularly prepared to do so if I can trade off that small price in exchange for seeing my concerns about violent crime, terrorism, and general world poverty/corruption addressed. All of which are linked heavily to the black market and drug money.

 

Obviously I'd like to see no-one trying these drugs. I just don't think that happens by fighting them as we have done. We have to get sneaky.

[alanschu]

I say free drugs are already readily available and yet these conditionas still exist. What gives?

 

Are you more convinced that this is the case? Before you just said you thought it was (which was kind of funny, given the lengthy discourse about wanting proof and citations).

 

 

Especially when you admit to pulling the 1 billion dollar value out of your own ass. Hyperbole for effect?

 

 

Your not advocating that the junkie hang out on the property until they sober up are you? Now you will need rooms for them, and a nurse/doctor to make sure they dont drown in their own vomit. Oh, and dont forget the niceties such as bathrooms and the people to keep all this all running.

 

I'm sorry, but why would the treatment for the junkie be much different than that of a heavily intodxicated alcoholic, whom could also theoretically drown in their own vomit?

 

 

 

As for even the "really underestimated" $60 cost, Switzerland started an experiement by prescribing heroin to those that had a hard time on withdrawl programs. It cost $13 per dose.

 

http://www.drugpolicy.org/library%5Ctlcnr.cfm

Edited December 15, 2006 by alanschu

[metadigital]

I know Tasmania has (or had) 70% of the world's legal production of the poppy (for medicinal Pethidine and Morphine use in medicine).

I believe Pethidine is up there with Heroin in the abuse stakes, too (large percentage of which are doctors self-medicating).

In a randomised double-blind study with crossover at an outpatient clinic in Bern, Switzerland, morphine was proven to have stronger side-effects than heroin at equianalgesic doses. Respiratory depression, miosis, sedation, itchiness, and euphoria were more pronounced with morphine.

[Gfted1]

I get the feeling you are more interested in arguing then discussing but Ill bite.

 

I say free drugs are already readily available and yet these conditionas still exist. What gives?

 

Are you more convinced that this is the case? Before you just said you thought it was (which was kind of funny, given the lengthy discourse about wanting proof and citations).

 

What would you like me to provide you proof of, the existance of Methadone clinics or the fact that drug related crimes still exist?

 

Especially when you admit to pulling the 1 billion dollar value out of your own ass.  Hyperbole for effect?

 

Oookaay, you would link a link to a fictional law suit? Fictional, you know, because this service does not exist in the United States so therefore hasent happened yet.

 

Your not advocating that the junkie hang out on the property until they sober up are you? Now you will need rooms for them, and a nurse/doctor to make sure they dont drown in their own vomit. Oh, and dont forget the niceties such as bathrooms and the people to keep all this all running.

 

I'm sorry, but why would the treatment for the junkie be much different than that of a heavily intodxicated alcoholic, whom could also theoretically drown in their own vomit?

 

Well seeing as there are no clinics to go get free booze, supplied by the govornment, I cannot answer your "what if".

Edited December 15, 2006 by Gfted1

[Colrom]

Although I don't particularly advocate free drugs -

 

I think they should buy them at the real uncriminalized market price -

 

approximately the price of dirt - more or less -

 

I find it amazing that people who will eagerly support providing corporations with royalty free oil and wood and coal and almost everything else of value-

 

and special tax breaks -

 

which are amazing considering that corporations, unlike the rest of us, only pay what taxes they do pay on profits - after capital investments and such -

 

and forgiveness on taxes on overseas harboring of revenues -

 

and also will support wars and such costing billions primarily to enable future corporate profits -

 

would choke on paying to give some addict a fix.

 

But - like I said

 

Go ahead

 

Be tough

 

Make em pay for it!

 

How much for an aspirin?

[Walsingham]

Colrom, if it's that cheap you will be making a loss. Because keeping track of ANY cash is expensive. Putting the drugs in a big bucket is cheap and efficient! I know it wouldn't be that straight forward, though...

 

I actually came across the following link while looking up something else.

 

http://www.dea.gov/pubs/history/1999-2003.html

 

Puts the DEA budget ALONE at more than 1.8 billion dollars. I haven't done the maths but i'm guessing you really could give the stuff away for nothing worlwide for the same money.

[metadigital]

I find it amazing that people who will eagerly support providing corporations with royalty free oil and wood and coal and almost everything else of value-

 

and special tax breaks -

 

which are amazing considering that corporations, unlike the rest of us, only pay what taxes they do pay on profits - after capital investments and such -

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Individuals only pay tax on their income (although the British government tried to tax on revenue for contractors with their IR35 legislation, and I have also encountered "provisional" tax, whereby the government expects to be paid their tax a year in advance!

[alanschu]

What would you like me to provide you proof of, the existance of Methadone clinics or the fact that drug related crimes still exist?

 

No, a link that the numbers haven't changed.

 

I'm sorry, but why would the treatment for the junkie be much different than that of a heavily intodxicated alcoholic, whom could also theoretically drown in their own vomit?

 

Well seeing as there are no clinics to go get free booze, supplied by the govornment, I cannot answer your "what if".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What does the cost have to do with anything? If someone is drunk, they are supposed to find different means of getting home rather than driving. These same drunk people could also theoretically drown in their own vomit if left unattended.

 

You stated that there would have to be facilities in place since people would be incapable of driving. Bars don't require facilities to keep intoxicated patrons around, nor do they need to keep additional people around in case someone drowns in their own vomit. So why would a clinic providing drugs (whether free or for a small cost, since you have issues with the cost) suddenly have to provide the same results. Why couldn't someone on drugs take a cab home, while an intoxicated person could?

[Blank]

I read this thread title and thought of alternatives, like, "Giving children to Michael Jackson."

Edited December 20, 2006 by Blank

[Colrom]

I read this thread title and thought of alternatives, like, "Giving children to Michael Jackson."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Couple of problems with the comparison:

1. Michael Jackson is not proven to be a pedophile - although many believe that he is anyway.

2. Drugs (chemicals) and children (humans) are very different.

3. People are not property anymore - at least in the US.

Edited December 20, 2006 by Colrom

[Blank]

1. It's a joke.

2. It's humour was evidently lost on you.

3. Are you patronizing me?

Edited December 25, 2006 by Blank

[Walsingham]

1. It's a joke.

2. It's humour was evidently lost on you.

3. Are you patronizing me?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No. I think he's distracting you so I can creep up on you with this cricket bat. *fwap* )

[Colrom]

:D