> Sam wrote: > nothing different except you allowed them to get addicted in the first > place. >
But they're going to do that anyway. They like drugs and the drugs they like are highly addictive. What I mean by regulation is creating "needle parks" that anyone could go to to get "clean" drugs. Of course there'd need to be all kinds rules, etc, but the concept is to 1.) Remove most of the profit from drug dealing - thus saving the US billions in medical costs, foreign aid, and law enforcement (I think Columbia is like #2 in terms of amount of US aid). This money could be re-funneled to treatment and further law enforcement (more about this later). 2.) By containing most of the hard core use to specific areas you prevent addicts from roaming the streets. You also have an 1st line access to help them recover. For example your friends that are recovered may have done so faster, easier, and cheaper. 3.) Because drugs are essentially free (within rules), drug related crime would drop like a rock. Anyone that wants drugs no longer has to prostitute themselves, steal, or engage in other illegal activity to fund their habit. However you'll still have casual and recreational users. In general these people will still buy drugs, but with a refocused law enforcement effort the legal price would sky rocket for this risk-averse group. I once read a study on just this very thing that was very successful. I think it was in Montreal ... Canada somewhere ... and they created clinics for heroin addicts. The addicts could come in, stay for the night, use, and then leave the next day. Many of the addicts were able to return to productive lives either via treatment or controlled use. Lastly I'll say I favor legalized marijuana. Don't criticize it ... Doctor's smoke it ... > I'm not sure what you're talking about. > Aren't criminal charges based on the type and quantity of drugs and > not the personal addiction? > That's part of it, but under 3 strikes I believe you only have to be caught 3 times and then you're out. That means anyone that's used illegal drugs more than 3 times is a felon. At a minimum anyone that's used illegal drugs at least once is a criminal. So to your question of dismissing addicts - the laws you favor already do that. You say that an addict is a criminal and possibly a felon. That's not a compliment. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:209666 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
