The Conservative government in the UK are toying with the idea of bringing into force places were drug addicts can inject themselves in controlled circumstances, so if they overdose there are people on standby to help them.

The Labour Party in the UK want nothing to do with this as it would encourage more dealing and more drug crime.

What do you folks think?

I dunno, they would probably do it anyway so I guess its an okay thing that they're trying to prevent deaths from overdoses.

The Conservative government in the UK are toying with the idea of bringing into force places were drug addicts can inject themselves in controlled circumstances, so if they overdose there are people on standby to help them.

The Labour Party in the UK want nothing to do with this as it would encourage more dealing and more drug crime.

What do you folks think?


More than deaths from overdoses, perhaps it would cut AIDS cases 'cause they can insist people use clean needles. 

Personally, I don't like the idea of government-supported addiction (would the government run a bar where alcoholics can drink and then be drive home?).

I think it's a stupid idea. If you decide to inject yourself with with drugs (heroin/cocaine) than you accept the fact that you will more than likely become addicted, contract HIV, or overdose. These people made a conscious decision to do drugs. In no way do I want my tax dollars spent to help them feed their addiction.

While I see your point about it being their decision, I still think its worth it to save lives and more importantly help prevent the spread of AIDS at large.

As I support needle exchange programs, I would support such an idea as a safe environment for addicts to inject drugs. The U.S. needs to chage it's point of view on addiction from crime to medical problem. Giving the junkies clean needles and "shoot-up centers" means that fewer junkies will die of overdose or contract diseases such as HIV and hepatitis.  This is a benefit for the greater public health. It may sound counterintuitive. A few posters have expressed the obvious skepticism. However, I know people who counsel heroin addicts and the etiology behind addictive behavior is complex and variable. I see no evidence to suggest people would choose to shoot heroin just because a safe environment and antiseptic instruments are available. Of course, the government could not make such a program a free-for-all. The program would have to be in conjunction with addictions recovery therapy. This is the way Methadone clinics currently operate.

No matter what you do, some addicts will use high-risk methods. Many would not come to such a center because they would not anyone pressuring them to quit. Cold turkey works for only a small percentage of addicts, whether they're hooked on heroin, nicotine, or alcohol. Getting clean and staying clean takes months, and often many years for heroin junkies. In the meantime, I would like to see these addicts given the opportunity to do safely what they are going to do anyway.

However, I know people who counsel heroin addicts and the etiology behind addictive behavior is complex and variable. I see no evidence to suggest people would choose to shoot heroin just because a safe environment and antiseptic instruments are available. Of course, the government could not make such a program a free-for-all. The program would have to be in conjunction with addictions recovery therapy. This is the way Methadone clinics currently operate.


I do have that understanding of the complexities of addiction.  If the program had a recovery therapy component, then I could support it.  Without that though, it seems less reasonable.

It becomes little different from legalization of illegal drug use.

I would support this sort of center, if it was under the condition that people had to register, and they were given a set time (say 3 months) to get themselves into a treatment program.

I give full support to treatment and rehabilitation.  However, I have zero tolerance for acceptance of illegal drugs.  If somebody wants help, that is fine.  I can even forgive certain crimes if drugs are involved.  However, if the person refuses treatment or can't stay clean, I then believe that they get what they deserve.

AIDS is no mystery, we all know what causes it now.  Somebody who mainlines or slams heroin, cocaine, or speed knows what they are risking when they do it.  They are so concerned with chasing a high, nothing else matters to them.  Why should such self-destructive loosers matter to me, unless they want help?

I refuse to be a co-dependent, and I do not believe the Government (any Government) should be a co-dependent to addicts.

It becomes little different from legalization of illegal drug use.

I would support this sort of center, if it was under the condition that people had to register, and they were given a set time (say 3 months) to get themselves into a treatment program.

I give full support to treatment and rehabilitation.  However, I have zero tolerance for acceptance of illegal drugs.  If somebody wants help, that is fine.  I can even forgive certain crimes if drugs are involved.  However, if the person refuses treatment or can't stay clean, I then believe that they get what they deserve.

AIDS is no mystery, we all know what causes it now.  Somebody who mainlines or slams heroin, cocaine, or speed knows what they are risking when they do it.  They are so concerned with chasing a high, nothing else matters to them.  Why should such self-destructive loosers matter to me, unless they want help?

I refuse to be a co-dependent, and I do not believe the Government (any Government) should be a co-dependent to addicts.

How much HIV and hepatiitis do you want circulating in the general public? It's a public health issue.
I also know the vast majority of poor people who destroy themselves with drugs or booze are full of hurt and see no hope. It's despondency and a way out. That is the formula whether your drug is H, meth, crack, blow, or whiskey.  The rightwing message of "personal responsibility and if you fail go f**k yourself" doesn't cut it in reality. You want to see a dramatic drop in drug abuse, then increase hope and opportunity and decrease poverty. The man the rightwing noise machine has tought suburban America so bitterly, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, tried to counter Mrs. Reagan's "just say no" with a positive message, "I am somebody." Unfortunately, no slogan can counter economic devastation.  No catchphrase can compete with the demoralizing nature of racism and classism. Today both the impoverished inner cities and the dirt-poor countryside are overrun with dope and despair. Sure, you can live in denial about it and go watch Brit Hume and SUV commercials...but that does not make the stark hellscapes that cover so much of America disappear.

You know, the more I hear about the young woman embroiled in the Duke University Lacrosse team "rape" case, the more haunted I feel. I don't want to get too tangential here, so I'll continue this on a separate thread.

That's weird, in this country it's the opposite -- the left (not even the democrats) want to have the government giving out needles to curb the spread of disease etc. and the right wing says that will encourage drug use.

Building special places where heroin addicts can go shoot up isn't helping them; it's enabling them.  It's no better than someone who keeps putting liquor in a house where someone with an alcohol problem lives.  You're just giving them more reasons to do something they shouldn't be doing.  These people will never get clean if they know the government isn't trying to stop them.

Building special places where heroin addicts can go shoot up isn't helping them; it's enabling them.  It's no better than someone who keeps putting liquor in a house where someone with an alcohol problem lives.  You're just giving them more reasons to do something they shouldn't be doing.  These people will never get clean if they know the government isn't trying to stop them.


Do you tolerate a government that throws addicts in jail? Addicts behind bars sustain more of the battery, degradation, and psychological abuse of the kind that drove them to get hooked in the first place. Addicts get out of jail with more despair, more rage, a longer rap sheet, a bigger grudge, and fewer opportunities than they had when they got sentenced. Jail does not deter drug abuse. Heck, in a lot of jails its easier to get dope than it is on the street! Jailhouse pathology reinforces addiction better than any government-sponsored shooting gallery ever could! Jailing addicts is not only medically counterproductive, it is also extremely expensive. The Right (and I don't refer to you personally) never shuts up about the waste of taxpayer dollars until they get to the prison gates, and then no amount of public dough is to dear to keep as many poor and dark-skinned people as possible locked up. Conservatives seem to be forever in favor of defundiing Methadone clinics, counseling centers, and rehabilitation programs. Why? Because the Right has a one track mind. The answer to everything is surveillance and punishment.
(Unless you're a drug addict from a rich white family, then you're really just a sick boy who needs a cushy private retreat where they go for picnics in the woods!)
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/ky.gif

Do you tolerate a government that throws addicts in jail? Addicts behind bars sustain more of the battery, degradation, and psychological abuse of the kind that drove them to get hooked in the first place. Addicts get out of jail with more despair, more rage, a longer rap sheet, a bigger grudge, and fewer opportunities than they had when they got sentenced. Jail does not deter drug abuse. Heck, in a lot of jails its easier to get dope than it is on the street! Jailhouse pathology reinforces addiction better than any government-sponsored shooting gallery ever could! Jailing addicts is not only medically counterproductive, it is also extremely expensive. The Right (and I don't refer to you personally) never shuts up about the waste of taxpayer dollars until they get to the prison gates, and then no amount of public dough is to dear to keep as many poor and dark-skinned people as possible locked up. Conservatives seem to be forever in favor of defundiing Methadone clinics, counseling centers, and rehabilitation programs. Why? Because the Right has a one track mind. The answer to everything is surveillance and punishment.
(Unless you're a drug addict from a rich white family, then you're really just a sick boy who needs a cushy private retreat where they go for picnics in the woods!)
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/ky.gif



Where did I say anything about jail?  I don't think drug addicts belong in jail.  They aren't going to get help in jail.  They need to go to rehab.

Where did I say anything about jail?  I don't think drug addicts belong in jail.  They aren't going to get help in jail.  They need to go to rehab.

Well, you would know, your name is "Morphine." No, no, just a joke, honest!

I should not have implied you were saying addicts should go to jail.

The problem, as I said, the "drug war" criminalizes addicts instead of taking a rational approach based on medical needs and public health. There were a few things I disliked about Howard Dean, one of them was his opposition to needle exchnage programs. It costs far more to treat a person for HIV or Hep-C than it does to arrange antiseptic delivery devices and a safe environment. Don't forget that a lot of addicts (mostly teens and women) fund their addictions via sex trade. In fact, a lot of dealers require both sex and cash from female customers. It's a vile, disgusting world. God forbid, but if your friend, or your sister, or your daughter got hooked on heroin wouldn't you rather see her be able to get her fix without having to perform sex acts on some filthy dope dealer? Yeah, we all would rather she did not get hooked in the first place, but vulnerable people do get hooked on drugs and will continue to get hooked.

Well, you would know, your name is "Morphine." No, no, just a joke, honest!

I should not have implied you were saying addicts should go to jail.

The problem, as I said, the "drug war" criminalizes addicts instead of taking a rational approach based on medical needs and public health. There were a few things I disliked about Howard Dean, one of them was his opposition to needle exchnage programs. It costs far more to treat a person for HIV or Hep-C than it does to arrange antiseptic delivery devices and a safe environment. Don't forget that a lot of addicts (mostly teens and women) fund their addictions via sex trade. In fact, a lot of dealers require both sex and cash from female customers. It's a vile, disgusting world. God forbid, but if your friend, or your sister, or your daughter got hooked on heroin wouldn't you rather see her be able to get her fix without having to perform sex acts on some filthy dope dealer? Yeah, we all would rather she did not get hooked in the first place, but vulnerable people do get hooked on drugs and will continue to get hooked.



To be honest, if my sister got hooked on smack, I'd forcibly throw her ass into rehab, regardless of whether she wanted to be there or not.  If you're not going to care about what happens to you, then I will.  I've had a friend OD on heroin because either no one knew they had a problem or those who did know couldn't/wouldn't help.  I vowed to never let that happen to someone I knew again.  Other people may have a different view of it and go along with what you're suggesting, but I won't feed someone's habit.

How much HIV and hepatiitis do you want circulating in the general public? It's a public health issue.
I also know the vast majority of poor people who destroy themselves with drugs or booze are full of hurt and see no hope. It's despondency and a way out. That is the formula whether your drug is H, meth, crack, blow, or whiskey. 


Maxwell, this is hardly a issue that only involves the poor.  Substance abuse and addiction covers all levels of society.  The only difference is the drug of choice.

Look at the 1980's.  The upper end of the economic spectrum had Coke.  The Middle Class had X and other "Designer Drugs".  And at the bottom, the lower classes had Crack and Angel Dust.  And alcoholism covered every nitch, be it 12 year old Single Malt Scotch, or Night Train.

If I was to believe what you are saying, that would mean that the upper classes and rich people have no drug problems.  The 1970's and 1980's are littered with the bodies of rich who died from drugs.

John Belushi, Lenny Bruce, Max Cantor, Truman Capote, Dee Dee Ramone, River Phoenix, Bobby Hatfield, Margaux Hemmingway, Keith Moon, Chris Farley, Judy Garland, Brian Epstein, Dorothy Dandridge, Herb Abrams, and the list goes on and on and on and on and on.

By trying to say that drug abuse is a problem of the poor is doing a great disservice.  It is a problem that affects rich and poor alike.  And I do not see any difference between the crack whore who wants some escape, or the Wall Street Trader who wants some speed to help him work faster.  If they are willing to get help, I think they should get it.

But when somebody is unwilling/unable to help themselves get off the drugs, that is no longer my problem.  I simply want to see them put away, so they do not endanger me or anybody else in society.  And the same goes for alcoholics.  I believe in a 2 strike policy for drunk drivers.  First time, you loose your license for 1 year (except for driving to/from work).  If you get stopped a second time, then you loose your license forever.  No appeal, no reinstatement, game over.  Get caught driving after it is taken away, and get ready for a long long prison term.

However, I believe that drug and alcohol treatment centers should be offered free of charge to whoever wants to get help.  The first time you go in, it should be in-patient for 3 months, all-expenses paid.  If you get caught after that, then a second chance, with mandatory follow-ups.  Three times, then you are out.  "Brand" those people "unreformable", and set up a colony for people like that in Alaska.

Like I said, I have no use for people who refuse to help themselves.

I do not believe in jail for simple substance abuse.  However, I do consider a form of "quarantine".  Since I consider substance abuse to be a disease, I see nothing wrong with seperating those who are unable to stop themselves from general society.

However, when it comes to those who manufacture, distribute, import, or sell drugs, I say lock them away and throw away the key.  In fact, we can use the confiscated money and property to pay for the treatment centers.  And we can build a Maximum Security Prison in some remote location, like maybe the "Harrison Bay Correctional Facility".  And right next door we can build a special prison for child molestors and other sexual preditors.

Maxwell, this is hardly a issue that only involves the poor.  Substance abuse and addiction covers all levels of society.  The only difference is the drug of choice.


Everybody knows you can buy your way out of jail. If OJ Simpson was not OJ Simpson, but Oscar Simpson, a bus driver from South Central who killed his white wife, we all know he'd be on death row! Same thing with drug charges. Rush Limbaugh didn't just get busted for kiting a codeine scrip, he got caught scheming thousands of painkillers from croakers across the county. He even sent his housekeeper to buy his dope in the Denny's parking lot. Now if this wasn't Rush Limbaugh, but Rusty Limbaugh, a poor stumblebum who had to buy purloined OxyContin in Denny's parking lot himself, he'd be looking at years--perhaps decades--in prison. You mention Lenny Bruce, who said "in the halls of justice, the only justice is in the halls." Rich people and their two-grand-an-hour lawyers get out of all kinds of dastardly deeds for which Joe Shmo would get sent up the river.
Rich drug addicts and poor drug addicts enter two different worlds when they get busted. The rich guy gets to kick it in some plush private rehab center in Connecticut, the poor guy gets the jim-jams in the county slammer 'coz he can't make bail. I have know both rich and poor addicts and I have seen this disparity with my own two eyes!
:o

Ok let me add something to this post. At the moment in the U.K we have a huge problem with addicts using local play parks, cemetarys and sports fields to shoot up.they discarding the needles in said area's where children can easily pick them up and play with them. This whilst not only being extremely dangerous is also costly as the area's constantly have to be closed and cleared up.
The idea behind the centres is that it will hopefully stop this happening. At the end of the day people will always take drugs and I for one would rather have them away from innocent people and children while they do it. It would be fantastic if they could offer rehab advice at the same time and who knows maybe they will if it happens.



 

The Conservative government in the UK are toying with the idea of bringing into force places were drug addicts can inject themselves in controlled circumstances, so if they overdose there are people on standby to help them.

The Labour Party in the UK want nothing to do with this as it would encourage more dealing and more drug crime.

What do you folks think?
Bobby, we don't have a conservative government at the moment ! Sadly we have a labour one who are sh*t !!

Bobby, we don't have a conservative government at the moment ! Sadly we have a labour one who are sh*t !!


Wishful thinking on his part?

Bobby, we don't have a conservative government at the moment ! Sadly we have a labour one who are sh*t !!

It's easy to forget Blair is of the Labour Party because he and Dubya are so in bed! It's like, "Oh, jolly good, you're a religious whacko too! Let's make war together!"
Of course, Blair did precede Bush by several years.  I despised Blair from the get-go. Who was it that coined the term the "Tony Party"? That about summed it up for me!
::)

Anyway, what you pointed out in your previous post about dirty needles in the park for children to play with is what I'm on about. Let's insure public health as best we can, AND THEN scold the addicts!

Bobby, we don't have a conservative government at the moment ! Sadly we have a labour one who are sh*t !!


Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the Conservatives were in power, just merely saying that is what the Conservatives would like to have happen.

Wishful thinking on his part?


Nope. I don't care who are in power, they are all a bunch of rotten crooks in suits.

Nope. I don't care who are in power, they are all a bunch of rotten crooks in suits.
I applaud you for that !  :)

I applaud you for that !  :)


Thank you.  :)

The Conservative government in the UK are toying with the idea of bringing into force places were drug addicts can inject themselves in controlled circumstances, so if they overdose there are people on standby to help them.

The Labour Party in the UK want nothing to do with this as it would encourage more dealing and more drug crime.

What do you folks think?


It depends.  Who is gonna supply the dope?  If it is a BYOD setup, then most of the criminality associated with drug use and drug trade will continue.

If the shooting gallery is going to sell the dope, needles, rubber hoses, spoons, butane torches, and base pipes then I say OK.  It will eliminate most of the criminal element.

Those addicts were gonna fry their brains anyway, may as well reduce the total cost to society.

Of course the criminals will turn to a new schtick, like kidnapping, to make money.  :-\\

It depends.  Who is gonna supply the dope?  If it is a BYOD setup, then most of the criminality associated with drug use and drug trade will continue.

If the shooting gallery is going to sell the dope, needles, rubber hoses, spoons, butane torches, and base pipes then I say OK.  It will eliminate most of the criminal element.

Those addicts were gonna fry their brains anyway, may as well reduce the total cost to society.

Of course the criminals will turn to a new schtick, like kidnapping, to make money.  :-\\

No easy answers to difficult questions, I'm afraid. Needle exchange programs make sense because because of all that dirty blood. A supervised shooting gallery for IV users makes sense to keep spent needles and syringes off the public ways. Does it make sense to say yes to IV users and no to freebasers? The freebase paraphernalia doesn't present the same dangers, but crackheads engage in the same risky behavior and deal with the same kinds of scumbags as IV users. If we want to protect addicts from criminals then we have to provide them with the dope of their choice and the paraphernalia.
"OK, mac, here's your glass pipe and your rock, but we want you off of this stuff, y'dig?
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_scratch.gif
If the government says, "OK, you can do your drugs here," and turns its back...well, you remember the notorious "needle park" phenomenon when countries such as Switzerland tried that!

The libertarians say the war is unwinnable. People are going to do what they're going to do, so we might as well legalize all drugs and go "free market" instead of "black market."
Anyone wanna go to Rudy's Freebase Juke Joint?
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/07/orangehat.gif

No easy answers to difficult questions, I'm afraid. Needle exchange programs make sense because because of all that dirty blood. A supervised shooting gallery for IV users makes sense to keep spent needles and syringes off the public ways. Does it make sense to say yes to IV users and no to freebasers? The freebase paraphernalia doesn't present the same dangers, but crackheads engage in the same risky behavior and deal with the same kinds of scumbags as IV users. If we want to protect addicts from criminals then we have to provide them with the dope of their choice and the paraphernalia.
"OK, mac, here's your glass pipe and your rock, but we want you off of this stuff, y'dig?
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_scratch.gif
If the government says, "OK, you can do your drugs here," and turns its back...well, you remember the notorious "needle park" phenomenon when countries such as Switzerland tried that!

The libertarians say the war is unwinnable. People are going to do what they're going to do, so we might as well legalize all drugs and go "free market" instead of "black market."
Anyone wanna go to Rudy's Freebase Juke Joint?
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/07/orangehat.gif


The shooting gallery has to be non-discriminatory and allow ALL FORMS of drug usage.  Smack, blow, reefer, 'shrooms, 'base, China, X, bennies, dexies, valium, 'Ludes, by whatever delivery method the addict prefers.  Make it ALL legal.

However must have some niceties, such as "you gotta leave your car keys at the door" and "once you get high, you gotta stay here for a while" to keep them from going out in public and causing havoc while on a high.

The shooting gallery has to be non-discriminatory and allow ALL FORMS of drug usage.  Smack, blow, reefer, 'shrooms, 'base, China, X, bennies, dexies, valium, 'Ludes, by whatever delivery method the addict prefers.  Make it ALL legal.

However must have some niceties, such as "you gotta leave your car keys at the door" and "once you get high, you gotta stay here for a while" to keep them from going out in public and causing havoc while on a high.

Hey man, I don't wanna smoke a joint with a bunch of junkies and crackheads! Bad scene. I just wanna listen to some tunes and eat some cookies!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/glasses9.gif

Marijuana and psychedelics are NOT the same kind of drugs as cocaine, heroin, or meth.

Marijuana and psychedelics are NOT the same kind of drugs as cocaine, heroin, or meth.


Very true.  Marijuana users unless they are too exessive can usually function normally, but look at the way coke, heroin and meth(and especially CRACK) turn people's lives upside down.  I've seen it, unfortunately.

[quote author=

Well, crack users definitely don't.  Same with meth.  Theres a lot of both around here unfortunately and both not only wreck people physically, but somehow it also seems to rape people of whatever character they have.  I've seen people turn into hollow, weasily a-holes because of it.  I hate it, and its a major annoyance for your ol fashioned stoners who just wanna smoke, because that other crap is constantly around even if you aren't the one doing it.

Ummm.....isn't possession of a controlled substance a crime?  What's next, hotels set up for prostitutes? (outside of Nevada, of course ;))

Ummm.....isn't possession of a controlled substance a crime?  What's next, hotels set up for prostitutes? (outside of Nevada, of course ;))

Not necessarily. I am in possession of three controlled substances right now. It's legal because I have prescriptions for all three. I know, I know, "well, no duh!"
In other words, a "shooting up center," what ever you'd like to call it, would be a considered a clinical setting with an exception to the rule. Hospitals use cocaine as an anesthetic all the time. Hospitals have a license to use it. It would be the same for these drug clinics. Methadone, for instance, has street value. If I was caught with Methadone, I would be arrested. That's because I am not registered with a Methadone clinic. The goal with Methadone is to gradually wean the user off of the opiate addiction.

As far as hotels set up for prostitutes, you'd have to ask the Danes about that. Denmark considers access to sex a human right. There was even a case of Danish citizen afflicted with cerebral palsy who could not, um, "satisfy himself," thus the government provided the services of a prostitute as part of his state-provided healthcare! Now that's my kinda country!

America has government funded prostitutes in hotels too, but only for guys like Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff!
:P

Hospitals use cocaine as an anesthetic all the time. Hospitals have a license to use it.


Cocaine as a local anesthetic

Cocaine was historically useful as a topical anesthetic in eye and nasal surgery, although it is now predominantly used for nasal and lacrimal duct surgery. The major disadvantages of this use are cocaine's intense vasoconstrictor activity and potential for cardiovascular toxicity. Cocaine has since been largely replaced in Western medicine by synthetic local anaesthetics such as benzocaine, proparacaine, and tetracaine though it remains available for use if specified. If vasoconstriction is desired for a procedure (as it reduces bleeding), the anesthetic is combined with a vasoconstrictor such as phenylephrine or epinephrine. In Australia it is currently prescribed for use as a local anesthetic for conditions such as mouth and lung ulcers. Some Australian ENT specialists occasionally use cocaine within the practice when performing procedures such as nasal cauterization. In this scenario dissolved cocaine is soaked into a ball of cotton wool, which is placed in the nostril for the 10-15 minutes immediately prior to the procedure, thus performing the dual role of both numbing the area to be cauterized and also vasoconstriction.


I don't know, but this doesn't sound like "all the time" to me.  What it sounds like is "very select circumstances and only then do we cut it with something".  I can't see a patient asking a doctor to hook them up with some blow before they go under the knife.

And methadone can be 10x worse than heroin to beat if you're addicted.  Methadone simulates what heroin does to the body in the same way a nicotine patch simulates what having a few cigarettes does.  While it's goal is to wean people off crank, it can simply transfer addiction from one substance to the next.  HBO had a great documentary called "Methadonia" which detailed this.

The problem with these "shooting up centers", is that instead of helping these people beat addictions which might kill them, you're enabling them to continue.  You're telling these people that what they're doing is not dangerous or deadly and that the government would like to sponsor their next fix. 

I don't know, but this doesn't sound like "all the time" to me.  What it sounds like is "very select circumstances and only then do we cut it with something".  I can't see a patient asking a doctor to hook them up with some blow before they go under the knife.

And methadone can be 10x worse than heroin to beat if you're addicted.  Methadone simulates what heroin does to the body in the same way a nicotine patch simulates what having a few cigarettes does.  While it's goal is to wean people off crank, it can simply transfer addiction from one substance to the next.  HBO had a great documentary called "Methadonia" which detailed this.

The problem with these "shooting up centers", is that instead of helping these people beat addictions which might kill them, you're enabling them to continue.  You're telling these people that what they're doing is not dangerous or deadly and that the government would like to sponsor their next fix. 

Yes, cocaine is a local anesthetic, and yes it has largely been replaced by derivatives, such as procaine (Novocain) and bupivacaine (Marcaine), but it is still used regularly, which is what I should have said, rather than "all the time." For instance, once I brought a friend of mine to the ER. He had a foreign object in his eye and was in excruciating pain. Before working on him, they gave him just a drop of cocaine in the eye for instant relief. Cocaine is only used on an inpatient basis and you wouldn't "request" it anymore than you would "request" halothane form the anesthesiologist.

Methadone has been controversial since it became a common method of treatment in the 1950s. I would never say there are not big problems with the drug. The reason clinics still use it is it can be orally ingested, purity controlled, and has longer lasting effects than heroin or morphine. The bigger problem is opiate addiction is a big mess itself, rife with physical, social, and psychiatric issues, and case-by-case idiosyncratic variables. By the time an addict gets to a Methadone clinic, his or her life and health has usually been utterly comprimised by the addiction. I am not a substance abuse counselor, but I have a close friend who is. It is easy to look in from the outside and condemn Methadone. When you are down in the trenches trying to treat street addicts, you tend to see things a bit differently! Methadone is indeed extremely addictive. However, clinicians are forbidden by law to prescribe heroin as part of a treatment course.

We rightfully fear sending duplicitous messages to drug addicts. If a government were to set up facilities for safe drug use, It would need to be in conjunction with drug treatment. Provided such a program were run with a modicum of responsibility, it would take care to educate clients on the dangers of addiction. Addicts who would make use of such a facility would already have incurred physical, social, and financial devastation from addiction. An addict of heroin or crack cocaine starts with drug use as an escape. It's only "fun" for the first few weeks at best. Then life gets precipitously worse. The addict knows what he or she is doing is dangerous, maybe deadly. There's much denial in addiction, but because the addict denies does not mean the addict is oblivious.
These drug facilities would save lives if anything. Addicts may die suddenly from overdose, or from violence sustained in the underworld of black market dope, or die at varying rates from HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, or sepses. As with Methadone clinics, the best these drug facilities can hope to do is to help an addict eschew deadly consequences of their addictions.
If we treat addicts with punitive measures only, they don't get better. Jail is a far better enabler than any clinic could be! I wish you could just lock addicts into a mandated clean-up program, but "cold turkey" rarely beats the physical addiction and does nothing for the psychiatric motives behind addiction.
Addiction recovery is a complicated, slow, frustrating process full of setbacks and pitfalls no matter what you do. Addiction is part of human frailty. I think we've been trained to think about addiction in a moralistic and simplistic manner thanks to "Just Say No" sloganeering.
::)

We rightfully fear sending duplicitous messages to drug addicts. If a government were to set up facilities for safe drug use, It would need to be in conjunction with drug treatment. Provided such a program were run with a modicum of responsibility, it would take care to educate clients on the dangers of addiction. Addicts who would make use of such a facility would already have incurred physical, social, and financial devastation from addiction. An addict of heroin or crack cocaine starts with drug use as an escape. It's only "fun" for the first few weeks at best. Then life gets precipitously worse. The addict knows what he or she is doing is dangerous, maybe deadly. There's much denial in addiction, but because the addict denies does not mean the addict is oblivious.
These drug facilities would save lives if anything. Addicts may die suddenly from overdose, or from violence sustained in the underworld of black market dope, or die at varying rates from HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, or sepses. As with Methadone clinics, the best these drug facilities can hope to do is to help an addict eschew deadly consequences of their addictions.
If we treat addicts with punitive measures only, they don't get better. Jail is a far better enabler than any clinic could be! I wish you could just lock addicts into a mandated clean-up program, but "cold turkey" rarely beats the physical addiction and does nothing for the psychiatric motives behind addiction.
Addiction recovery is a complicated, slow, frustrating process full of setbacks and pitfalls no matter what you do. Addiction is part of human frailty. I think we've been trained to think about addiction in a moralistic and simplistic manner thanks to "Just Say No" sloganeering.



I'm the first one to say that I know addiction is not a simple black and white thing.  I've seen it with my own eyes.  However, the problem I have with these "shooting up centers" is the fact that I haven't seen any of these proposals tying it into a treatment program.  If that were the case, I'd have less reservations about it.  However, all I've heard about these things is essentially that they're government-sponsored places where you can go do your drug of choice and then leave.  If they can OD on the street, they can OD in there.  And while they are being given clean needles to curb infection and disease, you're not given any incentives to quit. 

I'm the first one to say that I know addiction is not a simple black and white thing.  I've seen it with my own eyes.  However, the problem I have with these "shooting up centers" is the fact that I haven't seen any of these proposals tying it into a treatment program.  If that were the case, I'd have less reservations about it.  However, all I've heard about these things is essentially that they're government-sponsored places where you can go do your drug of choice and then leave.  If they can OD on the street, they can OD in there.  And while they are being given clean needles to curb infection and disease, you're not given any incentives to quit. 

And there the facilities get harder to support, other than for the cold reasoning that at least we can keep some dirty needles and dead junkies off the street! Such a proposal can only come from a government fed up with an intractable problem.
:(

Maybe I'm just confused, but isn't giving them a "safe" environment in which to do their drugs while providing a "treatment program" a bit counterproductive?  It's kinda' like holding an AA meeting in a bar ::)

Maybe I'm just confused, but isn't giving them a "safe" environment in which to do their drugs while providing a "treatment program" a bit counterproductive?  It's kinda' like holding an AA meeting in a bar ::)

I have addressed this issue in previous posts. Sometimes "the lesser of two evils" is the best you can do, and that means some methods will seem contrary to obvious logic. I wish there were a simple solution you could box up and tie with a bow, but there is not.
::)

Maybe I'm just confused, but isn't giving them a "safe" environment in which to do their drugs while providing a "treatment program" a bit counterproductive?  It's kinda' like holding an AA meeting in a bar ::)

Actually, it is. It's exactly like that.

But the question we're talking about on this thread is this:  Is it better to hold your AA meetings in a bar?  A few folks get drunk.  Or is it better to go back to the pre-Prohibition era of Al Capone and the machine-gunning of bootleggers who couldn't make good on their deliveries of bathtub gin, or hooch smuggled in from Canada?

Pop Quiz:  Would you rather a few addicts die peacefully from the results of their own stupidity, or would you prefer to continue putting up with the street crime that currently takes place in your community?

There's a very good reason why people can drink yourself to death with $20 worth of cheap liquor.  It's because your grandparents figured out that it was a lot cheaper than the alternative, and that they figured it out before their  politicians figured out how to make a buck off of it.

And there's an equallygood reason why people can't shoot themselves to death with $20 worth of their current addiction:  It's because the general populace has forgotten the lessons of the Prohibition era, and there are hundreds of billions of dollars in profits to be made by drug dealers and funding for law enforcement agents alike... and unlike many people, the folks who share those dollars haven't forgotten the lesson of Prohibition.

The only drugs I do are alcohol and caffeine.  I do them because they're pleasurable and I can't (yet) go to jail for diong them.  I think the country would be a nicer place if everything from pot to crack, meth, and heroin were legal.  Lots more happy harmless stoners.  Lots more dead crackheads, meth-heads, and smackheads.  But as long as crack, meth, and smack cost less than $1/hit, the folks who'd kill themselves would do so quickly, and for the six months that they'd live, they wouldn't have to break into my home or steal my car to get their fix.  The potheads could grow their own stash, and would just be asking me for $5 for a pizza. 

My goal isn't to reduce addiction.  My goal isn't to reduce self-inflicted deaths.  My goal isn't to personally get high on anything other than the alcohol and caffeine which I enjoy (sorry, those drugs are just fine in my books, and I really don't need anything stronger).  My goal, as a taxpayer, is merely to reduce the burden on my pocketbook.  Legalization means lower prices and fewer druggies stealing my stuff to pay for their fix. Legalization means fewer people thrown in jail on my dime. 

Unfortunately, legalization means fewer dollars available for law enforcement.  I'm willing to pay a few extra bucks in speeding and parking tickets to make up for the shortfall, but that'd only be a drop in the bucket, so you can guarantee that neither Officer Friendly nor the politicians who allocate his budget will ever permit any form of legaliztaion.

Actually, it is. It's exactly like that.

But the question we're talking about on this thread is this:  Is it better to hold your AA meetings in a bar?  A few folks get drunk.  Or is it better to go back to the pre-Prohibition era of Al Capone and the machine-gunning of bootleggers who couldn't make good on their deliveries of bathtub gin, or hooch smuggled in from Canada? HHUH?!?  How are these two things even comparable?  Obviously you've never dealt with someone who is an alcoholic trying to recover.  You cannot have someone trying to "beat" it while they're around people doing it.  Why do quite a few alcoholics "fall off the wagon"?  Because they think that they can hang around in bars like they used to....then it's just one drink won't hurt them.....then it's a few won't hurt.....pretty soon, they're in as bad a position as they were before, if not worse.

Pop Quiz:  Would you rather a few addicts die peacefully from the results of their own stupidity, or would you prefer to continue putting up with the street crime that currently takes place in your community?


If you think this is going to reduce crime, I'm afraid you're mistaken.  They're STILL going to have to find some way to get the $$ to BUY the drugs.  THAT'S where the street crime takes place.  And, if you've ever KNOWN anyone addicted to drugs such as Heroin, Crack, Meth, once they get "deep enough" into the addiction, there's no way they can hold a job so where are they going to get the $$ to buy the drugs?  Street crime.  Giving them a "safe" place to do it where there's no threat of being caught would possibly even INCREASE street crime.  Why?  Because there's a "safe place" to do it so all they have to worry about is GETTING the drug.

HHUH?!?  How are these two things even comparable?  Obviously you've never dealt with someone who is an alcoholic trying to recover.  You cannot have someone trying to "beat" it while they're around people doing it.  Why do quite a few alcoholics "fall off the wagon"?  Because they think that they can hang around in bars like they used to....then it's just one drink won't hurt them.....then it's a few won't hurt.....pretty soon, they're in as bad a position as they were before, if not worse.  If you think this is going to reduce crime, I'm afraid you're mistaken.  They're STILL going to have to find some way to get the $$ to BUY the drugs.  THAT'S where the street crime takes place.  And, if you've ever KNOWN anyone addicted to drugs such as Heroin, Crack, Meth, once they get "deep enough" into the addiction, there's no way they can hold a job so where are they going to get the $$ to buy the drugs?  Street crime.  Giving them a "safe" place to do it where there's no threat of being caught would possibly even INCREASE street crime.  Why?  Because there's a "safe place" to do it so all they have to worry about is GETTING the drug.

OK, Mama, you're pretty adamant about this issue. What's your solution here?
???

We have a similar situation here in our little state. The State just passed a bill to allow Meth clinics to operate. The arguments on both sides were the same as they are here. Personally, if someone is addicted and they are going to do it anyway, why not do it in a controlled situation, rather than going out on the streets and shooting up who knows what. I have heard horror stories about people who will make some kind of concontion and sell it as meth, coke, or whatever. Then of course, there is the AIDS issue.

But, I also agree that rehab should also be included (which I believe the state requires). However, rehab do not always work. How many times do we hear about people like Robert Downey Jr. going BACK into rehab. Yes, rehab CAN help but not always.




Cat

They're STILL going to have to find some way to get the $$ to BUY the drugs.  THAT'S where the street crime takes place. 

How often do people bust into restaurants, put a gun to the head of the sommellier, and demand "A case of your cheapest House Red or your life!". How often are kids shot for the pack, or even a carton, of cigarettes, that they're carrying?  When was the last time someone knocked over a convenience store for the contents of its spice rack?

All of the chemicals we're talking about cost pennies per pound to grow or to synthesize.

Some of them, you can buy at the corner store, often for less than the price of bottled water.

Some of them sell for hundreds of dollars per ounce.

I know people who would go to great lengths - maybe even kill - for a cigarette.  For some reason, they lead perfectly normal (albeit smelly, and cancer-prone) lives.

You're right that street crime is a function of the cost of drugs.  Perhaps you should consider why some drugs are cheaper than other.  Maybe it's not a coincidence that the drugs whose production and posession we've legalized, are cheap enough that anyone can afford them.  Maybe it's not a coincidence that Al Capone gave up bootlegging liquor after the repeal of Prohibition.

The local press here was running a story of a UMass student who just got busted for producing crack cocoine on campus. I dunno, if he can synthesize crack in his dorm room, more power to him. We couldn't even keep the beer cold!
;D

How often do people bust into restaurants, put a gun to the head of the sommellier, and demand "A case of your cheapest House Red or your life!". How often are kids shot for the pack, or even a carton, of cigarettes, that they're carrying?  When was the last time someone knocked over a convenience store for the contents of its spice rack?

All of the chemicals we're talking about cost pennies per pound to grow or to synthesize.

Some of them, you can buy at the corner store, often for less than the price of bottled water.

Some of them sell for hundreds of dollars per ounce.

I know people who would go to great lengths - maybe even kill - for a cigarette.  For some reason, they lead perfectly normal (albeit smelly, and cancer-prone) lives.

You're right that street crime is a function of the cost of drugs.  Perhaps you should consider why some drugs are cheaper than other.  Maybe it's not a coincidence that the drugs whose production and posession we've legalized, are cheap enough that anyone can afford them.  Maybe it's not a coincidence that Al Capone gave up bootlegging liquor after the repeal of Prohibition.
When was the last time you bought medication of any kind?  I just bought some OTC allergy medicine and it was $25 for 10 pills because people abuse them.  You can't buy more than 1 bottle of certain cough medicines at a time because people were drinking it to get high.  My son's ADD medication (which can be addictive) is $35 for a 30 day supply (and that's with insurance).  The cost of even "legal" drugs in our country is skyrocketing.  If you legalize coke, heroin, crack, meth, etc., the prices will most likely increase as well (maybe not for Coke, but the others probably will) because then they will be regulated and a certain "quality" must be met.  When was the last time "big business" got involved in production of something and the price actually went down?

I don't know anyone who would kill for a cigarette, but I do know about people killing for a "fix" of heroin or crack.  Not to mention that I've never known someone so high on nicotine they thought they were Superman and could fly.  I'd bet if you did a study of ALL of the homeless people to find out what (if anything) they were addicted to, a majority of it would be alcohol, which, as you say, is cheap enough for anyone to buy.  I also would like to know what "drug" you can buy at the corner store for less than a bottle of water.  I can get 2 bottles of water at my local corner store for 99 cents.  Even the soda (if you're considering caffeine a "drug") is 79 cents each.  I don't know of anything cheaper. ???

When was the last time you bought medication of any kind?  I just bought some OTC allergy medicine and it was $25 for 10 pills because people abuse them.  You can't buy more than 1 bottle of certain cough medicines at a time because people were drinking it to get high.  My son's ADD medication (which can be addictive) is $35 for a 30 day supply (and that's with insurance).  The cost of even "legal" drugs in our country is skyrocketing.  If you legalize coke, heroin, crack, meth, etc., the prices will most likely increase as well (maybe not for Coke, but the others probably will) because then they will be regulated and a certain "quality" must be met.  When was the last time "big business" got involved in production of something and the price actually went down?

I don't know anyone who would kill for a cigarette, but I do know about people killing for a "fix" of heroin or crack.  Not to mention that I've never known someone so high on nicotine they thought they were Superman and could fly.  I'd bet if you did a study of ALL of the homeless people to find out what (if anything) they were addicted to, a majority of it would be alcohol, which, as you say, is cheap enough for anyone to buy.  I also would like to know what "drug" you can buy at the corner store for less than a bottle of water.  I can get 2 bottles of water at my local corner store for 99 cents.  Even the soda (if you're considering caffeine a "drug") is 79 cents each.  I don't know of anything cheaper. ???

Oh, I don't know. If they legalized meth, cops wouldn't have to risk their lives raiding meth labs full of volatile chemicals. You wouldn't have to buy ingredients to make your own meth and more than you have to buy ingredients to make your own cough syrup! Meth users would still destroy their health, their brains, and their lives, but at least you could buy two bottles of Vick's at Walgreen's without having to distract the pharmacist while he's filling your husband's Viagra prescription!
You're quite right though, if Pfizer patented methamphetamine the price would skyrocket. Meth users would have to get medicaid to pay for it, or buy it on the black market once again. On the other hand, we don't have makeshift clandestine labs mixing up Viagra on the cheap. Saaaay, that's not a bad idea!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/thinkerg.gif

So you don't have a breakthrough solution for treating heroin addicts? Me neither.

Oh, I don't know. If they legalized meth, cops wouldn't have to risk their lives raiding meth labs full of volatile chemicals. You wouldn't have to buy ingredients to make your own meth and more than you have to buy ingredients to make your own cough syrup! Meth users would still destroy their health, their brains, and their lives, but at least you could buy two bottles of Vick's at Walgreen's without having to distract the pharmacist while he's filling your husband's Viagra prescription!
You're quite right though, if Pfizer patented methamphetamine the price would skyrocket. Meth users would have to get medicaid to pay for it, or buy it on the black market once again. On the other hand, we don't have makeshift clandestine labs mixing up Viagra on the cheap. Saaaay, that's not a bad idea!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/thinkerg.gif

So you don't have a breakthrough solution for treating heroin addicts? Me neither.

The problem with treating ANY addict is that if they don't want help, you're basically wasting your breath.  I've dealt for years with an alcoholic parent who had been through rehab multiple times ONLY because if he didn't, my mom threatened to divorce him.  He didn't care if he got sober or not, but he did "the rehab thing" to appease my mom.  Of course, each time, he would seem better for awhile, then relapse.  It wasn't until he could no longer GET alcohol (lost his license after his 2nd DUI) that he finally stopped.  Since he could no longer drive, and my mother refused to take him to work, which was an American Legion with, you guessed it, a bar on site, he lost his job and his access to the alcohol.  When he is somewhere he can get it, he still drinks it.  Make more (currently) illegal drugs legal and you'll see the same thing happen over and over again.  Provide addicts a "safe" place to shoot up and it won't matter if you offer rehab or not, I'd be willing to bet that there wouldn't be a "surge" in recovery rates....ESPECIALLY when it's in a place where there are others using and it can be readily available.  I don't have a better treatment for heroin addicts, but I can guarantee that having rehab in the same location as a "safe house" for using isn't it.

Whether or not it's legalized, meth labs will STILL exist for the exact reason you stated....there will be a "black market" for it.  Especially if it's turned over to the pharmaceutical companies and the price skyrockets.  And, I STILL won't be able to buy more than a week and a half supply of allergy medicine at a time unless I get a prescription from my doctor for a different one.....

The problem with treating ANY addict is that if they don't want help, you're basically wasting your breath.  I've dealt for years with an alcoholic parent who had been through rehab multiple times ONLY because if he didn't, my mom threatened to divorce him.  He didn't care if he got sober or not, but he did "the rehab thing" to appease my mom.  Of course, each time, he would seem better for awhile, then relapse.  It wasn't until he could no longer GET alcohol (lost his license after his 2nd DUI) that he finally stopped.  Since he could no longer drive, and my mother refused to take him to work, which was an American Legion with, you guessed it, a bar on site, he lost his job and his access to the alcohol.  When he is somewhere he can get it, he still drinks it.  Make more (currently) illegal drugs legal and you'll see the same thing happen over and over again.  Provide addicts a "safe" place to shoot up and it won't matter if you offer rehab or not, I'd be willing to bet that there wouldn't be a "surge" in recovery rates....ESPECIALLY when it's in a place where there are others using and it can be readily available.  I don't have a better treatment for heroin addicts, but I can guarantee that having rehab in the same location as a "safe house" for using isn't it.

Whether or not it's legalized, meth labs will STILL exist for the exact reason you stated....there will be a "black market" for it.  Especially if it's turned over to the pharmaceutical companies and the price skyrockets.  And, I STILL won't be able to buy more than a week and a half supply of allergy medicine at a time unless I get a prescription from my doctor for a different one.....

You hit the nail on the head. The addict has to want to recover. That's why AA works so well. It is run by alcoholics. I am sure you are familiar with the 12 steps and how they work. The first one is the alcoholic (or addict) must admit he or she has a problem, and the problem is not one the addict can control. Thus with AA, you acknowledge you will always be an alcoholic, albeit a recovered alcoholic, but you can never take a drink again.  There is also NA (Narcotics Anonymous), which follows the same principles as AA. I think the 12 step program has varying degrees of effetiveness with other drugs, but it seems to work well for addicts willing to confront the problem and cease abuse of the substance.  In the '80s groups popped up using the 12 step approach for other behavioral problems, such as "sex addiction." I'm skeptical about using the 12 steps for behavior problems absent of substance abuse, but if it works, it works.
One of the problems with addictions I notice, especially alcoholism, is if the addict stop using, but does not get the proper therapeutic treatment, the dysfunctional behavior continues. This is the "dry drunk" phenomenon. And  for so many users, if their lives to go completely to sh!t, they never stop, even though it costs dearly personal and familial functionality. I have immediate family members who are alcoholic in both these circumstances.

In lieu of the addict's "will" to recover, the best you can do is take measures to prevent greater physical and social harm from the addict's behavior. It goes back to, "let's at least try to get the junkies off the street. I see no evidence you can change the addictive mind by the forced boot camp approach to rehab, and our "criminal justice" system does not respect human rights.

You hit the nail on the head. The addict has to want to recover. That's why AA works so well. It is run by alcoholics. I am sure you are familiar with the 12 steps and how they work. The first one is the alcoholic (or addict) must admit he or she has a problem, and the problem is not one the addict can control. Thus with AA, you acknowledge you will always be an alcoholic, albeit a recovered alcoholic, but you can never take a drink again.  There is also NA (Narcotics Anonymous), which follows the same principles as AA. I think the 12 step program has varying degrees of effetiveness with other drugs, but it seems to work well for addicts willing to confront the problem and cease abuse of the substance.  In the '80s groups popped up using the 12 step approach for other behavioral problems, such as "sex addiction." I'm skeptical about using the 12 steps for behavior problems absent of substance abuse, but if it works, it works.
One of the problems with addictions I notice, especially alcoholism, is if the addict stop using, but does not get the proper therapeutic treatment, the dysfunctional behavior continues. This is the "dry drunk" phenomenon. And  for so many users, if their lives to go completely to sh!t, they never stop, even though it costs dearly personal and familial functionality. I have immediate family members who are alcoholic in both these circumstances.

In lieu of the addict's "will" to recover, the best you can do is take measures to prevent greater physical and social harm from the addict's behavior. It goes back to, "let's at least try to get the junkies off the street. I see no evidence you can change the addictive mind by the forced boot camp approach to rehab, and our "criminal justice" system does not respect human rights.
If you're saying the "shooting center" will get the junkies off the street, it probably won't.  Sure, they'll have a safer place to do their drugs, but they'll still have to find ways to get their drugs.  AFA using the "criminal justice" system, in it's current state, I agree.  However, even if you made treatment a requirement of the sentence, it would do no good unless the person wanted to change.  :-\\

If you're saying the "shooting center" will get the junkies off the street, it probably won't.  Sure, they'll have a safer place to do their drugs, but they'll still have to find ways to get their drugs.  AFA using the "criminal justice" system, in it's current state, I agree.  However, even if you made treatment a requirement of the sentence, it would do no good unless the person wanted to change.  :-\\

Some courts now understand you cannot just lock up drug abusers, so they are sentencing rehab in conjunction with, or in lieu of, a jail sentence.  The question that we as a society don't want to tackle is why our citizens turn to dope, and what we should do to change those conditions.

If you're saying the "shooting center" will get the junkies off the street, it probably won't.  Sure, they'll have a safer place to do their drugs, but they'll still have to find ways to get their drugs.

Right.

My solution of legalization is intended to lower the cost of a drug habit from $1000/week to the same $50/week a serious alcoholic can drink in cheap booze.  (And to improve the quality of the product from "bathtub gin", a bad batch of which could kill you in a weekend due to contamination with wood alcohol, to the $2/bottle wine you can get at the corner store, which will only kill you over the course of years from the ethanol in it.  And to ensure that for one  chemical in particular, you don't have to risk blowing up / contaminating an entire apartment block, because you could buy it at the corner store at the same price as a certain cold remedy.) 

I'm not a compassionate person.  I don't much care if addicts get help or die, as long as they aren't breaking into people's houses to get the money for their fix, (or blowing up the house next door to synthesize one particular fix).  But one notable fringe benefit (which you may consider a core benefit!) of my approach is that an addict who doesn't want to die can get treatment without risking arrest.

MaxwellSmart is a more compassionate person.  His solution of rehab is intended to actually help the addicts recover. 

Well, I'm for that, too.  I may don't care, but I know a bargain when I see one.  Legalization to break the black market and crash the price by flooding the market.  Taxpayer-funded rehab for anyone who asks for it.  You could probably cover the rehab with the sales tax on the newly-legalized drugs. 

Net win for taxpayers, net win for addicts, net win for cvilians in the Drug War - those of us who just want to be left alone without worrying about being caught in the crossfire - whether the bullets are coming from some guy who needs $1000 by next Tuesday, or some cop who got the wrong address on his search warrant (back in the days when they needed  warrants :). 

Unfortunately, all those dollars saved come at the expense of folks on both sides of the law.  Your neighborhood drug dealer (and international drug lord) doesn't want to go out of business, and your neighborhood cops (and the city council that gets the proceeds) doesn't want to lose its steady supply of seized cash and property.  Unless someone can figure out a way to make harm reduction cost more than the current drug war, this discussion is moot.

^ We haven't won the "drug war" and we never will. I believe the U.S. government perpetuates the drug war to create new fodder for the prison-industrial complex and to break the morale of poor communites that otherwise could become politically demanding. I believe government on several levels in complicit in trafficing drugs from international cartels. There would be positive and negative aspects to legalization. One positive aspect is it would cut the legs out from under these violent cartels. It would also change the nature of the retail marketplace. Drug dealing would not need to be clandestine and violent. It would also slash the incarcerated population by half, or more than half in some communities. Some experts theorize legalization would actually cut down on drug abuse itself, but I'm not so sure about that.  One thing's for sure, it's as plain s day we're not going to "punish" our way out of the drug problem.

Alcohol prohibition did not stop people from drinking, but it did make a 25-year-old punk named Al Capone the "King of Chicago." A difference with alcohol prohibition is you could not get arrested for simple possession. What was prohibited was the business of distribution and sales, and transportation with the intent to distribute and sell. They didn't lock up every old dude who had a pint of whiskey the way they do with cocaine, heroin, and even marijuana today.

Right.

My solution of legalization is intended to lower the cost of a drug habit from $1000/week to the same $50/week a serious alcoholic can drink in cheap booze.  (And to improve the quality of the product from "bathtub gin", a bad batch of which could kill you in a weekend due to contamination with wood alcohol, to the $2/bottle wine you can get at the corner store, which will only kill you over the course of years from the ethanol in it.  And to ensure that for one  chemical in particular, you don't have to risk blowing up / contaminating an entire apartment block, because you could buy it at the corner store at the same price as a certain cold remedy.) 

I'm not a compassionate person.  I don't much care if addicts get help or die, as long as they aren't breaking into people's houses to get the money for their fix, (or blowing up the house next door to synthesize one particular fix).  But one notable fringe benefit (which you may consider a core benefit!) of my approach is that an addict who doesn't want to die can get treatment without risking arrest.

MaxwellSmart is a more compassionate person.  His solution of rehab is intended to actually help the addicts recover. 

Well, I'm for that, too.  I may don't care, but I know a bargain when I see one.  Legalization to break the black market and crash the price by flooding the market.  Taxpayer-funded rehab for anyone who asks for it.  You could probably cover the rehab with the sales tax on the newly-legalized drugs. 

Net win for taxpayers, net win for addicts, net win for cvilians in the Drug War - those of us who just want to be left alone without worrying about being caught in the crossfire - whether the bullets are coming from some guy who needs $1000 by next Tuesday, or some cop who got the wrong address on his search warrant (back in the days when they needed  warrants :). 

Unfortunately, all those dollars saved come at the expense of folks on both sides of the law.  Your neighborhood drug dealer (and international drug lord) doesn't want to go out of business, and your neighborhood cops (and the city council that gets the proceeds) doesn't want to lose its steady supply of seized cash and property.  Unless someone can figure out a way to make harm reduction cost more than the current drug war, this discussion is moot.
Again, you think that legalization is going to make the price come DOWN?  IF the gov't. legalized it, who would they "allow" to make it?  The drug companies.  Therefore, THEY would control the supply as well as the price.  DO you really think they're going to cut the price from $1000/week to $50/week?  They won't even cut the price of NECESSARY "drugs" or even the current "optional" ones, you honestly believe that if they can get someone to pay $100 for something they "want", they'll sell it for $5?  I don't.  These are the drug companies we're talking about.....all they care about is bigger and bigger profits.....

Oh, and FYI, someone who doesn't want to die can currently get treatment without risking arrest.  I see no difference in your plan re: treatment than what is currently available.

Again, you think that legalization is going to make the price come DOWN?  IF the gov't. legalized it, who would they "allow" to make it?  The drug companies.  Therefore, THEY would control the supply as well as the price.  DO you really think they're going to cut the price from $1000/week to $50/week?  They won't even cut the price of NECESSARY "drugs" or even the current "optional" ones, you honestly believe that if they can get someone to pay $100 for something they "want", they'll sell it for $5?  I don't.  These are the drug companies we're talking about.....all they care about is bigger and bigger profits.....

Oh, and FYI, someone who doesn't want to die can currently get treatment without risking arrest.  I see no difference in your plan re: treatment than what is currently available.

I can't speak for Foo Bar, but I never claimed to have all the answers. Anyway, these "recreational" drugs would not be regulated like pharmaceuticals, but like alcohol and tobacco. Anyway, it's all conjecture and it's all lightyears away from happening. It's not worth getting your hackles up about it.

Again, you think that legalization is going to make the price come DOWN?  IF the gov't. legalized it, who would they "allow" to make it?  The drug companies. 

Yes.  I really do.

Please investigate the business models of companies like Constellation Brands (NYSE:STZ), Budweiser (NYSE:BUD), Phillip Morris^W^W"Altria!" (NYSE:MO) and Starbucks (NASDAQ:SBUX), PepsiCo (NYSE:PEP), and Coca-Cola (NYSE:KO). 

These companies sell the legal drugs of alcohol, alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, caffeine, and caffeine, respectively.  Combined, they represent barely a third of of the market for those drugs.

But let's look at your "drug companies" (assuming you don't like the ones I've listed).

Patent protection lasts for around 13 years.  (Legally, 13 years.  Practically, 13-20 years, depending on how good your lawyers are at claiming that Botox for nerve-killing is different than Botox for cosmetic surgery.)  That's the magical time in which you're the only one allowed to set your price.  (After your patent expires, the generic drugmakers can make it for little more than the cost of production - and that's where companies like Teva Pharmaceuticals (NYSE:TEVA) come in - selling the same stuff that the brand-name drugmakers sold for $50/pill at $5/pill, provided that their customers can wait until the drug maker's patents expire.)

If it costs PigBharma $10B to develop a cure for cancer, you can bet your bottom dollar that the cure won't get marketed until PigBharma can get its inital research investment $10B back, plus at least (mumble) 10% per year, times 10-20 years, or about $100-200B back on their investment.  Otherwise it's not cost-effective to bother with it.

In the case of cancer, a 50/50 bet on a cure is a good business to be in, because a cure for cancer would be worth a sizable portion of the $10T of taxpayer dollars put into Medicare, to say nothing of around 50-100M people times a $100K-1M insurance policy per head. 

In the case of Obscurantia Affectsoneinamilliona, the rare disease that kills 300 people out of the 300M people in America, whose insurance companies will only pay $1M per person, for a total of $300M-600M maximum payout, you can expect BigPharmalax, Inc, to invest only $15-30M in finding a cure. 

But in the case of the chemicals sold for hundreds of dollars an ounce on the street, the necessary research has already been done, and the knowledge has been in the public domain, for decades, if not for centuries.

There is absolutely no way in hell that Pfizer could get a patent for any street drug on the market.  They also don't need to spend a penny on research and development. 

I say this as an investor, not as an idealogue. There's absolutely nothing that the (medicinal) drugmakers could do for recreational pharmaceuticals that the (consumer/food) drugmakers couldn't do faster, better, and cheaper.  (If you disagree -- do you know anyone who pays for Nicorette patches because they're cheaper than cigarettes?  And if so, can you figure out how to get whatever else they're smoking legalized, so I can invest in it?)