Bulldrek v3.0

Heroin prescription 'cuts costs'

Since the 'war on drugs' appears to be more or less a giant failure this might be a possible way out. If drugs were not illegal would that not create a drastic drop in crime, ok not just directly but also indirectly since crimes doesn't have to be commited to get the money so they can score more drugs.

Anything against? Anything besides posturing bullshit that is, since nobody in (political)power wants to appear to be weak on crime and drugs.

OK so we might not want to pay for johnny druguser staying at home shooting heroin all day long. But if he won't/can't stop wouldn't this be better.

The general arguement for making any drug legal is cost.

As long as government control of the product is strictly regulated for proper medical use, I don't see a problem. Well, there's always the potential for abuse, but it'll still probably cost taxpaxers less.

Or go with Singapore's laws, where the penalty for drug abuse is death. Dead addicts commit even fewer crimes than addicts treated with heroin and methadone. And killing them has got to be cheaper than an 18,000 euro a year treatment extended indefinitely.

[edit]This is actually 3278.[/edit]

lorg wrote:If drugs were not illegal would that not create a drastic drop in crime...

If murder were not illegal, that would also create a drastic drop in crime. So is the solution to criminal murder creating thousands of in vitro persons that it's legal to kill?

That said, I think this particular solution has its place. The UK - which has an incredible heroin problem - has been using legal prescribed heroin treatment for some time, in conjunction with therapy, and they've had drastic successes.

sticks wrote:The general arguement for making any drug legal is cost.

As long as government control of the product is strictly regulated for proper medical use, I don't see a problem. Well, there's always the potential for abuse, but it'll still probably cost taxpaxers less.

But the cost in making what is today illegal drugs ain't that high. The product has an incredible markup in the final distribution layers. I'm quite sure that any of the large (legal) drugcompanies of today could produce the drugs quite cheaply. Not to mention that it would probably be an increased safety factor in that atleast then you know what you get.

Marius wrote:Or go with Singapore's laws, where the penalty for drug abuse is death. Dead addicts commit even fewer crimes than addicts treated with heroin and methadone. And killing them has got to be cheaper than an 18,000 euro a year treatment extended indefinitely.

Yes one could do that to. One could have only one punishment for any crime to, death for all. I doubt I'd want to live under that system thou.

3278 wrote:If murder were not illegal, that would also create a drastic drop in crime. So is the solution to criminal murder creating thousands of in vitro persons that it's legal to kill?

I did actually concider that scenario but chose not to mention it, I was pretty sure someone would say it for me. Sure we could have zero crime by just making everything legal, but then I do see a difference between shooting heroin and shooting the neighbour. One hurts myself the other someone else. A world apart as far as I am concerned.

And the Supreme Court decided today that federal authorities can enforce drug policy by prosecuting those who possess or produce marijuana legally under state medicinal statutes.

Federal law trumps state law. I think that if the states make medical marijuana legal, then there needs to be an exepmtion written, but that's me.

As far as legalization, I'd like to think that we learned our lesson from prohibition, but apparently not. Making alcohol illegal didn't stop people from drinking, nor did making it legal again reduce the number of people drinking. As far as cost, yeah a legally produced version would be cheaper, and wouldn't have been cut with shit. Yes crime would statistically go down because posession and use would no longer be crimes. However, people will still steal and kill for their drug of choice.

BlackJack wrote:However, people will still steal and kill for their drug of choice.

Crime (as a whole, not including direct drug-violations) will go down. See, they may still steal, they just won't steal as much if it's less expensive. Lazy bastards.

Federal law trumps state law.

Uh, no. According to the Constitution federal law trumps State law only in a few, specifically enumerated areas.

BlackJack wrote:As far as legalization, I'd like to think that we learned our lesson from prohibition, but apparently not. Making alcohol illegal didn't stop people from drinking, nor did making it legal again reduce the number of people drinking.

It didn't stop drinking, but it did cut it down. The movies would have you believe that there were more speakeasies than people, but that's just because people that obey the law are boring. It was probably a waste of effort in the long run, but it wasn't a failure because it did nothing. The price was just too high.

I've said this before, but I think it bears repeating. The Prohibition argument invalidates the existance of all law. Murder is illegal, but people still murder, theft is illegal and people still steal. We still criminalize those actions, and those actions are in fact reduced. People lock the doors to their cars even though a thief can just break a window. Security (personal or societal) is about percentages and how much you can afford to reduce them.

Another problem with having drugs legal is the same as having alcohol being legal- using and driving. However, in most cases, drugs have worse side effects than alcohol, and would cause even more accidents. As it is, people get killed easily enough by other people who are in their cars stoned out of their skulls. Legalizing drugs would just raise that rate.
</personal opinion>

lorg wrote:Sure we could have zero crime by just making everything legal, but then I do see a difference between shooting heroin and shooting the neighbour. One hurts myself the other someone else. A world apart as far as I am concerned.

There are many ways in which I agree with you, but I would also like to express my opinion that the notion that "drug use is a victimless crime" is a myth, particularly in regards to heroin.

Missed this one the first time around:

lorg wrote:If drugs were not illegal would that not create a drastic drop in crime, ok not just directly but also indirectly since crimes doesn't have to be commited to get the money so they can score more drugs.

Not necessarily. The price for heroin is likely to remain fairly high, and addicts are often incapable of handling any sort of occupation, meaning that they'll still have to kick my ass and take my money to get their fix.

I do agree that there is likely to be a drop in indirect crime, but I debate the "drastic-ness" of the reduction. I cannot, however, think of a means of logically projecting what sort of reduction might be possible.

WillyGilligan wrote:It didn't stop drinking, but it did cut it down.

And did so /drastically./ I don't have the slightest idea where the book I own which has the statistics in it is, but the effects of Prohibition on drinking were actually quite extraordinary, no matter what legalization websites might say.

Prohibition was a success, but it was a success at a societally untenable cost. /That/ is the lesson we should take with us when we enter the War on Drugs, with all that it entails.

Kitt wrote:However, in most cases, drugs have worse side effects than alcohol, and would cause even more accidents.

I understand that, as you said, this is your personal opinion, but it simply isn't borne out by factual evidence [or, shamefully, my personal experience]. Alcohol is one of the worst impairments to driving. Many drugs offer virtually no impairment at all, and these are among those we class as the "hardest" drugs, such as cocaine.

Kitt wrote:Another problem with having drugs legal is the same as having alcohol being legal- using and driving. However, in most cases, drugs have worse side effects than alcohol, and would cause even more accidents. As it is, people get killed easily enough by other people who are in their cars stoned out of their skulls. Legalizing drugs would just raise that rate.
</personal opinion>

If I drink and drive and run over someone isn't the penalty for that higher then if I just run someone over by accident? Same thing could apply in this scenario.

WillyGilligan wrote:It didn't stop drinking, but it did cut it down. The movies would have you believe that there were more speakeasies than people, but that's just because people that obey the law are boring. It was probably a waste of effort in the long run, but it wasn't a failure because it did nothing. The price was just too high.

Did it not also more or less create or perhaps one should say solidify the positions of organized crime, just as the war on drugs have done. Pablo and his drugbaron pals south of the border would probably not be in the power position they are if it hadn't been illegal.

3278 wrote:There are many ways in which I agree with you, but I would also like to express my opinion that the notion that "drug use is a victimless crime" is a myth, particularly in regards to heroin.

Absolutely. Not to mention I doubt it would erradicate drug and drug-related crimes over night or anything of the kind. In the article I posted first I think they actually gave it away. But I assume that means you have to sign up and stuff and there will always be thouse that don't want to do that either, since they would be branded as heroin (or whatever) addicts. Instead they prefer to purchase from their "friendly" neighbourhood dealer.


Paul and Joseph; Since you work with crime and criminals what do you guys think? Are there alot of "soft", non violent drug users locked up in prison that really should not be there? (if it wasn't for the current laws).

(edit; forgot the 'not' and added the law part)

I do agree that there is likely to be a drop in indirect crime, but I debate the "drastic-ness" of the reduction. I cannot, however, think of a means of logically projecting what sort of reduction might be possible.

The study estimated that, actually. It was around 30,000 euros per patient per year. However most of that cost to society - about 25,000, I believe - was in damages to victims, and not, as you might first suppose, costs to society (meaning government, in this latter case) in policing, trying, and imprisoning.

That really should be there? I guess that depends on which set of standards we're using here. Legally, the law say's go to jail, and when they catch you, and if you live, you go.

Do I personally think there a lot of people in prison for pedling small amounts of drugs doing a lot of time? Yes. Were they nonviolent when they were arrested, and the PSI was generated? Well yeah, but a PSI is only as good as the guy generating it. So if he misses that your a violent psychopath who just hasn't been caught yet-well the next guy may find out the hard way.

In Michigan the recidivism rate is believed to be influenced by all sorts of factors. I have heard consistently year after year we have 68% return rate. I also hear from the guys who work intake at various joints, it's actually more 80%.

In Michigan, like several states, they are looking at all sorts of budget crisis. So they are trying to find ways to cut costs. So more and more people are finding themselves back on the streets. Two years ago the system was loaded with nonviolent offenders who were in with drug related charges. Now a days fewer and fewer are in, and most only for a hot minute.

Marius wrote:However most of that cost to society - about 25,000, I believe - was in damages to victims, and not, as you might first suppose, costs to society (meaning government, in this latter case) in policing, trying, and imprisoning.

Something seems very wrong about the proportions of those figures, but for the life of me - possibly because I'm doing four different things right now - I can't place what it is.

Marius wrote:

Federal law trumps state law.

Uh, no. According to the Constitution federal law trumps State law only in a few, specifically enumerated areas.

Be sure to tell the Supreme court that.

"Federal authorities may prosecute sick people whose doctors prescribe marijuana to ease pain, the Supreme Court (search) ruled Monday, concluding that state laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158690,00.html

I do agree that there is likely to be a drop in indirect crime, but I debate the "drastic-ness" of the reduction. I cannot, however, think of a means of logically projecting what sort of reduction might be possible.

See, this is where I think the real problem lies. While we have plenty of evidence and statistics on what drugs mean/do to American society while illegal, we have virtually nothing on the flip side. All of our information is based on the illegal use of the various drugs involved - use which would invariably and unquestionably change were they to be as easily and legally obtainable as our other major recreational drugs. Everything surrounding the legalization or decriminalization of illegal drugs is pretty much conjecture.

The Scamp wrote:...use which would invariably and unquestionably change were they to be as easily and legally obtainable as our other major recreational drugs.

Why?

Be sure to tell the Supreme court that.

No need. That's what they argued about the whole time. They're pretty aware of it.

lorg wrote:

WillyGilligan wrote:It didn't stop drinking, but it did cut it down. The movies would have you believe that there were more speakeasies than people, but that's just because people that obey the law are boring. It was probably a waste of effort in the long run, but it wasn't a failure because it did nothing. The price was just too high.

Did it not also more or less create or perhaps one should say solidify the positions of organized crime, just as the war on drugs have done. Pablo and his drugbaron pals south of the border would probably not be in the power position they are if it hadn't been illegal.

Like I said, the price was too high.