Drug treatment grads more likely to reoffend (another great Liberal idea goes bad)

San francisco Chronicle ^ | nov 26, 2004 | Cicero A. Estrella

[eno_]

It's not true. If people are smoking pot in their home, how is it that we're arresting 750,000 of them each year? Huh?

By being nosey POS narcs who ought to be dead in pools of their own blood and filth. That number is a sign of a repressive, corrupt, and illegitimate system.

[Ken H]

Here's one from the USDOJ:

Demand

There were an estimated 980,000 hardcore heroin addicts in the United States in 1999, 50 percent more than the estimated 630,000 hardcore addicts in 1992. Active occasional users add an estimated 250,000 to 500,000 to the total number of heroin users.

According to reporting from the 1999 NHSDA, an estimated 3.1 million individuals in the United States aged 12 and older had tried heroin in their lifetimes.

The increase in the number of hardcore addicts in the United States likely is attributable to higher heroin purity, lower prices, and ready availability.

December 2001 Drug Threats - Heroin: The demand for heroin in the United States remains high.

[somniferum]

Ive heard from a friend *ahem* that the prices for drugs (and I mean all drugs .. LSD/Acid/Cocaine/Marijuana) have remained flat for at least the last 6 years. A gram of coke still goes for $60. 1/4 OZ of shwag still costs $25. Of course, prices can vary wildly by region. However, given how much the dollar has depreciated in the past 2 years, it would not be a surprise to see imported drugs getting more expensive.

[Old Professer]

Regular pot smokers already have a prison.

[eno_]

Are you teatotal?

If not, you are dicing with a far more dangerous drug than pot.

I'm sure you think YOU can handle it.

Just like every other drunk thought so.

[Ken H]

Marijuana use, for example, has been relatively flat, with a slight increase in the last two years. Now if supply has increased, prices have dropped, more states are decriminalizing, more states are passing medical marijuana, more states are making marijuana their "lowest arrest priority",

Those are very good examples of the WOD failing to convince people and lawmakers at the State and local level to go along with their mj policies.

yet marijuana use remains relatively flat, what do you mean there's no correlation?

If you want to say the WOD is correlated with a flat demand since 1989, I'll agree.

Given all the above, I think marijuana use "staying flat" is a major victory!

Yes and you have made no case that the WOD is responsible for the major victory.

Maybe the flat demand is a major victory for the relaxation of mj laws at the State and local level. It is correlated with a flat demand, same as the WOD.

Here's what I think: most people inclined to smoke pot already smoke it, and that neither the WOD nor the easing of local laws had much to do with the major victory of flat demand.

[robertpaulsen]

Go here. It's easier than me trying to bring the mountain to Mohammed.

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/drugfact/american_users_spend/table1.html

[robertpaulsen]

"Yes and you have made no case that the WOD is responsible for the major victory."

Well, ask yourself. If the WOD went away, would drug use increase? If you answered yes, then the WOD is succeeding in keeping drug use down.

If you said no, then you're an idiot with an agenda.

[Modernman]

Yes, it began to decline around 1979, right after the program for drug asset forfeiture started

Drug asset forfeiture laws may have started with the best of intentions, but they have become a get-rich-quick scheme for government.

[Luke21]

I've been in drug counseling for five years and am getting out. AA/NA/CA are still the best and most effective ways of obtaining sobriety, not treatment.

Today's treatment centers are offering rational recovery/ psychobabble and medications by the handfull. They are trying to do recovery without a higher power, and will bear the fruits accordingly.

I even have some of my clients being given narcotics to treat narcotic addiction. They say it's the wave of the future...Too many master's degree people and not enough drunks and addicts in the field anymore, much of it because of the politicians and the liberals.

[Ken H]

If the WOD went away, would drug use increase?

You'd probably see some more occasional tokers, but doubtful there would be much increase in frequent mj users. Pot is available to anyone who wants it. IMO, the WOD is not holding back those who would otherwise be regular users.

I doubt you'd see much change in hard drug use. Again, they're available and affordable to anyone who wants them.

Do you know any law abiding citizens curious to try hard drugs? Me neither.

[robertpaulsen]

"Dr. Herbert D. Kleber of the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, Columbia University, suggests that legalization of cocaine would result in a five- to six-fold increase in cocaine use.20 Dr. Robert DuPont, former director of the National Institute of Drug Abuse agrees, stating that legalization would increase the number of users of cocaine and marijuana to between fifty and sixty million, and the number of heroin users to around ten million.21 Dr. DuPont concludes that when one takes into account the health effects of cocaine, heroin, and marijuana, legalization could result in between 100,000 and 500,000 drug induced deaths each year.22 Further, you cannot legalize cocaine and control the crack epidemic, for users could easily turn the former into the latter."
-- druglibrary.org/schaffer/debate/myths/myths2.htm

Perhapsyou have some documentation that disputes this?

[Ken H]

Perhapsyou have some documentation that disputes this?

How can one have documentation that disputes a hypothetical future event? You asked my opinion on a "what if" and I gave it.

I have no vested interest in the WOD. Can you say the same about these drug experts?

[robertpaulsen]

"How can one have documentation that disputes a hypothetical future event?"

Simple. Some credible organization or individual who says that legalization will not increase usage.

[Ken H]

I doubt any credible organization is going to make such a claim. It's all guesswork no matter which side you're on.

I do know that Holland, which has relatively mild sanctions against heroin use, has a lower rate of heroin addiction than Iran, Singapore, and the US.

[TKDietz]

"All it takes is a conscience decission to NOT use."

I agree with that. But I also believe that hardcore addiction compromises people's ability to make good decisions. Addictions to drug like meth rewire people's brains. A lot of these guys can't seem to think straight. They constantly lie to themselves and others. They constantly rationalize. In most cases all of their friends do drugs and in many cases it's not just their friends but it is also people in their families so it is very hard for them to distance themselves from the drugs. All of them can quit, it's just an uphill series of battles for most of them and the fact is that most don't succeed on their first try. That's just the way it is.

[pnome]

"Assuming you were arrested and assigned to a drug treatment program -- would it do you, personally, any good? Are you addicted to marijuana? Do you need treatment?"

Are you addicted to caffiene? If you were arrested and assigned to a drug treatment program for caffiene abusers would you do it?

What I am trying to say is that, in the case of non-violent (or rather all other things equal) drug use or drug dealing, the punishment (prison) does not even come close to fitting the crime. The amount of harm done to society is rather low.

Think about it. What is the harm of one person doing drugs in thier home? I understand they are harming themselves, but we don't put people in prison for a whole slew of things we could do to hurt ourselves in our own homes.

Now, if they drive or some such other thing whilst under the influence, then you have a case, otherwise, leave them alone.

[robertpaulsen]

"What is the harm of one person doing drugs in thier home?"

Are you familiar with the Alaskan experience with the legalization of marijuana possession by adults in their home?

[pnome]

"Are you familiar with the Alaskan experience with the legalization of marijuana possession by adults in their home?"

No, but let me take a guess, all the pot smokers caused damage numbered in the billions, rapes and violent crime were at an all time (excuse the pun) high! I'm sure it was mass hysteria and the crumbling of every decent moral institiution. Wasn't good for the environemnt either!

Ok, so I might be wrong. What did happen? Too much snacking? Alaska ran out of chips?

Tell ya what, answer me this question:

What happened in the city of Chicago when it became illegal to produce or consume booze?

[robertpaulsen]

I'll do this like the Reduced Shakespeare Company:

The Alaska state constitution has a "right to privacy". Some guy challenged the state marijuana laws (I think in 1973, 1975) saying that he had a right to smoke in the privacy of his home. The Alaska supreme court agreed, and placed the limit at 4oz. (personal use amount).

The University of Alaska did a survey in 1988 of teen marijuana use and found that teen use was double the lower 48.

The voters went ballistic and passed a referendum to go back to the original laws. Teen use equalized.

I hope that answers your question of "What is the harm of one person doing drugs in thier home?"

What happened in the city of Chicago when it became illegal to produce or consume booze?

Uh, people caused damage numbered in the billions, rapes and violent crime were at an all time high, it was mass hysteria and the crumbling of every decent moral institiution, and wasn't good for the environemnt either?

During Prohibition, were the people demanding the legalization of just wine? And what if only wine were made legal and the rest of the alcoholic beverages remained illegal?

Would you expect wine legalization to solve any of the problems caused by Prohibition? But you fully expect marijuana legalization to, don't you?