British Government To Give Free Heroin To Addicts (Good idea for USA?)

CNS News ^ | December 04, 2002 | Mike Wendling

[Wolfie]

What the British are doing now, and proposing to expand, is very much what you describe above. Its not a policy of "all the heroin you want, have fun", but rather a doctor controlled distribution program, wherein the addict is given maintenance levels of heroin (emphasis on the "maintenance"). The addict can then stabilize his/her lifestyle (getting a job, getting off the street, etc.) without the constant and continuous worry of scoring their next fix before withdrawal sets in. Each addict under goes counseling, and when ready, is offered the chance to kick under a doctor's supervision.

[MrLeRoy]

I suppose we should just give them the drugs then at taxpayer expense and call it a crime control program.

It'd be cheaper, in dollars and liberty, than the War On (Some) Drugs. (But I'd prefer to simply legalize it and let addicts get their drug money the way alcohol addicts now do---collecting cans, panhandling, etc.)

[MrLeRoy]

I'd prefer a general policy of mandatory drug rehab to imprisonment myself, and I don't mind spending my tax money on rehab centers. Serious addicts need love, compassion, and help.

What about nonaddicted users?

[Gophack]

My biggest problem with the legalization of drugs is that while on drugs, people are "not themselves", i.e. they can behave aggressively, violently, etc. Like getting drunk but worse. Drugs distort and destroy the brain at a faster rate than alcohol, and these druggies can and will commit violent crimes on law abiding citizens. Sure, we can pass more laws increasing the penalties for driving under the influence of drugs, but that's not going to be much consolation to the mother whose children was killed because of a violent drug addict. Legalization will increase drug use, and since drugs are largely addictive, and druggies largely unproductive, we'll have a larger class of people to take care of. While I know your next argument will be, we're not responsible for these people they'll have to take care of themselves if they're stupid enough to get addicted, the fact is when they're sleeping on the streets and dying in the winter, they ARE our problem and we'll have to take care of them (even if it means simply burying the dead) one way or another.

I agree that there are many problems with the war on drugs and I don't have the solutions, I just know that legalizing drugs is NOT the answer.

[MrLeRoy]

Drugs distort and destroy the brain at a faster rate than alcohol

Provide evidence for your claim.

[Gophack]

I have seen people on serious drugs and they are not in their right minds. While I'm sure alcohol has a bad effect on some people, it usually takes years of abuse to kill them off. People taking drugs can not function in the workplace, and because the drugs are so addictive, they learn to not function WITHOUT the drugs. I don't have evidence, just common sense and what I've seen in my limited and sheltered life. I'm sure we could both come up with research to support our claims. I'll just end with, two wrongs don't make a right -- legalizing drugs is not the solution.

[Oberon]

British Government To Give Free Heroin To Addicts (Good idea for USA?)

Possibly, with one stipulation: We hand the stuff out in 100-gram quantities, and the recipient has to take it all at once.

[monkeywrench]

Aren't most heroin producing countries among the terrorist sponser/enemy to freedom group? Interesting to see they have lobbies in some govts.

[Protagoras]

How do you feel about the decision by the English to provide their heroine addicts with free heroine?

Brave people are brave people, the sex doesn't matter.

[Protagoras]

And a great place to raise kids, too!

The only place worse would be your house.

[Protagoras]

I'd prefer a general policy of mandatory drug rehab to imprisonment myself, and I don't mind spending my tax money on rehab centers. Serious addicts need love, compassion, and help

It is always an act of love to steal money from one person and spend it on another person. It's just so compassionate.

[jpl]

It is always an act of love to steal money from one person and spend it on another person. It's just so compassionate.

I'd love to go back to the kind of taxation system we had 100 years ago, but I know that's never going to happen, so I don't waste a lot of time thinking about it.

If someone can do drugs and remain a truly functional person, then that's fine by me. But when the addict starts commiting crimes, beating his wife or kids, or getting in my face begging me for for spare change, then he becomes a problem. That's when I advocate getting him off street until he can get clean and sober.

[MrLeRoy]

I have seen people on serious drugs and they are not in their right minds.

I have seen people on alcohol who were not in their right minds.

While I'm sure alcohol has a bad effect on some people, it usually takes years of abuse to kill them off.

Alcohol (unlike, say, pot) can kill in a single evening of use.

People taking drugs can not function in the workplace

Nonsense; if that were true, no employer would bother with drug tests but would simply fire the nonfunctional workers.

I'm sure we could both come up with research to support our claims.

I don't believe I've made any specific claims---but I'm sure you CAN'T come up with research to support yours.

two wrongs don't make a right

If drug legalization is one of the "two wrongs" you're referring to, what's the other one? And is maintaining the legality of the deadly addictive drug alcohol also a "wrong"?

[MrLeRoy]

But when the addict starts commiting crimes, beating his wife or kids

Then he'll go to jail regardless of his substance use. No argument there for keeping drugs illegal, any more than for making alcohol (the cause of much violence) illegal.

[Protagoras]

If someone can do drugs and remain a truly functional person, then that's fine by me.

I am opposed to the use of dangerous drugs, but I have known many, many people who remain functional. Which doesn't mean that anyone owes anyone else a functional existence.

But when the addict starts commiting crimes, beating his wife or kids, or getting in my face begging me for for spare change, then he becomes a problem.

The violation of rights is always a problem. Blaming something other than the person who violates those rights is however, incorrect.

That's when I advocate getting him off street until he can get clean and sober.

Removing a person from society who violates rights is correct. "Clean and sober" are subjective traits which have no place in the protection of rights.

And not "wasting a lot of time" thinking about the immorality of taking property from the rightful owner and giving it to someone to whom it does not belong is really a waste of time.

[robertpaulsen]

Why are you getting personal?

[Protagoras]

Why are you getting personal?

That's rich. Trying to vilify whole classes of people who don't believe as you do on thread after thread by telling lies about them isn't to be taken personally?

You have nothing to add to the subject except your bile and then you get offended when you get it back in your face? Get real. You trolled for a flame and you got one. Now your happy, oh goody.

[MrLeRoy]

Just add gambling, prostitution and pornography, and Bumsville sounds like the perfect location for the next Libertarian Party Convention.

And a great place to raise kids, too!

We currently raise our kids in a society where the deadly addictive drug alcohol is legal. Is that harming them? Should we therefore ban alcohol for adults?

[Mustang]

I would suggest an added subparagraph be added to your stipulation:

" and only in heavily dominated democRAT voting precincts "

Mustang sends.

[Oberon]

" and only in heavily dominated democRAT voting precincts "

A good suggestion, but I suspect it may be redundant.