>> Legalizing drugs will not make them free, and they will still lead to addiction.

Indeed they will. But if addicts have easier access to medically supervised maintenance doses (for instance), without risking jail time, then there may be less crime committed to feed these habits. Stuff I've seen has suggested that (for instance) when heroin users know where their next hit is coming from (the clinic) they are better able to handle their addiction and able to make some progress in the rest of life (hold down a job, etc).

I'm not saying I definitely have all the answers, the picture is complex.

>when heroin users know where their next hit is coming from (the clinic) they are better able to handle their addiction and able to make some progress in the rest of life (hold down a job, etc).

That's extremely wishful thinking.

We currently have abundant access to alcohol and alcoholism is still a problem.

On the other hand, alcohol is actively pushed and widely accepted within our society. It's extremely difficult to avoid if you have a problem with it, and it's also extremely easy to develop a problem with through the numerous situations in which you are expected to consume or have access to it. Supply of substance from a clinic allows you to fulfil the needs of the existing population, without having the problem of vendors pushing the substance onto new users. ( One would hope.. )

>> That's extremely wishful thinking.

It's something I've read about coming out of the Swiss model, which medicalises heroin addiction rather than criminalising it.

I'm not going to hunt for references right now so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Legalizing drugs are one thing (though 80-90% of Americans still oppose legalization for stuff like heroin). Spending non-prison public dollars on peoples' heroin addiction (while potentially a good idea), will never happen in the U.S. before the heat death of the universe.

The cost of medical heroin to feed the typical daily consumption of heroin for an addict costs in the $10-$20 range, as far as I remember. We know the costs because because heroin is manufactured and regularly prescribed as a pain killer in a number of countries, e.g. in the UK you sometime get diamorphine (heroin) prescriptions for post-operative pain.

In other words, even if it was not paid for, but just made available on prescription, chances are substantial proportion of users would be able to afford to maintain their addiction without much, if any, crime.

>> Spending non-prison public dollars on peoples' heroin addiction (while potentially a good idea), will never happen in the U.S. before the heat death of the universe.

Oh can you imagine the horror!

"Our tax dollars are going on keeping them no-good junkies in smack! Not on my watch!"

Even if it was the best thing for law and order, for society, for everyone.... yeah I know, it'll just never fly.

You would still have non-profits willing to provide treatment, even if the government is unable to do anything.

When drugs are legalized, addicts have better access to treatments and counseling and the stigma is lowered so they can be more open about their addiction.

Legalizing alcohol didn't make it free, but it sure did help with the associated violence made infamous during Prohibition.

That's the distributors/manufacturers, we are talking about the consumers.

And your point?

> Legalizing drugs will not make them free

It will make them much cheaper and thus have about the same affect.