How much safer would 'recreational users' be if they had a legal, clean (pure), supply and a place to use it where they are monitored?
As the parent posts have said, the above combined with help for getting out of the hole in the same place would probably be more effective. It would /ALSO/ be the most effective way of defeating the criminals that make money off of the drugs; by depriving them of sales.
>Crime Issues: 60% drop in felony crimes by patients (80% drop after one year in the program). 82% drop in patients selling heroin.
>Death Rates: No one has died from a heroin overdose since the inception of the program. The heroin used is inspected for purity and strength by technicians.
>Disease Rates: New infections of Hepatitis and HIV have been reduced for patients in the program.
>New Use Rates: Slightly lower than expected. 1) As reported in the Lancet June 3, 2006, the medicalisation of using heroin has tarnished the image of heroin and made it unattractive to young people. 2) Most new users are introduced to heroin by members of their social group and 50% of users also deal to support their habit. Therefore, with so many users/sellers in treatment, non-users have fewer opportunities to be exposed to heroin, especially in the rural areas.
>*Cost Issues: 48 dollars/day: Patient costs are covered by national health insurance agency. Patients pay 700 dollars/year for the compulsory insurance. Note: The Swiss save about 38 dollars per day per patient mostly in lowered costs for court and police time, due to less crime committed by the patients.
[0] http://www.citizensopposingprohibition.org/resources/swiss-h...
Legalized drugs would absolutely deprive criminals of domestic profits but there would still be gangs that export and fight over that black market. For example large amounts of marijuana in Canada ends up exported to Vietnam and sold at every newspaper stand in Hanoi for premium prices to the new middle class users there. The various gangs shoot each other here on a regular basis for control of that export operation or rob legal grows to get free product. In other words large amounts of money will have to go to export prevention enforcement.
The best argument for legalized/regulated narcotics is it prevents this kind of synthetic opioid medical disaster by either prescribing heroin to addicts or selling it without prohibition price spikes due to busts, so the incentive to import cheaper synthetics is gone and drug quality could be more easily identified by the end user. The income from any sales can go to treatment to prevent new addicts but many of us remember having been promised by governments who run gambling/lotteries how that money would go towards gambling addiction treatment and instead it just disappeared into general revenue.
I don't think there's any data out yet, but the idea was to prevent overdoses, but also provide clean syringes to avoid HIV transmission.
I don't have any stats to provide, but if your interested (as far as heroin) check out the Netherlands. Last i knew they had a program.
Edit: I believe the Netherlands have had their program since sometime in the 90's, so there should be data available.
It depends. Someone looked at PDE5 inhibitors (i.e. Viagra) purchased from online pharmacies and found that their products were accurately labeled. They were "own-brand" and from a clandestine lab, however the product was what is claimed to be. But these pharmacies rely on repeat customers and word-of-mouth, that encourages them to be responsible.
Dunno about opiates. If the customers seek consistent quality and use a "research chemical" website instead of a guy on a street corner this may actually be a step in the right direction, you get consistent quality, and opiate addicts with a regular supply of drug are surprisingly functional.
The patent literature is vast and the pharmacology established. You don't have to resort to the kind of experimentation that Shulgin did when he worked on phenethylamines (i.e. amphetamines).
Anecdotally the issue of potentially fatal heroin doses from fentanyl adulteration came up in a citizen's police class I took in Houston. One of the officers there claimed drug dealers don't mind accidentally killing the occasional customer because it puts word on the street that the dealer has really potent product. Who knows if that's really true but it's an interesting theory, anyway.
I can almost guarantee, if you get a drug in the mail chances are its a research chemical that will probably get you high, but NOBODY knows what the long term effects are.
People aren't very selective at what they stick up their nose or in their veins. Your average cocaine end-user is the 14th person who's had their hands on that particular drug. Chances are it's been cut with who the heck knows what at every step along the way, since everyone wants to maximize their profits.
When you get a package of what-should-be drugs from China or Colombia or anywhere, who's to say what's actually in it? The FDA isn't testing that stuff. If you think it's heroin and there's even a little fentanyl mixed in it, your last use could be fatal.