Re:Voters rejecting the war on drugs is a win for public health
by viraptor on Saturday November 07, 2020 @03:31PM
(#25018955)
Why concentrate on ongoing use rather than providing addiction treatment?
Re:Voters rejecting the war on drugs is a win for public health
by jowsie on Saturday November 07, 2020 @04:01PM
(#25019307)
You're a lot less likely to relapse and commit crime when you're already on a stable dose of your drug of choice. Considering how many people in america are on legitimate opiod prescriptions I find it insane how people instantly jump to 'well you wouldn't legalise heroin would you?!', there's no meaningful difference between opiods whether they're prescribed or not.
Re:Voters rejecting the war on drugs is a win for public health
by jessaustin on Saturday November 07, 2020 @04:06PM
(#25019359)
Why concentrate on anything? Heroin addicts who desire treatment will be welcome to it, but others will choose otherwise.
Re:Voters rejecting the war on drugs is a win for public health
by Jochim on Sunday November 08, 2020 @10:04AM
(#25026179)
One argument would be that taxes from the sale could be used to fund better addiction treatment than is currently available. State sanctioned supply would then be taking money out of the hands of organised crime and using it to help the people who need it.
Yes. The actual cost of producing heroin is about a nickel a dose. Junkies who get their heroin are productive members of society, and aside from the criminal element they're forced to associate with, the crime they commit to get the cash to not get sick, the inconsistency of product, and the aggression of the state, we have no reason to think they wouldn't live long happy lives other than ideological ones.
Every junkie death is by statute.