But it's true, there are some people who think that having an addict cause $5000 worth of damage to steal a $500 item that they'll pawn for $50 is preferable to just giving him a goddamn prescription. [1] At least with the status quo, nobody's conscience is troubled...
If your goal is to stop people from being high, criminalization isn't doing it. If your goal is to stop people from taking more and more drugs until they eventually overdose, it's not doing that either. If your goal is to stop functional addicts from going down the drain into non-functional addiction, you're not even hitting the same ball park.
[1] With an optional bonus level of spending $50,000 to prosecute and incarcerate and dump right back onto the street, if your town is into that sort of thing.
You think we should just give them free drugs in addition to the housing and food we already give them? Because the drugs are cheaper than the robberies?
Look, the simple fact is many people are not entrepreneurial. They work instead of doing drugs because they know they have to in order to have a decent go at life. If you just make being high all day and acceptable and low cost life decision, you could easily see 90% of people in some communities choose that option.
We do actually exist on earth in the pitiful condition that if we all just sit on our asses and do nothing, we'll die.
Does that not seem pragmatic to you?
While we give them those drugs we can make sure they're not getting anything nasty or weird in there so they don't just up and die, and we can help them recover when the opportunity presents.
But if you'd rather live with more petty crime, and more expensive policing, more or less for the sake of being spiteful... well you get where we are today.
> If you just make being high all day and acceptable and low cost life decision, you could easily see 90% of people in some communities choose that option.
I think that would be a damning verdict on how unfulfilling and hopeless those communities have become regardless of drugs.
> Unfulfilling and hopeless
It's the human condition.
Yeah, and that would surely cause most humans to empathise with other humans suffering from addiction, and help those others the best way they can, by a) reducing harm to the addicts and b) helping them overcome their addiction. The fact that this c) also reduces incident crime levels and reduces suffering for yet another group of humans is surely a bonus.
'Pragmatic' in this case is referring to taking actions you consider morally questionable, but with the aim of reduction of harm all around.
I don't see how this is robotic or lacking in empathy. Quite the opposite.
> It's the human condition.
It's really not, not for 90% of a given community unless there is something else seriously wrong with that community.
In what US state do the homeless get housing? Or do you mean prison?
>Look, the simple fact is many people are not entrepreneurial. They work instead of doing drugs because they know they have to in order to have a decent go at life.
Is this from a study you've read or are you just making shit up? Isn't "Rat Park" psychology 101? This is an incredibly jarring point of view when you also consider many of the heroin addicts where onramped by doctors getting kickbacks from Purdue Pharma.
You should really research Purdue Pharma litigation if you don't know. Making sweeping general statements without even being aware of one of the biggest pharmaceutical settlements in recent history is surprising. In short, Purdue Pharma was bribing doctors to get patients hooked on Oxycontin.
>Your solution is to let people get them more freely.
My solution has more to do with housing than free drugs. Legalized, controlled, distribution would allow hospitals to more accurately keep track of who is dependent on these drugs, and having stable housing is shown to be a requirement for rehab.
Ultimately, when you look at the homeless problem you have 4 choices: you can kill them, imprison them, house them, or leave them alone. Choices (1) and (2) should never be considered in a free society; leaving choice (3) and (4). Choice (3) would mean some kind of socialized housing (a là Vienna), which is obviously a no-go in America so you find that (4) is the best option that you see implemented in America.
It's possible that you may think that being a homeless addict with a drug prescription is an 'acceptable low cost life decision'.
I personally don't see how adding 'with a drug prescription' suddenly makes it particularly attractive and low cost. From all I can observe, living in that sort of situation is still utter misery and shit. Can't say I feel one bit of envy for it, when I drive past the onramp tents - even if the drugs were free.
Do you?
Do I think making those drugs legal and purchasable over the counter would make the situation better or worse? Worse, much worse.
From where I'm sitting, the major negative externalities are overdose deaths' (which are mostly for spiked doses/things not not being what they claimed) and gang activity.
Legalization makes both of those go away.