> If the junkies had access to the drugs they wanted, you won't see them on the streets, they will be in an institution somewhere, being high.

Your proposal is that we open institutions where people can live, eat, sleep, presumably have all of their needs met, and also do as many drugs as they want all day?

There is no way this theoretical free-housing-with-drugs institution would do anything but increase the number of people abusing drugs and decrease the odds of getting them back on their feet.

Can't pay your rent this month? Well if you get addicted to drugs, you get free drugs and free everything at the Free Drugs Institution...

Want to leave the Free Drugs Institution? Oh you don't have any money to get a place of your own and getting a job while you're in the throes of addiction is hard, so you might as well stay at the Free Drugs Institution...

Every single one of these theories relies on the number of drug addicts remaining fixed, but they always ignore the fact that you can't remove all of the costs of doing drugs without dramatically increasing the number of people doing drugs, relapsing, or stuck in addiction cycles.

I'm pretty sure the free drugs institution is in fact the street, and the drugs are only free in the sense that they're bought with the proceeds of crime. I can't speak for everyone, but the thought of going to live in a more formal institution does not increase the attractiveness of doing drugs for me (and I speak as someone who does like the occasional drug, legal or otherwise, in moderation of course). You could also imagine a path out like halfway houses or that sort of thing, but obviously it's a non-starter in the US.

> I can't speak for everyone, but the thought of going to live in a more formal institution does not increase the attractiveness of doing drugs for me

You presumably aren't the target audience.

There are a lot of people who are working hard to stay clean and keep their addictions at bay because the costs of being addicted are too high: They lose their job, their housing, their ability to support themselves, and their future.

If you offered these people a way to do drugs for free, and a place to stay for free while they did those drugs, the incentives change dramatically.

Drug addicts are also very good at lying to themselves. You'd get people telling themselves they'd only go in "for a couple days" or "for a month or two" who would end up in there for years and years.

Oh, I've been locked in a hospital before; I wouldn't really say that I'm a stranger to addiction. I think the job was the main stressor that caused the addiction. A layoff later and I feel much better. Being chained to that job for healthcare and housing nearly killed me via a few means.

Or...they need money to fuel their addiction which is simultaneously preventing them from finding gainful employment.

That's a huge over simplification IMO! Addiction problems often come with personality traits that correlate being jobless and miserable. As humans I believe we should solve these problems logically, holistically with love and empathy.

The employability of an alcoholic increases dramatically after recovering from alcoholism.

Which institution? Most homeless shelters and mental hospitals don't allow recreational drug use or possession on the premises, and I doubt those policies would change even if drugs were legalized. And most drug addicts can't hold down a stable job to pay for private housing regardless of legal status.

I generally think legalization is a good idea. But junkies are always going to be a burden who live on the margins of society and survive by leeching off the rest of us (crime, welfare, donations).

Just today I read a news story about a junkie who went out in the street in his neighborhood and started shooting at people. Every bit of evidence suggests he was high as a kite. Luckily he didn't injure anyone, just did some property damage putting bullet holes in cars. He ended his existence by taking shots at the police when they showed up.

Some guy stoned out of his mind on weed may be harmless, but this is not universally true with all drugs and all people. And your idea lacks an explanation for who will pay for all these free drugs. What's in it for me, as a productive member of society, to finance those drug habits?

I mean just today I read a new story about a dude that was high on political outrage and went and shot up a school, caused a lot of damage and death. Sounds like politics is pretty harmful.

What's in it for me as a member of the political mainstream if we allow these dangerous political views that upset our social harmony?