Yeah, I support full-drug legalization, but I don't think that pretending that locking up junkies currently does nothing positive for society will do us any favors. In the current system, they account for a large amount of property crime and even violent crime. Locking them up isn't pointless, even if it does nothing to cure their addiction it does stop them from robbing others to pay for their addiction (for as long as we keep them locked up anyway).

Now, I believe that full legalization will reduce or eliminate the harm to society caused by junkies, but that should be the talking point that is hammered on. Not "jailing junkies doesn't cure them".

The cost of incarceration is almost certainly higher than the losses from property crime (including violent crime), but it's distributed more evenly-- a fraction more taxes is less objectionable than a friend being mugged.

I am not certain that the cost of incarceration is higher than the cost of the property theft and damage by drug addicts. Cost of incarceration seems to vary between 15 and 40 k$/yr in countries like Canada, USA, and England. Property theft and damage costs vary widely depending on the individual addict, and can be between 0 and 1000000 $/yr. In my city, there are many drug addict thieves who have been convicted of hundreds of car thefts each, and that is probably only a small fraction of the number they have committed. It is also common for these criminals to break a car window (costing hundreds of dollars) to get a few dollars that were sitting in the car; this can add up to a lot of damage very quickly if one needs to make as little as 50 $/day to feed an addiction. Another common income source for these people is to steal items like computers, cameras, and bicycles, which they sell for as little as 5% of their purchase cost; this can cost 1000 $/day for a 50 $/day habit, adding up to >350 k$/yr (roughly 10 times the cost of incarceration).

I should add that I am in favor of full legalization of all substances (including the elimination of the requirement for a prescription to obtain pharmaceutical drugs), but I do not pretend that this will reduce the harms which inhere to drug users, or the rest of the citizenry.

Yeah, particularly when junkies get into things like copper theft, their cost to society can add up really fast. Things like destroying commercial AC unit to steal $100 of copper, causing tens of thousands of dollars of damages in one night alone.

Destruction of property value is huge as well. Think about how much your home (or apartment building) is worth today. Now think about how much it would be worth if the neighborhood or apartment building were occupied by large numbers of junkies. Nobody wants to live next to a meth lab.

Drug users are "only" about one third to one half of acquisitive crime.

Copper theft, at least in England, tends not to be addicts because it doesn't fit the lifestyle.

Heard a figure on NPR the other day that it cost $35K to house/feed a prisoner.

Hmmm and how about locking up junkies that commit property crimes and violent crimes on the basis that they commit property crimes and violent crimes?

So what you say is that it is good to incarcerate drug addicts, not because they have committed a crime, but because they may commit a crime.

I see your point...

* Portugal does not have full legalization. They have full decriminalization.

Not criminal does not mean legal.

Yes, I understand that. I support full legalization, not merely decriminalization (which leaves production and distribution in the hands of criminals).