87 replies to this topic

[ducky]

Of course there are arguments for and against regarding the cost vs. the benefit. I just feel the argument in favor of the needle sales for illegal drug users is weak, especially if these programs are in existence and they can't point to a decrease in infectious diseases.

The drug users may go in and get their clean, cheap needles but then party and be in a drug-induced state and not realize they are reusing a dirty needle anyway. Are they really going to run down to Rite-Aid and get a clean needle at 3:00 in the morning?

Is there any way to confirm that an infectious disease was spread by unprotected sex vs. a dirty needle? After all, condoms are easily available, but that doesn't prevent a drug user from becoming pregnant and passing along their drug addiction to their baby. We are all paying for those medical costs and foster care.

I would really like to hear how law enforcement feels about needle sales and the effect it has had on the reappearance of heroin's popularity in the states that have similar programs.

[bishmasterb]

Of course there are arguments for and against regarding the cost vs. the benefit.  I just feel the argument in favor of the needle sales for illegal drug users is weak, especially if these programs are in existence and they can't point to a decrease in infectious diseases. 

Well "they" do point to a decrease in infectious diseases. According to this study by UC San Francisco (yes, I know, San Francisco) as of 1997, there were up to 10,000 cases of AIDS nationwide that could have been prevented by needle exchange programs.

I'm certainly not in favor of the government using your money to pass out needles to drug addicts. On the other hand, I don't have any illusions that by forceably preventing people from purchasing needles that we are reducing drug use; since heroin is already completely banned, that argument is not rational.

[ducky]

My argument isn't that prohibiting needle sales to all except those with true medical needs will reduce those people already addicted to drugs. My argument is that it could possibly facilitate the switch from other drugs to heroin, especially for young people. I wonder if those 10,000 "possible" AIDS cases could be compared to 20,000 new heroin addicts in the areas where needle sales are not banned. That data is from eight years ago. Where's the update on the true value of the program?

I'm just asking questions here that I think there should be available data to answer since some communities already have this program.

[bishmasterb]

I'm just asking questions here that I think there should be available data to answer since some communities already have this program.

You could probably google "NEP increase heroin use" and look at the results. I think you'll find each side pitching their data, you can see which one you think is more reliable. Frankly, I think it's probably going to be hard to find good, unbiased arguments on this.

As always, I think freedom is the best approach: freedom for people to put whatever they want into their own body, and everyone else's freedom not to have to assist them in doing so or paying for their healthcare afterwards.

[ducky]

I remember reading an article a while back about the gain in heroin's popularity. That's what made me think maybe these needle programs are backfiring and are just "feel good" programs that are really doing more harm than good.

I have a problem with the whole everybody should have the freedom to put whatever they want in their body argument. You can pretend that it is only hurting that individual as long as they pay for their own drugs and needles, but that is not reality. Fathers and mothers who are addicted to drugs can't keep their jobs or take care of their children. Who pays for that? We do.

Drugs addicts will lie, cheat, steal, and kill to get their next fix. We also pay for that.

If you've ever had to witness the destruction drugs have on a family member you would want drugs, and the means of ingesting them, to be as difficult as possible to obtain.

[bishmasterb]

Drugs addicts will lie, cheat, steal, and kill to get their next fix.  We also pay for that.

If you've ever had to witness the destruction drugs have on a family member you would want drugs, and the means of ingesting them, to be as difficult as possible to obtain.

ducky,

I challenge you to look carefully at those two statements you just made.

If "drugs addicts will lie, cheat, steal and kill" to get drugs, shouldn't they be able to get them easily so they won't "kill to get their next fix".

No one "lies, cheats, steals or kills" to get their next fix of alcohol or nicotine.

[ducky]

Actually, what I meant about the lie, cheat, steal and kill was the monetary aspect of obtaining drugs. They're easily and surprisingly available if you've got the cash. Drug addicts who have lost their jobs or can't keep a job because of their addiction will steal from anyone. It makes it heartbreaking to a family member because they know they can't help monetarily because the money will just go for drugs.

I've yet to hear of someone being carjacked for cigarette or beer money.

I've yet to hear of someone being killed in a six-pack deal gone bad.

[bishmasterb]

Actually, what I meant about the lie, cheat, steal and kill was the monetary aspect of obtaining drugs.  They're easily and surprisingly available if you've got the cash.  Drug addicts who have lost their jobs or can't keep a job because of their addiction will steal from anyone.  I've yet to hear of someone being carjacked for cigarette or beer money.

Yes, that is what I understood you to mean.

My point regarding alcohol and nicotine is simply that people don't "lie, cheat, steal or kill" to get them because they are legal, cheap and easily obtainable.

Imagine if currently illicit drugs like marijuana and heroin were legal; by your own logic, wouldn't that mean a lot less "lying, cheating, stealing and killing"?

[ducky]

Yes, that is what I understood you to mean.

My point regarding alcohol and nicotine is simply that people don't "lie, cheat, steal or kill" to get them because they are legal, cheap and easily obtainable.

Imagine if currently illicit drugs like marijuana and heroin were legal; by your own logic, wouldn't that mean a lot less "lying, cheating, stealing and killing"?

I don't believe it would mean a lot less lying, cheating, stealing, and killing. I believe it would mean a lot more addicts.

I might agree with you about the marijuana if it is used casually, if there is such a thing, but I believe heroin is not a weekend- or special-occasion-only type of drug, same with meth. Those drugs take wonderful, productive, hard-working people and destroy them. It is hard to hold down a job when you are so high you forgot to eat or sleep for three, four, or five days. No matter how cheap the drugs are if you cant' keep a job you won't be able to afford them.

[bishmasterb]

I don't believe it would mean a lot less lying, cheating, stealing, and killing.  I believe it would mean a lot more addicts.

It could very well mean more addicts. I don't know. I suppose we could look to Scandinavian countries for data on that. As you've already stated, illicit drugs are already widely available, anyone who wants them can already get them.

I'm curious as to why you think the lying, cheating, stealing and killing wouldn't go down substantially? Most illicit drug related crime is associated with the fact that the drugs are prohibitied (just like crime during prohibition), not with people commiting crimes because they are high on drugs.

Furthermore, the war on drugs directly costs us tens of billions of dollars per year. And the indirect costs are almost assuredly in the hundreds of billions.

I might agree with you about the marijuana if it is used casually, if there is such a thing, but I believe heroin is not a weekend- or special-occasion-only type of drug, same with meth.  Those drugs take wonderful, productive, hard-working people and destroy them.  It is hard to hold down a job when you are so high you forgot to eat or sleep for three, four, or five days.  No matter how cheap the drugs are if you cant' keep a job you won't be able to afford them.

Well, somehow jobless people currently still afford cigarettes without resorting to crime.

I know it's emotionally hard to accept heroin as a legal drug. And yes, some people will choose to ruin their lives with it, but the current situation is that when people choose to ruin their lives with heroin they drag the rest of us into it due to increased crime, the thugs that run the drug industry and the war on drugs.

[ducky]

Your example with the cigarettes is something I never understood, especially when you think about the cost of a pack-a-day habit. I would hate to think I couldn't afford to put my child in a sports program because I had spent my money ruining my lungs and everyone else's around me.

As for heroin, once people are hooked I don't believe it is a conscious decision to ruin their lives. Making the drugs cheaper may help end their lives sooner.

If legalizing drugs creates more addicts, it will also create more overdose deaths, unplanned pregnancies, drug-addicted or developmentally disabled children. I believe it will put more people out of work and create the need for more public assistance.

Will that cost taxpayers more than the war on drugs? I can't answer that. I do know as a parent I am glad drugs are illegal. I would hate to be told there is nothing wrong with SmithKline and the local pharmacy making a profit turning my child into an addict because it has the government's blessing. I also don't believe for a minute that the government taking over and regulating anything makes it cheaper for taxpayers.

[bishmasterb]

If legalizing drugs creates more addicts, it will also create more overdose deaths, unplanned pregnancies, drug-addicted or developmentally disabled children.  I believe it will put more people out of work and create the need for more public assistance. 

Actually, there is good reasoning that legalizing drugs will actually reduce overdose deaths. Most drug "overdoses" occur because of the quality of the drug being produced. It's no surprise that when drugs are made in basements and "crack houses" with dangerous chemicals, that the quality suffers. By switching manufacturing to real companies, with real QA policies and liability, the quality of drugs would be vastly improved and result in fewer overdose deaths.

By way of analogy, people used to die from alcohol much more frequently during prohibition because it was being brewed in bathtubs and under other unsanitary conditions. If alcohol is produced by a legitimate company in a clean environment, it is much safer. Drugs would be no different.

As to your point of it putting more people out of work, I don't know, you may be right.

As to your point of it putting more people on public assistance, the solution is simple, don't force you and I to pay for people who ruined their lives with drugs, whether its heroin or alcohol.

I do know as a parent I am glad drugs are illegal.  I would hate to be told there is nothing wrong with SmithKline and the local pharmacy making a profit turning my child into an addict because it has the government's blessing.

My advice there, is never, ever tell your child that something is "good" or "bad" based on what the government says. The government should not be a dictator of morality.

I would no sooner tell my daughter that abortion is good because it's legal, than I would tell her that drugs were good if they were legal.

This is the trap we have fallen into culturally. We are child-like, in that we turn to the government to tell us what is good and bad, instead of deciding for ourselves. We can not trust the government with our morality; morality is much too important a thing to leave up to politicians.

I also don't believe for a minute that the government taking over and regulating anything makes it cheaper for taxpayers.

The last thing I would want is for the governemnt to take over the drug industry. Just the contrary, I want them to have nothing to do with it; neither banning it, nor providing for it.

[ducky]

Are you saying there would be a "Safe" heroin just because it is manufactuered in a fancy laboratory? I'm not sure that the overdoses occur because of the lack of quality. People unwittingly kill themselves with prescribed drugs being mixed with alcohol and that doesn't have anything to do with quality.

You misinterpreted my statement about the government blessing thing. I take total responsibility in telling my child what is right and wrong. It is going to be hard to enforce that belief when the government just made it okay.

Are you going to deny public assistance to the children of these people who have chosen to ruin their lives with drugs? Let me add to my list there will be more child neglect and abuse. Being in an altered state doesn't make for sound judgment. How many times have we read of babies ingesting crack that was lying around while the parents were passed out?

We've shifted from debating lifting the ban of needle sales to drug legalization. Besides, that, we seem to be the only two debating. You have made some good points for your side of the argument, but I'm afraid you haven't swayed me.

Let's hope the city council members really do read myfolsom and consider all aspects before making up their minds whether to join the county in this program.

[bishmasterb]

Are you saying there would be a "Safe" heroin just because it is manufactuered in a fancy laboratory?  I'm not sure that the overdoses occur because of the lack of quality.  People unwittingly kill themselves with prescribed drugs being mixed with alcohol and that doesn't have anything to do with quality.

"Safe" is a relative term. Heroin produced in a factory by a real company would be much safer than that produced in a basement by a bunch of thugs.

Is alcohol safe? Well it's safer than heroin, but not as safe as water, right?

Are you going to deny public assistance to the children of these people who have chosen to ruin their lives with drugs? ...

What I would deny is stealing money from one group of people and giving it to another, because some politicians think they need it more.

Americans are very charitable people. Private charity can provide a solution here, and it will almost assuredly work better than a coercive government solution. Who cares more about the downtrodden, politicians or charity workers?

We've shifted from debating lifting the ban of needle sales to drug legalization.  Besides, that, we seem to be the only two debating.  You have made some good points for your side of the argument, but I'm afraid you haven't swayed me.

Thanks for the good discussion. And I agree, no one's views on this subject get swayed easily, nor should they.

[DrKoz23]

Is alcohol safe? Well it's safer than heroin, but not as safe as water, right?

Alcohol might be safer than the water coming out of Lake Erie.