Supervised/Safe Injection sites

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Joe P. on October 18, 2009 at 12:46am

blair4630 said:

Well I understand how legalizing the drugs will cut out the dealers, but how does that solve the demand problem?

Fixing the demand problem? Did prohibition solve the demand problem for alcohol?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on October 18, 2009 at 6:48am

blair, it is impossible to "fix" the demand problem; that's the point. Prohibition did not "fix" the alcohol demand problem, and the war on drugs isn't "fixing" the drug demand problem.

As long as there is demand, there will be supply; it's just a basic of macroeconomics.

That's why local anti-drug crackdowns are temporizing measures...

1) A new D.A. with other priorities is elected, and prosecuting drug crimes takes a back seat.
2) A wave of other crime problems hit and LEOs formerly assigned to Narcotics are re-assigned to other tasks.
3) Law enforcement believes it has "won" the drug problem due to a momentary downturn...and is surprised when the demand for drugs doesn't go away and new drug dealers take the place of those incarcerated for 40 years.
4) The people who seek drugs and who have the means simply go to a neighboring jurisdiction, buy their drugs, and return home to use them...after they steal a TV down the block and fence it to pay for the drug-buying trip.

When you apply supply-side, microeconomic measures like local drug crackdowns to macroeconomic demand-side issues like drugs, the small, local measures are bound to fail. Those crackdowns have been going on for over a century, and the drug demand is higher and more diverse than ever.

Note: (As used here, the term "fix" does not refer to a single dose of illegal heroin.)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by asysin2leads on October 18, 2009 at 1:09pm

For those of you touting the natural selection claim, I hate to inject reality into pseudoscience making a political and moral point, but the spread of disease among the overall population would far, far out weigh the amount of people who would die before reproducing, which is what you'd need to have tangible effects on the overall population. Not to mention the fact that drug abuse is far more than a case of faulty genes that need to be purged from the population. So stop dragging poor old Chuck Darwin's name through the mud and just come out and say "Its okay, because these people deserve to die and I'm glad when they do." Just say it. Be honest and say what you're really thinking.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by TheCannulator on October 18, 2009 at 3:50pm

I think we are discussing Darwinism in a broader sense that chromosomal abnormalities. Survival of the fittest is more than applicable an opinion.

I receive no joy from the death of an IV drug user. I do get upset in the disparity of resources though towards those who self abuse

asysin2leads said:

For those of you touting the natural selection claim, I hate to inject reality into pseudoscience making a political and moral point, but the spread of disease among the overall population would far, far out weigh the amount of people who would die before reproducing, which is what you'd need to have tangible effects on the overall population. Not to mention the fact that drug abuse is far more than a case of faulty genes that need to be purged from the population. So stop dragging poor old Chuck Darwin's name through the mud and just come out and say "Its okay, because these people deserve to die and I'm glad when they do." Just say it. Be honest and say what you're really thinking.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by blair4630 on October 18, 2009 at 5:16pm

Ben...I understand where you're theoretical argument comes from, but here's the question I pose for you....until that time comes when the federal government legalizes all drugs, should we look for a different approach to the drug problems (meaning the crime and violence that goes along with them), or continue to do what we're doing?

Asys...like cannulator said, I'm not implying they're pre-disposed to drug addiction (they may or may not be, that's a whole other discussion).

However, they do make the choice to start doing drugs, and I've had several friends who were addicted to heroin and later kicked the habit through different means. It was very, very hard for each of them, but they made the choice to take back control of their lives, and are all much better off for it today.

As far as saying that they deserve to die, I don't think that turning into a junkie makes you deserving of death, and I'm not happy when they die. But to be honest, I'm not sad, either. No more so than when someone I don't know dies of another medical/trauma mechanism.

To me, it's more of a tragedy when someone dies of an accidental and unforseen circumstance. I'm not saying it's not just as much of a tragedy to the family and friends, as I've had casual, but not close, friends who have succumbed to one addiction or another. Is it sad, yes. Did they do it to themselves, absolutely.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on October 18, 2009 at 5:45pm

Blair, Why should we continue to waste local resources on a bottomless pit problem?
If we repeal all state and local antidrug laws, have the states stop contributing to multi-agency task forces, and by having the states refuse to enforce federal antidrug laws, the message will be sent to the federal government quickly enough.

We can re-direct the state and local resources toward fighting violent crime, whatever the cause.

Continuing to do what we're doing isn't working. Albert Einstein once said that "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

That sounds like the war on drugs to me.

I'm not saying that drugs are a good thing - they're not. I'm just pragmatic enough to know that we'll never stop the demand, so we'll never stop the problem. We may as well legalize it to take the crime and profit motive out of it through a business model, and then tax it to help pay for health care reform.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by blair4630 on October 18, 2009 at 9:15pm

Here's what I'm asking from my last post...assuming the government doesn't legalize the drugs...what do we do? Refusing to enforce drug code really isn't an option, as federal law precedes state law.

Also, as long as the drugs aren't legal, who is going to control the supply? Drug dealers. You can choose to ignore federal law all you want, but if the drugs aren't provided by the government, the drug dealers still are the supply side of the deal.

Who are drug dealers in my area? Mostly gang members from NYC, Pitts, Philly, and Baltimore.
What are they doing besides selling drugs? Sending their minions out to perform robberies, assults, thefts, intimidation, vandalism, territory protection, etc.

Who do they hurt? Anyone who gets in their way, even accidently.

How do you propose we deal with this problem, if the drug aren't going to be legalized anytime soon?

I understand that we're possibly pushing the dealers to other locations (the ones that aren't going away for hard time), but I'd rather the violent crimminals be in another area. After all, the police and task force in my area have worked hard to push these people out and make this area safer.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Joe P. on October 18, 2009 at 11:23pm

blair4630 said:

Here's what I'm asking from my last post...assuming the government doesn't legalize the drugs...what do we do? Refusing to enforce drug code really isn't an option, as federal law precedes state law.

So? That's not stopping states with medical marijuana laws from allowing medical marijuana. It just means that the people who get involved with it are only risking federal jail time and not state time. Similarly, Massachusetts 'decriminalized' possession of small quantities of drugs and turned it into a civil offense.

Who are drug dealers in my area? Mostly gang members from NYC, Pitts, Philly, and Baltimore. What are they doing besides selling drugs? Sending their minions out to perform robberies, assults, thefts, intimidation, vandalism, territory protection, etc.

So, gangs:drugs::Mafia:alcohol during prohibition.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by dr-exmedic on October 19, 2009 at 8:17pm

blair4630 said:

I understand that we're possibly pushing the dealers to other locations (the ones that aren't going away for hard time), but I'd rather the violent crimminals be in another area.

Great, thanks for pushing them into my area. ;)

Personally, I'd rather the violent criminals just be put out of business in general. Just as Capone and the Kennedys of the world gave way to the Seagrams and Beams of the world (whose idea of a "turf war" nowadays is which shelf they get to be on at the liquor store), I think we could co-opt the Escobars and Noriegas of the world. :) Heck, half the inroads we made against the Taliban in Afghanistan were undone when we started spraying herbicides on the opium poppy fields....

And incidentally, state officials have absolutely no requirement or responsibility to enforce federal law.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Sandra VandeBruinhorst on October 19, 2009 at 8:49pm

Thanks for the opinions again - helps alot in easing my confusion, especially since i have to start this 10 page paper tonight

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by asysin2leads on October 19, 2009 at 10:36pm

Just out of curiosity, are you planning on basing much of your 10 page paper on opinions collected off of the internet?

Sandra VandeBruinhorst said:

Thanks for the opinions again - helps alot in easing my confusion, especially since i have to start this 10 page paper tonight

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on October 19, 2009 at 11:06pm

"Only" risking federal prison time for drug dealing for medical marijuana? "Only"????
That's like saying that childbirth without an epidural "only" hurts the mother a little bit.

Anyway, it was just announced (CNN, 11 PM news) that the Administration has directed federal prosecutors to stop prosecuting medical marijuana cases. Anyone feeling sick?

▶ Reply to This

▶ Reply to This

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last