You are a person who usually understand the mechanics of the market very well. This policy makes perfect sense, since the alternative creates much more violence due to the drug war.pic.twitter.com/bhMUlreV7S
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
You are a person who usually understand the mechanics of the market very well. This policy makes perfect sense, since the alternative creates much more violence due to the drug war.pic.twitter.com/bhMUlreV7S
It's not like everyone can just queue up and get heroin for free.
That's Nor Way to run a country.
Will the government do the same for alcoholics, sex addicts, gamblers,etc?
Those things are not illegal, so usually people who rely on those things to function doesn't have to steal to get it. When addicts are out on the streets to get heroin, they also get all kinds of crap. Norway is near the top on overdose deaths per capita in Europe.
I'm talking about reinforcing the addiction as opposed to stopping the addiction.
For these run-down addicts to even have a chance to rid the addiction, they need some stable ground to build from. If all waking hours are spent trying to get the next fix (often including crimes), how is it possible to get back to a job or a normal life?
I see the logic in both of y’alls tweets. Very hard to pick a side. Cold turkey isn’t an option, but feeding them isn’t a great solution either. Methadone not better then giving them heroin?
Yes, works for a lot of people, but there are some downsides to methadone vs heroin AFAIK: Heroin can also be smoked instead of injected, which makes it easier to kick the habit later. Methadone is also addictive, harmful and has nasty side effects for a lot of people.
I think we should try it. Here’s why: Demand isn’t going away. Guy breaks into your car to steal $50 of your stuff to sell to get high - your cost $1000 to repair, police etc $2000. Medical run facility could probably supply the same dose for $10 without the crime.
Will we charge them the $10?
No, just give it to them. Along with a sandwich. I’d like to hear from economists and city accountants what the overall savings on policing, insurance claims, courts, and jails would be.
I disagree. Socially, this is terrible. They have to give something up. Otherwise the message is "if you behave poorly enough, we give up and cater to you" . That's crazy.
I’m removing emotions and moral judgements from the conversation. I approach it purely from a rational financial perspective. Nothing else is working. Even in countries where they have the death penalty, people still use. If you have a solution, I’m all ears.
There are two sides to this. One is the idea that ‘the state’ makes a drug illegal and then uses stolen/tax money to give the drug. That is just typical of the ugly mess ‘the state’ makes of everything it is involved in. ->
-> Two is: what is best for drug addicts to mitigate their situation and to help them. Having them involved in a criminal situation is not helpful I consider. In a stateless situation it is possible an organisation would provide the drug for addicts as that is better than crime.
Free provision gets drug users safe from poor quality drug, not using crime & dealing to fund their habit, using medical/counciling services, undercutting the drug trade, controlling infectious diseases, taking drug out of wider non-addict social circles, etc etc. No down side.
As we have a society that believes in the indoctrinated cult of ‘the state’ it is better ‘the state’ allow the free provision of addict’s drugs than not let it happen at all.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.