I'm not making a moral argument about legalization or even (as is being repeatedly suggested on this thread) subsidization of opiates. I'm saying that if the cause of the epidemic is prescription opioids, and the ultimate problem is "too many people are non-functional opioid addicts", then deregulation won't fix the problem.
Experience here in Switzerland would suggest that if the state takes dirty needles, expensive supply, and highly variable purity out of the equation, opioid addicts can lead a life that is, while far from ideal, considerably more functional than before.
My impression is that drugs like Heroin, taken in correct dosage, do not inherently cause massive health damage. It's not clear how deregulation would work with drugs like meth, which DOES seem to inherently cause health damage.
by what ROA ? You smoke it, and you're good until your dependence increases. Then you must smoke it to feel normal. But if you slam it, you'll get high again. Do that a while and your dependence increases just as before, now you have to slam it just to feel normal. But if you just got someone to give you their dose, then you could slam 2 doses and get high again...and now you're in overdose territory
Pure clean meth causes harm. Dirty street meth obtained using the methods addicts use would be more harmful to the addict and to society.
But I'm not making a point about decriminalization. In the same way that it's counterproductive to spend a lot of time talking about prohibition in mass incarceration discussions (significant reduction in incarceration --- which is absolutely necessary --- will require us to adjust sentencing and policies surrounding violent crime among offenders who have never been convicted of drug offenses), spending a lot of time talking about free heroin isn't going to help us if the problem underlying the opiate crisis isn't heroin prohibition, but instead overprescription and negligent formulation of opiate painkillers.
Making heroin available to those who want or need to use it may reduce deaths or even hospitalizations without changing the number of opiate users.
If they go through a months supply in a week, then suddenly heroin is the next best option.
This is the second of your posts I've read in an hour with a b^) (checking your history shows at least one more) and now I'm curious. I've never seen that face before. The first time, I assumed it was a carelessly-executed B^) "2cool4you sunglasses wearer grinning sarcastically," but I guess it's not. My best guess is that it's winking - but winking is usually light-hearted and seems odd paired with the ^) nose/mouth that I associate with black comedy/sarcasm.
If ^) is light-hearted to you, I'd guess "quirky, almost flirtatious wink and grin." If it's not, I'd guess "smirking, exaggerated and heavily ironic wink." For people I know well, I could probably tell which one they meant; for strangers on the internet, less so. Is either interpretation close to the mark?
Thanks!
Part of the issue with things like heroin is that unlike many weaker drugs the highs are brief. Heroin addicts are as a result very often highly functioning if they don't have to worry about where to get their next high and can get highly consistent doses.
I worked with one years ago, and we only realised when a series of large busts drove prices through the roof and he started spending his time looking really nervous and on the phone until suddenly disappearing for two days once prices normalised and he "made up" for the stress by staying high most of those two days before checking himself into a hospital (which was when we finally found out). He was married and had kids, and neither his family or his co-workers had noticed a thing through years of addiction prior to that, despite having to struggle with an illegal supply.
There are lots of problems with heroin, but many of the worst ones are a direct result of addicts inability to meet their needs in a quick and "safe" way.