What are we going to do?
Should some kind of 'Basic Assistance' include fairly unlimited metered doses of whatever drugs a person may want?
Fully legal, regulated, and taxed?
What would an idealised harm reduction programme look like?
Should some kind of 'Basic Assistance' include fairly unlimited metered doses of whatever drugs a person may want?
Fully legal, regulated, and taxed?
What would an idealised harm reduction programme look like?
Better youth protection: a dealer doesn't care if you are 18 or not
Consumer protection: clean substances without dangerous cutting agents will prevent health issues and accidental overdoses
No more black market: as long as the legal substances aren't too expensive, a legalisation will close the black market for drugs since it is no longer economic to sell them illegally. (This might also take a huge hit on the finances of organised crime and terrorist organisations)
More money for helping addicts and _neutral_ drug education: when taxing the sells, the money can be used to treat addiction.
Further the legalisation might change society's point of view on drugs which might make it easier for addicts to seek help without being judged.
Before being able to buy drugs from these state controlled entities, the buyer should be required to acquire some kind of license. I imagine the license similar to a first aid course. Participants should be educated about health risks, dosages, safer use guidelines and so on. There should be licences for different classes of drugs, e.g. opioids, stimulants, cannabinoids, psychedelics and so on.
Don't forget the dangerous drugs alcohol and tobaco in that list.
The question is what do you do with drugs who change the behavior of the user dramatically to the degree that they become a risk to others. We currently have that problem with alcohol and see the side effects in violent and reckless behavior. From domestic violence to drunk driving. The answer might be to shift the approach from restricting possession to restricting consumption and being under the influence in certain areas or situation where they might become a danger to others.
The only open question I see is how to deal with expensive, addictive substances that change the behavior of its consumers. Crack comes to mind.
Sounds shit to me but I fully respect any system that allows it. These people can probably get on with some sort of life in between their hits instead of spending their lives trying to get in a position to get high agsin.
Also, as long as you have a clean substance, it is actually easier and healthier to taper of heroin by lowering the dose than by substituting it with something like methadone. The last withdrawal when going from a low dose to taking nothing anymore is way heavier when coming of methadone than it is for heroin.
Update: "The cost of a year's diamorphine treatment for an addict is about £15,000, although this includes administering and supervising the injections."
Compare: "CEA estimates that in 2015, the economic cost of the [US] opioid crisis was $504.0 billion, or 2.8 percent of GDP that year." And 33,000 deaths.
It can be worth intervening to stop these things going exponential.