Spiraling epidemic

[Manatee]

Worst, how? Americans filling hospitals and consuming taxdollars in far greater numbers from eating like hogs and abusing themselves with cigarettes and alcohol.


(Source)

When was the last time someone broke into your house for a pack of Marlboros or a 1/2 rack of baby backs and Oreos?

 

[IndyDave1776]

This is the main issue (except the related crime) I have with the drug sub-culture. The OD's tie up valuable assets to try and save their worthless lives. Para Medics fire and LEO. To what end. Total waste.

Their shoot outs wound/kill innocents and themselves and again tie up valuable assets. This is a total drain on out local economy.

I agree, OD, suck wind.

While we are indeed on the same page, I feel compelled to point out that part of the problem here is that, unlike times past yet within our memories, today, in the event of an emergency, they send out everyone but the dog catcher. Just the other day, I saw at least five fire engines and several police in addition to an ambulance or two responding to a two-vehicle collision. Over-responding is one of the areas of waste which need addressed.

 

[ghuns]

The OD's tie up valuable assets to try and save their worthless lives.

There are few human lives that are worthless. A growing number of the heroin addicts are just normal people who got strung out on prescription painkillers who find heroin cheaper and easier to obtain. It's as much a failure of their health care provider as their own.

I have always refused anything stronger than 800mg ibuprofen from doctors. I have seen several friends and family members who have had a very hard time giving up stronger pain meds. Without a good support system, anyone of them could have ended up a "worthless" addict.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

No assistance funded by taxpayers, right?

I don't know how you would deny emergency medical treatment. The call comes in, the run has to be made. You can't determine the cause of the overdose until you get there. Are you going to walk away after determining the individual overdosed on heroin in a fit of stupidity rather than mom's sleeping pills in a fit of suicidal tendencies resulting from depression? If you're going to exclude some people, you have to exclude them all. Or you have to make the service pay-per-use for everybody.

I'll be honest, excepting fire suppression and police response for criminal activity, I don't think we need any other emergency response funded by tax payers. And I would be fine with a pay-per-use charge for fire suppression as well. But that's a different discussion.

What is your rationale for 'excepting fire suppression and police response' to criminal activity, given that the Supreme Court has explicitly invalidated the latter under Castle Rock? Why should my tax dollars be used to put out other people's fires? Why not let citizens utilize for-profit, privately-funded fire services instead of forcing taxpayers to pay for a service which the vast majority have not and will not utilize? Why the exemption? For that matter, why not privatize the police - you want a strong police presence in your neighborhood? Talk to your neighbors about hiring quantity sufficient police for your localized needs. I'm a firm believer in 'support your local police and keep them independent' that the John Birch Society spouts as a mantra, and what better way to do that than to directly pay for privatized, competitive police service? What can't the market do?

 

[88GT]

Simply a matter of efficiency. And both of those do pass the "public good" litmus test. Not that this means they have to be taxpayer funded. The exception is not out of a belief that those should remain publicly funded, but that if they were to do so, I wouldn't be opposed to it.

I don't know how you privatize police anyway. The authority to make an arrest is vested in the state or local authorities.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Worst, how? Americans filling hospitals and consuming taxdollars in far greater numbers from eating like hogs and abusing themselves with cigarettes and alcohol.


(Source)

Interesting chart. Notably, deaths due to bicycle accidents are conspicuously absent. I strongly feel that they should be listed given that they kill more children per year than firearms. Why aren't we doing the "right thing" by banning sports cars?

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Simply a matter of efficiency. And both of those do pass the "public good" litmus test. Not that this means they have to be taxpayer funded. The exception is not out of a belief that those should remain publicly funded, but that if they were to do so, I wouldn't be opposed to it.

I don't know how you privatize police anyway. The authority to make an arrest is vested in the state or local authorities.

The same way Japan has 'self-defense' forces and the same way that Blackwater operated: by semantically calling it something else, like a private security force. How do bounty hunters and private security firms exist?

 

[steveh_131]

When was the last time someone broke into your house for a pack of Marlboros or a 1/2 rack of baby backs and Oreos?

Dumb comparison. Those items are freely available. The black market is what creates the high prices and violent behaviors.

But to answer your question, even the oppressive taxes on cigarettes has spawned a black market in all of its violent glory.

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa468.pdf

Prohibition of any item will always result in a black market which will always result in more crime and violence. This is human nature.

 

[churchmouse]

So, there is no reason to pass a bunch of laws that we already know no one is going to follow and just end up costing a lot of money and oppressing a lot of people.

I was not looking for more laws/control pf any kind.

 

[churchmouse]

Not statistically.





I know way more people who contribute nothing and abuse their bodies with food than people who contribute nothing and abuse their bodies with drugs.

Hard to find good statistics on that, though. It's too subjective. If emergency services can't keep up then let's improve emergency services. Or privatize some of them. I don't know. What I do know is that criminalization is not the answer.

Again, not looking for big brother to intervene in any way. Maybe just a stand down.

Yes, obesity and food related abuses are an issue as well. My response is towards the OP and his point in starting this thread. We can banter about with statistics all day long. Might change some minds, most likely will not.

I do see the drug culture as the reason for probably 50% or more of the violant crime and petty theft we are experiencing these days. Not many obese folks or diabetics out in the streets robbing for food.
Maybe a stat on that would clear up the discussion....

 

[churchmouse]

There are few human lives that are worthless. A growing number of the heroin addicts are just normal people who got strung out on prescription painkillers who find heroin cheaper and easier to obtain. It's as much a failure of their health care provider as their own.

I have always refused anything stronger than 800mg ibuprofen from doctors. I have seen several friends and family members who have had a very hard time giving up stronger pain meds. Without a good support system, anyone of them could have ended up a "worthless" addict.

Yes, you are right in what you are saying but my reference is again to the absolute crack/meth/heroin junky who is )when in that state) worthless. Any who do make it out the back door are feeble and have many health/mental issues which again make them a burden.
I think my point is simply this.....stop propping these idiots up. Stop enabling them with catch nets and free programs. Make it hard. Make it painful. The folks you reference (those normal folks) may take another path if it was not so damn easy.

I lost my brother the the bottle/drugs. He sucked up every free program he could find and some twice. Once healthy again he was right back into the idiocy. There are more than you know like him. I saw it 1st hand not only with him but others so it is a deep rooted problem. Drink/drug until you OD and we (the good guy's) will come bail you out.

 

[jamil]

Realistically, you're not going to get all drug use legalized. I think pot will eventually be legalized, but not harder drugs. So it's an interesting conversation about "should", but nothing more than that.

 

[Manatee]

Dumb comparison. Those items are freely available. The black market is what creates the high prices and violent behaviors.

But to answer your question, even the oppressive taxes on cigarettes has spawned a black market in all of its violent glory.

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa468.pdf

Prohibition of any item will always result in a black market which will always result in more crime and violence. This is human nature.

Are you always such a dick? The nuance to the observation is that those things which cause most humans to die has nothing to do with the central problem of violence against our homes, family and property.

 

[steveh_131]

Are you always such a dick?

No. I wasn't aware that I was being one. Your observation was dumb, and I labeled it as such. I don't think you're dumb.

The nuance to the observation is that those things which cause most humans to die has nothing to do with the central problem of violence against our homes, family and property.

Separate issues.

One point being argued is that drug users are consuming a majority of our emergency health services. I pointed out that this is, in fact, false. Junk food is statistically consuming far more of our medical resources than drugs. If this is a justification for prohibition, then junk food ought to be higher on the list.

Your assertion was different. You were asserting that people don't currently break into homes for items other than drugs. Of course they don't. The other items are cheap and freely available. Humans take the path of least resistance. Studies have shown that increasing resistance to legal purchases of cigarettes did cause an increase in violent behavior for the sake of selling or obtaining cigarettes.

 

[88GT]

The same way Japan has 'self-defense' forces and the same way that Blackwater operated: by semantically calling it something else, like a private security force. How do bounty hunters and private security firms exist?

Bounty hunters and private security firms are a far cry from duly sworn officers with full police powers.

Let's say a guy is caught burgling a home. Just how much power are you giving these private entities currently held by police?

 

[Fargo]

Dumb comparison. Those items are freely available. The black market is what creates the high prices and violent behaviors.

But to answer your question, even the oppressive taxes on cigarettes has spawned a black market in all of its violent glory.

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa468.pdf

Prohibition of any item will always result in a black market which will always result in more crime and violence. This is human nature.

Prohibition/the black market is not what creates most of the violence surrounding heroin. Pot yes, smack no. Addicts willing to do anything to get the next high creates the majority of violence surrounding heroin. This would be the case regardless of legality, they will steal to feed their habit regardless of if they are buying it on the street or in a pharmacy.

Black tar heroin is not currently an expensive or hard to find drug on the street. There is a reason it is rapidly replacing meth in the Midwest and a lot of it has to do with the price point and availability coupled with the number of opiate addicts coming out of hospitals and doctors offices.

Legalizing heroin will not significantly reduce the crime that will always accompany a population addicted to a substance offering that sort of high and low as well as that degree of withdrawal. All it might reduce is turf wars among dealers...

 

[88GT]

Prohibition/the black market is not what creates most of the violence surrounding heroin. Pot yes, smack no. Addicts willing to do anything to get the next high creates the majority of violence surrounding heroin. This would be the case regardless of legality, they will steal to feed their habit regardless of if they are buying it on the street or in a pharmacy.

Black tar heroin is not currently an expensive or hard to find drug on the street. There is a reason it is rapidly replacing meth in the Midwest and a lot of it has to do with the price point and availability coupled with the number of opiate addicts coming out of hospitals and doctors offices.

Legalizing heroin will not significantly reduce the crime that will always accompany a population addicted to a substance offering that sort of high and low as well as that degree of withdrawal. All it might reduce is turf wars among dealers...

Assuming for the sake of argument that all of this is correct, being illegal doesn't seem to have any effect on its usage and the consequences of it. Given that, why shouldn't it be decriminalized?

 

[Fargo]

Assuming for the sake of argument that all of this is correct, being illegal doesn't seem to have any effect on its usage and the consequences of it. Given that, why shouldn't it be decriminalized?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the war on drugs is some sort of panacea or that it has even been moderately successful. However I do think that criminalizing specifically heroin has had a net positive effect. The 1st way is that it has had some success keeping it out of the hands of children. The second is that it has IMO resulted in far fewer babies born strung out than if completely decriminalized.

That said, making it illegal is far from a complete or even realistic solution to a problem which goes much deeper. The prescription drug racket coupled with the horrifically addictive properties of many opiates coupled with a generation of youths growing up adrift poses a problem the law can never hope to resolve. There is no easy answer here and I believe that those who think legalization is that easy answer need to spend some more time dealing with smack fiends. Increasing availability is gonna have some huge unintended consequences that cannot be truly understood until you personally know what a heroin addict truly is and will do to get that next high.

 

[88GT]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the war on drugs is some sort of panacea or that it has even been moderately successful. However I do think that criminalizing specifically heroin has had a net positive effect. The 1st way is that it has had some success keeping it out of the hands of children. The second is that it has IMO resulted in far fewer babies born strung out than if completely decriminalized.

How does one draw that conclusion?

That said, making it illegal is far from a complete or even realistic solution to a problem which goes much deeper. The prescription drug racket coupled with the horrifically addictive properties of many opiates coupled with a generation of youths growing up adrift poses a problem the law can never hope to resolve. There is no easy answer here and I believe that those who think legalization is that easy answer need to spend some more time dealing with smack fiends. Increasing availability is gonna have some huge unintended consequences that cannot be truly understood until you personally know what a heroin addict truly is and will do to get that next high.

I guess we should define the question before we start discussing the merits of the answer, shouldn't we?

All those in favor of decriminalizing pharmaceuticals because you think it will solve all of the problems associated with the use of that drug, say "Control."


All those in favor of decriminalizing pharmaceuticals because (a) there is no measurable, tangible benefit from making them illegal; (b) the cost of enforcement far surpasses any real benefit; and/or (c) it's none of their damn business what someone puts in his body, say "Freedom."

It's such a straw man to argue that support for the decriminalization of drugs is based on the notion that removing the illegal status will solve all the problems associated with it. I can't think of a single person who has made that argument. Ever.

 

[steveh_131]

Prohibition/the black market is not what creates most of the violence surrounding heroin. Pot yes, smack no. Addicts willing to do anything to get the next high creates the majority of violence surrounding heroin. This would be the case regardless of legality, they will steal to feed their habit regardless of if they are buying it on the street or in a pharmacy.

Black tar heroin is not currently an expensive or hard to find drug on the street. There is a reason it is rapidly replacing meth in the Midwest and a lot of it has to do with the price point and availability coupled with the number of opiate addicts coming out of hospitals and doctors offices.

Legalizing heroin will not significantly reduce the crime that will always accompany a population addicted to a substance offering that sort of high and low as well as that degree of withdrawal. All it might reduce is turf wars among dealers...

Let's look at it mathematically. If prohibition makes the product five times as expensive on the black market then a user must commit five times as many robberies.

And let's consider the group of people who could afford to feed their habit without any criminal activity at all.

Many people prefer safer opiates like hydrocodone. And many people are addicted to it while holding down jobs. I very much doubt that many people would turn to heroin if better options were available and affordable.