Spiraling epidemic

[ticktwrter]

I know iy my area of northern Indiana heroin is quickly becoming a deadly epidemic. We have had multiple OD's that were saved and many who have died. It is rumored that the new stuff coming in is extremely potent as well as things are being mixed with who knows what. We've also had big problems with the synthetic marijuana. We've had people die from that and one of our officer almost hit a guy high on it who jumped in front of his squad car one day. The latest craze is now marijuana wax

 

[steveh_131]

1. Simple legalization does not automatically result is diminished prices because drug markets virtually never operate as free markets.

Define 'simple legalization'?

Do you at least agree that allowing more people to produce it and sell it would result in diminished prices?

2. Drug markets do not operate as free markets because it is against human nature. You have a population of desperate addicts who will do anything to get a product and who are at the mercy of the supply. This breeds violence and resulting governmental control. Criminals want to take advantage of the addicts and addicts will do violence get their high. This inevitably results in governmental interference and regulation.

Your theory:

• Addicts need their fix
• Addicts are sometimes violent
• Criminals take advantage of the addicts
• This results in more violence
• This results in regulation

I disagree. If your theory was correct then we would still be seeing gang activity and a thriving black market in alcohol. We'd even be seeing it in the food market.

This is my theory:

• Addicts need their fix
• Addicts are sometimes violent
• Do-gooders decide that it is wrong for them to get their fix
• Do-gooders ban their fix
• The price of that fix skyrockets
• Criminal activity providing that fix becomes much more lucrative
• This results in more violence

My theory is backed up by empirical evidence. We watched this happen with prohibition of alcohol and every type of prohibition since.

This is inescapable fact: Prohibition makes crime more lucrative.

3. Legalization will almost certainly bring with it some unintended consequences which are not predictable upon purely economic principles. These potential consequences and costs should not be ignored.

Even if you think that policy should be determined solely by the consequences of that policy, you must also weigh the consequences and costs associated with the drug war.

Once you weigh the two, I don't see how any reasonable person sees the drug war as profitable.

 

[Fargo]

Define 'simple legalization'?

Do you at least agree that allowing more people to produce it and sell it would result in diminished prices?

Simple legalization: Making it not illegal to possess/use/sell. This is very different from complete unregulation.

All other factors remaining constant, yes increased supply will result in reduced price. This is exactly what we are seeing happen now that the Taliban has been rooted out of Afghanistan and the warlords have taken over. This is a large reason of why the heroin resurgence that this thread is titled after is coming about. (That and the increased difficulty in obtaining pseudoephedrine coupled with gross overprescription of opioid painkillers)

You may have noticed that the flooding of the market with cheaper heroin hasn't exactly diminished the heroin related crime rate, and I'm excluding possession/dealing. For whatever reason, the local heroin junkies seem to really prefer armed robbery to simple theft. I don't really know why as they never seem to get much of a haul. Then again, I suppose it is difficult to properly plan a lucrative heist when either high or withdrawing. Many of the armed robberies make off with less of value than a good shoplifter.

Your theory:

• Addicts need their fix
• Addicts are sometimes violent
• Criminals take advantage of the addicts
• This results in more violence
• This results in regulation

I disagree. If your theory was correct then we would still be seeing gang activity and a thriving black market in alcohol. We'd even be seeing it in the food market.

Alcohol and Heroin are an Apples to Oranges comparison. Heroin use physically changes the function of various neurotransmitters in the brain with the first use and even moreso with repeated use. This change is in many ways irreversible and profoundly affect the user's ability to feel pleasure outside of being high and causes extreme pain/distress if the person does not continue using consistently and goes into withdrawal. Alcohol, while potentially addictive to some if chronically abused, doesn't do ANYTHING like that except in rare and extreme cases of prolonged abuse.

Long term alcohol use does not create addicts in anything remotely resembling what one hit of heroin will do. Study the pharmacology of it, they are nothing alike. Alcohol creates a linear gabaa increase effect without fundamental change to the neurotransmitter except in extreme cases. Heroin basically causes the neurotransmitters to fry by blocking reuptake on a number of different receptors.

This is my theory:

• Addicts need their fix
• Addicts are sometimes violent
• Do-gooders decide that it is wrong for them to get their fix
• Do-gooders ban their fix
• The price of that fix skyrockets
• Criminal activity providing that fix becomes much more lucrative
• This results in more violence

My theory is backed up by empirical evidence. We watched this happen with prohibition of alcohol and every type of prohibition since.

Once again, alcohol and heroin are not comparables. Prohibition rum-running was not driven by alcoholics, it was driven by average folks who liked to drink. The consumer in these cases have virtually nothing in common. An addict is fundamentally different from a normal market actor.

Consider this: I know of no macro-society in ALL of God's green earth that has left heroin completely unregulated. Sure there are micro-societies in the projects etc that do so, but not on a macro level. There is a reason for this. The social costs of heroin addiction/distribution/consumption are more than society is willing to bear. Heroin didn't get outlawed by some crusading do-gooders like happened with prohibition. It got outlawed because of the toll the overdoses and violence that accompanied it BEING USED LEGALLY had upon society.

This is inescapable fact: Prohibition makes crime more lucrative.

That statement doesn't make sense to me, if there is no prohibition how is there a crime? I would say: Prohibition makes selling vice more lucrative, unless you get caught.

Even if you think that policy should be determined solely by the consequences of that policy, you must also weigh the consequences and costs associated with the drug war.

I do not believe that policy should be solely consequence driven, in fact I explicitly reject that proposition. My pointing out of consequences was in direct response to those earlier in this thread that argued FOR legalization based solely upon consequentialism. My opposition to legalizing heroin is fundamentally based upon my own principles of right and wrong, not upon consequentialism.

Once you weigh the two, I don't see how any reasonable person sees the drug war as profitable.

I'm going to quote myself again:

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.

I do however differ with you emphatically specifically upon the legalization of heroin.

 

[steveh_131]

Alcohol and Heroin are an Apples to Oranges comparison. Heroin use physically changes the function of various neurotransmitters in the brain with the first use and even moreso with repeated use. This change is in many ways irreversible and profoundly affect the user's ability to feel pleasure outside of being high and causes extreme pain/distress if the person does not continue using consistently and goes into withdrawal. Alcohol, while potentially addictive to some if chronically abused, doesn't do ANYTHING like that except in rare and extreme cases of prolonged abuse.

Long term alcohol use does not create addicts in anything remotely resembling what one hit of heroin will do. Study the pharmacology of it, they are nothing alike.

The addictive nature is largely irrelevant to the market forces. If it was relevant, then we are all permanently addicted to food and would be paying a fortune for it and surrounded by grocery store violence. Food withdrawal is even worse than heroin withdrawal.

Addiction may keep demand for drugs high, but that only encourages more suppliers and more innovation which could easily keep prices down and the black market at bay.

Consider this: I know of no macro-society that leaves heroin completely unregulated. Sure there are micro-societies in the projects etc that do so, but not on a macro level. There is a reason for this. The social costs of heroin addiction/distribution/consumption are more than society is willing to bear. Heroin didn't get outlawed by some crusading do-gooders like happened with prohibition. It got outlawed because of the toll the overdoses and violence that accompany it had upon society.

Opiates are not inherently that dangerous. I know plenty of people with bottles full of it that grab one when they need it and have zero problems.

The dangerous forms of it are a direct result of the drug war. I'd make the same argument about meth and crack.

How Prohibition Makes Heroin More Dangerous - Forbes

When was the last time you bought a bottle of 80-proof whiskey that turned out to be 160 proof? The main reason liquor buyers do not have to worry about such a switcheroo is not that distillers are regulated, or even that their customers, unlike consumers in a black market, have legal recourse in case of fraud. The main reason is that legitimate businesses need to worry about their reputations if they want to keep customers coming back. It is hard to build and maintain a reputation in a black market, where brands do not mean much:

People are turning to the black market for dangerous and harmful versions because they are cheap and available.

That statement doesn't make sense to me, if there is no prohibition how is there a crime? I would say: Prohibition makes selling vice more lucrative, unless you get caught.

I don't know how to make this any simpler. Before prohibition there was almost no organized crime. Prohibition creates motivation for criminal activity. All of this activity could take place in the legitimate market place, held in check by the usual court systems and the free market. Instead it takes place underground.

I do not believe that policy should be solely consequence driven, in fact I explicitly reject that proposition. My pointing out of consequences was in direct response to those earlier in this thread that argued FOR legalization based solely upon consequentialism. My opposition to legalizing heroin is fundamentally based upon my own principles of right and wrong, not upon consequentialism.

So you support legal prohibitions of anything that you believe to be immoral?

Interesting. Not many will admit to that. As long as you're consistent in this, I'll respect your viewpoint.

 

[Fargo]

The addictive nature is largely irrelevant to the market forces. If it was relevant, then we are all permanently addicted to food and would be paying a fortune for it and surrounded by grocery store violence. Food withdrawal is even worse than heroin withdrawal.

Hunger and chemical dependence on opiate are not the same thing nor even really related. They are purely different mechanisms responding to purely different stimuli. The need to eat is not an addiction or anything like an addiction. Addiction is absolutely relevant to market forces.

Opiates are not inherently that dangerous. I know plenty of people with bottles full of it that grab one when they need it and have zero problems.

Some are, some aren't and no two people react the same to them. Do a little studying up on pharmacology; opiates are definately non-linear in response. Different people have vastly different effects and reactions to the same dose. Heroin, though, is remarkably consistent in both its addictive qualities and it effect of long lasting changes in neurological chemistry.

The dangerous forms of it are a direct result of the drug war. I'd make the same argument about meth and crack.

Go to a few NA meeting and see how many opiate addicts got hooked on your non-dangerous forms.

People are turning to the black market for dangerous and harmful versions because they are cheap and available.

Yeah, and because they are ADDICTS!

I don't know how to make this any simpler. Before prohibition there was almost no organized crime. Prohibition creates motivation for criminal activity. All of this activity could take place in the legitimate market place, held in check by the usual court systems and the free market. Instead it takes place underground.

The reason it got made illegal is precisely because the free market and usual systems did NOT keep it in check.

So you support legal prohibitions of anything that you believe to be immoral?

Interesting. Not many will admit to that. As long as you're consistent in this, I'll respect your viewpoint.

No, there is a vast field of things that are "wrong" but which fall outside what the law should control. The law is no substitute for morality. At best, the law is a safety net for when all better forms of human interaction have broken down.

It may surprise you, but I favor decriminalization of a vast number of things, including quite a few I believe to be immoral. We have substituted the law for personal responsibility to a staggering extent in this county.

Heroin, however, is not one of those things I find to fall in that category. Having had to deal with it and it's effects 5 days a week for years, I have come to the conclusion that it IS one of the last resort things which the law should control. That is my personal opinion. I'm not saying you have to or need to share it.

One thing that has always given me a great deal of pause is that the majority of people who want it legalized are not drug users or people who want to use it. It is people who want to perform a little darwinian experiment by culling the herd via addict overdose. I am not onboard with that.

 

[88GT]

One thing that has always given me a great deal of pause is that the majority of people who want it legalized are not drug users or people who want to use it. It is people who want to perform a little darwinian experiment by culling the herd via addict overdose. I am not onboard with that.

So if the majority of people who did want it decriminalized were users or wanna be users, you'd be okay with it?

As for the bolded, you lambasted me up thread for disingenuous assumptions you thought I made. All I can say it Pot, meet Kettle. What a ridiculous characterization of the motivation of those who want drugs decriminalized. It would seem that my original response to your baseless assessment should stand on its merits after all.

 

[steveh_131]

Hunger and chemical dependence on opiate are not the same thing nor even really related. They are purely different mechanisms responding to purely different stimuli. The need to eat is not an addiction or anything like an addiction. Addiction is absolutely relevant to market forces.

People will riot, steal and murder for drugs. They will do the same for food. Allowing the food supply to grow in accordance with the demand is what keeps prices reasonable. Restricting the drug supply is what creates the black market.

Again, this is economics 101. It is not debatable.

Some are, some aren't and no two people react the same to them. Do a little studying up on pharmacology; opiates are definately non-linear in response. Different people have vastly different effects and reactions to the same dose. Heroin, though, is remarkably consistent in both its addictive qualities and it effect of long lasting changes in neurological chemistry.

Go to a few NA meeting and see how many opiate addicts got hooked on your non-dangerous forms.

People get hooked on it just like they get hooked on alcohol, tobacco, or anything else.

Alcoholics don't have to resort to robbery to get their next beer. Addicts wouldn't have to resort to it either, if everybody would mind their own business.

The reason it got made illegal is precisely because the free market and usual systems did NOT keep it in check.

And yet, again, the alcohol industry is fairly civilized. I don't see gangs running the show any more. And don't try telling me that it's inherently different than any other drug. It's addictive, it's dangerous and when restricted it creates a gigantic dangerous black market. Period.

One thing that has always given me a great deal of pause is that the majority of people who want it legalized are not drug users or people who want to use it. It is people who want to perform a little darwinian experiment by culling the herd via addict overdose. I am not onboard with that.

I've never met a single person who wanted to 'cull the herd'. The only culling that takes place is the murder or imprisonment of every person that wants to get high on something other than alcohol or tobacco. You're not taking the compassionate stance. You're the guy calling for more doors to be kicked down to gather up plants. For kids to be tossed in jail and have their lives ruined because they wanted to try something with their buddies. For adults to be put in a cage because life hurts like hell sometimes, and they wanted to numb it for a while.

Want to get high? Too ****ing bad. We're going to outlaw any safe, effective and convenient way for you to do so. If you want to get high, you need to go risk your life or risk prison buying a nasty ziplock full of who-knows-what and potentially overdosing on bleach or whatever the heck they're cutting it with these days. Because I am so very concerned with your safety.

This passes for compassion? If someone wants to get high, they're gonna go get high. I'd rather they could just go to a pharmacy and buy a couple pills and go home for a few days.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

People will riot, steal and murder for drugs. They will do the same for food. Allowing the food supply to grow in accordance with the demand is what keeps prices reasonable. Restricting the drug supply and making them illegal is what creates the black market.

If someone wants to get high, they're gonna go get high. I'd rather they could just go to a pharmacy and buy a couple pills and go home for a few days.

I'm with you on that.

 

[steveh_131]

I'm with you on that.

Don't really agree with your modification.

Government restricted cigarette supply by adding ridiculous taxes. Now there is a small black market for them, while cigarettes themselves are still legal.

Making marijuana legal for personal use in Colorado didn't eliminate the black market. The supply is still artificially restricted.

See what I'm saying?

 

[Fargo]

People will riot, steal and murder for drugs. They will do the same for food. Allowing the food supply to grow in accordance with the demand is what keeps prices reasonable. Restricting the drug supply is what creates the black market.

Again, this is economics 101. It is not debatable.



People get hooked on it just like they get hooked on alcohol, tobacco, or anything else.

Alcoholics don't have to resort to robbery to get their next beer. Addicts wouldn't have to resort to it either, if everybody would mind their own business.



And yet, again, the alcohol industry is fairly civilized. I don't see gangs running the show any more. And don't try telling me that it's inherently different than any other drug. It's addictive, it's dangerous and when restricted it creates a gigantic dangerous black market. Period.



I've never met a single person who wanted to 'cull the herd'. The only culling that takes place is the murder or imprisonment of every person that wants to get high on something other than alcohol or tobacco. You're not taking the compassionate stance. You're the guy calling for more doors to be kicked down to gather up plants. For kids to be tossed in jail and have their lives ruined because they wanted to try something with their buddies. For adults to be put in a cage because life hurts like hell sometimes, and they wanted to numb it for a while.

Want to get high? Too ****ing bad. We're going to outlaw any safe, effective and convenient way for you to do so. If you want to get high, you need to go risk your life or risk prison buying a nasty ziplock full of who-knows-what and potentially overdosing on bleach or whatever the heck they're cutting it with these days. Because I am so very concerned with your safety.

This passes for compassion? If someone wants to get high, they're gonna go get high. I'd rather they could just go to a pharmacy and buy a couple pills and go home for a few days.

I'm no longer going to try to debate with a person who keeps telling me that things are "not debatable". I fail to see where you were appointed arbiter of all truths and I find it a bit insulting and arrogant that you think you can tell me what I can question or not.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Don't really agree with your modification.

Government restricted cigarette supply by adding ridiculous taxes. Now there is a small black market for them, while cigarettes themselves are still legal.

Making marijuana legal for personal use in Colorado didn't eliminate the black market. The supply is still artificially restricted.

See what I'm saying?

Dang, I thought I'd sneak one past you. Guess I'm stuck on the whole illegality thing, but the cigarette example does support your point.

I do wonder, though, if pot becomes legal everywhere, will the "badness" factor gradually wear off at least a little bit and make it seem much more innocuous in the future. Kindof like when me and my friends were sixteen and we got a bunch of cigars and smoked them 'till we were almost sick. We thought it was cool in the moment, but after that night we never really wanted to do that again.

 

[steveh_131]

I'm no longer going to try to debate with a person who keeps telling me that things are "not debatable". I fail to see where you were appointed arbiter of all truths and I find it a bit insulting and arrogant that you think you can tell me what I can question or not.

You're right. If you think that the basic laws of economics don't apply then this discussion is probably going nowhere.

 

[Fargo]

You're right. If you think that the basic laws of economics don't apply then this discussion is probably going nowhere.

If you think everything in your 1st paragraph = "basic laws of economics" that is really something... That you use the term "laws of economics" really is precious. Economics operates on principles to predict behavior, NOT LAWS. Even those principles some like to call the "laws of economics" all presume a rational actor, which is certainly NOT the norm in the addict population.

Have a good evening.

 

[steveh_131]

I do wonder, though, if pot becomes legal everywhere, will the "badness" factor gradually wear off at least a little bit and make it seem much more innocuous in the future. Kindof like when me and my friends were sixteen and we got a bunch of cigars and smoked them 'till we were almost sick. We thought it was cool in the moment, but after that night we never really wanted to do that again.

I suspect that it would. I've read that underage drinking in other countries is fairly innocuous for this exact reason.

If you think everything in your 1st paragraph = "basic laws of economics" that is really something... That you use the term "laws of economics" really is precious. Economics operates on principles to predict behavior, NOT LAWS. Even those principles some like to call the "laws of economics" all presume a rational actor, which is certainly NOT the norm in the addict population.

So you think that drug prices will magically remain high even in the face of increased supply? You think that druggies are unable to do basic math and find good deals on their drugs? Do you think they would hold up a liquor store to buy overpriced black market drugs if they could more easily panhandle a few bucks and buy them at a pharmacy?

It just doesn't make sense, Fargo.

 

[Fargo]

So you think that drug prices will magically remain high even in the face of increased supply? You think that druggies are unable to do basic math and find good deals on their drugs? Do you think they would hold up a liquor store to buy overpriced black market drugs if they could more easily panhandle a few bucks and buy them at a pharmacy?

It just doesn't make sense, Fargo.

No thats not what I think at all. I think that the evils of a black market for HEROIN are significantly less than those of a open market for HEROIN. I believe this for a number of reasons. You seem to think that economics alone dictates a better result if anyone can buy/sell/use heroin anywhere. Since economics presumes a rational actor, which is something missing from the addict population, I disagree.

At the end of the day, you may want to look a bit past your "basic laws of economics" as they presume rational actors. A group of people who regularly starve themselves for, prostitute themselves for, kill for, and steal for a substance wholly unnecessary to human survival does NOT fit the economic definition of rational actors. There is a reason they are called "addicts".

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

I see two ideas at play, here.

One idea is whether or not the price of Heroin would be greatly reduced if it were no longer illegal. I would agree with Steve that, if decriminalization allowed for an increased supply, then, yes, it is basic economics to believe the price would come down.

The other idea is a bit less predictable. That is, how would people behave if heroin was no longer illegal. Would more people use? Would active users use more? If the above statement is to be believed, and the price did become much lower, it isn't a stretch to think that active users who would commit crimes to support their habit might have to commit less crime to support a habit that has become much less expensive. And, just because heroin users aren't as rational as nonusers, it doesn't make the laws of economics not apply.

 

[Fargo]

I see two ideas at play, here.

One idea is whether or not the price of Heroin would be greatly reduced if it were no longer illegal. I would agree with Steve that, if decriminalization allowed for an increased supply, then, yes, it is basic economics to believe the price would come down.

The other idea is a bit less predictable. That is, how would people behave if heroin was no longer illegal. Would more people use? Would active users use more? If the above statement is to be believed, and the price did become much lower, it isn't a stretch to think that active users who would commit crimes to support their habit might have to commit less crime to support a habit that has become much less expensive. And, just because heroin users aren't as rational as nonusers, it doesn't make the laws of economics not apply.

You sum that up pretty nicely. I completely agree with your economic assessment of what increased supply would do assuming all other factors remain constant. However, there are some considerations here that I don't think are being addressed as I do not believe all other factors would remain constant. Here are some of the reasons why:

1. The price of heroin is not terribly high at present. The reason addicts can't afford it is because at a certain point they no longer have the will/ability to earn an income. It is not because it is some sort of super expensive drug.

2. The heroin supply right now is huge. Legalizing it very well may not result in significantly more supply.

3. Legalization almost certainly will not result in a free market. The government will ABSOLUTELY tax and regulate it just as it has done with Alcohol, Tobacco, and Pot. Considering the significantly greater social issues that surround heroin, there is no way the regulation would be less.

4. Normal economic principles are skewed when a group of consumers perceives a non-essential or luxury item to be a vital commodity. Heroin addicts generally treat Heroin as the most important commodity in the market. They routinely abandon their families, steal from those who love them, etc all to get a hit of something that very well may kill them. The "laws of economics" are in many/most ways non-applicable to non-rational behavior like this. For example, decreased supply/increased price does not result in nearly as much of a reduction in demand for addicts as it does in a normal market scenario.

5. Increased supply/availability will almost certainly result in increased demand as more users are generated. Increased demand will result in increased price because drug DEALERs are rational actors.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

You sum that up pretty nicely. However, there are some considerations here that I don't think are being addressed:

1. The price of heroin is not terribly high at present. The reason addicts can't afford it is because at a certain point they no longer have the will/ability to earn an income. It is not because it is some sort of super expensive drug.

2. The heroin supply right now is huge. Legalizing it very well may not result in significantly more supply.

3. Legalization almost certainly will not result in a free market. The government will ABSOLUTELY tax and regulate it just as it has done with Alcohol, Tobacco, and Pot. Considering the significantly greater social issues that surround heroin, there is no way the regulation would be less.

4. Normal economic principles are skewed when a group of consumers perceives a non-essential or luxury item to be a vital commodity. Heroin addicts generally treat Heroin as the most important commodity in the market. They routinely abandon their families, steal from those who love them, etc all to get a hit of something that very well may kill them. The "laws of economics" simply do not apply to non-rational behavior like this.

All very good points.

Being a rural country boy, my experience with heroin is limited. I do remember a couple of parties where some few were shooting up, and yeah, they were a couple of notches above me on the crazy scale. But I can't really get past the idea that putting people in prison when they've hurt no one but themselves is unproductive at best, and that putting one user in prison because other users do commit crimes is as unfair as it is unproductive.

 

[Fargo]

All very good points.

Being a rural country boy, my experience with heroin is limited. I do remember a couple of parties where some few were shooting up, and yeah, they were a couple of notches above me on the crazy scale. But I can't really get past the idea that putting people in prison when they've hurt no one but themselves is unproductive at best, and that putting one user in prison because other users do commit crimes is as unfair as it is unproductive.

I, unfortunately, have had way too much experience with heroin addicts, usually in relation to the other crimes they have committed to maintain their habit or while under the influence. It terrifies me the way it seems to suck their soul out, leading them to abandon and abuse their spouses, their own children, and lose all regard for others. Having spent a good deal of time in the hospital holding a newborn baby who was in the middle of screaming withdrawal because his mom used opiates while he was in utero also profoundly affected me. It was that experience that really opened my eyes to how an opiate addict really can't feel pleasure without opiates and is in excruciating pain without them. He couldn't lie to me about it, like the adults do with scarily casual and practiced sincerity.

I agree the war on drugs has been a trainwreck in so many ways. However, I don't think that openly available heroin is any sort of answer.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

I, unfortunately, have had way too much experience with heroin addicts, usually in relation to the other crimes they have committed to maintain their habit or while under the influence. It terrifies me the way it seems to suck their soul out, leading them to abandon and abuse their spouses, their own children, and lose all regard for others. Having spent a good deal of time in the hospital holding a newborn baby who was in the middle of screaming withdrawal because his mom used opiates while he was in utero also profoundly affected me. It was that experience that really opened my eyes to how an opiate addict really can't feel pleasure without opiates and is in excruciating pain without them. He could lie to me about it, like the adults do with scarily casual and practiced sincerity.


I agree the war on drugs has been a trainwreck in so many ways. However, I don't think that openly available heroin is any sort of answer.

Yes, that's why my opinion on matters like these is always tempered by the knowledge others have that I have the luxury of not having.