Why is addiction treated as a disease

[TimG]

You can't control what substances people choose to use/abuse, legal or illegal.

So please state your opinion clearly: you believe that the current system for restricting access to medical drugs is wrong and should be thrown out and that people should not need a doctor prescription to access drugs like Oxycontin, Valium or Ritalin.

If this is not the case then your position is incoherent nonsense because there is already a black market in those drugs and they are legal.

Edited October 22, 2012 by TimG

[Sir Bandelot]

You can't control what substances people choose to use/abuse, legal or illegal.

So forget that.

Instead focus on protecting the public from gangs with guns.

Put them out of business.

Take the drug trade away from them.

Legalize drugs.

More likely none of this is possible, since the level of corruption in our society is so pervasive.

[dre]

But this is not true. Even fans of Portugal seem to acknowledge that drug use goes up but try to explain it away.

This could actually support my claim that the number of addicts is increasing. You are simply *assuming* that the increase is because existing untreated addicts are getting treatment instead of new addicts needing treatment.

But this is not true. Even fans of Portugal seem to acknowledge that drug use goes up but try to explain it away.

If "fans of Portugal" acknowledge that they are wrong. Drug use declined for almost every drug in every age group, besides marijuana use in the lower age groups which was unchanged.

This could actually support my claim that the number of addicts is increasing. You are simply *assuming* that the increase is because existing untreated addicts are getting treatment instead of new addicts needing treatment.

No I dont assume that at all. They invested a lot of money in treatment and outreach and these new programs are treating about 40 thousand people today. Cases where drug use becomes "problematic" have dropped by more than half since the 1990's.

Meanwhile in the rest of the west... Billions of dollars have been wasted, millions of people are in jail who do not commit a crime against ANYBODY, tens of millions of policing, and judicial man-hours is wasted for nothing at all. Drugs are cheaper and easier to get than ever, and no real progress has been made in solving the problem.

[dre]

So please state your opinion clearly: you believe that the current system for restricting access to medical drugs is wrong and should be thrown out and that people should not need a doctor prescription to access drugs like Oxycontin, Valium or Ritalin.

If this is not the case then your position is incoherent nonsense because there is already a black market in those drugs and they are legal.

No this isnt true at all, its a false choice. You dont need to deregulate the medical drug system in order to stop wasting money on the failed war on drugs. But you raise a valid point in that it would certainly be very stupid to spend a pile of money dragging a valium or oxycontin or ritalin user through the enforcement/court system for simple posession.

Anyhow your logic here is just plain wrong. Theres no reason why you cant treat recreational drugs differently than medical drugs, and in fact we already do it. I dont need a prescription for alcohol or tobacco.

[blueblood]

I wouldn't say it's wasted. Portugal isn't an example I'd recommend given their financial situation to pay for this treatment which costs taxpayers a fortune in itself. As we all know Portugal isn't the beacon of finance. Then there's addicts in general. In order for treatment to work, addicts have to truly want to go through with it and put in the work to succeed. Having arbitrary terms set by govt doesn't work either. For example x months of rehab then out you go does not equal a successful rehab program.

Have we seen any court proceedings of drug use. I think one would be hard pressed to find a full six month conviction under the cdsa for Schedule viii on a first offense let alone a fine. One only has to look at some northern communities to look at what could happen when legal drug use gets out of control.

Taking away an incentive for people to stay away from drug use would IMO cost society far more than opening the floodgates and legalizing everything. given western society's fondness for getting "f***ckd up" and removing the social taboo of being labelled a criminal, legalizing everything would be damn close to a zombie movie given the adverse effects of some drugs out there.

One only has to look at the wild west of the late 1800s to observe why there was such a huge push to criminalize ALL intoxicating substances. They didn't call it the wild west for nothing.

The only way drug use is nixed starts at the bottom. The sooner people realized that drugs are bad and that one lives a far healthier life by staying away from them, the demand dries up and we have fewer and fewer zombies which are as big as a drain on resources as fighting organized crime, however given western society's spoiled brat attitude, that isn't going to happen.

Organized crime has existed forever and has always found ways to make money. Take away drugs and they'll go into other avenues to generate revenue.

[dre]

I wouldn't say it's wasted. Portugal isn't an example I'd recommend given their financial situation to pay for this treatment which costs taxpayers a fortune in itself. As we all know Portugal isn't the beacon of finance. Then there's addicts in general. In order for treatment to work, addicts have to truly want to go through with it and put in the work to succeed. Having arbitrary terms set by govt doesn't work either. For example x months of rehab then out you go does not equal a successful rehab program.

Have we seen any court proceedings of drug use. I think one would be hard pressed to find a full six month conviction under the cdsa for Schedule viii on a first offense let alone a fine. One only has to look at some northern communities to look at what could happen when legal drug use gets out of control.

Taking away an incentive for people to stay away from drug use would IMO cost society far more than opening the floodgates and legalizing everything. given western society's fondness for getting "f***ckd up" and removing the social taboo of being labelled a criminal, legalizing everything would be damn close to a zombie movie given the adverse effects of some drugs out there.

One only has to look at the wild west of the late 1800s to observe why there was such a huge push to criminalize ALL intoxicating substances. They didn't call it the wild west for nothing.

The only way drug use is nixed starts at the bottom. The sooner people realized that drugs are bad and that one lives a far healthier life by staying away from them, the demand dries up and we have fewer and fewer zombies which are as big as a drain on resources as fighting organized crime, however given western society's spoiled brat attitude, that isn't going to happen.

Organized crime has existed forever and has always found ways to make money. Take away drugs and they'll go into other avenues to generate revenue.

Theres nothing of substance in your post.... just different attempts to parrot conventional wisdom.

Your assertion that more people would use drugs if it was decriminalized or legalized is highly suspect. Especially if dollars currently allocated to envorcement were re-allocated to treatement.

Your suggestion that organized criminals could simply "move onto other things" is nonsensical, and just objectively false. Theres only so much demand in the marketplace to chase, and the more you force criminals to compete with honest, taxpaying businessmen, the less of the economy they will control.

Edited October 22, 2012 by dre

[eyeball]

This is my view as well. some drugs are nasty if used incorrectly and as long as we take the position that people need to be protected from bad choices by restricting access to various medical drugs then there is no justification for making drugs legal.

Speaking for myself I've never argued that the state doesn't have a right or a responsibility to protect people by regulating their behaviour but the charter makes it pretty clear that the laws it enacts to do so should have an equal effect amongst comparative groups of people in or under similar circumstances. The government is perfectly capable of regulating the users of alcohol and tobacco for example without resorting to the suspension of everyone's civil liberties in the process.

Edited October 22, 2012 by eyeball

[dre]

It 'could', but until you provide some hard data this is conjecture as well.

It is pretty much expected that there will be increases in both demographics, new users, and old users coming out. How much, falls under the domain on sociologists.

Expected by who based on what? Have you ever seen a shred of real evidence that prohibition is really reducing drug use? I know that it "feels right" to believe this... I used to believe it too...

But my conjecture has a rational basis: i.e. if the number of users increases (which appears to be the case) then the number of addicts must also increase since the number of people with the addict gene stays the same.

Thats not a rational basis at all, its completely bogus and it shows an ignorance of basic genetics.Genes cannot compell human behavior they just create a predisposition. The number of people actively using a specific substance depends on a whole host of factors and may or may not be proportional to the number of people that are genetically predisposed.

[jacee]

Time to legalize drugs

Six years ago one of us wrote a column on this page, "Victims of the War on Drugs." It discussed violence, poor community relations, overly aggressive policing and riots. It failed to mention one important harm: the drug war's clear and present danger toward men and women in blue.

Drug users generally aren't violent. Most simply want to be left alone to enjoy their high. It's the corner slinger who terrifies neighbors and invites rivals to attack. Public drug dealing creates an environment where disputes about money or respect are settled with guns.

In high-crime areas, police spend much of their time answering drug-related calls for service, clearing dealers off corners, responding to shootings and homicides, and making lots of drug-related arrests.

Having fought the war on drugs, we know that ending the drug war is the right thing to do -- for all of us, especially taxpayers. While the financial benefits of drug legalization are not our main concern, they are substantial. In a July referendum, Oakland, Calif., voted to tax drug sales by a 4-to-1 margin. Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron estimates that ending the drug war would save $44 billion annually, with taxes bringing in an additional $33 billion.

Without the drug war, America's most decimated neighborhoods would have a chance to recover. Working people could sit on stoops, misguided youths wouldn't look up to criminals as role models, our overflowing prisons could hold real criminals, and -- most important to us -- more police officers wouldn't have to die.

..........................

Peter Moskos is a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and the author of "Cop in the Hood." Neill Franklin is a 32-year law enforcement veteran.

Edited October 22, 2012 by jacee

[TimG]

The number of people actively using a specific substance depends on a whole host of factors and may or may not be proportional to the number of people that are genetically predisposed.

If the number of people using a substance then the number of potential addicts exposed goes up which means the number of addicts will go up.

Your ridiculous logic is like saying the number of lung cancer cases would stay the same or go down even if the number of smokers goes up.

BTW: studies of Portugal show drug use increasing after decriminalization.

Edited October 22, 2012 by TimG

[TimG]

Theres no reason why you cant treat recreational drugs differently than medical drugs, and in fact we already do it. I dont need a prescription for alcohol or tobacco.

So you are saying that people should be free to consume as much Oxycontin, Valium, Ritalin or GHB as they like? Why stop at recreational drugs? Why should someone need to see a doctor to get a refill on their blood pressure meds. They should be able to go in a change their dosage whenever they want!

[dre]

If the number of people using a substance then the number of potential addicts exposed goes up which means the number of addicts will go up.

Your ridiculous logic is like saying the number of cancer cases stay the same or go down even if the number of smokers goes up. I know rational thinking is not a high priority for you but this is more insane that usual.

BTW: studies of Portugal show drug use increasing after decriminalization.

Sorry Timmy thats another big swing and a miss, and it does nothing at all to support the statement I quoted which was...

But my conjecture has a rational basis: i.e. if the number of users increases (which appears to be the case) then the number of addicts must also increase since the number of people with the addict gene stays the same.

Whether or not an increase in smokers causes the number of cancer cases to increase, will depend on a hole host of factors because theres about a zillion other things that cause cancer as well. You would think the guy behind the grade 3 level personal attacks over "rational thinking" wouldnt miss this obvious point.

[jacee]

IMO whether drug use goes up is irrelevant.

Protection of the public from violent drug gangs is the purpose of legalization.

I think we should consider legalizing marijuana first, and see how that goes.

[cybercoma]

Tim, you going to go on a heroin, meth, or coke bender if they're freely available?

[Boges]

IMO whether drug use goes up is irrelevant.

Protection of the public from violent drug gangs is the purpose of legalization.

I think we should consider legalizing marijuana first, and see how that goes.

It's myopia to think that people who are willing to kill to make money will find more legal methods of making a living once people can find legal methods to obtain illicit drugs. Cigarettes are still smuggled by organized crime, why? because high taxes are put on tobacco, that people don't want to pay. Why would you think high taxes wouldn't be put on other drugs if they are made legal?

Edited October 22, 2012 by Boges

[blueblood]

It's myopia to think that people who are willing to kill to make money will find more legal methods of making a living once people can find legal methods to obtain illicit drugs. Cigarettes are still smuggled by organized crime, why? because high taxes are put on tobacco, that people don't want to pay. Why would you think high taxes wouldn't be put on other drugs if they are made legal?

And protection, money laundering, smuggling, intimidation, etc.

[cybercoma]

It's myopia to think that people who are willing to kill to make money will find more legal methods of making a living once people can find legal methods to obtain illicit drugs.

The laws of economics suggest otherwise. Do we still have rum runners having shootouts in downtown Chicago?

Edited October 23, 2012 by cybercoma

[TimG]

Whether or not an increase in smokers causes the number of cancer cases to increase, will depend on a hole host of factors because theres about a zillion other things that cause cancer as well.

The point your are deliberately missing is there is no reason why those factors would change. i.e. if you want to argue that a change in drug policy would not cause an increase in addicts along with the increase in users you MUST provide some coherent argument for those "other factors" that would change as a result of the policy change. Without some reference to the factors that you think will change and why they would be connected to the policy change all you are doing Internet equivalent stamping your feet and screaming "it ain't true".

[TimG]

Tim, you going to go on a heroin, meth, or coke bender if they're freely available?

Do you believe that we should discard the prescription drug system?

[jacee]

The laws of economics suggest otherwise. Do we still have rum runners having shootouts in downtown Chicago?

The laws of economics suggest otherwise. Do we still have rum runners having shootouts in downtown Chicago?

[dre]

The point your are deliberately missing is there is no reason why those factors would change. i.e. if you want to argue that a change in drug policy would not cause an increase in addicts along with the increase in users you MUST provide some coherent argument for those "other factors" that would change as a result of the policy change.

I explained what those factors were already. Addicts have much easier access to treatment, which is why according the last report on portugals system the number of addicts has been cut in half.

Without some reference to the factors that you think will change and why they would be connected to the policy change all you are doing Internet equivalent stamping your feet and screaming "it ain't true".

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight Im not "stomping my fee"t I just pointed out that what you said what demonstrably false and based on faulty logic.... Your silly statement about the "addict gene" that you dont seem too keen on supporting anymore for obvious reasons.

[dre]

Do you believe that we should discard the prescription drug system?

No relevance. The question of whether or not we should waste a lot of money dragging drug users through the criminal justice system, has no bearing on whether or not prescription drugs should be deregulated.

[TimG]

I explained what those factors were already. Addicts have much easier access to treatment, which is why according the last report on portugals system the number of addicts has been cut in half.

News flash: access to treatment does not reduce the number of addicts. What it does is help people who have become addicts recover. Also an addict is an addict - even if they have recovered. Reducing the number of active addicts with treatment is good thing but that does not change the fact that the number of people that become addicts in the first place increases as use of a drug in society increases. Edited October 23, 2012 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Do you believe that we should discard the prescription drug system?

Are we going to play the question game?

[TimG]

Are we going to play the question game?

You started it.

Frankly, I am sick of the incoherent arguments offered by drug legalization fanatics. The fact is we restrict access to drugs via the prescription system because there is a good public health reason to do that. There is simply no rational argument for the legalization of potent drugs from cocaine or methamphetamine unless you are an extreme libertarian that believes that people should be free to put whatever they want into their body and be responsible for the consequences.

That said, legalization of a soft drugs like marijuana could make sense since I am not convinced it is any worse than alcohol (the gateway drug thing is likely due to the fact that a dope dealer will often upsell his clients - a problem that goes away if you are buying it from a licensed vendor). But legalization of marijuana is not going to do anything about the criminal gangs dedicated to exporting product to the US or the gangs that will continue to sell heroine, crack, Oxycontin or any other restricted drug. So the idea that legalization is going to change the criminal problem is naive at best.

However, decriminalization along the line of Portugal makes a lot of sense provided resources are invested in treatment facilities. The latter is what has made decriminalization a success when compared to the effective decriminalization we have in Canada today (how many people are really jailed for possession of small quantities?). That said, decriminalization will increase drug use over the long term and mean that more people would require help recovering from addiction than would if the current regime stayed in place. It could be argued that this is a price worth paying. Trying to argue that we don't have to pay that price is nonsense.