Why is addiction treated as a disease

[jacee]

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.

But that doesn't do anything to get rid of the gangs and guns and protect the public from drug trade wars, etc.

[cybercoma]

Nice meltdown.

I especially like the part where you acknowledge the success of Portugal' approach then conveniently, jut like you do with climate change, kick the can down the road, making up completely unfounded claims about the long-term. It's convenient because no matter how long it's a success you can continue to say, “We don't know what will happen in the future” or worse just make things up about the future like you did above. And all of your criticism about the prescription drug system are a red-herring. Nobody is talking about prescriptions and even if they were, that doesn't mean distribution would not be regulated. When you go to a bar, the bartenders regulate how much you drink and will not serve you if you're already drunk. There's no reason legalized prescription drugs could not still be regulated by the pharmacists that would still dispense them. In any case, that's completely besides the point of making street drugs legal in order to refocus efforts on healthcare, prevention, and intervention programs to get people the help they need and discourage people from starting down that path in the first place.

Edited October 23, 2012 by cybercoma

[Boges]

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

Well the realities of organized crime have changed. Now we have shootouts for other reasons. So your solution is to make everything legal so organized crime would have no business: Including Bath Salts, Meth, Heroine. It's all fair game and the world will be a better place because of it.

I just find that approach very myopic.

Criminals will be criminals, people who can make lucrative money selling illegal products will find something else to sell.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Boges

[Wild Bill]

Criminals will be criminals, people who can make lucrative money selling illegal products will find something else to sell.

Yes, they will. The only difference will be that ordinary, otherwise law-abiding citizens will not risk penalties under our sanctimonious drug laws. Immense resources of police enforcement and the court systems will be freed up to handle "real" crimes.

Hell, perhaps cops will come out when your home has been burgled again!

I'm no druggie, but I am a taxpayer. The immense waste of the taxes we all pay towards a futile war on drugs to force people to have a government- approved, mistake-free life has always pissed me off, big time! Instead of crackheads wasting nothing but their own lives I have to worry about them breaking into my home for enough money for their next dose.

And the police won't even bother to try to catch them! They will just give me a report number for my insurance claim, which will of course increase my premiums!

A pox on all their houses!

[Boges]

Yes, they will. The only difference will be that ordinary, otherwise law-abiding citizens will not risk penalties under our sanctimonious drug laws. Immense resources of police enforcement and the court systems will be freed up to handle "real" crimes.

Hell, perhaps cops will come out when your home has been burgled again!

I'm no druggie, but I am a taxpayer. The immense waste of the taxes we all pay towards a futile war on drugs to force people to have a government- approved, mistake-free life has always pissed me off, big time! Instead of crackheads wasting nothing but their own lives I have to worry about them breaking into my home for enough money for their next dose.

And the police won't even bother to try to catch them! They will just give me a report number for my insurance claim, which will of course increase my premiums!

A pox on all their houses!

That's more of a problem in the US though isn't it? Are prison sentences for simple possession of any illicit drugs common in Canada. Heck some people want to give free needles to druggies in this country.

[eyeball]

I'm no druggie, but I am a taxpayer.

You're an addict of a different type, and despite the harm your addiction does you keep on voting for the people who do everything you claim to hate the most about government.

You should clean up your act and go straight. Go start a Conservatives Anonymous movement or something.

[blueblood]

Nice meltdown.

I especially like the part where you acknowledge the success of Portugal' approach then conveniently, jut like you do with climate change, kick the can down the road, making up completely unfounded claims about the long-term. It's convenient because no matter how long it's a success you can continue to say, “We don't know what will happen in the future” or worse just make things up about the future like you did above. And all of your criticism about the prescription drug system are a red-herring. Nobody is talking about prescriptions and even if they were, that doesn't mean distribution would not be regulated. When you go to a bar, the bartenders regulate how much you drink and will not serve you if you're already drunk. There's no reason legalized prescription drugs could not still be regulated by the pharmacists that would still dispense them. In any case, that's completely besides the point of making street drugs legal in order to refocus efforts on healthcare, prevention, and intervention programs to get people the help they need and discourage people from

starting down that path in the first place.

Portugal isn't a success, that country is broke.

There is a huge problem of prescription drugs being sold through the black market. Ever hear of dilautids? People hard up for cash start selling dilautids for 20 bucks a pill and away we go. We have tried a system when everything was legal and it was a literal circus, why go back to it?

If you think taxpayers are going to want to foot the bill for a ridiculously expensive treatment program for junkies and tying up doctors which could be used for more constructive purposes, your missing the boat. By making anything legal, that removes an incentive for some people to stop, and if it's all legal the taboo goes away and then society has more junkies to deal with.

[cybercoma]

You say I'm missing the boat, but you can't see that the amount of money being dumped into enforcement could go towards those treatment programs.

We tried a system when everything was legal and it was a circus? When was that?

And Portugal's financial problems have nothing to do with their drug treatment program.

[jacee]

We have tried a system when everything was legal and it was a literal circus, why go back to it?

????

By making anything legal, that removes an incentive for some people to stop, and if it's all legal the taboo goes away and then society has more junkies to deal with.

The purpose of legalization isn't about addicts: It's about taking the drug trade out of the hands of criminals. It's about stopping the proliferation of gangs and guns, for the protection of the public.

[Pliny]

You say I'm missing the boat, but you can't see that the amount of money being dumped into enforcement could go towards those treatment programs.

We tried a system when everything was legal and it was a circus? When was that?

And Portugal's financial problems have nothing to do with their drug treatment program.

We tried a system when everything was legal and it was a circus? When was that?

And it isn't a circus now?

And Portugal's financial problems have nothing to do with their drug treatment program.

Perhaps "money" is not circulating as fast as it would? It does make money laundering less necessary.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Pliny

[Pliny]

????

The purpose of legalization isn't about addicts: It's about taking the drug trade out of the hands of criminals. It's about stopping the proliferation of gangs and guns, for the protection of the public.

Legalization has a benefit in that people will exercise a little more caution in ingesting things they buy on the street. And the added benefit that they will need to be able to recognize and be aware of what they are buying on the street.

Decriminalization and the Government's monopoly on the sale of drugs has what might be considered the benefit of ensuring you are getting what you are buying in its purity. This is a liability in the long run because people won't inspect or even be aware of what they are buying. It basically lowers drug awareness. What the government sells must be ok, right? Cheaper similar looking crap will be sold on the street because to the buyer it looks economical.

[Pliny]

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.

That should be "....a zillion other things that predispose one to cancer" not "cause" cancer. The cause of cancer is unknown and all we can do is limit the predisposition toward it.

Nice grade 3 level personal attack though.

[Sleipnir]

Disease: is an abnormal condition affecting the body of an organism.

Addiction: is an abnormal condition of being dependence on a behaviour or substance that affect the body of an organism.

The two terms are nearly identical in their meaning, but in context they mean different things.