The "War on Drugs"

I wasn't going to bother posting on this, knowing I'll get flamed, but I decided hey, why not try and start a good discussion.

It all started with this article in today's National Post, which I will summarize with a single word... TRIPE.

One paragraph that got me going...

There's no longer any question that these strategies decrease drug-related harms without increasing drug use. What blocks expansion of such programs is not cost; they typically save taxpayers' money that would otherwise go to criminal justice and health care. No, the roadblocks are abstinence-only ideologues and a cruel indifference to the lives and well-being of people who use drugs.

EXCUSE ME?!?!? I oppose "harm reduction" programs BECAUSE I care VERY MUCH about the lives and well-being of people who are on drugs! It's BECAUSE I care that I have an abstinence-only ideology!!! I don't support "harm reduction" because it WON'T solve the underlying problem of getting these poor people OFF the drugs that are destroying their lives!!!

Here's another kicker paragraph...

The better approach is not demand reduction but "harm reduction." Reducing drug use is fine, but it's not nearly as important as reducing the death, disease, crime and suffering associated with both drug misuse and failed prohibitionist policies. With respect to legal drugs, such as alcohol and cigarettes, harm reduction means promoting responsible drinking and designated drivers, or persuading people to switch to nicotine patches, chewing gums and smokeless tobacco. With respect to illegal drugs, it means reducing the transmission of infectious disease through syringe-exchange programs, reducing overdose fatalities by making antidotes readily available and allowing people addicted to heroin and other illegal opiates to obtain methadone from doctors and even pharmaceutical heroin from clinics.

Hogwash, other than the comments on methadone. THAT is a program that is directly designed to get people OFF drugs... therefore, I can support it.

What the author fails to see is that people like me simply CANNOT, in good concience, condone a program that enables anyone to remain addicted to something that will ruin their life, and the lives of others in their immediate circle of family and/or friends. I could not sleep at night knowing that my actions failed to rescue them from the circle of misery into which they have fallen. Therefore, I choose to support programs that have a real chance of getting people off illegal drugs, or makes them hard to obtain so that people are prevented from turning to them.

Here's my hard-nosed solution, that's likely to make some fur fly... lock up those who can't stay clean in a newly constructed and remote super-secure facility for users. Monitor everything going in and out to ensure that no drugs are getting into the place to give them a real chance to break free. Impose new laws so that anyone caught smuggling drugs into such facilities (namely bad guards or other workers) will get locked up for VERY long periods of time, to ensure there's no motivation to even consider attempting to smuggle anything in. Upon successfully getting clean, implement a program of enforced relocation for former addicts as a condition of release, to ensure that they don't wind up in the same circle of friends or familiar locations to lead them back down the wrong path. Implement guarenteed work programs for these individuals in their new community, to help them get back into society, and to help them begin again.

That's my plan. But, alas, it likely won't work, thanks to all the court challenges that will be brought forward by various groups who say they support "harm reduction"... which to me, just sounds like code for "let the people who can't help themselves suffer in their misery, but just make sure the government is there with massive social programs to make sure they they can continue to live in poverty"... but that's just what I hear when I hear the words "harm reduction".

In my opinion, the author is just wrong on so many levels. He does make a strong case that major change is needed in how to deal with drugs, and I'll agree with him there. However, I feel that his suggestions will do more harm than good... by opening to doors to drugs, we're going to face a whole new host of problems, and we're going to see thousands of young lives that will be ruined by the legalization of drugs. (one of the many reasons why I'm NOT a Libertarian)

Anyway, that's my two cents. With all the two cents people are going to reply with, I'm likely gonna be a rich man...