If we believe that some addicts can be helped to deal more productively with their addiction (personally I think that's true), and we observe that prohibition tactics don't help addicts get that help (see TFA and basically every other serious examination of this), then ending prohibition will certainly help some addicts. One might argue that more people would start using without prohibition, but that would be pretty lame in the context of the Pill Doctor Pipeline described here.
I understand that it's difficult to avoid litigation of decriminalization (or, apparently, subsidization) in discussions about illegal drugs. I'm generally receptive to decriminalization.
But I'm not making a point about decriminalization. In the same way that it's counterproductive to spend a lot of time talking about prohibition in mass incarceration discussions (significant reduction in incarceration --- which is absolutely necessary --- will require us to adjust sentencing and policies surrounding violent crime among offenders who have never been convicted of drug offenses), spending a lot of time talking about free heroin isn't going to help us if the problem underlying the opiate crisis isn't heroin prohibition, but instead overprescription and negligent formulation of opiate painkillers.
I don't understand this "purity of argument" argument. You'd like to ignore prohibition as a cause of these problems, apparently since this other cause also exists (...conveniently ignoring that they're actually two aspects of the same cause, since pill mills are an unavoidable result of prohibition: never mind that). I contend that looking for "the one true big cause" is a mug's game. Sure, it would be nice if physicians were more skilled at pain management. Maybe they should go back to school? b^) Perhaps if they were more skilled, these problems would be reduced. Regardless, if the prohibition regime changed into more of a treatment regime, that would also reduce the problems associated with addiction, especially for existing addicts who have already received poor care from physicians!
while we're talking about the orthagonality of people's comments, I have one to contribute!
This is the second of your posts I've read in an hour with a b^) (checking your history shows at least one more) and now I'm curious. I've never seen that face before. The first time, I assumed it was a carelessly-executed B^) "2cool4you sunglasses wearer grinning sarcastically," but I guess it's not. My best guess is that it's winking - but winking is usually light-hearted and seems odd paired with the ^) nose/mouth that I associate with black comedy/sarcasm.
If ^) is light-hearted to you, I'd guess "quirky, almost flirtatious wink and grin." If it's not, I'd guess "smirking, exaggerated and heavily ironic wink." For people I know well, I could probably tell which one they meant; for strangers on the internet, less so. Is either interpretation close to the mark?
My right eye is missing and I normally wear a patch over that socket. I've used that smiley for decades; my offline friends usually get it but it's understandable that that someone who's never met me would be uncertain...
Are prescription opiate users as likely to overdose as heroin users? My understanding is that they are not. If you're buying oxycontin at CVS, you're getting oxycontin in the dosage prescribed. At least once a year in Chicago we see a news story about dozens of people hospitalized after using what they bought as heroin but which was not.
Making heroin available to those who want or need to use it may reduce deaths or even hospitalizations without changing the number of opiate users.
