I agree, it's the same with the gun laws over there...most men have guns at home (unlike in the rest of Europe) yet virtually no crimes using these guns are being committed.
Endorphin Deficiency Syndrome has not been recognized in the US as a disease because nobody has found a way to make any money from it, well the heroin trafficers are making money from it actually...
Brandon, I understand your point and for your situation I can understand it is necessary and helpful, drugs can make your life productive. ------------------------- "A 2006 survey by the Society for Human Resource Management found that 84 percent of employers required new hires to pass drug screenings" At a time when everyone is drug screening I can't imagine who is going to be left in the workforce. No one is going to insure these people. It is a liability issue.
OK, let me ask a slightly different question: Do completely <b>harmless</b> men & women who pose absolutely no threat whatsoever to anyone (except perhaps themselves) belong in prison? Is that really what prisons in a 'free country' are for?
For repeat offenders...absolutely. Unfortunately prison is part of the recovery process for many, and even that won't do it for everyone. For those that simply refuse help prison is just another consequence of their actions. The sooner an addict has to pay the price for his actions, the better chance they have of kicking the habit. However, the tragic bottom line is, a person does actually have to want a clean life. If they don't, they won't. There is no magic bullet. Been there, done that, in spades.
In the grand scheme of things Oxycontin is not that strong of a pain killer (Percocet). Certainly nothing compared to heroin.
Q: What's the difference between the oxycodone in percocet and the oxycodone in oxycontin? A: The drugs themselves are the same. The preparations are different. Oxycontin contains more oxycodone than percocet, but it is also prepared as a "sustained release", or "time release". This means they can give a large dose, which will slowly be released over a period of time to maintain a steady concentration in the body. Recreational users crush the Oxycontin pills, releasing the oxycodone from its microencapsulation, and getting a high dosage of powder (which contains binders and fillers making it inappropriate for injection and increasing the damage done by snorting). There are plans in the works to create a new preparation of Oxycontin which would also contain microencapsulated naloxone (an opiate antagonist which blocks the effects of opiates). With this product, if the pill is taken orally, the naloxone would be released and the opiate would have its desired effects. But if the pill is crushed then the naloxone would also be released along with the oxycodone and the opiate would no longer be effective. The manufacturer is working to develop this (or a similar) product but it now looks that it will be several years before such a product hits the market. One of the most important things to note about the current Oxycontin products is that for inexperienced uses, a single crushed pill could result in a fatal overdose because the oxycodone is released quickly into the system instead of the intended sustained release. Once the body has become habituated to the opiates (in the short term), users can tolerate much higher doses safely, but this is one of the more common ways people get into trouble with opiates and what causes many deaths with other opiates (heroin, etc). aloha psilo http://www.erowid.org/ask/ask.php?ID=2842
So we can jail you for repeatedly breaking the speed limit, I take it? Let me ask a simple question - if you have two options for treating socially undesireable habits that are nevertheless victimless "crimes", and method A is more successful on all relevant criteria than method B, which method would you choose? Presuming you would choose A, then it is simply a matter of empirically testing to see if the consequences of A are indeed superior to that of method B. I invite you to demonstrate how criminalising simple drug addiction (as opposed to criminalising the theft, violence etc often surrounding it) has proven to be a superior approach to treating it as a medical problem (e.g. the Swiss approach). This is taking a purely utilitarian argument, by the way. The rights of the addict (presuming he doesn't harm others) are completely ignored here. Obviously if you think people have any rights over their own mind and body, then criminalising drug use (that does not harm anyone other than the user) is totally immoral.
I don't have an answer, and have no researched this... But we do arrest drunk drivers because their reflexes are impaired and thus represent a danger to others. Shoot, people who take cold pills are often impaired in their driving, what to say of legalized heroin? How do the police give a test to see if someone is driving while legally high? I have to imagine that people who are fixing for legal prescriptions, and can't get them for various reasons will resort to the same type of crime, etc. that we see now. Additionally, when legalized, meaning that you have to get a doctor's authorization, may also mean that a heroin addict would have to attend drug prevention and rehab meetings. I don't think we should criminalize drug usage, however, people who are "legally" high, or strung out until the next prescription, etc. represent a potential problem as well. Say an addict like RM gets a prescription...will it be enough? What if he Joneses for a higher dosage but the doctor says no? Seems like this doesn't address the real problems that lead to the need for strong drug usage to be able to cope with the pain of living like RM must experience.