Written by
There are a lot of problems with illicit drugs but they're really down to their legal status rather than the health effects of the drugs themselves; this is not to say drugs are harmless rather that their legal status causes more problems than it solves.
Drugs cause crime. This sweeping statement is applied to all drugs however only a few drugs result in addicts committing crimes to fund their habits; those who smoke cannabis and commit robbery do it to improve their life style rather than to purely buy more drugs, that is they want more money than they can make legitimately. Heroine is the primary drug that results in addicts committing crime to fund their habit.
Lets say heroine addicts could obtain heroine at cost, around $5 or £3 a full quality dose from the state with no strings attached, what would be the impact. Heroine addicts would no longer be dependent on dealers. Dealers would no longer be motivated to create more addicts because they would simply go to the state for their supply. There would be additional health benefits from the supply of heroine being pure and the needles being clean. Addicts could be offered help coping with their addiction and without the financial burden of the habit they could lead productive lives; studies have shown heroine addicts can also hold down jobs - the old adage you never find a doctor with a heroine addiction problem doesn't mean doctors don't take heroine.
Drugs fund terrorism. Another sweeping statement applied to all drugs but this time there is some truth to it. Most drug profits supply crime syndicates supplying the drugs though; this go towards funding the bribery and corruption surrounding and protecting the drug lords as well as their opulent life styles.
Since the removal of the Taliban from Afghanistan the drug business there has boomed. The Taliban for all their sins were against drugs on religious grounds; they still give addicts and dealers public floggings and worse. Some drug money may well fund terrorism but it is just an opportunity provided by the fact drugs are illegal and so the demand can only be met on the black market.
Suppose drugs were supplied legally, we do this with alcohol, tobacco and caffeine to name three, but supply was controlled by the state. Supply could then be taxed in order to pay for any health issues caused by the drugs; in the UK tobacco tax brings in roughly £10 billion annually while the NHS reckons tobacco costs the NHS £1 billion annually (2005 figures). Many young people in the UK now take drugs rather than drink alcohol because it is cheaper and generally they feel less ill effect; scientifically ecstasy is less damaging than alcohol and less addictive too, it still can cause damage though.
Drugs lead to addicts and destroy society. Another sweeping statement applied to all drugs.
There are two types of addiction, physical and psychological. Anything can be psychologically addictive - there is a care of a girl who was so addicted to water it was was potentially fatal - treatment wean her off by getting her to suck ice cubes.
Heroine is physically addictive, you get real symptoms when the drug is withdrawn that result in real cravings to acquire the drug however this has already been addressed by the solution above. Note also that nicotine is also physically addictive and according to some more physically addictive than heroine.
Crack cocaine is very physically addictive. This drug should be controlled in the same way as heroine but with greater emphasis on replacing it with less health damaging alternatives; heroine is not too taxing on the body where as crack is and the addict to crack ends up doing it just to avoid the withdrawal symptoms rather than to gain anything where as the heroine addict keeps doing it because it feels good.
There is of course much more to this debate but my stance is clear. So. legalise and regulate drugs verses the war on drugs. Thoughts? Please avoid the simple drugs are bad dogma sold to society by politicians and religions for historical rather than scientific reasons.