That would have read so much better if you'd said, "Rob's also unsure when Rob started referring to Rob in the 3rd person..."

Whole hog, my friend.
Baylen | Homepage | 02.28.07 - 4:09 pm | #

its like the 5 second rule..can't we make the edit?
Rob | Homepage | 02.28.07 - 4:19 pm | #

Repeat after Baylen...

"...can't 'Rob' make the edit?"
Baylen Linnekin | Homepage | 02.28.07 - 4:51 pm | #

hey, Rob is never invited to the weekly editorial meetings. how is he suppose to know what rules we have in place?

unrelated note, Rob will be in DC this friday night. anyone and everyone is welcome to buy Rob drinks
Rob | Homepage | 02.28.07 - 5:02 pm | #

Jacob's (and I guess Rob's) solution - do nothing to reduce drug-related harm except full legalization of every drug, including crack, meth, and heroin - is a recipe for disaster. Voters want politicans to "do something" about drugs. That something can be incarceration or it can be drug treatment and harm reduction. (Total legalization will not be politically viable for many years to come, if ever). Vancouver's choice is between a) spending a little money to give meth abusers a drug that is less potent, less addictive, and safer in order to reduce drug overdoses, crime and the transmission of HIV/AIDS and keep families together; or b) spend a lot of money incarcerating meth users and paying the healthcare costs of people living with AIDS for their whole lives. The fiscally smart choice is A. I'm willing to bet that I could count on my hand the number of people living in Canada who would support legalization if it wasn't for the fact that they fear they'll have to pick up the costs of people's mistakes. Those costs are actually much smaller than the costs of incarceration and prohibition, so if cost was their concern they would still pick harm reduction.

I would also add that taxpayers have a moral obligation to put up money to reduce the suffering that the policies they support are causing. If you support the war on drugs, then you should be made to pay money for needle exchange programs and free methadone to reduce the harm the war on drugs is causing (this is like forcing pro-Iraq-war supporters to pay for free medical care for injured veterans). If you don't support the war on drugs but pay taxes, you should be made to pay money for harm reduction programs to off-set the damage your compliance with tax laws is causing to people around you. And if you don't pay taxes, then good for you!
cicero | Homepage | 02.28.07 - 5:20 pm | #

cicero,

First, you are right, most voters do want politicians to "do something" when it comes to drugs. It's hardly a unique situation with drugs though; voters want politicians to do something about everything. Health care, retirement benefits, the roads, scary brown people with turbans..etc. I don't think I'm being too dogmatic when I take my usual approach of standing against their "doing something" with respect to drugs. I'm open to the argument that I am taking an over ideogically look at the problem, but I don't think so.

I'm also aware of what is politically viable in any situation, as well as I know the government isn't going to give me or anyone else back my tax dollars if they don't spend it on treatment facilities. So yeah, I'm for treatment over incarceration...but I also think that truly embracing drugs as a public health problem allows for a whole new set of problems to emerge. I imagine that they will be able to force patients by the ever-present barrel of a gun to submit to treatment, no? And who gets to decide what qualifies as a harmful addiction? Short-term these problems might not present themselves, but if the power stays with the government (they are administring the funds and the operation of the treatments) who's to say they won't use the full force of their power?

I'm also not willing to concede that full legalization would be a disaster and let's not forget that private charities could and do play a role. I'm certainly for assisting private groups with funds and materials, but I'm not big on making another state run business (or making it even bigger)..

For the record, I'm a huge fan of local decrimin. efforts. Seems like the best short-term approach to me.
Rob | Homepage | 02.28.07 - 6:26 pm | #

didn't mean to come off suggesting that full legalization would be a disaster, I don't think it would. I meant not doing anything other than calling for legalization would be a disaster. Since legalization isn't politically viable now, our only two choices are a) reduce the damage caused by drugs (generally made worse by drug prohibition) and reduce the problems caused by drug prohibition; or b) argue for legalization while politicians ignore us and increase sentences, throw more people in jail, etc. Unless we can show voters that there are sensible alternatives to punitive policies, they will look at overdoses, aids, crime, etc and demand "tough" solutions. So doing nothing instead of expanding the welfare state in the form of harm reduction would be a disaster, because it would keep us from even moving closer to sensible drug policies. Of course, you make a strong case that the problems inherent in harm reduction and the welfare state mean that once we get there we could be as far or even further away from legalizaiton.
cicero | Homepage | 02.28.07 - 7:01 pm | #

OK, I was hoping I misread you.

I pretty much agree with all that you say. It's a bad situation with very few realistic solutions avaliable in the current environment. That being said I'm skeptcal of the ablity to convince both the american public and the establishment that treatment is the best course of action. Comes back to how realistic is it then?

I would be willing to take your word for it, but would it really be such a disaster to call for nothing but the roll back of extremely punitive laws? I understand what you are saying but I'm not sure I agree with the politics.
Rob | Homepage | 03.01.07 - 12:26 am | #

I want to add...

I'm skeptical of the ability to convince the american public and the establishment that *subsidized* treatment is the best course of action, *when in fact it isn't.*
Rob | Homepage | 03.01.07 - 12:37 am | #

Don't take my word on anything I say. I was high on crack when I wrote that.
cicero | Homepage | 03.01.07 - 1:17 pm | #