The Brits sold/brought opium to China, and helped tank the country. Estimates of the percentage of chinese addicted are staggering, some as high as half the population. Their economy collapsed- and this from a non toxic chemical addiction. (no neurological damage- until OD!!) When the Chinese 'Lords'/government said no more, Britain went to war with them. China lost.
It amazing how values change. You can't judge Britain, or Rome, for that matter, by today's standards. Anymore than you could the US now for slavery.
Some of you may think I'm a bleeding heart on addicts. This is my plan:
Take suitable candidates to the Munk Desert Compound. The compound is made from cinderblocks, cement, rocks, etc. There is no air conditioning but like adobe the interior is livable in the summer. The compound is located so far out into the Mohave or Great Basin desert, that without proper materials or supplies one could not make it back to Civilization. There are locations still like that today. The compound is supplied with food, water, and various chemicals. Clients can take as much as they like, however, no medical is available. Once a month a truck pulls up with new recruits, hauls away bodies, and sometimes, rarely, accepts a returnee, a individual who has become sober.
No provision is made for protection from poisenious snakes, etc. Clients are responsible for their own survival. Naturally, this means the people selected are so involved with anti societal acts, crimes, and behavior they no longer have the option of saying no. The 'release' form is a given.
It might be good to build another center for volunteers. I think there would be many volunteers. The volunteer centers may even turn a profit, and strike up all over the arid west.
These compounds would be less costly than a lifetime of incarceration in jail, and cull the herd of those going out anyway. A legal and philosophical argument on the highest order can be made that this method is not only humane, but allows them the same dignity they treated themselves to in life in their deaths. Like James Agee once said, we pick the method of our destruction.
We would save a ton of money.
My belief on self destruction is that we should set our chickens free.
Take our knocks, and plan on losing X amount of every generation.
Perhaps addiction would rise with decriminalization of certain drugs, but a tighter, healthier society might also rise.
Drugs would lose their hidden, dark romance, the prestige. Instead, a mother might matter of factly tell her daughter that if she continues to use drugs, she will have to accept a life of menial labor.
At any rate, I shouldn't have to face an armed punk, and his buddies breaking into my home for goods. I will shoot, but that's not the point. I don't want to pay 30 thou a year for each punk to sit in jail, either. I'd rather break the cartels and let them gorge on relatively inexpensive taxed goods.
When I first went to AA, there was a snobery about drug addicts. There was a belief they were worse off, more non human, and could not come back quite as much. The same belief was prevalent in the mental health field. And we'd see it, too, on the Ward; enough meth or heroin or dust and something seemed to leave the person for good. But a drunk could climb back out. It really seemed to be so. It doesn't matter anymore, though, because the mental health model today reflects the reality of the newer generations; poly substance abuse. No more elites.
There probably is no good answer. I'm sure either way- the way it is now, or with decriminalization, we are going to suffer. There is an illusion of an simple great answer. We do that to ourselves.
I do know if you walked into an AA meeting, and announced you had a wonderful idea, 'lets make this all illegal so we won't be tempted anymore," you'd be laughed out of the door.
I've had my own relaspes, and am reminded by Bob a lifetime of being intoxicated is a very boring, lonely way to die. Thank you, Bob.
munk