4 ms·

Drugs cost actual resources to produce. Giving them away for free will distort the market towards more consumption than ideal. And unlike e.g. healthcare or edu

Drugs cost actual resources to produce. Giving them away for free will distort the market towards more consumption than ideal. And unlike e.g. healthcare or education, it's not like we can morally justify that overconsumption. Taxpayers shouldn't be paying to get/keep people addicted to drugs.

avidiax 2y ago
We are all already paying a high price for street drugs. The addicts are not paying out of their pockets, but instead are stealing things and extracting a fraction of the value. Then we pay for emergency medical care when the street drugs have terrible quality. Pharmaceutical quality opioids and amphetamines are definitely cheaper when you factor in the externalities of street drugs. The low price also allows lower consumption, counterintuitively. Taper the supply, and if the dealers return, increase supply until they are out of business. Hard to be an addict when the government tapers you and drives the street dealers out of business if they try to supply again.
rightbyte 2y ago
You can ranson the drugs. There are plenty of methadone programs around the world. But ye it should be regarded as some sort of damage control and not like 'free libraries and subways for everyone'-policy.
vidarh 2y ago
Last I checked, based on the UK NHS actual supply costs for heroin, a typical users daily consumption would cost.the NHS ca. $12. That is not nothing, but it's low enough that while you don't want to turn everyone into addicts, it far cheaper for society to give it away for free to existing addicts than it is to deal with the effects on both addicts and society of an unclean, uncontrolled supply (heroin addicts, counter to public perception, can largely - not always, much like alcoholics -function, hold down jobs, pay taxes etc. as long as they have a reliable, clean supply and don't have to desperately chase money to find their next high) So don't give it away for free, sure, but make it available to anyone who is addicted. Taxpayers are already paying for many forms of addiction, through policing, violence and robbery/theft, healthcare, prisons.
- eru 2y ago
  > Last I checked, based on the UK NHS actual supply costs for heroin, a typical users daily consumption would cost.the NHS ca. $12. That is not nothing, but it's low enough that while you don't want to turn everyone into addicts, it far cheaper for society to give it away for free to existing addicts than it is to deal with the effects on both addicts and society of an unclean, uncontrolled supply (heroin addicts, counter to public perception, can largely - not always, much like alcoholics -function, hold down jobs, pay taxes etc. as long as they have a reliable, clean supply and don't have to desperately chase money to find their next high) I don't get your argument at all. Why not charge the addicts the 12 dollars?
  - vidarh 2y ago
    The NHS as it is has a schedule of payment for prescription drugs that is applied for everything - including heroin - if prescribed, to ensure they are available to everyone that needs them. If you're below certain income threshold you get it all for free. Above that you pay fixed fees. Currently that is ca $12 for a single prescription (irrespective of amount prescribed, which is typically regulated), ca $40 for unlimited prescriptions for 3 months, ca. $143 for unlimited prescriptions for 12 months. So if you were to follow the same schedule as normal, in the UK that'd mean $0 or $143 per year. But the argument for making it available potentially for free to addicts irrespective of income thresholds especially for the most serious drugs is ensuring there's no barrier to a stable, secure supply triggering the very behaviors you want to prevent. A heroin addict is not going to be able to hold down a job if they find themselves unable to afford their next dose because they have a serious addiction that will compulsively drive them to try every desperate method to find money to satisfy that addiction. The societal cost of even a single mugging etc. is going to far exceed the cost of ensuring they have a stable supply.
    - eru 2y ago
      I'm all for giving poor people money.

avidiax 2y ago

We are all already paying a high price for street drugs. The addicts are not paying out of their pockets, but instead are stealing things and extracting a fraction of the value. Then we pay for emergency medical care when the street drugs have terrible quality. Pharmaceutical quality opioids and amphetamines are definitely cheaper when you factor in the externalities of street drugs. The low price also allows lower consumption, counterintuitively. Taper the supply, and if the dealers return, increase supply until they are out of business. Hard to be an addict when the government tapers you and drives the street dealers out of business if they try to supply again.

rightbyte 2y ago

You can ranson the drugs. There are plenty of methadone programs around the world. But ye it should be regarded as some sort of damage control and not like 'free libraries and subways for everyone'-policy.

vidarh 2y ago

Last I checked, based on the UK NHS actual supply costs for heroin, a typical users daily consumption would cost.the NHS ca. $12. That is not nothing, but it's low enough that while you don't want to turn everyone into addicts, it far cheaper for society to give it away for free to existing addicts than it is to deal with the effects on both addicts and society of an unclean, uncontrolled supply (heroin addicts, counter to public perception, can largely - not always, much like alcoholics -function, hold down jobs, pay taxes etc. as long as they have a reliable, clean supply and don't have to desperately chase money to find their next high) So don't give it away for free, sure, but make it available to anyone who is addicted. Taxpayers are already paying for many forms of addiction, through policing, violence and robbery/theft, healthcare, prisons.

eru 2y ago
> Last I checked, based on the UK NHS actual supply costs for heroin, a typical users daily consumption would cost.the NHS ca. $12. That is not nothing, but it's low enough that while you don't want to turn everyone into addicts, it far cheaper for society to give it away for free to existing addicts than it is to deal with the effects on both addicts and society of an unclean, uncontrolled supply (heroin addicts, counter to public perception, can largely - not always, much like alcoholics -function, hold down jobs, pay taxes etc. as long as they have a reliable, clean supply and don't have to desperately chase money to find their next high) I don't get your argument at all. Why not charge the addicts the 12 dollars?
- vidarh 2y ago
  The NHS as it is has a schedule of payment for prescription drugs that is applied for everything - including heroin - if prescribed, to ensure they are available to everyone that needs them. If you're below certain income threshold you get it all for free. Above that you pay fixed fees. Currently that is ca $12 for a single prescription (irrespective of amount prescribed, which is typically regulated), ca $40 for unlimited prescriptions for 3 months, ca. $143 for unlimited prescriptions for 12 months. So if you were to follow the same schedule as normal, in the UK that'd mean $0 or $143 per year. But the argument for making it available potentially for free to addicts irrespective of income thresholds especially for the most serious drugs is ensuring there's no barrier to a stable, secure supply triggering the very behaviors you want to prevent. A heroin addict is not going to be able to hold down a job if they find themselves unable to afford their next dose because they have a serious addiction that will compulsively drive them to try every desperate method to find money to satisfy that addiction. The societal cost of even a single mugging etc. is going to far exceed the cost of ensuring they have a stable supply.
  - eru 2y ago
    I'm all for giving poor people money.