3 ms·

It's an extremely difficult problem because you end up with drug addicts either way and those people aren't productive. I would consider myself a proponent of

• JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > you end up with drug addicts either way If you end up with addicts either way and taxes only one, that seems to imply an obvious better choice?
  • donmcronald 2y ago
    On the surface, yeah. I didn't explain very well, but what I meant is that you end up with drug addicts either way and you'd want to figure out which solution costs the least overall. If it were possible to calculate, it would be easy to decide which solution is best. My opinion is that things feel like they've gotten worse in Canada as we've softened drug enforcement. It's a feeling, not a fact because I can't factor out all things that cause an increase in drug use, so it's hard to say if we've seen things get worse because of softer policing or in spite of it. Every single person I know that works in a related field tells me that stuff like safe injection sites and soft on drugs policies have had a negative collateral effect on homelessness, the need for medical services, the need for police, etc.. That makes me hesitant to buy into the idea that making access to drugs easier will improve things.