State Managing Drug Usage
Diatribe over at his blog Personal Responsibility posts an article about the city of San Francisco setting up facilities to enable drug usage. An anonymous poster writes:
Interesting to observe the newly ignited uproar about the safe drug injection center: interesting, puzzling, and in case of diatribe’s heightened upsetness even amusing. I didn’t expect you to reflect on this issue in a way other than you reflected, thereby ignoring that those places have PROVEN to significantly reduce the death counts among drug addicts, to improve the reachability of the drug addicts for treatment programs, to reduce addiction-related infections, ETC. The list of benefits of this program is definitely longer than its disadvantages (and, as it seems, the only disadvantage you think of is the potential danger that those centers have on YOU and your safety - so purely personal objections). I’m not pulling these facts out of my head - the sucessful practice of drug injection centers is widelely known in Norway, the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland.
If you ask me the problem here is that the state is condoning drug usage. A Rather contradictory position given it has explicitly forbidden drug usage through laws forbidding trafficking and possession. Oddly, this serves as a good example of the problem of localizing power to the city level. Here we have a city blatantly violating the spirit of the federal laws primarily because the local population has naïve views about drug users and quixotic view about intrinsic human dignity. Personally I find no problem with a local city using power this way, but someone like Darwin could use this example to show how federal entities are necessary to insure federal laws are not violated by local governments.
One of the disincentives of drug usage is the profound ostracization one receives when doing hard core drugs. These facilitates begin the process of removing the extreme stigma associated with drug usage. It sends the message that the state is willing to tolerate heavy drug usage. I prefer no institute be it private or public to reduce this cost simply for the sake of ‘saving lives’. Particularly, the lives of those happily willing to throw them away on drugs. Besides reduction in cost will likely lead to increased drug users.
There is another problem with this kind of attitude. By creating facilitates to enable drug usage the state is taking the position that drug usage is something that must be managed and not something to be eliminated. While I would agree that drug usage can never be eliminated, I’m not so sure I want the state to behave in this fashion. If the state is going to address the drug problem, which I would prefer it refrain from, then I would want it to work towards eliminating it instead of managing it. I would much rather have tax money spent on reducing drug usage than maintaining an acceptable amount of drug users that partly on my dime, indulge in drug usage in perpetuity.
Furthermore, by having the state manage drug usage the rhetoric about drug usage changes from being about a choice to being about determination. One manages things they have no control over while they attempt to overcome those things they think they can control. By treating the drug usage as something that should be managed you take away one’s choice in doing drugs. However, I want the responsibility of doing drugs to be placed squarely on the user. In private conversation I would happily accept the notion that some drugs are so addictive that choice is unrealistic, but when dealing with actual drug users the issue should always be framed as a matter of choice. State managing chronic drug usage implies that the responsibility of drug usage is no longer in the hands of the user.
At the end of the day, I don’t find attenuating the extreme ostracization society brings down on users is justified by ‘saving the lives’ of some drug users. One of the costs to doing drugs is an increased chance of death. Its one of the reasons I don’t do drugs. I’m not really into reducing this cost simply for the sake of saving lives of those that choose to throw their life away on drugs. If you want to reduce death by drug usage use state resources to reduce drug usage rather than manage it.
October 23rd, 2007 at 11:32 am
I could be wrong, but I believe the comment that speaks to the benefits of such programs is suggesting that these programs REDUCE actuall drug use. If true, isn’t that what you are calling for? Overall reduction in drug use?
October 23rd, 2007 at 12:18 pm
a) wow, what an INTERESTING topic you selected (seriously)….
b) elsewhere, Darwin talked about a “pragmatic solution” - which the concept of a drug injection center is indeed. It is once again fascinating, how you manage to dissolve this pragmatic idea (and its succesful stats) into a nebulous building of abstract/theoretical counter-arguments, which I am not willing to respond to. Obviously, doing something “simply for the sake of saving lives” does not suffice your concept of state involvement - I mean “simply for the sake of saving lives” is really too easy and too practical of a thing to do for you - there has to be some real BIG motivation behind a government action, like for example establishing democracies, or fighting members of inferior cultures (or better, fighting inferior cultures ENTIRELY). Yes, saving lives of some rotten drug addicts is just too ordinary and dirty PLUS those jerks have chosen to do drugs. Too bad.
c) however, I do acknowledge what you are trying to point out here: “Here we have a city blatantly violating the spirit of the federal laws”. The INCB has the same objections that you have, and indeed, having policemen actively ignoring the illegal act of possessing drugs has to be mandated by someone and somewhere. Here in Germany, we have something called the order of “active ignoring”, which all policemen have to act accordingly, meaning, if they pass a drug injection center, they MUST “look away”. After all, drug consumtion in itself is not considered a crime here - it’s considered a voluntary act of self-harm (possession IS a crime, though). I know, I know, I know - I KNOW WHAT YOU’RE GOING TO SAY TO THAT, but, again, the reality at times gives a shit about principles of government involvment, self-choice, big government, small government, tax money. AFTER ALL, it is “only for the sake of saving lives”….something, which you consider to be too simple of an idea….
October 23rd, 2007 at 12:27 pm
P.S. Thanks for not mentioning that benefit of a drug injection center, which I consider to be the most positive aspect of it - namely improving the accessibility for drug users to therapy programs. Well, this is turn also will “save lives” (what a minor motivation), but for my naive and quixotic soul (as you call it) it is the best part of that entire concept of those centers.
October 24th, 2007 at 4:38 am
“pragmatic idea (and its succesful stats)”
Would you provide a link to those stats? I admit to being fairly ignorant in regard to this subject, and would like to see the numbers for myself.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:50 am
http://www.konsumraum.de/dta/pdf/springer.pdf
great study containing international comparisons, great legal part, good supportive data.
You have the choice of either trusting me on the “stats”part here, or take some German classes and read them yourself. I’m trying to look for more readable data for you guys.
October 25th, 2007 at 11:01 am
taken from here: http://www.vch.ca/sis/research.htm
Results include:
Insite is leading to increased uptake into detoxification programs and addiction treatment. (New England Journal of Medicine)
Insite has not led to an increase in drug-related crime, rates of arrest for drug trafficking, assaults and robbery were similar after the facility’s opening, and rates of vehicle break-ins/theft declined significantly. (Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy)
Insite has reduced the number of people injecting in public and the amount of injection-related litter in the downtown eastside. (Canadian Medical Association Journal)
Insite is attracting the highest-risk users – those more likely to be vulnerable to HIV infection and overdose, and who were contributing to problems of public drug use and unsafe syringe disposal. (American Journal of Preventive Medicine)
Insite has reduced overall rates of needle sharing in the community, and among those who used the supervised injection site for some, most or all of their injections, 70% were less likely to report syringe sharing. (The Lancet)
Nearly one-third of Insite users received information relating to safer injecting practices. Those who received help injecting from fellow injection drug users on the streets were more than twice as likely to have received safer injecting education at Insite. (The International Journal of Drug Policy)
Insite is not increasing rates of relapse among former drug users, nor is it a negative influence on those seeking to stop drug use. (British Medical Journal)
October 25th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Stop trying to fool everyone with data. It’s a wasted effort around here. Afterall, we all know that opinions (if they are our own) are always more important that facts.
October 26th, 2007 at 1:45 am
lol… if they are our AND represent the absolute truth…
October 26th, 2007 at 8:43 am
“Insite has not led to an increase in drug-related crime, rates of arrest for drug trafficking, assaults and robbery were similar after the facility’s opening, and rates of vehicle break-ins/theft declined significantly”
So there has not been an increase - but that also means there has not been a decrease (so who cares). What has decreased is vehicle break ins - (that cannot be attributed to anything else?)
Thank god needle sharing has decreased though - phew. I dont care if they share needles and get other diseases - their drug addicts who are not helping society - Have a nice day.
October 26th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Facts are opinions. They are just more strongly constrained.