Quote:It almost sounds as if you are saying addiction will remain flat and the government can save money by not prosecuting and housing for drug offenses. Is this correct? Addiction is a developed disease and escalates over time. Why would you want to add to one of the major risk factors (availability) and think addiction would remain flat and not increase? Not only can the increased availability increase addiction, the fact that it becomes more plentiful can increase overdoses. Believe it or not, there is a monetary value attached to these, such as healthcare.  While you state addiction hasn't increased, that also requires reporting through a physician. I'm pretty sure that is not fact either. Doesn't seem logical if prescription and non-prescription overdoses and death have skyrocketed.

 

https://www.bjs.gov/content/dcf/duc.cfm

 

https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics...statistics

 

What I'm saying is that even with an increased focus on lowering availability, addiction rates have remained flat. Yes, numbers are bound to be off because of a lack of reporting, but wouldn't addicts be more likely to seek help with legalization? Wouldn't that be a good thing?

 

I understand that there's a monetary value on addicts. I'm not advocating for taking away the rehabilitation portion of the current "drug war" budget. I'm saying that the enforcement portion can be taken away and a portion of the tax revenue can also go to rehabilitation. Not only that, but with regulation batch strengths remain more constant and that's where the majority of overdoses originate.

 

At the core of this argument, I believe people have the right to make decisions about their bodies. You want to abuse drugs and develop a dependency? You pre paid for your rehab with each purchase.

---