- Feb 4, 2006
- 46,773
- 10,981
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Several Dem candidates have suggested involuntary confinement for drug addicts, insisting that addiction is a disease and not a crime. I agree and believe that the sooner we provide facilities and staff the better. However, others object to the confinement part and opt for outpatient treatment, which of course would be a colossal and expensive failure.
The greatest benefit of long-term hospitalization is it's affect on the drug trade itself as,
Hard-core addicts are the biggest users of drugs.
They are provided drugs by drug gangs.
These drug gangs are the primary distribution link for the cartels.
Therefore the weakest link in the drug trade is the addicts. Remove them and the whole drug enterprise is weakened.
Hard-core addicts are also responsible for all sorts of crimes, from petty theft to murder, often needing hundreds of dollars per day to satisfy their drug habit. Removing one addict from the street for a year deprives the drug trade of $30-$60,000 in revenue, according to some sources.
As enforcement costs decline more money can be used for rehabilitation.
Thoughts?
The greatest benefit of long-term hospitalization is it's affect on the drug trade itself as,
Hard-core addicts are the biggest users of drugs.
They are provided drugs by drug gangs.
These drug gangs are the primary distribution link for the cartels.
Therefore the weakest link in the drug trade is the addicts. Remove them and the whole drug enterprise is weakened.
Hard-core addicts are also responsible for all sorts of crimes, from petty theft to murder, often needing hundreds of dollars per day to satisfy their drug habit. Removing one addict from the street for a year deprives the drug trade of $30-$60,000 in revenue, according to some sources.
As enforcement costs decline more money can be used for rehabilitation.
Thoughts?
Last edited: