
The war on drugs has failed: doctors should lead calls for drug policy reform - randomname2
http://www.bmj.com/content/355/bmj.i6067
======
gotthemwmds
My dad recently retired after 30 years of practicing oncology and hematology
in a private practice ran with a female colleague, located in an office
building adjacent to a very large regional hospital. He also worked a
supervising shift in the ER every Thursday night, simply because he found it
easier to be in the ER since so many of his patients visited it while he was
oncall, sometimes forcing him to go in anyway.

I guess you could say I enjoy recreational drugs and have done them all and my
dad generally knows this and we've talked quite a bit about drugs,
specifically the insane amount of opiates and benzos he used to prescribe to
his cancer patients.

I've sort of gotten the impression the DEA was a hassle in his life and he
would not want any attention gained by publicly saying anything but "drugs are
bad" (aka the failed war on drugs). There would be no incentive for him to do
this on a day to day basis; in fact, there would only be disincentives, at
least in the short term.

One day in the early 00s, the DEA showed up at his practice unannounced and
wanted to start auditing him on the spot. They told him he was in the top 10
opiate prescribers in his area and they were concerned. They had absolutely no
paperwork, so my dad kicked them out of his office, and later the building via
security. He told them to come back with a warrant. They never did.

What struck me about this story is how visibly upset he got at the idea of the
DEA depriving people of comfort when they are in pain. When he told me this he
said, very emotionally, "These people are dying and in pain and they want to
look at paperwork?" I can only imagine how pissed off he was when it happened.

This anecdote is all to say I think that doctors probably take one look at any
effort to delegitimize the war on drugs and say Nope. What's the point? To
help society? Like they do every day as doctors? I just have never felt much
of a "let's rock the boat" attitude from any doctors I've known personally
regarding drug laws (keep in mind they live in a bubble where all of the drugs
are available to them via an Rx pad -- this is very relevant to the enthusiasm
drought IMO).

Based on a lifetime of being around doctors as personal and family friends (my
mom is a medical doctor too), I don't think doctors are going to pick up this
cause enthusiastically, even if it makes sense on paper.

~~~
woliveirajr
Having gone some surgery few months ago where a _miscommunication_ (let's name
it this way) from the nurses about my prescription left one day longer in the
hospital, made my cry out of pain and made me afraid of even trying to stand
up, I must say that I never understood the idea that "let's refrain giving so
much opiates to these patients who have a life-expectancy of few months
because it might get then addicted".

~~~
elcct
> of few months because it might get then addicted

And thanks to Church, some would say "because it is a sin".

~~~
cr0sh
Actually, the RCC's position would probably be something akin to "feeling pain
brings us closer to being like Jesus" or some other such nonsense.

I mean, after all, that was Mother Theresa's outlook (which is why so many
suffered under her "care" in terrible conditions - despite her organization
being extremely well funded. Mind you, though, that when it came time for her
care, flying out to receive proper medical treatment in a first-world country
was paramount).

~~~
collinmanderson
Actually, Pope Francis just organized a workshop to try to address the issue.

[http://www.catholicregister.org/faith/item/23678-drugs-a-
new...](http://www.catholicregister.org/faith/item/23678-drugs-a-new-form-of-
slavery-says-pope-at-vatican-workshop)

------
lawpoop
This call seems problematic.

Doctors suffer from a kind of bias-- not sure the name of it-- but they only
see people when they have problems. The only time doctors encounter the human
experience of LSD, magic mushrooms, etc. is when something has gone wrong.

Unless the doctor has spent a lot of time at music festivals, burning man,
etc. they

Sure, alcohol is a very dangerous drug, and causes all kinds of ill health,
chronic conditions, emergency room visits, accidents, etc. But, because most
doctors have had a typical experience with alcohol, from trying it as a
teenager, binge drinking at college, and now social/casual drinking, they
think it's safe, because they've had lots of experiences that didn't end with
someone going to the hospital.

I'm not sure what the best route is for this, but asking doctors to take lead
on this doesn't seem like an effective campaign.

~~~
themgt
By the same token, doctors are better equipped to understand (to the extent we
can) the neurochemical reactions being caused by drugs and how they act on the
brain. I would imagine a doctor who e.g. understands how many anti-depressants
work by targeting the serotonin system would find it interesting the way many
psychedelics also are serotonergic - people are basically just dumping
analogues of their own neurotransmitters into their brain.

Similarly, look at the relationships chemically between sumatriptan (used to
treat cluster headaches), psilocybin and DMT. Or the opioids, stimulants ...
substances like coca and kratom that have been used for hundreds or thousands
of years and analogues of which are used in medical settings all the time.

The argument that these are crazy, dangerous substances with zero legitimate
medical value pretty instantly falls apart to anyone who understands how
closely related nearly all of these substances are to pharma drugs widely
understood to have legitimate medical value.

I'd in fact be interested to hear which "drugs" have the least relation to any
recognized western medicine. Salvia divinorum?

~~~
skissane
> By the same token, doctors are better equipped to understand (to the extent
> we can) the neurochemical reactions being caused by drugs and how they act
> on the brain.

I'm not sure how true that is. The amount of knowledge of (bio)chemistry
required by most doctors in their day-to-day work is actually quite limited. A
few years out of medical school, and many of them have already forgotten most
of what they were taught in medical school, and the medical school curriculum
really only gives a high-level overview of the topic.

I'm not a doctor, but my mother and brother are. My mother despite being a
doctor will admit her chemistry knowledge is quite limited, but to be fair to
her she doesn't need to know much chemistry at all to do her job–you don't
need any detailed knowledge of biochemistry to prescribe an antidepressant or
perform a caesarian section. My brother by contrast knows a lot about
chemistry, but that's not due to medical school, that's due to majoring in
chemistry as an undergrad.

------
anngrant
From my own experience, doctors are the biggest drug fiends on the planet. But
it definitely depends on the type of a doctor. When it comes to buying drugs,
almost all of them are available via [http://www.rx-
discountcoupons.com/pharmacies/pharm-store-com...](http://www.rx-
discountcoupons.com/pharmacies/pharm-store-com/) without prescription.

------
yomly
Our laws on drugs are really quite arbitrary. In the UK people have factual
evidence showing that drugs such as MDMA causes both less physiological and
social harm than alcohol[0] so it's not really that we are trying to prevent
harm rather than can't prohibit a behaviour that is now deeply ingrained in
society.

Humans love intoxication. It's as old as time, with mountain people chewing
coca leaves or brewing mescaline tea. Even in cultures where alcohol is banned
such as the middle east, they simply found alternatives like coffee and
tobacco.

[0][https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/...](https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/29/nutt-
drugs-policy-reform-call)

~~~
yomly
Where do you even draw the line? Once you appreciate that everything is a
"chemical" does binge-eating sugary foods count as intoxication? It's
excessive by its definition and is harmful to the body and society. Should we
start cracking down on "donut junkies"?

What about activities which release dopamine like gambling and videogames?

The treatment of the law on drugs is outdated and mainly political / social
now more than it is actually in the interests of society. Don't take my word
for it, here is an ex undercover policeman who turned his back on the fight
against drugs[0] and HN discussion[1]

[0]
[https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2...](https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/26/neil-
woods-undercover-cop-who-abandoned-the-war-on-drugs)

[1][https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12365667](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12365667)

~~~
int_19h
Any sort of rational approach would start with legalizing use, and possession
in amounts that are clearly intended for personal consumption, of _any_ drug,
excepting those that have immediate effects that are highly likely to be
harmful to those in the vicinity (e.g. drugs that consistently induce violent
hallucinations).

We can discuss transfer, sale and other forms of distribution on a case by
case basis, depending on how harmful the drug in question is. And we can say
that possession of significant quantities, clearly beyond personal
consumption, should be considered evidence of intent to distribute (although
it should really be rebuttable - i.e. the person should get a chance to
present counter-evidence to prove that there was no intent to distribute, and
the judge or jury should decide on the balance of probabilities).

But there's no rational reason whatsoever to punish consumption of anything.

------
haberman
And yet Jeff Sessions, Trump's nominee for Attorney General, is one of the
most notorious anti-drug (particularly anti-pot) politicians around:
[http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2016/1122/As-Trump-s-
AG...](http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2016/1122/As-Trump-s-AG-how-might-
Sessions-crack-down-on-recreational-marijuana)

~~~
lamontcg
Yep, good luck with that for the next 4 years.

I'd wager a guess Trump snorted his share of blow in the 1980s, but
congressional republicans and the private prison industry are going to be
calling the shots on the drug war for the next 4 years.

~~~
reddytowns
Private prisons are being phased out: [http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-
canada-37124183](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37124183)

~~~
Broken_Hippo
Only at the federal level, which is a much smaller portion of the prisons in
the us. From the first thing I found, there are more people simply sitting in
a jail waiting for trial than there are in federal prisons [1].

Which is an issue considering the lobbying the businesses do [2] - they are
very much invested in keeping their businesses going and keeping folks in
jail.

[1]
[https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie.html](https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie.html)
[2][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prison#Lobbying](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prison#Lobbying)

------
mvindahl
We don't need doctors to point out that the War on Drugs is bound to perpetual
failure. Don't even need a scholar. Anyone with two eyes wired to a working
brain would reach the same conclusion. That being said, the more people speak
up, the closer draws the day where we may transition drug policy into a saner
state.

It's all rooted in good intentions, of course, as was the US ban on alcohol a
century ago. But sometimes the road to mafias and murderous drug cartels is
paved with good intentions. Time to wake up.

~~~
ImTalking
For those who started and perpetuated the WoD, it's been a resounding success.

------
disordinary
The alcohol and tobacco lobbyists will be dead set against the removal of
prohibition. Although alcohol and other drugs tend to go together when
binging, the amount of alcohol consumed will likely be less. Additionally a
mild drug like Marijuana will likely be preferred by some people who would
traditionally have a glass of wine or beer every day after work instead of a
stronger and more dangerous drug like Alcohol.

~~~
GunboatDiplomat
That seems doubtful. The glass of wine or beer is, firstly, more palatable
than marijuana, secondly, you can do it indoors without everything smelling
like weed, and thirdly, the mild depressant effect of one alcoholic beverage
is way more pleasant than getting high. Not to mention the cost.

~~~
iamatworknow
>The glass of wine or beer is, firstly, more palatable than marijuana,

Your personal opinion.

>secondly, you can do it indoors without everything smelling like weed,

Vaporizers diminish the smell to a point where it's almost unnoticeable, and
edibles don't smell at all.

>thirdly, the mild depressant effect of one alcoholic beverage is way more
pleasant than getting high

Again, your personal opinion.

>Not to mention the cost.

"The average price per gram, they found, was $6.81; the average joint was
$3.50."

[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/15/science/how-much-weed-
is-i...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/15/science/how-much-weed-is-in-a-
joint-pot-experts-have-a-new-estimate.html)

I think for most people an entire joint by themselves is going to take care of
them for the entire night (or longer if it's snuffed out and re-lit). How many
beers or mixed drinks are you getting for $3.50?

------
rdtsc
Private Prisons (through their lobbyists) are likely one of the main opposers
of loosening the War on Drugs. We don't know clearly what they lobby for -
they would never admit it publicly, but it is not hard to guess. Stopping the
War on Drugs would be a cut to their profit margins.

Snopes dissected this a bit: [http://www.snopes.com/drug-law-lobbying-by-
corrections-corpo...](http://www.snopes.com/drug-law-lobbying-by-corrections-
corporation-of-america/)

~~~
brighton36
Bitcoiners too, it should be noted.

------
droopyEyelids
Couldn't read the article, but I think the issue is that doctors aren't
_directly_ more qualified to call for drug policy reform than anyone else.

Hear me out: Doctors are aware of the side effects and dangers of drugs, and
the harm they cause people who take enough drugs to require medical help.

However, a doctor isn't specifically informed about the cost of prison, the
damage imprisoning someone does to their families, and their communities, and
their prospects for rehabilitation.

Drug policy reform calls for a comparison of the impact of softening drug law
against the social impact of imprisoning the people we enforce drug laws on.

There just isn't a profession with credible authority in that specific area.
It's sort of like what a public policy think tank should make a recommendation
based on. But I don't think any corporate interests align with the message
enough to fund that sort of research/lobbying.

~~~
FullMtlAlcoholc
From the abstract:

>>But the effectiveness of prohibition laws, colloquially known as the “war on
drugs,” must be judged on outcomes. And too often the war on drugs plays out
as a war on the millions of people who use drugs, and disproportionately on
people who are poor or from ethnic minorities and on women.

>There just isn't a profession with credible authority in that specific area.
It's sort of like what a public policy think tank should make a recommendation
based on. But I don't think any corporate interests align with the message
enough to fund that sort of research/lobbying.

You don't need a particular profession to label the war on drugs an abject
failure. Just examine the results. The war on drugs has not made one dent in
the demand or the supply. It has led to ever more potent drugs with lower
prices and profits going to violent criminals. It's a joke

~~~
loeg
> The war on drugs has not made one dent in the demand or the supply.

While I am also opposed to the war on drugs, let's not make overbroad claims.
There is evidence that alcohol prohibition actually reduced demand. Not 100%,
but significantly. From Wikipedia:

> The Prohibition was effective in reducing per-capita consumption, and
> consumption remained lower for a quarter-century after Prohibition had been
> repealed.[34]

34:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470475/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470475/)

From that article:

> Nevertheless, once Prohibition became the law of the land, many citizens
> decided to obey it. Referendum results in the immediate post-Volstead period
> showed widespread support, and the Supreme Court quickly fended off
> challenges to the new law. Death rates from cirrhosis and alcoholism,
> alcoholic psychosis hospital admissions, and drunkenness arrests all
> declined steeply during the latter years of the 1910s, when both the
> cultural and the legal climate were increasingly inhospitable to drink, and
> in the early years after National Prohibition went into effect. They rose
> after that, but generally did not reach the peaks recorded during the period
> 1900 to 1915. After Repeal, when tax data permit better-founded consumption
> estimates than we have for the Prohibition Era, per capita annual
> consumption stood at 1.2 US gallons (4.5 liters), less than half the level
> of the pre-Prohibition period.32

32\. Miron Jeffrey A. and Jeffrey Zwiebel, “Alcohol Consumption During
Prohibition,” American Economic Review 81 (1991): 242–247; Dills and Miron,
“Alcohol Prohibition and Cirrhosis”; NIAAA, “Apparent per Capita Ethanol
Consumption.” The figure is for 1935.

~~~
pstuart
Perhaps it reduced demand, but at what cost?

The part where people were freaked out because the government intentionally
poisoned alcohol for distribution?

If you want to be honest about this discussion, you have to go back to the
question of "what is the legitimacy of this action"?

~~~
loeg
I am not arguing that the benefits of prohibition outweighed the costs.

------
jayajay
It's amazing that we just still live in a system where the people who
methodically know nothing about something can end up controlling the majority
share.

------
ImTalking
The war on drugs was never about health, but was about racism. One poster
talked of Chasing the Scream which details this. So the idea that doctors
should be advocates for the ending of the WoD just continues the false
rationalisation that health is at the heart of the WoD. I can ask 1 question
which will show that health has nothing to do with it: why is hemp illegal?

What is at the heart of ending the WoD is human rights; a topic which doctors
have no more knowledge than anyone else.

~~~
apatters
This comment strikes me as an example of race reductionism that does more harm
than good. The war on drugs unquestionably has a racist component and racism
contributed to its origins, but it's not solely an issue of race and affects
more than just minorities. Thinking of it being as "about racism" makes
collaboration with natural allies more difficult.

In this case those natural allies include the white working class, which
suffers greatly from drug addiction, as well as doctors and other health care
workers who value the integrity of their profession and believe drug policy
should be focused on improving outcomes for drug users.

Social action in America has fundamentally always been about compromise. Race,
class and gender reductionism discourage it. It's both possible and productive
to say you empathize with the problems someone else faces, your set of
problems overlaps, and the two of you can cooperate without debating whose
problems are more significant.

~~~
trhway
somebody noted recently that when crack epidemics was ravaging black
neighborhoods it was considered an issue of crime and WoD was unleashed
against those neighborhoods, when today heroin and prescription drugs abuse
hit white suburbs - it is a public health issue.

I for one is happy that it is started to be treated as public health issue, it
is a long overdue approach, yet one can't not to see the race based disparity
mentioned above.

------
dfsegoat
We (the US) are in the middle of an opioid addiction epidemic. The surgeon
general has just made this his highest priority - and physicians are now
expected to take a soft stance on drug use? While I am all for reform - there
seems to be a major disconnect here.

~~~
Nursie
Firstly, the epidemic of opioid prescription and addiction is not as profound
in all parts of the world. The BMJ is international but UK based and the
authors of this piece seem to be British.

Secondly, how in the hell id the position "The war on drugs has failed, we
need policies that promote harm reduction and ethics over failed punitive
actions" taking a soft stance?

That's part of the whole reason we fail so hard and keep failing, that people
have this weird idea that actually tackling the problem is 'soft' and
presumably continuing to beat our collective heads against the wall, despite a
continuing lack of it acheiving anything, is what? Tough? Hard?

It's fucking stupid is what it is...

~~~
dfsegoat
I've published letters in The BMJ so I am familiar with the audience, which is
worldwide - particularly the letters / editorials.

I don't disagree in any way that policy reform is badly needed and the war on
drugs has failed: My point was more that the messaging seems to be very
conflicted these days for physicians in the United State. To me - as a layman
- there appears to be no "middle ground" for both policy reform and bringing
the opioid addiction under wraps. That is the disparity I am trying to point
out and what I find to be conflicting / frustrating.

If there is a middle ground I'd love to hear it.

~~~
Nursie
I'm afraid I'm really not sure I see a conflict between "we need a new
approach on drugs, the war has failed to reduce harm" and "we are causing harm
with our prescription policies and should probably stop handing out hardcore
opiates like candy"

Unless you are subject to the sort of black and white thinking that means any
change in policy necessarily means a completely open market for all drugs,
that is.

Many middle ways are possible - legalise and regulate access to less harmful
drugs like cannabis (as is happening in much of the US), and offer maintenance
and treatment to addicts of more harmful and addictive substances without
criminalising them. Not a scenario that requires giving out oxys by the
fistful.

------
karmelapple
Chasing the Scream is a fantastic book on this very topic. Highly recommended.

------
OliverJones
This pub is f/k/a the British Medical Journal. They're addressing a worldwide
audience of physicians and health-care professionals. It seems a bit
narrowminded to interpret their suggestions in a US-only context.

There's plenty of evidence supporting the position of this editorial. Various
nations have tried some form of decriminalization. The effects have been
generally positive in places like Portugal, Switzerland, and the Netherlands.

It may be time for some of these nations to propose, and sign off on, an
alternative to the 1951 anti-drug treaty.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_Drugs)
Maybe physicians can lead the way in some nations.

But, of course, if drug users are the face of sentient evil, then
decriminalizing the drugs is the same as failing to resist evil. This is why
selling the idea in the US is very difficult. We've been taught for
generations that drug users are inherently evil, and treating them is, at
best, a waste of time.

US physicians have enough trouble with the federal government as it is. The US
government has a century-long history of making the professional lives of
dissenting physicians very difficult indeed. It's unreasonable to expect many
of them to embrace this cause with public speech.

Here in Massachusetts USA, the voters recently chose to end the prohibition on
cannabis (following the lead of Colorado and Washington state). The Roman
Catholic church (Boston diocese) chose to compel their clergy to speak against
this initiative from their pulpits on the Sunday before election. (Huh! I
thought electioneering from the pulpit was prohibited. I guess not for the
RCs.) I know a couple of law-enforcement leaders who privately supported the
end of prohibition, but didn't dare speak publicly.

The end of prohibition has to come from voters in the US. Physicians can't do
it: the government can revoke their licenses. Legislatures can't do it;
they're much too beholden to the military-industrial complex that fights the
war on drugs. Religious leaders can't do it: to declare that certain behaviors
aren't evil erodes their worldly authority, which comes mostly from the
ability to condemn "those" people, whoever they are.

It will take a generation, or more.

~~~
TTPrograms
It's reassuring that policy can change due to voter interest in spite of the
resistance of career politicians - it demonstrates that American democracy has
yet to fail absolutely.

Perhaps the focus of people interested in new policies should be directed at
state reform rather than federal? Ballot propositions seem to have been rather
effective recently, and they encourage the education of constituents rather
than the few legislators currently in power who may have conflicts of
interest.

Then nationwide reform no longer has the excuse of "that wouldn't work in
America!", and people impacted significantly at least have the option of
moving to those states (i.e. MA and CA for gay marriage a few years ago).

~~~
OliverJones
> state reform rather than federal?

Yes, for sure. Here in MA we did pioneer state support for marriage equality,
and we also pioneered individual-mandate health insurance (now known as
Obamacare).

------
highprofit
There are enormous industries around WoD and we know what happens when
unintended industries form in a capitalist society.

------
pgnas
HAHA! Doctors? they are the reason for the failure. Doctors were directly
responsible for the overdose and death of my wife. The epidemic of drug abuse
which starts by over the counter addiction is perpetuated by DOCTORS.

Citizens need to lead for calls of drug policy reform. We are the masters of
our destiny, The problems surrounding drug abuse directly affect US, the
people who live in our communities. Start going to your local city council
meetings and take a stand, voice your opinion. This isnt going to be solved by
Doctors! The majority of Doctors are direct beneficiaries to this abuse. I am
not saying EVERY doctor is bad, I am saying that they are part of a business
and drugs are a high margin product.

~~~
beedogs
My cousin nearly lost her home and everything she had due to an opioid
painkiller addiction -- from drugs she was prescribed by a doctor after major
surgery. This has become a silent epidemic, and a gigantic one, and it's
ruining lives more and more every day.

My condolences on your loss. I wish there were an easy way to put an end to
this horrific and needless suffering, but I fear things will only get worse
before they get any better.

~~~
HarryHirsch
This is weird reasoning, you don't wake up one morning and are suddenly
addicted to opioids, all involuntary and without your doing. Becoming so
addicted to the drug of your choice that you can't quit is a process, and it
requires a conspicuous absence of introspection, if not conscious choice.

I'm saying this because I have seen close relatives turn into alcoholics. The
mental illness/disease angle doesn't do the addiction dynamics justice, and
you know that when you have seen other relatives develop genuine mental
illness. There's a difference between drinking too much for several evenings
in a row without a real reason and not getting worried about it the following
morning and losing touch with reality due to developing schizophrenia.

There are living conditions that make it understandable why someone would like
to _choose_ not to be sober but leaving personal responsibility out of the
picture, saying it's the doctors fault or it's all in your genes, is
infantilizing.

~~~
beedogs
Jesus. What the hell was even the point of your comment?

~~~
HarryHirsch
If your cousin lost his home over an opioid addiction sustained over opioids
prescribed after major surgery, _where they are actually indicated_ the
prescribing physician and the class of drugs are far down on the list of
things to blame. At least in my world, they are.

There are psychological and social factors in addiction, and you can't just
ignore these and solely hold physicians and pharmcos responsible for the
opioid epidemic. The "addiction is a disease" model encourages this thinking -
a drug addiction is acquired through contact with the abused drug and cured by
detox, and it neglects to ask what factors predispose individuals to become
victims of addiction. You can't forget that people live on Earth, which is a
horrible place at times.

------
rosege
Here's a great speech on the topic that I recommend to anyone interested
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nsu_4zsfp2M&index=3&list=PLK...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nsu_4zsfp2M&index=3&list=PLKKWbWvkO0GAGTVufsIQcg-
CA7PfA4dq6)

------
zanethomas
Where did the government get the authority to tell adults which drugs they can
take?

------
squozzer
I think doctors are too tightly bound to the status quo to take the kinds of
professional risk by speaking out against any law, no matter how heinous.

------
meira
Has it really failed to all parties envolved? In a war, if only one side
profit from it, it may not be a failure.

------
jmspring
Ok, end the war on drugs. Force the ACLU and legislatures to enact laws
allowing for forcing adults into mandatory detox and/or mental/rehab programs
based on their drug use.

Live in a liberal area sometime and experience the excuses and lack of action
around heroin addicts and meth heads and their criminal activities for the
next fix or based off their current hit...

Or the long term mental effects.

~~~
Johnny555
_Live in a liberal area sometime and experience the excuses and lack of action
around heroin addicts and meth heads and their criminal activities for the
next fix or based off their current hit..._

Don't those same problems exist in conservative areas too? I grew up in a
small town in a pretty conservative state and I saw many more serious drug
problems up close there than I ever see now in a mid-sized city in a very
liberal state.

~~~
jmspring
My point, didn't make it clear enough, if you point out issues like tracking
needles (county exchange or pharmacy -- done through county ordering such),
requesting enforcement of laws, etc. you end up being lectured that the
city/county embraces best practices...

Question mental issues -- nothing we can do.

