what evidence do you have that it will create more addicts?
a governments job is to enforce laws and ensure the well-being of it's citizens. the war on drugs is terrible policy thats harmed way more people than actual drug-addicts. tens of thousands of people are victimized by drug-addicts in one way or another everyday. costing people time, money and their mental health dealing with crimes committed by drug-addicts. we have the data going back decades that a lot of addicts become criminals to feed their addiction. the government can stop that by providing the drugs for free and providing services to help them quit using drugs as well.
I don't work in this field so I don't have any proof. I'm no expert on addiction.
But I am a voter. And as a voter there are many issues of government and policy which I don't have the expertise to understand. So what do I do? I form an opinion as best I can based on common sense. It might not be backed by research and weight of evidence. But for a voter in an election, that will do. It's good enough.
Let me tell you where my common sense judgement comes from, it's from knowing a little bit about the recent history of tobacco and alcohol regulation. In most countries it's now illegal to advertise tobacco products in any way shape or form. Alcohol advertising is also severely limited in most countries.
Nicotine is an addictive substance. The research shows, I believe, that it is up there alongside heroin for how easy it is for a user to get hooked on it. It is a fair product to compare with heroin.
Now in the past tobacco companies used to advertise heavily, even having campaigns directed at children. Some of the older Coli posters have written about it. They have written on this forum about how menthol cigarette brands used to drive around African-American neighbourhoods handing out their cigarettes for free, so as to expand their customer base. Older Coli posters have also written that cigarettes were given out on a promotional basis in the US Army, again with the purpose of creating a new customer base. Product giveaways of tobacco had just one purpose, to increase the sales of cigarettes and increase the profits of tobacco companies.
In more recent years that has all been made illegal and tobacco companies can no longer do product giveaways or even advertise in any media form. Together with aggressive public health anti-smoking campaigns, and sustained tax hikes on cigarette sales jacking up the price, smokers have been incentivised to quit and younger people are taking up cigarettes at historically low rates.
So my common sense tells me that legalising a product takes the criminal element out of it, which is fantastic, that's ideal. But at the same time, hiding it and making it hard to access and impossible to see advertising for is what solves the public health aspect of the problem. So, I want heroin to be sold in stores only, at nosebleeding prices. The cost of it will incentivise people who have never tried it before to not buy it. The absence of free giveaways and absence of all marketing and advertising will make it impossible for heroin companies to create a new generation of customers.
My common sense as a voter tells me to back a plan where drugs will be legalised but regulated just as tightly if not more tightly than tobacco and alcohol are. That means under no circumstances are there to be any product giveaways.
