Legalization and decriminalization are two different things. I am all for decriminalizing. From a personal viewpoint, I don’t think drugs should be legalized.
And as far as the legal administration etc., that already exists in SF and it has had a poor track record of helping people.
Decriminalizing drugs doesn’t fix the supply problem, which makes drug use such a budensome expense that there are all kinds of knock on effects (theft, poverty, etc). Someone commented on how rich people don’t see drug use, but sure they do. Aside from the fact that most everyone here is pretty rich and complaining about addicts, I come from an upper middle class suburb with a ton of addicts. Lots of people I went to school with died of overdosed. But it’s not immediately visible because people’s families reluctantly take them in, they generally have enough money for drugs, etc.
Not arguing for outright legalization—while I once did, I now think it’s naive. And I’m not sure we could pull off a Portugal style system in the US. But descriminalizariam doesn’t seem to be working that well.
> Therefore, treatment should be much more easily be available and it should be much easier to have an intervention.
If drugs become burdensome enough that you have to commit crimes to feed your habit, then maybe the society should be able to intervene and help? If I have a drinking problem that I need to steal money for, the solution shouldn’t be cheaper alcohol, but a way for me to stop drinking. Same applies for drugs. Part of the reason why families support (reluctantly) drug habits is because getting help is often not easy or cheap.
And as far as the legal administration etc., that already exists in SF and it has had a poor track record of helping people.