CRACKTOWN AND HEROINVILLE

[Hamlet]

I was going to throw the term "A Modest Proposal" in the title, but that would be too cliche.

My question is, why don't we have specific parts of the county where any drug addicts can go and get their drugs for free from the Government. They could be like the brothels in Nevada, places where you can go where you can commit acts that would normally be legal. Legalize drugs in CRACKTOWN, HEROINVILLE, LSDLAND, EXTASYCITY. Let any addicts go there to live and enjoy the use of their drugs of choice.

That way, drugs would be legalized, but soceity costs would be lower.

Just wondering.

[pldennison]

Um, if the drugs are being provided "free from the Government," how exactly are the costs to society lower? If the government is providing them, suddenly we're all paying for them, through taxes. Or are they going to magically conjure these drugs from an alternate dimension?

Legalize them and let people pay for their own goddamned drugs, IMO.

[UncleBeer]

I'm gonna move this thread to Grerat Debates even tho the concept is pretty lame. And let me know when Aleadelphia or Beerburgh is founded would ya?

[andros]

Which government?

Which drugs?

And, as Phil asked, why should I buy drugs for addicts?

[hansel]

Originally posted by andros
And, as Phil asked, why should I buy drugs for addicts?


For the same reason that you pay for a street sweeper for the city: it keeps the sidewalks clean.

Seriously: you pay tax dollars for a stadium you don't use, swimming pools in which you've never gotten wet, parks in which you've never walked, benches on which you've never sat, and sculpture you've never liked. When you think of it as a quality of life issue, it's not such a stretch.

Plus, once those areas got saturated and really, really awful, you'd have a great argument against trying drugs in the first place.

[SuaSponte]

This isn't utterly absurd, except perhaps for the government paying for the drugs. In Holland, they have set up areas where the government will not arrest heroin users, and provide clean needles.

I don't think it's worked out well, but maybe the concept can be re-worked.

Sua

[hansel]

Originally posted by SuaSponte
I don't think it's worked out well, but maybe the concept can be re-worked.

Why make it work? Let it happen, and get as degrading as it possibly can. Then an equalization can occur: those who will do the drugs and live that wretched lifestyle will be segregated and getting what's important to them, while serving as a much better example of how bad drug addiction can be than Nancy Reagan or William Bennett. Were this modest proposal to be carried out, I suspect that such safe areas wouldn't be that large at all. Smaller, probably, if federal and state services, like water, electricity, and police were withdrawn.

Let's have a Devil's Island of sorts so that those who'll go there will go, and leave everyone else alone.

[Mercutio]

I don't think the OP meant that the government should shower these people with free drugs. I think he meant that the government should sell the drugs to them.

If manufactured in large numbers, clean drugs wouldn't cost too much for make and the addicts would be willing to pay any price, anyway.

[Homer]

Think of it this way: A pack of smokes is 2/3 of an ounce, and costs ~$.5 to produce. They are sold, on average, for $2-$3. A pack of marijuana, 2/3 of an ounce, could be made for the same or less than tobacco. Yet people would willingly pay $20-$30 for 2/3 of an ounce of high grade, legal, marijuana. That's pennies less than $20-$30 in pure tax profit for each pack.

Why, oh why, don't we do it? Tobacco is more addictive and worse for you! But... tobacco has lobbyists and money. Marijuana has neither.

In a post to my mandatory military service thread that somehow got deleted or wasn't posted (nevermind it took me like 2 hours to compose) I related a story of a bailiff that had this selfsame "idea", only in his version, any drug user that left the designated drug-use area with drugs would be executed on site. :shrug: Oh well... I guess we're getting there, slow as it may be.

--Tim

[andros]

hansel:

Seriously: you pay tax dollars for a stadium you don't use, swimming pools in which you've never gotten wet, parks in which you've never walked, benches on which you've never sat, and sculpture you've never liked. When you think of it as a quality of life issue, it's not such a stretch.

None of those things require me to pay addicts to further their addictions.

Mercutio:

I don't think the OP meant that the government should shower these people with free drugs. I think he meant that the government should sell the drugs to them.

Not by my reading. "where any drug addicts can go and get their drugs for free from the Government"

Maybe I misunderstood that.

[hansel]

Originally posted by andros

None of those things require me to pay addicts to further their addictions.


A consideration that is irrelevant in quality-of-life arguments; you're paying simply to satisfy NIMBY. True, it's noxious to outright support an addict's habit, but if we're going to play "A Modest Proposal: The Board Game", let's do it right.

[Hamlet]

As eloquently described above, the drugs the government could produce would be extremely cheap. I think the societal gains, economic and intangible, would easily offset what little expenditures the government would have to make. Heck, they can run it as a need-based financial aid. The poor who cannot afford to buy their drugs, would have them provided by the government. This expenditure by the government would be more than offset by the decrease in crime, property values in parts of any city, and loss of worktime. Those who have money, can buy them, with their price also helping offset the costs to those who are poor.

The costs would be more than recouped by the government. If you have a problem with your tax money being used to supply drugs to people, think of what you are gaining when those people are not breaking into your homes, are not committing crimes, and are not a huge drain on your insurance.

[RickJay]

Originally posted by andros
hansel:

Seriously: you pay tax dollars for a stadium you don't use, swimming pools in which you've never gotten wet, parks in which you've never walked, benches on which you've never sat, and sculpture you've never liked. When you think of it as a quality of life issue, it's not such a stretch.

None of those things require me to pay addicts to further their addictions.

How is paying for NFL fans to watch their team in a tax-funded stadium, or paying some smelly jerk to sculpt "I Hate NAFTA In Tin Cans And Popsicle Sticks #147," any different from paying people to go somewhere else to do drugs? Either way you're paying your tax dollars for people to engage in pursuits of dubious social value.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by andros
I don't think the OP meant that the government should shower these people with free drugs. I think he meant that the government should sell the drugs to them.

Not by my reading. "where any drug addicts can go and get their drugs for free from the Government"

Maybe I misunderstood that.


Whoops, I seriously did not see that. My mistake. Please just ignore my past statement.

[Badtz Maru]

Originally posted by Homer
Think of it this way: A pack of smokes is 2/3 of an ounce, and costs ~$.5 to produce. They are sold, on average, for $2-$3. A pack of marijuana, 2/3 of an ounce, could be made for the same or less than tobacco. Yet people would willingly pay $20-$30 for 2/3 of an ounce of high grade, legal, marijuana. That's pennies less than $20-$30 in pure tax profit for each pack.


Reading this thread I was thinking 'Yeah, but a lot of drug users would choose to stay where drugs were illegal but obtainable and you didn't have to worry about crackheads constantly trying to steal your stuff' - but if they are selling high quality pot that cheap there, I may have to change my mind!

[hansel]

Originally posted by Badtz Maru
'Yeah, but a lot of drug users would choose to stay where drugs were illegal but obtainable and you didn't have to worry about crackheads constantly trying to steal your stuff'

The answer to this, of course, is that anyone caught outside the zones doing drugs is tossed in a paddy wagon and dropped off in the center of the zone. Then Richard Dawson hosts a real-life version of "The Running Man".

[TwistofFate]

The concept has already been done in Switzerland. There was one park where people could go and take heroin. They could not be arrested in this park.


When people begtan to O.D., and lying in the park dead for several days, They concluded it wasn't such a great idea after all.

[Kaje]

I don't think the government would be making these drugs so much as companies... I remember reading that tobacco companies have contingency plans to produce marijuana cigarettes if its ever made legal.. and it wouldn't be much of a stretch for a pharmaceutical company that's already making fentanyl or even just oxy/hydrocodone to start producing recreational heroin... I mean hell the stuff they're producing already is being used as such (http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/07/19/Delaney.debrief.otsc/index.html)

I truly think this world would be a better place if every alcoholic smoked pot instead.


Originally posted by TwistofFate
The concept has already been done in Switzerland. There was one park where people could go and take heroin. They could not be arrested in this park.

When people begtan to O.D., and lying in the park dead for several days, They concluded it wasn't such a great idea after all.

I thought that was the Netherlands, where they still have a very real legalistic "gray area" when it comes to this

[andros]

RickJay:

How is paying for NFL fans to watch their team in a tax-funded stadium, or paying some smelly jerk to sculpt "I Hate NAFTA In Tin Cans And Popsicle Sticks #147," any different from paying people to go somewhere else to do drugs? Either way you're paying your tax dollars for people to engage in pursuits of dubious social value.

Yes, but in paying for a stadium or the NEA, I am not helping kill people.

[Grim_Beaker]

Aside from people lying dead in a park for a number of days I see another potential problem.

Is a new problem created when the people of Cracktown start having children? Now we have children living in Cracktown being taught (either implicity through example, or explicity "Here son! Light'er up!") that doing drugs is a great way of life. I think it's pretty obvious that kid's living in Cracktown will have a much higher exposure to these kinds of substances and therefore a much higher use rate then the average American teen. Am I overlooking something?

Grim

[elucidator]

Not at all, Grim, you are just focusing on one of the less immediate aspects of a pretty nutty idea. This idea gibbers and sticks bananas in its ears. This is a bad idea.

Lets bring back Prohibition. Thats a better idea. The amount of human carnage and wasted resources as a result of alcohol in our society is staggering (snicker...chortle.) By what interpretation are any of these drugs, or for that matter, all of them combined, any worse for our society than plain ol' popskull.

Of course, thats a dumb idea. Its still better.

And what about those of us, like myself, who are in an ongoing glaucoma prevention regimen? Gonna shove all the potheads on an island? Which one? Australia's pretty much full, and they might resent it. You'll put those nice folks over at Ben and Jerry's right out of business.

You know, this idea is so dumb its hard to make fun of.

[hansel]

Originally posted by Grim_Beaker
Am I overlooking something?


You're missing the fact that we're not talking about red light districts here: we're talking about specially created drug ghettos, where anyone who wants free drugs can go and burn themselves up.

I suppose there would be pregnancies, but I suspect the infant mortality rate would be exceptionally high.

[Kaje]

Originally posted by hansel
I suppose there would be pregnancies, but I suspect the infant mortality rate would be exceptionally high.

eek

and I still say the government should force alcoholics to smoke pot

[erislover]

Hmm, Cracktown. I could go for XTCLand. I would surely reside in LSDville.

For the record, it would take pharmaceutical companies about two seconds to produce all illegal drugs which can be synthesized. This would include, but no be limited to, LSD, DMT, Ecstacy, MDA, Meth, Mescaline, and PCP. All the precursors necessary, and ALL of the equipment, is already lying around in labs. I have little doubt that "broken" equipment and missing materials are funneled into basement operations.

Companies like Sigma already manufacture such drugs, and thus the turnover time would be zero.

Let it be resolved, then, that the machinery for such a plan already exists. As well, it is pretty apparent that many a city block exists in the state we are hypothesizing. They also happen to be high-crime areas because of two reasons. One, the drugs and their manufacture and sale are already illegal. Two, the addict stealing to support his/her habit.

I believe in the market and the government behind it enough that given appropriate regulations the economics of selling drugs would make it viable, and would remove much of the crime associated with murders between "territorial disputes" and selling bad shit.

The only real problem that faces us, IMO, are the following: ODing, and debilitating addiction. Are we saying that these aren't surmountable?

I suppose we should add the following problem in as well: getting the land in the first place.

[Homer]

Originally posted by Badtz Maru
Originally posted by Homer
Think of it this way: A pack of smokes is 2/3 of an ounce, and costs ~$.5 to produce. They are sold, on average, for $2-$3. A pack of marijuana, 2/3 of an ounce, could be made for the same or less than tobacco. Yet people would willingly pay $20-$30 for 2/3 of an ounce of high grade, legal, marijuana. That's pennies less than $20-$30 in pure tax profit for each pack.


Reading this thread I was thinking 'Yeah, but a lot of drug users would choose to stay where drugs were illegal but obtainable and you didn't have to worry about crackheads constantly trying to steal your stuff' - but if they are selling high quality pot that cheap there, I may have to change my mind!

Well, while drug ghettos may be the way to go in the intermediary until society can adjust to the fact that this ignored, despised coalition of "druggies and harlots" are in fact their sons, daughters, cousins, sisters, brothers, mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles, friends, nephews, nieces, neighbors and coworkers, I still believe that while tobacco and alcohol are (relatively) successfully regulated and sold, so should marijuana be. I, for one, would smoke probably about a half a pack on Friday and Saturday, and maybe a single stick every other day during the week. That's, what, $40-$60 a week that can be remaindered on my paycheck in income taxes, only to be reharvested in marijuana taxes. Less income taxes to bitch about, people who don't like it don't have to do it, and don't have to pay it, and the Government still gets their monies. That's a plan I could agree with.

Alternatively, we could tax marijuana use like I said, but leave income taxes, and apply the full amount of the marijuana taxes to maintaining and supplying the "drug ghettos". Make marijuana pay-for-play, as it would definately be the most popular, and let the received taxes pay for the rest of the "playground". That way marijuana users help support their "brothers in crime" while remaining free and clear... am I making sense?

--Tim

[TwistofFate]

Heroin is still illegal in the Nederlands, it isnt the same situation as Pot.

The park was in Geneva. Rather than have junkies walking the streets, the let them all go and sit in a park. :rolleyes

[2nd Law]

Originally posted by Homer
Tobacco is more addictive and worse for you!

(than marijuana, that is)

Does anyone have any cites for these premises?

While I have heard that tobacco is very addictive, I seem to have also heard that smoking marijuana can be very bad for one's lungs.

[Kaje]

I searched for info on the harmfulness of marijuana and tobacco and found the following page:
http://www.drugscience.org/Petition/C2B.htm

However, this hardly answers the question. It seems to contain small portions of about 30 different studies, and they all produce different results (but they aren't all measuring the exact same thing). Here are some highlights:


"A significantly larger proportion of smokers of marijuana and/or tobacco than nonsmokers reported chronic cough, chronic sputum production, more than 1 episode of acute lower respiratory tract illness within the past 3 years (increased cough and sputum lasting more than 3 wk), and wheezing. No significant differences were found when prevalence of these respiratory symptoms was compared across the 3 smoking groups: smokers of marijuana alone, tobacco alone, and marijuana plus tobacco. Breathlessness was reported by relatively few subjects and was similar in frequency across the 4 subject groups, with 1 exception: tobacco smokers reported a higher prevalence of shortness of breath than did marijuana smokers."
...
"In addition, heavy, habitual smoking of marijuana, whether alone or with tobacco, has an adverse effect on large airway function, but marijuana use alone, unlike regular tobacco smoking, has no demonstrable impact on small airways function or on diffusing capacity."
...
"It is also noteworthy that most tobacco cigarettes currently in use are filter-tipped and have a relatively low tar content, but marijuana cigarettes do not contain filters and generate about twice as much tar as tobacco per unit of weight, assuming a similar smoking profile. Furthermore, the techniques for smoking marijuana and tobacco differ substantially: on the average, with marijuana the inhalation, or "puff," volume is about two-thirds larger, the depth of smoke inhalation about 40% greater, and breath holding about four times longer than those characteristics of tobacco smoking. These differences in filtration and smoking technique can result in about a fourfold greater amount of tar delivered to and retained in the lungs from the smoking of marijuana than from a comparable amount of tobacco, thus potentially amplifying the harmful effects of marijuana on the lungs."

there's a lot more where that came from. So at least from that it would seem that marijuana is not MORE harmful than tobacco. And of course this doesn't answer the "cancer question." I did also find this:
http://www.ukcia.org/lib/lungs.htm
which is entitled "Marijuana Less Harmful to Lungs than Cigarettes" though I didn't read this one as it made it quite clear what its conclusion was.

[Lucifer12]

Jesus, what are you John Carpenter?
It sounds like 'Escape From New York'. Cracktown-ha!

Seriously, what would the difference be between the OP's proposal and what we have now? There are already plenty of drug ghettos in this country. All we'd have to do is legalize it, and we'd have some more sin tax revenues. What could possibly go wrong?

Also, the whole proposal kind of smacks of concentration camps. What's next - Gayville? Catholic City? Jewtown?