The Wall

[MadMojoMonkey]

Yes it does, 4th link

:/
That link is a public service group, not a scientific, survey or data producing organization. That number has no credential backing, like the other links you post do.

Why is that the number you've chosen as your 'standard case' representative value?

That's $20 a day if you only sleep 4 hours, and do nothing else but get high.

I don't currently believe that's a reasonable long-term price for a dedicated junkie, but I only cite your other links for those numbers.
My ignorance aside...

How can you compare a small room with a prisoner and a staff of armed guards and all the services that go with a prison to a small room with a junkie in it and no armed guards for the small fee of $20 a day?

Give him a week's worth of canned food and it might last a month.

The real problem here is that it's going to amount to gov't assisted suicide in a lot of cases, which is a huge counter-argument to my proposition.

I don't know what you mean by "criminalizing the symptoms".

The disease isn't that drugs are available. The disease is a person's want for an escape from reality, to the extreme that even the cost of their physical body is an acceptable fee. The disease is a person's want for drugs, and what has driven them to that want.

This is totally nonsensical. Who the hell is going to write a prescription for recreational use of a dangerous and addictive poison?

A) If a doctor believes that's the fullest and most accurate description of any drug, then they are under oath to never prescribe that drug.
B) All prescription drugs have potentially dangerous side effects. That's why they require a prescription, right?
C) Legal, addictive substances which are called poisons by some, even doctors, are legal already w/o prescription.
D) Doctors prescribe opiates already because the drug's interaction with a human body is more complex than merely, "poison."

But presuming none of that is true, doctor's are a source of Oxycontin for those addicts.
Doctors write prescriptions for marijuana, too. That's on a different level to me, but I think it serves as a counter to the notion that some people calling a thing "addictive poison" is directly relevant to a doctor writing a prescription.

Your trolly outrage is nonsensical.

How could your suspicions ever possibly be confirmed when we've already proven definitively that the opposite is true? Vicotin, Oxycontin, and Percocet are all legal, regulated, and taxed. And yet their prevalence is a leading cause of illicit drug use.

If the illicit drugs are legal options to discuss with their doctor, then why turn to a criminal black market?

We tried it your way, and it had the opposite effect. Instead of drug users buying from 'legit' businesses, with a doctor's counsel, they are going around the system to patronize a violently enforced black market.

I'm certain you don't understand "my way" if you can assert this.

Besides, I don't even understand "my way" because I'm asking questions about what are the options on the table before we commit to one (wall) which has historically proven to be ineffective at accomplishing its goal.

Doesn't a big part of your plan require the drug users to have prescriptions for the drug? Won't a doctor require the patient to prove some kind of medical need?

If it's happening on a federal level, then I imagine prescriptions are gong to be part of the legislation. I'd not be against that. I don't want under-informed teenagers going and getting hooked on [whatever destructive behavior] over their first broken heart.

Doctors are under oath to do no harm. Presumably, that means having a reason for engaging in risky behavior. This is a working standard for prescription drugs, so it seems logical to apply it in this scenario, too.

What possible justification could a person have that would convince a doctor to give him heroin to take home and use recreationally?

It seems starkly out of your character to be asking something this naive.

People have all sorts of reasons. Addicts are reputedly quite clever at fabricating false claims to convince their doctors of their need.
Some doctors are sympathetic to certain needs, and will prescribe. The Oxycontin doctors do/did this.

Sounds like you're advocating legalizing the drug, and then regulating it's use in such a way that ensures no one will ever be able to get it legally. What's the point of that?

Again. I'm certain you don't understand my questions if you think this is what I'm asking about.