DoubleDutchy

It largely depends on drug prices who lands in which category. In Z�rich your wife probably would have got the medical diagnosis 'heavily addicted' and could have had her prescribed daily dosis injected at a medical centre to a white market price. This measure is the last resort in the canton's (=state) anti-drug program and is addressing 'hopeless cases'.
After a three years experimental phase (amidst an at first sceptical public opinion) the program was put to a referendum (that 's the way politics work around here) and got an overwhelming popular vote, for the plain and simple reason that it worked extremely well. Drug related theft and robbery went down dramatically, health conditions in the drugs scene (deathrate, HIV infections, malnutrition) also showed a drastic improvement. Even to such an extent that quite some of the 'hopeless cases' turned out not be as hopeless after all and got away completely.
(For the sake of completeness: energical repression of drug dealing was also part and parcel of the program. That is an ongoing battle) .
A couple of years ago Z�rich used to have a very bad drug problem indeed (you might remember 'Needle Park') ; nowadays it isn't really an issue anymore.

jman0904

America has plenty of visionaries, but most give up or take a look at the political situation and move to Denmark. Or keep on being activists. But until one's in office, nothin's gonna happen.

Mike S.

DoubleDutchy, what you say is interesting. I had always thought that giving addicts free or cheap drugs would more or less eliminate pushers and thus future addicts yet you say that the fight against drug dealing is an ongoing battle. Why is that do you figure? Are some people simply refusing to go to the government for drugs or is government turning people away that they do not consider serious enough cases?

Bill

Mike S.:

I will give you an answer to your question from my own perspective.

Even ignoring drug additions, and focusing on just alcohol addiction (where price has never been much of an issue), there are still people who are "hopeless cases." AA is still many times larger than any of its "cousin organizations" that focus on various sorts of illegal drug abuse.

The medical answer seems to be that some people are just born with a predisposition towards addiction (or however you wish to phrase this). Thus, there are always new "up and coming" addicts who are gradually developing into "hopeless cases." It is what to do with these folks that causes the biggest battles. (You should remember that only these "hopeless cases" qualify for state support of their drug habits; these "hopeless cases" need to be developed over time, so there is always some level of ilicit activity going on.....)

I appreciate the description of the Swiss solution. I suppose that, with a European kind of a "social safety net," nobody would go hungry, starve their kids, or do anything else too egregious if they were on this sort of a maintenance program.

However, the parallel program in the United States (methadone treatment for heroin addiction, for instance), the addicts still have to pay to get their dose; its just a cheaper payment than buying heroin would be (I went through this stage with my ex-wife too, so I'm speaking from experience here, too). An addict still needs the discipline to try to work, earn money, not get evicted from their place of abode, have food to eat, etc. etc. etc. In other words, methadone is cheaper than a heroin habit, but the overall situation isn't tremendously different for the addicts, so it isn't much of a solution after all (here in the USA, anyway).

== Bill

Loren Pechtel

Needle Park was a big mistake on their part. Putting all the problems in one basket will make for a pretty bad basket!

id.s

Does anybody care about the obvious victims here. These people know the consequences of their actions(3 strikes,you're out) but stiil are forced to steal petty items to feed habits or just to survive. Then in Amerika's inimitable fashion of blaming others for its internal problems and with the use of Draconean laws reminiscent of Jean Valjeans plight(a loaf of bread), you blame societies ills on the poor and the marginalised who are so disenchanted with the system that they admit they have a problem. Then we have moderators etal, berating and applauding the "justice" in it down to the cost incurred upon the individual, for this lesson of discipline upon all the people. The needs of the many outweigh the rights of the few, who can't even defend themselves. Some justice. This is a form of thought and mind control (marijuana laws, sexual choices, TV education) and when its your turn, You stand before that judge, who's going to care about you.
Perhaps Amerika should look to Finland for a different approach to enforcement. There they try to give the individual respect and dignity - make him feel a part of a bigger picture and he has a purpose. Perhaps your constitution has a way of not guaranteeing fairness and equality for all. Perhaps a few of your people feel less than their neighbours. Perhaps your problems are there for a reason. Remember . Obey.

jman0904

1. (off topic)
I'm a quarter Finnish, and hope to visit the country sometime. (Due to nativism and bigotry almost all of my family's Finnish heritage was wiped out)

2. The constitution does make a case for inclusion, although there are always people who either ignore it or twist it to their own agenda.

(Case in Point: 1st Amendment)
Funny how some people seem to forget. They tout what our founding fathers wrote in one sentence, and completely ignore them in another.

DoubleDutchy

It certainly was, but that is not the point of the post. We were talking about drug addicts financing their stuff systematically through 'petty crime'.
If nothing else helps we sell them their stuff at cost price and found out (surprise) that they don't rob anymore, because they don't need the money.
The American approach seems to be to lock them up for a lifetime, at a cost of some 0,5- 1.0 M$.
Our greedy taxpayers (myself included) voted for the first option and and are still happy with it.
Are US taxpayers really that different ?

Loren Pechtel

Agreed.

I was just saying that the problems with Needle Park aren't an argument against drugs.

ohwilleke

Except for a handful of states like California, most states have repeat offender laws that apply to people who have repeatedly committed three serious violent felonies.

If a guy has committed aggrevated assault (like shooting but not killing someone), rape, and armed robbery, sure, I don't think many people have a problem locking someone like that away for life. I also don't think it is inappropriate to make a sentence more severe for a repeat offender, than it is for a first time offender. But, there needs to be a sense of proportion.

Not all felonies are equally serious. In Colorado in 2002 for instance, the cutoff for felony theft was $500 (e.g. a washing machine, nice suit, nice necklace with real jewels, laptop computer, high end golf clubs, a mountain bike, thirty CDs, or a piece of furniture). So is vandalism causing at least $500 of damage. Joyriding or car theft no matter who cheap the car, is a felony. So is repeat card counting in a legal casino. So is possession of eight ounces of pot. So is using codeine, LSD or cocaine without a prescription in any amount. So is bribing someone to throw a high school basketball game. So is forgery. So is pointing an unloaded gun at someone (felony menacing) other than in self-defense. So is breaking into a vending machine or stealing something from a house, regardless of the dollar amount of the loss or the use of force involved. So is threating to disclose an affair unless you are paid money. So is causing serious injury while driving drunk in a car accident. So is forging a check in any amount.

All of these things are illegal, and while you may disagree with these things being illegal in a few cases, certainly most people know that they aren't supposed to be doing these things. But the mere fact that you've committed these crimes on multiple occassions does not justify putting you away for life. Most first offenders committing minor felonies receive some combination of probation, a fine and community service. Two years actually served in prison would be a long sentence for minor felonies, typically reserved for repeat offenders. Twenty-five or more years for non-violent minor felonies, even by repeat offenders, simply doesn't make sense, and the 8th Amendment was certainly intended to deal with disproportionate sentences, even if the Supreme Court has screwed this up.

I suspect that budget cuts, rather than mercy, may be the best hope for the people given sentences like this.