War on Drugs, if demand rather than supply focused?

[Admiral Beez]

In June 1971, Nixon officially declared a "War on Drugs," stating that drug abuse was "public enemy number one." This ignited a huge public policy and government expenditure across the USA, Canada and much of the Western world on addressing the supply of drugs, putting tens of thousands into prisons and causing huge political interference in Latin America (and elsewhere) contributing to the migrant crisis of today.

But what if Canada, instead of following the US example of supply side management, had instead focused on addressing the demand for drugs, dealing with and reducing the reasons people procure and use drugs?

Why Do People Use Drugs? | Canadian Center for Addictions

Want to know why people use drugs? Take a look at our guide and learn everything you need to know about drug addiction, what can cause it, and how to get help.

canadiancentreforaddictions.org

This would presumably require government policy and expenditure on the the mental health, homelessness, medical/physical, emotional, cultural, abusive, purposelessness, despairing, and familial issues that drive someone to seek oblivion through drugs over reality.

How would Canada be different today? And can we realistically tack to a course to address the above? Does Canada have a chance to address the drug epidemic through focusing on the demand side? This sounds hugely expensive.

 

[DreamyCloud]

I agree with you that the war on drugs should focus more on demand than supply. It makes sense to help people who use drugs instead of punishing them or trying to stop the supply, like what happened in the Philippines under the previous administration . But the problem is, how do we pay for all the programs and services that would be needed to reduce demand? It would cost a lot of money .

 

[Northern Light]

I agree with you that the war on drugs should focus more on demand than supply. It makes sense to help people who use drugs instead of punishing them or trying to stop the supply, like what happened in the Philippines under the previous administration . But the problem is, how do we pay for all the programs and services that would be needed to reduce demand? It would cost a lot of money .

Police, Courts, Jails; Paramedics, Hospitals, homeless shelters are all very expensive; and a lot of resources going into 'managing' the impacts of addiction rather than preventing or properly treating it.

Ultimately, there's a fair bit of money tied up in the above that can be redirected; but there is always an overlap period; one in which new costs arrive before the old ones go away.

We can't drive addiction to zero, laudable though that may be.

But we can reduce its severity and negative externalities.

Its an open question as to which portions you tackle.

For instance, fentanyl addiction, began w/the over prescription of opioids largely to treat real pain people experience day to day in their lives due to injury, disease or old age.

Pain killers will be necessary some times, even when other treatment options exist, as asking someone to do physiotherapy while in agony doesn't really work.

But there are better ways to address a lot of that pain. Proper funding of quality physiotherapy, inpatient, outpatient and in-home is one such thing.

A lot can be made easier simply by doing, but it requires encouragement and facilitation particularly early on.

****

Some addiction is the result of mental health issues/depression/stress.

That's far too complex to address in one post here; but generally, we need both to address concrete issues where we can (acute poverty being an obvious one); but also we do need access to better mental health treatment.

Something else we require is an understanding that for a lot of people, what makes depression unbearable is lonliness, while the state can't provide you a friend or a lover........or at least I hope not; we can look at where barriers to building social connections exist.

What if someone can't afford a class or a hobby where they might get to meet other people naturally? Could we 'prescribe' Spanish class at the Community Centre and have OHIP eat the $150 fee.

That, of course, could open the system to gaming, and healthcare can't be asked to pay for everything; but if $150 over 3 months gets someone out of the house and able to see their life more optimistically, maybe that's a way cheaper investment than some of the above.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Again, Washington is focused on limiting supply rather than demand.

China Will Crack Down on Fentanyl Sent to the US. Worse Drugs Could Fill the Vacuum.

The U.S. already pressured China to ban fentanyl once. Supply grew exponentially afterwards.

www.vice.com

 

[micheal_can]

If we fixed the reason someone uses a drug, legal or not, it would make that industry vanish. Most addictions are connected to mental health. Resolve that and you would fight the demand side.

 

[DreamyCloud]

The issue with this reasoning is that there is no single reason why someone uses drugs - mental health is just one of many reasons. Fixing mental health will not fix the other reasons. More importantly, the way to fix them should be through legal means.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The issue with this reasoning is that there is no single reason why someone uses drugs - mental health is just one of many reasons. Fixing mental health will not fix the other reasons. More importantly, the way to fix them should be through legal means.

Recreational stoners aside, people take hard drugs like opioids to escape trauma and despair. Addiction is a mental and physical illness, even if the first hit wasn’t.

 

[micheal_can]

The issue with this reasoning is that there is no single reason why someone uses drugs - mental health is just one of many reasons. Fixing mental health will not fix the other reasons. More importantly, the way to fix them should be through legal means.

So, should we not fix the mental health?
We are learning that poor mental health leads to so many issues in our society. True,it is not the only reasons people use drugs, but just like fixing all the other problems, fixing the problems with mental health will do more than trying to lower the supply at reducing usage.

 

[DreamyCloud]

So, should we not fix the mental health?
We are learning that poor mental health leads to so many issues in our society. True,it is not the only reasons people use drugs, but just like fixing all the other problems, fixing the problems with mental health will do more than trying to lower the supply at reducing usage.

Yes, I agree we should fix mental health. Fixing it will also solve some other issues in our society. This will not totally erase drug use, but it can be reduced immensely.

 

[micheal_can]

Yes, I agree we should fix mental health. Fixing it will also solve some other issues in our society. This will not totally erase drug use, but it can be reduced immensely.

There is a long list of other societal problems that mental health creates. This includes homelessness and many crimes.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Yes, I agree we should fix mental health. Fixing it will also solve some other issues in our society. This will not totally erase drug use, but it can be reduced immensely.

What I'd like to see is a constitutional amendment adding a Right to Housing to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Ensuring that every Canadian citizen, PR and convention refugee has access to housing would go a long way to addressing mental illness. Basically, if you cannot afford a home, you are assigned one. If you're mentally ill that you cannot independently live alone, you are assigned a supportive housing unit.

The National Right to Housing Network

A national network dedicated to the progressive realization of the right to housing in Canada, and its meaningful implementation.

housingrights.ca

https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1206&context=jlsp

This sounds expensive, but is it? On the high side, there are 300,000 homeless people in Canada. If we spent $50k on each one to create permanent housing or to provide the supports they need through a GIS, that's $15 billion in the first year, likely $8-10 billion annually after that, shared between the Feds and Provinces. Of course $50k is not building a condo unit, but together it can a long way to solving the issue. Considering that Canada has the 10th largest GDP in the world at $2 trillion, and that we're already spending billions on law enforcement, healthcare, emergency shelters, etc, let's instead get these people housed. That alone will help reduce the demand side of the war on drugs.