Dopey Solution To A Drug Problem

1. Do you agree or disagree with the idea of providing free heroin to junkies to decrease the amount of HIV infection?

In my opinion, I disagree with providing free heroin to junkies. I think that it is an absolutely ridiculous idea. Each person has a different answer. Libby Davies's notion of providing free heroin is seen from her perspective. This is her point of view. Based on the article, she did not think about the consequences that accompany the problem. Other factors must be taken into consideration if the government is to hand out "free heroin". The magnitude of this situation can be devastating. Don't we have detox centers? Don't we have counselors? And besides, heroin does not go well with HIV. The combination of those two can throw the junkies into an even worse condition. If this happens, we won't be seeing more junkies. We'll seeing more deaths. The death rate would indefinitely increase. Lastly, it was the junkies' choice. They did it and they knew the consequences. Now, they have to pay for it. They are an example to how drugs can destroy and eventually kill you. What is your opinion?

2. The article states the "junkies cost society $300 million per year in property crime alone". Will handing out free heroin decrease the cost to society? Explain your position.

In fact, property crimes by junkies cost the society over $300 million yearly. Based on the recent study done for the government of the Netherlands, as many as 50% of the junkies were already committing offenses prior to their addiction to drugs. Even if a junkie were to get a "free shot", the need for more will drive them to dealers and they would struggle to the get the money and crime rates would still remain the same. The state that the junkie is in can also drive them to commit crimes. In fact, the cost to society will increase even highest. The influence of others and drugs itself is the cause of all of this. What do you think?

3. Should doctors be allowed to distribute free heroin? What problem could arise from this?

Doctors should not be allowed to distribute free heroin. Multiple problems will arise from this. Questions such as "would we entrust doctors to keep it in there offices", "you think break- ins are high know" will be asked. Answers to these question cannot guarantee anything. Even if the answers are right, the possibility of something bad happening is extremely high. Problems such as trust, break- ins will be high as long as doctors have the drug in their possession. They may even be attacked by junkies, or cornered by them. They may even be killed. They will be one of the highest priorities. Is this what we truly want? Can this solve our problem? Can anyone guarantee nothing will happen? It is questions like these that prevent destruction from occurring. What about you?

4. Is there an age you believe this "free dope" policy should start at? Why?

I think that this "free dope" policy shouldn't start at all. The answer to this question is already answered in the previous questions. The impact it would cause on society itself is already devastating. The greed and unsatisfiable desires of mankind it what is causing this evil to invade our society and pollute the inner world. Our work, our future is no more if this continues. This is the ultimate, the requiem. The world that we know will eventually vanish.

*5. Leo Knight asks, "How will we define who is an addict?" He fears people will just be looking for free drugs. List some suggestions to help control who receives the drugs.

One way to find out whether a person qualitifes for the "free shot" would be through a blood test. Other ways would include other tests, indentification and clarification.

6. Comment on Leo Knight's article. Is he making solid points? Do you agree with what he is saying? Do you have any input?

I fully agree with Leo Knight. To all "druggies", Leo knight is not insinuating that drug is good. What he is trying to say is that giving "free shots" would not solve the problem of drug addicts and substance abuse. He is not encouraging drug, simply the opposite of it. His rationale is right and I see no reason to oppose it. The world is on the verge of another World War III. We don't need more problems. Just like he said, should we be supplying junkies a portion of their habit? If people listened to this, crime rates, drugs, all the negatives would decrease. Read this and tell me your opinion.