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?
I disagree with the idea of providing free heroin to junkies to decrease the amount of HIV because most of the junkies are irresponsible and they make the wrong decisions. That is the reason why they started taking risks in the first place. Vancouver government should force the junkies to quit drugs in an addiction center. Doing this will decrease the cost of buying drugs and the crime in Vancouver. The government should state a law forbidding drugs except for medical use. All drug addicts would then have to quit and the community would be a safer place to stay in. The Vancouver Police stated that junkies already cost the society over 300 million dollars per year in the property of crime alone already. If 300 million dollars are saved each year, this money can be put into other good use.
2. The article states that "junkies cost society $300 million per year in property crime alone". Will handing out free heroin decrease the cost to society? Explain your position.
Handing out free heroin will not decrease the cost to society since junkies already cost society $300 million per year in property crime alone. This is because some junkies spent $500-1000 a day on drugs. Providing free heroin to junkies would add a lot to the daily tax citizens pay. Junkies would use the free drug the "safe-house" provides to lower their money daily spent on drugs. The cost of the drugs handed out will increase tax by 10 dollars per day for each citizen. Many citizens would be extremely mad due to the increased tax. It is not fair for the community to use the money citizens pay to help these junkies. The government is asking money from the citizens whether the citizens agree or disagree with the "safe-house" to provide money for the junkies. Drug addicts from all over Canada will come to Vancouver due to the heroin the "safe-house" provide. Increasing the amount of crime in Vancouver as well. The junkies will cost more than 300 million dollars per year in the property of crime alone in the future.
3. Should doctors be allow to distribute free heroin? What problems could arise from this?
Doctors should not be allowed to distribute free heroin because it is dangerous for the doctors to be around junkies. The doctors will not have protection from the junkies when the junkies decide to break in to the "safe-house " to take more drugs. Also, doctors would not know who to give these drugs to. There could be junkies who are twelve years old to junkies who are 30 years old and over. Would the doctors be nice enough to provide drugs for a twelve year old child? If the doctors decide that they would not give drugs to a certain junky, then the other junkies would stand up for that one junky and threaten the doctors until the doctors provide drugs to everybody. However, if free heroin has to be distributed, doctors are the appropriate people to hand the heroin out because they are experts in medical related areas. The doctors should have a body check up on whoever who receives free drugs. Furthermore, there should be police around to protect the doctors.
4. Is there an age you believe this "free dope" policy should start at? Why?
I believe this "free dope" policy should start at the age of 25 because kids and teenagers under 25 should still be in school. If the policy allows children 25 and under to receive free drugs, then many students would drop out of school. This is because they know that the "safe-house" would always have a spot for them. Children at the age of 25 and under are likely to be beginners in taking drugs. Knowing the "safe-house" would provide free drugs, students who had never had drugs before would be encouraged to try. Therefore, increasing the amount of junkies in Vancouver and making the community a more dangerous place to live in.
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.
The doctors from the "safe-house" should do tests on the junkies to make sure that they are addicts before giving free drugs out. The doctors should also check the junkies' body before letting them go. That way, the government will have a record of the people who received drugs from the "safe-house". Doing this will also prevent junkies from taking more than one dope per day. The doctors should check the junkies' arms and legs for needle holes.
6. Comment of Leo Knight's article. Is he making solid points? Do you agree with what he is saying? Do you have any input?
In Leo Knight's article, he is making solid points. He has many important facts within his writing. I strongly agree with what he is saying because the "safe-house" the government created concerns for everybody in the community due to the increased tax of 10 dollars a day. I definately disagree to the idea that the "safe-house" is a good idea to reduce the amount of HIV infection and crime. In my opinion, I believe the government should invertigate this matter thoroughly to consider bringing down the "safe-house".