[ItisaReligionofPeace]

I understand what you are saying. However, you seem to be living in a world of theory and are not thinking about reality.

The government already spends billions trying to deal with drugs, so apparently the government (i.e. the people) thinks that what addicts do affects others. Do you not agree?

My point is simply that the government could spend a lot less money and still have the same result. BTW, your message is clear to me the first time. For some reason the meaning of your first two cryptic messages of "that's not what you really mean, is it" weren't clear enough for my drug riddled brain (you effing idiot).

[gogeo]

Really...you're suggesting a model never tried before, dismantling the current system...and you think I'M living in a world of theory and not reality?

I grew up around addicts, including my parents(you effing idiot). Why don't you tell me what facts, education or experience you bring to the table? Better yet...why don't you explain your insights into human nature, then tie that into why, in your opinion, criminilization misses the mark...and how a medical model interacts with said human nature?

You've said that the criminilization model is flawed; that's no great achievement, inasmuch as any process involving humans is flawed. You've also said that medicalizing the issue will address some of those flaws, which is true. Cost, however, is not one of them. If we can't afford what we're doing now, how will we be able to afford exponentially more? That's what it will cost, you know. Treatment per addict will increase past the point it costs to keep an inmate, and the number of addicts seeking treatment will skyrocket.

I've heard it said time and again that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You seem to be illustrating that...applying simple theory to complex problems.