Vermont Quits War on Drugs to Treat Heroin Abuse as Health Issue

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-08-21/vermont-quits-war-on-drugs-to-treat-heroin-abuse-as-health-issue

by benblodgett • 12 years ago

479 143 12 years ago

omegaworks• 12 years ago

Representative Thomas Burditt: “As everybody knows, the war on drugs is lost, pretty much. It’s time to go down a new road.”

There is a sane Republican! Hurrah!

kynikos• 12 years ago

As a resident and commnications director/volunteer for a couple of campaigns, I've learned a Republican in Vermont is almost always like a Democrat in any other state.

johnchristopher2• 12 years ago

Living in Europe, never having set a foot in the US, I take the bait: what is a Democrat like in Vermont then ?

baddox• 12 years ago

Are Democrats more likely to oppose the war on drugs?

refurb• 12 years ago

You need to get out more!

par• 12 years ago

What a wonderful world it will be when we help our sick instead of imprison them. I am looking forward to the rest of the world following suit. I'd also like to add this is a great time for US democracy to shine, as it is through statehood that things like this can be tested on a small scale, before rolling out to 'prod'.

martinald• 12 years ago

I'm not an American but I'm equally as happy to hear this as one.

I'd like to argue as a Brit that we did treat these people as sick until Nixon's "war on drugs" made UN policies that the rest of the world had to treat them as criminals.

johnchristopher2• 12 years ago

Is this sarcasm ? Because the rest of the world http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/evaluating-drug-d... is not waiting for the US the show the way and, Russia being the exception, the prison industry isn't as strong as it is in the US.

thrownaway24242• 12 years ago

That's about the stupidest thing I've heard in a while, so stupid I have to assume it's sarcasm. Of course the great state experiment is how we got here in the first place. Reagan, as governor, defunded mental health care and just said fuckit, throw all the addicts in prison. Then he took his ideas "to prod" by doubling down on Nixon's "war", with the helpful (to his party) side-effect of throwing millions of black people in prisons.

calibraxis• 12 years ago

As personally attacking as this post is (though the anger is perfectly understandable), it's probably closest to my view, mentioning "the helpful (to his party) side-effect of throwing millions of black people in prisons."

Except I don't consider it a side-effect, nor do I think it's limited to Republicans. For example, prison was one way to control the newly freed slave population. (http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/199804--.htm) Being the world's biggest jailer isn't exactly an "oops" thing.

bramgg• 12 years ago

I am looking forward to the rest of the world following suit.

It's more like the opposite.

sehr• 12 years ago

I'm not so sure, the world exists outside of Europe and the US. There are some seriously draconian drug laws in Asia for example

praneshp2• 12 years ago

I really wish it wasn't called "War on drugs". One of the things I dislike about America, as an outsider, is their tendency to call everything "War on X", which essentially makes everything us vs them.

djur• 12 years ago

"War On Drugs" is a term mostly used by critics of US drug policy these days.

thrownaway24242• 12 years ago

It has a lot of baggage. "War on drugs" was I believe first uttered in public by Nixon and I don't think anyone used the phrase after Bush (the Elder).

zem• 12 years ago

the foremen had a great song about that: http://www.royzimmerman.com/lyrics/best_peace.html

here it is on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luMdJAia-bw

mwfunk• 12 years ago

I agree about disliking the terminology, although (as far as I know) the phrasing dates back to Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty" initiative in 1964. The aspiration that was being reflected there was that the US government could apply the same fervor, resources, and ingenuity to uplifting the poor that it had applied to WW1, WW2, and was then still applying to the Cold War. Because of that, I always felt like the phrase was a swords-into-plowshares type of saying rather than a militant one.

Of course, that was 50 years ago- as the phrase has gotten recycled for initiatives like the War on Drugs, it has lost that nuance and context, and sounds more like some zero-tolerance, overly militant government program (which parts of it were). Many or most Americans would agree with you that "War on X" needs to go, including me.

clarkmoody4• 12 years ago

While we're at it, I would love to see the "scandal-gate" terminology disappear as well.

According to Wikipedia[1], the "war on crime" was used by Hoover in the '30s.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_as_metaphor

dasmithii3• 12 years ago

The term is harsh, and I've heard numerous complaints over "War on X" phrases, as you say, but I think this one is justified/beneficial. It indicates that drugs are the "them", and "us" encompasses legislators, regular people, and users the like.

watwut• 12 years ago

Except that it is not how it turned out. It turned out that "us" was law enforcement and "them" essentially anyone else.

Mostly any kid smoking small amount of marijuana. Being free of drugs wont necessary help you, because law enforcement so much power, that they can take away your property even if you have done nothing wrong. And you can still get stopped and searched for drugs for no reason.

BorisMelnik• 12 years ago

why not set up more suboxone clinics? I know it is just substituting one addiction for another, but it will reduce crime and stop deaths.

DanBC2• 12 years ago

Addicts, including some prisoners, will have greater access to synthetic heroin substitutes to help them reduce their dependency on illegal narcotics or kick the habit.

awjr• 12 years ago

"War on drugs" is a terrible world affliction. Prohibition neither works nor is conducive to a better society. Governments should just tax and sell the drugs to the general public. Alcohol is considered to be the most harmful drug but is legal because it can be taxed, controlled, and makes money. (http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_caus...)

Governments should also support people that want drugs to come off those drugs and while we're at it, release all prisoners who are specifically in for possession/dealing/trafficking.

We really need to give up on this idea of a drug free world.

I think we need to look to Portugal for an example of what can be done and also as a starting point for possibly developing a better model http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/evaluating-drug-d...

eru• 12 years ago

Alcohol is considered to be the most harmful drug [...]

Only because of the wide spread of use.

Xylakant3• 12 years ago

No, actually not. Alcohol is a potent poison and kills cells - hence the use as desinfectant. The physical damage caused by alcohol abuse rival and surpass most illegal substances.

ap22213• 12 years ago

I don't see it quite so cynically. Alcohol is legal because there would be outrage or civil unrest if it was banned.

Most people that I've met (who may not be considered alcoholics) certainly have some level of alcohol dependency. And, I'm being loose here with the word 'dependency', but in the last year, I've never seen one of my friends or acquaintances refuse alcohol at a bar or restaurant, while others were drinking.

However, that does bring up the issue of money and alcohol. Restaurants seem to push the stuff pretty heavily, at least in the US. There should at least be some restrictions on the amount of profit that bars / restaurants can make off of it.

chimeracoder2• 12 years ago

Alcohol is legal because there would be outrage or civil unrest if it was banned.

There is outrage and 'civil unrest' in some sort surrounding other drugs; the difference is the communities in which it manifests.

The war on drugs very disproportionately affects people along lines of race and socioeconomic status[0]. These communities certainly are outraged at how their families and communities are being destroyed (literally) by the prohibition of these drugs and the societal ramifications that go along with the prohibition. The difference is that they're not in a position to voice that outrage as loudly.

Remember why prohibition of alcohol was repealed - wealthy taxpayers were mad that their tax bills went up after the passage of the 18th amendment (the government could no longer make revenue off of alcohol taxes). This is exactly why initiatives to legalize marijuana in Colorado (Amendment 64), Washington, and California (Prop 19) have used the language 'tax and regulate'. It's not some crazy new idea - it's literally the same tactic that succeeded in passing the 21st amendment!

[0] http://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindn...

Crito• 12 years ago

I've never seen one of my friends or acquaintances refuse alcohol at a bar or restaurant, while others were drinking.

I've never seen somebody refuse the optional free pickle spear at the sandwich line at work.

superuser22• 12 years ago

There is such a thing as responsible, low-level alcohol consumption that doesn't turn into a spiral of addiction and self-destruction. Same with LSD. Not so much with heroin.

spacemanmatt3• 12 years ago

How can you ignore the existing outrage and civil unrest around today's prohibition? It is just like the early 1900s. We have black markets, cultural adaptations of the criminality, and all the same corruption patterns.

codeshaman2• 12 years ago

Just back from Boom Festival in Portugal, where personal drug use is decriminalized.

There was almost no police/security at the gates or inside the festival, although selling drugs was not tolerated (eg. people selling on the festival grounds were kindly asked to leave). There were 42.000 people from 152 countries and most of them used some kind of substance or plant there (marijuana being the most abundantly and openly used). As a consequence (or despite this?), this was one of the safest and warmest places I have ever seen.

Instead of police watching everyone, there were a number of premises: there was a drug info stand, were one could go and test their drugs. The queue was quite long there, people stood 2+ hours in the queue to test their substances.

Then there was the Kosmic Care, a place were 20+ psychologists, doctors and shamans would bring people having 'bad' trips back to earth. They had 70 'bad' trippers in the first night alone and they were expecting a lot more on the full moon night. I've spoken to the psychologists there (out of curiosity, not because of a bad trip :) ) and they told me that that the majority of bad trips were caused by people taking 'fake' LSD. In fact, she said, 50% of the LSD people tested was not actually LSD but some designer substance with unknown consequences and effects. Other reasons for bad trips - was people mixing substances or taknig too much (usually young, unexperienced people) and people having prior mental illness.

I asked a guy there, how can one prevent people from having a bad trip again and the answer was 'well, after such an experience, most people grow up pretty quickly and it's unlikely they would take these substances lightly the next time'.

In most countries, these young people would end up in a hospital and then get arrested and possibly spend time in jail.

The war on drugs has caused a lot of suffering and has done very little to reduce drug use or addiction, yet it costs billions every year.

Protugal's approach to drugs is a great example of how the negative effects of drug use can be handled with minimal costs and lead to positive outcomes in drug users. All it takes is a bit of acceptance and common sense.

lifeisstillgood2• 12 years ago

Yes ... But absolutely everything you say could apply to alcohol during say Prohibition. Look people taking the moonshine to be tested, people enjoying booze sensibly ...

We have a legalised and fairly sane alcohol policy in most countries, we can hardly hope to have a better policy and set up for any other drug, and yet alcohol is still a devastating blight on many lives.

Yes, stop this crazy war on drugs, but don't expect some nirvana to appear - people with a variety of mental and personality problems are not going to "grow up". They still need to be dealt with - and we are unforgiving of mental illness and have barely moved past the "cut it off and cauterise the wound" phase of treatment.

The war on drugs is mostly masking a war on mental health.

coldtea4• 12 years ago

We have a legalised and fairly sane alcohol policy in most countries, we can hardly hope to have a better policy and set up for any other drug, and yet alcohol is still a devastating blight on many lives

You don't just need to have a "sane policy".

You need to have a sane culture.

For one, a culture that doesn't treat alcohol as something necessary for having fun (e.g binge drinking on weekends, etc), but as something social you can have while eating with friends, etc.

Second, a culture (society) that doesn't cripple people, produce mass stress and depression, etc so that they take it to alcohol and drugs.

As long as you don't have those, there will always be people taking it to alcoholism. Heck, even with those you'll still have some people (but much less). But then again people can destroy themselves in 200 other ways too, if they are so inclined (from over- and under-eating to straight suicide).

codeshaman2• 12 years ago

I would have to disagree with you on alcohol. Alcohol is a very addictive and destructive substance and can cause personality changes which lead to aggression and domination (ego enhancer) and is very harmful to health if abused. A large chunk of problems in our society comes from alcohol abuse.

Some of the substances which are generically called 'illegal drugs', however, are much safer and self-limiting and many have virtually no harmful physical effects on the body (based on decades of clandestine use and research).

I'm refering to psychedelics and marijuana, drugs which I'm familiar with and have studied extensively through literature and some self experimentation. Apart from being much safer, some of these drugs have major upsides, when used therapeutically and can cure illnesses that modern medicine is unable to cure.

And if used by brilliant people to start with, they have the power to transform society in unbelievable ways: the tech revolution was started by young, brilliant people who've been inspired by psychedelic trips or psychedelic music/art/culture, produced by the counterculture of the '60s.

Some drugs, like heroin or cocaine have both a big abuse potential and can be harmful to the body, although none are as destructive as alcohol. Rational and sensible recovery and detox programs, combined with unrestricted access to safer drugs (like marijuana) can reduce the risks associated with these 'hard drugs'.

Portugal decriminalized drug use due to the alarming rates of addiction to opiates among youth in 2001. As a consequence, the opiate addiction problem is pretty much under control there.

Nicotine is another extremely addictive substance, yet sensible policy and access to valid information has led a lot of people to quit using it due to health concerns in developed countries, although developing countries have seen a rise in nicotine use.

On the other extreme - countries which ban all kinds of drugs (including alcohol) are seeing strong religious domination, which leads to extremism and terrorism, so total prohibition of altered states of consciousness is also bad.

There is a great book, called 'Animals and Psychedelics' in which it is reported that most animals, including insects are using various plants to intoxicate themselves, even though those plants are not suitable as food. They just like to get stoned or high or drunk and go to great lengths to find their intoxicants.

We should accept once and for all that human beings seek and require altered states of consciousness and not treat drug use as a 'societal cancer', but rather try to understand - why do we do it ? Why do animals do it ? Is there a evolutionary benefit in it ? Are there good parts in getting high, besides having fun ?

zo1• 12 years ago

"The war on drugs is mostly masking a war on mental health."

It's a war on people's right to enjoy and/or destroy themselves. All under the vague pretense of a social-good.

It's to keep control over a populace that could very quickly come to the realization that it is free to do as it pleases. Unfortunately, the more we suppress people like this, the worse off it will be when the milk and lies finally run out and they're stuck with nothing but their anger and dependance.

awildone6• 12 years ago

Portugal is certainly one step in the right direction. I lived and worked there for three months and it's all very relaxed. Cops don't really care about people rolling joints or even doing lines of coke in public if there's a party (and if you are in Portugal, there will be). Quietly puffing a joint while walking down the street in the middle of the day is cool as well. I actually never saw the cops interfere with anything while I was there, even though there are cops everywhere. There is one more thing about Portugal and drugs that needs to be said though: never, ever buy anything being offered to you. And you will be offered drugs ten times a day while just walking down the street. It's all fake, they're just out to scam you and steal your stuff, and they're pretty good at it. Just say no, thank you and go ask the cool kids hanging out in Martim Moniz instead. Good hash, coke and heroin is easily obtainable and cheap.

awildone6• 12 years ago

Assuming Lisbon of course, but I guess that's where most people end up on their first visit to the country...

tomp• 12 years ago

That's the problem with decriminalizing drugs, really. It's still very much a grey market, with no business backing, no brands, no quality control. Drugs have to be fully legalized. I think what some US states are doing (opening marijuana for businesses, enabling them to build a brand/reputation) is the way forward (but, of course, for all kinds of drugs instead).

stonemetal• 12 years ago

even though there are cops everywhere. ... you will be offered drugs ten times a day while just walking down the street. It's all fake, they're just out to scam you and steal your stuff, and they're pretty good at it.

That is a step in the right direction? What was it like before beaten by the cops and robbed 10 times a day?

JonLim• 12 years ago

I think they had a drug testing booth in Barcelona when I was there last summer for Sónar, and there was a massive line up of people.

Not sure what Spain's outlook on drug use is, but it was rather refreshing to see that level of education and emphasis on safety compared to what I've seen in festivals in Toronto and NYC.

ollysb• 12 years ago

From my experience in Granada it's pretty relaxed. I recall going to a Granada football game(they're in the top division), with a policeman standing on the steps next to my seat there was some guys smoking some joints right in front of us. They may as well have been drinking a beer for all the attention he was giving them.

josefresco2• 12 years ago

Running a a drug friendly "festival" and a state (as in the United States) are two completely different realities. I'm welcome your anecdotal evidence but don't find it at all relevant to the topic of how a state should handle the legal and health consequences of heroin abuse. A bunch of party-goers doing recreational drugs couldn't be farther from the realities of heroin addiction in a rural population.

david_b• 12 years ago

Your comment is slightly off-the-mark as his comment wasn't merely about a festival, but also about his opinion on Portugals drug policy. As your comment implies that you aren't familiar with said policy, you may wish to recap Portugals efforts in drug decriminalization:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/evaluating-drug-d...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal

While it is apparently hard to say how effective these efforts were, it is quite easy to see that the neo-prohibitionists worst nightsmares have yet to happene in Portugal.

smcl• 12 years ago

Remember that this is not particular to that festival in Portugal, but to the entirety of Portugal

DanHulton• 12 years ago

You do realize that a great deal of the problems associated with heroin addiction come from the very fact that it is illegal? The crime, the marginalization from society, the lack of access to health care or rehabilitation clinics, these things all make the addiction far, far worse than if we treated this whole thing a little saner and more compassionately.

api• 12 years ago

I fail to see how ruining peoples' lives with criminal convictions, records, and incarceration helps anyone in any case. Addiction is a psychological and medical problem.

The real insult is that alcohol is legal. Heavy alcohol use results in severe addiction and physical harm comparable to chronic heroin and amphetamine abuse. Yet we treat alcoholism as a psychological and a medical problem (which it is), and do not further ruin the addict's life and worsen their problems with incarceration and persecution.

drzaiusapelord2• 12 years ago

Running a a drug friendly "festival" and a state (as in the United States) are two completely different realities

Right. I mean, a hippy-esque musical festival is going to draw in all sorts of non-violent potheads. How about the south side of Chicago? Do you think Kosmic Care is going to handle gangbangers on meth?

Heck, here in Chicago during Lollapalooza, a man bit two people and injured them. It is reported that he was on drugs:

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/08/05/attacker-bites-man-on...

“In describing it to the police later, they said ‘We never see cases like that where the attacker isn’t on PCP, or bath salts, or something like that,” Lenet said. “There’s no way a normal person could have sustained that much punishment, and just walked away.”

The problem with the pro-legalization crowd is that we don't have any consistency. Some of us just want pot legalized but most of the movement seems to have this pie-in-the-sky view of legalizing just about everything. I'm afraid that we have two extremists groups: "no drugs" vs "all drugs" and per usual sane moderate voices are drowned out.

I just don't believe a "one size fits all" mentality will work here. I just don't think we should legalize drugs that are physically addictive like heroin, PCP, meth, etc.

DAddYE• 12 years ago

Switzerland (not in the UE) was one of the first countries where some drugs were permitted (like weed). Although (IIRC around 2000) they stopped.

Another country Nederland is well know in Europe for being very freedom with drugs. In Nederland in the latest few years they had several calls to put drugs on ban.

I visited Switzerland hundreds of times (it's like 15 miles where was my house) I have been in Amsterdam 4 times.

What I can say is that "citizens" were kinda sick and seems is not a thing anymore. Although is still a big big business economy for "tourists".

I think this thing of legalizing light drugs in america is like tobacco in 60-80', it was cool, trendy out of the scheme, but suddenly... things changed so much that I bet there are less tobacco smokers in California than the smallest town of Portugal.

galfarragem• 12 years ago

Portugal positive approach on drug problem was just the natural reaction to the collapse we had in late 80's and early-mid 90's. Politics claim it was a result of their policies. That is BS. In the end, government policies had very low impact. The only successful policy (on AIDS control, not on drugs) was the free syringe exchange at pharmacies.

The real problem was solved based on the lazy approach of "laissez-faire" (with consumption decriminalization) like a lot of stuff here (for the good and ill), "letting the market solve it": During the 90's the drug problem was huge! As an example, in my home town, that generation doesn't exist (people born during 70's). Almost all men (and some women) from that generation were involved on hard drugs (heroine). A large percentage of them went to prison and didn't come back, another large percentage of them died drugs related. Kids from that time (including myself) saw the dark side of being on drugs seated in first row: it was their neighbors and older brothers, not a stupid tale on TV.

Being on drugs since that moment was not cool anymore. Slowly, young people mentalities improved to "being on hard drugs is not cool". Nowadays, the sentiment is more mixed, hard drugs are not anymore seen as a boogeyman: some forgot what happened, others didn't see it with their eyes. Anyway, I don't think we will come back to 90's again. We were coming from a dictatorship, young generations wanted freedom and there were no visible bad examples of drug addiction. Times are different now, drugs are also cheaper, lesser need to be a petty criminal and involve all society like before.

dscrd• 12 years ago

War on Drugs has been won, not lost.

erichocean• 12 years ago

Your comment made me think of Charlie Sheen: "Winning."

blueking• 12 years ago

I wonder why the government needs to force everyone to hit a collective rock bottom before considering a new strategy. Throwing everyone involved in jail was a bad idea from day 1.

What they need to do is manufacture and sell the drugs at cost to registered addicts. This way you destroy the business of the drug cartels and you insure your citizens are at least using pure drugs.

Regardless of the legality of the use of the drug it is a health issue that the drugs your citizens consume are pure. The safety of your people should come first and a government that has taken this long to realize something that basic is simply incompetent.

Prioritizing law enforcement before public safety is a revealing and meaningful sign of incompetence or even corruption.

coldtea4• 12 years ago

I wonder why the government needs to force everyone to hit a collective rock bottom before considering a new strategy. Throwing everyone involved in jail was a bad idea from day 1.

Population control. For blacks, it's the modern day equivalent of Jim Crow laws, but for keeping a huge majority in prison.

clarkmoody4• 12 years ago

Prioritizing law enforcement before public safety is a revealing and meaningful sign of incompetence or even corruption.

Government is fundamentally better at policing and enforcing than it is at nurturing. It is not a sign of corruption, but merely a trait inherent to all government.

jusben1369• 12 years ago

Why does the government need to manufacture and sell the drugs at no cost? Why can't we just repeat what we do with alcohol and have it be produced by for profit businesses and then regulated and taxed etc to offset the health and educational costs of said activities?

amykhar• 12 years ago

The demographics of Vermont makes me curious. Many people say that the war on drugs is racially motivated in that more blacks and hispanics are prosecuted than whites. Vermont is 95% Caucasian. I wonder if this fact influenced the new policy in any way.

pionar2• 12 years ago

I would say that it's just Vermont being independent as usual. Vermont has always gone against the grain, in good ways and bad (there's a secessionist movement there now[0]). I've long advocated for treating drug abuse as a disease and making it a health problem.

I'm against complete legalization of most drugs, though. I say make personal use legal and continue prosecuting dealers and pushers.

And for anyone who disagrees, that's fine. This is just my personal opinion.

josefresco2• 12 years ago

Nope just Vermont being ... Vermont. Caring for your neighbor, and not being afraid of them (racially or socioeconomically) is one key to having a view like this. When one group is afraid of another you get insane sentencing laws and all sorts of discrimination.

Vermont is very independent, and doesn't have much of a "big city" influence, or cultural divide seen in even other New England states.

bilbo0s• 12 years ago

I see where you are going... but I'm also pretty sure you have it backwards.

Demographics aren't the reason for Vermont's soft touch policy... demographics are the reason for the hardline policies in all of the other states.

mturmon• 12 years ago

I think you're getting at something. The easier availability of prescription opiates (e.g., Dad's Vicodin for his bad back) has produced an addiction surge in middle-class communities. This is not just Vermont, but across the U.S.; I'm well aware that Vermont has a unique political culture that also factors in to how this played out.

In some places, this has turned out to result in significant high school heroin overdoses among well-off white folks, and significant heroin addiction among their parents.

If it's your kid or your neighbor, the "harm reduction" path starts to look a lot better than criminalization, and you start to see political viability for something that was radioactive before.

It hurts to admit it, but when you see political demagoguery in the U.S. (i.e., War on Drugs), looking for the racial angle is a good first strategy.

tim333• 12 years ago

“This is an experiment,” Shumlin says. “And we’re not going to really know the results for a while.”

Good stuff. I really wish those in power would more often try a scientific/engineering approach to see what works rather than politicians shouting about war on whatever.

jasonwocky• 12 years ago

Vermont is just about the most pragmatic state in the union that I know of, and it took them this long to finally try this approach out. Give it time.

clarkmoody4• 12 years ago

This is a fantastic argument for strong states' rights and less-overbearing / centralized policy from Washington.

Let the states be compared against one another and measure the results: if heroin abuse skyrockets in Vermont, then other states could avoid their policy mistakes. If something works incredibly well in a couple states, then it would be appropriate to implement broad, federal rules codifying the success in those states for the whole union.

As it stands, the federal government piles an increasing amount of legislation and regulation down on the states, leaving less room for this type of innovation and experimentation.

zanny• 12 years ago

You are detailing a consequence of an international crisis, not so much some novel concept in the US.

This problem is also starting to show up in the EU, since there is pressure to adopt monolithic policies across member states.

But the concept is not complicated - you should give people mobility, so that they can go wherever there are policies they most agree with. That is it.

The problem is that international mobility is crippled by bureaucratic immigration policies in addition to the classic cultural and language barriers. Thus, postulating that states should be more independent in their policies is right, but it needs to acknowledge that fundamentally it does not matter if it is states in a country or individual countries or something like city states or homesteading, all that is required is the ability for individuals to migrate where their ideologies and the states match.

And the modern world is often simultaneously the best and worst time for such mobility. In terms of real physical barriers, there are pretty much none - flight has advanced sufficiently it is not prohibitive in cost for many people in the world to realistically save up enough to fly anywhere else. Simultaneously, in the past it was much easier to just "cross boarders", where the bureaucracy and monitoring of citizenship was much reduced.

Hopefully we progress to minimize or remove the latter, because it is the best outcome for everyone except those who want to prevent mobility to hold power over groups of people who would not stay if they had a choice.

yarrel• 12 years ago

I thought states' rights was just a code phrase for racism?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States'_rights#Controversy

doctornemo• 12 years ago

If only the state would spend more money on this strategy. But we aren't.

the_cat_kittles• 12 years ago

this is a great video of Russell Brand discussing this attitude shift and other ideas about how we address addiction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_LHuII-jYQ

lasermike026• 12 years ago

Great! How do I get this in my state?

astrodust2• 12 years ago

Easy! Move to Vermont.

emhart• 12 years ago

Most of my life we've had an outsized problem with heroin and other opiates in Vermont. Recently this has developed into an odd symbiotic relationship with New York State, where Heroin is exchanged for guns across the border.

I recently left the state, but only a year ago I was living in Saint Albans when a warrant sweep rounded up dozens of my neighbors, including one who had been moving thousands of grams of heroin monthly.

Throughout 2013 there were ongoing sweeps in 3 major counties, all focused on narcotics only. Dozens were arrested each time. We're a small state with a terrible economy. As glad as I am that Shumlin is taking this step (and he's made it clear for a while now that he's happy to ignore the political consequences of this action) this has been a very long time coming. I remember first hearing about the heroin problem in my state 20 years ago, when I was in middle school and there was a report of someone overdosing in a park adjacent to a summit on combating opiate addiction.

Vice did a good story on all of this last year: http://www.vice.com/read/the-brown-mountain-state

girvo2• 12 years ago

Treating heroin addiction as a medical problem is why I've been clean for two years, after being an addict for 6. Australia is surprisingly okay on this front all things considered. If I was afraid of being arrested for seeking help, then I can guarantee I wouldn't be here today. An acquaintance overdosed once, and we called an ambulance straight away -- if I had lived in a place where a drug overdose means a police car following the ambulance, he would be dead. The fact it was illegal stopped exactly nobody...

Anyway, I'm glad I got help. Life's too good to throw it away :)

Vermont Quits War on Drugs to Treat Heroin Abuse as Health Issue

Related Stories