Which isn’t an argument against forced treatment because nominally, more people get treatment. To illustrate using made-up numbers:
Policy A: No forced treatment: 10% of addicts attempt treatment with a 10% success rate = 1% overall success rate.
Policy B: Forced treatment: 10% of addicts attempt treatment with a 10% success rate = 1% + 20% of addicts forced into treatment with a 5% success rate = 1% = 2% overall success rate.
That’s a lot of resources for a low success rate though. The obvious question is could you get a better result using those resources elsewhere? Like education?
The other day a woman passed gas on a crowded public light rail car and it personally offended me. What's more, an approximately six-year-old boy heard her and repeated the infraction, in other words it's indisputable her action influenced others to follow in her footsteps. I also happen to know that neither she nor the six-year-old are gainfully employed, thus they are a drain on society. And in breaking wind it's conceivable or perhaps certain they spread pathogens to countless other innocent people.
Should she have been arrested and jailed for committing what I and many others would regard as depraved behavior? And if not, why the street addict and not the railcar ripper?
I don’t think the reason that public drug use is prosecuted is because it offends people prima facie. It’s because it’s associated with and indicative of a more serious problem: addiction. Addiction fuels all kinds of crime. The same cannot be said of passing gas.
I agree with you that addiction can be a serious issue, but I have some responses to that.
1) If someone's addiction leads to crime, then punish the crime when they commit it. Don't make the pre-crine a crime. Instead of preventing crimes, now you've multiplied them.
2) If drugs weren't ruinously expensive due to their illegality, there would be much less need for addicts to turn to crime. You don't normally hear about alcohol, cigarette or coffee addicts going on crime sprees to support their habits.
3) There's evidence that responding with properly funded support and treatment is cheaper and leads to better outcomes than a massive carceral complex.
4) We can discourage a practice with lighter punitive measures than prison. Running a red light is a rampant traffic infraction, and potentially deadly to boot, yet we don't typically punish it with jail time. It would be massively unproductive to do so. We typically fine people and/or give them "points" on their license. Similarly if needed, we could discourage drugs with fines, taxes, restricting privileges, mandated treatment or social shaming instead of incarceration.
You have a frighteningly low bar for what a behaviors you think should result in a person being denied every basically freedom and likey having their life ruined. Do you feel the same about "using" alcohol and other drugs in public?
