Friend: This, for example, I agree with although I question the way drug law enforcement is enforced and whether certain aspects of the law is workable:
Weathurburn & Hall: "It's a sad fact that many dependent drug users only seek treatment when the personal and financial cost of continued drug use gets too high. The financial cost is attributable in large part to prohibition.
"The personal cost includes trouble with police and the courts, which is one of the most commonly cited reasons for entering treatment.
"Coercing drug-dependent offenders into treatment is known to be effective in reducing drug use and drug-related crime.
"We don't have to choose between treatment and drug law enforcement. We can and should support both."
This is nothing more than Drug War rhetoric. The first sentence would more accurately read "It's a sad fact that VERY FEW dependent drug users seek treatment only when the personal and financial cost of continued drug use gets too high."
The statement projects the Drug War myth that illicit drugs users are typically dysfunctional addicts and that drug use is a scourge on society. The facts, however, do not support this characterisation.