Addiction and the Silk Road Outline Working

“Case Studies”: Generalized and/or Anonymous Realistic Examples


John never used drugs other than the occasional time growing up. Even pot was a very rare substance for John to use, however John was a heavy drinker and moderate smoker. John was introduced to Suzy by a third party.  Suzy was a habitual drug user of every kind including opiates.  John made a very good income and once Suzy found out she slowly secretly got John hooked on smoking heroine and taking Oxycodone.  John was only slightly aware at first, and his family never knew or realized for many years that John’s affair was not at all about a lady, but an opiate addiction he could never admit or begin to come to terms with.  John disappeared many times over the years, for days and weeks at a time, with an addiction that family could not properly identify. John begged and pleaded for rehab, and even sometimes attended, but never was able to tell family why. John’s only hope was to one day have a stroke and get caught in the medical system to the point where he has 24/7 care and orders for arrest if he flees.  John can’t understand where he is, or why he is there.  He constantly professes his own wish fulfillment and occasionally has the intense urge to flee to something he never describes aloud (the cops promptly pick him up).


Jane dabbled in different types of substances throughout high school  She was very small and very vulnerable.  She lost her virginity through force.  She never knew or understood the dangers of opiates.  She partied in and out of a dangerous level of use of recreational drugs until she met Dave.  Dave used drugs to lure Jane into a home, and then he locked her up.  Dave used drugs to control Jane for days and weeks until he was finished. Jane was helpless in many ways.  When Jane was freed she was unable to testify to the cops, and barely able to talk to family about her trauma.  Jane felt guilt but didn’t understand the relationship her guilt had to her addiction.  Jane was barely able to talk about the trauma but used it to mask the underlying addiction.  Family encouraged Jane to seek help and support for abused women, but secretly Jane cried often (literally) for heroin.  Jane met Bob and had a child which kept her clean for a year.  The pressures of being a mother and having insatiable cravings started to get to Jane.  Jane would often mix alcohol and drugs to cope, but could not balance child care and intoxication.  Jane eventually become a nurse and grew more and more access to opiates and drugs.  Jane got her own place, quit her job (received social assistance for some period), stopped talking to family, stopped taking care of her child.  Jane’s place got taken over by a lower level gang, Jane was moved to another place in another city.  Jane won’t come home.  Jane is arrested for car theft in connection with her new boyfriend.  Jane still won’t come home.  The court ordered Jane must return to her new address every night.

John and Jane won’t come home when they are using.

Addiction vs Opiate Addiction

The division we wish to establish here is the difference in the difficulty of opiate/opioid type addictions vs non opiate types.  Where there is probably some relevance to the severity of addiction and/or also the type (ie opiate or non).

SOME distinction seems to be possible to be made by looking at the reference points an addict has developed over time.  This allows for a somewhat fair subjective analysis from an non addicted observer or from the “normal” society (ie law vs freedom).

Changing Reference Points

This is the part we generally don’t understand.  Its difficult to name or assess and especially generalize about our reference points as “normal” peoples (normal as in non-addict), but for an addict their reference point is clear: get high.  I read a description I didn’t understand at first and still might now fully understand but I have come to feel it is very useful.  Some describe an addicts priorities as 1) survive 2) get high 3) kill Something like this (I will find it).  This is a type of rationalization that we are not at all used to and not able to easily come to terms with.  For many of us its application (watching a fallen loved one in action) is confusing and angers us.

Acknowledging an addict that has changed and not rational reference points is about understanding what makes them tick, not about encouraging or validating their behavior.

In special regards to these reference points, you cannot (or rather should not expect to) DIRECTLY change a persons reference point nor can they, or rather they change as an indirect result of logical conclusion and reflective introspection (time!). They are important to acknowledge for present results as well as future implications.


Family’s view-An Addict Must Choose (and Want to Change)

A helpful distinction in regards to choice has to do with family of an addict and their ability to cope with the perpetual state of toxicity.  A family generally tries everything they can, often driving themselves to the point of exhaustion, financial distress, and instability sanity.  Seeing somebody habitually making clearly irrational decisions can be unnerving, unbalancing, and for some not at all resolvable. Since life has this inherent nature of perpetual un-knowingness that we perpetually try to solve by living normal and rational lives, mixing with an addict and trying to reason them into sobriety can have a very destabilizing effect.

For families then there is a justifiable right, to leave someone that is completely unhelpable, in order to maintain stability in their own lives.  We call this, “They have to want to change”.  There are two parts to understanding this.  For families it is a perfectly acceptable and rational stance, to reach out their hands and say, “When you are ready to change, we are here to help”.   This allows for sanity to enter back into the family and peoples affected, and also is helpful upon hindsight if things to turn for the worse (ie not regretting tough love if a family member passes form addiction).

Reality-An Addict Can’t Choose Because Opiate Addiction Destroys Willpower (No One WANTS to be a Heroine Addict)

There will always be the corollary argument to this, that an addict cannot choose.  I wish to make a specific point here that hopeful is not lost on anyone’s perspective. At SOME point if an addict is to have long term success, they MUST eventually take control over their own situation. Even with enough resources in the world, no external source is stronger than the individual will, whether for the good or the bad.

HOWEVER, in an opium addicts mind, the brain has been wired differently, the reference point has changed, and so in this realistic sense an addict with very little between them and their drug, and yet with a brain that puts out massive craving signals, we should never expect and addict to be able to ‘choose’ to stay clean.

Bridging (Historically) Opposing Viewpoints

The simple point here is that family is justified by saying the addict needs to choose, however, there is still some relevant points to be made about the external circumstances that could be set up to either facilitate or hinder ones chances of EFFECTIVELY choosing to get sober and stay sober.

Safe Houses and Harm Reduction

Safe houses provide many benefits in the form of different harm reductions.  Among the most important benefits are affection, normal social engagement, nutrition, regular sleep.
The primary goal of safe injection houses is to provide a hygienic environment in which drug users can take substances such as heroin and cocaine without being at risk of the dangers normally involved with these activities. Typically, these dangers include:
* The spread of blood-borne diseases, such as HIV and Hepatitis C * The chance of infection through contaminated needles * Risk of damage to the veins and arteries through improper injection techniques
Another study looking at the Vancouver site found that crime rates did not increase, despite a rise in the number of drug users in the area. Within the supervised grounds of the safe injection house, addicts were left to use in private without having to disturb the public outside. As well as this, it was also shown that these types of locations had the following benefits:
* Decrease in injection debris around the city
* A slowdown in the spread of Hepatitis C and HIV
* Less government expenses ($1 spent on-site saved $4 of the taxpayer’s money)
* An increase in patients entering rehab clinics through the house’s counseling services

Police corruption and street crime in the Kings Cross district of Sydney, prompted the Wood Royal Commission to recommend the opening of an injection facility in the area,[7] with the Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC) opening in May, 2001.[8] In Canada: problems with drug use, discarded needles and crime made Downtown Eastside of Vancouver the location for the first facility, when Insite commenced operation in 2003.[8]
Whereas injection facilities in Europe often evolved from something else, such as different social and medical out-reaches or perhaps a homeless shelter, the degree and quality of actual supervision varies. As many European centers also allow clients to consume drugs by other means then by injecting it on its premises, EMCDDA prefers call them “drug consumption facilities” instead of anything alluding to “injection”. The history of the European centers also mean that there have been no or little systematic collection of data needed to do a proper evaluation of effectiveness of the scheme.[3]
However, some of the very rationale for the projects in Sydney and Vancouver are specifically to gather data, as they are created as scientific pilot projects. The approach at the centers is also more clinical in nature, as they provide true supervision with a staff that is equipped and trained to administer Oxygen or Naloxone in the case of a heroin or other opioid overdose.[8]

Impact on community levels of overdose

Over a nine-year period the Sydney MSIC managed 3,426 overdose-related events with not one fatality[40] while Vancouver’s Insite had managed 336 overdose events in 2007 with not a single fatality.
The 2010 MSIC evaluators found that over 9 years of operation it had made no discernable impact on heroin overdoses at the community level with no improvement in overdose presentations at hospital emergency wards.[41]
Research by injecting room evaluators in 2007 presented statistical evidence that there had been later reductions in ambulance callouts during injecting room hours,[42][43][44] but failed to make any mention of the introduction of sniffer dog policing, introduced to the drug hot-spots around the injecting room a year after it opened.[45]

Cost effectiveness

The cost of running Insite per annum is $3 million Canadian. Mathematical modeling showed cost to benefit ratios of one dollar spent ranging from 1.5 to 4.02 in benefit. However, the Expert Advisory Committee expressed reservation about the certainty of Insite’s cost effectiveness until proper longitudinal studies had been undertaken. Mathematical models for HIV transmissions foregone had not been locally validated and mathematical modeling from lives saved by the facility had not been validated.[32] The Sydney MSIC cost upwards of $2.7 million Australian per annum in 2007.[78] Drug Free Australia has asserted that in 2003 the cost of running the Sydney MSIC equated to 400 NSW government-funded rehabilitation places[79] while the Health Minister for the Canadian Government, Tony Clements, has stated that the money for Insite would be better spent on treatment for clients.[80]

Heroin (Opiates and Opioids): Effects on the Brain

Heroine creates a reoccurring need to stimulate the opiate centers (receptors) of the brain.  These centers superseded or become our logic centers.  Reason CANNOT be expected calm the urge. How many times does family try to reason with an addict before they give up from lack of energy and frustration? Addiction like this cannot be reasoned with.

An “opioid” is any narcotic not derived from opium. Indicating substances such as enkephalins or endorphins occurring naturally in the body that can affect on the brain to decrease the sensation of pain are also classified as opioids. Narcotic compounds found in natural opium latex are classified as opiates, not opioids. Common examples of opioids are: oxycodone, hydrocodone, oxymorphone, hydromorphone, methadone, and several others.[1]

Opiates are analgesic alkaloid compounds found naturally in the opium poppy plant Papaver somniferum.[1] The psychoactive compounds found in the opium plant include morphine, codeine, and thebaine. The term opiate should be differentiated from the broader term opioid, which includes all drugs with opium-like effects, including opiates, semi-synthetic opioids derived from morphine (such as heroin, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, oxycodone, and oxymorphone), and synthetic opioids which are not derived from morphine (such as fentanyl, buprenorphine, and methadone).

When taken orally, heroin undergoes extensive first-pass metabolism via deacetylation, making it a prodrug for the systemic delivery of morphine.[7] When the drug is injected, however, it avoids this first-pass effect, very rapidly crossing the blood–brain barrier because of the presence of the acetyl groups, which render it much more fat soluble than morphine itself.[55] Once in the brain, it then is deacetylated variously into the inactive 3-monoacetylmorphine and the active 6-monoacetylmorphine (6-MAM), and then to morphine, which bind to μ-opioid receptors, resulting in the drug’s euphoric, analgesic (pain relief), and anxiolytic (anti-anxiety) effects; heroin itself exhibits relatively low affinity for the μ receptor.[56] Unlike hydromorphone and oxymorphone, however, administered intravenously, heroin creates a larger histamine release, similar to morphine, resulting in the feeling of a greater subjective “body high” to some, but also instances of pruritus (itching) when they first start using.[57]
Both morphine and 6-MAM are μ-opioidagonists that bind to receptors present throughout the brain, spinal cord, and gut of all mammals. The μ-opioid receptor also binds endogenous opioid peptides such as β-endorphin, Leu-enkephalin, and Met-enkephalin. Repeated use of heroin results in a number of physiological changes, including an increase in the production of μ-opioid receptors (upregulation).[citation needed] These physiological alterations lead to tolerance and dependence, so that cessation of heroin use results in a set of remarkably uncomfortable symptoms including pain, anxiety, muscle spasms, and insomnia called the opioid withdrawal syndrome. Depending on usage it has an onset 4–24 hours after the last dose of heroin. Morphine also binds to δ– and κ-opioid receptors.
Like most opioids, unadulterated heroin does not cause many long-term complications other than dependence and constipation.[42] The average purity of street heroin in the UK varies between 30% and 50% and heroin that has been seized at the border has purity levels between 40% and 60%; this variation has led to people suffering from overdoses as a result of the heroin missing a stage on its journey from port to end user, as each set of hands that the drug passes through adds further adulterants, the strength of the drug reduces, with the effect that if steps are missed, the purity of the drug reaching the end user is higher than they are used to.[43]Intravenous use of heroin (and any other substance) with non-sterile needles and syringes or other related equipment may lead to:
  • The risk of contracting blood-borne pathogens such as HIV and hepatitis by the sharing of needles
  • The risk of contracting bacterial or fungal endocarditis and possibly venous sclerosis
  • Abscesses
  • Poisoning from contaminants added to “cut” or dilute heroin
  • Decreased kidney function (although it is not currently known if this is because of adulterants or infectious diseases)[44]


Kratom is a plant that when ingested hits the opiate centres and calms the withdrawal effects or the cravings but is not itself an opiate.  Kratom is safe, cheap, legal, and not addictive in the opiate sense. Kratom will not get your family member home, but it may very well KEEP them home.  Because of its help in alleviating paws from withdrawals it can also help someone CHOOSE to go through the otherwise difficult process.  Kratom is probably most useful as a maintenance better than suboxone or methadone etc.  Kratom is a powered mixed into to water and taken as a simple drink..

Kratom behaves as a μ-opioid receptor agonist like morphine[5] and is used in the management of chronic pain, as well as recreationally.[6] Kratom use is not detected by typical drug screening tests, but its metabolites can be detected by more specialized testing.[7][8]
Kratom behaves as a μ-opioid receptor agonist, similar to opiates like morphine, although its effects differ significantly from those of opiates.[5] Kratom does not appear to have significant adverse effects, and in particular appears not to cause the hypoventilation typical of other opioids.[5]

One of the traditional uses of kratom in Thailand is as a treatment opiate addiction.

How Kratom works
Kratom contains over 25 alkaloids (a group of naturally occurring chemical compounds) including 7-hydroxymitragynine, 9-Hydroxycorynantheidine and Mitragynine which is believed to be responsible for most of kratoms’ effects. Mitragynine is an opioid agonist, which means that it has an attraction towards the opioid receptors in the brain. And these opioid receptors are able to influence your mood, pain levels and anxiety levels as well.
Mitragynine binds to these receptors and helps to improve your mood while also giving the user a pleasant feeling of euphoria just like heroin does, although kratom will not give you the same high as heroin. The difference between kratom and opiates is that kratom prefers delta opioid receptors first while heroin and other opiate drugs bind to mu opioid receptors.
At higher doses however, kratom increasingly stimulates mu opioid receptors in the brain. And this is most likely why kratom has a stimulating effect at lower doses and a narcotic effect at higher doses. This may also be the reason why kratom is not as addictive as heroin and other opiate drugs are, although kratom can become mildly addictive as well after continual daily usage.
When a person stops using heroin and is using the kratom to come off of the heroin, the withdrawals from the heroin are minimized and moderated by the binding of Mitragynine to the delta opioid receptors, thus making withdrawals from the heroin much easier to deal with. Not only can Kratom help people to come off of heroin, but it can also help users to come off of suboxone, methadone, and oxycontin as well.

Kratom as an Effective Withdrawal Facilitator

Measurable Quantities and Potency

The point here about measurability is that heroine from the streets and other drugs constantly have different cuts with different purities.  Since the difference between levels of high is so slight, it is difficult to taper off such drugs.  Furthermore the tolerance to heroine builds to fast it is seemingly difficult not to exponentially increase ones doses (from the users view).  Kratom allows for a more measured approach.

Kratom For Maintenance and Sobriety

Many past addicts swear by Kratom as a maintenance tool or a crutch vs cravings.  For some this might seem like only a crutch and something that is switching one drug for another, however for others this is a life saving tool and can only be seen by them as such. Kratom could some what be taken regularly (although there is something withdraw with habitual use) or only when need (ie cravings). There are many key points here.  Kratom is cheap, kratom can be social (not like needles! (or smoking).  Kratom is safe and its legal (here).  And its not addictive in the important way that an opiate addict is having troubles with.  Its easy to dose and it doesn’t have to set an addict back to day one (guilt free).

Silk Road

For the purpose of this writing Silk Road refers not to a specific dark web market but rather any safe and secure method of purchasing any illegal substance needed.  The quality is consider superior than street level and is high grade.  Of course there are exceptions but the purpose of writing is to understand the implications of the technological revolution we are witnessing because of bitcoin in regards to being able to purchase any illegal substance for a reasonable cost of a quality grade. This requires some study and a little skill, but for the reward of breaking free from the control of organized crime that sells the drugs on the street level, and the reward of being able to stay in contact with family, and to be able to not have to associate strictly with other junkies and/or criminals, the benefits far outweigh the learning curve, for a user, or a friend, or family.

The Silk Road is effective for many reasons that can be highlighted, but the basic philosophy here is many constitutions or applicable laws in many countries are such that the individual does have much freedom.  It is the business activity of “criminal” organizations that governments and law enforcement are mostly after.  It is like saying they will use the lower level user to catch the bigger fish (dealers and manufacturers etc.).  On the user end this means that there is little incentive for law enforcement to try to “sting” the lower level joe.  Users usually have little money and little product anyways.  In the case of purchasing from Silk Road, there is no trail or network for joe to rat on even if he did get pressured.  Joe would simply be caught with probably his last order and absolutely no other useful information, from an order that come somewhere not even in the jurisdiction of the local or national law agency.

From the sellers side it is much the same.  Drop a package into a mailbox, get paid by effectively anonymous bitcoin.  For some of these countries different drugs are legal where there are produced but illegal where they are being sent to.  So the production itself often can and does have standards and quality.  Why should this be different for well known gang or criminal organization or cartel etc?  They are in the business of supply and demand as well. For many what I am pointing out here is a paradigm shift.  They must be reminded again and again.  Our loved ones are destroying their brains not so much with the different forms of opium but rather the terrible stuff it is being cut and watered down with to make the profit it needs to get to the lower level users.

Silk Road merchants don’t deal with that stuff, and people can and do get different sample regularly tested.

In March 2013, the site had 10,000 products for sale by vendors, 70% of which were drugs.[19][61] In October 2014, there were 13,756 listings for drugs, grouped under the headings stimulants, psychedelics, prescription, precursors, other, opioids, ecstasy, dissociatives, cannabis and steroids/PEDs.[8][17][62][63] Fake driver’s licenses were also offered for sale.[64]
Buyers were able to leave reviews of sellers’ products on the site, and in an associated forum where crowdsourcing provided information about the best sellers and worst scammers.[68] Most products were delivered through the mail, with the site’s seller’s guide instructing sellers how to vaccuum-seal their products to escape detection.[69]

Drugs Control the Addict, Who Controls Drugs?

When drugs control your loved one you must then naturally ask who controls the drugs?  The answer is sad because by nature of being illegal drugs in your country are controlled by the local mafias.  Adam smith talked about the effects of such laws against commodity being able to enter a nation.  Such laws never stop demand, but only increase the price.  Silk Road will bring the price back into the favor of the people.  For some that is a scary thought, cheaper (and more accessible!) drugs for everyone.  But for users, and family and friends, that are experience in this messy world, it could be a god send to know that we can keep our fallen loved ones at home, under care and supervision, at least at some form of a truly safe housing until they can stabilize their life and start to rebuild if they ever can.

Let our loved ones not be controlled by lower level violent criminal organizations.

Its a form of decentralization, where drugs are control by one subset of our society (mostly the violent set).  Its true (and probably beneficial), that such organized crime itself at times could be centralized or decentralized depending on the hierarchy and economy in the underground world at different times.  There might be a question about whether or not silk road will be stomping on powerful organized crimes’ turf, and IF the balance of power turns will that lead to a violent war.  Truly this is where we begin to understand centralization and decentralization. There COULD be such a dramatic shift of power depending on how things unfold but basically the best business (this is what the successful criminal organizations are) can and will adapt. Many no doubt have already, and they should be encourage to enter this trade and compete and strive to be more legit and accepted in this world. We are basically asking them (with money) to leave or loved ones alone, stop employing violent members and just take our reoccurring orders and some of the risk associated.

The New Cycle

There is then proposed a new cycle, whereas the old method to deal with addiction was to want to change, detox, rehab, sobriety, now we have a more complex cycle:

Getting an Addict Home (An Addict Will Do Anything For Their Drug)

First the addict needs to be around family, friends, and other safe support in order to have a chance at succeeding.  We have known this, but its not a step that traditionally we could focus on because there wasn’t a reasonable way for family to affect this.  Most families can’t and are unwilling to by drugs.  Its expensive, dangerous, and most people don’t have the knowledge or resources to do this.  Since beating difficult addiction has such a low probability its not at all worth the efforts and so we have called such actions enabling. We suggest people must hit rock bottom and enabling them stops them from doing so.  One the other hand it is true that if family had these drugs that the addict would never leave.  We say the mind of an addict is complex and they will often lie and you can never trust them.  Trust is a funny thing dependent on how you use its definition.  If you trust an addict with your money that’s silly.  But if you want to trust and addict will show up for their supply of their drug of choice you can go ahead and bet your life on it.

We can get the addict home, we can get drugs safely and cheaply, but what we need is a high probably the addict will seek sobriety.  This is exactly the solution I wish to present.

In regards to getting them home, for many peoples specifically needles are a deal breaker.  But I think for most really its the peoples that are the deal breaker.  Here there could be a simply deal: You can use at my house, but if you tell any of your friends where you live then I won’t get you drugs and you have to move out.  I can’t imagine, provide the deal was legit and there were already drugs present, that any true addict would refuse such an amazing offer.

Getting an Addict Clean

Getting an addict clean I think is not as difficult (or hopeless) as it seems,  However this can be a complex and formulated process as well.  First, and something that is not so intuitive, there must be SOME trust in regards to the addicts willingness to come “home” in order to get high and be comfortable and able to get high.  It may or may not be appropriate or a deal breaker (from the addicts view) to decide that every time they come home there is the stipulation of getting clean.  But that said, I think that most or all addicts can true say they want to be clean, but they still get high anyways.  The other point is that every addict runs out of money and drugs, and so trading getting high again for seeing loved ones, getting food, warmth but having to get clean after isn’t something they can possibly refuse.  Further more, the whole “solution” here involving a formula and schedule of drugs including krathom, makes it so getting clean isn’t actually all that bad at all.

And that’s what it is, matching some amount of the addicts external habits and schedule with a similar at home schedule.  For most getting of needles is probably a priority (especially from family’s view), although pills vs heroine are more expensive.  Its unclear to me at this point what substitute will be reasonable from an addicts view, but it seems likely that any opium or heroine in any form, administer consistently WILL in fact keep the addict at home.  From here with love, support, nutrition sleep, routine, etc. different drugs and habits can be weened down slowly or substituted in such a way that the addict can have some control over their lifestyle.

Eventually there has to be some commitment to getting clean, which can and should generally happen as soon as possible.Basically the idea is the addict comes home, gets high for two or there days, then moves to pills at a lower dose and/or begins a Kratom detox.  A lot of fruit and vitamins, as much natural sleep (natural sleep aids and non addictive pills!) as possible.  Walks, talks, nature, touch from loved ones etc.  But no pressure.  Eventually 1 week of heavy kratom only sedation, and then a taper down to no Kratom but maintenance for the the cravings.
No pressure, but just the promise of a good life, once remembered.

Keeping an Addict Clean

There is much to write here but in regards to this writing we must understand the mind that has a deficiency that causes it to seek opiates cannot keep itself whole on will power alone.  What a terrible lonely existence for someone that lives in this world with this sickness but unrecognized.  I think there are many ways to heal and outgrow this ailment but the purpose of this writing is to suggest that Kratom can be used as a crutch so that our fallen loved one needs never go back to their old world again.

Healing an Addicts Brain/Lifestyle

When the brain learns it grows.  The brain is plastic in this form, but sometimes “outgrow” this plasticity and arrive at the belief that ours or others brains cannot grow.  I think we are bad at teaching and bad at learning. The key, once and addict is clean and relatively stable, is to learn and grow.  To change, to adapt. This is what we call moving on, not being our past.  It nearly matters not what we learn, but that there is true gain.  We call this gain confidence because of the effects.  It should be seen as a confidence that a person that stands straight is less likely to be a person under such darkness.

Relapsing and Repeating (Like its No Big Deal!)

There is a difference now, since drugs needn’t cause or attract stealing, violence, crime etc., relapsing should be seen as a temporary set back and not so important at all.  The addict must be free to relapse in order to feel comfortable coming home and trying again to get life back on track.  Relapsing is no longer so costly, nor so psychologically taxing for the peoples that are externally invested emotionally in the process (family!).  In this setting, relapsing will not cause the user to wander or veer far, they will be back for their cheapest most abundant source, and soon back in the arms of support.  Rinse and repeat.


Social Costs
Cost of Crime/Jail

Costs to taxpayers
According to a 2008 study published by Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron, the annual savings on enforcement and incarceration costs from the legalization of drugs would amount to roughly $41.3 billion, with $25.7 billion being saved among the states and over $15.6 billion accrued for the federal government. Miron further estimated at least $46.7 billion in tax revenue based on rates comparable to those on tobacco and alcohol ($8.7 billion from marijuana, $32.6 billion from cocaine and heroin, remainder from other drugs).[112]

Cost of Health Care
Cost of Poverty

No province-wide homeless count has ever been conducted. So researchers have cobbled together province-wide estimates. In late 2007, a researcher working for the New Democratic Party solicited numbers from every homeless shelter in the province, then compiled those figures to reach a province-wide total of 10,000 homeless.
Homeless individuals tend to be heavy users of police, ambulance, hospital and other emergency services. The Vancouver Police Department estimated that as many as a third of all its emergency calls are related to untreated mental illness and/or addiction, much of which is rooted within that city’s large homeless and under-housed population. – See more at:
The aforementioned SFU study found that it costs at least $55,000 a year to service a homeless person on the streets. A more comprehensive estimate conducted for the Calgary Homeless Foundation concluded that the total cost was $135,000 per person, per year.

Research in Canada and the United States has shown conclusively that homelessness is cheaper to fix than it is to ignore.
In a 2005 study comparing four Canadian cities, Steve Pomeroy estimated that it costs $66,000 to $120,000 per person per year for institutional responses to homelessness (e.g. prison, psychiatric hospitals) as compared with $13,000 to $18,000 for supportive housing.
In a 2006 study, Simon Fraser University estimated it costs $55,000 per person per year to leave someone homeless in British Columbia versus a housing and support cost of $37,000.
In 2007, the Calgary Homeless Foundation estimated that, on average, chronically homeless people consume $134,000 per person per year. Under their 10 Year Plan to End Homelessness, the Foundation has been able to provide housing and support to chronically homeless people for $10,000 to $25,000 per person per year

Cost of Missed Efficiency


A test regarding a supportive environment for different rats that are given addiction. I have used this observation in a very applicable form. This writing highlights possible reasons this may not have worked before in actuality and why it should likely work effectively now (ie getting our loved ones home and using drugs and kratom as a therapy to sobriety, in connection with treatment and rehabilitation).

Scientists adhering to the disease model believe that behavior is “the business of the brain,” according to Avram Goldstein, Professor Emeritus of Pharmacology at Stanford University, and a leading researcher into drug addiction.[8] Goldstein writes that the site of action of heroin and all other addictive drugs is a bundle of neurons deep in the brain called the mesolimbic dopaminergic pathway, a reward pathway that mediates feelings of wanting and motivation. Within this pathway, heroin causes dopamineneurons to release dopamine, a neurotransmitter that determines incentive salience and causes the user to want more. Dopamine neurons are normally held in check by inhibitory neurons, but heroin shuts these down, allowing the dopamine neurons to become overstimulated. The brain responds with feelings of euphoria, but the stimulation is excessive, and in order to protect itself against this, the brain adapts by becoming less sensitive to the heroin.[8]
This has two consequences, according to the disease model. First, more heroin is required to produce the high, and at the same time, the reward pathway becomes less sensitive to the effects of endorphins, which regulate the release of dopamine, so that without heroin, there is a persistent feeling of sickness. After repeated intake, the user becomes tolerant and dependent, and undergoes withdrawal symptoms if the heroin supply is terminated. As the feelings of withdrawal worsen, the user loses control, writes Goldstein, and becomes an addict.[8]
According to Alexander, the disease model makes either of two claims:
  • Claim A: All or most people who use heroin or cocaine beyond a certain minimum amount become addicted.
  • Claim B: No matter what proportion of the users of heroin and cocaine become addicted, their addiction is caused by exposure to the drug.[1]
The caged rats (Groups CC and PC) took to the morphine instantly, even with relatively little sweetener, with the caged males drinking 19 times more morphine than the Rat Park males in one of the experimental conditions. But no matter how sweet the morphine became, the rats in Rat Park resisted it. They would try it occasionally — with the females trying it more often than the males — but invariably they showed a preference for the plain water. It was, writes Alexander, “a statistically significant finding.”[1] He writes that the most interesting group was Group CP, the rats who were brought up in cages but moved to Rat Park before the experiment began. These animals rejected the morphine solution when it was stronger, but as it became sweeter and more dilute, they began to drink almost as much as the rats that had lived in cages throughout the experiment. They wanted the sweet water, he concluded, so long as it did not disrupt their normal social behavior.[1] Even more significant, he writes, was that when he added a drug called Naloxone, which negates the effects of opioids, to the morphine-laced water, the Rat Park rats began to drink it.
Some further studies failed to reproduce the original experiment’s results, but in at least one of these studies[12] both caged and “park” rats showed a decreased preference for morphine, suggesting a genetic difference. In any case, the publications did draw attention to the idea that the environment that laboratory animals live in might influence the outcome in experiments related to addiction.

Decoupling Myth and Belief From Fact

The (Failed) Drug War

The drug war we should understand from the perspective of the centralization of drugs in which the profits are taken by the criminal organizations and the regulations and laws are enforced by governments and not by the consumers. Addiction, its causes and solution, has remained a mystery to our society almost like a paradox.  Its long been known the war on drugs cannot an does not work.  But what could be a reasonable alternative, and how could it be brought about.

Very simply, different individuals and/or distraught families all over the world will hear of the concept of Silk Road, and learn of processes like this one involving kratom.  Their family members will come home and receive the help they need.  We will educate ourselves and not fear drugs or addiction because now we have a solution that allows us to face the reality of drugs and addiction.

Costs to taxpayers
According to a 2008 study published by Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron, the annual savings on enforcement and incarceration costs from the legalization of drugs would amount to roughly $41.3 billion, with $25.7 billion being saved among the states and over $15.6 billion accrued for the federal government. Miron further estimated at least $46.7 billion in tax revenue based on rates comparable to those on tobacco and alcohol ($8.7 billion from marijuana, $32.6 billion from cocaine and heroin, remainder from other drugs).[112]
Heroin trafficking operations involving the CIA, U.S. Navy and Sicilian Mafia
Further information: Collaborations between the United States government and Italian Mafia
According to Rodney Campbell, an editorial assistant to Nelson Rockefeller, during World War II, the United States Navy, concerned that strikes and labor disputes in U.S. eastern shipping ports would disrupt wartime logistics, released the mobster Lucky Luciano from prison, and collaborated with him to help the mafia take control of those ports. Labor union members were terrorized and murdered by mafia members as a means of preventing labor unrest and ensuring smooth shipping of supplies to Europe.[123]
According to Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, in order to prevent Communist party members from being elected in Italy following World War II, the CIA worked closely with the Sicilian Mafia, protecting them and assisting in their worldwide heroin smuggling operations. The mafia was in conflict with leftist groups and was involved in assassinating, torturing, and beating leftist political organizers.[124]
Efficiency of war on drugs in the United States
In 1986, the US Defense Department funded a two-year study by the RAND Corporation, which found that the use of the armed forces to interdict drugs coming into the United States would have little or no effect on cocaine traffic and might, in fact, raise the profits of cocaine cartels and manufacturers. The 175-page study, “Sealing the Borders: The Effects of Increased Military Participation in Drug Interdiction”, was prepared by seven researchers, mathematicians and economists at the National Defense Research Institute, a branch of the RAND, and was released in 1988. The study noted that seven prior studies in the past nine years, including one by the Center for Naval Research and the Office of Technology Assessment, had come to similar conclusions. Interdiction efforts, using current armed forces resources, would have almost no effect on cocaine importation into the United States, the report concluded.[125]
During the early-to-mid-1990s, the Clinton administration ordered and funded a major cocaine policy study, again by RAND. The Rand Drug Policy Research Center study concluded that $3 billion should be switched from federal and local law enforcement to treatment. The report said that treatment is the cheapest way to cut drug use, stating that drug treatment is twenty-three times more effective than the supply-side “war on drugs”.[126]
The National Research Council Committee on Data and Research for Policy on Illegal Drugs published its findings in 2001 on the efficacy of the drug war. The NRC Committee found that existing studies on efforts to address drug usage and smuggling, from U.S. military operations to eradicate coca fields in Colombia, to domestic drug treatment centers, have all been inconclusive, if the programs have been evaluated at all: “The existing drug-use monitoring systems are strikingly inadequate to support the full range of policy decisions that the nation must make…. It is unconscionable for this country to continue to carry out a public policy of this magnitude and cost without any way of knowing whether and to what extent it is having the desired effect.”[127] The study, though not ignored by the press, was ignored by top-level policymakers, leading Committee Chair Charles Manski to conclude, as one observer notes, that “the drug war has no interest in its own results”.[128]
During alcohol prohibition, the period from 1920 to 1933, alcohol use initially fell but began to increase as early as 1922. It has been extrapolated that even if prohibition had not been repealed in 1933, alcohol consumption would have quickly surpassed pre-prohibition levels.[129] One argument against the War on Drugs is that it uses similar measures as Prohibition and is no more effective.
In the six years from 2000 to 2006, the U.S. spent $4.7 billion on Plan Colombia, an effort to eradicate coca production in Colombia. The main result of this effort was to shift coca production into more remote areas and force other forms of adaptation. The overall acreage cultivated for coca in Colombia at the end of the six years was found to be the same, after the U.S. Drug Czar’s office announced a change in measuring methodology in 2005 and included new areas in its surveys.[130] Cultivation in the neighboring countries of Peru and Bolivia increased, some would describe this effect like squeezing a balloon.[131]
Similar lack of efficacy is observed in some other countries pursuing similar[citation needed] policies. In 1994, 28.5% of Canadians reported having consumed illicit drugs in their life; by 2004, that figure had risen to 45%. 73% of the $368 million spent by the Canadian government on targeting illicit drugs in 2004–2005 went toward law enforcement rather than treatment, prevention or harm reduction.[132]
Richard Davenport-Hines, in his book The Pursuit of Oblivion,[133] criticized the efficacy of the War on Drugs by pointing out that
10–15% of illicit heroin and 30% of illicit cocaine is intercepted. Drug traffickers have gross profit margins of up to 300%. At least 75% of illicit drug shipments would have to be intercepted before the traffickers’ profits were hurt.
Alberto Fujimori, president of Peru from 1990 to 2000, described U.S. foreign drug policy as “failed” on grounds that “for 10 years, there has been a considerable sum invested by the Peruvian government and another sum on the part of the American government, and this has not led to a reduction in the supply of coca leaf offered for sale. Rather, in the 10 years from 1980 to 1990, it grew 10-fold.”[134]
At least 500 economists, including Nobel Laureates Milton Friedman,[135] George Akerlof and Vernon L. Smith, have noted that reducing the supply of marijuana without reducing the demand causes the price, and hence the profits of marijuana sellers, to go up, according to the laws of supply and demand.[136] The increased profits encourage the producers to produce more drugs despite the risks, providing a theoretical explanation for why attacks on drug supply have failed to have any lasting effect. The aforementioned economists published an open letter to President George W. Bush stating “We urge…the country to commence an open and honest debate about marijuana prohibition… At a minimum, this debate will force advocates of current policy to show that prohibition has benefits sufficient to justify the cost to taxpayers, foregone tax revenues and numerous ancillary consequences that result from marijuana prohibition.”
The declaration from the World Forum Against Drugs, 2008 state that a balanced policy of drug abuse prevention, education, treatment, law enforcement, research, and supply reduction provides the most effective platform to reduce drug abuse and its associated harms and call on governments to consider demand reduction as one of their first priorities in the fight against drug abuse.[137]
Despite over $7 billion spent annually towards arresting[138] and prosecuting nearly 800,000 people across the country for marijuana offenses in 2005[citation needed] (FBI Uniform Crime Reports), the federally funded Monitoring the Future Survey reports about 85% of high school seniors find marijuana “easy to obtain”. That figure has remained virtually unchanged since 1975, never dropping below 82.7% in three decades of national surveys.[139] The Drug Enforcement Administration states that the number of users of marijuana in the U.S. declined between 2000 and 2005 even with many states passing new medical marijuana laws making access easier,[140] though usage rates remain higher than they were in the 1990s according to the NSDUH.[141]
ONDCP stated in April 2011 that there has been a 46 percent drop in cocaine use among young adults over the past five years, and a 65 percent drop in the rate of people testing positive for cocaine in the workplace since 2006.[142] At the same time, a 2007 study found that up to 35% of college undergraduates used stimulants not prescribed to them.[143]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s