In politics most people just critizise each other, but what did your local government actually do a good job on?

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    01 year ago

    Why don’t you give them your money? Go minimize harm in your local community.

    Addicts quit because they hit rock bottom. They get to a point where they cannot sustain their lifestyle. You will be preventing them from ever getting to that point and they will be able to sustain their addiction indefinitely. Until the money runs out and they are more addicted than when they started. Free money never lasts forever.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        0
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I fucking hate when nerds request a source for something that is clearly an opinion or common sense. What are you disputing?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          21 year ago

          Common sense is extremely subjective.

          Is it really more effective to not help addicts than to use harm reduction methods?

          “Facts over feels” and all that.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            0
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            There is a difference between harm reduction and giving addicts free drugs. You know this and are greatly oversimplifying the discussion.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              21 year ago

              Giving addicts free drugs is a subset of harm reduction. Honestly, at this point in the discussion, we need numbers to be productive.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  21 year ago

                  If they’re not stealing for money, supporting the black market, dying of overdoses, or spreading disease by sharing needles, and have consistent dosages and proximity to support programs, why quit?

                  Probably the massive social stigma and loss of positive effects due to built tolerance.

                  It would make the problem way less urgent at any rate.

                  (https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/opioids/responding-canada-opioid-crisis/safer-supply.html)

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    01 year ago

                    If they’re not stealing for money, supporting the black market, dying of overdoses, or spreading disease by sharing needles, and have consistent dosages and proximity to support programs, why quit? Probably the massive social stigma and loss of positive effects due to built tolerance.

                    Yeah sorry I’m not sure social stigma is going to stop addicts from using drugs. agree to disagree I guess.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      1
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      I’d like to point out that it costs a society much less to supply one with heroin than it does to deal with all the thefts and crime that comes with the user having to fund an illegal black market, not to mention all the stabbings over drug territory.

      We need to grow some balls and be adult about this situation, what we’re doing hasn’t worked for the last 50 years.

      Misuse of Drugs act has been in place what 50 years now? Consumption rates have increased and so have people getting contaminated drugs/deaths.

      Source you may ask? Oh… only the National Crime Agency on gov.uk

      https://nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/nsa-drugs

      And we may be nerds but if that means I know what I’m talking about then fuck yeah, beats staying in ones box and regurgitating the statue-quo. - When frontline police say we’re making the problem worse one has to start asking questions.