Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
The solution to heroin addicts is not giving them free heroin. Sure it reduces some of the negative externalities temporarily but only because you are subsidizing their addiction. Drug addiction is a permanent drain on resources until you quit. making someone else pay for it is not a solution
Permanently. And "quit" seems like too light a word for the herculean task of getting clean. They deserve all the help we can give. That it essentially removes all the negative externalities should make this a no-brainer.
giving drugs to a drug addict is not helping them, sorry. and giving them money doesn't remove all negative externalities, that is a ridiculous statement. It just makes them less desperate for cash, they are still in a full blown addiction being controlled by the drugs.
Exactly. They're addicted. They're going to get the drugs one way or another. May as well minimize the harm.
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.
Do you have a source for that?
I fucking hate when nerds request a source for something that is clearly an opinion or common sense. What are you disputing?
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.
There is a difference between harm reduction and giving addicts free drugs. You know this and are greatly oversimplifying the discussion.
Giving addicts free drugs is a subset of harm reduction. Honestly, at this point in the discussion, we need numbers to be productive.
What is the incentive to quit drugs if you are given them for free your entire life?
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)
Yeah sorry I'm not sure social stigma is going to stop addicts from using drugs. agree to disagree I guess.
"doing heroin is bad actually"
UHHH SOURCE? SOURCE? SOURCE? SOURCE? SOURCE? SOURCE?
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.
Perhaps it would be better if you didn't spoke about things you understand shit about
Good comment bro. Bet you felt smart writing that. Go give all your money to drug addicts bro its what the science says is best
Maybe on Cloud 9… You set up services like the above source that people can access. It’s Canada and works quite well.
Give your money directly to addicts 😂 I dunno where you heard that one mate but science definitely doesn’t say you should do that 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I think mandatory care is the way to go, if the government knows that you have an addiction it seems silly to do anything but make sure you have the tools to quit and have no option but to quit. People will do whatever is convenient, path of least resistance and all, there's just no incentive for an addict to report themselves if they're gonna be thrown in prison for it.
Mandatory care has the same incentive against self reporting though?
Do we have any data on relapse rates from this vs non-mandatory methods? My guess would be high recidivism if the person is released back into the exact same circumstances in which they started using in the first place.
Your logic is so flawed. They’re bad for doing drugs.. and the drugs have a really bad effect on people.
Shouldn’t that be punishment enough in itself? Instead of throwing criminal records at people which makes it MUCH harder to get back on the right path.
Wanna bank account? Oop you’ve got a criminal record sorry. Car insurance? Sorry criminal record, much more expensive now. You wanna job! Criminal record? Oooo I dunno..
We make the problem worse dude..
Throwing someone in jail for drug consumption is akin to calling the police as your mates just broke his leg….
They need help not a damn jail cell, which may I point out.. we can’t control drugs in our maximum security prisons either so to think we can control them in a “free society” without taking ownership of supply is borderline delusional.
You should see the resources we spend on enforcing the Misuse of Drugs act / Drug War! It’s an insane waste of money and resources. Police themselves say they find someone with a joint, have to spend half an hour on an archaic computer system to process them and It wastes a lot of police time and money where they could otherwise be putting their time and resources towards real issues. (A Special Constable said this on question time, and pointed out the associated stabbings in London are mostly over drug territory).
We’ve gifted organised crime a billion pound market since our gov bowed down to the United States aggressive foreign policy to enforce the Misuse of Drugs Act in our near past.
https://nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/nsa-drugs