this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
91 points (100.0% liked)

Libraries

475 readers
1 users here now

For talk of all things related to libraries!

Please follow this instances rules.

To find more communities on this instance, go to: !411@literature.cafe

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I like this, but watch out… it will be tin foil and straws soon.

[–] gabe 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee -2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

This is true, but easier access to safety nets means less risk and more use. Especially in the open, directly outside the library and inside.

Double edged sword.

[–] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Got any proof it actually increases use and doesn't just move the users to somewhere a little more visible?

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Got proof it doesn’t? 🤷‍♂️

[–] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You made the claim, back it up or shut up

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Do you expect people, including yourself, to show up with data to an online conversation? And, if I browse your history, would I find you citing all of the sources for you opinions?

Back the fuck up, please.

[–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Do you expect people, including yourself, to show up with data to an online conversation?

If they're going to make controversial claims, yes.

And, if I browse your history, would I find you citing all of the sources for you opinions?

You stated a claim of fact, not an opinion.

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)
  1. its not controversial to me.

  2. that’s not an answer to the question.

[–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

its not controversial to me.

You aren't the only one here.

that’s not an answer to the question.

Indeed. It's an explanation of why your question is irrelevant.

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

You’re entitled to you opinion

[–] kitonthenet@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Do u want more overdoses or less overdoses

[–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I seem to recall a similar argument being made against condoms being readily available. “Those harlots will bed any man they please if they don't have to worry about getting pregnant or catching a disease! The horror!” Nevermind that condoms make the issue moot: getting pregnant or catching a disease is the only reason not to bed any man you please.

And what do you know? Now that sex does not equal babies, women can and routinely do exit toxic relationships instead of being trapped in them for life. “The horror” indeed.

This doesn't really apply to the present situation, though, because using drugs still ruins your life, exactly as before, and it still kills you, just slightly slower.

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Did they feel wearing a condom gave them the right to fuck at the library in full view of children?

I see what you’re saying, but I just think there is a better location for these things to be distributed. Like, a shelter, or a hospital, or damn near any Walgreens.

[–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Did they feel wearing a condom gave them the right to fuck at the library in full view of children?

How is that relevant? Nobody proposed to make it legal for people to use drugs out in the open. Presumably they'll still be arrested if they do.

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I didn’t really understand how condoms were all that similar to narcan, but you went with it anyway.

Anyhow:

Visit Portland and you’ll understand. It’s legal to do drugs on the street. They distribute tin foil and straws. You can get narcan easily.

It’s a shit show.

If you don’t put words in my mouth, it’s just this: there’s a better place to distribute medical devices than a hospital.

[–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You're confusing cause with effect. Portland has a poverty problem, not a drug problem. Housing prices there are extreme. Wages there are nowhere close enough to afford housing there. This has displaced a buttload of people out of their homes and onto the street. These people have nothing left of their old lives, nowhere to go, and nothing to do but get high and detach themselves from their horrible reality as much as possible, especially now that it's over 100°F outside. Better than slowly and horribly dying of hyperthermia in a prison cell while fully conscious and sober, like what's happening in some other parts of the country.

Oregon has serious problems—catastrophic problems, even—but drug legalization isn't one of them. It's just a convenient scapegoat for people who don't want to solve those problems.

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

I’m curious to see how the situations become similar in Phoenix when the water runs out, and it’s 130°