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.
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.
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 70 years 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.
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?
“doing heroin is bad actually”
UHHH SOURCE? SOURCE? SOURCE? SOURCE? SOURCE? SOURCE?
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)
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 70 years 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.