91–100 of 104 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you explain the failed drug decriminalization in Oregon?
Because they actually have a homeless problem and it was conflated with drugs. They are unwilling to run homeless people out of their cities. San Francisco has the same issues but drugs aren't legal there.
Or, you know, actually house them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you provide all resources to people to enjoy opiates - they will have no incentive to quit. So?
Ah, the "progressive" argument. Let people rot to death, it's the compassionate way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they actually have a homeless problem and it was conflated with drugs. They are unwilling to run homeless people out of their cities. San Francisco has the same issues but drugs aren't legal there.
> They are unwilling to run homeless people out of their cities Or, you know, actually house them.
It's sad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah, the "progressive" argument. Let people rot to death, it's the compassionate way.
We let people smoke cigarettes and alcohol, both of which are physically more dangerous than opiates. There's even research that tobacco is as addictive as or more addictive than most opiates. I wouldn't call this argument "progressive" and instead call it "consistent with what Americans do with some drugs that are taxed".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To a place with cheaper cost of living. There shouldn't be any homeless people in California. It doesn't make economic sense. They will never be able to get back on their feet again. Tons of homeless people gathering in any place that has a good social safety net and draining it ruins any city's ability to have a good social safety net. It punishes and ruins the cities that try to lead with compassion.
> It doesn't make economic sense. The motivation isn't 'economic sense', it's not dying when sleeping outside in a cold snap. > Tons of homeless people gathering in any place that has a good social safety net Maybe the answer here is to actually have a social safety net at the national level, instead of trying to shuffle people around in exactly the same way that hasn't accomplished anything useful since before the D…
You keep misrepresenting the situation by dramatizing it. People sleep on the streets of San Francisco (one of the most expensive cities in the US) not because it's literally the only place in the country or even the state where they would not die in a cold snap. SF is brutally expensive, it's unreasonable to expect it to solve homelessness by housing people. It hasn't happened and it will never happen. Ever. We can spend $100B more on this next year, and we will just have more homeless people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I acknowledge that treatment works and decriminalization of (highly addictive hard) drugs does not. I don't necessarily advocate for treatment because we already spend too much money on this problem.
This makes sense. Treatment works but isn’t quite worth advocating for because it is too expensive, as compared to the cost of policing and incarcerating people, which municipalities pay nothing for
A significant issue with fentanyl related mortality is accidental consumption. Fentanyl is so potent and because of its relative ease of synthesis and a careless illegal drug supply chain, contamination is common. Not all but many of these deaths are a result of teens consuming a drug that they percieve as "safe" like marijuana or "adderall" or "oxy" etc but through careless handling by dealers or intentional misrepr…
I keep reading this, but I haven't been able to find much data on intentional vs. accidental consumption with the exception of people who thought they were taking heroin. Do you have any sources on how many deaths can be attributed to laced or misrepresented non-opiates (e.g. marijuana, adderall, mdma)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What was your personal experience with decriminalization in Oregon?
I have no personal experience with decriminalization in Oregon. What's your point?