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

  • cricket97@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 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.

      • cricket97@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        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?

        • twelvefloatinghands@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 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.

          • cricket97@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            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.

                • twelvefloatinghands@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 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)

                  • cricket97@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 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.

    • TrickedPrivacy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year 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.