4 ms·
Free supply won’t really be a solution and I can’t imagine why it would. Would making junk food and soda free food end the obesity epidemic? Making it free wil
by grapeskin 4y ago
Free supply won’t really be a solution and I can’t imagine why it would. Would making junk food and soda free food end the obesity epidemic?
Making it free will only make that area a hub for people seeking to get high. Portland, Seattle, and SF are already hot spots where people actively come because they know they can get high easily. Making it completely free is just an even bigger invitation.
I think one of America’s greatest successes has been with tobacco. For the most part, Americans don’t want to smoke and find the idea disgusting—that’s a massive turnaround from a couple decades ago and even completely different from many countries in Europe or Asia. It’s also getting harder and harder to purchase tobacco in many places, but what kept me and much of my generation from ever touching a cigarette was media campaigns in the 90s that depicted cigarette smokers as vile, disgusting people. Other anti-drug programs try fear mongering with saying one dose of weed will kill you or whatever and people saw through that. But telling kids that they’re gross losers who everyone hates if they use a substance? That has a bit more effect.
But for people who are active addicts, treatment is hard. There are countless interviews with addicts on YouTube, and the conclusion every single one of them presents is “I could’ve gotten help, but I didn’t want it.” You need to make people want to overcome their addiction. Feeding it won’t do anything.
- freedomben 4y agoI don't think GP was arguing for free drugs (that would indeed be crazy). I think they were making a point about how our current policy is an intentional choice to drive drug users into poverty by making drugs wildly expensive.
- rjbwork 4y agoI'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of distributing it totally free of cost, along with needle exchanges, etc. But yeah, I was speaking more about difference between what an addict pays for fentanyl and the actual cost to produce it.
- HWR_14 4y agoMaking it free keeps people from needing to break everyone's windows to get their next fix. It also allows them to use their money on food/rent/etc so they are less likely to wind up homeless. It also means that they congregate in one area, so it's easier to provide resources if they decide to seek help. It also prevents, you know, fentanyl from getting into the supply, having people get more addicted to a stronger drug.
- grapeskin 4y agoThere’s also the reality that people who don’t want to go through the shame and trouble of finding a person who could give them a solid hookup and so never try heroin in the first place. Drugs are partly an issue of convenience. An 18-21 year old who isn’t thinking much about the future and figures “why not” is more likely to try something if it’s free and “safe” due to being distributed by someone reputable than they are to try a grimy baggy that could have anything inside. When people know they can get a good, pure LSD hookup, they’re more likely to try it. People are more concerned about trying random research chemicals because the effects are unknown—that keeps quite a few people from ever trying LSD or psychedelics as a whole. If people could drop by a volunteer-operated free distribution center, I’m pretty sure we’d have loads more people trying LSD. (Not that I’m saying LSD is deadly like heroin, but the fear of danger is keeping people away from it)
- HWR_14 4y agoYeah, no one is advocating for a punch bowl of drugs on every streetcorner. Places that give away free drugs limit them to addicts.