3 ms·
So now the government has to buy people their drugs? We don't do that for alcoholics. There's a very strong moral hazard argument against doing that, but it's
by starkd 4y ago
So now the government has to buy people their drugs? We don't do that for alcoholics. There's a very strong moral hazard argument against doing that, but it's just plain cruel to the very population you think you are helping.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> So now the government has to buy people their drugs? We don't do that for alcoholics. GP said “legalization or free supply”, and for alcohol we have legalization. So, yes, we do what the GP actually suggested, though not your strawman, for alcoholics.
- Tiktaalik 4y agoWe do create a safe supply of drugs and a safe, monitored use site for alcoholics. We call them bars. We don't provide this for other drugs. There's a handful of safe injection sites for drugs in some cities around the world (such as Vancouver) but the drugs are still toxic. It's good that people are on hand to handle the inevitable overdoses and other issues. This saves lives. The further necessary solution however is a safe supply of drugs, so that people can actually know what they're using. This is the core problem that is driving so many deaths. Imagine if there was no such thing as legal liquor or bars and alcoholics just drank some stuff that some guy made. There'd be a lot more deaths and poisonings from this.