10 ms·

Open drug scenes[0] are behind the push to end open drug scenes. 9% of prisons are private, which is 9% too many, but it's the citizens who have to endure open

Open drug scenes[0] are behind the push to end open drug scenes. 9% of prisons are private, which is 9% too many, but it's the citizens who have to endure open drug scenes who are behind the push to end them. [0]: https://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/259053 https://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/259053 This problem is described, wrongly, as homelessness, by both advocates for ending open drug scenes, and by activists who view themselves as working on behalf of the unhoused. That's not the effect of their activism. The effect of their advocacy is to increase misery. Open drug scenes make the city unsafe. Open drug scenes draw the temporarily homeless into a shadow market of addictions and prostitution. Open drug scenes are bad for everyone who has to be near them, but they are particularly destructive to the mentally ill addicts who constitute them. I'm sure private prisons would love to turn all of us into literal slaves, but if we reduced the number of them down to the correct 0%, urban residents would still be demanding the end of open drug scenes. They are right to do so. Supporting open drug scenes is supporting misery, harm, assault, theft, overdose, rape. Don't support open drug scenes. Make sure your donations to help the unhoused don't support open drug scenes (this is difficult). Also, let's end private prisons. It was never a good idea and it won't get better with time.

IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago
I don't know what this "Open Drug Scene" What is it ? What is the best way to describe it ? Can it be summarized as Hamsterdam (from HBOs' The Wire) ?
- willhslade 4y ago
  I think he's thinking of East Hastings in Vancouver or Kensington in Philadelphia. YouTube will likely shock you if you're not familiar with this subculture.
arcticbull 4y ago
The best way to solve the drug problem is legalizing all drugs (or at least decriminalizing them) so let's do that too. There's high-quality precedent, and Portugal is the classic example. They decriminalized all drugs back in 2001 and went from one of the worst in the EU to one of the best in the EU along basically every major measure of drug harm. [1] [edit] > The opioid crisis soon stabilised, and the ensuing years saw dramatic drops in problematic drug use, HIV and hepatitis infection rates, overdose deaths, drug-related crime and incarceration rates. HIV infection plummeted from an all-time high in 2000 of 104.2 new cases per million to 4.2 cases per million in 2015. This was achieved in conjunction with some rehab social programs. The article is worth a read. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radical-drugs-policy-is-working-why-hasnt-the-world-copied-it https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radic...
- samatman 4y ago
  The paper I linked to had several case studies, I think the Zurich and Portugal model both have a lot to teach the USA. But step one is to stop pretending that open drugs scenes are caused by homelessness. They're caused by open-air markets for drugs, and the US in fact does a fairly good job of caring for the unhoused except for the open drug scene problem. End those, the rest of the unhoused have enough available solutions, and it's easier to do more when more is needed. There's no ending them without a health care policy for addiction, either. Treating drug addiction as a criminal matter just leads back to open drug scenes. Keeping them gone requires a different approach.
  - maxwell 4y ago
    What, if any, approaches or policies are you actually advocating for when you talk about "ending" open drug scenes? DEA raids and incarceration of the homeless? Universal healthcare and ending scheduling of drugs? State/federal bans on overly-restrictive local zoning and international building codes, which prevent the construction of affordable new housing?
    - samatman 4y ago
      Is it really too much to expect you to read the paper, which I've referenced, and pointed to two of the case studies as particularly valuable? I'm not an expert, it doesn't make sense for me to do more than point to the expert opinions which I consider valuable here. It's none of the things in your paragraph. Open drug scenes are not caused by homelessness so housing the unhoused does not in itself solve the problem. It takes more than that. One of the reasons I care about this is the evidence that housing-first policies fail if and when there are open drug scenes.
    - uoaei 4y ago
      I've encountered OP before as a commenter. They use verbose diatribes to try to shuffle their own (quite radical) personal moral convictions past the HN crowd. For what reason, I do not know, but it is to me indistinguishable from a lack of real understanding. It reminds me of economists who grow up only reading Hayek, never having seen the inside of day-to-day business operations.
kasey_junk 4y ago
Not sure where you are located but one thing I’ve found is that people from the Bay Area are much more concerned about drugs amongst the homeless than in other locations. And rightly! It’s shocking as a visitor to encounter San Francisco’s version of homelessness. As a Chicagoan though I’m much more concerned about mental health and access to short term housing. We’ve eliminated almost all of the short term housing that helps people move off the streets with the obvious side effect of homeless encampments. But you very rarely hear any talk of easing the restrictions on short term housing.
- AlexTWithBeard 4y ago
  Any attempt to establish a short term housing prompts multiple questions. For example, do you allow drunk people in? If you don't, you leave a lot of people on the shore. If you do, you end up with drunk fights and vomit on the stairs. Go figure.
  - tartoran 4y ago
    Maybe it should be on categories: you get drunk, you move where the vomit and drunk violence is. You want to commit to stop drinkig you get out of there. But it’s more wishful thinking as nobody sane wants to monitor these. All solutions that are given seem to be half assed and barely work.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      The perfect is the enemy of the good in lots of these cases, the old flophouses would have drunk tanks where they knew to throw the appropriate people, and hoseable floors. But you can't build things like that anymore; you get shut down if you're not meeting all the "minimum requirements" and so the people who at least used to have a heated room out of the weather are now living rough.
  - kasey_junk 4y ago
    There is an SRO less than a block from my house (one of very few left in the city). They have strict rules around intoxication outside of your room. It does have the impact of meaning people who can't control their abuse have to find other housing. We should have a place for those folks too, but I'd rather there be a place that doesn't solve all of the housing issues, but can get some people off the streets rather than wait for a solution that solves every issue. As an aside, they are perfectly good neighbors. As is the studio apartment complex next to it, that is a single tier above the SRO. I have a lot more trouble from the fast food wing place on the other side of the block than I've ever had from my neighbors.
Manu40 4y ago
Reminds me of needle exchanges, and the harm they brought to neighborhoods that opened them out of the 'goodness' of their hearts, only to end up turning their neighborhood into the newest drug slum. Or at least that's been my experience so far in any city I have lived in that has one near my current location. One place I even moved to and from again twice, and got to see the before and after through the decade essentially. It's like night and day. Absolutely no one will ever be able to convince me otherwise that these programs are a good idea, especially when the best idea is to just remove these people from urban centers by tossing them into rehab out in the country side where they can't get these drugs easily. I've seen that work wonders by comparison; and it doesn't ruin neighborhoods which gives NIMBY's a legitimate excuse to do things like round up the homeless and put them in jails. Which I do not agree with, but understand their grief. The very act is a breach of their natural rights as a human being, and let's not get me started on my opinions about how housing should be a natural human right irrevocable by anyone or anything. The yellow brick road is paved not by the demons among us, but those who think themselves angels. Edit: I'm going to sleep now folks, so if I don't respond to anyone after this point of 7:15am CST-6, that's why. You all have a nice day, and/or a nice night.
- manholio 4y ago
  > needle exchanges... end up turning their neighborhood into the newest drug slum. How do you suppose that happened? Do you think there was a severely addicted population that could not get their fix due to concerns of transmittable diseases? So were forced to quit cold turkey, at the height of their despair, for lack of sanitary injection paraphernalia? You surely realize how absurd that sounds, right? Since you seem to be a well reasoned and articulate person, I'm genuinely curious how could a needle exchange program cause neighborhoods to turn into "drug slums"? Perhaps you are seeing a correlation with drug use that does not reveal any causality? Perhaps needle exchange programs induce normalization of drug use in a certain area, making addicts fell less rejected and thus attracting them there? But surely such a visible concentration of addicts in a certain area is just a symptom a much larger invisible problem and condemning those those affected to AIDS or Hep-C does nothing to solve the root cause?
  - 4y ago
airza 4y ago
Saying "end" here acts like the current system ends the misery of the homeless people who are subjected to it. But the position they end up inside of a US prison is equally miserable. The only difference is that it is invisible to those in the outside world.
- jollyllama 4y ago
  That's not the only difference, of course, given that the prisons get more money. Really, this is a call to privatize the misery. Still, it could be a net gain if it costs less than subsidizing emergency services and reclaims the streets.
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    Net gain for who?
    - jollyllama 4y ago
      If you assume the misery of the users is constant between the drug zones and the prisons, everyone.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
travisporter 4y ago
Article and definition of open drug scenes is paywalled
jrm4 4y ago
Don't bury the lede. "Open Drug Scenes" (never heard this phrase before) are merely a symptom of homelessness, a problem that has proven to be simple, if not easy, to solve.
- ameister14 4y ago
  So you're saying that people are addicted drugs because they are homeless, they are not homeless because they are addicted to drugs?
  - jrm4 4y ago
    No, and this is such a weird and bad logical jump, and really shows the limitations of strict logical thinking and lack appreciated second-order type stuff. Rich or middle class addicts still have houses to get high in.
    - ameister14 4y ago
      It's anecdotal, but I've definitely had rich friends get high in the open. Even when not homeless, there are a lot of reasons to hide an addiction from the people in your home and instead seek out locations where you can get high.
    - Acutulus 4y ago
      Agreed. In my moderately sized southern city of 200k, we logged/censused 576 homeless a few months ago. Of course these individuals were the ones able to be counted; there's likely more. So roughly a quarter of a percent per captia. As with most US cities of this size and economic demographic we have a few areas where those without housing tend to congregate. Pains me and I wish I could help more than I do. And from what I have seen in my many decades of living here, these areas are totally devoid of this "open air drug market" characteristic. Not to say transactions don't happen they most certainly do, but that's true of every square foot of any US city, and the people in these places shield their behaviors from public eyes as well as anyone else that procures such things. My city is experiencing a staggering increase in violence this past year at a seemingly disproportionately faster rate than other nearby metro areas if my napkin math holds true and yet none of that violence is noted as occurring at these areas I'm describing. I think that's worth noting too. The interplay of homelessness, mental health, drug dependency, economic struggle and societal rejection is a very complicated and interwoven problem. It's disappointing to hear that there are individuals who feel so self assured in the sources of these problems when it's evident that the qualities of these problems widely differ from place to place.
chrisshroba 4y ago
What is an “open drug scene”?
- ReactiveJelly 4y ago
  "Open drug scenes are gatherings of drug users who publicly consume and deal drugs." I hadn't heard it either, and the PDF didn't load for me.
- shlant 4y ago
  it's defined in the paper but of course that's behind a paywall. Considering how many times the OP used the term, it would have been helpful for it to be defined. Here is the full paper: https://sci-hub.se/10.1159/000259053 https://sci-hub.se/10.1159/000259053
  - lake_vincent 4y ago
    Lol right? If you're gonna say something 20 times, clearly economy of words is not your priority, so might as well define the damn thing.
- fundad 4y ago
  It’s the new “you’re siding with the terrorists”
- the_lonely_road 4y ago
  This is a long documentary so I am sure there are better videos that get right to the point but this street is one of the more famous examples in America that you will hear brought up repeatedly in places like reddit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXyXYJg9SyY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXyXYJg9SyY You get a good sense at 21:00 in the video.
  - khill 4y ago
    I had a feeling this was going to be Kensington before I even clicked the link.
- 4y ago
shkkmo 4y ago
I'm a bit confused what point your are trying to make. You don't ever define open drug scenes and the you link to an abstract for a paywalled article is similarly lacking. Based on some searching I found a paper that provides the following definition: "Open drug scenes are gatherings of drug users who publicly consume and deal drugs." But also acknowledges it is generally a fairly loosely defined term. You repeatedly say "don't support open drug scenes" but never explain what you mean beyond a vague assertion that advocates for the unhoused support open drug scenes. You make absolutely no concrete comments on specific policy approaches, you just dismiss an entire group in a very general fashion. Homelessness and open drug scenes are entwined, but different issues. Not all people at an open drug scene are unhoused. Many unhoused people are not drug addicts, though they tend to be less noticeable than the ones who are. All of this seems to be a red herring since the article we are discussing brings up specific laws. Those are not laws focused in any way on addressing open drug scenes, but rather laws that target vagrancy in general. These laws are being pushed forward by groups funded by private prison owners. Thus your assertion that this is somehow not true with a deflection onto "open drug scenes" is not convincing.
welshwelsh 4y ago
Drug problems are always symptoms of bigger problems. There's nothing wrong with drug use as long as it's properly regulated. There are many harm reduction measures that are better than criminalization. If you don't want people using drugs on the sidewalk, give them a better place to do it. Countries like Denmark and Switzerland have had enormous success with government run heroin clinics. Supplying free, clean drugs in a safe environment reduces overdoses, prevents drug users from going into debt and almost completely eliminates drug related crime. In general, the solution to problems like homelessness and drug addiction is to give people the support they need. Direct cash transfers are by far the most effective way of supporting people, but this is unpopular because the public doesn't trust the poor. People tend to think homeless people are irrational and will waste any money they are given on drugs, even though that's been proven false. The biggest challenge is combating prejudice and changing public opinion.
daniel-cussen 4y ago

IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago

I don't know what this "Open Drug Scene" What is it ? What is the best way to describe it ? Can it be summarized as Hamsterdam (from HBOs' The Wire) ?

willhslade 4y ago
I think he's thinking of East Hastings in Vancouver or Kensington in Philadelphia. YouTube will likely shock you if you're not familiar with this subculture.

arcticbull 4y ago

The best way to solve the drug problem is legalizing all drugs (or at least decriminalizing them) so let's do that too. There's high-quality precedent, and Portugal is the classic example. They decriminalized all drugs back in 2001 and went from one of the worst in the EU to one of the best in the EU along basically every major measure of drug harm. [1] [edit] > The opioid crisis soon stabilised, and the ensuing years saw dramatic drops in problematic drug use, HIV and hepatitis infection rates, overdose deaths, drug-related crime and incarceration rates. HIV infection plummeted from an all-time high in 2000 of 104.2 new cases per million to 4.2 cases per million in 2015. This was achieved in conjunction with some rehab social programs. The article is worth a read. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radical-drugs-policy-is-working-why-hasnt-the-world-copied-it https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radic...

samatman 4y ago
The paper I linked to had several case studies, I think the Zurich and Portugal model both have a lot to teach the USA. But step one is to stop pretending that open drugs scenes are caused by homelessness. They're caused by open-air markets for drugs, and the US in fact does a fairly good job of caring for the unhoused except for the open drug scene problem. End those, the rest of the unhoused have enough available solutions, and it's easier to do more when more is needed. There's no ending them without a health care policy for addiction, either. Treating drug addiction as a criminal matter just leads back to open drug scenes. Keeping them gone requires a different approach.
- maxwell 4y ago
  What, if any, approaches or policies are you actually advocating for when you talk about "ending" open drug scenes? DEA raids and incarceration of the homeless? Universal healthcare and ending scheduling of drugs? State/federal bans on overly-restrictive local zoning and international building codes, which prevent the construction of affordable new housing?
  - samatman 4y ago
    Is it really too much to expect you to read the paper, which I've referenced, and pointed to two of the case studies as particularly valuable? I'm not an expert, it doesn't make sense for me to do more than point to the expert opinions which I consider valuable here. It's none of the things in your paragraph. Open drug scenes are not caused by homelessness so housing the unhoused does not in itself solve the problem. It takes more than that. One of the reasons I care about this is the evidence that housing-first policies fail if and when there are open drug scenes.
  - uoaei 4y ago
    I've encountered OP before as a commenter. They use verbose diatribes to try to shuffle their own (quite radical) personal moral convictions past the HN crowd. For what reason, I do not know, but it is to me indistinguishable from a lack of real understanding. It reminds me of economists who grow up only reading Hayek, never having seen the inside of day-to-day business operations.

kasey_junk 4y ago

Not sure where you are located but one thing I’ve found is that people from the Bay Area are much more concerned about drugs amongst the homeless than in other locations. And rightly! It’s shocking as a visitor to encounter San Francisco’s version of homelessness. As a Chicagoan though I’m much more concerned about mental health and access to short term housing. We’ve eliminated almost all of the short term housing that helps people move off the streets with the obvious side effect of homeless encampments. But you very rarely hear any talk of easing the restrictions on short term housing.

AlexTWithBeard 4y ago
Any attempt to establish a short term housing prompts multiple questions. For example, do you allow drunk people in? If you don't, you leave a lot of people on the shore. If you do, you end up with drunk fights and vomit on the stairs. Go figure.
- tartoran 4y ago
  Maybe it should be on categories: you get drunk, you move where the vomit and drunk violence is. You want to commit to stop drinkig you get out of there. But it’s more wishful thinking as nobody sane wants to monitor these. All solutions that are given seem to be half assed and barely work.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    The perfect is the enemy of the good in lots of these cases, the old flophouses would have drunk tanks where they knew to throw the appropriate people, and hoseable floors. But you can't build things like that anymore; you get shut down if you're not meeting all the "minimum requirements" and so the people who at least used to have a heated room out of the weather are now living rough.
- kasey_junk 4y ago
  There is an SRO less than a block from my house (one of very few left in the city). They have strict rules around intoxication outside of your room. It does have the impact of meaning people who can't control their abuse have to find other housing. We should have a place for those folks too, but I'd rather there be a place that doesn't solve all of the housing issues, but can get some people off the streets rather than wait for a solution that solves every issue. As an aside, they are perfectly good neighbors. As is the studio apartment complex next to it, that is a single tier above the SRO. I have a lot more trouble from the fast food wing place on the other side of the block than I've ever had from my neighbors.

Manu40 4y ago

Reminds me of needle exchanges, and the harm they brought to neighborhoods that opened them out of the 'goodness' of their hearts, only to end up turning their neighborhood into the newest drug slum. Or at least that's been my experience so far in any city I have lived in that has one near my current location. One place I even moved to and from again twice, and got to see the before and after through the decade essentially. It's like night and day. Absolutely no one will ever be able to convince me otherwise that these programs are a good idea, especially when the best idea is to just remove these people from urban centers by tossing them into rehab out in the country side where they can't get these drugs easily. I've seen that work wonders by comparison; and it doesn't ruin neighborhoods which gives NIMBY's a legitimate excuse to do things like round up the homeless and put them in jails. Which I do not agree with, but understand their grief. The very act is a breach of their natural rights as a human being, and let's not get me started on my opinions about how housing should be a natural human right irrevocable by anyone or anything. The yellow brick road is paved not by the demons among us, but those who think themselves angels. Edit: I'm going to sleep now folks, so if I don't respond to anyone after this point of 7:15am CST-6, that's why. You all have a nice day, and/or a nice night.

manholio 4y ago
> needle exchanges... end up turning their neighborhood into the newest drug slum. How do you suppose that happened? Do you think there was a severely addicted population that could not get their fix due to concerns of transmittable diseases? So were forced to quit cold turkey, at the height of their despair, for lack of sanitary injection paraphernalia? You surely realize how absurd that sounds, right? Since you seem to be a well reasoned and articulate person, I'm genuinely curious how could a needle exchange program cause neighborhoods to turn into "drug slums"? Perhaps you are seeing a correlation with drug use that does not reveal any causality? Perhaps needle exchange programs induce normalization of drug use in a certain area, making addicts fell less rejected and thus attracting them there? But surely such a visible concentration of addicts in a certain area is just a symptom a much larger invisible problem and condemning those those affected to AIDS or Hep-C does nothing to solve the root cause?
- 4y ago

airza 4y ago

Saying "end" here acts like the current system ends the misery of the homeless people who are subjected to it. But the position they end up inside of a US prison is equally miserable. The only difference is that it is invisible to those in the outside world.

jollyllama 4y ago
That's not the only difference, of course, given that the prisons get more money. Really, this is a call to privatize the misery. Still, it could be a net gain if it costs less than subsidizing emergency services and reclaims the streets.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  Net gain for who?
  - jollyllama 4y ago
    If you assume the misery of the users is constant between the drug zones and the prisons, everyone.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

travisporter 4y ago

Article and definition of open drug scenes is paywalled

jrm4 4y ago

Don't bury the lede. "Open Drug Scenes" (never heard this phrase before) are merely a symptom of homelessness, a problem that has proven to be simple, if not easy, to solve.

ameister14 4y ago
So you're saying that people are addicted drugs because they are homeless, they are not homeless because they are addicted to drugs?
- jrm4 4y ago
  No, and this is such a weird and bad logical jump, and really shows the limitations of strict logical thinking and lack appreciated second-order type stuff. Rich or middle class addicts still have houses to get high in.
  - ameister14 4y ago
    It's anecdotal, but I've definitely had rich friends get high in the open. Even when not homeless, there are a lot of reasons to hide an addiction from the people in your home and instead seek out locations where you can get high.
  - Acutulus 4y ago
    Agreed. In my moderately sized southern city of 200k, we logged/censused 576 homeless a few months ago. Of course these individuals were the ones able to be counted; there's likely more. So roughly a quarter of a percent per captia. As with most US cities of this size and economic demographic we have a few areas where those without housing tend to congregate. Pains me and I wish I could help more than I do. And from what I have seen in my many decades of living here, these areas are totally devoid of this "open air drug market" characteristic. Not to say transactions don't happen they most certainly do, but that's true of every square foot of any US city, and the people in these places shield their behaviors from public eyes as well as anyone else that procures such things. My city is experiencing a staggering increase in violence this past year at a seemingly disproportionately faster rate than other nearby metro areas if my napkin math holds true and yet none of that violence is noted as occurring at these areas I'm describing. I think that's worth noting too. The interplay of homelessness, mental health, drug dependency, economic struggle and societal rejection is a very complicated and interwoven problem. It's disappointing to hear that there are individuals who feel so self assured in the sources of these problems when it's evident that the qualities of these problems widely differ from place to place.

chrisshroba 4y ago

What is an “open drug scene”?

ReactiveJelly 4y ago
"Open drug scenes are gatherings of drug users who publicly consume and deal drugs." I hadn't heard it either, and the PDF didn't load for me.
shlant 4y ago
it's defined in the paper but of course that's behind a paywall. Considering how many times the OP used the term, it would have been helpful for it to be defined. Here is the full paper: https://sci-hub.se/10.1159/000259053 https://sci-hub.se/10.1159/000259053
- lake_vincent 4y ago
  Lol right? If you're gonna say something 20 times, clearly economy of words is not your priority, so might as well define the damn thing.
fundad 4y ago
It’s the new “you’re siding with the terrorists”
the_lonely_road 4y ago
This is a long documentary so I am sure there are better videos that get right to the point but this street is one of the more famous examples in America that you will hear brought up repeatedly in places like reddit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXyXYJg9SyY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXyXYJg9SyY You get a good sense at 21:00 in the video.
- khill 4y ago
  I had a feeling this was going to be Kensington before I even clicked the link.
4y ago

shkkmo 4y ago

I'm a bit confused what point your are trying to make. You don't ever define open drug scenes and the you link to an abstract for a paywalled article is similarly lacking. Based on some searching I found a paper that provides the following definition: "Open drug scenes are gatherings of drug users who publicly consume and deal drugs." But also acknowledges it is generally a fairly loosely defined term. You repeatedly say "don't support open drug scenes" but never explain what you mean beyond a vague assertion that advocates for the unhoused support open drug scenes. You make absolutely no concrete comments on specific policy approaches, you just dismiss an entire group in a very general fashion. Homelessness and open drug scenes are entwined, but different issues. Not all people at an open drug scene are unhoused. Many unhoused people are not drug addicts, though they tend to be less noticeable than the ones who are. All of this seems to be a red herring since the article we are discussing brings up specific laws. Those are not laws focused in any way on addressing open drug scenes, but rather laws that target vagrancy in general. These laws are being pushed forward by groups funded by private prison owners. Thus your assertion that this is somehow not true with a deflection onto "open drug scenes" is not convincing.

welshwelsh 4y ago

Drug problems are always symptoms of bigger problems. There's nothing wrong with drug use as long as it's properly regulated. There are many harm reduction measures that are better than criminalization. If you don't want people using drugs on the sidewalk, give them a better place to do it. Countries like Denmark and Switzerland have had enormous success with government run heroin clinics. Supplying free, clean drugs in a safe environment reduces overdoses, prevents drug users from going into debt and almost completely eliminates drug related crime. In general, the solution to problems like homelessness and drug addiction is to give people the support they need. Direct cash transfers are by far the most effective way of supporting people, but this is unpopular because the public doesn't trust the poor. People tend to think homeless people are irrational and will waste any money they are given on drugs, even though that's been proven false. The biggest challenge is combating prejudice and changing public opinion.

daniel-cussen 4y ago