4 ms·

So then they're able to stockpile and hoard it and then what? they get this stash and then are able to exist in a land of plenty when previously there was famin

by zamnos 4y ago

So then they're able to stockpile and hoard it and then what? they get this stash and then are able to exist in a land of plenty when previously there was famine. it's like money. if you don't have any, things are really rough. but if you have enough that you're swimming in it? well then you're able to step aside from earthly concerns like making rent, and can choose to invest it in causes you choose. For a junkie who's drug life is feast or famine, having default access to what they need and feeling safe allows them to move on with their lives and get past their addiction and into jobs and return to regular life and be contributing members of society.

LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
No, because the drugs are only given out in the context of dying in the street. There's absolutely no provision for people who are addicted through accident, for instance, to achieve some safe supply while tapering off to avoid the street. And the government has decided that drug users are on palliative care, that they're never expected to improve, so they can be given drugs that are likely to end or destroy their life without any concern for recovery. That sounds 'caring' but in areas without this assumption they actually do rescue many people from this death, making the 'caring' cities into uncaring hellholes for the addicted - where they go to die on the streets of a preventable death. There is no fear of 'famine' because the people who are being given drugs are being given drugs for the rest of their life. There's no fear of running out because even if the government stopped the supply the street drugs are only a few dollars. What these excess drugs do is 1) increase the amount of drugs the person is taking and/or 2) get sold outside of the drug cities, both of which increase the scope of the problem. Also, druggies don't need money because they can just take whatever they want from stores and at most will be forced to give the item back. They're given food and shelter and drugs and can steal any luxury under $1000. (Not that they'd be punished above that, but the stores aren't required to sit and accept it - they can apply reasonable force to recover their goods.)

by zamnos 4y ago

LawTalkingGuy 4y ago

No, because the drugs are only given out in the context of dying in the street. There's absolutely no provision for people who are addicted through accident, for instance, to achieve some safe supply while tapering off to avoid the street. And the government has decided that drug users are on palliative care, that they're never expected to improve, so they can be given drugs that are likely to end or destroy their life without any concern for recovery. That sounds 'caring' but in areas without this assumption they actually do rescue many people from this death, making the 'caring' cities into uncaring hellholes for the addicted - where they go to die on the streets of a preventable death. There is no fear of 'famine' because the people who are being given drugs are being given drugs for the rest of their life. There's no fear of running out because even if the government stopped the supply the street drugs are only a few dollars. What these excess drugs do is 1) increase the amount of drugs the person is taking and/or 2) get sold outside of the drug cities, both of which increase the scope of the problem. Also, druggies don't need money because they can just take whatever they want from stores and at most will be forced to give the item back. They're given food and shelter and drugs and can steal any luxury under $1000. (Not that they'd be punished above that, but the stores aren't required to sit and accept it - they can apply reasonable force to recover their goods.)