8 ms·

The ex of someone I know is both a user and a dealer. He opted to be homeless over getting clean. Sadly here in the states there is little you can do if an ad

The ex of someone I know is both a user and a dealer. He opted to be homeless over getting clean. Sadly here in the states there is little you can do if an adult chooses a self destructive path - calls to sheriff/police did nothing - “nothing we can do until he commits a crime”. Where “crime” is something other than the drug use/possession. This individual has always been self absorbed and useless. His daughter asked him to change for her, he wouldn’t. His daughter’s counselor basically told her to decide how to remember him, it’s unlikely he will make it a year. Personally, I feel the individual is a PoS and hope he suffers but it’s heart wrenching to see the affect it’s having on his daughter. Addition: this is happening in one of the more permissive and “progressive” communities in CA.

pierat 3y ago
What's the saying... "My body, My choice" ? Well, some people will choose, willingly, to waste their life away living on the streets from one high to the next. The difference between most types of poverty and this, is that they *chose* this path. Bodily autonomy has powerful upsides, as well as downsides. Here's one of the downsides. If they wanted to 'get out', I'd be there to help them if I knew them. But they have to want to. Forcing your viewpoint on them makes you just as a horrible person as the judges throwing people in locked boxes for decades for a bit of white powder they injected.
- User23 3y ago
  Bodily autonomy isn’t a moral principle, it’s a rhetorical device. Literally every law on the books interferes with your autonomy. Trying to apply it as the former is as nonsensical as arguing when someone says “nobody goes there anymore” when some people in fact still do.
  - lo_zamoyski 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - sangnoir 3y ago
      > Nothing turns off a hedonistic sex maniac more than the idea that he or she will have kids to take care of. They're an impediment to a licentious, self-absorbed lifestyle. This sounds a lot like the type of person you don't want raising a child
      - isityouyesitsme 3y ago
        Perhaps not. I also don't want some cops to be the ones on patrol, out of fear that they might act on strong biases. But I also wouldn't excuse them for pulling someone over and immediately opening fire with intent to kill in order to bypass the problem.
    - netsharc 3y ago
      Well, I'm sure this is a fruitless argument, but here are some pictures of what a pregnancy looks like before 10 weeks: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/18/pregnancy-weeks-abortion-tissue https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/18/pregnancy-week... Anything there look like a body?
      - User23 3y ago
        That's not a body, that's dismembered tissue. If you put an adult through a woodchipper the results won't look like a body either. I assume you know that, so why be intellectually dishonest?
      - zdragnar 3y ago
        It's easy to hide the bits that look like a body when you stack it up with the gestational sac on a background with poor contrast. There are other resources that show just the fetus (8+weeks, before that it really is just an embryo) with much better detail.
        netsharc 3y ago
        And do these resources depict the reality, or are they maybe renderings?
- jmspring 3y ago
  What bugs me most, communities like the one I am referring to will denigrate anyone pushing back about homeless Uber all agenda. They are open to the distribution of needles without support services. Anything against this line of thought, one is a hater, anti homeless, etc. Yet these same people do nothing personally to help those on the streets and do not want oversight in effectiveness of plans/etc. In this case, the individual forsake his parents and his kid. What about the rights of the teenager having to watch / know their father will likely die because the powers that be will do nothing?
  - sangnoir 3y ago
    > In this case, the individual forsake his parents and his kid. What about the rights of the teenager having to watch / know their father will likely die because the powers that be will do nothing Do you want to live in a world were the "powers that be" can force medical intervention and/or forced detention for a competent person who's opposed to it? As the cops mentioned: being a dick isn't illegal, and there's no societal-level solutions to dicks, the best we can do is try to avoid them as individuals. I'm all for rehabilitation - but it has to be voluntary (and humane, probably has to be well-funded too) - that's what liberty is. Anything less is too authoritarian for my tastes.
    - jyrkesh 3y ago
      I'm not OP, but when someone is a repeat offender of some petty crimes, and they're assessed to be mentally ill and/or addicted to drugs, they should be given a choice: help or jail. (Ideally, jail would just _be_ help, but unfortunately that's not the case. And there's a long tail of criminals who _aren't_ mentally ill or addicts, so let's assume jail still exists.) I am a _staunch_ supporter of liberty, but I reject the notion that you can repeatedly pollute, steal, and commit violent acts on the streets without any recourse from the rest of society. And I absolutely support compassion as the first step of that recourse! Housing, counselors, harm reduction, and other treatments for addiction (esp opiate blockers) should all be on the table for people that need it. But the alternative to that choice has to be jail. Because the status quo is not cutting it, and you're not "free" to infringe on people, their homes, and their businesses.
- wk_end 3y ago
  The problem of course is that it's not strictly about one's own body, in this case. "Bodily autonomy" doesn't cover the petty crimes addicts often commit to get money to buy drugs - the impossibility of biking anywhere knowing your vehicle is almost guaranteed to get stolen, the economic deserts created because businesses can't operate in certain areas due to theft and safety, the property damage that needs to be paid for over and over; the cost - of shelters, food banks, etc. - of supporting those who, in the depths of their addiction, can no longer support themselves; the public spaces damaged and deprived to others by the homeless encampments that flood parks and obstruct sidewalks; the danger of used needles lying around; the trauma experienced by people who have to see dead bodies littering the streets. In an ideal world, I guess these things would all be prevented and/or prosecuted, rather than the drugs themselves, of course, so as best to preserve bodily autonomy. I think you can make the case that the Oregon experiment is showing how in practice that doesn't happen.
  - cronix 3y ago
    It also doesn't cover the cost in terms of tying up a major resource: Paramedics, Police and Fire. Overdoses are at an all time high in Portland. The entity that responds usually gives the person overdosing Narcan, addiction help is then offered for those who recover and 99% of those offered recovery options refuse. https://www.wweek.com/news/city/2023/08/01/overdose-911-calls-have-spiked-in-multnomah-county-this-summer/ https://www.wweek.com/news/city/2023/08/01/overdose-911-call... Firefighters (and others) are quitting due to the trauma of responding to these calls over and over and over, with no concrete progress. It takes it's toll mentally to respond these calls which are taking up and increasing percentage of the calls they have to respond to. https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/the-story/portland-downtown-firefighter-overdose-calls-narcan-deaths/283-a37b7402-c199-40ce-a120-bb6aec149365 https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/the-story/portland-do... The main failure of this experiment, imho, is the missing component of forcing detox/rehab/etc when x amount of drug related crimes are committed. The measure explicitly said the addict has to seek the help on their own volition. That might work for alcohol and cannabis, but the vast majority of opioid based drugs are so addictive they can't even fathom not getting their next high or life without it.
    - 3y ago
- ChatGTP 3y ago
  I once read a quote, I can't remember where, it might've been in a Buddhist text but it was something like: Your body does not belong to you, it's not yours to abuse. It does not belong to the ego. I never thought of it this way but it gelled with me immediately and I really think it's true, the body supports the mind which supports the concept of self. So if the self decides to trash the body, something isn't right about that contract.
- imgabe 3y ago
  You can show the bodily autonomy argument is nonsense with a simple thought experiment. What if it were someone you actually cared about? Your son or daughter, sibling, loved one? Would you say "oh well, I guess I have to respect their bodily autonomy". No, you'd drag them into rehab whether they wanted to go or not. Because you know that is ultimately better for them. That's what you do when you care about someone. You don't let them rot and die on the street. Clearly the folks pushing for letting people die on the street do not care about the well-being of those people.
  - Spivak 3y ago
    You're missing influence vs force. If I care about someone I will do everyone in my power to get them into rehab but I would never force them, even if I had parental authority over them to do so. The only time in my life I have ever deprived someone of their bodily autonomy is with their consent, "hey when I'm drunk don't let me smoke."
    - imgabe 3y ago
      That’s because you’re an individual. We imbue the government with the power to use force to protect both individuals and the general public from the negative effects of antisocial behavior like fouling up a public space so you can do drugs in a tent.
      - Spivak 3y ago
        The "doing drugs" part seems basically immaterial, if they were doing those same drugs in a house I doubt would you care at all. If you want to just ban being homeless in a tent in shared public spaces then go off king, I'll vote for it. If possible I would just want there to be some actual shelter for them to go to. We somehow have the money to feed, clothe, and house a bunch of people in prison, we could make shelters of comparable sizes and amenities.
        imgabe 3y ago
        The two are interconnected. If they weren't addicted to drugs, they probably wouldn't be homeless living in a tent. There's probably no scenario where you get a homeless drug addict into housing and they are able to maintain a normal lifestyle and have a job, take care of themselves, and contribute to society while still being addicted to drugs, so getting them off of drugs is going to be a necessary part of getting their life back on track. Sure, if someone is addicted to drugs but is still able to maintain a home and otherwise take care of themselves, then that's not society's problem, at least, yet. I still think they'd be better off not doing drugs, but it's not yet to the point where their problems are imposing on other people.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  > What's the saying... "My body, My choice" ? Someone needs to be of sound mind to make a choice. Clearly you can't sign life-changing legal documents, or testify in court while drunk. A range of other conditions, like deep depression, state of shock, etc. count. Does addiction? Surely a definition of addiction is that you cannot stop, i.e. its a mental condition. Like if someone ia diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, do we ask them if they want treatment? No, we have to treat then anyway. I do not think this is a slippery slope, the conditions are fairly well defibed.
  - TedDoesntTalk 3y ago
    > if someone is diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, do we ask them if they want treatment? No, we have to treat then anyway. That is not true in all US states. One cannot be committed to a mental institution against one’s will unless ordered by a judge. And one can’t be forced to ingest antipsychotics unless committed against one’s will. It’s a very high bar to get a judge to commit a person against their will, and it only lasts 30 days or less.
- PM_me_your_math 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - arrosenberg 3y ago
    I know plenty of people who still have not taken a COVID-19 vaccination, so what are you on about? You were welcome not to take it and to also not participate in public life while there was an ongoing pandemic.
  - one_level_deep 3y ago
    Big government is bad. Unless there is a book, drug, or out-group we can use big government to control.
    - swalling 3y ago
      Yes, big government is bad! Unless it’s federal deposit insurance and bank bailouts. Or the space program. Or the interstate highway system. Or a universal social safety net. Or food and drug standards preventing adulterated foods and fake medicines from killing people. Or a strong national military defense. Or… well the list goes on.
- Mizoguchi 3y ago
  People don't necessarily choose their life circumstances. A drug addict is a disabled person, their brains soaked in chemicals inhibiting from any logical reasoning. Sometimes they may experience monetary lapses of consciousness where they can feel both physical and emotional pain. Many of them have parents, siblings and children, and may have decided to stay away from their love ones because of shame. So obviously this social experiment was absurd, you are facilitating the trade of drugs within a vulnerable community. Everyone would agree that a 10 year old kid should not have legal access to alcohol, so why we think a mentally disabled addict should be able to buy drugs? Sobering up is a monumental challenge when you are on hard drugs, you need at minimum a doctor and weekly therapies designed for your particular type of addiction and health/psychological condition, and a strong support system of relatives and friends around you almost 24/7. So expecting that an addict all by themselves voluntarily wants to "get out" and seek or receive help is as ridiculous as the idea of a legal market for hard drugs. Addicts need to be forced into rehab where they can receive the right treatment and eventually be reunited with their families and slowly get back on their feet. This should not be hard to do for a country like the US but no one wants to have the hard talk, so we brush the problem under the rug and call for legalization of drugs and affordable housing
- TyroneBlack 3y ago
  >Forcing your viewpoint on them makes you just as a horrible person as the judges throwing people in locked boxes for decades for a bit of white powder they injected Are you an anarchist? If not, then please explain how every law you support is not forcing your viewpoint on others?
  - pierat 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - TyroneBlack 3y ago
      First, I didn't say you support every law. I am talking about every law that you do in fact support. Second, by support I don't mean voting or authoring or anything like that. I just mean if you are not an anarchist then you believe there should be some laws. Third, I think you know what I mean. I am not talking about any specific law, but laws in general. If you are not an anarchist then you likely support having a law against murder and rape. Both of those laws are about forcing your views onto others. This is not about any specific implementation of murder laws, but a murder law in general. Every murder law is about forcing your view that murder is bad onto others.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  I have no problem with people abusing drugs as long as (a) the property crime that comes with it is heavily cracked down on and (b) society isn’t on the hook to fund drug treatment. Both are libertarian viewpoints: society exists mainly to protect property rights, and my property shouldn’t be stolen to recover from someone else’s bad decisions.
- yafbum 3y ago
  I think you leave out a couple things here. Externalities: the costs of caring for the addicted are high, and the quality of life in neighborhoods where addicts congregate is horrendous, between violence, insecurity and insalubriousness. I don't think a lot of people feel comfortable raising kids in places where there's public defecation on the daily. So yes I feel somewhat entitled to force that much of a "viewpoint" on my fellow citizens. That addicts "chose" the path that they're in, I think reasonable people could disagree about it. To some folks, all behavior is the responsibility of the individual, and claiming otherwise is paternalistic overreach. Personally, I think it's fairly well established that some substances cause powerful long-term addiction in some people, well above the person's willpower. I don't care for locking up users, but I do think dealers and traffickers deserve the worst punishments for knowingly causing long-term harm to users.
lo_zamoyski 3y ago
Radical individualism leads to absurd ideas like "I have the right to harm myself if I choose". Heh, nope. This is the ridiculous liberal "notion" of "right", which is incoherent and absurd. The very idea of "right" presupposes an objective good. Harming oneself (drugs, suicide, whatever) is objectively evil. You cannot have a right to an evil thing.
- WalterBright 3y ago
  It's not absurd. It's your body, you can do what you want with it. There's been plenty of evil done by do-gooders, who are so certain in their rectitude about what's best for others, that they feel justified in imposing that rectitude upon them.
  - jjcon 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - WalterBright 3y ago
      > Can I use my body to kill someone else? No? Why? You're deliberately misinterpreting what I wrote.
  - dlkf 3y ago
    > It's your body, you can do what you want with it. I can’t hit people with it, I can’t transport it onto private property, I can’t use it to yell all night, I can’t sell organs, the list is endless. Anything we do, we do with our body, and every law ever applies to what I do with my body. The question is: do we think the costs of law the restriction outweigh the benefits? You may think so, but you have to argue for it, you can’t just invoke a principle which has never existed.
    - WalterBright 3y ago
      You're deliberately misinterpreting what I wrote. In case you aren't, being able to do what you want with your own body does not include a right to harm others. Remember, we are talking about ingesting drugs, not hitting other people.
timbo1642 3y ago
[dead]
AlwaysRock 3y ago
You're describing an addict.
loxdalen 3y ago
Why should he have to choose to be either clean or homeless?

pierat 3y ago

What's the saying... "My body, My choice" ? Well, some people will choose, willingly, to waste their life away living on the streets from one high to the next. The difference between most types of poverty and this, is that they *chose* this path. Bodily autonomy has powerful upsides, as well as downsides. Here's one of the downsides. If they wanted to 'get out', I'd be there to help them if I knew them. But they have to want to. Forcing your viewpoint on them makes you just as a horrible person as the judges throwing people in locked boxes for decades for a bit of white powder they injected.

User23 3y ago
Bodily autonomy isn’t a moral principle, it’s a rhetorical device. Literally every law on the books interferes with your autonomy. Trying to apply it as the former is as nonsensical as arguing when someone says “nobody goes there anymore” when some people in fact still do.
- lo_zamoyski 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - sangnoir 3y ago
    > Nothing turns off a hedonistic sex maniac more than the idea that he or she will have kids to take care of. They're an impediment to a licentious, self-absorbed lifestyle. This sounds a lot like the type of person you don't want raising a child
    - isityouyesitsme 3y ago
      Perhaps not. I also don't want some cops to be the ones on patrol, out of fear that they might act on strong biases. But I also wouldn't excuse them for pulling someone over and immediately opening fire with intent to kill in order to bypass the problem.
  - netsharc 3y ago
    Well, I'm sure this is a fruitless argument, but here are some pictures of what a pregnancy looks like before 10 weeks: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/18/pregnancy-weeks-abortion-tissue https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/18/pregnancy-week... Anything there look like a body?
    - User23 3y ago
      That's not a body, that's dismembered tissue. If you put an adult through a woodchipper the results won't look like a body either. I assume you know that, so why be intellectually dishonest?
    - zdragnar 3y ago
      It's easy to hide the bits that look like a body when you stack it up with the gestational sac on a background with poor contrast. There are other resources that show just the fetus (8+weeks, before that it really is just an embryo) with much better detail.
      - netsharc 3y ago
        And do these resources depict the reality, or are they maybe renderings?
jmspring 3y ago
What bugs me most, communities like the one I am referring to will denigrate anyone pushing back about homeless Uber all agenda. They are open to the distribution of needles without support services. Anything against this line of thought, one is a hater, anti homeless, etc. Yet these same people do nothing personally to help those on the streets and do not want oversight in effectiveness of plans/etc. In this case, the individual forsake his parents and his kid. What about the rights of the teenager having to watch / know their father will likely die because the powers that be will do nothing?
- sangnoir 3y ago
  > In this case, the individual forsake his parents and his kid. What about the rights of the teenager having to watch / know their father will likely die because the powers that be will do nothing Do you want to live in a world were the "powers that be" can force medical intervention and/or forced detention for a competent person who's opposed to it? As the cops mentioned: being a dick isn't illegal, and there's no societal-level solutions to dicks, the best we can do is try to avoid them as individuals. I'm all for rehabilitation - but it has to be voluntary (and humane, probably has to be well-funded too) - that's what liberty is. Anything less is too authoritarian for my tastes.
  - jyrkesh 3y ago
    I'm not OP, but when someone is a repeat offender of some petty crimes, and they're assessed to be mentally ill and/or addicted to drugs, they should be given a choice: help or jail. (Ideally, jail would just _be_ help, but unfortunately that's not the case. And there's a long tail of criminals who _aren't_ mentally ill or addicts, so let's assume jail still exists.) I am a _staunch_ supporter of liberty, but I reject the notion that you can repeatedly pollute, steal, and commit violent acts on the streets without any recourse from the rest of society. And I absolutely support compassion as the first step of that recourse! Housing, counselors, harm reduction, and other treatments for addiction (esp opiate blockers) should all be on the table for people that need it. But the alternative to that choice has to be jail. Because the status quo is not cutting it, and you're not "free" to infringe on people, their homes, and their businesses.
wk_end 3y ago
The problem of course is that it's not strictly about one's own body, in this case. "Bodily autonomy" doesn't cover the petty crimes addicts often commit to get money to buy drugs - the impossibility of biking anywhere knowing your vehicle is almost guaranteed to get stolen, the economic deserts created because businesses can't operate in certain areas due to theft and safety, the property damage that needs to be paid for over and over; the cost - of shelters, food banks, etc. - of supporting those who, in the depths of their addiction, can no longer support themselves; the public spaces damaged and deprived to others by the homeless encampments that flood parks and obstruct sidewalks; the danger of used needles lying around; the trauma experienced by people who have to see dead bodies littering the streets. In an ideal world, I guess these things would all be prevented and/or prosecuted, rather than the drugs themselves, of course, so as best to preserve bodily autonomy. I think you can make the case that the Oregon experiment is showing how in practice that doesn't happen.
- cronix 3y ago
  It also doesn't cover the cost in terms of tying up a major resource: Paramedics, Police and Fire. Overdoses are at an all time high in Portland. The entity that responds usually gives the person overdosing Narcan, addiction help is then offered for those who recover and 99% of those offered recovery options refuse. https://www.wweek.com/news/city/2023/08/01/overdose-911-calls-have-spiked-in-multnomah-county-this-summer/ https://www.wweek.com/news/city/2023/08/01/overdose-911-call... Firefighters (and others) are quitting due to the trauma of responding to these calls over and over and over, with no concrete progress. It takes it's toll mentally to respond these calls which are taking up and increasing percentage of the calls they have to respond to. https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/the-story/portland-downtown-firefighter-overdose-calls-narcan-deaths/283-a37b7402-c199-40ce-a120-bb6aec149365 https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/the-story/portland-do... The main failure of this experiment, imho, is the missing component of forcing detox/rehab/etc when x amount of drug related crimes are committed. The measure explicitly said the addict has to seek the help on their own volition. That might work for alcohol and cannabis, but the vast majority of opioid based drugs are so addictive they can't even fathom not getting their next high or life without it.
  - 3y ago
ChatGTP 3y ago
I once read a quote, I can't remember where, it might've been in a Buddhist text but it was something like: Your body does not belong to you, it's not yours to abuse. It does not belong to the ego. I never thought of it this way but it gelled with me immediately and I really think it's true, the body supports the mind which supports the concept of self. So if the self decides to trash the body, something isn't right about that contract.
imgabe 3y ago
You can show the bodily autonomy argument is nonsense with a simple thought experiment. What if it were someone you actually cared about? Your son or daughter, sibling, loved one? Would you say "oh well, I guess I have to respect their bodily autonomy". No, you'd drag them into rehab whether they wanted to go or not. Because you know that is ultimately better for them. That's what you do when you care about someone. You don't let them rot and die on the street. Clearly the folks pushing for letting people die on the street do not care about the well-being of those people.
- Spivak 3y ago
  You're missing influence vs force. If I care about someone I will do everyone in my power to get them into rehab but I would never force them, even if I had parental authority over them to do so. The only time in my life I have ever deprived someone of their bodily autonomy is with their consent, "hey when I'm drunk don't let me smoke."
  - imgabe 3y ago
    That’s because you’re an individual. We imbue the government with the power to use force to protect both individuals and the general public from the negative effects of antisocial behavior like fouling up a public space so you can do drugs in a tent.
    - Spivak 3y ago
      The "doing drugs" part seems basically immaterial, if they were doing those same drugs in a house I doubt would you care at all. If you want to just ban being homeless in a tent in shared public spaces then go off king, I'll vote for it. If possible I would just want there to be some actual shelter for them to go to. We somehow have the money to feed, clothe, and house a bunch of people in prison, we could make shelters of comparable sizes and amenities.
      - imgabe 3y ago
        The two are interconnected. If they weren't addicted to drugs, they probably wouldn't be homeless living in a tent. There's probably no scenario where you get a homeless drug addict into housing and they are able to maintain a normal lifestyle and have a job, take care of themselves, and contribute to society while still being addicted to drugs, so getting them off of drugs is going to be a necessary part of getting their life back on track. Sure, if someone is addicted to drugs but is still able to maintain a home and otherwise take care of themselves, then that's not society's problem, at least, yet. I still think they'd be better off not doing drugs, but it's not yet to the point where their problems are imposing on other people.
ClumsyPilot 3y ago
> What's the saying... "My body, My choice" ? Someone needs to be of sound mind to make a choice. Clearly you can't sign life-changing legal documents, or testify in court while drunk. A range of other conditions, like deep depression, state of shock, etc. count. Does addiction? Surely a definition of addiction is that you cannot stop, i.e. its a mental condition. Like if someone ia diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, do we ask them if they want treatment? No, we have to treat then anyway. I do not think this is a slippery slope, the conditions are fairly well defibed.
- TedDoesntTalk 3y ago
  > if someone is diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, do we ask them if they want treatment? No, we have to treat then anyway. That is not true in all US states. One cannot be committed to a mental institution against one’s will unless ordered by a judge. And one can’t be forced to ingest antipsychotics unless committed against one’s will. It’s a very high bar to get a judge to commit a person against their will, and it only lasts 30 days or less.
PM_me_your_math 3y ago
[flagged]
- arrosenberg 3y ago
  I know plenty of people who still have not taken a COVID-19 vaccination, so what are you on about? You were welcome not to take it and to also not participate in public life while there was an ongoing pandemic.
- one_level_deep 3y ago
  Big government is bad. Unless there is a book, drug, or out-group we can use big government to control.
  - swalling 3y ago
    Yes, big government is bad! Unless it’s federal deposit insurance and bank bailouts. Or the space program. Or the interstate highway system. Or a universal social safety net. Or food and drug standards preventing adulterated foods and fake medicines from killing people. Or a strong national military defense. Or… well the list goes on.
Mizoguchi 3y ago
People don't necessarily choose their life circumstances. A drug addict is a disabled person, their brains soaked in chemicals inhibiting from any logical reasoning. Sometimes they may experience monetary lapses of consciousness where they can feel both physical and emotional pain. Many of them have parents, siblings and children, and may have decided to stay away from their love ones because of shame. So obviously this social experiment was absurd, you are facilitating the trade of drugs within a vulnerable community. Everyone would agree that a 10 year old kid should not have legal access to alcohol, so why we think a mentally disabled addict should be able to buy drugs? Sobering up is a monumental challenge when you are on hard drugs, you need at minimum a doctor and weekly therapies designed for your particular type of addiction and health/psychological condition, and a strong support system of relatives and friends around you almost 24/7. So expecting that an addict all by themselves voluntarily wants to "get out" and seek or receive help is as ridiculous as the idea of a legal market for hard drugs. Addicts need to be forced into rehab where they can receive the right treatment and eventually be reunited with their families and slowly get back on their feet. This should not be hard to do for a country like the US but no one wants to have the hard talk, so we brush the problem under the rug and call for legalization of drugs and affordable housing
TyroneBlack 3y ago
>Forcing your viewpoint on them makes you just as a horrible person as the judges throwing people in locked boxes for decades for a bit of white powder they injected Are you an anarchist? If not, then please explain how every law you support is not forcing your viewpoint on others?
- pierat 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - TyroneBlack 3y ago
    First, I didn't say you support every law. I am talking about every law that you do in fact support. Second, by support I don't mean voting or authoring or anything like that. I just mean if you are not an anarchist then you believe there should be some laws. Third, I think you know what I mean. I am not talking about any specific law, but laws in general. If you are not an anarchist then you likely support having a law against murder and rape. Both of those laws are about forcing your views onto others. This is not about any specific implementation of murder laws, but a murder law in general. Every murder law is about forcing your view that murder is bad onto others.
seanmcdirmid 3y ago
I have no problem with people abusing drugs as long as (a) the property crime that comes with it is heavily cracked down on and (b) society isn’t on the hook to fund drug treatment. Both are libertarian viewpoints: society exists mainly to protect property rights, and my property shouldn’t be stolen to recover from someone else’s bad decisions.
yafbum 3y ago
I think you leave out a couple things here. Externalities: the costs of caring for the addicted are high, and the quality of life in neighborhoods where addicts congregate is horrendous, between violence, insecurity and insalubriousness. I don't think a lot of people feel comfortable raising kids in places where there's public defecation on the daily. So yes I feel somewhat entitled to force that much of a "viewpoint" on my fellow citizens. That addicts "chose" the path that they're in, I think reasonable people could disagree about it. To some folks, all behavior is the responsibility of the individual, and claiming otherwise is paternalistic overreach. Personally, I think it's fairly well established that some substances cause powerful long-term addiction in some people, well above the person's willpower. I don't care for locking up users, but I do think dealers and traffickers deserve the worst punishments for knowingly causing long-term harm to users.

lo_zamoyski 3y ago

Radical individualism leads to absurd ideas like "I have the right to harm myself if I choose". Heh, nope. This is the ridiculous liberal "notion" of "right", which is incoherent and absurd. The very idea of "right" presupposes an objective good. Harming oneself (drugs, suicide, whatever) is objectively evil. You cannot have a right to an evil thing.

WalterBright 3y ago
It's not absurd. It's your body, you can do what you want with it. There's been plenty of evil done by do-gooders, who are so certain in their rectitude about what's best for others, that they feel justified in imposing that rectitude upon them.
- jjcon 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    > Can I use my body to kill someone else? No? Why? You're deliberately misinterpreting what I wrote.
- dlkf 3y ago
  > It's your body, you can do what you want with it. I can’t hit people with it, I can’t transport it onto private property, I can’t use it to yell all night, I can’t sell organs, the list is endless. Anything we do, we do with our body, and every law ever applies to what I do with my body. The question is: do we think the costs of law the restriction outweigh the benefits? You may think so, but you have to argue for it, you can’t just invoke a principle which has never existed.
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    You're deliberately misinterpreting what I wrote. In case you aren't, being able to do what you want with your own body does not include a right to harm others. Remember, we are talking about ingesting drugs, not hitting other people.

timbo1642 3y ago

[dead]

AlwaysRock 3y ago

You're describing an addict.

loxdalen 3y ago

Why should he have to choose to be either clean or homeless?