3 ms·
I don't, but I'll ask you to consider the following: 1) The implication of my statement wasn't that social programs would solve the problem single-handedly, bu
by underlipton 3y ago
I don't, but I'll ask you to consider the following:
1) The implication of my statement wasn't that social programs would solve the problem single-handedly, but that they're more effective than enhanced law enforcement spending.
2) This would seem to be, at the very least, supported by the people who advocated for treating the (mostly white and middle-class) victims of the opioid epidemic in the US as suffering from a medical rather than criminal affliction.
- dumpsterdiver 3y ago> I don't, but I'll ask you to consider the following: 1) The implication of my statement wasn't that social programs would solve the problem single-handedly, but that they're more effective than enhanced law enforcement spending. What do police have to do with the effectiveness of social programs? A fundamentally ineffective social program will be just about as ineffective no matter how much funding it gets - because the problem they are approaching isn't one that they can solve.
- underlipton 3y ago>A fundamentally ineffective social program will be just about as ineffective no matter how much funding it gets - because the problem they are approaching isn't one that they can solve. Correct - ironically, as you're describing most law enforcement agencies. The money spent on police - particularly their generous overtime and pension pay, equipment outlays, and hilariously ineffectual training - could be used to fund social interventions that actually work.