4 ms·
When I saw the headline, I was struck by two thoughts: * what constitutes "working", and * "working" for whom? The article makes it clear to me that the main
by naruhodo 3y ago
When I saw the headline, I was struck by two thoughts:
* what constitutes "working", and
* "working" for whom?
The article makes it clear to me that the main problem is that since there are no criminal sanctions, there is less incentive to hide drug-taking activity. The streets are now cluttered with filthy, homeless fentanyl and meth addicts. Many right-thinking citizens are upset by how untidy it all looks.
What a surprise that not making an addict's life harder by locking them up has not magically led to them getting clean. The uptake on support services is not what one would hope.
Some people would like to return to criminalisation, presumably because "out of sight, out of mind". I think people with poverty, addiction and mental health problems should be given more support instead.
- zerbinxx 3y agoFwiw locking people up actually does make some addicts lives easier. The life of a hard drug addict is filled with the constant strife of trying to procure money/drugs, all while extremely fucked up, and the. navigating the dangerous and shitty situations that puts them in. My aunt went to jail for 5 years for meth and she said it was the first time she felt she had enough piece to actually understand and work on sobriety since she started using 10 years prior. She’s been close to 20 years clean now. Granted, not everyone has it so nice, but she lost her kids, became a felon, and suffered a lot because of it. But then again, meth addiction begets a lot of suffering as well.
- tticvs 3y agoYour comment implies that having homeless fentanyl and meth addicts does not cause actual harm to the rest of society, only the perception of harm. This is demonstrably false. You also suggest they should be "given more support" what to do if this does not work, and does not keep the rest of society safe?