2 ms·
I think that likely has more to do with housed people not needing to be on the streets when they take their drugs and overdosing inside than it does with homele
by Kerb_ 3y ago
I think that likely has more to do with housed people not needing to be on the streets when they take their drugs and overdosing inside than it does with homeless people getting frostbite.
- c22 3y agoIt has nothing to do with frostbite except to demonstrate that there may still be a market for a product that is beneficial to homeless people even if the homeless themselves don't buy it. (The homeless, of course, may also be able to buy frostbite medicine, assuming it's cheaper than a house.)
- nxobject 3y agoIt might be that public money might end up buying it for disaster response, in the same way that Narcan's being bought by municipalities etc., rather than people. (Considering that this was shepherded through orphan drug programs, it wouldn't be the first time this was subsidized by public money.) That being said, the price of Narcan's heavily dropped since it became generic – I remember when Narcan was either distributed in vials and IM injection training was required, or nasal spray packaging was a lot more expensive.