4 ms·

>Well, the life of a person whose addiction (always stemming from spirals or depression, abuse, physical or mental illness) has driven them to homelessness is h

>Well, the life of a person whose addiction (always stemming from spirals or depression, abuse, physical or mental illness) has driven them to homelessness is horrible. Why shouldn't I give them the means to a brief escape from the pain? What a terrible line of reasoning. Enabling is also a component of how people remain addicts. There is such a thing as misdirected empathy.

consteval 2y ago
Enablers refer to friends or family who continuously provide for their addictions. You, a stranger, giving money one time do not swing the pendulum. They will do drugs with or without your five dollars, because you as a person have zero influence in their life. If you died right now, not only will the homeless not care, but they also wouldn't even notice. You're not, and can't be, an enabler. Best case scenario your five bucks prevents them from stealing something.
- fluoridation 2y ago
  If you make it a policy to give money to addicted strangers because they're addicts then you're taking part in a crowdfunded effort to enable their addition. Saying that it's not enabling because you don't know them personally is special pleading. There's no reason to accept that exception to the definition.
  - consteval 2y ago
    Since you have no personal influence over them, they will do the drugs regardless. I could easily argue by not giving them money you're actually enabling stealing or even murder. Certainly, a large part of why the homeless don't commit as many crimes as you'd expect is because they're able to self-medicate somewhat effectively. If you take that away, they're already in extremely desperate circumstances. The issue is more complex than you give it credit. If everyone followed your solution it would backfire catastrophically.
    - fluoridation 2y ago
      Oh, never mind my other comment. It doesn't merely sound like you're blaming thefts and murders on people who don't give out free money, that is in fact what you're doing. Sorry, but I have no pity to spare for criminals, certainly not murderers. People who will take what they can't get by other means are not fit to live in society.
      - consteval 2y ago
        This is harsh, I'm merely using your own logic and definition of "enabling". If you don't think that's fair, then you must agree with me - you're not enabling anything by giving them money. > People who will take what they can't get by other means are not fit to live in society How revolutionary, did you come up with that all by yourself? We are looking for solutions. "They're bad people" isn't a solution. You CAN systemically discourage theft and other crimes. However, you don't do that by simply demonizing those people. If anything, that actually causes MORE crime because you put already impoverished people into even more dire circumstances. This is why "tough on crime" simply doesn't work.
        fluoridation 2y ago
        >This is harsh, I'm merely using your own logic and definition of "enabling". If you don't think that's fair, then you must agree with me - you're not enabling anything by giving them money. I don't think it's not fair, I think it's a non sequitur. If I give money to someone who I know will use the money to buy drugs, I'm enabling them, because I know that they will buy drugs. If I don't give them money I'm not indirectly responsible for crimes they commit to get money, because I don't know if they will commit crimes. It's not a given, it's a decision they make. If we go by your logic then crime is not punishable, because no one is responsible for their decisions; we're all just flesh automata animated by neurotransmitters. I am no more responsible for the decisions I make than a drug addict on withdrawal, a starving man, a horny rapist, or a bloodthirsty psychopath. All of us are equally enslaved to the physics of our brains. >"They're bad people" isn't a solution. Did I say they're bad people, or did I say they're not fit to live in society? Did I exclude the possibility of reformation? Hm...
esperent 2y ago
I used to think that way, but I've recently gone though a series of personal experiences that led me learning a lot more about mental health,and tangentially, addiction, which encompasses a lot more than just drugs. The book which shaped my thinking the most was In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts by the Canadian physician Gabor Maté, who spent years working as the house doctor in housing for addicts. It's a hard book to read, one of the most difficult books I've ever gone through. But if you genuinely think that giving an addict temporary access to their addictive substance is enabling them, I suggest you read it and challenge that perception. Also, one important thing you will note reading this book is that even the people actively working with addicts will often help them by directly giving them drugs (especially methadone) or even money for drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes. Because often, that is a step on the path to recovery, or at least, the path to getting though just one more day.

consteval 2y ago

Enablers refer to friends or family who continuously provide for their addictions. You, a stranger, giving money one time do not swing the pendulum. They will do drugs with or without your five dollars, because you as a person have zero influence in their life. If you died right now, not only will the homeless not care, but they also wouldn't even notice. You're not, and can't be, an enabler. Best case scenario your five bucks prevents them from stealing something.

fluoridation 2y ago
If you make it a policy to give money to addicted strangers because they're addicts then you're taking part in a crowdfunded effort to enable their addition. Saying that it's not enabling because you don't know them personally is special pleading. There's no reason to accept that exception to the definition.
- consteval 2y ago
  Since you have no personal influence over them, they will do the drugs regardless. I could easily argue by not giving them money you're actually enabling stealing or even murder. Certainly, a large part of why the homeless don't commit as many crimes as you'd expect is because they're able to self-medicate somewhat effectively. If you take that away, they're already in extremely desperate circumstances. The issue is more complex than you give it credit. If everyone followed your solution it would backfire catastrophically.
  - fluoridation 2y ago
    Oh, never mind my other comment. It doesn't merely sound like you're blaming thefts and murders on people who don't give out free money, that is in fact what you're doing. Sorry, but I have no pity to spare for criminals, certainly not murderers. People who will take what they can't get by other means are not fit to live in society.
    - consteval 2y ago
      This is harsh, I'm merely using your own logic and definition of "enabling". If you don't think that's fair, then you must agree with me - you're not enabling anything by giving them money. > People who will take what they can't get by other means are not fit to live in society How revolutionary, did you come up with that all by yourself? We are looking for solutions. "They're bad people" isn't a solution. You CAN systemically discourage theft and other crimes. However, you don't do that by simply demonizing those people. If anything, that actually causes MORE crime because you put already impoverished people into even more dire circumstances. This is why "tough on crime" simply doesn't work.
      - fluoridation 2y ago
        >This is harsh, I'm merely using your own logic and definition of "enabling". If you don't think that's fair, then you must agree with me - you're not enabling anything by giving them money. I don't think it's not fair, I think it's a non sequitur. If I give money to someone who I know will use the money to buy drugs, I'm enabling them, because I know that they will buy drugs. If I don't give them money I'm not indirectly responsible for crimes they commit to get money, because I don't know if they will commit crimes. It's not a given, it's a decision they make. If we go by your logic then crime is not punishable, because no one is responsible for their decisions; we're all just flesh automata animated by neurotransmitters. I am no more responsible for the decisions I make than a drug addict on withdrawal, a starving man, a horny rapist, or a bloodthirsty psychopath. All of us are equally enslaved to the physics of our brains. >"They're bad people" isn't a solution. Did I say they're bad people, or did I say they're not fit to live in society? Did I exclude the possibility of reformation? Hm...

esperent 2y ago

I used to think that way, but I've recently gone though a series of personal experiences that led me learning a lot more about mental health,and tangentially, addiction, which encompasses a lot more than just drugs. The book which shaped my thinking the most was In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts by the Canadian physician Gabor Maté, who spent years working as the house doctor in housing for addicts. It's a hard book to read, one of the most difficult books I've ever gone through. But if you genuinely think that giving an addict temporary access to their addictive substance is enabling them, I suggest you read it and challenge that perception. Also, one important thing you will note reading this book is that even the people actively working with addicts will often help them by directly giving them drugs (especially methadone) or even money for drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes. Because often, that is a step on the path to recovery, or at least, the path to getting though just one more day.