Message 35
My philosophy, when it comes to drugs, is non-intervention.
That's certainly the
easiest philosophy... but what about the people that need help? That's who were talking about here. There's plenty of people using drugs with no problems, and they should be left alone, yes. But there's also people who have problems, and leaving them alone doesn't help and only makes things worse.
But there is another way of handling things that I also disagree with, and those are the people who facilitate addicts.
The last thing we should do is let addicts fend for themselves on the streets, no?
They facilitate them by making sure they can shoot up (or by whatever delivery method) safely and in their care.
That's not
all they do. Consuling, treatment, and education are all part of the facilitation too.
By doing this, you only ensure that people will die at their own hand.
Well sure, if
all they did was leave a basket of free drugs on the doorstep, then you might have a point. But there's a lot more to it. How many time have you been treated for drug addiction? How do you know what you know about it?
These people are complicit in the deaths of the very people they try to help because they're enablers.
Drug addiction treatment facility workers are
not enablers. The goal is to stop them from using.
Message 45:
Yes, enablers are complicit in the deaths of those that do overdose. Hell, just watch 1 show of "Intervention" on A&E to see how they handle it.
Yeah, they bring in an expert from a
facility and they come in and show the family how to
stop enabling the addict and then take them to a facility where they can get treatment, which includes free drugs.
If drug addicts know that the gub'ment is going to provide them with fresh needles, food, a warm place to stay, etc, what incentive is there to stop? When the junky never hits rock bottom, what motivation is there to get clean?
Because being an addict
sucks...
I think most addicts do want to be clean, they are just unable (hence them being addicts).
But we can limit this to just those who don't.
Now, we can assume that there are going to be some happy-to-be addicts that would rely on everyone else for free drugs and a place to do nothing.
There's going to be some cost associated with that upon the rest of society, regardless of how we handle them.
So, if the cost to house them and enable them was less than the cost to fight them, would you be for it then?
Message 78
Because it's not a role of the government. The government should not be waging wars on its citizens over drugs, nor should it expect its citizens to pay for the treatment of others.
I get you not wanting people to have to pay for others to be unproductive, but its inevitable. Why not go for the one that is going to cost people less?
™ Version 4.2
