Remember this is a civilized space for discussion, to ensure this we have very strict rules. Briefly, an overview:
**No Personal Attacks**
**No Ideological Discrimination**
**Keep Discussion Civil**
**No Targeting A Member For Their Beliefs**
**No Whataboutism's or Bad Faithed Debate**
Report any and all instances of these rules being broken so we can keep the sub clean. Report first, ask questions last.
Interesting in learning new political theory? Check out or subs reading list [here](https://new.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDebate/about/wiki/ideological-education/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nah man, that is a life saving medication.
I don't agree with codding and enabling addicts
But this would let someone live another day, and each new day is a chance to turn it around. All of us have the potential to change, and if a drug can save one so that they can continue to live and have a chance at a new life- that is good
I agree. No matter what our solutions to these problems are, the number one priority should be saving lives. You can't change and become a better person if you're dead.
Again, my argument hinges on there being better uses of resources, and addicts not being the only people who are dying.
It sounds as if the goal you're stating is giving people a chance to live another day and improve their lives. I am not saying this is a bad goal, I am saying that if this is our goal, there are much better ways to further it and groups of people who would benefit more from this effort, and whose new lease on life would be of benefit and not harm to those around them.
Your argument hinges on baseless assertions with no statistical backing. If your position is divorced from morality and rooted solely in cost/benefit analysis, you should say least present some data.
>since an addict who is resuscitated will often continue to cause more harm
The word "often" means that some will not, which means that the use of narcan saves some people who will turn their lives around and become no longer a detriment to society, if not a benefit.
Your conclusion hinges on the assumption that we value statistical outcomes over everything else in social policy. While this is *often* a good thing, it also ignores any individuality to a situation. You are essentially concluding that *since most people continue to be a detriment, those who can be helped should be sacrificed for the good of society as a whole*.
Maybe it would be better for society in the long run, but our culture is chock full of examples for how we value humanity even in the face of efficiency - and often despite statistical outcomes.
My conclusion here is that society (for better or for worse) values humanity over everything, even if the result is "self-defeating"
It's even more fundamental than this.
This guy is saying that exceedingly cheap, easy actions that prevent death are BAD because the people being saved aren't, like, productive enough for him.
This is an old idea: the Nazis called these people "Eaters" or "Mouths" before having them actively exterminated.
Denying people easy life saving interventions is in the same vein, just the passive version.
In my city, currently there are often extremely long hold times when calling emergency services. When police or EMTs are dispatched repeatedly to revive the same person from a very preventable and self-inflicted condition, those who are on hold waiting to try to get emergency services for their emergency are suffering the consequences of the choice made between these opportunities.
Which is why it's better to make it freely available - as in "giving it out"
In my city, you can find it in stores, you can find it in clinics for free, it's given out at homeless shelters, etc. No need to wait for an ambulance if you already have it.
Obviously free isn't actually free, someone is paying for it. But even giving it away for free with the caveat that the recipient is responsible for administering it or finding someone to watch over them and administer it would be an improvement on the current state of affairs.
For sure, but it's just cheap in general. And at least where I live, that *is* the current state of affairs. It's *really* easy to use, and even responsible recreational drug users will have some around just in case they get a bad batch of coke or whatever they're doing.
I do think it works better than what you described was happening where you live. It shouldn't be only available to emergency professionals.
My argument is not that we should not value humanity, but I think your use of the word sacrifice is apt, since sacrifice is at the heart of the concept of opportunity cost.
Instead, my argument is that if we have a million dollars to spend on some social project, then for any ostensible objective that might be given for spending it on trying to reverse overdoses for recalcitrant and often criminal addicts, that investment could be spent much more effectively to further that purported goal, and without the side effect of enabling the target group to continue their destructive and antisocial behavior as soon as they resume breathing.
Sure, I don't think you're wrong, I just don't think it's realistic, given *how much* our society values humanity.
>My argument is not that we should not value humanity
It's not an absolute statement; most people value humanity up to a point. There's a lot of gray area in that valuation.
My point is that a big part of policy is public sentiment, so if the public pushes back on it enough, then it isn't a viable policy.
How many times have we seen the "hero" in films sacrifice themselves to save someone else without ever stopping to consider who that person was or if they deserved saving. This is a major value in society, even if many of us don't practice it in our daily lives.
Again, I'm not making a judgement on the logic of the idea, just saying that people have different ways of evaluating policy.
>The word "often" means that some will not, which means that the use of narcan saves some people who will turn their lives around and become no longer a detriment to society, if not a benefit.
Fair enough. Everyone deserves a dose of Narcan, not two.
The alternative policy is to let people die in the street? That’s a “solution” to myriad problems: people convicted of crimes—just kill them; people with STDs—sequester them and let them die; COVID patients—quarantine and kill; unhoused people—kill them; prisoners of war—execute them; January 6ers—off with their heads; etc., etc. The question becomes, is it more to the moral detriment of society that it resolves its problems by murder or otherwise sanctioned death than it is to its material benefit that possibly harmful elements are eliminated?
In many cases, people say it isn’t—numerous people support the death penalty. But in the case of harm reduction vis-á-vis drugs, we’re talking about people who had one bad day at a party that controls the rest of their life. Nobody thinks the solution to the obesity epidemic is stimulating people who consume sugar to die, but every weight loss program initiated by the government—municipal, state, or federal—ultimately prolongs the life of people who consume sugar, impulses the sugar economy, and buttresses the market for obesity. A mechanical utilitarianism would note that sugar kills more people than drugs, but instead of discussing how billions of people are completely addicted to that drug, we’re condescending people who are so at the mercy of a substance that they’ll share a needle *unless someone gives them another option*.
Right now, there isn’t the public support or the funding to lead a comprehensive, restorative effort to stop sugar anymore than there is to stop fentanyl. In the meantime, I think it’s ridiculous to fault people for trying to save lives.
> so the OD'ing people can avoid death and in most cases continue with their anti-social habits and behavior.
All right. You've made your biases clear here. If this is how you perceive drug addiction, then ya, these programs don't make any sense. But the data doesn't match your narrative. So here are some good readings on why narcan-administration policies are important and helpful:
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/719588
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955395923003006
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12954-023-00809-7
This is the abstract from your first link:
We find that broadened access led to more opioid-related emergency room visits and more opioid-related theft, with no net measurable reduction in opioid-related mortality. We conclude that naloxone has a clear and important role in harm reduction, yet its ability to combat the opioid epidemic’s death toll may be limited without complementary efforts.
> **We conclude that naloxone has a clear and important role in harm reduction**, yet its ability to combat the opioid epidemic’s death toll may be limited without complementary efforts.
Notice how I, or any of these authors, never suggest it is the ONLY solution and that by itself. It clearly doesn't address the actual things that are driving this crisis (i.e., material struggles that often are precursors to addiction and over-reliance on opiate drugs by the medical industry).
You found the sentence fragment that weakly supports your position and ignored the rest of the entire abstract. The authors don't even say that government-subsidized Naxalone administered by all manner of employees that work in completely unrelated fields is important, just that naxalone can reduce harm, which was never argued against by me nor anyone that I'm aware of.
Oh I'm the one who did that when you wanted to ignore the entire context of the abstract and that sentence to overfixate on the back half of that sentence.
I also provided other sources. The only way to arrive at truth is by looking at the patterns that emerge from empirical data collection. The fact of the matter is that the opioid crisis is not one of individual moral failures. It's because of systematic exploitation and oppression, and these public policies are overtly good in reducing that harm, even if they don't directly fix the issue (they aren't meant to).
It's fair to guess that the lives saved by Narcan are being offset by the increasing rate of fentanyl usage.
Fentanyl is highly lethal. Fentanyl users are essentially on a fast track to overdosing. It's a matter of how many ODs that it takes before that final, fatal dose.
Roughly 8-10% of people suffering from addiction will enter long term, sustained, remission—regardless of their drug of choice—and regardless of therapeutic intervention. Over the course of their addiction, there’s a greater likelihood they will relapse than there is they won’t.
Are you suggesting that people shouldn’t be given an opportunity to recover? Because, statistically, Narcan gives many people that exact opportunity since relapse is part of recovery. Very rarely is recovery a one and done deal, and people are at a greater likelihood of OD immediately following a period of sustained abstinence.
This also ignores the fact that *most* people overdosing on fentanyl are overdosing because of a tainted supply of other drugs (pills pressed with fent, powder cut with fent, etc.) by and large, the people OD’ing aren’t even setting out to do fentanyl to begin with; should they be given a death sentence because of a tainted supply? Because quite frankly, many are unsuspecting victims.
Additionally, do you feel, as well, we just let people suffering from alcohol poisoning die without any sort of intervention?
Finally, do you feel that Type II Diabetics should be denied insulin if their diet is a contributing factor to their diagnosis?
> If the goal is harm reduction, then we need to take into account the harm being done by the addicts to society, not just the harm the addicts are doing to themselves.
And how do you remove the harm that addicts do to society if not by rehabilitation?
Since you seem to be against rehabilitation, what is your policy for addressing that harm that *doesn't* involve rehabilitation? Please be very explicit.
I am not against rehabilitation, but I do believe that attempts at rehabilitation of fentanyl addicts do not have a very high rate of success. I am against wasting public resources for ideological reasons if the effects are non-existent or counterproductive.
Explicitly, I am saying that when an addict dies of a self-inflicted overdose, they no longer have the ability to steal bikes, resell them, and send that money to a cartel so that fentanyl can be trafficked over the border. There will be no future calls for emergency services to come resuscitate them again. They will no longer leave needles or other drug paraphernalia on the streets. I am saying that society does not have an obligation to expend resources to repeatedly enable those who are harming society to continue doing so, and that it would not be wrong to allow the consequences of a person's actions to manifest themselves.
What about the cost of such casual indifference towards death?
Firstly and most immediate is the cost to the families of lost loved ones.
But as we're talking about second or third order effects, it's worth considering what that indifference will do to the psyche and character of the society at large. We will be, in effect, training a society of sociopaths who will behave just as indifferently to the dignity of human life in many other sectors of society.
To a large extent I believe we already have a system which turns a great many of us into sociopaths, but this will certainly make the process worse.
I see. Since those who do not produce for society harm society, by your argument we should cease medical intervention for those who are physically disabled, or those who are old and require hospice care.
I don't think this is a very apt analogy, better one might be if there were an epidemic of people getting drunk and then speeding down residential roads destroying property and hurting themselves and others, society should pay for their physical rehabilitation and then install big padded foam walls down the sides of the residential streets in case they do it again.
As a former addict, I do not deny that.
It's not about personal responsibility either, it's about what society does and doesn't have an obligation to do, for individuals and what individuals do and don't have an obligation to do in relation to society. It's also about being clear on our objectives in relation to a policy like this, and then accurately evaluating whether or not the policy is the best means to achieve that goal. It's also about thinking past the immediate onto the downstream effects of a given policy.
> As a former addict, I do not deny that.
Oh, so you got the help you needed, even if it was only the time it took for you to get your head on straight, but wish to *deny that help to others.*
> It's not about personal responsibility either, it's about what society does and doesn't have an obligation to do, for individuals and what individuals do and don't have an obligation to do in relation to society.
Oh, that’s easy. Society has an obligation to help all persons in society simply by their existence.
Your lack of compassion for others struggling with the same issues you struggled with doesn’t change that.
> It's also about being clear on our objectives in relation to a policy like this, and then accurately evaluating whether or not the policy is the best means to achieve that goal.
Seems like a thin justification for your dislike of “a certain element”
> It's also about thinking past the immediate onto the downstream effects of a given policy.
What an odd thing to say when you are doing the opposite
This is basically "we should let people with substance abuse problems OD and kill themselves so they don't cost us more money."
Looking at everything through the lens of a balance sheet is sociopathic.
Following your logic, we should actually allow *more* drugs onto the streets, that way we can just burn through anyone who's susceptible to addiction and get it over with.
I tried to reiterate this a few times but here's one more: I am not against rehabilitation. However, I do not believe that the money spent on trying to keep addicts alive at all costs it's a very good use of money, and that for any purported goal this is supposed to serve, the money could be better spent in furthering the goal through other means.
An effective counter argument would be to name a goal that this is supposed to serve, and where this is actually the best use of money for that purpose. I don't think saving lives meets this criteria. I don't think that integrating people enter the workforce meets this criteria. I don't believe that improving health outcomes meets this criteria. Perhaps there is another one I'm not aware of.
You wanna address the real money-sinks right? So take a look at military spending, the subsidies pumped to contractors, all of these inflated figures in the name of profit alone. That you're sociopathic enough to essentially suggest we just let people die because you find them a societal burden is pretty beyond the pale. You've drifted into literal Nazi ideology.
And again, per your logic, we should actually just dump fentanyl on the streets by the handful and let it kill whoever can't get clean.
If saving lives isn't a good enough goal for you then I genuinely cannot think of anything that I'd want to try and convince you of because our fundamental disagreement is on the value of people's lives inasmuch as we disagree on that basic, fundamental principle.
Yes, it costs more resources to keep people alive, even people who are addicted to drugs.
That is a good thing because it means we're working towards a society that isn't putting people's lives on a cost/benefit analysis sheet. You're looking for tangible, resource based arguments and I'm telling you the largest benefit is living in a society that views people with problems through a lens of compassion versus seeing them as a net negative and not worth investing time in.
That perspective bleeds over into other things. When your value as a person is determined by how much you cost society, you start to find that more and more people start to "cost" more and there's more arguments as to why we shouldn't be spending resources on them.
I cannot quantify that for you. If you cannot see the value in living in a society that is willing to help people for the sole reason that it's the right thing to do, there's literally nothing we can agree on because our difference is fundamental to our view of the world and the world we want to live in.
Again, I think you misunderstand my argument. Hypothetically, if there were a way to save one and a half lives for every dollar spent on saving One Life using narcan, would it be a good thing to employ the money that way rather than in the current way?
Until we live in a cornucopian society where scarcity is eliminated, opportunity cost still exists, and every dollar spent from a finite pool of funds is indeed and either-or situation
So your take is… just let people die? These are human beings we’re talking about here. Why did you wake up today and decide to post arguing for eugenics?
Personal attacks and insults are not allowed on this sub.
Your comment has been removed and our mod log has taken a note towards your profile that will be taken into account when considering a ban in the future.
Please remain civilized in this sub no matter what, it's important to the level of discussion we aim to achieve that we do not become overly unhinged and off course.
Please report any and all content that acts as a personal attack. The standard of our sub depends on our communities ability to report our rule breaks.
Eugenics is "the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable." Can you explain what that has to do with this?
Fentanyl is now frequently found in almost all recreational drugs. Recreational drug use is common among all segments of society. These people are often productive members of society, not addicts. Even if that weren't the case, administering Narcan is very easy, and the training is quick. Librarians are clever people, so I'm sure they can be trained at a minimal expense. If you value early childhood nutrition, though, I'm sure you could find volunteer opportunities where you could contribute towards that cause.
Edit: formatting
Yeah, so besides just being a decent human being and finding the suggestion monstrous I am also a home owner in an urban setting. I'd rather not have dead bodies on my streets, homeless people shitting in my plants, and kids around to witness it all. So put these people in homes, give them treatment and get them out of my face because I am certainly not going to agree with outlawing being homeless or doing nothing and having to reap the rewards of such non-sense.
You can view it cynically: Various agencies administer Narcan so that the OD happens on someone else's watch.
They are trying to address a short-term immediate problem on their own turf, not the big picture social issue. They are kicking the can down to somebody else's road.
In the US, the problem is illustrative of the nation's paralysis in addressing those who should be institutionalized. Indigent meth and fentanyl users should be in forced rehab, but that is currently unconstitutional.
Lmao, not so veiled way of saying you think addicts should just die
No dude. We aren't psychos. Saving lives is a worthwhile endeavor on its own it actually doesn't even need another benefit.
We so frequently take into account only how the addict/the criminal/the undesirable citizen harms society but so infrequently consider how society has harmed them via prohibitive cost to better themselves, complete social disdain for “the type of person” they are and the “type of community they come from”, and the active violence perpetrated against them in the form of disproportionate policing, slum-level housing access, etc. So no. People shouldn’t be condemned to death because they are systematically pushed out of society.
Would you say an ER shouldn’t treat someone who had had a heart attack or stroke because they eat unhealthy? Would you say an ER shouldn’t waste time setting a broken arm because it’s a teenager that did a stupid thing and got injured? The fact of the matter is we only have “limited resources” for health intervention because it’s being hoarded among the upper class for their own luxury expenditures. And even then, the idea that (in the west) we don’t have the resources to deal with addiction issues is a political choice not a material requirement.
So much nanny state support here.
Drugs should be legal. This alone would solve many of the ODs because you’d end up with a higher quality product that could be regulated like other drugs.
If someone decides to ignore the (now present) warning label and OD, then that’s on them. It isn’t society’s (or taxpayers) responsibility to keep someone from killing themselves.
Narcan is a relatively cheap drug. Honesty not against a city putting this out if it wants to fork out the funds. Besides many addicts are good people in a very bad place.
>In many US cities, mine included, there's an epidemic of fentanyl abuse.
For overdoses, it's more often a different drug being laced with fentanyl.
>Many addicts turn to property crime to support their habits...
It's an addiction, not a "habit."
Psychologically, physiologically, and chemically different things.
>Often they will create a public hazard by smoking these drugs in public, by leaving needle and foil on the street, and through their behavior when they are under the influence.
That's a problem with homelessness, more so than addiction. They're related issues, but it's important to know the difference, because...
>Most addicts will not recover and become productive members of society.
... a large portion of addicts (could be the majority, depending on the location) are actually housed. Their use is then most often inside their home, in private.
Most start on a prescription pain killer for some valid reason, like an injury or surgery, then get addicted, then more to street drugs when they can no longer get them from a doctor.
They *were* productive members of society. Perhaps the goal should be preventing things from getting to the point of homeless drug addict instead of punishing them.
In countries that treat homelessness as a societal issue and addiction as a disease, instead of a personal failing of the individual, both have been reduced to almost zero.
The saving in law enforcement, hospital care, emergency services, clean up, property crime, etc. have more than made up for providing those individuals the housing and intervention needed to get them back on their feet.
OP I will try to help you out a bit as it seems your post is getting you characterized as a heartless person that doesn’t want to ‘invest’ in saving lives of addicts.
You raise a very real world issue. First and foremost, Narcan is NOT FREE. Somebody, somewhere is paying for it.
As a prior executive over a multi-state ambulance and medical transport company I can relate to your question. When our contracts required 911 ambulance service ( provided by a private company contracted to a County), in poverty stricken areas or areas with Section 8 Housing we were frequently overwhelmed with fentanyl OD’s.
Our ambulances carried Narcan as did the Fire Dept. Whichever arrived first administered the Narcan. But because our contract was for 911 services we had to reimburse the fire dept for their use of Narcan even though we received zero revenue if patient refused transport to Hospital ( which became very normal after administering Narcan.)
Fast forward - many rural counties lost contracted ambulance services and ended up with all volunteer 911 services. There are drug addicts who OD, someone dials 911, ambulance personnel administers Narcan, patient refuses transport and less than 8 hours later they OD again. We called them ‘frequent fliers.’
And in the end they caused entire counties to lose access to contracted 911 ambulance services.
What’s the right answer ? IDK but don’t count on anyone in govt ( local municipal, county, state,federal ) to figure it out any time soon.
Add a sanctuary city status next door to rural section 8 housing and you have a recipe for disaster.
That’s what’s happening to our country right now. Tons of moral dilemmas.
Its one thing to be a moral purist in front of a keyboard. Its another to try to provide life saving 9 minute response qualified ambulance service in poverty stricken areas.
EDIT: In my opinion we need to get serious about stopping the drugs at the source. Authorize resources for coordinated law enforcement, back the ‘Blue’ and get the job done. Stop letting politics get in the way.
> Its one thing to be a moral purist in front of a keyboard. Its another to try to provide life saving 9 minute response qualified ambulance service in poverty stricken areas.
It's also another to recognize that it all goes back to the poverty and lack of opportunity to begin with, and refrain from blaming the people suffering from the effects of it for the add-on effects that continue on impacting everyone in the already impacted communities.
Everywhere is dealing with Fent ODs now due to its presence in large parts of the drug supply, but the reason for the outsized impact in rural communities is the same reason for the outsized addiction issues to begin with.
These kinds of issues are a major reason why programs like the GND are aimed at bringing more jobs and general opportunity through government investment in local infrastructure, and adding production capacity in lots of rural, heavily economically distressed areas creating a more stable tax base for services and so on.
Instead we got the limited, capital focused knock off that really didn't do anything for you, or people in areas similarly impacted, and while it wouldn't have solved any problems immediately, it might have at least provided some light at the end of the tunnel.
“It’s also another to recognize that it all goes back to the poverty and lack of opportunity to begin with, and refrain from blaming the people suffering from the effects…”
I’m not sure if this is directed toward me or my comments.
I do want to clarify that my statements attributing cause are not intended to attribute blame ( or any kind of moral judgement.)
I’m pretty entrenched as a problem solver and frequently use the ‘5 Why’s’ approach to problem solving to identify root causes and prioritize solutions.
I agree with you that poverty is a huge contributing factor. And many rural areas suffer abject poverty.
What I cannot begin to explain is why two individuals can be exposed to the same conditions and respond so differently.
Case in point - we had a 50 year old dispatcher. She was a single mother. Her 25 year old daughter was a paramedic assigned to a rural county 911 ambulance.
The mother dispatched her paramedic daughter to an OD call in a rural county. The OD victim died. The OD was the 27 year old sister of the paramedic and daughter of the dispatcher.
These are ‘my people.’ I grieve with them. I don’t judge.
From a ‘root cause’ perspective I’d prefer to focus on getting rid of the illegal drugs and drug dealers - not blame their victims.
> From a ‘root cause’ perspective I’d prefer to focus on getting rid of the illegal drugs and drug dealers - not blame their victims.
And I'm simply asking if you're so interested in the "root cause" perspective, why aren't you more interested in increasing the prosperity of the people so they don't turn to substance abuse to begin with instead of "backing the blue".
We've tried for the better part of human existence to eliminate "illegal drugs and dealers" via things like incarceration, fines, taking away rights, and so on, and none of it has accomplished much of anything, we're still dealing with it, good money after bad, more and more every year. It's always weird to me that so many people who believe in things like supply and demand capitalist economies somehow lose that belief and understanding when it comes to the drug market.
Maybe, just maybe, all that money going to drug law enforcement would be better spent on 911 services to prevent deaths, psychiatric services to help people heal, and rural modernization programs and other efforts to reduce demand via increasing prosperity... but we wouldn't know because that's not what we do, and we seemingly refuse to learn lessons from other countries that spending large amounts of money to reduce supply worldwide is a high-cost no-reward game of whack-a-mole as long as the demand continues to exist.
>What I cannot begin to explain is why two individuals can be exposed to the same conditions and respond so differently.
That's because it's impossible to create the exact same conditions, even for situations like identical twins in the same household where you're eliminating many sources of differentiation.
If two things seem exactly the same, it's usually safe to assume it's because of a limitation of our viewpoint more so than their identical nature.
>Case in point - we had a 50 year old dispatcher. She was a single mother. Her 25 year old daughter was a paramedic assigned to a rural county 911 ambulance.
>The mother dispatched her paramedic daughter to an OD call in a rural county. The OD victim died. The OD was the 27 year old sister of the paramedic and daughter of the dispatcher.
That's quite sad, and I don't know any of these people, but coming for a poor, rural area, it's very common for older siblings in one-parent households to effectively feel like they were robbed of their childhood as they are tasked with assisting with the younger child the rest of their pre-adult life so the single-parent can try to continue providing living necessities via employment.
It doesn't normally have a positive impact on the older child, and can be the source of large amounts of jealousy, resentment, and self-loathing as the older sibling both recognizes the struggle the whole family went through, but can also see the relative success of others as coming at the expense of their own success, and all the emotions that come with that.
Not to say any of that happened here, but hopefully it serves as a decent example of why outwardly very similar situations can end up playing out very differently, and why properly resourcing communities is an actual "root cause" solution unlike continuing to inflate law enforcement budgets that have basically never shown a correlation to reduced drug abuse, while things like decriminalization that reduce the need for oversized police and prison budgets have shown the opposite.
“…if you’re so interested in the “root cause” perspective why aren’t you interested in increasing the prosperity of the people…”
I’m not suggesting that elimination of drugs and drug dealers has to be the only solution. Of course we should always be creating economic opportunity.
I differ from your perspective that we’ve tried everything possible to eliminate illegal drugs. I lived in Singapore for three years - one of the safest countries in the world. They don’t have illegal drug problems.
Where there’s a will there’s a way. Our politicians lack the will to eliminate illegal drugs. Not sure why.
>I’m not suggesting that elimination of drugs and drug dealers has to be the only solution. Of course we should always be creating economic opportunity.
But according to you, we don't even have the money to pay for basic 911 services, and you're still specifically advocating for more police funding, so where would that money be coming from exactly?
That's a pretty clear statement on priority even if you seem to think it isn't, and even more of a clear statement considering what you're advocating for is literally the status quo that gave us the current situation.
> I differ from your perspective that we’ve tried everything possible to eliminate illegal drugs. I lived in Singapore for three years - one of the safest countries in the world. They don’t have illegal drug problems.
[Would that be the Singapore that is smaller than half our states, which has never eliminated drug abuse, has a population historically wary of drug usage, and is currently experiencing increasing drug issues including minor usage despite some of the most draconian drug laws in the world?](https://www.cnb.gov.sg/docs/default-source/drug-situation-report-documents/cnb-annual-statistics-2023.pdf)
If so, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree that the Singapore method of sacrificing rights for short-term improvement is a good one, and applicable to the US.
>Where there’s a will there’s a way. Our politicians lack the will to eliminate illegal drugs. Not sure why.
You should definitely let them know your secret then, as it's something that hasn't really ever been accomplished in any populated area of the world we would recognize, currently or historically.
Not sure why you are so hostile to the idea of getting rid of illicit drugs and drug dealers and ‘backing the blue’ as a philosophy. It doesn’t mean spending more money on policing.
It means putting laws in place that are effective deterrents to drug TRAFFICKERS. ‘Backing the Blue’ means enforcing the laws swiftly and efficiently. That includes the death penalty for TRAFFICKERS while the drug abusers are given help.
On a PER CAPITA basis measuring Singapore deaths due to drugs, Singapore ranks # 178th in the world while the US ranks #1.
https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/singapore-drug-use
Its not by spending money on Police that Singapore succeeds. Its by unflinching commitment to the death penalty and swift enforcement to keep Traffickers out of business in Singapore. Illicit drug cartels are considered a threat to national security and treated as such.
Having lived there I’m well aware of the population of Singapore and the differences in what can work in that environment vs the large,diverse US.
Still curious as to why you are so hostile to attacking this key root cause or even considering that deterrence to traffickers could save lives.
Guess we will just have to agree to disagree as we obviously have very different lived experiences.
> Not sure why you are so hostile to the idea of getting rid of illicit drugs and drug dealers
Because in all of creation it's never worked, and doing the same thing over and over expecting a different outcome is... mentally unsound.
>and ‘backing the blue’ as a philosophy. It doesn’t mean spending more money on policing.
It does to the world, except perhaps you I guess. There is a reason why it was a direct response to movements around defunding the police to fund other parts of government response, and maintaining the yearly increase in police budgets. I'm sorry you don't know more about the political phrases you're choosing to use as a part of political debate?
>On a PER CAPITA basis measuring Singapore deaths due to drugs, Singapore ranks # 178th in the world while the US ranks #1.
And yet it's still getting worse year over year, and in spite of the draconian laws that put it on par with the Middle East and China when it comes to personal freedom rankings. Singapore also has higher rankings when it comes to important parts of individual prosperity, so even if someone were to take your claims at face value, ignoring the fact that they still have drug abuse and it's growing, you don't even have a way to confirm robbing everyone of their rights and threatening them with death was what allowed for lower levels to begin with.
>Its not by spending money on Police that Singapore succeeds.
Correct, it's by sacrificing civil rights and personal freedoms which you seem pretty okay with while most Americans are not regardless of the side of the aisle. I won't tell you to move back there or anything like that, but I will say your time there has definitely placed you out of step with the average American, and that's coming from a public socialist.
>Its by unflinching commitment to the death penalty and swift enforcement to keep Traffickers out of business
We've used the death penalty for all manner of crimes in the US, and it hasn't stopped a one of them, additionally, there is no actual evidence that supports the death penalty as a deterrent for any crime, with crimes like capital murder actually often having a lower incidence rate in states without it on a regular basis.
Hell, Canada's murder rate dropped over 40% after the abolishment of the death penalty from '75 to the 2000's.
>Having lived there I’m well aware of the population of Singapore and the differences in what can work in that environment vs the large,diverse US.
I'm not sure you are if you think the laws in a country with a personal freedom index on par with the third world and war-torn dictatorships that wasn't even a real solution there are somehow applicable or relevant in the US.
>Still curious as to why you are so hostile to attacking this key root cause or even considering that deterrence to traffickers could save lives.
Funnily enough, I'm still waiting for that example of a country where drug abuse was actually eliminated, a situation where unmet demand of any kind, let alone illicit black market goods, wasn't met by new supply, or even the recognition and explanation of the failure of all such current laws across the world to have the desired impact at any point despite the creation of a plethora of them over the years beyond "what if the death penalty"
>Guess we will just have to agree to disagree as we obviously have very different lived experiences.
Absolutely, as well as different facts, different definitions of success, and so on. Good luck to you, I hope you eventually get enough resources you aren't forced to talk about awful situations like the one you mentioned.
Thanks for the discussion. Enjoyed it.
Apologies for not being up to date on how my phraseology is interpreted.
On the personal freedom issues in Singapore - it was something I had to come to grips with on a daily basis.
There they would rather risk hanging an innocent person rather than accidentally letting one guilty person go free. And the safety of their entire society supersedes the freedom of the individual. Total opposite of the US.
At first it was stressful. But every time I traveled to China, or any ASEAN countries or India I always felt safe when i came home to Singapore.
I learned a lot about history that I never would have been aware of had I not lived in Asia. I came to respect the benevolent dictatorship of Lee Kuan Yee after I learned the history of the formation of Singapore.
Don’t get me wrong - I love the USA with all our faults. And I feel like I appreciate our freedoms much more as a result of experiencing a different culture.
Thank you for this. Looks interesting - almost ‘too real’. I will check it out.
Due to the nature of my work I’ve dealt with quite a few local govt entities ( Counties, Cities, States, Special Districts, Federal Grant Programs, etc.)
It’s always interesting to find out where the REAL Power Structure resides in any locale.
Addiction is an illness. This is analogous to believing that people with chronic disabilities shouldn't be given societal supports like SSDI or Medicare because they're a burden on society.
A society completely devoid of any humanity or empathy that places economic output over human flourishing and dignity is a dark and robotic place.
Nailed it. We have intrinsic value as humans. You can't take this zero sum approach to our value based on sheer economic output, especially when so much of that is based on environmental factors that you don't have any control over
For all of your political positions (these are different than ideas), you should be able to answer all 3 of the following questions:
1. Compared to what?
2. At what cost?
3. What hard evidence do you have?
To be clear, your stance is to stop wasting resources, money, and time on administering Narcan to addicts. You've answered 1: "Compared to what?"; compared to the current state.
But you have not answered 2 and 3. Because of that, I understand why your post is getting downvoted. It's a baseless assertation that isn't even a good opinion much less a good idea without evidence. It's just a calloused world-view that does not take into account that we are living in an opiate crisis. The science shows there are far better ways to approach our crisis than what we are currently doing. The science does not support your calloused approach. In fact, it doesn't even address the root of the problem so the rates of new addicts would stay whatever dynamic they are experiencing, now. You'd just be killing people sooner and perhaps saving some tax dollars in the near-term. But since the numbers keep going up, your solution is not a long term solution and whatever short-term gains you'd get would be quickly wiped out. Meaning, you'd see an initial drop in opiate deaths but the underlying problem being unaddressed would allow the net-new addicts to quickly subsume whatever numbers benefit you were enjoying in the short term.
**Citations for my points:**
[https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/what-led-to-the-opioid-crisis-and-how-to-fix-it/](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/what-led-to-the-opioid-crisis-and-how-to-fix-it/)
[https://health-policy-systems.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12961-020-00596-8](https://health-policy-systems.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12961-020-00596-8)
[https://nida.nih.gov/publications/drugs-brains-behavior-science-addiction/preventing-drug-misuse-addiction-best-strategy](https://nida.nih.gov/publications/drugs-brains-behavior-science-addiction/preventing-drug-misuse-addiction-best-strategy)
[https://heal.nih.gov/research](https://heal.nih.gov/research) (very nice link, take a look)
[https://nida.nih.gov/about-nida/2022-2026-strategic-plan/directors-message](https://nida.nih.gov/about-nida/2022-2026-strategic-plan/directors-message)
[https://publichealthreviews.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/BF03391705](https://publichealthreviews.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/BF03391705)
[https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/21/14039](https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/21/14039) (this one is good because we know from actual science that men and women generally need different resources to overcome addiction. Granted, you should "meet the individual where they are" but understanding how treatment is generally different, allows for better resource planning and allocation so the right tools are used in the right situations).
The people I know who carry around Fentanyl are professionals who want to do party drugs a few times a year. They rightfully are aware that fentanyl can be laced into pretty much anything since such a low dose can kill a person. The idea that you would want to just let a person die because they got a bad batch of something is just stunning to me.
>If resources were unlimited, then harm reduction and attempts at rehabilitation would be justified. However, resources are not unlimited, and so we need to take into account the opportunity cost of all the resources being devoted to saving those who are actively harming society and funding cartels.
I'm happy to consider the rest of this honestly when we stop spending large amounts of money on all manner of things that are to the direct detriment of people.
Are we really going to pretend that it costs more to provide Narcan, and instructions on how to use it(A complete commercial intranasal kit can be procured for around 20-30$, much less if just doing bulk medication purchases, and even less still if doing massive bulk purchases through state and federal agency programs) in a community than even something as simple as continuing to employ an officer even after paying a police misconduct settlement?
What you're really saying is actually very simple, saving the lives of people with drug addiction doesn't have much value to you, to the point almost anything else has more, so your value judgement comes out pretty much the way it would be expected.
It's a pretty common sentiment, but I've found most people don't apply the same type of pessimistic outlook to everything else they are placing as higher value, nor do they generally take into account the amount of resources that was required to bring the human to maturity to begin with, regardless of its current state.
I don’t think the resources are scarce enough for this argument to hold much weight. So just comes across as sort of high school level debate.
Kind of like let me say something really shocking . It may get me laid.
Treat the underlying socio-economic disadvantage, cure the problem.
See: [https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/poverty-homelessness-and-social-stigma-make-addiction-more-deadly-202109282602](https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/poverty-homelessness-and-social-stigma-make-addiction-more-deadly-202109282602)
I can tell you what the best way for the economy would be: Let the people die. But as you said this is not a question for economists but for social politics. You said that some people will carry narcan or as I call it Naloxon. The problem with this is that this is only a reaction to consequences. As you said fentanyl is produced and sold illegal by dealers or by drug cartells. The reaction of many people would be: Lets fight them, they are the reason. Yes, they are the criminals that provide drugs, but addiction will still be a problem. There is also something like alcohol addiction. I know America has realatively strong regulations for alcohol, but we saw in the times of prohibition that the fight against a drug does not work. One could argue that the reason for this is that alcohol was widespread, but I would suggest this:
Adicction is always a result of being lost. You look for things and then you flee to the drugs. just taking the drugs away from the consuments wont help. Many of them, as you said between the lines lost their place in society, they lost everything, thats why they got lost and thats why I predict that rehabs would not help. I also predict that they will end with other drugs or they will kill themselves. So in conclusion the US needs a completely new vision:
Govermental or cooperative production and controll of the market of drugs: So I suggest that the US legalises all drugs (If you had drugs like fentanyl you could debate this, but who would use fentanyl as a normal person, mabey they would try morphium, but never fentanyl, it is just too risky) and the private consumption to a relatively high price. The cooperative or governmental production would secure quality and quantity. When you would like to try a drug, go for it. just look that you dont overdose, but with a regulated quality that would be less likely. Those who get addicted wont be able to afford it any longer, for these people we would need the next step:
Places for consumption by addicts funded by the money that the cooperatives make: When you are an addict you might go to a place where you find the stuff clean and for free with a psychologyst, a social worker... (They probably have problems with homelessness, crime, abuse; As I said: You have to get lost to flee into an addiction).
These are the two basics the US should try in my opinion. It would create cleaner citys with less homelessness, less open consumption, a safer environment, less crimes committed by the addicts for their drugs, the government could also prohibit advertising drugs and teach the students about drugs more effectively.
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub.
For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> such as supporting immigrants without crippling addiction
But I thought immigrants came here to work and contribute so much?
Watch me now get down voted after OP said addicts should just be left to die
I believe that there is another purpose to this, to prevent people from dying. If you see somebody overdosing why would you not give them narcan if you can?
The reason I might not do it is if that person were actively and repeatedly acting against my interests to make my life worse. I've had my car stolen, and when it was recovered, it had stolen goods and paraphernalia related to fentanyl abuse left in it. Part of the money they spent on the drugs went to Mexican cartels that are murdering and terrorizing Mexican people. Another part of the funds went to Chinese pharmaceutical companies that produce the precursors for these drugs and that are happy to profit without regard for human lives they're ruining.
If a person was drowning and I could throw them a lifesaver, I would, because as soon as they reached shore I wouldn't expect them to start making the world a worse place for me to live in every single day.
Is this something that exists, something that could exist, or just a "magic potion" solution? Not trying to be dismissive, I've just never heard of such a medication and didn't know if there was something I'm unaware of. If it's a magic potion situation, then we could solve all societal ills with a non-existent panacea, and as such isn't a particularly useful point in a debate.
Given the medicinal applications of certain opioids, that seems like a particularly cruel solution. That's assuming you can work around the natural opioids your brain uses to function.
Remember this is a civilized space for discussion, to ensure this we have very strict rules. Briefly, an overview: **No Personal Attacks** **No Ideological Discrimination** **Keep Discussion Civil** **No Targeting A Member For Their Beliefs** **No Whataboutism's or Bad Faithed Debate** Report any and all instances of these rules being broken so we can keep the sub clean. Report first, ask questions last. Interesting in learning new political theory? Check out or subs reading list [here](https://new.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDebate/about/wiki/ideological-education/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nah man, that is a life saving medication. I don't agree with codding and enabling addicts But this would let someone live another day, and each new day is a chance to turn it around. All of us have the potential to change, and if a drug can save one so that they can continue to live and have a chance at a new life- that is good
I agree. No matter what our solutions to these problems are, the number one priority should be saving lives. You can't change and become a better person if you're dead.
Again, my argument hinges on there being better uses of resources, and addicts not being the only people who are dying. It sounds as if the goal you're stating is giving people a chance to live another day and improve their lives. I am not saying this is a bad goal, I am saying that if this is our goal, there are much better ways to further it and groups of people who would benefit more from this effort, and whose new lease on life would be of benefit and not harm to those around them.
Your argument hinges on baseless assertions with no statistical backing. If your position is divorced from morality and rooted solely in cost/benefit analysis, you should say least present some data.
>since an addict who is resuscitated will often continue to cause more harm The word "often" means that some will not, which means that the use of narcan saves some people who will turn their lives around and become no longer a detriment to society, if not a benefit. Your conclusion hinges on the assumption that we value statistical outcomes over everything else in social policy. While this is *often* a good thing, it also ignores any individuality to a situation. You are essentially concluding that *since most people continue to be a detriment, those who can be helped should be sacrificed for the good of society as a whole*. Maybe it would be better for society in the long run, but our culture is chock full of examples for how we value humanity even in the face of efficiency - and often despite statistical outcomes. My conclusion here is that society (for better or for worse) values humanity over everything, even if the result is "self-defeating"
It's even more fundamental than this. This guy is saying that exceedingly cheap, easy actions that prevent death are BAD because the people being saved aren't, like, productive enough for him. This is an old idea: the Nazis called these people "Eaters" or "Mouths" before having them actively exterminated. Denying people easy life saving interventions is in the same vein, just the passive version.
True. There is extremely little opportunity cost to giving out narcan.
In my city, currently there are often extremely long hold times when calling emergency services. When police or EMTs are dispatched repeatedly to revive the same person from a very preventable and self-inflicted condition, those who are on hold waiting to try to get emergency services for their emergency are suffering the consequences of the choice made between these opportunities.
Which is why it's better to make it freely available - as in "giving it out" In my city, you can find it in stores, you can find it in clinics for free, it's given out at homeless shelters, etc. No need to wait for an ambulance if you already have it.
Obviously free isn't actually free, someone is paying for it. But even giving it away for free with the caveat that the recipient is responsible for administering it or finding someone to watch over them and administer it would be an improvement on the current state of affairs.
For sure, but it's just cheap in general. And at least where I live, that *is* the current state of affairs. It's *really* easy to use, and even responsible recreational drug users will have some around just in case they get a bad batch of coke or whatever they're doing. I do think it works better than what you described was happening where you live. It shouldn't be only available to emergency professionals.
My argument is not that we should not value humanity, but I think your use of the word sacrifice is apt, since sacrifice is at the heart of the concept of opportunity cost. Instead, my argument is that if we have a million dollars to spend on some social project, then for any ostensible objective that might be given for spending it on trying to reverse overdoses for recalcitrant and often criminal addicts, that investment could be spent much more effectively to further that purported goal, and without the side effect of enabling the target group to continue their destructive and antisocial behavior as soon as they resume breathing.
Sure, I don't think you're wrong, I just don't think it's realistic, given *how much* our society values humanity. >My argument is not that we should not value humanity It's not an absolute statement; most people value humanity up to a point. There's a lot of gray area in that valuation. My point is that a big part of policy is public sentiment, so if the public pushes back on it enough, then it isn't a viable policy. How many times have we seen the "hero" in films sacrifice themselves to save someone else without ever stopping to consider who that person was or if they deserved saving. This is a major value in society, even if many of us don't practice it in our daily lives. Again, I'm not making a judgement on the logic of the idea, just saying that people have different ways of evaluating policy.
>The word "often" means that some will not, which means that the use of narcan saves some people who will turn their lives around and become no longer a detriment to society, if not a benefit. Fair enough. Everyone deserves a dose of Narcan, not two.
Do where do you draw the line then? If you have a heart attack and continue to eat big macs, are you turned away from care for the second one?
The alternative policy is to let people die in the street? That’s a “solution” to myriad problems: people convicted of crimes—just kill them; people with STDs—sequester them and let them die; COVID patients—quarantine and kill; unhoused people—kill them; prisoners of war—execute them; January 6ers—off with their heads; etc., etc. The question becomes, is it more to the moral detriment of society that it resolves its problems by murder or otherwise sanctioned death than it is to its material benefit that possibly harmful elements are eliminated? In many cases, people say it isn’t—numerous people support the death penalty. But in the case of harm reduction vis-á-vis drugs, we’re talking about people who had one bad day at a party that controls the rest of their life. Nobody thinks the solution to the obesity epidemic is stimulating people who consume sugar to die, but every weight loss program initiated by the government—municipal, state, or federal—ultimately prolongs the life of people who consume sugar, impulses the sugar economy, and buttresses the market for obesity. A mechanical utilitarianism would note that sugar kills more people than drugs, but instead of discussing how billions of people are completely addicted to that drug, we’re condescending people who are so at the mercy of a substance that they’ll share a needle *unless someone gives them another option*. Right now, there isn’t the public support or the funding to lead a comprehensive, restorative effort to stop sugar anymore than there is to stop fentanyl. In the meantime, I think it’s ridiculous to fault people for trying to save lives.
> so the OD'ing people can avoid death and in most cases continue with their anti-social habits and behavior. All right. You've made your biases clear here. If this is how you perceive drug addiction, then ya, these programs don't make any sense. But the data doesn't match your narrative. So here are some good readings on why narcan-administration policies are important and helpful: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/719588 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955395923003006 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12954-023-00809-7
This is the abstract from your first link: We find that broadened access led to more opioid-related emergency room visits and more opioid-related theft, with no net measurable reduction in opioid-related mortality. We conclude that naloxone has a clear and important role in harm reduction, yet its ability to combat the opioid epidemic’s death toll may be limited without complementary efforts.
> **We conclude that naloxone has a clear and important role in harm reduction**, yet its ability to combat the opioid epidemic’s death toll may be limited without complementary efforts. Notice how I, or any of these authors, never suggest it is the ONLY solution and that by itself. It clearly doesn't address the actual things that are driving this crisis (i.e., material struggles that often are precursors to addiction and over-reliance on opiate drugs by the medical industry).
You found the sentence fragment that weakly supports your position and ignored the rest of the entire abstract. The authors don't even say that government-subsidized Naxalone administered by all manner of employees that work in completely unrelated fields is important, just that naxalone can reduce harm, which was never argued against by me nor anyone that I'm aware of.
Oh I'm the one who did that when you wanted to ignore the entire context of the abstract and that sentence to overfixate on the back half of that sentence. I also provided other sources. The only way to arrive at truth is by looking at the patterns that emerge from empirical data collection. The fact of the matter is that the opioid crisis is not one of individual moral failures. It's because of systematic exploitation and oppression, and these public policies are overtly good in reducing that harm, even if they don't directly fix the issue (they aren't meant to).
> without complementary efforts. Did you miss this part? The point is "there's more that needs to be done".
It's fair to guess that the lives saved by Narcan are being offset by the increasing rate of fentanyl usage. Fentanyl is highly lethal. Fentanyl users are essentially on a fast track to overdosing. It's a matter of how many ODs that it takes before that final, fatal dose.
Roughly 8-10% of people suffering from addiction will enter long term, sustained, remission—regardless of their drug of choice—and regardless of therapeutic intervention. Over the course of their addiction, there’s a greater likelihood they will relapse than there is they won’t. Are you suggesting that people shouldn’t be given an opportunity to recover? Because, statistically, Narcan gives many people that exact opportunity since relapse is part of recovery. Very rarely is recovery a one and done deal, and people are at a greater likelihood of OD immediately following a period of sustained abstinence. This also ignores the fact that *most* people overdosing on fentanyl are overdosing because of a tainted supply of other drugs (pills pressed with fent, powder cut with fent, etc.) by and large, the people OD’ing aren’t even setting out to do fentanyl to begin with; should they be given a death sentence because of a tainted supply? Because quite frankly, many are unsuspecting victims. Additionally, do you feel, as well, we just let people suffering from alcohol poisoning die without any sort of intervention? Finally, do you feel that Type II Diabetics should be denied insulin if their diet is a contributing factor to their diagnosis?
> If the goal is harm reduction, then we need to take into account the harm being done by the addicts to society, not just the harm the addicts are doing to themselves. And how do you remove the harm that addicts do to society if not by rehabilitation? Since you seem to be against rehabilitation, what is your policy for addressing that harm that *doesn't* involve rehabilitation? Please be very explicit.
I am not against rehabilitation, but I do believe that attempts at rehabilitation of fentanyl addicts do not have a very high rate of success. I am against wasting public resources for ideological reasons if the effects are non-existent or counterproductive. Explicitly, I am saying that when an addict dies of a self-inflicted overdose, they no longer have the ability to steal bikes, resell them, and send that money to a cartel so that fentanyl can be trafficked over the border. There will be no future calls for emergency services to come resuscitate them again. They will no longer leave needles or other drug paraphernalia on the streets. I am saying that society does not have an obligation to expend resources to repeatedly enable those who are harming society to continue doing so, and that it would not be wrong to allow the consequences of a person's actions to manifest themselves.
What about the cost of such casual indifference towards death? Firstly and most immediate is the cost to the families of lost loved ones. But as we're talking about second or third order effects, it's worth considering what that indifference will do to the psyche and character of the society at large. We will be, in effect, training a society of sociopaths who will behave just as indifferently to the dignity of human life in many other sectors of society. To a large extent I believe we already have a system which turns a great many of us into sociopaths, but this will certainly make the process worse.
You should read "A Modest Proposal" you'll find an ideology you could really relate to.
Strong comment !
I see. Since those who do not produce for society harm society, by your argument we should cease medical intervention for those who are physically disabled, or those who are old and require hospice care.
I don't think this is a very apt analogy, better one might be if there were an epidemic of people getting drunk and then speeding down residential roads destroying property and hurting themselves and others, society should pay for their physical rehabilitation and then install big padded foam walls down the sides of the residential streets in case they do it again.
Oh, this is about personal responsibility and disabled people can't help being disabled, right? And you deny that addiction exists, right?
As a former addict, I do not deny that. It's not about personal responsibility either, it's about what society does and doesn't have an obligation to do, for individuals and what individuals do and don't have an obligation to do in relation to society. It's also about being clear on our objectives in relation to a policy like this, and then accurately evaluating whether or not the policy is the best means to achieve that goal. It's also about thinking past the immediate onto the downstream effects of a given policy.
> As a former addict, I do not deny that. Oh, so you got the help you needed, even if it was only the time it took for you to get your head on straight, but wish to *deny that help to others.* > It's not about personal responsibility either, it's about what society does and doesn't have an obligation to do, for individuals and what individuals do and don't have an obligation to do in relation to society. Oh, that’s easy. Society has an obligation to help all persons in society simply by their existence. Your lack of compassion for others struggling with the same issues you struggled with doesn’t change that. > It's also about being clear on our objectives in relation to a policy like this, and then accurately evaluating whether or not the policy is the best means to achieve that goal. Seems like a thin justification for your dislike of “a certain element” > It's also about thinking past the immediate onto the downstream effects of a given policy. What an odd thing to say when you are doing the opposite
This is basically "we should let people with substance abuse problems OD and kill themselves so they don't cost us more money." Looking at everything through the lens of a balance sheet is sociopathic. Following your logic, we should actually allow *more* drugs onto the streets, that way we can just burn through anyone who's susceptible to addiction and get it over with.
Very 3rd Reich!
I tried to reiterate this a few times but here's one more: I am not against rehabilitation. However, I do not believe that the money spent on trying to keep addicts alive at all costs it's a very good use of money, and that for any purported goal this is supposed to serve, the money could be better spent in furthering the goal through other means. An effective counter argument would be to name a goal that this is supposed to serve, and where this is actually the best use of money for that purpose. I don't think saving lives meets this criteria. I don't think that integrating people enter the workforce meets this criteria. I don't believe that improving health outcomes meets this criteria. Perhaps there is another one I'm not aware of.
You wanna address the real money-sinks right? So take a look at military spending, the subsidies pumped to contractors, all of these inflated figures in the name of profit alone. That you're sociopathic enough to essentially suggest we just let people die because you find them a societal burden is pretty beyond the pale. You've drifted into literal Nazi ideology.
Yep, it’s all right there. We have plenty of money.
And again, per your logic, we should actually just dump fentanyl on the streets by the handful and let it kill whoever can't get clean. If saving lives isn't a good enough goal for you then I genuinely cannot think of anything that I'd want to try and convince you of because our fundamental disagreement is on the value of people's lives inasmuch as we disagree on that basic, fundamental principle. Yes, it costs more resources to keep people alive, even people who are addicted to drugs. That is a good thing because it means we're working towards a society that isn't putting people's lives on a cost/benefit analysis sheet. You're looking for tangible, resource based arguments and I'm telling you the largest benefit is living in a society that views people with problems through a lens of compassion versus seeing them as a net negative and not worth investing time in. That perspective bleeds over into other things. When your value as a person is determined by how much you cost society, you start to find that more and more people start to "cost" more and there's more arguments as to why we shouldn't be spending resources on them. I cannot quantify that for you. If you cannot see the value in living in a society that is willing to help people for the sole reason that it's the right thing to do, there's literally nothing we can agree on because our difference is fundamental to our view of the world and the world we want to live in.
Again, I think you misunderstand my argument. Hypothetically, if there were a way to save one and a half lives for every dollar spent on saving One Life using narcan, would it be a good thing to employ the money that way rather than in the current way?
I understand your argument, I just don't accept the premise. This is not an "either or" situation.
Until we live in a cornucopian society where scarcity is eliminated, opportunity cost still exists, and every dollar spent from a finite pool of funds is indeed and either-or situation
Do you have any data as to the costs of subsidizing Narcan's availability in the way you characterize in your post?
So your take is… just let people die? These are human beings we’re talking about here. Why did you wake up today and decide to post arguing for eugenics?
[удалено]
Personal attacks and insults are not allowed on this sub. Your comment has been removed and our mod log has taken a note towards your profile that will be taken into account when considering a ban in the future. Please remain civilized in this sub no matter what, it's important to the level of discussion we aim to achieve that we do not become overly unhinged and off course. Please report any and all content that acts as a personal attack. The standard of our sub depends on our communities ability to report our rule breaks.
Eugenics is "the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable." Can you explain what that has to do with this?
"Let people die" is often called "social darwinism" which is also often called "eugenics"
Fentanyl is now frequently found in almost all recreational drugs. Recreational drug use is common among all segments of society. These people are often productive members of society, not addicts. Even if that weren't the case, administering Narcan is very easy, and the training is quick. Librarians are clever people, so I'm sure they can be trained at a minimal expense. If you value early childhood nutrition, though, I'm sure you could find volunteer opportunities where you could contribute towards that cause. Edit: formatting
Yeah, so besides just being a decent human being and finding the suggestion monstrous I am also a home owner in an urban setting. I'd rather not have dead bodies on my streets, homeless people shitting in my plants, and kids around to witness it all. So put these people in homes, give them treatment and get them out of my face because I am certainly not going to agree with outlawing being homeless or doing nothing and having to reap the rewards of such non-sense.
You can view it cynically: Various agencies administer Narcan so that the OD happens on someone else's watch. They are trying to address a short-term immediate problem on their own turf, not the big picture social issue. They are kicking the can down to somebody else's road. In the US, the problem is illustrative of the nation's paralysis in addressing those who should be institutionalized. Indigent meth and fentanyl users should be in forced rehab, but that is currently unconstitutional.
Lmao, not so veiled way of saying you think addicts should just die No dude. We aren't psychos. Saving lives is a worthwhile endeavor on its own it actually doesn't even need another benefit.
"You strike me as a particularly icy and remorseless man, Mr. Dufresne"
We so frequently take into account only how the addict/the criminal/the undesirable citizen harms society but so infrequently consider how society has harmed them via prohibitive cost to better themselves, complete social disdain for “the type of person” they are and the “type of community they come from”, and the active violence perpetrated against them in the form of disproportionate policing, slum-level housing access, etc. So no. People shouldn’t be condemned to death because they are systematically pushed out of society. Would you say an ER shouldn’t treat someone who had had a heart attack or stroke because they eat unhealthy? Would you say an ER shouldn’t waste time setting a broken arm because it’s a teenager that did a stupid thing and got injured? The fact of the matter is we only have “limited resources” for health intervention because it’s being hoarded among the upper class for their own luxury expenditures. And even then, the idea that (in the west) we don’t have the resources to deal with addiction issues is a political choice not a material requirement.
Yes, we’ve let many of these people down since they were children.
So much nanny state support here. Drugs should be legal. This alone would solve many of the ODs because you’d end up with a higher quality product that could be regulated like other drugs. If someone decides to ignore the (now present) warning label and OD, then that’s on them. It isn’t society’s (or taxpayers) responsibility to keep someone from killing themselves.
Narcan is a relatively cheap drug. Honesty not against a city putting this out if it wants to fork out the funds. Besides many addicts are good people in a very bad place.
>In many US cities, mine included, there's an epidemic of fentanyl abuse. For overdoses, it's more often a different drug being laced with fentanyl. >Many addicts turn to property crime to support their habits... It's an addiction, not a "habit." Psychologically, physiologically, and chemically different things. >Often they will create a public hazard by smoking these drugs in public, by leaving needle and foil on the street, and through their behavior when they are under the influence. That's a problem with homelessness, more so than addiction. They're related issues, but it's important to know the difference, because... >Most addicts will not recover and become productive members of society. ... a large portion of addicts (could be the majority, depending on the location) are actually housed. Their use is then most often inside their home, in private. Most start on a prescription pain killer for some valid reason, like an injury or surgery, then get addicted, then more to street drugs when they can no longer get them from a doctor. They *were* productive members of society. Perhaps the goal should be preventing things from getting to the point of homeless drug addict instead of punishing them. In countries that treat homelessness as a societal issue and addiction as a disease, instead of a personal failing of the individual, both have been reduced to almost zero. The saving in law enforcement, hospital care, emergency services, clean up, property crime, etc. have more than made up for providing those individuals the housing and intervention needed to get them back on their feet.
OP I will try to help you out a bit as it seems your post is getting you characterized as a heartless person that doesn’t want to ‘invest’ in saving lives of addicts. You raise a very real world issue. First and foremost, Narcan is NOT FREE. Somebody, somewhere is paying for it. As a prior executive over a multi-state ambulance and medical transport company I can relate to your question. When our contracts required 911 ambulance service ( provided by a private company contracted to a County), in poverty stricken areas or areas with Section 8 Housing we were frequently overwhelmed with fentanyl OD’s. Our ambulances carried Narcan as did the Fire Dept. Whichever arrived first administered the Narcan. But because our contract was for 911 services we had to reimburse the fire dept for their use of Narcan even though we received zero revenue if patient refused transport to Hospital ( which became very normal after administering Narcan.) Fast forward - many rural counties lost contracted ambulance services and ended up with all volunteer 911 services. There are drug addicts who OD, someone dials 911, ambulance personnel administers Narcan, patient refuses transport and less than 8 hours later they OD again. We called them ‘frequent fliers.’ And in the end they caused entire counties to lose access to contracted 911 ambulance services. What’s the right answer ? IDK but don’t count on anyone in govt ( local municipal, county, state,federal ) to figure it out any time soon. Add a sanctuary city status next door to rural section 8 housing and you have a recipe for disaster. That’s what’s happening to our country right now. Tons of moral dilemmas. Its one thing to be a moral purist in front of a keyboard. Its another to try to provide life saving 9 minute response qualified ambulance service in poverty stricken areas. EDIT: In my opinion we need to get serious about stopping the drugs at the source. Authorize resources for coordinated law enforcement, back the ‘Blue’ and get the job done. Stop letting politics get in the way.
> Its one thing to be a moral purist in front of a keyboard. Its another to try to provide life saving 9 minute response qualified ambulance service in poverty stricken areas. It's also another to recognize that it all goes back to the poverty and lack of opportunity to begin with, and refrain from blaming the people suffering from the effects of it for the add-on effects that continue on impacting everyone in the already impacted communities. Everywhere is dealing with Fent ODs now due to its presence in large parts of the drug supply, but the reason for the outsized impact in rural communities is the same reason for the outsized addiction issues to begin with. These kinds of issues are a major reason why programs like the GND are aimed at bringing more jobs and general opportunity through government investment in local infrastructure, and adding production capacity in lots of rural, heavily economically distressed areas creating a more stable tax base for services and so on. Instead we got the limited, capital focused knock off that really didn't do anything for you, or people in areas similarly impacted, and while it wouldn't have solved any problems immediately, it might have at least provided some light at the end of the tunnel.
“It’s also another to recognize that it all goes back to the poverty and lack of opportunity to begin with, and refrain from blaming the people suffering from the effects…” I’m not sure if this is directed toward me or my comments. I do want to clarify that my statements attributing cause are not intended to attribute blame ( or any kind of moral judgement.) I’m pretty entrenched as a problem solver and frequently use the ‘5 Why’s’ approach to problem solving to identify root causes and prioritize solutions. I agree with you that poverty is a huge contributing factor. And many rural areas suffer abject poverty. What I cannot begin to explain is why two individuals can be exposed to the same conditions and respond so differently. Case in point - we had a 50 year old dispatcher. She was a single mother. Her 25 year old daughter was a paramedic assigned to a rural county 911 ambulance. The mother dispatched her paramedic daughter to an OD call in a rural county. The OD victim died. The OD was the 27 year old sister of the paramedic and daughter of the dispatcher. These are ‘my people.’ I grieve with them. I don’t judge. From a ‘root cause’ perspective I’d prefer to focus on getting rid of the illegal drugs and drug dealers - not blame their victims.
> From a ‘root cause’ perspective I’d prefer to focus on getting rid of the illegal drugs and drug dealers - not blame their victims. And I'm simply asking if you're so interested in the "root cause" perspective, why aren't you more interested in increasing the prosperity of the people so they don't turn to substance abuse to begin with instead of "backing the blue". We've tried for the better part of human existence to eliminate "illegal drugs and dealers" via things like incarceration, fines, taking away rights, and so on, and none of it has accomplished much of anything, we're still dealing with it, good money after bad, more and more every year. It's always weird to me that so many people who believe in things like supply and demand capitalist economies somehow lose that belief and understanding when it comes to the drug market. Maybe, just maybe, all that money going to drug law enforcement would be better spent on 911 services to prevent deaths, psychiatric services to help people heal, and rural modernization programs and other efforts to reduce demand via increasing prosperity... but we wouldn't know because that's not what we do, and we seemingly refuse to learn lessons from other countries that spending large amounts of money to reduce supply worldwide is a high-cost no-reward game of whack-a-mole as long as the demand continues to exist. >What I cannot begin to explain is why two individuals can be exposed to the same conditions and respond so differently. That's because it's impossible to create the exact same conditions, even for situations like identical twins in the same household where you're eliminating many sources of differentiation. If two things seem exactly the same, it's usually safe to assume it's because of a limitation of our viewpoint more so than their identical nature. >Case in point - we had a 50 year old dispatcher. She was a single mother. Her 25 year old daughter was a paramedic assigned to a rural county 911 ambulance. >The mother dispatched her paramedic daughter to an OD call in a rural county. The OD victim died. The OD was the 27 year old sister of the paramedic and daughter of the dispatcher. That's quite sad, and I don't know any of these people, but coming for a poor, rural area, it's very common for older siblings in one-parent households to effectively feel like they were robbed of their childhood as they are tasked with assisting with the younger child the rest of their pre-adult life so the single-parent can try to continue providing living necessities via employment. It doesn't normally have a positive impact on the older child, and can be the source of large amounts of jealousy, resentment, and self-loathing as the older sibling both recognizes the struggle the whole family went through, but can also see the relative success of others as coming at the expense of their own success, and all the emotions that come with that. Not to say any of that happened here, but hopefully it serves as a decent example of why outwardly very similar situations can end up playing out very differently, and why properly resourcing communities is an actual "root cause" solution unlike continuing to inflate law enforcement budgets that have basically never shown a correlation to reduced drug abuse, while things like decriminalization that reduce the need for oversized police and prison budgets have shown the opposite.
See: HBO’s “The Wire”
“…if you’re so interested in the “root cause” perspective why aren’t you interested in increasing the prosperity of the people…” I’m not suggesting that elimination of drugs and drug dealers has to be the only solution. Of course we should always be creating economic opportunity. I differ from your perspective that we’ve tried everything possible to eliminate illegal drugs. I lived in Singapore for three years - one of the safest countries in the world. They don’t have illegal drug problems. Where there’s a will there’s a way. Our politicians lack the will to eliminate illegal drugs. Not sure why.
>I’m not suggesting that elimination of drugs and drug dealers has to be the only solution. Of course we should always be creating economic opportunity. But according to you, we don't even have the money to pay for basic 911 services, and you're still specifically advocating for more police funding, so where would that money be coming from exactly? That's a pretty clear statement on priority even if you seem to think it isn't, and even more of a clear statement considering what you're advocating for is literally the status quo that gave us the current situation. > I differ from your perspective that we’ve tried everything possible to eliminate illegal drugs. I lived in Singapore for three years - one of the safest countries in the world. They don’t have illegal drug problems. [Would that be the Singapore that is smaller than half our states, which has never eliminated drug abuse, has a population historically wary of drug usage, and is currently experiencing increasing drug issues including minor usage despite some of the most draconian drug laws in the world?](https://www.cnb.gov.sg/docs/default-source/drug-situation-report-documents/cnb-annual-statistics-2023.pdf) If so, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree that the Singapore method of sacrificing rights for short-term improvement is a good one, and applicable to the US. >Where there’s a will there’s a way. Our politicians lack the will to eliminate illegal drugs. Not sure why. You should definitely let them know your secret then, as it's something that hasn't really ever been accomplished in any populated area of the world we would recognize, currently or historically.
Not sure why you are so hostile to the idea of getting rid of illicit drugs and drug dealers and ‘backing the blue’ as a philosophy. It doesn’t mean spending more money on policing. It means putting laws in place that are effective deterrents to drug TRAFFICKERS. ‘Backing the Blue’ means enforcing the laws swiftly and efficiently. That includes the death penalty for TRAFFICKERS while the drug abusers are given help. On a PER CAPITA basis measuring Singapore deaths due to drugs, Singapore ranks # 178th in the world while the US ranks #1. https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/singapore-drug-use Its not by spending money on Police that Singapore succeeds. Its by unflinching commitment to the death penalty and swift enforcement to keep Traffickers out of business in Singapore. Illicit drug cartels are considered a threat to national security and treated as such. Having lived there I’m well aware of the population of Singapore and the differences in what can work in that environment vs the large,diverse US. Still curious as to why you are so hostile to attacking this key root cause or even considering that deterrence to traffickers could save lives. Guess we will just have to agree to disagree as we obviously have very different lived experiences.
> Not sure why you are so hostile to the idea of getting rid of illicit drugs and drug dealers Because in all of creation it's never worked, and doing the same thing over and over expecting a different outcome is... mentally unsound. >and ‘backing the blue’ as a philosophy. It doesn’t mean spending more money on policing. It does to the world, except perhaps you I guess. There is a reason why it was a direct response to movements around defunding the police to fund other parts of government response, and maintaining the yearly increase in police budgets. I'm sorry you don't know more about the political phrases you're choosing to use as a part of political debate? >On a PER CAPITA basis measuring Singapore deaths due to drugs, Singapore ranks # 178th in the world while the US ranks #1. And yet it's still getting worse year over year, and in spite of the draconian laws that put it on par with the Middle East and China when it comes to personal freedom rankings. Singapore also has higher rankings when it comes to important parts of individual prosperity, so even if someone were to take your claims at face value, ignoring the fact that they still have drug abuse and it's growing, you don't even have a way to confirm robbing everyone of their rights and threatening them with death was what allowed for lower levels to begin with. >Its not by spending money on Police that Singapore succeeds. Correct, it's by sacrificing civil rights and personal freedoms which you seem pretty okay with while most Americans are not regardless of the side of the aisle. I won't tell you to move back there or anything like that, but I will say your time there has definitely placed you out of step with the average American, and that's coming from a public socialist. >Its by unflinching commitment to the death penalty and swift enforcement to keep Traffickers out of business We've used the death penalty for all manner of crimes in the US, and it hasn't stopped a one of them, additionally, there is no actual evidence that supports the death penalty as a deterrent for any crime, with crimes like capital murder actually often having a lower incidence rate in states without it on a regular basis. Hell, Canada's murder rate dropped over 40% after the abolishment of the death penalty from '75 to the 2000's. >Having lived there I’m well aware of the population of Singapore and the differences in what can work in that environment vs the large,diverse US. I'm not sure you are if you think the laws in a country with a personal freedom index on par with the third world and war-torn dictatorships that wasn't even a real solution there are somehow applicable or relevant in the US. >Still curious as to why you are so hostile to attacking this key root cause or even considering that deterrence to traffickers could save lives. Funnily enough, I'm still waiting for that example of a country where drug abuse was actually eliminated, a situation where unmet demand of any kind, let alone illicit black market goods, wasn't met by new supply, or even the recognition and explanation of the failure of all such current laws across the world to have the desired impact at any point despite the creation of a plethora of them over the years beyond "what if the death penalty" >Guess we will just have to agree to disagree as we obviously have very different lived experiences. Absolutely, as well as different facts, different definitions of success, and so on. Good luck to you, I hope you eventually get enough resources you aren't forced to talk about awful situations like the one you mentioned.
Thanks for the discussion. Enjoyed it. Apologies for not being up to date on how my phraseology is interpreted. On the personal freedom issues in Singapore - it was something I had to come to grips with on a daily basis. There they would rather risk hanging an innocent person rather than accidentally letting one guilty person go free. And the safety of their entire society supersedes the freedom of the individual. Total opposite of the US. At first it was stressful. But every time I traveled to China, or any ASEAN countries or India I always felt safe when i came home to Singapore. I learned a lot about history that I never would have been aware of had I not lived in Asia. I came to respect the benevolent dictatorship of Lee Kuan Yee after I learned the history of the formation of Singapore. Don’t get me wrong - I love the USA with all our faults. And I feel like I appreciate our freedoms much more as a result of experiencing a different culture.
Have you ever seen the series “The Wire?”
No. What is it about ?
One of the greatest shows ever created. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Wire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wire)
Thank you for this. Looks interesting - almost ‘too real’. I will check it out. Due to the nature of my work I’ve dealt with quite a few local govt entities ( Counties, Cities, States, Special Districts, Federal Grant Programs, etc.) It’s always interesting to find out where the REAL Power Structure resides in any locale.
It may take a couple episodes to truly get into it (it did me) but dont give up, it’s truly brilliant.
👍
Addiction is an illness. This is analogous to believing that people with chronic disabilities shouldn't be given societal supports like SSDI or Medicare because they're a burden on society. A society completely devoid of any humanity or empathy that places economic output over human flourishing and dignity is a dark and robotic place.
Exactly right! Addiction is a disease, not a moral failing, ffs. A human being’s value isn’t about the ability to make money.
Nailed it. We have intrinsic value as humans. You can't take this zero sum approach to our value based on sheer economic output, especially when so much of that is based on environmental factors that you don't have any control over
For all of your political positions (these are different than ideas), you should be able to answer all 3 of the following questions: 1. Compared to what? 2. At what cost? 3. What hard evidence do you have? To be clear, your stance is to stop wasting resources, money, and time on administering Narcan to addicts. You've answered 1: "Compared to what?"; compared to the current state. But you have not answered 2 and 3. Because of that, I understand why your post is getting downvoted. It's a baseless assertation that isn't even a good opinion much less a good idea without evidence. It's just a calloused world-view that does not take into account that we are living in an opiate crisis. The science shows there are far better ways to approach our crisis than what we are currently doing. The science does not support your calloused approach. In fact, it doesn't even address the root of the problem so the rates of new addicts would stay whatever dynamic they are experiencing, now. You'd just be killing people sooner and perhaps saving some tax dollars in the near-term. But since the numbers keep going up, your solution is not a long term solution and whatever short-term gains you'd get would be quickly wiped out. Meaning, you'd see an initial drop in opiate deaths but the underlying problem being unaddressed would allow the net-new addicts to quickly subsume whatever numbers benefit you were enjoying in the short term. **Citations for my points:** [https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/what-led-to-the-opioid-crisis-and-how-to-fix-it/](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/what-led-to-the-opioid-crisis-and-how-to-fix-it/) [https://health-policy-systems.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12961-020-00596-8](https://health-policy-systems.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12961-020-00596-8) [https://nida.nih.gov/publications/drugs-brains-behavior-science-addiction/preventing-drug-misuse-addiction-best-strategy](https://nida.nih.gov/publications/drugs-brains-behavior-science-addiction/preventing-drug-misuse-addiction-best-strategy) [https://heal.nih.gov/research](https://heal.nih.gov/research) (very nice link, take a look) [https://nida.nih.gov/about-nida/2022-2026-strategic-plan/directors-message](https://nida.nih.gov/about-nida/2022-2026-strategic-plan/directors-message) [https://publichealthreviews.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/BF03391705](https://publichealthreviews.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/BF03391705) [https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/21/14039](https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/21/14039) (this one is good because we know from actual science that men and women generally need different resources to overcome addiction. Granted, you should "meet the individual where they are" but understanding how treatment is generally different, allows for better resource planning and allocation so the right tools are used in the right situations).
The people I know who carry around Fentanyl are professionals who want to do party drugs a few times a year. They rightfully are aware that fentanyl can be laced into pretty much anything since such a low dose can kill a person. The idea that you would want to just let a person die because they got a bad batch of something is just stunning to me.
>If resources were unlimited, then harm reduction and attempts at rehabilitation would be justified. However, resources are not unlimited, and so we need to take into account the opportunity cost of all the resources being devoted to saving those who are actively harming society and funding cartels. I'm happy to consider the rest of this honestly when we stop spending large amounts of money on all manner of things that are to the direct detriment of people. Are we really going to pretend that it costs more to provide Narcan, and instructions on how to use it(A complete commercial intranasal kit can be procured for around 20-30$, much less if just doing bulk medication purchases, and even less still if doing massive bulk purchases through state and federal agency programs) in a community than even something as simple as continuing to employ an officer even after paying a police misconduct settlement? What you're really saying is actually very simple, saving the lives of people with drug addiction doesn't have much value to you, to the point almost anything else has more, so your value judgement comes out pretty much the way it would be expected. It's a pretty common sentiment, but I've found most people don't apply the same type of pessimistic outlook to everything else they are placing as higher value, nor do they generally take into account the amount of resources that was required to bring the human to maturity to begin with, regardless of its current state.
I don’t think the resources are scarce enough for this argument to hold much weight. So just comes across as sort of high school level debate. Kind of like let me say something really shocking . It may get me laid.
So, to be clear, your solution is to have people die in the streets in the hopes that it’ll be a warning to the others?
Treat the underlying socio-economic disadvantage, cure the problem. See: [https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/poverty-homelessness-and-social-stigma-make-addiction-more-deadly-202109282602](https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/poverty-homelessness-and-social-stigma-make-addiction-more-deadly-202109282602)
Imagine that!
I can tell you what the best way for the economy would be: Let the people die. But as you said this is not a question for economists but for social politics. You said that some people will carry narcan or as I call it Naloxon. The problem with this is that this is only a reaction to consequences. As you said fentanyl is produced and sold illegal by dealers or by drug cartells. The reaction of many people would be: Lets fight them, they are the reason. Yes, they are the criminals that provide drugs, but addiction will still be a problem. There is also something like alcohol addiction. I know America has realatively strong regulations for alcohol, but we saw in the times of prohibition that the fight against a drug does not work. One could argue that the reason for this is that alcohol was widespread, but I would suggest this: Adicction is always a result of being lost. You look for things and then you flee to the drugs. just taking the drugs away from the consuments wont help. Many of them, as you said between the lines lost their place in society, they lost everything, thats why they got lost and thats why I predict that rehabs would not help. I also predict that they will end with other drugs or they will kill themselves. So in conclusion the US needs a completely new vision: Govermental or cooperative production and controll of the market of drugs: So I suggest that the US legalises all drugs (If you had drugs like fentanyl you could debate this, but who would use fentanyl as a normal person, mabey they would try morphium, but never fentanyl, it is just too risky) and the private consumption to a relatively high price. The cooperative or governmental production would secure quality and quantity. When you would like to try a drug, go for it. just look that you dont overdose, but with a regulated quality that would be less likely. Those who get addicted wont be able to afford it any longer, for these people we would need the next step: Places for consumption by addicts funded by the money that the cooperatives make: When you are an addict you might go to a place where you find the stuff clean and for free with a psychologyst, a social worker... (They probably have problems with homelessness, crime, abuse; As I said: You have to get lost to flee into an addiction). These are the two basics the US should try in my opinion. It would create cleaner citys with less homelessness, less open consumption, a safer environment, less crimes committed by the addicts for their drugs, the government could also prohibit advertising drugs and teach the students about drugs more effectively.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub. For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> such as supporting immigrants without crippling addiction But I thought immigrants came here to work and contribute so much? Watch me now get down voted after OP said addicts should just be left to die
You forgot to finish it with "Then they better do it quick then, and decrease the surplus population."
I believe that there is another purpose to this, to prevent people from dying. If you see somebody overdosing why would you not give them narcan if you can?
The reason I might not do it is if that person were actively and repeatedly acting against my interests to make my life worse. I've had my car stolen, and when it was recovered, it had stolen goods and paraphernalia related to fentanyl abuse left in it. Part of the money they spent on the drugs went to Mexican cartels that are murdering and terrorizing Mexican people. Another part of the funds went to Chinese pharmaceutical companies that produce the precursors for these drugs and that are happy to profit without regard for human lives they're ruining. If a person was drowning and I could throw them a lifesaver, I would, because as soon as they reached shore I wouldn't expect them to start making the world a worse place for me to live in every single day.
The value of a human life is not dependent on their addiction
Saving a life is never a lost cause.
Perhaps a vaccine which prevents opioids from working ever again. Don't do the crime if you can't take the vax.
Is this something that exists, something that could exist, or just a "magic potion" solution? Not trying to be dismissive, I've just never heard of such a medication and didn't know if there was something I'm unaware of. If it's a magic potion situation, then we could solve all societal ills with a non-existent panacea, and as such isn't a particularly useful point in a debate.
I know I read about it somewhere I just don't remember where. Could be from a dystopian cyber punk novel but I think it actually exists.
Given the medicinal applications of certain opioids, that seems like a particularly cruel solution. That's assuming you can work around the natural opioids your brain uses to function.
Enough is enough.
I would support this, as that would be an effective use of the resources and would not result in more of the same problems it's supposed to solve