Do you expect people, including yourself, to show up with data to an online conversation? And, if I browse your history, would I find you citing all of the sources for you opinions?
I seem to recall a similar argument being made against condoms being readily available. “Those harlots will bed any man they please if they don’t have to worry about getting pregnant or catching a disease! The horror!” Nevermind that condoms make the issue moot: getting pregnant or catching a disease is the only reason not to bed any man you please.
And what do you know? Now that sex does not equal babies, women can and routinely do exit toxic relationships instead of being trapped in them for life. “The horror” indeed.
This doesn’t really apply to the present situation, though, because using drugs still ruins your life, exactly as before, and it still kills you, just slightly slower.
Did they feel wearing a condom gave them the right to fuck at the library in full view of children?
I see what you’re saying, but I just think there is a better location for these things to be distributed. Like, a shelter, or a hospital, or damn near any Walgreens.
You’re confusing cause with effect. Portland has a poverty problem, not a drug problem. Housing prices there are extreme. Wages there are nowhere close enough to afford housing there. This has displaced a buttload of people out of their homes and onto the street. These people have nothing left of their old lives, nowhere to go, and nothing to do but get high and detach themselves from their horrible reality as much as possible, especially now that it’s over 100°F outside. Better than slowly and horribly dying of hyperthermia in a prison cell while fully conscious and sober, like what’s happening in some other parts of the country.
Oregon has serious problems—catastrophic problems, even—but drug legalization isn’t one of them. It’s just a convenient scapegoat for people who don’t want to solve those problems.
Harm reduction saves lives.
This is true, but easier access to safety nets means less risk and more use. Especially in the open, directly outside the library and inside.
Double edged sword.
Got any proof it actually increases use and doesn’t just move the users to somewhere a little more visible?
Got proof it doesn’t? 🤷♂️
You made the claim, back it up or shut up
Do you expect people, including yourself, to show up with data to an online conversation? And, if I browse your history, would I find you citing all of the sources for you opinions?
Back the fuck up, please.
If they’re going to make controversial claims, yes.
You stated a claim of fact, not an opinion.
its not controversial to me.
that’s not an answer to the question.
You aren’t the only one here.
Indeed. It’s an explanation of why your question is irrelevant.
Do u want more overdoses or less overdoses
I seem to recall a similar argument being made against condoms being readily available. “Those harlots will bed any man they please if they don’t have to worry about getting pregnant or catching a disease! The horror!” Nevermind that condoms make the issue moot: getting pregnant or catching a disease is the only reason not to bed any man you please.
And what do you know? Now that sex does not equal babies, women can and routinely do exit toxic relationships instead of being trapped in them for life. “The horror” indeed.
This doesn’t really apply to the present situation, though, because using drugs still ruins your life, exactly as before, and it still kills you, just slightly slower.
Did they feel wearing a condom gave them the right to fuck at the library in full view of children?
I see what you’re saying, but I just think there is a better location for these things to be distributed. Like, a shelter, or a hospital, or damn near any Walgreens.
How is that relevant? Nobody proposed to make it legal for people to use drugs out in the open. Presumably they’ll still be arrested if they do.
I didn’t really understand how condoms were all that similar to narcan, but you went with it anyway.
Anyhow:
Visit Portland and you’ll understand. It’s legal to do drugs on the street. They distribute tin foil and straws. You can get narcan easily.
It’s a shit show.
If you don’t put words in my mouth, it’s just this: there’s a better place to distribute medical devices than a hospital.
You’re confusing cause with effect. Portland has a poverty problem, not a drug problem. Housing prices there are extreme. Wages there are nowhere close enough to afford housing there. This has displaced a buttload of people out of their homes and onto the street. These people have nothing left of their old lives, nowhere to go, and nothing to do but get high and detach themselves from their horrible reality as much as possible, especially now that it’s over 100°F outside. Better than slowly and horribly dying of hyperthermia in a prison cell while fully conscious and sober, like what’s happening in some other parts of the country.
Oregon has serious problems—catastrophic problems, even—but drug legalization isn’t one of them. It’s just a convenient scapegoat for people who don’t want to solve those problems.
I’m curious to see how the situations become similar in Phoenix when the water runs out, and it’s 130°