• tsonfeir@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Got any proof it actually increases use and doesn’t just move the users to somewhere a little more visible?

              • tsonfeir@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Do you expect people, including yourself, to show up with data to an online conversation?

                  If they’re going to make controversial claims, yes.

                  And, if I browse your history, would I find you citing all of the sources for you opinions?

                  You stated a claim of fact, not an opinion.

                  • tsonfeir@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago
                    1. its not controversial to me.

                    2. that’s not an answer to the question.

        • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • tsonfeir@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Did they feel wearing a condom gave them the right to fuck at the library in full view of children?

              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.

              • tsonfeir@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                  • tsonfeir@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I’m curious to see how the situations become similar in Phoenix when the water runs out, and it’s 130°