People have unhealthy habits because of issues in their life. Poverty, abuse, mental health issues, lack of access to healthcare and healthy foods.
If you want people to get better you need to stop vilifying them, e.g fat shaming or war on drugs, and start accepting and helping them. Same for drugs, same for weight, hell, I’d say it’s the same for many “criminals” too.
The drug vilification issue becomes a problem when the state gets involved in enforcing that moral compass -- the danger of drugs predominately derived from its users/product existing solely on a black market, with no regulation, and no verification of the product you're purchasing. It's not that hard to avoid overdose when you have pure heroin, it's much harder when you have heroin cut with unknown quantities of unknown alternatives. It's much harder to seek legal help, when it requires you to admit to criminal activity.
It's not the vilification at issue for drugs, it's the criminalization. Presumably portugal still does not have a positive outlook on drug usage (it's still vilified).
And afaik, being fat is no crime.
You seem to be mistaken about how their policy operates.
You're also working from a different premise than me: I believe people fundamentally have agency, and so they're influenced by their circumstances, but their problems are not causal from them -- they made a choice to adopt that habit as a coping strategy.
And frankly, I disagree with you about how to confront that: I think we should be accepting of how they got there, but I absolutely disagree with things like HAES which suggest that their choice isn't a problematic one.
To borrow a phrase from a friend, and use it somewhat out of context: I can love a sinner without enabling or accepting the sin.
I think they have a huge responsibility for unhealthiness and fat shaming doesn’t address that cause. Saying “oh people just need to make better choices” seems pretty shallow.
You're also confusing several issues:
- There's no reason that people can't be responsible for their choices and it be unethical for junk food companies to do what they do. Your entire premise is hinged on that being the case.
- I've never met a fat person that wasn't aware that junk food was bad. I'm sure they exist, but talking about the bulk of people, the 95% in the middle, they're aware that their diet impacts their health. They're simply choosing a self-destructive coping behavior of drugging themselves with food. I'm sympathetic to that, but I don't see any reason to pretend it's anything but what it is. Addiction and substance abuse, in a self-destructive behavior.
- I don't believe that ads are causal, just influential. Again, they're making a choice to act this way, even in the presence of ads. What bothers me about people in your camp is that you treat other humans like some kind of animal you own, can decide what's best for, and manipulate or control. You refuse to accept them in their capacity as human persons, who have agency and the capacity to self-direct, then have the gall to turn around and talk about me being the shallow one.
That's the goal of "Safe Injection Sites" that are being build in a few cities.
I've been to countries where there are 'tolerance' zones. But that doesn't mean there isn't stigma to doing it.
Stigma is a strong social disincentive.
The Healthy as fat is trying to remove stigma for something that is unhealthy. But it is not trying to re-assign social resources in a logical way.
Congratulations. You are literally the reason why this movement exists.
However "safe injection sites" are anything but safe to the surrounding community, and may increase usage rates while only mildly decreasing fatality rates.
By keeping the sickly ones around, we're actually making the whole herd less healthy -- particularly when we enable them spreading their illness.
I think the medical professionals involved in "safe injection sites" should be seriously questioned about their medical ethics: they're failing to quarantine sick patients, and in treating them without that buffer, spreading the disease to the healthy population.
It's quack "medicine", just like HAES/HAMS.
Care to share any sources on the ineffectiveness of these sites?
However, looking through NIH reports --
The site in Vancouver appears to lower the fatalities marginally (1-10 less fatalities per year). Several other studies indicate that fatalities related to opioid overdose, ambulance calls, etc decrease in the immediate area of various sites.
I can't find anything on the Vancouver site in the last decade, it's all circa 2006 or 2007 -- and seem to recall in my earlier research that the initial results looked good, but later studies basically reported that we saw a decrease in fatalities that was offset by an increase in usage, and the whole thing came out as sort of a wash.
RAND seems to suggest that supervised consumption is not settled in terms of scientific study, even now. [0]
> We conducted our own assessment of the individual studies and found that the evidence base concerning the overall effects of SCSs is limited in quality and location. Although we identified 65 outcome-related articles (as opposed to commentaries or studies that gauge opinions), none involved an RCT, and just nine employed a quasi-experimental design with control groups. These nine studies were based on just four SCSs in three cities: Sydney (five studies), Vancouver (two studies), and Barcelona (two studies). There was considerable overlap in the design, methods, authorship, and data employed, so that four of the nine are arguably superseded by later studies using better methods or longer time series, in some sense reducing the effective number of quasi-experimental studies to five.
Worth noting, however, that many of these seem to indicate reduced petty crime in the area immediately around the site. Indicative I might be wrong, but not conclusive because of problems in the methods used, samples chosen, etc.
Looking at a compilation by Brookings, broadly on the topic [1] --
> New work by Packham and Wells (2018) suggests that syringe exchange programs—a staple of harm-reduction efforts—reduce HIV rates as intended but unintentionally increase opioid-related mortality by making it easier, cheaper, and safer to use heroin.
> Another popular harm-reduction effort is distributing naloxone, a drug that can save someone’s life if administered during an opioid overdose. Recent work by Doleac and Mukherjee (2018) finds that broadening naloxone access had mixed results. While some states saw beneficial effects of these policy changes, broad naloxone access increased opioid-related mortality by 14 percent in the Midwest, the region hardest-hit by the opioid epidemic.
So reports that I do find seem to suggest that this is a concern that is valid, at least in some contexts, and that the studies purporting to show outcomes are a) very narrowly done, b) often don't measure what I'd consider to be the complete set of externalities, and c) aren't particularly scientific.
It certainly seems reasonable that narrow focus on improving the outcomes of the addicts, particularly a narrowly defined set of metrics, actually lowers the group outcome.
Sorry I can't provide better sources to support that, though.
[0] -- https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2693.html
[1] -- https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2018/12/07/research-...
You can't provide any that prove it doesn't. Even the few that you posted seem to be at the least, pointing to a possibly effective situation. Mentioning increased ODs in the immediate surrounding area is... I'd say kinda expected. That's kinda the whole idea, get all the ODs in the same place.
I mean, your own data shows that it reduces HIV rates (not possibly, it does)... and 'POSSIBLY' has unintended consequences.
Despite the data, you won't change your mind.
At least admit that like the anti climate change people, you just don't want to believe. It has nothing to do with data.
I disagree with essentially everything you have said. While SIS may not be a panacea, they are definitely on the right track.
Seems extreme...
What's the choice? Make other people ill and have the original sick people die anyways?
That's all slowing mortality down in heroin abuses does, and it's definitely not how we treat other kinds of diseases, particularly those which have reached epidemic proportions, where the prime objective is arresting transmission.
So, yes -- I think we should follow standard medical practices, and it's unfortunate that strong measures are needed to confront an epidemic level problem. Just like it always is when you have to make medical triage decisions.
But we have to prioritize maintaining the healthy population ahead of the comfort or longevity of the already ill, in broad strokes.
And no, we don't have to prioritize maintaining a healthy population, not to the degree that treating the ill is excluded. That implies a limitation of resources that simply does not exist. We can and do both.
>Blitzer pressed the point. "But, Congressman, are you saying the society should just let him die?" At that point, the rabble erupted in cheers and whoops of "Yeah!"
It costs society money for ambulances to be running around to OD people.
Safe injection makes sense.
It doesn't promote heroin.
No one is saying: Heroin in a Healthy Manner.
They are simply saying: Let's spend a stitch in time. You don't even have to think of it as being kind, just rational.
You might not like the way HAES or fat acceptance is packaged, but this is exactly the same thing.
Safe injection sites don't.
Both being fat, smoking cigarettes or being a heroin addict are things to be, at the least, slightly ashamed of.
*exceptions go out to anyone with thyroid or other such medical conditions, just as to people who are opioid dependent due to pain management.
Seems like a meme we should minimize the transmission of, to me.
> Consider that there is essentially nothing that medical science has for people who are chronically fat except a gastric sleeve.
It also yields ridiculous statements like this. Medical science has some very clear advice for fat people: eat less and exercise more.
They're making an entire movement to justify why they're lazy and undisciplined.