Is it really enabling them if they are forced into camps? It would get them off the streets (and out of our way) in a way that would not be as directly mean to them as jail. I suspect it would not be as expensive as what we are trying now, as long as it was actually a drug camp and not a luxury hotel.

I think this would work great actually, it will just never happen because it’s too easy to attack politically.

“You’re Japanese internment camping the homeless!” “You’re concentration camping the homeless!” “You’re gulaging the homeless!” Etc.

Being forced anywhere starts to sound like jail, except it would be a free for all in there. How would the policy force anyone into a camp without guards? Why would this work great?

> There's millions of things we could or need to spend tax dollars on and you suggest enabling drug addicts?

Drug camps aren't really enabling drug addicts, it is just giving up on them and dealing with the humane problem of just keeping them alive for as long as possible as cheaply as possible.

But I can also empathize with your position, which is more what the Chinese do. Zero tolerance is given to drug addicts, and unless their families pay up for treatment, they are going to work camps until they die. With harsh consequences, people avoid that, even if they are unhoused.

So it sounds like people choose to be drug addicts and also choose not to be if the consequences are in place. Got it.

If there is a huge stigma against being a drug addict, you better believe that people will think a lot harder about it when offered drugs at a party. There is a lot of personal choice involved, so I totally get that we don't want society to enable behavior, there has to be consequences so someone decides not to get addicted to fent.

I totally agree with you. I just wanted to summarize tersely.

How much does the drug war cost?