In some US popular culture “drug addict” is code for “weak or immoral person.” There’s very little empathy or understanding of people who are much less fortunate; there’s plenty of evidence in this thread.

This misguided moral compass outweighs even sensible practices like harm reduction. People would rather see junkies die on the street of hepatitis than give them free housing and needles. It satisfies some primal need that, eventually I hope, our species will be better off with less of.

"Drug addict" means weak and immoral anywhere sane in the world, mate. Tell me, do you truly believe that lack willpower isn't real? That addiction isn't its most obvious manifestation? Or that people shouldn't be judged for what is arguably the root of almost all failings?

Why would these parasites deserve anything else than a basic (read: not unconditional gibs) chance to get out of this mess while some decent people struggle to live while still playing by the rules? You'd give "free permanent housing" to junkies while ignoring normal people living from hand to mouth? Because yes, resources are limited and should go to those deserving and actually capable of giving back to the system. Successful socialism isn't the same as charity.

Even worse, these basic chances make sense in the US, but in western Europe where socialism is in its "train without brakes" phase, no. If you managed to fail in this context, you're the failure, not the system.

Thank you for making my point on my behalf :)

You’re not exactly demonstrating your moral strength by calling them parasites

this is such a dishonest characterization. the issue people have with free needles is that they end up everywhere but a sharps container. they throw loose needles in every park, walking path, bus stop, etc. in the entire city. my city has had this issue for years now.

you should use some of the superhuman empathy you have to explore other perspectives on the issue. even for just a minute.

Is the implication here that needle and syringe programs cause needles to be left everywhere?

Because, if so... let's just sit with that for a second and think it through.

maybe if you act just a little more condescending i will have a clue what you are trying to say

By what mechanism would reducing needle and syringe programs lead to fewer needles being left in public places? It's not like access to needles causes people to take up an injection drug habit.

there are different ways of accomplishing a needle program. around here they hand out packs of 100 without any stipulation. to everyone's surprise, our city is now littered in stray needles and requires constant cleanup. they're everywhere. the various programs do attract people from other states. this much is evident by our shelter logs which survey where they are from.

it's important to note that it's probably not a very large set of them that dump their needles publicly. this is outright sociopathic and evil, which i don't think most of them are. this distinction is important because the sociopathic homeless do make it a much more taboo issue to deal with.

Your local community implemented a thing poorly, hence nobody should ever attempt to improve anything? You spend a lot of time accusing others of dishonesty and condescending, but your own comments read much more in that spirit.

Housing support with social services on the side can be done well enough to help some fraction of the drug-using homeless recover. Some fraction may remain drug addicted, but now have a safe space, which is also an improvement. Some fraction may have lasting mental illnesses they struggle with, but even then a safe space for that struggle improves both the prognosis and the surrounding community.

>Your local community implemented a thing poorly, hence nobody should ever attempt to improve anything?

the original context was a ridiculous characterization of anyone being against a needle program. i am giving you one context of why someone might be against one, from the perspective of how it has been going in my city. whether standard protocol or poorly implemented, that is how it has been going.

>You spend a lot of time accusing others of dishonesty and condescending, but your own comments read much more in that spirit.

the condescension is hard to avoid when replies are posing snarky rhetorical questions which make understanding or addressing anything difficult. if you felt i've been dishonest, feel free to point it out. but preferably not in the way you did a second ago which took the form of "SO WE SHOULDN'T DO ANYTHING TO IMPROVE EVER?" which was clearly a good faith interpretation.

With respect, you should reread my original post, which I think you’ve taken pretty personally. It’s a simple statement — some people think that drug addicts are weak and immoral and deserve to die on the street. Another reply at the same time as yours said as much.

I don’t know how you get from that to “ridiculous characterization of anyone against a needle program.” Needle programs aren’t even the most important thing under discussion here, housing is. As you’re pointing out, knowingly or not, needle programs in isolation reduce some harms but increase others. Housing is often the root issue in harm reduction, but also one of the most expensive and politically charged.

He's going off the logic that the more services you provide for drug addicts, the more drug addicts you get. It's tied to the idea that an increase in homeless services attracts more homeless, which is true if you have a federalized system like the USA where the majority of homeless go to one place (or city).

But there's no evidence that drug services increase drug use.