Quote:
Originally Posted by 81MC
This idea is probably the most sane, but ####... how? Is it humane to straight up give someone a substance you know they are addicted to and will make them unable to function, meaning they may have an awfully hard time living anywhere but the street? Isn’t there some huge ethical issue to giving and addict something that is likely contributing to the very lifestyle rehabilitation is trying to pull them out of?
I don’t know any real hardcore drug users, so I ask this question honestly; can someone on meth or heroin function to the point of working an actual job (sweeping a parking lot even) while they’re high? Does an addict have the ability to not get high if they had drugs waiting for them when they wanted?
I’m sure there lots of actual drug users out there who manage to keep it together. But if you were a user, and the option was either go to work to make a pay cheque to pay for rent or go to the centre and score another hit, housing be damned, which would it be?
The notion is great. Less petty crime and theft, no need for violent assaults of drug deals and robberies. But is the trade off having to accept a tremendous amount of people who are just existing to get ####ed up? Who is responsible for providing the housing and care for someone who has had their poison gifted to them?
|
I don't think it would be unethical if the focus is harm reduction. Any kind of policy like this would need to be closely monitored to see if it increased negative outcomes of overdoses or overall use in the population and numerous other indicators.
I don't know enough about the how homelessness occurs to comment whether or not a policy like this would increase it. I do have some thoughts though. If homelessness is caused by spending your recreational money on drugs until drug use prevents you from maintaining your job then homelessness would not change as a result of a free drug policy as the choice isn't free drugs or rent; Its drugs or rent. If homelessness is caused by people spending their money on drugs instead of rent then a free drug policy could keep them in housing. I don't see a case where free drugs cause homelessness among addicts.
Where I do see issues is that by providing access to drugs for free you increase overall use in the population. Though the reason most people don't use fentynal isn't cost so maybe it doesn't have an affect. You are right that if price is limiting use than reducing price would increase use and basic economics suggest that this would be the case.
As for who is responsible for the people who live life just to get high would be the same people who are now. Society currently bares the costs of these lifestyles through organized crime, petty theft, homelessness, incarceration etc. If something like free drugs were to work it would reduce these societal costs and decrease harm to users. Or maybe it turns out horrible and increases both the number and severity of addicts.
I think Portugal's success with decriminalisation is an interesting start. To me legal and government regulated seems like the next logical step if the goal is to treat this like an illness rather than a vice.