Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
How is that not perfectly reasonable? People kill themselves in multiple ways all the time. Obesity, smoking, drinking, whatever. None of my business. I just had a physical last week. Doctor said I have to watch my sugar intake when looking at my bloodwork. I've been expecting this conversation for decades because I love candy. But, see, that's me harming myself...I don't run around jumping on cars and yelling at people when I have too much Pez.
When drug addicts start jumping on my daughter's car and accosting me in the mall, yeah, I don't like it in the same way nobody would.
I don't think you're an idiot, but I think the idea of giving drug addicts drugs and leaving them to rot on the street once they come down enough to not need some NARCAN is ridiculous and I'm super tired of hearing about this useless program that is doing more harm than good when better options are available.
|
But that's just it. It doesn't do more harm than good. Generally speaking, if you access to safe supply, and are using at a safe use site, you likely won't need NARCAN. I feel very confused because when I say we need to look at housing first, you disagree, but then you agree folks shouldn't have to be unhoused. So let's say someone wants to enter treatment and there is a bed a public facility. They're clean, they get out of treatment, where do they go? Likely keep living on the street and likely using again.