Quote:
Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden
In theory that's how it works, but in practice it means fire fighters delivering Naloxone to the same person 50 times a year.
To me, decriminalization is like Unschooling. Yeah, there are people and circumstances where children can learn to be self sustaining adults by being unschooled. However, there are just as many who become NEETS. In theory unschooling is a way to help people who don't thrive in an institutional setting, but in practice, it can enables people who are not interested in becoming self sustaining adults.
|
Decrim isn't just for addicts experiencing homelessness and mental illness. It's also what leads to harm reduction tents at music festivals and testing sites in urban centres. All of this makes it less likely that a casual or first-time user will die from taking party drugs.
Again, you're conflating the two issues. Addiction make it more likely that someone will experience an overdose, but decrim makes it less likely that they'll experience that overdose out of the reach of people who can stabilize them.
If you want people to get treatment for their addictions, they have to first be alive to access said treatment.
The NIMBY position on this is pretty unconscionable, IMO. It's essentially saying "I'm willing to sacrifice the lives of some drug users so that I don't have to see drugs being used out in the open."