If they’re not stealing for money, supporting the black market, dying of overdoses, or spreading disease by sharing needles, and have consistent dosages and proximity to support programs, why quit?
Probably the massive social stigma and loss of positive effects due to built tolerance.
It would make the problem way less urgent at any rate.
Giving addicts free drugs is a subset of harm reduction. Honestly, at this point in the discussion, we need numbers to be productive.
Looks like you’re right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitic_trope
Common sense is extremely subjective.
Is it really more effective to not help addicts than to use harm reduction methods?
“Facts over feels” and all that.
Mandatory care has the same incentive against self reporting though?
Do we have any data on relapse rates from this vs non-mandatory methods? My guess would be high recidivism if the person is released back into the exact same circumstances in which they started using in the first place.
Do you have a source for that?
Exactly. They’re addicted. They’re going to get the drugs one way or another. May as well minimize the harm.
Permanently. And “quit” seems like too light a word for the herculean task of getting clean. They deserve all the help we can give. That it essentially removes all the negative externalities should make this a no-brainer.
There is no green region. It’s blue all the way up.
We do that now by skipping to the comments though…
Finish The Rhyme
deleted by creator
Type aliasing in java could have saved us from the current pixel shortage, but at least kotlin is giving us a cheaper path forward.
Haha, you have fallen for my prank! For you see, I did not find the correct unicode at all! I merely typed out 3 question mark diamonds directly, making you doubt your own unicode rendering!
Two skulls! 😳
Can this be replicated in a copy-pastable format?
Edit: omg found it: ���
LAMA
Not with that attitude!
“can” is only a matter of attitude and determination
I nominate nix