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.

(https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/opioids/responding-canada-opioid-crisis/safer-supply.html)

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.

I have helix, but how’s zed?

For helix, plugins are on the way

Junji fucking ito.

False hope is a terrible thing. Are there any lemmy communities with enforced certainty thresholds on his sort of article? Would be nice to be able to trust headlines somewhere.

Because of the secret double king

Isn’t the direct and immediate personal inconvenience the point? But, like, target the people who have decision-making power.

There is no green region. It’s blue all the way up.

We do that now by skipping to the comments though…

deleted by creator