- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- oregon
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- oregon
The fact that they think the problem could have been solved by a special ticket instead of a normal ticket and a business card shows just how clueless 110 supporters are.
Making treatment optional is the problem, not the methodology of communicating how optional it is.
You must log in or register to comment.
Removed by mod
Drugs absolutely harm society. It causes an increase in crime and a depletion in resources caused by people who aren’t contibuting to the system in any real fashion.
If the goal is to encourage people to lie around out of their minds on fentanyl all day, well, good job I guess? Mission accomplished?
People aren’t resources that have to fit some arbitrary definition of “contribution” to be of value.
Fuck that paradigm.
Let me put it more simply then… if you want to live somewhere, but you refuse to pay into the systems that allow you to live there, and you bring in more people who consume without contribution, what’s the end result?
Again, you miss the point.
“Contribution” is arbitrary.
In your head, an addict can’t contribute because they aren’t likely to hold down a job and pay taxes, or at least that seems to be your idea from the way you’re presenting your opinion.
I assumed from the beginning of my adult life that I would be “paying in” via automatic withholding from paychecks, and that the vast majority of that would go to people that couldn’t or wouldn’t be paying in as much as me. That’s the entire point.
But ignoring that, an addict isn’t a single thing. While I don’t think anyone that’s ever known addicts will claim that it isn’t a horrible thing that can drain everyone around them, not all addicts are like that, nor are they all inherently prone to other crimes.
When it becomes a problem is when the addicts have to choose between their addiction and their morals. In a sane system, they wouldn’t have to make that choice in the first place. They’d have security, shelter, and basic needs met as the baseline for everyone.
And, frankly, idgaf if even 99% of them do nothing other than coast and stay high. I would hope that having basic needs met would mean they could find the support and help needed to overcome the addiction and live better lives for themselves.
My crippled ass? I just want people to focus more on lifting up than putting down. If that means that some section of the world games that system, oh well.
So, yes, I would be fine with other people living off of the taxes I used to pay before my job wrecked my body. I would be happy to know that I didn’t wreck it in vain just for some corporate asshole to buy another house.
Shit man, I grew up in a neighborhood full of addicts. They may have been pains in the ass, but they were still human beings, and that’s the part that really matters.
Contribution isn’t arbitrary.
Do you pay taxes? Congratulations, you’re a contributer.
Unemployed homeless drug user? You’re a DRAIN on society, not a contributor.
Nah, you still don’t get it.
Taxes are not the only valid way to be of benefit to the world. Frankly, reducing human beings to their financial worth like you’re trying to do is bullshit.
You just managed to lump three different groups into one, and it’s disgusting. You start fun the assumption that being a slave to the system is the only good thing a human can do. And that’s assholery of the highest order.
Not talking about “being a benefit to the world”, talking about not making other people scrape your shit off the sidewalk.
Tell me how someone shitting on the sidewalk is an active contributor. It’s cool… I’ll wait…
Removed by mod
No, I just live in Portland and watched the city go to shit since 110 passed:
https://www.city-journal.org/article/this-is-your-city-on-fentanyl
Removed by mod
If by “recently moved” you mean “1992”, then, yeah. We have never seen the level of problems in Portland since passing 110. Not even close.
Removed by mod
Personally? I didn’t think it would be effective. But the vast drug use among the homeless keeps them homeless.
Until they get clean, they can’t hold a job. Until they can hold a job, they can’t pay rent.
Treatment doesn’t need to be mandatory. That’s not why this law was passed.
If you want to solve the drug crisis, yeah, treatment needs to be mandatory.
Removed by mod
The whole point of 110 was to get people into treatment, not allow free use of anything and everything.
Removed by mod
I guess you just weren’t paying attention prior to the vote.
https://www.oregon.gov/oha/hsd/amh/pages/measure110.aspx
"When they passed the ballot measure, the people of Oregon recognized:
Drug addiction and overdoses are a serious problem in Oregon.
Oregon needs to expand access to drug treatment.
A health-based approach to addiction and overdose is more effective, humane and cost-effective than criminal punishments.
Making people criminals because they suffer from addiction is expensive, ruins lives and can make access to treatment and recovery more difficult."
Again, all about recovery and treatment, not free use.
Removed by mod
Oh, I don’t claim to. I’m telling you the opinion of the majority who were fooled into voting for a bad law.
