A Discussion: Needle Exchanges

[DBTrek]

Since our primary "pro" arguer has apparently left the thread (maybe it's his scheduled shoot-up time, who knows? )

Maybe we should just start a thread called “What’s the maximum amount a taxpayer should pay to save the life of one homeless junkie”, and just settle a myriad of issues all at once.

I doubt even the most bloody of liberal hearts would sacrifice the entire national GDP to save *one* homeless junkie - so it’s no good pretending like every life is infinitely valuable. Generally though, many progressives are spending other people’s money, so the idea of an upper limit never occurs to them.

So ... cost per taxpayer to save one homeless junkie should be what? And keep in mind, there are thousands of homeless junkies in major metropolitan areas. Seattle has us at $17000 for 12k homeless - so they think about $1.41 - $1.60 apiece is “fair” (hard to know how many of the homeless are IV drug addicts). Seems pretty steep to me. But then again, I’m on the paying side, not the “feeling fulfilled for standing up for what’s right (using other people’s money)” side.

How much does each tax payer owe each homeless junkie to save them from themselves? Let’s agree on that number, and then consider what sort of options might be viable.’

[Hastur]

What’s it worth to save one homeless drug addict?

[Kath]

What’s it worth to save one homeless drug addict?

I'm not actually worried about the drug addicts. I don't care what happens to them, TBH.

I worry about the impact of their behaviors on their community, so I'm willing to spend some money to ensure they have a place to get counseling, should they need. Giving them a free needle in EXCHANGE for a dirty one seems like a great way to coerce them into some counseling, with the added benefit of keeping needles off the streets.

If DB is right, and those programs are a complete failure (I don't believe that to be true, but let's go with it,) then what is a viable alternative? I definitely don't want them in prison and forcing someone who isn't ready to change into rehab is just a ridiculously expensive way to keep them off the streets for 30 days.

I'm not claiming to have any great answers.

[jediuser598]

Since our primary "pro" arguer has apparently left the thread (maybe it's his scheduled shoot-up time, who knows? )

Maybe we should just start a thread called “What’s the maximum amount a taxpayer should pay to save the life of one homeless junkie”, and just settle a myriad of issues all at once.

I doubt even the most bloody of liberal hearts would sacrifice the entire national GDP to save *one* homeless junkie - so it’s no good pretending like every life is infinitely valuable. Generally though, many progressives are spending other people’s money, so the idea of an upper limit never occurs to them.

So ... cost per taxpayer to save one homeless junkie should be what? And keep in mind, there are thousands of homeless junkies in major metropolitan areas. Seattle has us at $17000 for 12k homeless - so they think about $1.41 - $1.60 apiece is “fair” (hard to know how many of the homeless are IV drug addicts). Seems pretty steep to me. But then again, I’m on the paying side, not the “feeling fulfilled for standing up for what’s right (using other people’s money)” side.

How much does each tax payer owe each homeless junkie to save them from themselves? Let’s agree on that number, and then consider what sort of options might be viable.’

How much do ER visits cost when we treat homeless junkies?

I mean, why don't we start turning people away?

Let nature run it's course, right? If they're getting all these diseases and infections from their own behaviors, why are we stepping in the way of them killing themselves?

[DBTrek]

I’m told progressives are huge proponents of “My body, my choice” ... why would you suddenly abandon that platform and tax the citizenry to mitigate the choices these addicts have made with their bodies?

Does the state control our bodies or not? If it does, then we need to start regulating what people put into them and how they are used. If not, then stop taking money to combat choices you don’t agree with.

[jediuser598]

I’m told progressives are huge proponents of “My body, my choice” ... why would you suddenly abandon that platform and tax the citizenry to mitigate the choices these addicts have made with their bodies?

Does the state control our bodies or not? If it does, then we need to start regulating what people put into them and how they are used. If not, then stop taking money to combat choices you don’t agree with.

You know what we should do, it would solve most of our financial problems, if someone shows up to the ER and can't pay, we drug test them. If the drug test comes back positive, then they get black listed from hospitals if they don't pay. See, that way there are no more free riders that don't really want help.

We'll call it fiscal conservatism, it'll save us so much. Dead people cost nothing after they're buried, this opiod epidemic, and drug epidemic will solve itself in a few months.

And hey man, you're the bleeding heart liberal who says we shouldn't turn away people from the ER. You need some more Fiscal Conservatism. It's the new thing. Bit morality lite, but you know, gotta balance that budget.

[MilSpecs]

If more than 1 out of 100 addicts get clean who are introduced to recovery, that’s pretty good!

The spontaneous remission rate for addiction is well over 1%.
If only 1% of the people you follow get better, then you are probably making it harder for them to recover than if you left them alone.
This is entirely possible. It's actually easy to get in the way of people getting better AND get paid for doing that.
It happens all too often... these institutions then look at the few people that got better despite their unhelpful interventions and pat themselves on the back.... much of the pharmaceutical industry works on this basis I would wager.

You actually shocked me into silence with "spontaneous remission." I guess that is the ultimate definition of the easier, softer way.

I don't have an opinion on rehabs. TCs aren't around as much anymore, not as they used to exist, which is good.

[DBTrek]

I’m told progressives are huge proponents of “My body, my choice” ... why would you suddenly abandon that platform and tax the citizenry to mitigate the choices these addicts have made with their bodies?

Does the state control our bodies or not? If it does, then we need to start regulating what people put into them and how they are used. If not, then stop taking money to combat choices you don’t agree with.

You know what we should do, it would solve most of our financial problems, if someone shows up to the ER and can't pay, we drug test them. If the drug test comes back positive, then they get black listed from hospitals if they don't pay. See, that way there are no more free riders that don't really want help.

We'll call it fiscal conservatism, it'll save us so much. Dead people cost nothing after they're buried, this opiod epidemic, and drug epidemic will solve itself in a few months.

And hey man, you're the bleeding heart liberal who says we shouldn't turn away people from the ER. You need some more Fiscal Conservatism. It's the new thing. Bit morality lite, but you know, gotta balance that budget.

Repeating trite caricatures isn't advancing the conversation. You have a real problem here with an ideological hypocrisy. Progressives are all about "my body my choice". They're also proponents of "Right to Die". Yet as soon as a homeless guy chooses to spike his body with a heroin needle they're all "OMG OMG WE GOTTA GET THIS MAN A HOUSE, WE GOTTA GET THIS MAN CLEAN NEEDLES, FREE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FOR THIS GUY, FREE PUBLIC BATHS AND LAUNDRY FACILITIES, OMG OMG!!!"

What gives?
His body, his choice, right?
Right to die?

Why the sudden change of heart?

[Hastur]

I’m told progressives are huge proponents of “My body, my choice” ... why would you suddenly abandon that platform and tax the citizenry to mitigate the choices these addicts have made with their bodies?

Does the state control our bodies or not? If it does, then we need to start regulating what people put into them and how they are used. If not, then stop taking money to combat choices you don’t agree with.

You sound like like a Swedish politician. We have the most draconian drug policy in the EU and also the most drug related deaths. It’s all about virtue and pragmatism can just forget about it. The only good addict is a dead addict. An overdose under a bridge? Working as intended.

[DBTrek]

I’m told progressives are huge proponents of “My body, my choice” ... why would you suddenly abandon that platform and tax the citizenry to mitigate the choices these addicts have made with their bodies?

Does the state control our bodies or not? If it does, then we need to start regulating what people put into them and how they are used. If not, then stop taking money to combat choices you don’t agree with.

You sound like like a Swedish politician. We have the most draconian drug policy in the EU and also the most drug related deaths. It’s all about virtue and pragmatism can just forget about it. The only good addict is a dead addict. An overdose under a bridge? Working as intended.

Allowing people to make their own choices - or as Hastur calls it, DRACONIAN.