A Discussion: Needle Exchanges

[DBTrek]

I’m just asking how much we should compel other citizens to shell out for people who decide to shoot up and live under the stars. Everyone, individually, is free to give as much as they want to the “cause”. There is no limit to the personal donation anyone can make towards homeless drug addicts.

What’s a fair and moral price to make your neighbor pay for them?

Once we have a number we can multiply that by the number of homeless addicts in an area and start talking about wise uses for that money.

It's more a matter of cost reduction. HIV and Hep are pretty expensive and a lot of them are double losers who pass it on to other people.

Cities need to run the math on the "cost reduction" and account for reduction in quality of life for non-addicts, collateral costs, and related public impacts of these policies. It may well be when ALL the costs are calculated, the 6% HIV reduction among hard drug users isn't actually cheaper.

[MilSpecs]

I’m just asking how much we should compel other citizens to shell out for people who decide to shoot up and live under the stars. Everyone, individually, is free to give as much as they want to the “cause”. There is no limit to the personal donation anyone can make towards homeless drug addicts.

What’s a fair and moral price to make your neighbor pay for them?

Once we have a number we can multiply that by the number of homeless addicts in an area and start talking about wise uses for that money.

It's more a matter of cost reduction. HIV and Hep are pretty expensive and a lot of them are double losers who pass it on to other people.

Cities need to run the math on the "cost reduction" and account for reduction in quality of life for non-addicts, collateral costs, and related public impacts of these policies. It may well be when ALL the costs are calculated, the 6% HIV reduction among hard drug users isn't actually cheaper.

Running the numbers is good. It seems like the policy on the homeless in the area is more of a problem than iv drug use per se.

[DBTrek]

Running the numbers is good. It seems like the policy on the homeless in the area is more of a problem than iv drug use per se.

Looks that way from the few sources presented here.

[Kath]

Cities need to run the math on the "cost reduction" and account for reduction in quality of life for non-addicts, collateral costs, and related public impacts of these policies. It may well be when ALL the costs are calculated, the 6% HIV reduction among hard drug users isn't actually cheaper.

I agree. Government needs more data analysts who aren't required to find a basis for the pre-determined conclusion. I had a VP (private industry,) tell me that was my job. I pushed back - "my job is to tell you what the data says, not to cherry pick data to say what you want it to say." I lost that argument. Fucking VPs in companies are sometimes megalomaniacs with their own little kingdom.

In government, though, it's mostly the standard.

I want the most effective ROI solution to be put into place. If we outlaw homelessness, we can put them in prison. Is that the best ROI?

Not being sarcastic, here - I legit don't know, because nobody has ever really bothered to research what the most cost effective solution is. The number one goal being to serve the residents of the community. ALL the residents. The people paying the taxes shouldn't have to step over human shit to get to the grocery store. That's a recipe for disease spreading on the quick, so it's in the tax payers interest to find a cost effective solution.

[jediuser598]

Cities need to run the math on the "cost reduction" and account for reduction in quality of life for non-addicts, collateral costs, and related public impacts of these policies. It may well be when ALL the costs are calculated, the 6% HIV reduction among hard drug users isn't actually cheaper.

I agree. Government needs more data analysts who aren't required to find a basis for the pre-determined conclusion. I had a VP (private industry,) tell me that was my job. I pushed back - "my job is to tell you what the data says, not to cherry pick data to say what you want it to say." I lost that argument. Fucking VPs in companies are sometimes megalomaniacs with their own little kingdom.

In government, though, it's mostly the standard.

I want the most effective ROI solution to be put into place. If we outlaw homelessness, we can put them in prison. Is that the best ROI?

Not being sarcastic, here - I legit don't know, because nobody has ever really bothered to research what the most cost effective solution is. The number one goal being to serve the residents of the community. ALL the residents. The people paying the taxes shouldn't have to step over human shit to get to the grocery store. That's a recipe for disease spreading on the quick, so it's in the tax payers interest to find a cost effective solution.

You want to put homeless people in prison? If that's the best ROI?

I mean, of course it is. Think of all the free labor. You get them in the system then you put them in chain gangs and have them clean up the city, build whatever you like. Free labor (or pennies on the dollar). Best ROI by far.

[Okeefenokee]

Wonder how many people don't know what we used to do with people like this.

[Hastur]

I’m just asking how much we should compel other citizens to shell out for people who decide to shoot up and live under the stars. Everyone, individually, is free to give as much as they want to the “cause”. There is no limit to the personal donation anyone can make towards homeless drug addicts.

What’s a fair and moral price to make your neighbor pay for them?

Once we have a number we can multiply that by the number of homeless addicts in an area and start talking about wise uses for that money.

It's more a matter of cost reduction. HIV and Hep are pretty expensive and a lot of them are double losers who pass it on to other people.

Cities need to run the math on the "cost reduction" and account for reduction in quality of life for non-addicts, collateral costs, and related public impacts of these policies. It may well be when ALL the costs are calculated, the 6% HIV reduction among hard drug users isn't actually cheaper.

It’s also important to keep the leftists from Enabling Behavior and becoming Codependents. Just because it feels like you help isn’t always a sign that you do. There has to be consequences when people commit crimes. Allowing people you care for to do things that will make them hated and hurt others isn’t helping them. Deflection of blame isn’t helping either.

[de officiis]

Seems to me that if they want to do this, the ought to beef up staffing at the Sanitation Department.

[Fife]

Yes sir. As certainly as day follows night, they are turning their city into one big open toilet.

[Hastur]

There will be a reckoning. If a city ignores sanitation we know what will happen.