Quote:
Originally Posted by djmk
drugs paid by the tax payer may be significantly cheaper to the tax payer than drugs paid by someone who needs to break into cars to supplement their income so they can afford drugs.
And by significantly cheaper, I mean it's basically free compared to what's being paid now in property damage, medical costs, police costs, judicial costs, insurance costs, victim trauma costs etc.
And considering that supplying free drugs breaks the economic incentive for the drug pushers in finding new clients, I can not understand why free drugs has not happened decades ago.
I would much rather have a drug addicted person dependent on our government rather than some gangster.
|
Pretty much. It's harm reduction on a community scale. It solves nothing in terms of how to deal with addiction, but it does freezes out the gangs, gives the addict a safe supply so they don't OD or die on a bad product, which in turn clogs up hospitals, takes up police resources, and costs the taxpayers a lot of money.
On the face of it, it looks like compassion, but it's more of a fiscal, pragmatic approach.
What we are is a society that is out of ideas in regards to drug addiction. No one, and especially the taxpayer, wants to pay what it will cost to figure this problem out, so we may as well try to protect both the addict from dying and the citizen from the negative effects that surround an addict (robbing and stealing) until we have some kind of major breakthrough in how to stop these addictive practices.
Prev
Linear Mode
