> [1] NIDA-funded research has found that syringe services programs do not increase drug use. In fact, program participants in these studies were significantly more likely to enter substance use treatment and reduce or stop drug use.
As an aside, this is the second time on this site in a couple days I've seen someone post something along the lines of "Absolutely no one will be able to convince me otherwise no matter what."
So why are you posting here at all? You've already proudly announced that your opinions are impervious to any new information. That is the exact opposite purpose of this site.
Well, I said in my edit and some other comments I was going to sleep, but I decided to check here again for some reason... and here we are.
So I guess I will point out that (I am pretty sure) I never said it increased drug use. I said that it turned the neighborhoods that held these places into drug slums because of the increase in drug users that were now in those areas because of the needle exchange. To be fair to you though, that was elaborated on more so in another comment to another person.
And it is on that bit that I will not budge, because that is personal experience I have witnessed and secondary experience I have been told about by people I trust to not just make things up. It may not be the 'data' you want to see or hear, but it should matter just as much since what we see on a day to day is what influences us as a society.
So I think it's great that some of them are taking the chance provided to them to get clean. I love that. But again, I never said it increased drug use. I said it increased the number of drug users in the area. This is a glaringly different statement.
Now, I am actually off to bed now, and my computer is being turned off. You have a nice day/night. Thank you for the information.
Not trying to pile on you individually but this is an interesting line of thought in general, so continuing the thread here...
Let's say there are 10 nearby cities with drug addicts. Let's say 3 of them start running needle exchanges or other "drug friendly" policies.
By this logic, if those policies don't increase drug use, but do attract users, then maybe we just made 7 cities drug-free, and 3 cities into concentrated zones where social programs as well as law enforcement can be more targeted and more effective? If so, then very likely this will be a net-positive for the 10 cities as a whole, with neutral to slightly-worse outcomes for the target neighborhoods in the 3 cities running the programs.
Many programs/policies are not operated from a macro-enough perspective, or not optimizing for macro-level outcomes, or humans just aren't capable of macro-enough greater-good decision-making. If the 10-20 homeowners living directly next to the proposed needle exchange site can veto it, that might be better for them individually, but worse as a whole for the city/state/nation/world. See exhibit: NYC and proposals for new shelter sites.
On the other hand, seems like these sorts of debates always just end up becoming examples to prove out Churchill's "democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried" claim.
Your comment reminds me of a topic from "What We Owe The Future"[0][1], in particular an idea in ethics that is aptly called the repugnant conclusion[2].
This is not a perfect parallel but both the RC and your comment touch on the idea of how or when it is justified to make X people's life worse to make Y people's life better.
I would strongly recommend not to take an axiomatic approach to this topic.
> How is it fair to those people living in those 3 other cities? Why should they have to put up with it?
Why do I have to pay taxes for schools when I don't have any children?
If everyone thought like this, then we would all be worse off. Yeah, it sucks for you.
Another thought experiment: You are the head of a hospital and can determine how funding gets spent. There is a five year old with a disease that can be cured if you spend all of your budget to do it. This would effectively shut down the hospital for everyone else, but the kid would live. Is it ethical to spend the money on the kid?
> Why do I have to pay taxes for schools when I don't have any children?
This is not a comparable scenario. Presuming you wish to live in a given locale for the remainder of your years, having a civilized, educated, and literate workforce available to you is surely preferred to not having one.
> Another thought experiment:
This is a waste of time thought experiment. Healthcare professionals triage all the time. Society prioritizes various goals all the time. The US could be spending the entire military budget to develop healthcare treatments, but it does not, for myriad reasons. In real life, the 5 year old has died in the past due to lack of sufficient resources, and will continue to die. It does not matter if it is ethical or unethical, politically, it will be unpopular to sacrifice a whole community’s access to healthcare so one 5 year old can live.
In any case, bringing up unrelated examples does not advance discussions.
> Why do I have to pay taxes for schools when I don't have any children?
This is directly related because it is often brought up by people who argue similar things and used in the same way to say 'it doesn't affect me, so why should I pay the consequences'. Paying a tax that doesn't directly help you, and having to move or live in a neighborhood which has changed for the worse are directly comparable. You say "Presuming you wish to live in a given locale for the remainder of your years, having a civilized, educated, and literate workforce available to you is surely preferred to not having one", yet this is the very thing I am getting at. The person arguing 'why should they have to deal with it' is not taking in to account that everyone would have a worse quality of life because diseases like AIDS don't stop at junkies. Not having clean needles affects more than junkies.
> This is a waste of time thought experiment.
Really? You don't get how thinking about 'letting an innocent kid die so that many people can get helped' has anything to do with this? I really thought that one was self-evident.
Yep, I still wouldn't change my moral position from the other day you're complaining about. Posting my beliefs here doesn't mean I'm looking for someone to convince me to change my mind. I'm stating my beliefs!
To be frank, if you're shouting "Hey everyone, I'm so sure of my beliefs that nothing is going to change my mind", good for you, but nobody cares. There are plenty of other places where you can broadcast your obliviousness to new information. HN is not one of them, given that "curiosity" is highlighted as a prime motivator for this site.
It was a discussion about culture and tradition. My statement was that I believe it's morally wrong to circumcise boys. 0 shouting. He's called me oblivious, and apparently I shouldn't have the right to comment if I'm not willing to change that belief.
As an aside, this is the second time on this site in a couple days I've seen someone post something along the lines of "Absolutely no one will be able to convince me otherwise no matter what."
So why are you posting here at all? You've already proudly announced that your opinions are impervious to any new information. That is the exact opposite purpose of this site.
https://nida.nih.gov/research-topics/syringe-services-progra...