[criley2]

It's easy to find fallacies if you think about it. For example I could say the opposite

> giving an addict 4 walls and privacy is the key that unlocks recovery

I've constructed my argument identically and provided the same amount of evidence for my position.

When you compare both positions side by side, I think you can easily see that neither is valuable. They are both opinions being presented as facts (begging the question / assumption of truth / unwarranted assumption).

[peoplefromibiza]

> giving an addict 4 walls and privacy is the key that unlocks recovery

except that when we talk about privacy for addicts, we are actually talking about extreme loneliness.

which is the fastest route towards OD.

evidence show that

adults with mental health issues are more than twice as likely to experience loneliness as those with strong mental health [1]

Loneliness can increase the risk of early mortality by 26% [2]

editor's note: loneliness alone, imagine loneliness + mental health issues + severe drug addiction.

addicts don't need privacy, on the contrary, they need sociality. 4 walls shared with other people could provide that, 4 walls alone won't and will probably make things worse.

[1] https://newsroom.thecignagroup.com/loneliness-epidemic-persi...

[2] Holt-Lunstad et al., ‘Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: a meta-analytic review’, Perspectives on psychological science 10.2 (2015), pp. 227-237.

[DropInIn]

The 4 walls they get are literally a single room... If you put another person in there outcomes will be even worse.

What everyone's missing is the Quality of the housing.

If the place is so roach infested and you fight bed bugs others bring in and you constantly lose everything you own to the conditions of the building, then in what mind would that have better outcomes than on the street?

The depression that they term loneliness isn't just loneliness, it's a complete sense of defeat and pointlessness resultant directly from environment.

Really....

[peoplefromibiza]

> The 4 walls they get are literally a single room.

Theoretically yes.

In practice, no.

I've dealt with heroin addiction in my family, believe me when I say that privacy is not the solution, the solution is giving people a purpose outside of their constant quest to find ways to shoot up.

As I said, 4 walls can be beneficial, unless it's 4 walls to hide and keep everybody else out, except their dealers.

I'm all for reducing the damage, it works, but it doesn't mean simply giving them a hone, it means giving them a home to go back to, after they did something useful outside of that home.

The 4 walls should represent going back to a normal life.

> If the place is so roach infested and you fight bed bugs others bring in and you constantly lose everything you own to the conditions of the building, then in what mind would that have better outcomes than on the street?

if addicts cared about that, there would be no problem.

[DropInIn]

Society can't have it both ways - they can't be both receiving constant direct intervention and be invisible at the same time.

So long as the majority just want them out of sight or dead, we need to focus on ensuring that they are seen as members of the community rather than a blight, right?

[peoplefromibiza]

> that they are seen as members of the community rather than a blight, right?

I don't know how it works in the US, but they are primarily people in need of care, like a person with a disease, they need to be cured before they can go back to the society and be part of it or they will return to segregate themselves and die alone sooner or later.

Putting them behind 4 walls is exactly making them invisible, so that the general population won't be upset.

Not exactly a solution in my eyes.

[DropInIn]

So, before we can get funding for treatment we need public will, right?

So long as they are viewed as degenerates unwilling to engage in basic care, there will never be the public will. And for some they wouldn't take the help even if it was available, because for a minority it is in fact a lifestyle choice.

Given both those facts, the first step to getting public will for treatment is to minimize the negative perceptions of the class, which is best achieved in the immediate term by reducing visibility, specifically of the street drug addicts.

Combine with safe supply and direct interventionist supports (room checks, emergency buttons, etc) and there would be both an immediate improvement in QoL, individual outcomes and public sentiment towards further supports.

A key is to not permit use in rooms but only at safe sites within the building. Rule violation would mean switching to a monitored room (camera to ensure no drug abuse).

One issue underlying all of this though so that such systems simply can't work for those who suffered abuse by the system in the past, there's too many of our visible homeless and drug users who are where they are almost exclusively because of abuses in foster care or imprisonment (borne of false conviction). Those people will almost never participate in a gov or NGO program which includes facilities and monitoring.... And I don't really blame them.

The truth is we need to stop the problem before it starts and the only real way is to prevent traumas, treats those we can't prevent and bring justice against those who use the system to abuse others or protect abusers.

Sadly, in many ways most drug addicts are a "lost cause" before they even start using, just as so many alcoholics are.

That's the consequences of systemic willful ignorance of trauma.

[mike4ty4]

This is a big valid point here - absolutely none of us (myself included) have presented any real evidence. So it's all just circlejerking.

[momirlan]

your statement doesn't only have to be logic, it should also even remotely resemble reality. it doesn't.

[DropInIn]

This doesn't fit my Prejudices so it must be wrong

^ that's you