[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.

[peoplefromibiza]

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

Again, that's a different problem entirely.

In my Country healthcare is public and funded by taxation.

We also have publicly funded damage reduction centers where they provide methadone to heroin addicts, problem is most of the time they do not show up voluntarily because of the stigma associated with it, secondly because those willingly participating are already in recover and take it to minimize the effects of abstinence. They are already on the path of healing.

> So long as they are viewed as degenerates unwilling to engage in basic care

They aren't all degenerates, you are putting emphasis on something no one ever said, but they are obviously unwilling or they would not need special treatments.

If they are able to take care of themselves, they don't need external help.

But only a very small minority is.

> A key is to not permit use in rooms but only at safe sites within the building

Which, again, as I've said before, is exactly why they do not need "4 walls with privacy"

Methadone is permitted only in person and they have to assume it in the facility that provides it under medical check, otherwise the first thing most of them would do is trade the methadone with something else.

> Rule violation would mean switching to a monitored room

That's the one thing that makes everything worse: basically it's an house arrest. We do not arrest as many addicts as in the US, but we still have jails full of people that used drugs that would be much better of somewhere else outside a cell (which basically is the 4 walls with privacy minus the drugs plus the suicide opportunity)

> The truth is we need to stop the problem before it starts and the only real way is to prevent traumas

We need to do both.

[DropInIn]

> They aren't all degenerates, you are putting emphasis on something no one ever said, but they are obviously unwilling or they would not need special treatments.

Holy hell active misrepresentation much? Or is your reading comprehension just that poor?

You even quoted it yet didnt actually read it?

> So long as they are viewed as degenerates unwilling to engage in basic care

VIEWED AS

That's not remotely the same as actually being such.

Your whole diatribe is the same disingenuous, misrepresentative, seemingly deceptive, bs.

I'm not engaging with someone so dishonest, regardless of their intentionality.

Be better.

[peoplefromibiza]

> Holy hell active misrepresentation much? Or is your reading comprehension just that poor?

Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

> VIEWED AS

Please don't use uppercase for emphasis. If you want to emphasize a word or phrase, put *asterisks* around it and it will get italicized.

I am a non native English speaker, but you are honestly trying to have a fight on something that it's not there.

Never said you called them degenerates, but that not all of them are (implying that some of them are), and that the emphasis on the "viewed as degenerates" is superfluous because no one pointed that out in this conversation.

Moreover, they are not viewed as unwilling, they are unwilling or we would not be talking about it.

I'll explain once again: they are not simply "viewed as degenerates unwilling to" they are obviously unwilling, some of them are clearly degenerates and all of them engage in some kind of anti social behaviour, mostly against their family members, which makes them outcasts.

Or the issue we are discussing would not exist!

> Be better.

Never been better, thanks.