• evergreen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    If there’s no way for them to hurt themselves or others, then yes, I say let them buy whatever they want. But what about when those drugs not only are hurting them, but are toxically hurting the same society that gave them the money in the first place? What if they are no longer able to make sound decisions for themselves due to severe mental illness?

    If I’m a bartender and I see somebody getting way too intoxicated, to the point they are hurting themselves or others, should I keep serving them more drinks? Or even buy them more myself? Hey man, here’s your car keys and a drink! Have a good night!

    FYI, there actually is a tax on sugary sodas in this city… because too much can be harmful for everyone.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      If there’s no way for them to hurt themselves

      So they should be barred from buying anything with sugar in it because they might be diabetic.

      or others, then yes, I say let them buy whatever they want.

      So they should be barred from buying beer at anywhere that sells it from a bar to a supermarket, right? Alcohol can make people violent.

      What if they are no longer able to make sound decisions for themselves due to severe mental illness?

      So they should be barred from buying anything sharp in case they have a psychotic break. No kitchen knives, no pencils.

      Or… we just don’t put rules on giving people money since, believe it or not, people not on assistance can have major drug problems and serious mental illness and they can spend their money however they want.

      • evergreen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        I think the argument for whether it is morally acceptable to supply someone with drugs, substances, weapons, or whatever else it is that that can kill them or others is always going to be a tough call, and we can sit here on it until the cows come home and still be in the same place honestly.

        If you read the article though, it says that the measure doesn’t even stop them from receiving the funds, even if they are still using. They can literally use and won’t stop receiving receiving the funds, as long as they are open to treatment options.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Fine, then people should be allowed to receive their paychecks if they use drugs as long as they are open to treatment options.

          Fair, right?

          • Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            They should be yes. The only time mandatory pre-screening should be acceptable is if your job requires zero intoxication to legally perform your job. Like operating machinery, driving, etc. Beyond that it should only come up if there is good reason to believe that you are using and it is affecting your performance. Then you should be given the option to go through treatment before being fired comes up as an option.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              You’re saying the opposite of what I’m saying.

              I’m saying that if drug screening is a requirement for assistance, it should be a requirement for all paychecks as well.

              Otherwise, you’re just punishing poor people for doing the same things people aren’t poor do- get addicted to drugs.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  No, it isn’t. That’s my point. Everyone else is given money without such preconditions. No matter how severe their drug addiction. Only the desperate have such placed on them.

                  • evergreen@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    8 months ago

                    Yeah and sure, its a fair point. Honestly curious though, do you think we should just cut out the middle man drug lords then and just provide the addicted with the fent directly? Like just consider it part of the welfare if that’s what they want? Why force them to deal with with stuff that can be cut, adulterated, or what have you?

                • evergreen@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 months ago

                  Oh I see. When you said paychecks, I thought you were referring to the welfare checks, and that they will still receive them even while using. That is what I said that the measure provides for.

                  And no, it doesn’t apply to money earned from working at a job because the money people earn at their jobs is not taxpayer money being given with the intent to help someone get back on their feet, like welfare is.