Quote (thesnipa @ Sep 9 2022 07:24pm)

California is currently like a flame to addict moths, most big cities in each state are the same way. homeless addicts migrate there, they move wherever the most money is and get to begging. there are tent cities in ever blue, purple, and red state. none have been very effective at managing the issue.

Quote (Djunior @ Sep 9 2022 12:35pm)

When addicts are allowed to openly use and get away with almost anything, it's homeless addict's heaven.

Plenty material available showing addicts loading up in stores and walking out, nothing happens to them, tell me how this helps anyone.

Quote (thesnipa @ Sep 9 2022 11:55am)

i dont see a severely homeless addict person's ability to consent as any different than a minor's ability to consent to sex with an adult. their brain chemistry simply can't be trusted.

Quote (Santara @ Sep 9 2022 01:18pm)

I think you're giving a political answer to your moral conundrum. By saying you don't trust their decision making capacity, you're depriving another person of their agency, which I think is categorically immoral. It may be "justified," but it's a justified evil.

Quote (thesnipa @ Sep 9 2022 01:31pm)

i disagree, their addiction removes their agency, i'm just observing that.

Quote (Santara @ Sep 9 2022 01:40pm)

But you're not "just observing," you're stating this within the context of taking action. Therefore, it's really a justification of an immoral action.

Quote (thesnipa @ Sep 9 2022 01:43pm)

i dont see the action as tied into my removing their agency. their agency is gone should i choose to act or not. if i dont act and their brain chemistry is still wired to remove their will to quit then their agency loss is still caused by the addiction.

Quote (thesnipa @ Sep 9 2022 08:02pm)

tell me how red states differ. texas specifically has a really hard time with homeless addicts.

Quote (Santara @ Sep 9 2022 01:55pm)

The default state of agency rests with addict, and you have to take it away from them. They don't take it from themselves, they just behave in a manner you disapprove.

Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ Sep 9 2022 09:53am)

No. Medical autonomy is important as a right. You don't get to detox somebody against their will even if it's "safe".

If they agree to it and sign up for a program that allows them to be kept for a certain period then I don't think that's an issue even if they change their mind half way through. Detox is stressful and they signed up for it and they're safe after all. But you need that initial consent.

Quote (thesnipa @ Sep 9 2022 09:09am)

with too much politics these days i think we need a moral question instead.

(this is not a legal question, obviously it's illegal. and i'm not asking if it should be legal or illegal, just asking if it's moral)

If you have a family member who's severely addicted to drugs, like think hardly recognizable, homeless living on the streets, "beyond help".

Is it moral to kidnap them, lock them in a room in your house, and force them to detox?

and let's assume their detox is confirmed non-fatal, so nothing that will kill them just cause suffering.

I dont have any family or friends in this state, but have long though that this is what i'd do. just make a prison cell in my basement and keep them there fed and healthy for a month or so. long enough to detox and hopefully avoid an instant relapse.

Quote (thesnipa @ Sep 9 2022 10:08am)

the left currently is the only party pushing for increased access to rehab.

there are 2 issues at play here, 1 safety for users to avoid accidental overdoses and malnutrition, 2 increased help if addicts decide to get help.

but thats all ill post on that because this topic isnt meant to be political, rather on the morality.