What do you think about a recent proposal to let addicts die of overdoses?

[serp777]

What do you guys think of proposal online to let addicts die after their third overdose? I think it could have merits. If by the third time you still haven't learned, then it seems reasonable to just let them do what they want. In conjunction with more counselling and help for the first or second time overdosers, this could be much more effective by weeding out repeat offenders who soak up public services. The money saved from repeat offenders could be devoted towards helping with drug rehabilitation programs that will ultimately save more people and money.

I'd like to hear some moral and utilitarian arguments for this proposal given the huge problem the United States has with drug overdose. Also, please no fallacious arguments from moral outrage. I'd like arguments from a rational ethics and or a utilitarian perspective.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I doubt such a proposal came from anyone who has ever been around drug addiction.

 

[serp777]

I doubt such a proposal came from anyone who has ever been around drug addiction.

Possibly, but why is that relevant?

 

[David T]

Possibly, but why is that relevant?

I always forget here this is RF carry on makes total sense..

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Possibly, but why is that relevant?

Because it shows how painfully ignorant the guy is about addiction. The "three strikes" thing doesn't work for crime deterrence, and someone that dumb about drugs and addiction shouldn't be making policies about addiction treatment. He's not even really acknowledging that he understands the opioid epidemic, as what I am finding he said many things that suggest he thinks the problem is "out there and coming here" rather than being there, in his town, in his neighborhood.

 

[serp777]

Because it shows how painfully ignorant the guy is about addiction. The "three strikes" thing doesn't work for crime deterrence, and someone that dumb about drugs and addiction shouldn't be making policies about addiction treatment. He's not even really acknowledging that he understands the opioid epidemic, as what I am finding he said many things that suggest he thinks the problem is "out there and coming here" rather than being there, in his town, in his neighborhood.

But this isn't about crime deterrence, its just simple statistical analysis and resource distribution. Its simply letting them do what they want and they have to accept the consequences after a certain point. The repeat overdosers should not get resources compared to first time overdosers. There should be more programs and rehabilitation for first time overdosers than repeat offenders and we only have limited medical resources.

Also whether or not he is ignorant and foolish is beside the point, his argument should stand on its own merit, and from a utilitarian analysis there doesn't seem to be a problem. Its not about punishing them and enforcing a three strikes criminal law, its simply saying you'll be saved three times and after that you're on you're own. It also would have to work logically because those who overdose and die won't be overdosing again.

Do you believe that millions of dollars should potentially be spent on one repeat overdoser when that money could be used to help and save thousands of others who deserve better?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Do you believe that millions of dollars should potentially be spent on one repeat overdoser when that money could be used to help and save thousands of others who deserve better?

When you work with addiction, there is no deserving better than another. Addicts are ill and broken people, and they struggle with their addiction. They need treatment and support, not cold shoulders leaving them to die.

 

[stvdv]

Also whether or not he is ignorant and foolish is beside the point

Ever considered you might be the "ignorant and fool?". My Master taught me "what you see in other, that is in you". My Master was very wise.

When you work with addiction, there is no deserving better than another. Addicts are ill and broken people, and they struggle with their addiction. They need treatment and support, not cold shoulders leaving them to die.

Most people see only the outside, addiction. Addiction means you are deep down. But deep down means you are ready to rise like a star. Like a circle, crazy meets genius.

 

[Glaurung]

Also, please no fallacious arguments from moral outrage. I'd like arguments from a rational ethics and or a utilitarian perspective.

Letting people die on purpose hardly sounds like a rational ethics to me. I don't want to live in a society that abandons compassion for myopic utility.

 

[Mindmaster]

I'd like to hear some moral and utilitarian arguments for this proposal given the huge problem the United States has with drug overdose. Also, please no fallacious arguments from moral outrage. I'd like arguments from a rational ethics and or a utilitarian perspective.

I'd go even further -- give them a free and unlimited supply of drugs. Either they'll get sick of it or off themselves and we can stop worrying about it. Most of the problems drugs cause aren't related to the death of the user, but theft and violence because they can't get enough to meet their need. Very few people OD, and when they do it's because they got street drugs which were way more powerful than they were used to taking. (The strength of street variants for opiates, for example, is all over the place.) It seems illogical probably to give them away, but fact remains this variance of strength in the drugs is the real killer. The other part of it is some dealers are cutting in fentanyl and that's like the real cause of most of the problems. Giving away a safe supply is cheaper than dealing with the hospital bills from people killing themselves by accident in terms of a burden to society. Not doing so doesn't make people not use, it just makes it more risky...

 

[stvdv]

I'd go even further -- give them a free and unlimited supply of drugs

No, not a good plan IMO. I have a much better plan = Solve problem at the root
Take out all the drugs. Then after some time drugs addict are addicted to "not getting drugs".

And when you would argue "impossible because there are always drugs dealers"
Just inject the "drugs dealers with some good stuff, like you suggested"

And when you would argue "impossible because there are drugs Lords"
Same recipe would do for the drugs Lords

And when you would argue "impossible because there are drugs grown all over"
Same recipe for the drugs farmers

And when you would argue "impossible because our government is totally involved in this drugs business"
Same recipe for the drugs government involved

Oh you mean the president is involved, although Trump seems an exception here

So, now you see the real problem is complex. Can't blame the drug addict alone I would say.

https://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/18/opinion/salcedo-first-person-account-drug-corruption/index.html

 

[TheBannerofHomuraAkemi]

But this isn't about crime deterrence, its just simple statistical analysis and resource distribution. Its simply letting them do what they want and they have to accept the consequences after a certain point. The repeat overdosers should not get resources compared to first time overdosers. There should be more programs and rehabilitation for first time overdosers than repeat offenders and we only have limited medical resources.

Also whether or not he is ignorant and foolish is beside the point, his argument should stand on its own merit, and from a utilitarian analysis there doesn't seem to be a problem. Its not about punishing them and enforcing a three strikes criminal law, its simply saying you'll be saved three times and after that you're on you're own. It also would have to work logically because those who overdose and die won't be overdosing again.

Do you believe that millions of dollars should potentially be spent on one repeat overdoser when that money could be used to help and save thousands of others who deserve better?

This isn't a good ultilitarian argument because it doesn't help society in the end. It will neither end drug addiction nor will it deter new people becoming addicts. It will just make the people in charge look inhumane.

 

[Shad]

What do you guys think of proposal online to let addicts die after their third overdose? I think it could have merits. If by the third time you still haven't learned, then it seems reasonable to just let them do what they want. In conjunction with more counselling and help for the first or second time overdosers, this could be much more effective by weeding out repeat offenders who soak up public services. The money saved from repeat offenders could be devoted towards helping with drug rehabilitation programs that will ultimately save more people and money.

I'd like to hear some moral and utilitarian arguments for this proposal given the huge problem the United States has with drug overdose. Also, please no fallacious arguments from moral outrage. I'd like arguments from a rational ethics and or a utilitarian perspective.

I am against it so I can not argue for it. Addiction is not that simple. A lot of people are incapable of functioning so need help be it from people or as wards of the state. One man I know has a mind so shattered he is barely aware of what is going on around him. He has little ability to recognize consequences of his actions.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Take out all the drugs. Then after some time drugs addict are addicted to "not getting drugs".

You can't get rid of them. Psilocybin and cannabis grow in the wild, DMT is produced in DNA, and even cocaine comes from the coca plant. There is no way to go about doing away with all drugs. Nor should that be the goal, as most drugs have legit medical uses, and most users do not become addicted. The problem with opium is they are prescribed in high rates and passed around like candy, and if the usage isn't properly monitored problems can arise once a patient develops a tolerance to their prescribed regiment.

 

[serp777]

This isn't a good ultilitarian argument because it doesn't help society in the end. It will neither end drug addiction nor will it deter new people becoming addicts. It will just make the people in charge look inhumane.

Why wouldn't it help society in the end? We know that rehabilitation works quite effectively. But repeat offenders clearly are unwilling or unable to utilize rehabilitation. So if we put more resources towards rehabilitation for first time overdosers, we can save more people overall--repeat offenders cost a lot and seem irredeemable so putting resources towards them is wasteful. It seems quite utilitarian

 

[serp777]

Letting people die on purpose hardly sounds like a rational ethics to me. I don't want to live in a society that abandons compassion for myopic utility.

Would you rather spend millions repeatedly saving a person from an overdose who will probably die anyways or use that money to save and helps dozens of others? Its a question of resource distribution and if you truly have compassion you'll want to distribute it to benefit the most people. I think its actually a lack of compassion to waste money on a bunch of repeat overdosers when we could be saving a lot of other people with that money--people who deserve better.

 

[serp777]

Ever considered you might be the "ignorant and fool?". My Master taught me "what you see in other, that is in you". My Master was very wise.



Most people see only the outside, addiction. Addiction means you are deep down. But deep down means you are ready to rise like a star. Like a circle, crazy meets genius.

I have considered it, but I don't believe I am because i've given a rational justification for this position from a utilitarian point of view. I'm happy to be demonstrated that i'm ignorant and foolish, but I won't be convinced by a wise quote.

I also think my point remains that even if some person is ignorant and foolish, that doesn't mean that particular argument is wrong.

 

[stvdv]

You can't get rid of them. Psilocybin and cannabis grow in the wild, DMT is produced in DNA, and even cocaine comes from the coca plant. There is no way to go about doing away with all drugs. Nor should that be the goal, as most drugs have legit medical uses, and most users do not become addicted. The problem with opium is they are prescribed in high rates and passed around like candy, and if the usage isn't properly monitored problems can arise once a patient develops a tolerance to their prescribed regiment.

I know this.

But I replied to the plan "Just kill all drug addicts by giving them an overdose"

Showing them the absurd other option "Just kill the ones selling the drugs"

If we have to kill "bad" people then many have to die
Some people are worse than addicts. Some addicts are made addicts
I was made a food addict by my parents. Took many years to overcome this addiction
I would have been killed hundreds of times if given just 3 chances

Not an easy problem to solve. Who determines who to kill off by overdose
If drug addicts go, I also vote for rapists and murderers and thiefs and ....
Drugs Lords, Maffia, most politicians that are evil

My God, almost everyone

 

[serp777]

When you work with addiction, there is no deserving better than another. Addicts are ill and broken people, and they struggle with their addiction. They need treatment and support, not cold shoulders leaving them to die.

if they are repeat overdosers then they are unwilling or unable to utilize rehabilitation. I agree we should help addicts, but I'd say lets distribute the resources to people who can be saved--first time overdosers. Lets improve rehabilitation and expand it since they're going to be the best candidates to be saved. As sad as it is, this policy would end the suffering of repeat overdosers and at the same time help people who can take advantage of it more.

 

[serp777]

I am against it so I can not argue for it. Addiction is not that simple. A lot of people are incapable of functioning so need help be it from people or as wards of the state. One man I know has a mind so shattered he is barely aware of what is going on around him. He has little ability to recognize consequences of his actions.

I agree, but what can you do about people like that? Its best to instead spend the resources on people who can be saved. People who can integrate back with society. And as terrible as it is his suffering will end by his own hand. How many times and how much money will you spend saving him? He will not survive much longer anyways.