Drug Policy: Safe Injection Sites (SIS)

Scarlett O'Hara said:I don't really get it... if we're all about prevention, why aren't we doing actual prevention?

Like, I mean, shouldn't we be focusing on stopping people from getting hooked in the first place, instead of just trying to lower the number of addicts dying from overdoses or whatever?

Man, now it’s gonna look like I’m totally ripping you off, haha 😁 😁

brisknomad6 said:* so what, we just don't open "safe sex" rooms versus "get wasted then sober up" rooms? Is that the plan?

* I honestly don't get why none of you people pushing for these facilities haven't realized that the smarter move would be dumping that cash into education, prevention, early detection, and better oversight of high-risk areas. If we did that, we wouldn't need half these rehab centers and recovery rooms in the first place...

Why am I the bad guy for thinking prevention beats encouragement, while everyone advocating for supervised injection sites gets a free pass as "compassionate"?

Sure, investing in prevention and education is vital, but we also have to look out for the people who already skipped past that stage.

It’s a complicated mess. And saying "who cares, let them rot, it's their own fault" isn't exactly the kind of answer you expect from a mature adult.

brisknomad6 said:* so what—should we just stop offering "hookup rooms" with condoms or "party then detox" suites? is that the plan?

Hell yeah we want that!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If the damn church didn't run this whole country and if we actually had sane politicians in charge, they'd be handing out condoms in schools and stuff... it would basically kill off STDs and slash those teen pregnancy rates in one go.

Why on earth would you think that’s a bad thing? Honestly, I can't believe you're even suggesting it might be bad! 🤔

Look, local utility fees aren't even the problem here... I mean, who actually pays those anyway?
The church should just team up with them since they clearly have nothing better to do with their time...

legione, you're honestly not being helpful here—you’re just looking for a fight.

Look, we get it, you’re against treatment for addicts... you’re against everything. Seriously, please don't go looking for an argument if you don't actually have anything useful to say about supervised injection sites. Thanks!

Kimberly Moore90 said:If my kid ever decided to start using drugs, the dealers who provided them would be the very first people I’d go after. I honestly think they deserve to be fed to stray dogs.😈

And here we have another one who believes their child could never actually do anything wrong, so it must be everyone else's fault.👎

amberorca192 said:Some people can't even manage to write a post that actually stays on topic... fascinating. 🙏 🙏 🙏

First off, hey everyone.
Look, I’m against drugs, plain and simple. But this issue is a double-edged sword. I won't lecture you since most of you have already covered the basics, but let's be real: ideally, we should stop the sale, resale, and use of narcotics entirely. That’s impossible given how things are right now. However, if we can't stop the usage, we at least need to stop the spread of diseases like Hepatitis and AIDS. It doesn't have to be a "safe house," but we need to ensure people like that have access to sterile equipment.

William White2 said:Here we go again. Another one who thinks their kid is incapable of ever doing anything wrong—it’s always everyone else's fault, isn't it? 👎

Of course. They snatched his kid—either a son or a daughter—and kept him locked up for two months. Then they just drugged him until he had no choice but to buy heroin from them. What else could he do? 🙄

Good grief, how am I ever supposed to get through all these damn crusades?

amberorca192 said:Of course, they probably kidnapped his son or daughter, kept them locked up for two months, and then coerced him by using them as leverage just to force him into buying heroin from them.🙄

And I suppose they were spiking his drinks with drugs first, too.🙄 🤣

crimson petal said:I don't get it. If we're supposedly all about "prevention," why aren't we doing actual prevention?
I mean, why not focus on reducing the number of people who even start getting hooked in the first place, instead of "preventing" things by trying to lower the death toll from overdoses or whatever else?
This isn't prevention; it's just damage control.

Exactly. Like you said, this isn't prevention—it's harm reduction.
Prevention actually works before you start using. It keeps you from starting.
Once you're an addict, "prevention" doesn't mean a damn thing anymore.

crimson petal said:Why are you obsessing so much over drunk drivers?

They're blowing money on high-grade weed because they're stupid. Look, addiction is a disease, but stupidity isn't treated like one. And I don't see you complaining about tax dollars going to them. Or any other group doing stuff that directly hurts themselves. Except for those damn junkies you'd rather fund just so they can kill themselves.

Brandon Castillo4 said:What I'm trying to say, regardless of my stance on THIS THREAD, is that if you aren't ultra-liberal today, you're basically a piece of trash. Bottom of the barrel.

The opinion some people have expressed here is that the ideal state for an addict isn't "harm reduction"—it's death. Because even if they get clean, they'll be totally fried, so why bother? Or that the government should just fund a "golden silence."

You don't have to be ultra-liberal to not want someone dead. Especially not quickly.
I don't think the issue is how liberal you are; it's how much hate you carry.

Brandon Castillo4 said:Everyone is guilty, except for the guy who HIDES SOMETHING. He's innocent.

I don't remember anyone saying that.

drito said:Treating these people like subhuman beings just because they, damn it, got hooked on something hard to quit is sick. It's way more twisted than some junkie shaking through withdrawal.

🙏

kemik said:The main argument is always that it’s too expensive. So, who exactly is picking up the tab?
Look, I consider myself a liberal, open-minded person. I try to be understanding of everyone's issues, really. But even I have to step up and admit—this is a damn good argument.

Yeah, if they didn't forget that their own tax dollars are basically funding junkies, they might actually realize how much less money would be left over for everything else. 😁
(Like you mentioned in your P.S., too.)

Great white. said:Maybe that’s because we’re talking about HEALING here, not helping people die!

People are getting clean from heroin. If you manage to dodge a fatal infection or get pulled back from the brink after an overdose, you’re looking at a much better life than someone stuck dealing with AIDS or liver cirrhosis. Or, you know, you'll just be dead. Simple as that.

Dennis said:Have you ever actually looked at an opioid mortality chart? Seriously.
First off, it’s cigarettes. Second, alcohol. Heroin doesn't even make the top three.

The numbers for cigarette smokers, alcoholics, and heroin users aren't even in the same ballpark. Not even close.
Yeah, more people are dying from smoking than ever. It's a fact.
The death toll among nicotine addicts is way lower than it is for heroin users. Period.

Legion. said:I’d just throw them all into one big pile and lock the door... let them learn their lesson the hard way.

I don't get why everyone isn't doing this. It’s so damn effective. Honestly, people just need to quit their old habits already. 🙏 🙏 🙏

Atlantis? Give me a break. It’s nothing but a fairy tale people use to feel special about lost history. Total myth. kaže:
I don't get why any of you people pushing for more rehab centers haven't realized how stupid this plan is. Why aren't we talking about actually fixing the root cause? If we put that money into education, prevention, early intervention, and better policing in high-risk areas, we wouldn't even have the problem in the first place. Invest in stopping the addiction before it starts, and then maybe—just maybe—we won't need all those beds and treatment facilities. Think about it.

Well, that actually crossed my mind. But SSI? No way.
I don't see how one rules out the other.
Look, this isn't about some massive national initiative to tackle drug addiction and all its fallout. We're talking specifically about suicide here. Period.

Atlantis. Just a myth. Total nonsense. Everyone loves talking about it like it’s some lost reality, but let's be real—it's just a fairy tale people use to feel special about history. Get over it. kaže:
Prevention is always better than trying to fix the damage after you've already caused it. Stop encouraging the mess just so you can play hero later.

This isn't incitement.
And look, it’s obviously better to prevent HIV and/or hepatitis than to try and fix the damage later.
If stopping drug addiction were actually an easy win, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Ona007 said:Even local utilities aren't such a bad idea... I mean, who even pays for those anyway?
The church might as well just jump in and help out since they clearly have nothing better to do..

the government covers it.
they didn't give any numbers😲

Brandon Castillo4 said:Nobody accidentally sticks a needle in their vein. A person dives into that life consciously.

Here we go again with yet another sweeping, tornado-style generalization. While it may be true that nobody accidentally injects themselves, it is patently false to claim that everyone enters addiction with a full, rational understanding of the risks involved. Drug education in the US is fundamentally built upon old wives' tales rather than actual scientific data, and prevention programs essentially boil down to scaring kids with "drug boogeyman" stories.

I believe it has already been established in this thread that people are not all the same; they do not share identical life circumstances, access to information, or the capacity to make informed decisions. Not everyone possesses the same willpower or strength of character, nor does everyone have the kind of life we would choose for ourselves.

Furthermore, even if we assume they are "to blame" and were entirely aware of the consequences, that in no way—at least within my own value system—means they deserve less help, nor should we turn our backs on them, let alone condemn them.

Brandon Castillo4 said:I would ask you to let others hold their own opinions without condemning them to the bottom of the social ladder... everyone would judge this just as HARSHLY (and they do) not because they are fake moralists, but because most people were raised that way, and that is how they are wired; even if they were born 120 times over, they wouldn't try drugs.

I am sorry, but under no circumstances do I justify the condemnation of sick people.

I can disagree with something, and I can personally be against it, but judging others for their life choices strikes me as a pathetic attempt to inflate one's own ego and manufacture a sense of false superiority. I am completely opposed to smoking during pregnancy, but my upbringing and common sense do not allow me to judge an expectant mother for it—what are her circumstances? Why hasn't she quit? I don't know, and I cannot possibly know.

Through patronizing behavior and judgment, nothing is ever achieved except further stigmatization and the destruction of rapport and potential for cooperation; indeed, the entire addiction prevention program in the US, which relies precisely on such attitudes, demonstrates exactly how much success can be expected from these methods—roughly a 15% increase in the number of young people experimenting with drugs every year.

A judgmental discourse is, quite frankly, a textbook example of a logical fallacy in any debate.

There is no sin in being conservative or being against drugs, prostitution, or whatever else. Regardless. Diverse viewpoints are more than welcome in any discussion, and I actually agree with most of what you said.

However, it is a sin to be a hypocrite who, from the safe distance of a soft armchair and shielded by the veil of anonymity, tells sick people in incredibly dire situations—whose life circumstances they don't know, let alone understand—that they should just "drop dead" because it's "their own fault."👎

William White2 said:Here we go again. Another one of those people whose kid could never, ever do anything wrong—it’s always everyone else's fault, isn't it? Just a constant cycle of finger-pointing. 👎

What are you even talking about? If you actually bothered to read what I wrote instead of just skimming, you’d see that isn't what I said at all. I am talking about how drug dealers prey on kids—kids who don't have the slightest clue yet what's good for them or what's bad. They haven't even developed a sense of judgment or a clear idea of what they want out of life. Dealers target teenagers because they’re the easiest marks; they're right in that rebellious phase where they think doing something illegal makes them look "cool." Honestly, I would punish drug dealers just as harshly as pedophiles. Both groups are predators. They both strip children of the most precious things they have: their childhood, their innocence, their happiness, and quite literally, their lives.
Getting someone hooked on hard drugs? Honestly, it’s no different than committing a slow-motion murder. You’re basically pulling the trigger and then just sitting back to watch the clock run out. In my book, the punishment should be exactly the same as premeditated murder. Period.
In my neighborhood, there's a pretty unspoken rule—ever since I moved in, you won't find a single dealer even on the next block over! 👍

Dennis said:Why even bother posting when you clearly have no clue what you're talking about?

Have you ever actually looked at a mortality chart regarding opioid overdose rates?

At the top of the list, you've got CIGARETTES, then ALCOHOL, and heroin doesn't even hit the top three.

Maybe it's because a massive number of people smoke, whereas heroin users represent a much smaller percentage of the population?
So, you're telling me cigarettes are more lethal than heroin? Go back and actually read what I wrote; maybe it'll click. If not, well, screw it.

🙄

Kimberly Moore90 said:What are you even talking about? If you actually bothered to read what I wrote, you'd see that’s not what I said at all. I'm talking about how dealers prey on kids who don't have a clue what's good or bad for them yet—they haven't even developed a sense of what they want or don't want. Dealers target teenagers because they're easy targets; they're in that rebellious phase and think doing something illegal makes them look cool. That's why I’d punish dealers just as harshly as pedophiles. Both groups steal the most precious thing from a child: their childhood, their innocence, and their entire future.
Getting someone hooked on hard drugs is basically like committing a slow-motion murder. You’re just delaying the inevitable. Honestly, isn't the punishment for that pretty much the same as premeditated murder anyway? Done.
In my neighborhood, there's an unwritten rule: ever since I moved here, there hasn't been a single dealer on even the next street over. 👍

So, tell me more about this whole situation with kids being targeted. How does it actually go down? Is it like some movie scene where a kid walks home from middle school, a dealer intercepts them, shoves an ecstasy pill into their hand, and tells them it’ll be a blast? Then they just keep "gifting" them stuff until the kid is basically walking back to buy candy on their own? 🙄

Man, I’ve got a feeling you were being a total menace when you cleared out those dealers from the corner.🙏 What kind of absolute legend could actually corner them like that? You don't just report someone to the cops or haul them off if they aren't already running for their lives out of pure terror. Man... unbelievable.🙄

In my neighborhood, there's a golden rule—ever since I moved in, there hasn't been a single dealer on the next block over!

That’s just what happens when big-box retailers move in and wipe out all the local shops...😁

Edward Green said:The sentiment some people have expressed here is that the ideal state for an addict isn't "harm reduction"—it's death. Because even if they get clean, they’ll be totally burned out, so why bother? Or that the government should just fund a "golden silence."

You don't have to be an ultra-liberal to not want someone dead. And frankly, I mean almost immediately.
I don't think the issue is how much freedom you believe in; it's the sheer amount of hate being spewed.

I usually try not to hedge my bets just to make a point, but I have to step in here, simply because I DISAGREE.
It's not that I want anyone to die, nor do I think someone "deserves" it just because they used drugs. But there is a massive difference between years of drug abuse, alcoholism, systematic self-destruction, and something like a car accident or lung cancer—and yeah, even though lung cancer is caused by cigarettes, there's a huge distinction based on the specific fallout drugs and alcohol leave behind on a person. It's far more destructive than smoking.

Of course, these people need help. Harm reduction is one way to go, but in my view, it only works when combined with something that progressively pushes the individual toward getting off the needle. Step by step, but steady.

Edward Green said:I don't recall anyone actually saying that.

Maybe not directly, but reading all this counter-moralizing is just exhausting.
Do you honestly think Olivia Martinez20 was being a "fake moralist" when she basically said these people are at the bottom of the social ladder because they claimed "who cares about addicts, we have bigger problems in society"?

I think people should reflect on how rapidly their opinions would shift if it were someone they actually loved. At the same time, I don't think counter-moralizing under the guise of being "ultra-liberal" solves anything.
It just deepens the hole. I’ve written about this before: you have to strike at the core of the problem, always.

Olivia Martinez20 said:This is just another one of those tornado-style generalizations. While it's true nobody stumbles into addiction by accident, it's not true that everyone falls into it fully aware of the risks. Drug education in America is basically built on old wives' tales rather than scientific facts, and prevention programs basically boil down to scaring kids with the "bogeyman" version of drugs.

You're wrong. Either you didn't finish your thought or you completely missed the point.

So, what, the person using drugs isn't to blame because "drug education" isn't adequate?
I've never jumped off a building, and I've never downed a whole bottle of Vim or Clorox from the bathroom cabinet. And I don't know what would *scientifically* happen if I did. I just know I'd die. That's enough reason for me not to try.

Your argument doesn't hold water. Education is one part of prevention, but I don't see why an elementary school kid needs to learn the nuanced differences between the effects of various pills, coke, or heroin.

Would you show your own kid drugs as a "boogeyman," or would you educate them to the level of Uber so they know the chemical composition of every single piece of crap out there? I don't get it.

Look, I think it’s already been made pretty clear in this thread: people aren't all cut from the same cloth. We don't all live the same lives, we don't have the same access to the facts, and honestly, not everyone has the capacity to make a truly informed decision. Some people just can't. It isn't just about information, either. Not everyone possesses the same level of willpower or the sheer strength of character required to pull things together. Let's be real—not everyone was dealt a hand they would have actually wanted.

Look, I’m not saying that. I never said I was sitting here judging some guy for relapsing or falling back into drug use. That’s not my style. It’s just that I can't bring myself to point a finger at someone for something that could easily happen to me, or to someone I actually care about. Life is messy like that.

Look, even if you say they’re "to blame"—even if they walked right into it with their eyes wide open knowing exactly what was coming—that doesn't change a damn thing for me. In my book, at least, that doesn't make them any less valuable. Period. I need some help here. Anyone got a second? Or maybe we should just turn our backs on them entirely, instead of wasting any energy trying to judge them.

Exactly. HELP. Look, I’ll say it again: everyone here has a different vision of how to fix this. Most people have already conveniently washed their hands of the whole thing by dismissing addicts as if they’re just "their own fault." They write them off immediately to clear their conscience. I don't buy that. I don't think they are "guilty" in the way people want to frame it. But they are responsible. There’s a massive difference. Being responsible means they need help—real, direct, hands-on help. It shouldn't be as simple as providing some supervised injection sites and then checking a box to say, "Okay, my job is done, problem solved." That’s lazy, and it doesn't work.

So, we're talking about going straight for the jugular. Taking it right to the core.

Look, I can disagree with something. I can be personally against an idea, sure. But judging everyone else just because they don't see it my way? That's where people lose the plot. The life choices they've made. Honestly, I see this as nothing more than a pathetic attempt to stroke someone's ego and manufacture a sense of false superiority. Look, I’m completely against smoking while pregnant—period. But my upbringing and just plain old common sense tell me not to sit here and judge a mother-to-be for lighting up. What are her circumstances? Why hasn't she been able to quit? I don't know, and frankly, I can't pretend to know.

Look, buddy, I’ll be blunt. Choosing to work in woodworking? That’s a legitimate life path. Deciding to spend your days working a parking lot shift? Sure, that's a choice you can make. Even dedicating your life to studying bugs? Fine, whatever, that's a calling. But drugs? Drugs aren't a lifestyle choice. They're just a dead end.

Look, if someone makes a choice in the moment, sure—that’s one thing. But this? This isn't a conscious decision where they walk away feeling satisfied with the outcome. It’s different. They didn't choose this; they were dragged into it. It happens slowly, creeping up on you, just like everything else in life. But make no mistake, they are trapped. And unless they actually find the willpower to step up and demand change, they’re going to need serious help to break free from it.

I think it’s a massive mistake to try and equate drug use with smoking cigarettes or eating junk food just because people love using that "it all kills you anyway" logic. Sure, we hear stories about how smoking cuts seven years off your life—whether that's actually true or just some statistic peddled by health lobbyists doesn't really matter to me. But look at the reality on the ground. A cigarette isn't going to push someone to the edge of existence or drive them straight into a life of crime. Having two beers after work isn't going to do that either. There is a massive, fundamental difference between grabbing a couple of brews and being forced into a lifestyle of desperation. Two beers and a quick jog hit your system differently than hard drugs ever will. It's not even a fair comparison.

Olivia Martinez20 said:Look, you can't lecture people or judge them and expect anything good to come of it. All you’re doing is deepening the stigma and killing any chance of actual cooperation. If you want proof, just look at the addiction prevention programs here in the States. They’re built entirely on that kind of condescending, moralizing attitude, and the results speak for themselves—they're a total failure. We’re seeing about 15% more kids experimenting with drugs every single year because of this exact approach. It's basic math.

When people start talking down to you in an argument, it’s not even a discussion anymore. It’s just condescension. At that point, the dialogue breaks down completely, and I’m right there with you on that—it's a total split. But honestly, I’m struggling to wrap my head around this whole idea that drugs need to be "demystified" or "destigmatized." What exactly is the goal there?

Does being better informed actually lead to fewer people taking the same thing? It’s a fair question. I’ve been thinking about this lately—whether more knowledge really results in less conformity. Usually, you'd assume that once people actually wrap their heads around the facts, they stop following the herd. But is that always how it plays out in reality? I'm curious if we're looking at a shift toward individual choice or if people just find new ways to cluster together under different labels.

I wouldn't bet my life on it. Honestly, this supposed "lack of information" isn't nearly as widespread as you’re making it out to be. Kids these days actually get it—they know drugs are something to stay far away from. By the time they hit their early teens, they understand the *why* behind it and what the actual consequences look like. I really don't see where this "uninformed" narrative is coming from.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being conservative and standing against drugs, prostitution, or whatever else. Look, different perspectives are more than welcome in any debate, and frankly, I agree with most of what you just said.

That was the response to my post. Just that. And I completely agree. It is NOT bad to be conservative or to hold people to high standards, which is why your comment about "condemning someone to the bottom of the ladder" rubbed me the wrong way. But, I realize now you were actually referring to this specific group:

But it is a sin to be a hypocrite who sits safely in a soft armchair, hidden behind a veil of anonymity, telling people in desperate, life-altering situations—whose lives you clearly don't know or understand—that they deserve to "waste away" simply because it's "their own fault."

Now, that? That truly is a sin.

Leonard Nimoy said:maybe it's not direct, but I find reading all this counter-moralizing stupid.
So you think it's fine that Olivia Martinez20 basically gave a lecture to "fake moralists" about how they're at the bottom of the social ladder just because they said, "who cares about junkies, we have bigger problems in society."

They were more like, "who cares if junkies drop dead, I'd probably help them along." Where exactly would you put people like that on a social ladder?

but I don't see why elementary school kids need to learn the difference between the effects of pills versus cocaine or heroin.

Because that difference exists. Not providing info on how different drugs affect you is dangerous in my book. Someone might plow through one thing for six months, not realize how bad it is, and then move on to something way more lethal because they think it's all the same stuff.

Would you show your kid drugs as some "forbidden fruit" or educate them all the way up to Uber levels of knowing the chemical makeup of every single piece of crap? I don't get it.

I used to know things—not the exact chemical formulas, but how things work, what the consequences are, blah blah blah. To me, that’s a much better approach than just saying, "don't do it, it's bad." If you don't explain *why* it's bad, there's a huge chance someone will just reject that along with everything else during a phase of mindless rebellion against anything they're told is "wrong." At least that's how it looks to me.

I also think equating drugs to cigarettes or fast food is wrong because "it all kills you anyway."

The only parallel I was drawing is that these are all things that cause harm, people know they cause harm, and they do them anyway, so they need medical care that's mostly covered by Medicaid. But here, some people are getting really worked up about the idea that money is coming out of their pockets for a group of people who consciously start something with health consequences—junkies. They don't care that it covers everyone else too. And let's be real, it's a hell of a lot easier to start eating healthy than it is to kick a heroin habit.

So that's all I meant.

amberorca192 said:Man, I bet you were a total nightmare when you cleared out those dealers from the neighborhood.🙏 A tough guy like you could have just reported them to the cops or hauled them in, instead of letting them run off because they were terrified of you. Good grief...🙄

Well, wouldn't you want to get rid of the headache of having every street punk looking at me like I'm the main attraction?😁 And I’m certainly not sitting here moping about it.
PS: My kid is still too young for school, but I see you don't have any. Hopefully, you'll have one someday—it’ll change your whole perspective.

One more thing: I actually feel for those people who turn to drugs just trying to find some kind of meaning in life. It’s a mess. It starts with some naive little game, and then they just completely fall apart. That’s why that whole evil system needs to be cut out at the root—basically, legalize it under strict medical supervision. That way, the dealers lose their grip, kids realize it isn't all that glamorous, and they move on to healthier things.
As for the dealers and the rest of the criminal element? I just can't stand them. Have you seen what they look like? Seriously, man, they're nothing but walking caricatures. 🤣

Brandon Castillo4 said:Will better information actually lead to FEWER people using the same stuff?

This is an entirely separate issue, and I have no desire to derail this thread any further, so this will be my final response to this off-topic tangent.

The answer is yes.

At the end of the day, the choice and the decision of whether or not to use drugs rests solely with the individual. If someone truly intends to use, the only way to effectively intervene is to provide them with precise information that allows them to rationally weigh which substances are acceptable and which are not to avoid becoming an addict.

What society must offer (specifically to young people) is the opportunity to make that choice based on accurate, scientific, and above all, HONEST information regarding what each drug actually does. This necessitates including both the negative and the positive aspects of substance use.

As I have already pointed out, never do we hear public narratives about successful individuals who use drugs recreationally—and why is that? If there are people out there who know how to manage their usage (and they certainly exist), why are we only presented with half the picture? Is that fair? Is it unbiased? Is it honest or accurate?

Only when we stop lying to children by claiming that all drugs are identical and inherently evil will we see actual progress, because young people will finally regain trust in the institutions speaking to them. The statistics showing an increasing number of kids experimenting clearly point to one logical conclusion: the addiction prevention programs in America are utilizing a flawed methodology and require a complete overhaul. When a strategy fails to yield results, you change the approach.

Currently, kids simply do not believe what they are being told because their own experiences following a single joint are far more positive and significantly less damaging than the horror stories being shoved down their throats. They sit in classrooms hearing that marijuana is a gateway to heroin, yet they realize through their own lived experience that such claims are blatant lies. Or they hear that in some parts of the world marijuana is legal, leading them to wonder how that is possible if the absolute truth is that all drugs must be shunned.

Children are not stupid, and right now, the combination of dishonesty and condescension found in "Just Say No" campaigns achieves nothing but the exact opposite effect.

Following that logic, their thought process becomes: "If they are lying to me about weed, why on earth should I trust them when they talk about heroin?"

Most effective addiction prevention programs globally are nothing more than unbiased, scientific, and accurate information campaigns that don't just harp on the negatives, but instead provide comprehensive data so that when people do come into contact with drugs, they can decide based on facts rather than the folksy, misguided rhetoric of Kamala Harris or Harriet Tubman.

To illustrate exactly what I am talking about, I highly recommend browsing the Talk to Frank website (a UK government project).

The site provides unbiased, scientifically backed and accurate information regarding the effects of every drug (including the positives!!!), potential dependency, risks, costs, and legal regulations.

For comparison, this is the response from the US Government to the same question.

Regarding the quality of the information provided, the difference is staggering!!

The principle is simple: those who want to use drugs will use them. However, it is the duty of society to provide those people with accurate information and minimize the health risks associated with drug use, if preventing the use itself is not an option.

In the context of this discussion, opening the SSI is one part of fulfilling that societal obligation.