Off-Topic Fentanyl

[ben]

Jason Rantz is from Seattle and pretty reliable. But in the article there is a video right below the part on the Brad guy. Click and watch that and the first guy talking introduces himself as Brad Feingood

Brad exists but he is not encouraging addicts to avoid treatment. The Jason guy’s article is a really good example of ****** and intentionally divisive journalism.

 

[ithacane]

Brad exists but he is not encouraging addicts to avoid treatment. The Jason guy’s article is a really good example of ****** and intentionally divisive journalism.

The article is pointing out that during the meeting they were talking about giving away pipes to smoke instead of inject the drugs. If you listen to the lady at the end for the last minute and a half she repeats that people aren’t going to stop using drugs.

The point of the article and it’s not false… is that they are coming up with other ways to use drugs which MAY OR MAY NOT be less deadly according to their statistics. They talk about abstinence… but they don’t talk about treatment

I think it’s a fair point the article is making. Maybe smoking instead of needles is better… but the article is pointing out that they are not proposing treatment but instead of freeing free supplies to continue using drugs

One thing I know for sure… since drug rules were loosened by law enforcement and they started offering drug injection sites in cities… this has definitely not helped the drug problem

Take a look at the streets of San Fran and other cities where you have kids walking home from the school bus past homeless shooting up and fighting each other

 

[ben]

The article is pointing out that during the meeting they were talking about giving away pipes to smoke instead of inject the drugs. If you listen to the lady at the end for the last minute and a half she repeats that people aren’t going to stop using drugs.

The point of the article and it’s not false… is that they are coming up with other ways to use drugs which MAY OR MAY NOT be less deadly according to their statistics. They talk about abstinence… but they don’t talk about treatment

I think it’s a fair point the article is making. Maybe smoking instead of needles is better… but the article is pointing out that they are not proposing treatment but instead of freeing free supplies to continue using drugs

One thing I know for sure… since drug rules were loosened by law enforcement and they started offering drug injection sites in cities… this has definitely not helped the drug problem

Take a look at the streets of San Fran and other cities where you have kids walking home from the school bus past homeless shooting up and fighting each other

the article is creating a narrow definition for treatment that is intentionally divisive. it does not explore the values of the work people do and instead chooses to spin it in a way that makes them sound irresponsible, when the opposite is true -- these are literally the people who for their lives' work are helping addicts.

the article literally brings forward no solution of merit. it is intentionally divisive, worthless journalism.

 

[Brains]

I'm not going to save anyone from their habits, and I'm not going to pretend that I can, or that I even want to. Maybe we should all stop pretending that elected officials can, either.

 

[ithacane]

the article is creating a narrow definition for treatment that is intentionally divisive. it does not explore the values of the work people do and instead chooses to spin it in a way that makes them sound irresponsible, when the opposite is true -- these are literally the people who for their lives' work are helping addicts.

the article literally brings forward no solution of merit. it is intentionally divisive, worthless journalism.

I appreciate your opinion on it, but why do u call it divisive? Isn’t it just an opinion from someone who thinks that the people in this meeting aren’t helping but instead hurting the drug situation?

Sure, these people are paid to come up with solutions… and good on them for trying. But isn’t it fine to criticize the approach they have if you don’t agree with it?

 

[ben]

I appreciate your opinion on it, but why do u call it divisive? Isn’t it just an opinion from someone who thinks that the people in this meeting aren’t helping but instead hurting the drug situation?

Sure, these people are paid to come up with solutions… and good on them for trying. But isn’t it fine to criticize the approach they have if you don’t agree with it?

It is fine to disagree with an approach, but it is framed disingenuously. It reminds me of how liberal media spins any discussion of increasing security at schools as only adding to a gun problem without any acknowledgement of potential benefit — which is a divisive narrative as well.

 

[ithacane]

It is fine to disagree with an approach, but it is framed disingenuously. It reminds me of how liberal media spins any discussion of increasing security at schools as only adding to a gun problem without any acknowledgement of potential benefit — which is a divisive narrative as well.

Again… it’s just his opinion. Maybe I missed the part u are talking about, but what is framed disingenuously?

Just him talking about them not trying to treat the drug users? I mean… they aren’t and they admit that they are only trying to get them to smoke instead of shoot up

Again it’s an opinion piece and the guy disagrees with their approach to the drug crisis in Seattle. He even includes the full video for context in the link so people can make their own opinions on it

 

[ben]

Again… it’s just his opinion. Maybe I missed the part u are talking about, but what is framed disingenuously?

Just him talking about them not trying to treat the drug users? I mean… they aren’t and they admit that they are only trying to get them to smoke instead of shoot up

Again it’s an opinion piece and the guy disagrees with their approach to the drug crisis in Seattle. He even includes the full video for context in the link so people can make their own opinions on it

But they ARE treating drug users. They work for organizations whose sole goal is to treat drug users. They employ a variety of methods. His article gives no context on who they are or what they do, and no link or reference to their work. And that’s because to do so would undermine the author’s goal of telling an intentionally partial story to rile up his reader base for clicks. He is profiting off fear mongering. I’m not down with that.

 

[OriginalCanesCanesCanes]

the article is creating a narrow definition for treatment that is intentionally divisive. it does not explore the values of the work people do and instead chooses to spin it in a way that makes them sound irresponsible, when the opposite is true -- these are literally the people who for their lives' work are helping addicts.

the article literally brings forward no solution of merit. it is intentionally divisive, worthless journalism.

You’re right, it may very well be intentionally divisive and worthless journalism.

We all know the rule is that only one side can get to do that type of journalism. The other side can’t fight back.

 

[ben]

You’re right, it may very well be intentionally divisive and worthless journalism.

We all know the rule is that only one side can get to do that type of journalism. The other side can’t fight back.

Trust me my friend, I have several far left liberals in my family who waste their time with Rachel Maddow et al. I miss the days of great even handed journalism.

 

[ithacane]

But they ARE treating drug users. They work for organizations whose sole goal is to treat drug users. They employ a variety of methods. His article gives no context on who they are or what they do, and no link or reference to their work. And that’s because to do so would undermine the author’s goal of telling an intentionally partial story to rile up his reader base for clicks. He is profiting off fear mongering. I’m not down with that.

Yeah but in the video when asked about what else they are doing… the 4 of them only talk about abstinence or having them smoke instead of shoot up. I can’t remember but thought there was a question of treatment and they gave no explanation of any treatments they were doing besides handing out pipes to smoke

They could have talked about what else they are doing to help the situation