Hey, do you need a crack pipe?
- Thread starter IBleedMaroonDawg
- Start date
In response to this statement from Dorndawg's questioning how somebody could opposed the referenced vending machine with crack pipes:
You responded with this:
And in a subsequent post in the same thread stated:
How is my characterization of what you said anything other than a fair?
Why? Because they do stories that CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ect. censor because it doesn't fit their agenda?
These "giving away crack pipes" comments lack a metric crap ton of context. They're not giving away pipes and saying "go nuts." They are giving away safe smoking kits and the pipes and stems in them are designed to be safer to use and will hopefully cut down on overdose deaths - which shouldn't be a controversial goal.
It's basically saying "Don't smoke crack but if you do, please do it as safely as possible." It's an acknowledgement of the real world we are living in and not subjecting people who ultimately need help to a simplistic, moralistic "just say no" approach while withholding the help they need.
It's not dissimilar to making condoms available to teenagers in recognition of the fact that abstinence only education doesn't work. Teenagers are going to have sex. They should do it as safely as possible.
It's basically saying "Don't smoke crack but if you do, please do it as safely as possible." It's an acknowledgement of the real world we are living in and not subjecting people who ultimately need help to a simplistic, moralistic "just say no" approach while withholding the help they need.
It's not dissimilar to making condoms available to teenagers in recognition of the fact that abstinence only education doesn't work. Teenagers are going to have sex. They should do it as safely as possible.
Where are you getting the "...don't smoke crack..." part of your interpretation? I don't really see that as part of their message.
on a pig 
Bingo.
Get ready for some full on propaganda from the “media” between now and election cycle 2024.
It is for more than you know. Like someone getting 3 bullets in the back in South Jackson 3 years ago today!
Let me help you with a much better solution.
Slow down illegal immigration and protect our border.
Choices have consequences.
They are sometimes harsh and sad but they are still a fact of life.
eliminate consequences and more people will make bad choices.
I’ve read the whole thread including your posts that followed this one. But what posts preceding this quote of yours prompted you to go about singling out Christians so abruptly? Are all Christians opposed to this? Are all non-Christians in favor of it? Is it objectively wrong to think there are better ways to help drug users?
While I agree with you that “elder brothers” are a deep, deep problem in the Church (in fact, likely an inherent problem as evidenced by it being the theme of Jesus’s most famous parable), I find your immediate attack on Christians at the outset of the thread vindictive and just peculiar. Why go straight there?
Last edited:
Why don’t you just come on out and say whatever is you want to say?
Are you saying that for a person to view natural selection as real, they must not help others?They can’t keep theirstraight.
most inconsistent hypocritical bunch ever.
Why can't part of natural selection be that a person chooses to help others?
I have to think it is implied. Show me a city that says 'do smoke crack'. Until the time when I see one, I will use basic logic and determine that the default view of city leadership across the country is that all would rather people not smoke crack.
Diseased animals suffer and some die. Thought that was pretty clear.
The War on Drugs has been just as futile, destructive, dishonest and corrupt as The War on Poverty. Meanwhile Child Sex Slavery has multiplied exponentially by Team Biden's Open Border so I couldn't give 2 schits about a crackhead getting a free pipe.
You had me into that last paragraph. This is nothing like giving people condoms so they can have safe sex. Nothing at all. Yes, it's giving them a safer alternative, but it's not the same as helping you wrap your Johnson.
If you want to see the world explode, put some free condom machines as well. There would be an enormous explosion.
Yea, the laptop was sad, no? So I presume you are saying the story is Fake News?
You think a free vending machine full of crack stuff says “don’t smoke crack” more than it says “do smoke crack”?
more sound logic
You’re looking at it from a moral standpoint that people shouldn’t be doing drugs. I don’t disagree with that.
Just look at it from a public health standpoint. That’s what is meant by it’s no different than handing out free condoms. It’s an effort to help people do something more safely. You even said it in your post “yes, it’s giving them a safer alternative”… right there that’s the whole point of the vending machine.
You don't need to look at it from a moral standpoint to think it's a bad idea. When you lower the cost of something, you generally get more of it. Whether you generate enough benefits to offset the additional harms is an empirical question. Even making Narcan readily available, which seems like a no brainer, reduces the perceived cost of doing opiates by reducing the expected harm from OD'ing, and could in theory result in enough extra drug usage to offset the benefits. And while you'd think drug users wouldn't be engaging in a cost benefit analysis that is comprehensive enough to take things like that into account, it is surprising how much people react to what you would think would be attenuated incentives when they seemingly ignore or fail to take into account much more obvious information.
I’m not entirely sure I understand what you’re saying here. Are you saying providing narcan eliminates a risk and as a result drug users are more likely to use drugs? I don’t have any expectations of a drug user, especially a drug user so bad off that they are getting something from a vending machine, to do a cost benefit analysis. Do obese people visit the all you can eat catfish buffet more often because cholesterol and blood pressure medicine are available relatively cheap? Or do you think obese would just keep eating too much and die earlier if the medicine was not available.
Again, I’m not advocating that is something that will provide any good at all, but I think we can all agree the status quo is not working. And I agree with a lot of what has been said in terms of the only way to really lower drug use is to eliminate the inflow of it to the country.
You wouldn't expect it, but you might be surprised. But also it's not just people that are already at the point of being addicted that matter. Anything that reduces the overall costs and makes people more likely to start using will marginally increase the number of problem users.
That's an empirical question and I'm not sure how you'd even test it, but my guess is that as irrational as it seems because you'd think just a longer and healthier life would be all the incentive you need, the availability of better healthcare does likely have a sort of Peltzman effect on people's behavior.
I don't have a particular problem with this program as I'd guess on net it probably is almost a wash, and just not actively causing net harm would make it a better than average government program, but in general, I would say the impulse of "We should do something; this is something; we should do this" in the government setting is an incredibly destructive force and has caused a ridiculous amount of human misery.
Ok, no need to argue about this, but handing out free crack pipes seems to me to imply "SMOKE CRACK" more than it says "DON'T SMOKE CRACK".
I must be missing something.
ETA: Sorry, one more thought for clarity. I know the theory that some espouse: "Well, they're going to do it anyway, so might as well help them do it safely". And also, "We hand out condoms in school for the same reason". So I'll preemptively answer that argument: I disagree with that line of reasoning. I don't think we should "help" them do it safely. I think we should hold the line as a society. Keep telling them how bad it is for them. Keep showing examples of how it kills people. If individuals keep making horrible decisions, well, that's part of life here on earth. They will have to deal with the consequences, just like I do when I make bad choices (which I have). It's sad. I hate it for them. I don't want them to make those decisions. I also disagree with handing out condoms for the same reason. I see it as enabling destructive behavior, and I am against that in all forms.
Last edited:
It almost sounds like the cruelty is the point.
It's not that you're missing anything but you're being overly simplistic and/or idealistic. Your view of it as "enabling destructive behavior" doesn't actually solve any problems.
I like you and I refuse to believe you really think that. I edited the post for context so maybe that helps.
I don't understand the point you're making here. There have been free condoms available for decades. Free condoms are so widely available - even in Mississippi - that I'm not even sure why they're sold anymore. I think there are even free condoms in the vending machines that are the subject of this thread. The world hasn't "exploded" whatever that means.
Sort of like the heaven thread, to me, this topic comes down to, how do you get the best outcome for the most people. So.....I'm more concerned with the random people walking by who might get robbed or knifed by a homeless person, rather than a homeless person who has chosen drugs, for whatever reason. And in helping deter that crime, if it helps the homeless person too, then that's a positive ancillary function.
So, does this help keep society safe? Meh, probably not. So I don't really have an opinion. If someone, even the government, wants to help homeless drug addicts, fine by me.
So, does this help keep society safe? Meh, probably not. So I don't really have an opinion. If someone, even the government, wants to help homeless drug addicts, fine by me.
Giving people a "safe" alternative to drugs isn't "safe". It MAY be "safer", but if the safe alternative creates more drug users, its a net loss.
I really dont think that vending machine says 'do smoke crack'. I also dont think the vending machine says 'dont smoke crack'.
I think the existence of the vending machine is due to people recognizing that the way society, police, and cities have tried to combat hard drug use has not worked, so maybe something different will work.
If there is such a crack problem BEFORE the vending machine exists that people think a vending machine with narcan and clean pipes will help reduce ODing, then it should be clear that the old way wasnt working. The old way got us to where we are now- a lost war with endless money being wasted.
I have no idea if this vending machine idea is will work or wont work. I do know that the problem was already so bad that people thought it would be good to try this, so that should say something about how not offering free narcan and pipes has worked.
This is a really sad reality to even discuss. Truly, its crazy that this is being discussed at all and I hope we as a society continue to try to find effective ways to reduce destructive drug dependence and the awful effects that follow.
We can keep telling people how bad crack is for them, but I dont think that will actually stop someone from smoking crack. I hear it, along with cocaine, is a helluva drug.
Nobody who smokes crack thinks its healthy. And they are very aware it can kill people.
Your suggestions are that we bring awareness when everyone is already aware. Addiction makes you not care enough to stop, in spite of the danger.
As for handing out condoms, dude- its 2023. Falwell's Moral Majorty died off in the late 80s and educating kids about reproductive health and safety is clearly the best way to ensure they are responsible and safe during their lives. Access to inexpensive and safe contraceptives has been shown to be a vital part of reducing STD/STIs and unwanted pregnancy.
Sex isnt a destructive behavior- 17 that. Good lord, how is this even something anyone is discussing at this point in time?