![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
Christ, what an asshole
Dear Annie: I live on the West Coast where the unhoused population continues to increase every year, along with a massive fentanyl addiction issue. I am well aware that not all unhoused people are addicts, but I also have enough experience interacting with this subset of the community to know that many of the people who walk around asking for money do have an addiction, whether it may be fentanyl, alcohol or something else.
My question is whether you have a suggested response that conveys "no" without saying "sorry"? I feel very weird apologizing for not giving money to these people who I have a very specific reason to not give money to, but "sorry" is the only response I have observed from family, friends and co-workers when out and about. And, admittedly, as a woman sometimes walking alone, it doesn't always feel like "no" is necessarily a safe choice, as it seems like it could be perceived as confrontational by the asker (and I also admit that could be in my head, as I haven't been willing to try!).
Do you think a "no" by itself could be fine, or do you have another suggestion? -- Donating to Charity, not Addiction
Dear Donating to Charity: I do think a "no" can be a bit harsh to say to someone who is asking you for money on the streets, but you are right to donate to charity rather than street hustlers. Addiction is a disease, and many of these people are suffering very terrible symptoms of the disease, and they won't get any treatment if they stay on the streets. "I'm sorry" might be a slightly more polite way to turn down a sick person who is struggling to live.
You might consider getting involved in community affairs or local politics, where homelessness has become a major issue, not just in the state you live in but across the nation.
Link
My question is whether you have a suggested response that conveys "no" without saying "sorry"? I feel very weird apologizing for not giving money to these people who I have a very specific reason to not give money to, but "sorry" is the only response I have observed from family, friends and co-workers when out and about. And, admittedly, as a woman sometimes walking alone, it doesn't always feel like "no" is necessarily a safe choice, as it seems like it could be perceived as confrontational by the asker (and I also admit that could be in my head, as I haven't been willing to try!).
Do you think a "no" by itself could be fine, or do you have another suggestion? -- Donating to Charity, not Addiction
Dear Donating to Charity: I do think a "no" can be a bit harsh to say to someone who is asking you for money on the streets, but you are right to donate to charity rather than street hustlers. Addiction is a disease, and many of these people are suffering very terrible symptoms of the disease, and they won't get any treatment if they stay on the streets. "I'm sorry" might be a slightly more polite way to turn down a sick person who is struggling to live.
You might consider getting involved in community affairs or local politics, where homelessness has become a major issue, not just in the state you live in but across the nation.
Link
no subject
Also, Annie has NO FUCKING CLUE. "They won't get any treatment if they stay on the street" -- GUESS WHAT, it's not even all that easy to access treatment if you have a solid job and a house, because you put yourself at risk of losing those things if you go inpatient or have to go to a methadone clinic daily (which is also hugely stigmatizing.)
As it turns out, you 100% can lose your job if you seek treatment, so the idea that it's just waiting for anyone who "wants to" try to overcome an addiction is bullshit. It's also expensive, and there are waiting lists for placements.
Anyone who says this kind of thing doesn't have firsthand knowledge of a friend or loved one who is struggling with addiction and TRYING to get the help they need.
no subject
but I used to work for the Health Department's National Illicit Drugs Strategy
and there is a ***dire*** shortage of affordable addiction treatment available worldwide, including the US and Australia. To be honest, the best access to affordable addiction treatment in Australia is in prison. :(
Also, there are long waiting lists for many programs (outside of prison)
Also, some programs have been caught doing deep dodginess - there was one program in Australia (NOT in prison) that was caught getting lots of compulsory unpaid labour out of people who were in the residential treatment program on the grounds that it was "good for them" - the addiction service (which was getting government money!) was hiring out people in the residential treatment program to third party businesses. The third party businesses were paying for the labour, but the people in the treatment program didn't see a cent, the addiction service was pocketing it all, even though they were already being paid by the government. Any one who complained about the compulsory unpaid labour got thrown out of the program. It ended up being a scandal in the news.
no subject
no subject
a) everyone entering has to have their head shaved as a sign of "a committent to a fresh start"
b) everyone has to attend compulsory Sunday church services every week, regardless of their religion or lack of religion
:(
no subject
no subject
Unfortunately, pretty much all residential care for drug treatment in Australia
falls into
a) very expensive and only for the rich
b) very religious
c) you have to be in jail to access it
I am very unhappy about this state of affairs
(I would also like to see lots of drugs decriminalised as criminal laws are a major barrier to accessing treatment)
no subject
100% agree. The situation is horrible and victimizes people further who just need help. Decriminalization is probably a necessary step to fixing these problems worldwide.
no subject
has recently started a new program
where small, personal use quantities of eg marijuana, cocaine etc
trigger a fine, and not a jail sentence
I think this is a good first step.
Personally, I would like to see a situation where personal use quantities did not trigger any legal consequences as long as
1. not being supplied to people under 18
2. not driving a car, motorcycle, or other heavy machinery while intoxicated
3. not consuming in public places - eg no forcing everyone on the bus/train to breathe in your marijuana smoke
I say this as someone who has never used drugs or alcohol, but who has been to conferences where experts in drug and alcohol harm minimisation presented their research
no subject
the state government runs a program that provides safe heroin injecting rooms
where people bring heroin that they have obtained by themselves
and inject it themselves, but in a room under the supervision of a paid staff member with medical training
the aim is
1. to prevent deaths from accidental overdoses - the staff members have Narcan to hand and can do CPR
2. to ensure that people use clean needles/syringes to reduce the risk of transmission of Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, and HIV, and to reduce the risk of infection
3. to provide an opportunity to gently and respectfully nudge IV drug users towards treatment options
the program has been a massive success - among other things, it means less deaths from accidental overdoses, but also less ambulance call outs -
so much so that the State government approved funding for opening a second site
but the problem is that all of the residents/businesses near the first site hate it being there
and no one wants to have their home/business near a second site either :(
no subject
We have a seriously Puritan streak about punishing people who suffer from addiction, rather than offering help.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject