MYYYYYYYYYYYY promoting drug use??!! :D
this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2025
808 points (96.2% liked)
memes
15286 readers
4950 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The last panel reminded me of almost 20 years ago when the HPV vaccine first came available. Here in the US I remember the conservative backlash over it.
It wasn't the same as today where conservatives reject the COVID vaccine because that's how they prove to themselves that their freedom and bodily autonomy are intact or some shit. It was much more along the lines of how they like to see people suffer as long as they can tell themselves it was justified.
So it was basically "my daughter isn't getting it because she doesn't need it and isn't a slut," and of course they meant it in the way that anybody who IS a slut deserves to be punished with cervical cancer. Back then they didn't always say the quiet part out loud.
Interesting, in Canada the only backlash I really heard (and from my own mother) was that it was too new and we weren't sure of the longer term effects. I got it anyway since it was being offered for free to people my age (I remember jokes about being guinea pigs). I don't have HPV and the vaccine doesn't seem to have killed me yet so win-win I guess.
"Increase social service programs so that we address the reason why they're homeless and doing drugs in the first place."
"No, that's socialism and Fox News tells me I should be scared of that word!"
I don't want to pay for other peoples' healthcare so I'd rather pay a lot more for an oppressive police force that also takes away my civil rights.
While still paying for other people's healthcare because that's how insurance works.
Not to mention the societal costs that inevitably come from people being sick
The real "fiscal conservatives" are the "bleeding-heart liberals."
Turns out, productivity soars when you have a well rested, well compensated, well treated, healthy, and housed people who don't have constant stessors of literally every aspect of their lives nearly crumbling beneath them...
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
That's why the bathrooms will show ads 24/7 and the drug safe zones will feature loot drop microtransactions. All participating companies will receive carbon credits. Time to capitalize socialism.
"Increase social service programs so that we address the reason why they're homeless and doing drugs in the first place."
If conservatives were really about ending homelessness and getting them paying taxes instead of 'just' consuming benefits, then they'd be in on this plan of phased rehab and rehousing to accomplish that. It's an investment they don't seem to see and I worry they look down on addict as trash not victims, and merely want the homeless* to silently vanish.
*I know it's not the latest popular word that privileged people use to feel better. Homeless apparently aren't offended as long as people are talking about the situation and investing time in their future, because stick and stones.
load more comments
(6 replies)
you're*
If you believe that laws forbidding gambling, sale of liquor, sale of contraceptives, requiring definite closing hours, enforcing the Sabbath, or any such, are necessary to the welfare of your community, that is your right and I do not ask you to surrender your beliefs or give up your efforts to put over such laws. But remember that such laws are, at most, a preliminary step in doing away with the evils they indict. Moral evils can never be solved by anything as easy as passing laws alone. If you aid in passing such laws without bothering to follow through by digging in to the involved questions of sociology, economics, and psychology which underlie the causes of the evils you are gunning for, you will not only fail to correct the evils you sought to prohibit but will create a dozen new evils as well.
—Robert A. Heinlein, Take Back Your Government
That sounds like something Heinlein would write during his earlier days. I completely agree with both the argument and reasoning, even tho he turned anti-Communist and insane before he wrote that.
Funny thing! Here's a quote from the same book:
Of what use, then, are the American Communists?
They serve one function extremely useful to you and to the country, so useful that, if there were no Communists, we would almost be forced to create some. They are a reliable litmus paper for detecting real sources of danger to the Republic.
Communism is so repugnant to almost all Americans, when they are getting along even tolerably well, that one may predict with certainty that any social field or group in which the Communists make real strides in gaining members or acceptance of their doctrines, any such spot is in such bad shape from real and not imaginary social ills that the rest of us should take emergency, drastic action to investigate and correct the trouble.
Unfortunately we are more prone to ignore the sick spot thus disclosed and content ourselves with calling out more cops.
I mean, Lemmy itself was created by Communists if I'm correct
Honestly a great point. No one wants to create a glorious revolution when their lives are going well.
The real anti homeless infrastructure is cheap or free housing
You forgot to add "in city centers". Nobody wants free housing where it's already cheap.
I live out in the boonies. It's cheaper here, but not really when you factor in the costs of travel to get literally anything. Your money is just going into different pockets.
Depends on the country, "cheap" in NL is still like 150k for a one bedroom appartment in de "middle of knowwhere"
load more comments
(3 replies)
Let's consider a tax on vacant homes. If landlords got charged market rent for vacancies the house prices would plummet.
Grace to second homeowners or set-length renovations.
Why grace to send homeowners? Tax those people, nobody needs to own a second house and pay some form of reduced taxes. Tax it at the same rate money on the bank is taxed (if not already) and if it is rented out, tax that rent income as well.
You're right. It should be all 2+ homeowners. I gave the concession because my target is the ultra rich and the rich, not just the boomers that bought at the right time and have holiday homes.
In my head I could see if we all pushed for 2+ homes instead of 3+ homes then the result would be only to tax the second home and not the 3rd, 4th, etc.
Although the best result would be to tax the 2+, i need to attack the rich and ultra rich right now. Those fuckers are really ruining it for the rest of us
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(21 replies)
*you're
Drug use rooms?
Why not give all people living in a country homes to live in and be done with it?
Not sure if it is that easy to just built housing for everybody (excluding those 2 people in the entirety of NL who choose to be fully homeless). At least speaking from a NL point of view. If you have no income and you don't have assets you get money and the ability to rent something. It isn't a lot of money, but it should be enough to survive. This is sayiong that if you are actually Dutch and not somebody who came from another country without going through the system to get either asylum or become Dutch.
However, it is really hard to find housing for people in general. Even harder if you earn just enough to not have any rights for social security.
I believe the people who want to do drugs here in NL have the ability to do so in coffee shops (the drug serving once)
That is one option, yes.
But safe injection sites are a good idea even when you're housed.
In germany they even provide safe syringes, I was impressed when I saw those dispensers in public WCs.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Ladies and gents and everything in-between. The drugs are going to get used no matter what.
Just give them somewhere to do them.
load more comments
(7 replies)
Drug use room work, ive recently seen a documentary about one in Switzerland and they give people the possibility to consume safely.
... with a panic button and much greater access to addiction resources.
If there are 10 steps to turning a homeless person into a housed, working taxpayer, this is like step 2.
Canada has failed to move to step 3 because "just arrest those leeches" is the position of half our society.
We had some in my state and they were all closed down to to crimes like fighting and people setting up camp basically at or around the place
As mentioned before in this thread, that is because the rooms themselves aren't sufficient, investment in social care involved with the operation of them is as important.
Add in "we can't give them drugs that stop overdoses because they'll just want to overdose more"
load more comments
(1 replies)
The language of the left in America has been so thoroughly played with by the right we have to go to absurd lengths to try and communicate any policy approach that involves public interest.
Someone should create safe injection sites and call them "jails" and then I bet right wingers would be all over letting addicts go to jails for "short term incarceration".
Better yet, create ultra low security "prisons" that allow "prisoners" to have "unescorted temporary absences" but really they're just free homes for the unhoused and they can sign in and out as they please.
I think that's the language those people prefer.
view more: next ›