I wonder if commenters here went beyond the headline, or bothered to read the quote in the comments.
The actual quote is not remotely as sinister. He said that he will start these community farms (which is not a labour camp for f sake) where addicts (which is not everyone who takes meds, it’s those who do but shouldn’t, of which there are thousands) can voluntarily choose to go, which is a far cry from “I’ll shove anybody who takes antidepressants into a labour camp” as the title suggests.
There are a lot of people who take meds from dealers instead of doctors, who may have started recreationally but are now addicted to them. This is what he is lumping together with other kinds of drug addicts. It’s not even that stupid, it has been shown in studies that addiction is more effectively addressed by giving the person meaningful things to do.
Now you can have your opinion on this idea and you can be skeptical of his implementation and you really should, the guy is a nut job who shouldn’t be allowed within ten kilometres from a government office - but sending regular joes to concentration camps because they take meds is not what he said.
Yeah honestly it sounds like a government program I’d support if it was proposed by someone like Barack Obama. So 🤷. I hope it’s successful and that they look at introducing more government-led programs and initiatives for people in need (I’m not holding my breath)
Yep, this sounds like the harm reduction approach that the left has been advocating for. It sounds like these are alternatives to prison for people with addictions. Not saying he’ll be able to make it work, but “tax cannabis + harm reduction” is much better than what a lot of Republicans’ drug policies are.
RFK wants to ban legal medications and his multiple other statements make it clear he thinks organic food can replace them. That’s creating clear harms for people.
He may envision this as a voluntary commune but in reality once he has government backing these could be something non consensual. We already have NYPD forcing people into homeless shelters involuntarily. It’s worrisome coming from an openly authoritarian administration.
I wonder if commenters here went beyond the headline, or bothered to read the quote in the comments.
The actual quote is not remotely as sinister. He said that he will start these community farms (which is not a labour camp for f sake) where addicts (which is not everyone who takes meds, it’s those who do but shouldn’t, of which there are thousands) can voluntarily choose to go, which is a far cry from “I’ll shove anybody who takes antidepressants into a labour camp” as the title suggests.
There are a lot of people who take meds from dealers instead of doctors, who may have started recreationally but are now addicted to them. This is what he is lumping together with other kinds of drug addicts. It’s not even that stupid, it has been shown in studies that addiction is more effectively addressed by giving the person meaningful things to do.
Now you can have your opinion on this idea and you can be skeptical of his implementation and you really should, the guy is a nut job who shouldn’t be allowed within ten kilometres from a government office - but sending regular joes to concentration camps because they take meds is not what he said.
This title is rage bait, don’t fall for it.
Yeah honestly it sounds like a government program I’d support if it was proposed by someone like Barack Obama. So 🤷. I hope it’s successful and that they look at introducing more government-led programs and initiatives for people in need (I’m not holding my breath)
Sad that I had to scroll all the way to the bottom to find someone who actually read the article. Has Lemmy become reddit?
Always has been
Yep, this sounds like the harm reduction approach that the left has been advocating for. It sounds like these are alternatives to prison for people with addictions. Not saying he’ll be able to make it work, but “tax cannabis + harm reduction” is much better than what a lot of Republicans’ drug policies are.
The problem is:
I don’t disagree with either of those points, I just don’t think they’re supported in the article. That’s why it’s rage bait.
And yet downvotes are pouring 🫠
You were right about it being rage bait, too bad everyone fell for it.