“Let me inject heroin in a safe place, it’s my citizen right”

A few months ago, I came across some videos where in some cities (I can’t remember where in the U.S.) they created a space where people could come in and use illegal drugs and in case they overdosed they had professionals there to help them right away. A few questions came to my mind as I watched these videos: What is the purpose of creating these “safe places”? Who is paying for the building, staff, professionals? And wouldn’t creating spaces like these just encourage people to continue to use drugs, seeing that there are no consequences?

As I was wondering on what topic to write about I came across this topic once again “Should cities open drug ‘safe places’ where people who are addicted to illegal drugs can use them under the supervision of medical professionals?” I imagine addiction can be a very difficult thing to live with, maybe it was easy to fall into addiction and now it’s difficult to come out of it. And I believe that if cities do open spaces like these, they would just encourage the use of those drugs. Why not create more programs of help? If someone wants to change for the better and quit addictions they will seek help. But how can we help those who don’t want to be helped? By opening up a space so they can freely inject those drugs? What’s next, providing the drugs for them?

Some might argue, “opening a safe place will allow people to come in and be protected from the bad people out there. From people who want to abuse them, steal from them, and maybe even kill them”. Yet, shouldn’t these reasons/circumstances push the people, who are addicted to illegal drugs, to make a positive change for their lives? To run away from that life and pursue some positive goals or career?  

Perhaps I’m missing some info and I would like to see, read, and hear the point of view from someone who supports the opening of these “safe spaces”. But if the opening of these places, to have the staff, and with medical professionals (which we know won’t be cheap) is coming out of our pockets, citizens who work hard to earn their money and pay their bills, I don’t imagine many people agreeing with the opening of these spaces.

We live in some very interesting times. With there being so many other things that we could work on, just as one example, free college education. Why not provide the opportunity for many people to receive a very good and free education, to have a well-educated and knowledgeable country? Feeding the hungry? Amongst many many other things to work on. But maybe there is a very good outcome for opening these spaces, like I said earlier, some information that I may be missing. I would really enjoy reading about it. How would opening up these places be beneficial to our society?

Aid for a positive change?

Until what point, can or should, the US support and help other countries? This question crossed my mind as I read: “Build Central America, Not a Wall” a critique published on February 25, 2019 by The Editorial Board on The New York Times.

If it was brought to a smaller scale, for example, lets say the writers, of these comments on this article, have a house and people just start to come over to stay in their home. Would they be happy to feed them, support them, and cover their expenses? Where would the writers get the resources to support the people? It’s easy to make an opinion and say “support this” “support that” “support them” etc. when the help is not being provided only by the writers, to the people.

The U.S. has many problems of its own, many things they need to take care of, how can someone (whether it’s a person or country) be able to help others when they themselves need help?

“President Trump chose on Monday to reaffirm his punitive bent, complaining about the exodus of migrants and saying he told the leaders of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, whose countries receive millions of dollars in annual aid, “We’re not sending it anymore.” But what if the United States truly prioritized helping these nations?”

The writers said “…prioritized helping…” yet, these countries have been helped and continue to be helped till this day. If these countries have been receiving millions of dollars annually, for some time now, then why is there no change? Why do people continue to flee their homeland seeking a better future? Where is all the aid and money going to? I suspect that it’s due to so much corruption. The government of these countries probably keeps the money for themselves instead of helping their people. Corruption is a major problem in many central and southern countries, and it’s happened in the past; where aid is sent but it doesn’t reach nor is given to those who are in need.

It’s very heartbreaking to see a government/leader whose love for money is greater than love for their people. They would rather feast and dine like kings, from the money that was sent to aid the poor and needy, than to help them out.

“Plagued by corruption, violence and gang terror…”

Yes, this article mentions the corruption and violence faced in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, but these are problems that need to be addressed within the country, within the leaders and by the leaders.

“…need stronger and more honest judges and police officers, better schools and economic development.”

Yes, there need to be honest judges, police officers, and people of authority. Also better schools, etc. so why not make propositions? Such as: if the country doesn’t improve in areas of corruption, education, poverty, etc. then the aid will be taken away, or less aid will be given. Why is this not addressed in a meeting of some sort between the U.S. president and the presidents/leaders of these nations?

“In the end, it is Central American leaders who must carry out reforms. They are more apt to do that with international support.”

I absolutely agree in the first part of this sentence (that Central American leaders should be the ones to make the changes) the changes to improve their country. But how much more help do they want? Because if the leaders continue to be corrupt and keep most, if not all, the money then there will be no real positive change.

It’s like having someone who asks for money all the time instead of going out into the world and finding ways to make money, to self-support. Anyone would be happy to just stay on the couch at home all day and receive money, not having to worry about doing anything or paying bills. But if that money is reduced or taken away then the person, due to their needs and survival, will get up and work to get money (making a positive change).

Similar to this, if the aid is removed, then that might make/motivate those leaders to rise up, action, and make a positive change. If the leaders don’t want to, nor rise up, and make the changes no matter how much “international support” they receive, they will just sit back and do nothing to help the country. It’s not only a matter of needing the resources/aid but also wanting/desiring to help their people.