Previous post
Free crack pipes will be handed out starting in May courtesy of a federal grant program. Only one catch, the free crack pipe distribution must be done in the name of “racial equity.”
The $30 million grant program, which closed applications Monday and will begin in May, will provide funds to nonprofits and local governments to help make drug use safer for addicts. Included in the grant, which is overseen by the Department of Health and Human Services, are funds for “smoking kits/supplies.” A spokesman for the agency told the Washington Free Beacon that these kits will provide pipes for users to smoke crack cocaine, crystal methamphetamine, and “any illicit substance.”
HHS said the kits aim to reduce the risk of infection when smoking substances with glass pipes, which can lead to infections through cuts and sores. Applicants for the grants are prioritized if they treat a majority of “underserved communities,” including African Americans and “LGBTQ+ persons,” as established under President Joe Biden’s executive order on “advancing racial equity.”
So, a grant organization can receive up to $400K for the purchase and distribution of crack pipes to drug users, as long as racial equity is the criteria. First, isn’t that discrimination? Secondly, how will this help the rampant homelessness?
Drug and alcohol abuse are significant drivers of the homeless populations around the country. Yet free crack pipes and drug use kits will magically solve the homeless issues and save them from other diseases?
Vancouver Coastal Health began handing out safer smoking kits in 2011 in the city’s Downtown Eastside area for crack cocaine users. An initial review into the first 13 months of the project found that, through the distribution of 65,000 smoking kits in this period, there were “statistically significant reductions in high risk behaviour … including obtaining stems from the street,” and a decrease in the number of respondents reporting burns from smoking.
Though this is not immediately conclusive in terms of direct impact on disease transmission, a spokesperson for Vancouver Coastal Health told TIME last year that, “if you reduce the the number of wounds and you reduce the sharing, you can extrapolate.”
~Snip
While true that the evidence base is limited for these types of initiatives, skeptics, to whom only a cost-benefit analysis may speak to, should consider this; the cost of a sterile smoking device is typically below $1. Preventing a single HIV infection, meanwhile, saves around $230,000 in lifetime medical expenses in the US, as found by a recent study. Some of this may come at a cost to the taxpayer.
Oh, ok. So handing out free crack pipes might save one out of several hundred homeless person from getting HIV, therefore saving the taxpayers money in the long run? The ROI on these types of freebie programs stinks.
And yes, we the taxpayer are funding this entire program! Where in the wide world of free crack pipes do you think this $30 million dollars is coming from? It is coming from OUR taxes! Our tax dollars will be paying for a program that is supposed to then help addicts continue to be addicts while using and abusing drugs “safely.”
Your Body your choice only for:
— Unacceptable Rowan (@canmericanized) September 2, 2021
1. Abortion
2. You want to poison yourself with heroin, crack or any other illicit drug.
For #2; the govt will put you up in a hotel, 3 meals, free crack pipes, needles and Liberals working to make for free heroin – because “safe supply”
What is going on in those liberal cities who have been doing similar types of programs? I’ll be blunt. They are trash heaps. We’ve written about the homeless mess in San Francisco, Portland, Seattle and other parts of the country. Here in Colorado, the homeless population has exploded. Yet now we are supposed to applaud the giving out of free crack pipes using racial equity guidelines as the magic elixir?
Finally a cabinet position for Hunter, actual Drug Czar. https://t.co/sEUqXmJHNM
— Tim Wilkins (@RealTimWilkins) February 7, 2022
I mean, it worked out SO WELL for Hunter didn’t it?
Here’s the thing. Tucker is correct as are so many others. Giving the homeless freebies such as tents and crack pipe kits doesn’t magically turn them off of drugs. And it CERTAINLY doesn’t make them any less homeless. In fact, it will make the situation worse, as it already has in multiple liberal cities around the country.
Feature Photo Credit:
GWB says: the free crack pipe distribution must be done in the name of “racial equity.”
So… giving them out to all the white crackas who can’t afford their own?
Because that just makes no f*ing sense. “Hey now, let’s makes sure the dregs of our society are properly distributed demographically” is a hella goal.
through the distribution of 65,000 smoking kits in this period, there were “statistically significant reductions in high risk behaviour
Wait, 65 thousand smoking kits? In one area? If your sample size is 65,000 in one area (meaning they have to be coming back and getting fresh ones) of course you’re going to manufacture some “statistically significant” numbers. How “statistically significant” they don’t say.
you can extrapolate
You can. I can’t. Pretend I’m from Missouri, and you need to show me.
to whom only a cost-benefit analysis may speak to
Dude, English much?
The idea of reducing the consequences for really poor decision-making is NOT how you reduce that poor decision-making. It’s how you get more of it. This is something very broken in the Progressive doctrine.
Robin H says: So it’s better to die of a “safe” drug overdose than it is to die of an infection or other disease? And when they’re in the hospital they have access to social workers that maybe can get them into a rehab?
Why don’t they hand out “safe” drugs too? That would cut down on crime, right?
GWB says: Of course it’s more monetarily efficient to have them die of drug overdoses – there’s no treatment costs, just a pauper’s grave. Of course, if you catch them before they die, there is cost for saving them. But it’s less than if they get HIV and you put them under permanent medical care.
Of course, all that is predicated on 1) socialist care and 2) not wanting to actually do something about their self-destructive behavior.
3 Comments