What if I took them somewhere remote where there are no drugs and didn't let them leave?
My heart hurts for them, but I have no idea if it's a good idea or not.
Regardless, I think his heart is in the right place. Time will tell whether or not it's actually useful.
But they don't, they outsource the job to a group of (mostly) sadistic, uneducated-in-rehab, "boot camps" that somehow think that violently invading an individual's rights and actions is how to "cure" drug addiction, without attempting to treat the underlying causes of addictive behavior.
The problem isn’t the camps but the people who have the authority in them and how the treat people especially if the cure isn’t working.
Not everything can be cured by organic food, fresh air and labor.
BTW is the food the grow for the farms only or is selling it part of the plan?
If the latter then it’s about cheap labor
That is to say, to any sane modern human, curing gayness is nothing like curing drug addiction.
We have to do something. Because whatever we've been doing for the past two decades has amounted to nothing.
And maybe that ends up being the answer, that there is nothing you can do. But I'll never insult someone for trying, no matter the method.
>But I'll never insult someone for trying, no matter the method.
No matter the method is a bad take, that’s how we got gruesome people doing gruesome experiments on people who need treatment.
And the camp thing is pretty old and they always end the same: abuse of power.
I've been in max security prisons. There are generally far more drugs inside these than I've ever seen in the outside world.
I don't want to piss on rehab too much, it can work. But for every decent rehab facility there are probably 100 bogus ones.
Also remember, that to an addict who has been to prison, rehab feels like prison. It has the same locked-down, heavy-on-the-rules design that can cause serious PTSD issues for (practically everyone) who suffers some sort of trauma from being incarcerated.
2) its entirely voluntary and non-coerced
If we assume a drug abuser is doomed for death in the next 6 months. But by using them as slave labor in terrible conditions for 3 years guarantees they will live to old age, regardless of any psychological trauma from said experience, is it worth it?
I'm not taking a position, I'm just making a thought experiment. It's more of a moral philosophical thing than an answer, I guess.
I think a lot of people not in the midwest may not understand the gravity of the fentanyl problem in the US. Literally every family is affected, whether directly or indirectly.
It's basically a religious war. One side seems to think they need to "break people's spirit" by "work camps", the other side seems to believe in "healing from violence" by compassion. You're free to pick your side, but it's going to get harder to switch, and the other side will treat you as their enemy.
The answer is a very obvious "no" in any society that claims to be free.
> I'm not taking a position
Frankly it's terrifying that these sorts of questions are being posed as real dilemmas in western societies in 2025.
This is not only immoral and vile, but borders on the psychopathic. The man should have never been allowed to make any decision affecting public health.
RFK might be an idiot, but even idiots might be right once in a while
Or the fact that you're not longer in the environment with its stressors that cause you to seek out drugs in the first place? Lots of people sleeping rough go for drugs of any kind just to be able to put their mind to rest.
Finland shows this with its "housing first" policy, giving people a home is a relatively easy way to get them off of drugs.
The current administration is setting up a modern day Spiegelgrund.
