70,000 meals have been dropped in Gaza over the past week, which is a small portion of what's needed considering the territory has a population of more than 2 million people.
It's theater. US could force Israel to comply and let the aid in, but instead this is a cheap trick to try and win back voters who think Biden is a failure on this issue.
There is a significant Muslim population in Michigan that is paying attention. Michigan is a swing state, if Biden loses it he probably loses the election.
Was he right about Trump in 2016 or not?
Filmmaker and Michigan native Michael Moore agreed that Biden’s stance on the ongoing slaughter in Gaza could easily cost him the state, and in turn, the entire election. In a recent interview with CNN’s Abby Phillip, Moore said “I’ve been saying this month that he’s going to cost himself the election. …If Trump has any chance, it’s the decision that [Biden’s] made to embrace slaughter, carpet bombing, babies in incubators dead because they cut off the electricity, on and on and on.”
But you won't blame the Biden administration for disregarding the wishes of their constituents?
People who say that confuse liberals with the left.
You may call that a solution, but that sounds like continuing the problem (that is, substance abuse).
Substance-abuse pales in comparison to death. I don't care if people are addicted to substances as long as they continue to live they have an opportunity to quit.
But if the government is saying there’s not enough money to continue, what’s the next step?
The government isn't saying that. The government is saying there isn't money to expand the programs. This is primarily political because people on the right have attacked evidence-based addiction treatment.
what’s the next step?
More deaths. Either that, or expand safe supply which as previously noted has political opposition from the right. Conservatives are playing politics with peoples lives.
You know what they say: “Prevention is better than cure.”
If you want to prevent deaths due to toxic drugs, the obvious answer is to provide non-toxic drugs. You have no control over whether or not people use drugs. The only thing you can do with 100% certainty is provide clean safe drugs.
It may be true that some people will simply stop using drugs in their own time (not likely with opioids)
Show proof that opioids is less likely.
getting 1 out of 10 people to sober up is much better than enabling continued consumption through “safe alcohol consumption sites”, right?
Not if the other nine are dead, right?
With the limited funds available, what approach would be most effective to tackle this problem?
Safe supply and harm reduction. Clean, safe drugs including stimulant would cost very little. In addition the money saved from policing, courts, incarceration plus reduced burden on paramedics and others in healthcare means that even after the government provided safe supply they would still be saving money.
Ironically the right wing libertarian Cato institute believes the same thing. https://www.cato.org/commentary/economic-moral-case-legalizing-cocaine-heroin#
As I previously explained, this is political. The NDP is worried about right wing backlash in the approach to an election. Instead of doing the right thing, they have caved to political pressure.
And now this genocidal apologist is talking about building some stupid pier. More theater.