This doesn't make the Times any less idiotic. It's idiotic of them to tell readers to read research and understand that "enabling" isn't the problem. They still believe we can't tacitly enable homelessness by not bulldozing encampments, for example. They might not be wailing "think of the children" today, but they did yesterday and they will tomorrow. The self-contradiction is idiotic.

I wish the fucking Times would die already and make some room for a professional paper.

@1:

I can't imagine anyone with the money would even consider starting a print daily nowadays.

This is actually pretty consistent for the Seattle Times editorial staff (I can't believe I'm defending those pinheads). They are, generally speaking, fiscally conservative but socially liberal. Think of them as your crazy neighbor libertarian. In favor of gay rights, drug rights, but don't you dare lay a hand on my inheritance. My grandfather worked his ass off for that money, so I deserve every penny,.

The problem I have with the safe injection site proposal is it includes there was the possibility of giving addicts another opioid called buprenorphine to use to get them off the heroin. But this is just trading one addiction for another. Instead, we need more treatment centers in Washington and the ability for people to put their loved ones in a treatment center even if its not voluntary on the addicted person's part.

I'd give better odds of certain billionaires starting a successful print daily than becoming president or colonizing Mars.

@4 involuntary treatment of opiate addiction? What earthly good can you possibly think that's going to do? Use the treatment resources for people who are ready to do their part.

Buprenorphine can replace an addiction with a physical dependency. The dependency in itself is pretty manageable. Does this offend you?