see more Druh Memes, Crugs Memes, Drugsr Memes from Instagram, Facebook, Tumblr, Twitter & More. 

Related to: Drougs Memes, Seug Memes, Drugs Logo Memes

🔥 | Latest

Community, Drugs, and Homeless: an account you reported @babadookspinoza Follow "Giving people homes" YEAH NO SHIT When Europe gets it right It's a miracle': Helsinki's radical solution to homelessness Finland is the only EU country where homelessness is falling. Its secret? Giving people homes as soon as they need them- unconditionally 3:34 PM -3 Jun 2019 3,568 Retweets 12,641 Likes Julesy @julesprom Follow "you can't just give people homes for free" actually you can and it turns out to be a cheaper alternative for cities and communities than having a homeless population "but no one wants to have to pay for all this" its literally cheaper and benefits everyone in the community an account you reported @babadookspinoza "Giving people homes" YEAH NO SHIT Is amiracle': Helsinki's radical solution to homelessness Show this thread y d 10:53 PM -3 Jun 2019 7,235 Retweets 16,637 Likes bemusedlybespectacled: jethroq: goawfma: who would have thought that the solution to homelessness is providing people with housing? 🧐 The solution isn’t 100% perfect, there’s a lot of people who aren’t technically homeless because they live with other people for free etc. but yeah this does majorly help reduce risks for vulnerable people. Here’s the big thing about it that might scandalize Americans even more so than the idea of free housing: you don’t have to do anything to “deserve it.” Most countries use what’s called “the staircase model” – you start by being in shelter, then maybe a halfway house, then permanent housing. You can “move up” by going through rehab or getting a job or accessing other services. The idea is that housing is something you get as a reward for good behavior, not something you get by right.But with the housing first model, you get the house first, and then deal with everything else. It’s a lot easier to stop using drugs and alcohol when you have other ways to pass the time and aren’t under constant stress. It’s a lot easier to get a job when you have an address to put on your applications. It’s a lot easier to treat mental illness when you’re in a safe place that doesn’t add to your fear and pain. But if your mentality is that housing is something only the morally pure and socially acceptable deserve, and the only way to get it is for people to jump through hoops to prove their goodness, then of course you’re going to hate this model.
Community, Drugs, and Homeless: an account you reported
 @babadookspinoza
 Follow
 "Giving people homes" YEAH NO SHIT
 When Europe gets it right
 It's a miracle': Helsinki's
 radical solution to
 homelessness
 Finland is the only EU country where
 homelessness is falling. Its secret? Giving
 people homes as soon as they need them-
 unconditionally
 3:34 PM -3 Jun 2019
 3,568 Retweets 12,641 Likes

 Julesy
 @julesprom
 Follow
 "you can't just give people homes for
 free"
 actually you can and it turns out to be a
 cheaper alternative for cities and
 communities than having a homeless
 population
 "but no one wants to have to pay for all
 this"
 its literally cheaper and benefits
 everyone in the community
 an account you reported @babadookspinoza
 "Giving people homes" YEAH NO SHIT
 Is amiracle': Helsinki's
 radical solution to
 homelessness
 Show this thread
 y
 d
 10:53 PM -3 Jun 2019
 7,235 Retweets 16,637 Likes
bemusedlybespectacled:

jethroq:
goawfma:
who would have thought that the solution to homelessness is providing people with housing? 🧐
The solution isn’t 100% perfect, there’s a lot of people who aren’t technically homeless because they live with other people for free etc. but yeah this does majorly help reduce risks for vulnerable people.

Here’s the big thing about it that might scandalize Americans even more so than the idea of free housing: you don’t have to do anything to “deserve it.” Most countries use what’s called “the staircase model” – you start by being in shelter, then maybe a halfway house, then permanent housing. You can “move up” by going through rehab or getting a job or accessing other services. The idea is that housing is something you get as a reward for good behavior, not something you get by right.But with the housing first model, you get the house first, and then deal with everything else. It’s a lot easier to stop using drugs and alcohol when you have other ways to pass the time and aren’t under constant stress. It’s a lot easier to get a job when you have an address to put on your applications. It’s a lot easier to treat mental illness when you’re in a safe place that doesn’t add to your fear and pain. But if your mentality is that housing is something only the morally pure and socially acceptable deserve, and the only way to get it is for people to jump through hoops to prove their goodness, then of course you’re going to hate this model.

bemusedlybespectacled: jethroq: goawfma: who would have thought that the solution to homelessness is providing people with housing? 🧐 The s...

Community, Drugs, and Homeless: an account you reported @babadookspinoza Follow "Giving people homes" YEAH NO SHIT When Europe gets it right It's a miracle': Helsinki's radical solution to homelessness Finland is the only EU country where homelessness is falling. Its secret? Giving people homes as soon as they need them- unconditionally 3:34 PM -3 Jun 2019 3,568 Retweets 12,641 Likes Julesy @julesprom Follow "you can't just give people homes for free" actually you can and it turns out to be a cheaper alternative for cities and communities than having a homeless population "but no one wants to have to pay for all this" its literally cheaper and benefits everyone in the community an account you reported @babadookspinoza "Giving people homes" YEAH NO SHIT Is amiracle': Helsinki's radical solution to homelessness Show this thread y d 10:53 PM -3 Jun 2019 7,235 Retweets 16,637 Likes bemusedlybespectacled: jethroq: goawfma: who would have thought that the solution to homelessness is providing people with housing? 🧐 The solution isn’t 100% perfect, there’s a lot of people who aren’t technically homeless because they live with other people for free etc. but yeah this does majorly help reduce risks for vulnerable people. Here’s the big thing about it that might scandalize Americans even more so than the idea of free housing: you don’t have to do anything to “deserve it.” Most countries use what’s called “the staircase model” – you start by being in shelter, then maybe a halfway house, then permanent housing. You can “move up” by going through rehab or getting a job or accessing other services. The idea is that housing is something you get as a reward for good behavior, not something you get by right.But with the housing first model, you get the house first, and then deal with everything else. It’s a lot easier to stop using drugs and alcohol when you have other ways to pass the time and aren’t under constant stress. It’s a lot easier to get a job when you have an address to put on your applications. It’s a lot easier to treat mental illness when you’re in a safe place that doesn’t add to your fear and pain. But if your mentality is that housing is something only the morally pure and socially acceptable deserve, and the only way to get it is for people to jump through hoops to prove their goodness, then of course you’re going to hate this model.
Community, Drugs, and Homeless: an account you reported
 @babadookspinoza
 Follow
 "Giving people homes" YEAH NO SHIT
 When Europe gets it right
 It's a miracle': Helsinki's
 radical solution to
 homelessness
 Finland is the only EU country where
 homelessness is falling. Its secret? Giving
 people homes as soon as they need them-
 unconditionally
 3:34 PM -3 Jun 2019
 3,568 Retweets 12,641 Likes

 Julesy
 @julesprom
 Follow
 "you can't just give people homes for
 free"
 actually you can and it turns out to be a
 cheaper alternative for cities and
 communities than having a homeless
 population
 "but no one wants to have to pay for all
 this"
 its literally cheaper and benefits
 everyone in the community
 an account you reported @babadookspinoza
 "Giving people homes" YEAH NO SHIT
 Is amiracle': Helsinki's
 radical solution to
 homelessness
 Show this thread
 y
 d
 10:53 PM -3 Jun 2019
 7,235 Retweets 16,637 Likes
bemusedlybespectacled:

jethroq:
goawfma:
who would have thought that the solution to homelessness is providing people with housing? 🧐
The solution isn’t 100% perfect, there’s a lot of people who aren’t technically homeless because they live with other people for free etc. but yeah this does majorly help reduce risks for vulnerable people.

Here’s the big thing about it that might scandalize Americans even more so than the idea of free housing: you don’t have to do anything to “deserve it.” Most countries use what’s called “the staircase model” – you start by being in shelter, then maybe a halfway house, then permanent housing. You can “move up” by going through rehab or getting a job or accessing other services. The idea is that housing is something you get as a reward for good behavior, not something you get by right.But with the housing first model, you get the house first, and then deal with everything else. It’s a lot easier to stop using drugs and alcohol when you have other ways to pass the time and aren’t under constant stress. It’s a lot easier to get a job when you have an address to put on your applications. It’s a lot easier to treat mental illness when you’re in a safe place that doesn’t add to your fear and pain. But if your mentality is that housing is something only the morally pure and socially acceptable deserve, and the only way to get it is for people to jump through hoops to prove their goodness, then of course you’re going to hate this model.

bemusedlybespectacled: jethroq: goawfma: who would have thought that the solution to homelessness is providing people with housing? 🧐 The s...

Alive, Bad, and College: Side Effects Follow ECTS @SideEffectsNews Why aren't millennials giving blood? bit.ly/2fRZG5i 5:14 PM 28 Sep 2017 Belinda Blumenthal @philomenapunk Follow because we all gay ide Effects @SideEffectsNews Why aren't millennials giving blood? bit.ly/2fRZG5i 11:29 AM 3 Oct 2017 3,199 Retweets 11,051 Likes agapantoblu: somecunttookmyurl: creaturethatcries: dr-dendritic-trees: karnythia: voidbat: genderfuckt: optimysticals: the-fury-of-a-time-lord: luidilovins: the-modern-satyr: seedydemigod: captainfunkpunkandroll: the-real-eye-to-see: Didn’t even know people are not allowed to give blood if they are gay That’s been the thing for years. The HIV scare of the ‘80s prohibited us from donating blood. And they still hold that against us despite the fact that that claim has been debunked over and over again. the wording on the paperwork is “Are you a man who has had sexual intercourse with a man after 1980” or “Are you a woman who has had sexual intercourse with a man who has had sexual intercourse with another man since 1980” (this was a blood drive at my college where majority of the students werent Alive in 1980.) I donated all the time back when I was a virgin, because o- , but now I’m not allowed to. So a better question for this article is “Why won’t baby boomers let queer people donate blood, even though all the blood gets screened for HIV and aids anyway?” though, theres a lot of room for loopholes in the wording of it This fucking matters. Bias in medicine is bias that should not exist. Fucking fix it. This is disgusting hey trans people can’t give blood either. was banned from a plasma place for having the nerve to show up and be trans. “we don’t serve you people”. This is one of the reasons why it was painful for a LOT of Queer people after the Pulse shooting. We kept seeing messages calling for blood donations but so many of us can’t donate. We couldn’t even help our own community.  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! as someone who has received money and/or drugs in exchange for sex, i have a lifetime ban on giving blood. FURTHERMORE, my whore blood is so filthy that if you’ve had sex with me in the past year, YOU can’t give blood! and that’s a federal goddamn guideline, folks! If you lived in Europe for 3 months between 1980 and 1996 you can’t donate blood which basically takes out everyone who ever served in the military and was stationed overseas, anyone who studied abroad or anyone who had a job overseas during that period. The Red Cross is always announcing they have a shortage of blood donors but they create the shortage with the byzantine array of restrictions that they refuse to revisit.  Okay, the above stuff is stigma and total crap, we have efficient screens for HIV and things now, the blood will be screened anyway, banning people for their sexual history is completely prejudice and its wasteful, and those rules really need to go. But the last one, the ban on donation for people living in Europe, is actually done for a reason. Its an attempt to limit the spread of vCJD, which we don’t have a way of screening for right now. Last i went you could donate blood if trans, I was openly trans at my blood clinic and they took me. So its probably just that particular clinic, which I say so that other trans people arent discouraged from trying to donate. Also… as long as its the only question you lie on… if theres a blood shortage emergency I really dont see why not lie on that one question. Like its terrible to have to do that and im not trying to make you feel bad if you avoiding donating because of it, but since we know its not scientifically founded it seems perfectly moral to me to lie on that one question if you want to donate. There’s not really a way for them to fact check that. I really never understood why people don’t just LIE “Heartbroken they couldn’t-“ JUST LIE ON THE FORM I’m an openly queer woman in Italy and I’ve never lied on my form, but also, my form doesn’t even ask the gender of my partner. All the questions are phrased “have you had any heterosexual or homosexual intercourse in the past six months?”, “have you changed partner in the past six months?” They are willingly phrased to work for all people because there’s literally no scientific reason as to why straight blood would be safer than gay blood.It’s just a formality. Honestly, you could write you just had an orgy and as long as you claim you’ve practiced safe sex they’ll give you the green card to donate. At most, they mark your sack for a more thorough venereal diseases screening in case you couldn’t affirm for sure that you’re 100% clean.The whole “but after the AIDS scare” discourse is bullcrap. They give AIDS informative flyers to all donors once a year and they screen for HIV all the sacks. Whenever you donate, you get the analysis results back and if you check, straight or gay, there’s always the results for the HIV test. Because medicine knows that straights and gays are all equally likely to be affected, it’s how it is.If you’re gay, you can donate. If you’re trans, the most that can happen is that your doctor allows you two yearly donations, roughly six months apart, if you are having your period; otherwise you’re allowed three yearly donations, roughly four months apart. That’s it.If the forms are like those provided in Italy, you won’t have even have to lie. If you live in some dumbass country that thinks you cannot donate if you’re queer, though, yeah, just fucking lie about it because there is no valid reason that says you cannot give blood.It’s an whole different matter if we’re talking about restrictions based on where you were at X date.These questions are common worldwide because they refer to viruses and infections that cannot be screened. This is not made because the Red Cross is mean and cruel and whatever the fuck; it’s because they cannot be sure your blood is not contaminated and since the blood is going to someone who, it stands to reason, is already compromised on their own, they cannot fight their own battle and add more. That’s why you cannot donate. My uncle died because he was fighting leukemia and was injected a transfusion of infected blood. DO NOT LIE ON THE FORM ABOUT ILLNESSES YOU HAD OR PLACES YOU’VE BEEN TO. YOUR WISH TO DONATE IS WORTH JACK SHIT IF YOU CONTAMINATE SOMEONE BECAUSE YOU WEREN’T HONEST.
Alive, Bad, and College: Side Effects
 Follow
 ECTS @SideEffectsNews
 Why aren't millennials giving blood?
 bit.ly/2fRZG5i
 5:14 PM 28 Sep 2017

 Belinda Blumenthal
 @philomenapunk
 Follow
 because we all gay
 ide Effects @SideEffectsNews
 Why aren't millennials giving blood? bit.ly/2fRZG5i
 11:29 AM 3 Oct 2017
 3,199 Retweets 11,051 Likes
agapantoblu:

somecunttookmyurl:
creaturethatcries:


dr-dendritic-trees:

karnythia:

voidbat:

genderfuckt:


optimysticals:

the-fury-of-a-time-lord:

luidilovins:

the-modern-satyr:

seedydemigod:

captainfunkpunkandroll:

the-real-eye-to-see:
Didn’t even know people are not allowed to give blood if they are gay


That’s been the thing for years. The HIV scare of the ‘80s prohibited us from donating blood. And they still hold that against us despite the fact that that claim has been debunked over and over again.

the wording on the paperwork is “Are you a man who has had sexual intercourse with a man after 1980” or “Are you a woman who has had sexual intercourse with a man who has had sexual intercourse with another man since 1980” (this was a blood drive at my college  where majority of the students werent Alive in 1980.) I donated all the time back when I was a virgin, because o- , but now I’m not allowed to. So a better question for this article is “Why won’t baby boomers let queer people donate blood, even though all the blood gets screened for HIV and aids anyway?” though, theres a lot of room for loopholes in the wording of it   


This fucking matters. Bias in medicine is bias that should not exist. Fucking fix it.


This is disgusting 

hey trans people can’t give blood either. was banned from a plasma place for having the nerve to show up and be trans. “we don’t serve you people”.

This is one of the reasons why it was painful for a LOT of Queer people after the Pulse shooting. We kept seeing messages calling for blood donations but so many of us can’t donate. We couldn’t even help our own community. 


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


as someone who has received money and/or drugs in exchange for sex, i have a lifetime ban on giving blood. FURTHERMORE, my whore blood is so filthy that if you’ve had sex with me in the past year, YOU can’t give blood!
and that’s a federal goddamn guideline, folks! 

If you lived in Europe for 3 months between 1980 and 1996 you can’t donate blood which basically takes out everyone who ever served in the military and was stationed overseas, anyone who studied abroad or anyone who had a job overseas during that period. The Red Cross is always announcing they have a shortage of blood donors but they create the shortage with the byzantine array of restrictions that they refuse to revisit. 

Okay, the above stuff is stigma and total crap, we have efficient screens for HIV and things now, the blood will be screened anyway, banning people for their sexual history is completely prejudice and its wasteful, and those rules really need to go.
But the last one, the ban on donation for people living in Europe, is actually done for a reason. Its an attempt to limit the spread of vCJD, which we don’t have a way of screening for right now.


Last i went you could donate blood if trans, I was openly trans at my blood clinic and they took me. So its probably just that particular clinic, which I say so that other trans people arent discouraged from trying to donate.
Also… as long as its the only question you lie on… if theres a blood shortage emergency I really dont see why not lie on that one question. Like its terrible to have to do that and im not trying to make you feel bad if you avoiding donating because of it, but since we know its not scientifically founded it seems perfectly moral to me to lie on that one question if you want to donate. There’s not really a way for them to fact check that.


I really never understood why people don’t just LIE
“Heartbroken they couldn’t-“ JUST LIE ON THE FORM

I’m an openly queer woman in Italy and I’ve never lied on my form, but also, my form doesn’t even ask the gender of my partner. All the questions are phrased “have you had any heterosexual or homosexual intercourse in the past six months?”, “have you changed partner in the past six months?” They are willingly phrased to work for all people because there’s literally no scientific reason as to why straight blood would be safer than gay blood.It’s just a formality. Honestly, you could write you just had an orgy and as long as you claim you’ve practiced safe sex they’ll give you the green card to donate. At most, they mark your sack for a more thorough venereal diseases screening in case you couldn’t affirm for sure that you’re 100% clean.The whole “but after the AIDS scare” discourse is bullcrap. They give AIDS informative flyers to all donors once a year and they screen for HIV all the sacks. Whenever you donate, you get the analysis results back and if you check, straight or gay, there’s always the results for the HIV test. Because medicine knows that straights and gays are all equally likely to be affected, it’s how it is.If you’re gay, you can donate. If you’re trans, the most that can happen is that your doctor allows you two yearly donations, roughly six months apart, if you are having your period; otherwise you’re allowed three yearly donations, roughly four months apart. That’s it.If the forms are like those provided in Italy, you won’t have even have to lie. If you live in some dumbass country that thinks you cannot donate if you’re queer, though, yeah, just fucking lie about it because there is no valid reason that says you cannot give blood.It’s an whole different matter if we’re talking about restrictions based on where you were at X date.These questions are common worldwide because they refer to viruses and infections that cannot be screened. This is not made because the Red Cross is mean and cruel and whatever the fuck; it’s because they cannot be sure your blood is not contaminated and since the blood is going to someone who, it stands to reason, is already compromised on their own, they cannot fight their own battle and add more. That’s why you cannot donate. My uncle died because he was fighting leukemia and was injected a transfusion of infected blood. DO NOT LIE ON THE FORM ABOUT ILLNESSES YOU HAD OR PLACES YOU’VE BEEN TO. YOUR WISH TO DONATE IS WORTH JACK SHIT IF YOU CONTAMINATE SOMEONE BECAUSE YOU WEREN’T HONEST.

agapantoblu: somecunttookmyurl: creaturethatcries: dr-dendritic-trees: karnythia: voidbat: genderfuckt: optimysticals: the-fury-of-...

Dogs, Drugs, and Facts: DAPASTOR YOO uncleromeo: feet-man-ahhh-sucker-of-the-toes: emotionsclashagainstemotions: thatpettyblackgirl: Because we know they value the lives of dogs over blac… nevermind 😒 the ironic part is, racism is probably why the cop was so convinced the drugs were there. the dog was doing its job, which is not reacting to drugs that don’t exist. the cop, on other hand, saw a black man, and was sure he had drugs. Drug dogs have also been found to be ineffective in many cases, basing their reactions on the cop’s body language. “For the purpose of this post, though, I want to focus on what’s missing from Colb’s analysis and, should the Supreme Court decide to hear the case, will almost certainly also be missing from oral arguments, the court’s ruling and most discussion of the case: that narcotics-detecting dogs and their handlers aren’t very good at discerning the presence of illegal drugs. Multiple analyses of drug-dog alerts have consistently shown alarmingly high error rates — with some close to and exceeding 50 percent. In effect, some of these K-9 units are worse than a coin flip. For some units, the reason may be sinister — the police handler may have trained the dog to alert on command. I’ve asked dog trainers to look at videos of roadside searches in the past, and, on more than one occasion, they said they saw clear indications that a dog was being cued to alert. But it needn’t be so malicious. While dogs are indeed capable of sniffing out illicit drugs, we’ve bred into them another overriding trait: the desire to please. Even drug dogs with conscientious handlers will read their handlers’ unintentional body language and alert accordingly. A 2010 study found that packages designed to trick handlers into thinking there were drugs inside them were much more likely to trigger false alerts than packages designed to trick the dogs. (Police-dog handlers and trainers responded to that study by refusing to cooperate with further research.) Many drug dogs, then, are not alerting to the presence of drugs, but to their handlers’ suspicions about the presence of drugs. And searches based on little more than law enforcement’s suspicions are exactly what the Fourth Amendment is supposed to prevent. (Tracking dogs that pick suspects out of “scent lineups” have had similar problems, and have led to numerous wrongful convictions.)” ^^^!!!
Dogs, Drugs, and Facts: DAPASTOR YOO
uncleromeo:

feet-man-ahhh-sucker-of-the-toes:


emotionsclashagainstemotions:


thatpettyblackgirl:

Because we know they value the lives of dogs over blac… nevermind 😒

the ironic part is, racism is probably why the cop was so convinced the drugs were there. the dog was doing its job, which is not reacting to drugs that don’t exist. the cop, on other hand, saw a black man, and was sure he had drugs.


Drug dogs have also been found to be ineffective in many cases, basing their reactions on the cop’s body language.
“For the purpose of this post, though, I want to focus on what’s missing from Colb’s analysis and, should the Supreme Court decide to hear the case, will almost certainly also be missing from oral arguments, the court’s ruling and most discussion of the case: that narcotics-detecting dogs and their handlers aren’t very good at discerning the presence of illegal drugs. Multiple analyses of drug-dog alerts have consistently shown alarmingly high error rates — with some close to and exceeding 50 percent. In effect, some of these K-9 units are worse than a coin flip.
For some units, the reason may be sinister — the police handler may have trained the dog to alert on command. I’ve asked dog trainers to look at videos of roadside searches in the past, and, on more than one occasion, they said they saw clear indications that a dog was being cued to alert.
But it needn’t be so malicious. While dogs are indeed capable of sniffing out illicit drugs, we’ve bred into them another overriding trait: the desire to please. Even drug dogs with conscientious handlers will read their handlers’ unintentional body language and alert accordingly. A 2010 study found that packages designed to trick handlers into thinking there were drugs inside them were much more likely to trigger false alerts than packages designed to trick the dogs. (Police-dog handlers and trainers responded to that study by refusing to cooperate with further research.) Many drug dogs, then, are not alerting to the presence of drugs, but to their handlers’ suspicions about the presence of drugs. And searches based on little more than law enforcement’s suspicions are exactly what the Fourth Amendment is supposed to prevent. (Tracking dogs that pick suspects out of “scent lineups” have had similar problems, and have led to numerous wrongful convictions.)”


^^^!!!

uncleromeo: feet-man-ahhh-sucker-of-the-toes: emotionsclashagainstemotions: thatpettyblackgirl: Because we know they value the lives o...