[Lhancelot]

As with all topics like this there are many perspectives and disagreement is inevitable.

One perspective is Philly is enabling the drug addicts and interfering with natural selection all the while costing tax payers the bill to do so.

Another perspective is Philly is doing the morally right thing and removing some of the dangers the drug addicts face on a daily basis not just for the drug addicts personally but for the city as inevitably it pays the price of these drug addicts when they overdose and need medical assistance etc. (They don't always die.) Giving them safer methods to do their drugs means a safer city all around.

I mean it's more complicated than just these points but this is how I see most people viewing this.

I am assuming Philly is considering how some European countries manage their own crisis of drug addiction as it reminds me of what I have read them doing in the past.

I feel bad for drug addicts so I tend to go with the second reasoning and think what Philly is doing is trailblazing in the history of the USA as we never had a city, let alone a major city try something like this.

Will it work? I don't know. I do see other perspectives though and can't fault them for their logic.