The original sign has a valid point, even if it's punching down the ladder at someone who's worse off. It's just that the sign doesn't really point people in the right direction over who's really to blame for that contradication, as Marx would say, in our capitalist system. My hunch is that the narcan is available for free to dope addicts as part of a political calculation or tradeoff, supported by the big donors who fund/buy/own our pols that goes something like this: We will allow an exception to our usual capitalist for profit system of healthcare and obscene pharma prices because active dope addicts rob and steal from other people, sometimes commiting violence, which might harm rich people sometimes. So we don't want that or the chaos that goes with it. Otherwise, we'll continue to make huge profits of the rest of the healthcare. This rare form of harm reduction, callous and self-serving as it is, results in lost profits that are hardly missed in the overall picture.

Of course, everything I just said goes right over the head of the average person reading the first sign. so they get outraged at the drug companies instead of the real villian, the pols and the people that own, and go vote for a duopoly politician, most likely a Repub, who bashes drug addicts and liberals who coddle them. Suckers, every time.

Exactly. Like the myth perpetrated in the US that "well, I shouldn't complain, so much of the world has it worse." Yes they do, AND, as the richest fucking nation we shouldn't have ANY hungry or sick - due to poverty, people.

Nice!

This is so true, yet time and time again people resort to this.