|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,484 Year: 3,741/9,624 Month: 612/974 Week: 225/276 Day: 1/64 Hour: 1/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Good drugs, bad drugs, legal drugs, illegal drugs | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3735 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Hyroglyphx writes:
From that link: There is no shortage of literature on the web concerning enabling behaviorquote: Again, you equivocate between 'non-professionals enabling their friends' and 'professionals enabling their patients'.No-one is advocating that amateurs go around treating addicts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Again, you equivocate between 'non-professionals enabling their friends' and 'professionals enabling their patients'. No-one is advocating that amateurs go around treating addicts. What's the difference? Enabling behavior is enabling behavior regardless of where it's coming from. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Why? Because it's not a role of the government. The government should not be waging wars on its citizens over drugs, nor should it expect its citizens to pay for the treatment of others. People tend to be very generous with other people's money, and very frugal with their own. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3735 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Hyroglyphx writes:
Wow - you only managed one sentence addressing my question before veering off into stuff about friends and family and tax payers. Panda writes:
That's a loaded question, since you automatically preface it with "safe" drug use. Friends, family, co-workers, etc who enable the behavior are people who simply avoid the conflict for one more day, even knowing how bad the situation really is. Are you still claiming that people that faciltate safe drug use ensure the death of the addicts? And when the time comes for intervention, the counsel workers invariably state that the family and friends must offer the addict a final solution. Either accept the help or cut them off completely. Why? Because nothing else has worked in the past. It's common sense that if you incentivize drug users with free, unlimited drugs, there is no no earthly reason to stop. This is different than drug treatment centers which will ensure that you don't suffer DT's on a decreasing dose. But your clinic doesn't offer that. It just says, come in and get free drugs. That doesn't help anything, it's dangerous, and it's an expense that the tax payer shouldn't be burdened by.*sigh* Meh...I don't care enough to continue asking you for an answer you are either unable or unwilling to give.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3735 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Hyroglyphx writes:
Read the link that YOU provided...it explains.
What's the difference? Enabling behavior is enabling behavior regardless of where it's coming from.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Wow - you only managed one sentence addressing my question before veering off into stuff about friends and family and tax payers. *sigh* Meh...I don't care enough to continue asking you for an answer you are either unable or unwilling to give. Give me a break. YOU created the false dichotomy, not me. I answered your question fully. YES, clinicians who administer drugs to patients are very much responsible for the health and well-being of their patients, just like any other health care professional would be. I mean, the question is so asinine that it's pointless to even address. Are you satisfied now, or are you going to continue to derail progress of the thread with useless semantics? "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
NJ writes: Because it's not a role of the government. The government should not be waging wars on its citizens over drugs, nor should it expect its citizens to pay for the treatment of others. People tend to be very generous with other people's money, and very frugal with their own. Again, it is a matter of enlightened self interest. There is only one organization that has authority and presence nationwide, and that is the Federal Government. Producing what today are illicit drugs can be done in a very cost effective manor and distribution through a national health care clinic system would also add the education component needed. You mentioned that Meth was a particular problem because it was destructive, extremely habit forming but CHEAP. Well, free is even cheaper than CHEAP. By using the system I recommend the CHEAP excuse gets removed. It will the be easier for the health care folk to redirect users from the cheap alternative to safer alternatives. The ultimate goal is of course to move people from being non-productive and even destructive to productive lives. The return that citizens would get on their investment in the system I describe would be reduced costs, reduced crime, more productive citizens and new business opportunities for those growing and manufacturing the drugs. For the users it would provide counseling, health care, remove the need to earn the fix through other illicit activities such as theft, prostitution, robbery. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3735 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Panda: Are you still claiming that people that faciltate safe drug use ensure the death of the addicts?
Hyroglyphx: YES, clinicians who administer drugs to patients are very much responsible for the health and well-being of their patients, LOL! Really LOL! Panda: What is the time?Hyroglyphx: I have a really nice wrist-watch. Too funny.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
jar writes: I'm not convinced that it is such a terrible opinion. Look at the currents costs involved in the system in place. Because it is illicit, we have the costs involved in crime, in enforcement, in loss of productivity, pain and suffering. Then there is the major expense, the silly "War on Drugs". You recommend legalisation and easing of access. A general rule of thumb when it comes to consumables tells us that as access simplifies > consumption goes up. In the case of illicit drugs the simplification of access would take the form of legalisation (dismantling the current restraint supplied by illicitedness), reduced price (enabled by removal of the drugs cartels and production by efficient methods), ease of access ( available on the street corner instead of down dark alleyways), reduction of hazard (enabled by certainty of source). What you suggest would , it would seem, result in an increase in consumption by people currently prohibited from partaking by the above restraints. Have you take account of this in your forecast?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9146 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
A general rule of thumb Any empirical evidence for this rule of thumb? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3985 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.2 |
Theodoric writes: iano writes: A general rule of thumb Any empirical evidence for this rule of thumb? His thumb. Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given. I know there's a balance, I see it when I swing past. -J. Mellencamp Real things always push back.-William James
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Theodoric writes: Any empirical evidence for this rule of thumb? dvd players, automobiles, organic food, paracetamol, alcohol, blue-ray. I'm waiting for the price of ipads to fall to a fraction of the current price myself. It's kind of self-evident really: remove reasons to abstain from the consumption of that which is attractive and consumption will increase. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3735 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
iano writes:
Cigarettes? dvd players, automobiles, organic food, paracetamol, alcohol, blue-ray.Alcohol? (Oh...you said alcohol. Should we go with your figures or with HM Revenue & Customs'?) You might need to have your thumb recalibrated. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
And if they don't take the literature on it seriously and they just keep coming back for more, is there a limit to the state's generosity? ... many addicts aren't interested in getting clean. I don't think it has been tried for all drugs, but various trial-runs have been performed for drugs such as heroin. It costs about 15,000 a year to provide a heroin addict with their fix (plus overheads) but it costs 44,000 a year to put them in prison. So if it works better than prison - it is certainly worth considering it seriously. As has been pointed out already - society is already paying for the drugs of many addicts (via property crime) AND some of their housing, security, treatment (via prison) etc. The fact is that addicts are going to cost us money - so we should be looking at how to reduce that where possible. Not reason alone to try the system, obviously (if it increased crimerates for instance, we might reconsider), but when it transpires that it serves to reduce the use of heroin and lowers associated crimes such as robbery....I think it deserves a little more attention.
quote: Source. Common sense notions on how addicts will react to certain things are probably borne out of media representations of addicts as depraved people that will lie, steal, manipulate, cajole and commit just about any act for a fix. These dimensions are obviously apparent, and certainly are the flaws that make for a good story...but there are many more dimensions to consider to the human that is addicted. The reality may well be more complicated than our prejudiced expectations of addicts, and that other factors lead to continued usage. Surely, the evidence isn't really compelling enough to have a free for all policy on any and all drugs circimstances notwithstanding - but also the evidence shows we shouldn't dismiss the notion government handing out drugs to at least certain kinds of addicts rather than allowing them to acquire them on the black market. The addicts the above cited study were all hardened addicts, other treatments had failed and they had become repeat offenders in crimes of acquisition. It may be ineffective against those kinds of addicts that would otherwise have done well with substitutes like methadone, or group therapy or what have you. Clearly, studies in this area are very difficult - ethical concerns raise their head left right and centre...but the more we know, the better the policies we can create. It should be remembered though that humans are wierd and irrational beings, and that legitimising behaviour can sometimes be a better modifier of behaviour than prohibiting it - if it is handled correctly (just ask any parent).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Cigarettes Consumption is falling. And?
Alcohol Ditto above. AbE: Overall consumption falling doesn't necessarily alter the fact that the elimination of restraining factors causes an (relative to what otherwise would be the case) increase in consumption.
quote: quote: Source Edited by iano, : No reason given. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024