|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
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 3744 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Hyroglyphx writes:
You seem to be claimimg that all (or most) addicts that join a legal drug scheme will die from those administered drugs. But there is another way of handling things that I also disagree with, and those are the people who facilitate addicts. They facilitate them by making sure they can shoot up (or by whatever delivery method) safely and in their care. By doing this, you only ensure that people will die at their own hand. These people are complicit in the deaths of the very people they try to help because they're enablers. Could you please cite your reference data?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3744 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Hyroglyphx writes:
I would hope people would read what you posted, rather than just guessing - I know I did.
Panda writes:
Not at all, and how you came to that conclusion is anyone's guess. You seem to be claimimg that all (or most) addicts that join a legal drug scheme will die from those administered drugs.It was because you said: quote:(I emphasised the key bit.) Hyroglyphx writes:
That is not what you were talking about. I wouldn't know how to quantify the number of people who die because of drugs versus those who never die.You were talking about how 'enablers' actions ensure the death of addicts. You were not comparing the death rate of drug users to non-drug users. Hyroglyphx writes:
Maybe you should have caged your sentences in less definite terms if you are only going by personal experience. I can only offer some anecdote from personal experience. But even then, to claim that the doctors, etc. that work at drug clinics are responsible for the deaths of most of their patients is not likely to be blindly accepted. Hyroglyphx writes:
And you are entitled to this opinion. Let me be a little more clear on my stance from a government perspective -- Non-intervention. Neither stopping people from doing drugs nor enabling them at the tax payer's expense. I am simply pointing out the the basis for your opinion regarding "tax payers enabling addicts" is unfounded and offensive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3744 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Hyroglyphx writes:
Of course you were talking about hard drugs. I was speaking about hard drugs in that instance, and only in the sense that if we mollycoddle people, you only further perpetuate the problem.If you weren't talking about hard drugs then you wouldn't be talking about giving them to addicts in clinics. But you claimed "By doing this, you only ensure that people will die at their own hand." Since you seem determined to not address that issue, I will have to conclude that you have no way to support your assertion; that even your own personal experience has nothing to support it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3744 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Hyroglyphx writes:
Really? What exactly didn't I answer? Or did I simply not answer it to your satisfaction?Ok...I'll post it one more time - but you refused to answer it before, so I guess you will still refuse. Are you still claiming that people that faciltate safe drug use ensure the death of the addicts? Hyroglyphx writes:
Are you now also asserting that research into the affects on 'enabled' drug users has not been done?
You seem to think there's bar graphs out there that show how many addicts who overdose because of enablers vs those who overdose and don't. Hyroglyphx writes:
This forum doesn't work like that. Do you want a consensus among psychologists? I think you'll find that the vast majority of psychologists, sociologists, social workers, and psychiatrists will tell you the same thing I am; that enabling behavior only inflames addictive behavior. Do you deny this?You do not make unsubstantiated claims and then demand others disprove them. (And "inflames addictive behavior" is not the same as "ensures the death".) Stop making bald assertions and start providing some evidence.If what you claim is so well established then you will have no trouble showing that enablers ensure the death of the addicts they enable. ...or you can just say that your opinions are not based on anything and are just pulled from thin air.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3744 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
Hyroglyphx writes:
*sigh*
What exactly didn't I answer? Or did I simply not answer it to your satisfaction?
Panda writes:
...silence... Really?Ok...I'll post it one more time - but you refused to answer it before, so I guess you will still refuse. Are you still claiming that people that faciltate safe drug use ensure the death of the addicts? Hyroglyphx writes:
You also said that doctors, etc. who facilitate safe drug use ensure the death of their patients - the two sentences are not mutually exclusive. I said that enablers are complicit in the death's of drug users. It's common sense.If you want to change your position, then fine. But you should acknowledge it clearly. Hyroglyphx writes:
Different conditions require different treatments. It's common sense. Would you hand a suicidal patient a gun as a means of recovery? So why would you help a junkie to get high? Would you hand a suicidal patient drugs as a means of recovery? Oh..yes, you might: antidepressants.Would you hand a drug addict a gun? No, you wouldn't. It would appear that a gun is not a safe treatment for either condition, but drugs could be. Hyroglyphx writes:
If the world revolves around incentives and consequences, then why don't addicts quit when they lose their job? And then lose their families? And their homes and oh...they've lost everything! ...and they are still addicts. The world revolves around incentives and consequences. If you remove these two things, there is no reason for the addict to ever even desire to be clean. Some times it takes hitting rock bottom to make the addict want to be clean. And it's going to take pain. "Sometimes it takes hitting rock bottom" - and often even that is not enough. Hyroglyphx writes:
I agree: having well-meaning amateurs play 'doctors' is not recommended. So providing them free drugs, free needles, and a non-confrontational and non-judgmental attitude is being "nice" to them, but it's also helping them remain in their addiction. Mothers, fathers, grandmothers, sisters, brothers, etc who do not hold their family members accountable do only ensure that their loved-one's will remain trapped, even unto death. I've watched plenty of friends and family friends die from alcoholism to drug overdose, and the single greatest problem I witnessed, aside from the drug user themselves, was the enabling from the family and friends. They were more afraid of "offending" them than actually helping them. And now they're dead. Sooooo..... yeah......But that is a far stretch from what you originally claimed. So, do you now no longer claim that doctors, etc. who facilitate safe drug use ensure the death of their patients.(I still expect you to avoid answering this.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3744 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Trae writes:
According to the series listing, their success rate seems pretty low. I've not seen anything suggesting that the A&E approch is highly effective, have you? Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3744 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3744 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 3744 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3744 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3744 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3744 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
iano writes:
Do you have a problem remembering what the fuck you are talking about? Panda writes: Cigarettes Consumption is falling. And?
Panda writes: Alcohol Ditto above.The fact that alcohol and cigarette consumption is dropping directly contradicts your baseless assertion: iano writes: A general rule of thumb when it comes to consumables tells us that as access simplifies > consumption goes up. You claim that legalising substances increases their consumption.And when I show you that legal drug consumption is dropping: you post a link to research into how to reduce the consumption of legal drugs. You don't seem to know what you are saying. Your claim that legalising drugs increases their consumption is still just an assertion lacking any support.Legalisation and education have a proven history of reducing consumption: we can see it happening all around us.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024