Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Good drugs, bad drugs, legal drugs, illegal drugs
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 115 (597880)
12-25-2010 7:10 AM


My philosophy, when it comes to drugs, is non-intervention. My job requires me to fight the "War on Drugs," which means that I am legally obligated to chase down and detain drug runners.
I recently caught 4 Bahamian drug runners off the coast of Cuba about 3 weeks ago. We recovered 45 bales of marijuana. And as I'm performing my job, in the back of my mind, it's not lost on me that I disagree with the War on Drugs. What do I care if they're trying to make some money? Who am I to get in the way of their enterprising?
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.
So you have one side who callously views drug addicts as "criminals" and the other side who enables them by viewing them as "victims." Both have lost perspective on the matter.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by anglagard, posted 12-25-2010 7:50 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 37 by Panda, posted 12-25-2010 8:27 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 40 by Dogmafood, posted 12-25-2010 8:57 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 41 by nwr, posted 12-25-2010 10:21 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 115 by onifre, posted 12-29-2010 9:38 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 115 (597885)
12-25-2010 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by anglagard
12-25-2010 7:50 AM


Can you name all the people throughout history who have "died by their own hand" due to marijuana? (hint: it's at least one less than water).
I wasn't referring to marijuana. I don't even consider Marijuana a narcotic.
There are some drugs that cause no harm whatsoever if uncontaminated and properly managed, like heroin or any opiate derivative. Technically this can even be extended to any pharmaceutical opiate such as hydrocodone or oxycontin (Rush Limbaugh's favorite).
The problem with opiates is that it is highly addictive, and just like any other drug (legal or otherwise), the body grows a tolerance to it, which therefore necessitates the increased dosage. The liver can only take so much abuse.
Regardless, my only point is that people should be able to do to themselves whatever they want without intervention from the government -- that includes waging a war against them or helping them get high at the tax payer's expense.
This war on drugs, along with Afghanistan and Iraq, is and will drain the treasury to the point the USA will fall.
Strongly agreed.
Have any children?
Two of them, who are now awake and want their Christmas. And with that, I bid you a good day.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by anglagard, posted 12-25-2010 7:50 AM anglagard has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 115 (597886)
12-25-2010 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Panda
12-25-2010 8:27 AM


Clarifying intent
You seem to be claimimg that all (or most) addicts that join a legal drug scheme will die from those administered drugs.
Not at all, and how you came to that conclusion is anyone's guess. I wouldn't know how to quantify the number of people who die because of drugs versus those who never die. I can only offer some anecdote from personal experience.
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.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Panda, posted 12-25-2010 8:27 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Panda, posted 12-25-2010 11:31 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 115 (597896)
12-25-2010 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Dogmafood
12-25-2010 8:57 AM


Enabling
The irony is that without folks doing what you are doing there would be no enterprise.
Yeah, but they don't listen to me. It's way above my pay grade.
In case you haven't noticed we are all going to die no matter what.
So since we're all going to die anyway, randomly shoot someone in the head. When the judge asks you why. just tell him that the person you shot was going to die anyway.
This is like saying that we are enabling all those people who die in car accidents by allowing them to have cars. By this logic cars should not have seat belts or airbags because they enable people to survive the consequences of their decisions.
No, it's nothing remotely like that straw man.
"In a negative sense, enabling is also used in the context of problematic behavior, to signify dysfunctional approaches that are intended to help but in fact may perpetuate a problem. A common theme of enabling in this latter sense is that third parties take responsibility, blame, or make accommodations for a person's harmful conduct (often with the best of intentions, or from fear or insecurity which inhibits action). The practical effect is that the person themselves does not have to do so, and is shielded from awareness of the harm it may do, and the need or pressure to change. It is a major environmental cause of addiction.
A common example of enabling can be observed in the relationship between the alcoholic/addict and a codependent spouse. The spouse believes incorrectly that he or she is helping the alcoholic by calling into work for them, making excuses that prevent others from holding them accountable, and generally cleaning up the mess that occurs in the wake of their impaired judgment. In reality what the spouse is doing is hurting, not helping. Enabling prevents psychological growth in the person being enabled and can contribute to negative symptoms in the enabler.
Generally, individuals who enable others have weak boundaries, low self-esteem, and have difficulty being assertive when they communicate with others." - Source
There isn't a drug counselor on the planet who would suggest enabling as an acceptable method of dealing with addiction.
But all this has gotten beyond the initial point.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Dogmafood, posted 12-25-2010 8:57 AM Dogmafood has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 115 (597898)
12-25-2010 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by nwr
12-25-2010 10:21 AM


Are coal mine operators "enablers" for black lung disease?
If they have foreknowledge of the danger and don't do anything about it, yes, they are. They're certainly complicit in the effects it has.
Doesn't this all come down to insane puritanicalism?
Looking at from a legal perspective, drug laws tend to be malum prohibitum (crimes that are considered "bad" only because they're prohibited) whereas crimes like murder are considered malum in se (inherently evil).
In other words, I subscribe to the philosophy "No victim, no crime."
In this society, it is perfectly alright, and often admired, to make money in a way that is likely to result in death (as with coal mine operation). But it isn't alright to make money in a way that people get some enjoyment (as in selling pot). We even look down on amusement park operators, in comparison to mine operators.
An astute observation, and one that shouldn't go unnoticed.
Personally, I have never used pot, and I think it a bad idea. But I don't see any value in our current laws against it. We have the political right complaining about the "nanny state", but the drug laws that they insist on are nanny state laws.
The Right is comprised of hypocrites and only do things it's used to. They grew up thinking that drugs are bad, and they've seen some of the destruction caused by drugs. So in their savior complex, they feel justified in putting an end to drugs without realizing that 75% of the drugs they demonize are better for you than alcohol, as diseases caused by alcohol consumption still claim more lives than any other drug.
What would you consider a good perspective?
One that views the problem realistically. Drug users are neither criminals because they use drugs or in need of government assistance because they're addicts.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by nwr, posted 12-25-2010 10:21 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 115 (597899)
12-25-2010 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Panda
12-25-2010 11:31 AM


Re: Clarifying intent
I would hope people would read what you posted, rather than just guessing - I know I did.
It was because you said:
quote:By doing this, you only ensure that people will die at their own hand.
(I emphasised the key bit.)
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 drug addicts know that the gub'ment is going to provide them with fresh needles, food, a warm place to stay, etc, what incentive is there to stop? When the junky never hits rock bottom, what motivation is there to get clean?
That is not what you were talking about. 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.
Yes, enablers are complicit in the deaths of those that do overdose. Hell, just watch 1 show of "Intervention" on A&E to see how they handle it.
Maybe you should have caged your sentences in less definite terms if you are only going by 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.
Providing them with the drugs and the delivery method isn't complicit?
And you are entitled to this opinion.
I am simply pointing out the the basis for your opinion regarding "tax payers enabling addicts" is unfounded and offensive.
It's offensive to think that you and I might pay for people to get high. That's offensive. If you want to get as high as a goddamn kite, knock yourself out. But don't do it on my dime.
But since we're on the subject, how best do you think to handle drugs and drug users?

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Panda, posted 12-25-2010 11:31 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by jar, posted 12-25-2010 12:04 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 49 by Panda, posted 12-25-2010 1:17 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 115 (597901)
12-25-2010 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by jar
12-25-2010 12:04 PM


Re: towards a solution
I would decriminalize drug use, nationalize drug productions, subsidize it and give them away for free through a local clinic setting where users also get free medical care and education.
Well, even terrible opinions are still opinions you're entitled to.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by jar, posted 12-25-2010 12:04 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by jar, posted 12-25-2010 12:40 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 115 (597905)
12-25-2010 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by jar
12-25-2010 12:40 PM


Re: towards a solution
The real production costs of drugs is actually quite low. By decriminalizing and nationalizing the drugs, by giving them away for free, we would immediately stop a major source of funds to the criminal elements where it is a profit center.
By setting up the distribution through neighborhood clinics we would also get people in where general medical care could be provided.
Finally, the cost of the program would very likely be far less than what we spend today on the War on Drugs, local law enforcement related to drugs, incarceration of convicted drug users and dealers and the court costs associated with enforcement.
In addition, the government could encourage US farmers and pharmacies to produce the drugs under contract, redirecting funds that today end up going to the foreign drug lords. The plan would even help stabilize other nations, like our southern neighbor.
But you neglect the underlying issue, which is what caused, even if falsely, this drug war. And that is that addiction, especially addiction on a massive scale, is costly to a society. Now you don't even want them to pay for the maintenance of their own addiction, but give incentives to be an addict by making it free for junkies, and force us to subsidize for them.
Sure, you put the cartels out of business, which alleviates 1/2 the problem, but you create more addiction in the process, which neglects the other half.
Why not have the government simply take a step back altogether. That means that drugs would be decriminalized, but it also means that we won't facilitate people in getting high.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by jar, posted 12-25-2010 12:40 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by jar, posted 12-25-2010 3:29 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 115 (597906)
12-25-2010 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Panda
12-25-2010 1:17 PM


Re: Clarifying intent
Of course you were talking about hard drugs.
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."
I'm referring to anyone that gives in to enabling behavior, like family, friends, or clinicians who perpetuate poor behavior.
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.
What exactly didn't I answer? Or did I simply not answer it to your satisfaction? I think that people who enable drug users are complicit in the deaths of those who do overdose -- that they are co-conspirators, even if unintentionally.
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. That kind of data does not exist, so it's unreasonable to demand it.
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?

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Panda, posted 12-25-2010 1:17 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Panda, posted 12-25-2010 3:23 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 115 (597922)
12-25-2010 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Panda
12-25-2010 3:23 PM


Re: Clarifying intent
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.
Alright, this is the last time I'm going to go over it, because I've been more than clear about it.
I said that enablers are complicit in the death's of drug users. 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?
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.
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......

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Panda, posted 12-25-2010 3:23 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Panda, posted 12-26-2010 2:21 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 68 by Trae, posted 12-26-2010 5:29 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 115 (597923)
12-25-2010 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by jar
12-25-2010 3:29 PM


Re: towards a solution
I have never seen any evidence that the cost of addiction was ever anything more than propaganda. And guess what, currently we do pay for their addiction. Where do junkies, as you call them, currently get the money to support their habit?
I'm sorry but how exactly does my plan create more addiction?
Are you somehow stopping the addiction by providing them more (and free) drugs at an unlimited supply? What incentive do they have to ever stop, besides death?

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by jar, posted 12-25-2010 3:29 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by jar, posted 12-25-2010 4:18 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 57 by Omnivorous, posted 12-25-2010 4:31 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 115 (597938)
12-25-2010 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Omnivorous
12-25-2010 4:31 PM


Re: When jar is right, he's heavy right.
A society that treats addicts as what they are--ill--removes both.
Does it make sense to continue feeding someone Mercury who's been suffering from Mercury poisoning? If it doesn't, then how does subsidizing drug addicts make any sense?
On the other hand, perhaps the best thing is to imprison drug users of all stripes, where they can be raped, generally brutalized and rendered nearly unemployable.
Obviously not, and if you'll take the time to read my posts you will see that I want decriminalize all drugs too... Where Jar and I part ways is that I just don't believe in providing free drugs at the tax payers expense.
Our prisons are overcrowded to inhumane levels because of our irrational drug policies. There are still states where you'll do more time for giving your neighbor a joint than for raping her.
Agreed, which is grossly unjust. The legal system in the US is in need of a serious adjustment, just like many other of it's sectors.
Jar's prescriptions are superbly rational. Until we tackle the problem of addiction with reason and compassion, the situation will continue to worsen.
Well, that all depends on what we both mean by compassion. If not demonizing drug addicts and not treating them like criminals, then we agree. If showing them compassion means subsidizing their habit at the expense of everyone else, then no.
I don't believe handing a suicidal person a gun is the best way to prevent them from committing suicide, so it makes little sense that dispensing their drug of choice, free of charge, would make a lick of difference.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Omnivorous, posted 12-25-2010 4:31 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by jar, posted 12-25-2010 8:34 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 60 by Omnivorous, posted 12-25-2010 8:49 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 115 (597942)
12-25-2010 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by jar
12-25-2010 8:34 PM


Re: When jar is right, he's heavy right.
First, most drugs are not equivalent to mercury poisoning.
Meth is a particularly nasty concoction.
I did not simply suggest feeding and subsidizing. Remember the distribution system, I suggested distribution through local health clinics. That would bring the addicts into an environment where they can be educated and many of the things that lead to misuse addressed.
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? Or do they have an endless credit limit out of some misplaced sense of obligation? I mean, all welfare recipients are given the tools for success, but many just want to play the system. They aren't interested in working, and many addicts aren't interested in getting clean.
For the majority of drug users, drugs are not fatal, in fact many may well be life enhancing. The problem is that so far we have not regulated or even investigated the majority.
Then nicotine is not fatal either.... except it is.
Keep the benefits to society in general in mind as well.
I am thinking about society when I think of dumping billions of dollars in to a failed war. I'm also thinking of society when people enable others, at my expense no less, to continue in destructive behavior. People are allowed to kill themselves all they want in my book, but I'm not going to feel obligated to fund it. That's a disservice to the addict and it's a disservice to all of us.
If, however, a private entity wants to fund them because they feel they have a moral obligation, I would not stand in their way. I think it is commendable that you feel so impassioned about it. That's certainly not a bad thing, but I think there are more constructive ways of going about it. And to me, a non-interventionist approach is the best way by the government is more appropriate.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." -- Thomas Jefferson

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by jar, posted 12-25-2010 8:34 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by jar, posted 12-25-2010 9:26 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 89 by Modulous, posted 12-26-2010 5:15 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 115 (597946)
12-25-2010 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Omnivorous
12-25-2010 8:49 PM


Re: When jar is right, he's heavy right.
My sincere apologies--I have now read upthread. My passion on the subject spilled over unfairly on you.
No worries. It's an expected reaction knowing the former me. I probably would have expected the same thing.
Drugs, even addictive drugs, are not poison; mercury is not eaten by choice (it's mostly absorbed by children due to Republican environmental policy).
Well, actually, if you really analyze what narcotics really are, it's the plants mechanism of defense (poison) against insects. It quite literally is poison, just like any other defensive poison for other creatures.
Beyond that, I don't really care. I think you or I should have the right to choose what you want to ingest, so long as it doesn't affect someone else in the process.
For instance, I think you should be able to smoke copious amounts of opium in the parking lot of 7-11 or in the comfort of your own home. However, you should not legally be allowed to operate a motor vehicle at that point.
I think drugs, even hard drugs, should be treated with the same care as alcohol is, which is, perfectly legal, unless.....
In my opinion (and experience), the only way to kill the black market in addictive drugs is to supplant it with an irresistibly superior choice.
Which California has done fairly successfully. The quality of the marijuana in legal dispensaries simply puts to shame the garbage brought over by Mexican cartels.
A state clinic can provide the drug free in return for participation in health programs: psych counselling, HIV prevention/treatment, employment counseling, etc. This also removes the addict from the criminal milieu: if addicts are chasing street drugs, they are also chasing crime.
Well, now this sounds a little more appealing than what Jar articulated. There seems to be an actual tangible goal.
Why is it better to spend billions to combat street drugs than millions to provide free, safe drugs in a health care environment? Simple decriminalization alone will not address the street supply of drugs of uncertain quality and potency, nor will it remove gang criminality from what is essentially a health care issue.
Well, for starters, there's a simple dollars and cents argument that makes it impractical. And it's kind of like Bush sending carrier groups to the Arabian gulf to protect assets of oil... except, he was spending more on protecting those assets than what was actually produced, so that we saw a net loss... IOW, completely pointless and counter-productive to the stated goal because if you're spending more in fuel to protect the fuel, then protecting the fuel is pointless.
I understand that you feel you are adopting a principled, moral stand, but I don't see what is more moral about a situation that costs the taxpayers much more than jar's pragmatic solution.
I don't see how robbing Peter to pay Paul is pragmatic.
Of note, nations which adopt jar's plan would also disrupt black market supplies by purchasing at the source. Afghan opium, for example, would no longer profit the Taliban but would rather reduce U.S. crime rates and police costs. In passing, let me also note that the war on drugs, e.g., the no-knock warrant, began eroding our civil liberties long before the war on terrorism.
Agreed. The War on Drugs got way out of hand. I see it on a very personal level. We simply cut holes in the oceans (at a ridiculous amount to the tax payer), so that we can arrest 4 Bahamian (very nice men, btw) who were simply trying to feed their kids. It's sad.
C'mon, Hyro, that analogy fails so badly I hardly have the heart to hurt it. The real loaded gun is the addict unable to obtain a fix because he can't afford it.
What, you think he's just going to give it up?
By the same measure, do you think he's suddenly going to stop smoking crack when you provide it for free at an unlimited supply? Supply and demand. The demand is always higher. What incentive does he have to stop when there is no rock and there is no bottom? How can he hit rock bottom when you're constantly providing safety nets to break his fall? Maybe he needs to hurt, maybe he needs to understand the consequences. That might be the only thing that saves his life.
Look at how they handle it on the show Intervention on A&E. They don't just kowtow to avoid hurting the feelings of an addict, they say that you must get firm to save them. And the former addicts always thank them for the tough love, because as evidenced by overwhelming experience, enabling does not work... And just about every sociologist in the field of drugs would say the same thing I am, would they not?
A better comparison would be refusing free medication to violent paranoid schizophrenics because it's unfair to do it at "everyone else's" expense--as though sick people should pay for their meds like everyone else, even if they're killing people to get the money.
Okay, so if I'm hopelessly addicted to nicotine and alcohol, is it reasonable to expect you to buy me a bottle of hooch and a carton of Lucky Strike's at your expense? It's a disease, right? So therefore I should get it for free.
The first medicine an addict needs is her drug. You can't argue with the monkey on her back; feed it, put it to sleep, and you can at least talk to her.
I don't agree with throwing someone in the slammer and letting them deal with their DT's that way. It's dangerous and ineffective.
Can we at least agree that IF something like this were to be subsidized, that there are stipulations.
My suggestions:
1. To enter the program, it means that you understand that the treatment is designed to wean you off of drugs for good, not just continually supplying your habit for free.
2. If you leave the program, you can never come back. So think long and hard about it.
3. Each day you will have decreased dosages of your drug of choice until you are completely clean.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Omnivorous, posted 12-25-2010 8:49 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Omnivorous, posted 12-25-2010 10:44 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 69 by Trae, posted 12-26-2010 5:36 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 115 (597948)
12-25-2010 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by jar
12-25-2010 9:26 PM


Re: Not a matter of generosity or obligation, but only enlightened self-interest
Yes it is. But guess what, it is only one of many drugs. So why is is successful?
Because it's cheap, and the high last 10 times longer than cocaine.
I did not simply suggest feeding and subsidizing. Remember the distribution system, I suggested distribution through local health clinics. That would bring the addicts into an environment where they can be educated and many of the things that lead to misuse addressed.
In one ear, right out the other. Just shut up already and give me what I came here for!
See you tomorrow at the same time. Repeat process 4,000 times until I finally die.
What I have suggested is is not out of generosity but rather enlightened self interest. Most drug users as a matter of fact still continue working.
Then they can afford their habit on their own. Nobody pays for my booze and cigarettes, nor should they. That's my problem.
For some people yes it is fatal, but not for all. And guess what, society has finally learned that the way to cut down on nicotine use is ... education.
Yeah, education, not a drug dispensary. Critical difference.
YOU fund the addicts today through the costs of our silly system; in crime and pain and punishment and loss of freedom and higher taxes and prisons and loss of productivity.
But I don't want that either, it needs to be amended. We're united on that point.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by jar, posted 12-25-2010 9:26 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by jar, posted 12-25-2010 9:58 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024