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
Not a matter of generosity or obligation, but only enlightened self-interest
NJ writes:
jar writes:
First, most drugs are not equivalent to mercury poisoning.
Meth is a particularly nasty concoction.
Yes it is. But guess what, it is only one of many drugs. So why is is successful?
NJ writes:
jar writes:
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.
There is no misplaced sense of obligation; I really doubt where you can point to me even suggesting that. Nor is there any suggested "State Generosity."
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.
NJ writes:
jar writes:
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.
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.
NJ writes:
jar writes:
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.
Stop and think.
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.
What I suggest will actually lower your costs.
Edited by jar, : fix subtitle
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
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
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
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 can't see how free addict clinics could possibly be more expensive than the current societal costs. As I said, drugs are cheap. We are presently in the realm of the heavy net loss.
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?
Sorry, I broke the boob tube addiction years ago. I'll see if I can find a torrent. The tough love paradigm is an American mythos I find unpersuasive: sure, some folks respond, but I doubt the majority do, or we'd have no problem now...our love has been pretty tough. I expect the episodes of Intervention feature carefully selected addicts and outcomes. It's entertainment.
As to sociologists on the subject: No, I don't think they would say the same thing. I'd appreciate evidence of that kind of consensus.
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.
Jesus wept.
When the government stops allowing the promotion and distribution of addictive, harmful substances/modes of delivery, I'll take your analogy more seriously. Besides, once chronic is legal, alcoholism will naturally decline.
By the way, in response to your comments about nicotine to jar ('we've learned it is fatal')--in fact nicotine is not a pernicious drug. See my Message 40, Noble Nicotine, for a summary of its salutary effects.
The problem is with modes of delivery, smoking or chewing, that cause the cancer, emphysema, etc., with which nicotine is associated. As I noted in Noble Nicotine, patches are sometimes quite useful.
Insanely, the FDA opposes the development of harmless modes of nicotine delivery. I think it's a moral stand, much like yours. I know a number of physicians who refuse to prescribe nicotine patches--because nicotine addiction is bad--despite the tremendous pulmonary benefits even in a patient who uses patches forever. Theirs is a moral stand as well, completely without clinical justification.
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.
1. That kind of initial commitment from an addict is meaningless.
2. An addict can make only one mistake?
3. We're going to cut your dose daily?
Yes, let's design a program that no addict would find in the least bit attractive. That should work.
Perhaps the greatest benefit of free clinics hasn't been mentioned. By largely destroying the black market for drugs, free clinics would also drastically reduce the number of new addicts.
The key to a free clinic approach is to get the addict into an environment where she can be educated and counseled. A treatment plan similar to what you describe--a strong commitment to a schedule of withdrawal--is where you would hope to arrive.
My surgeon prescribed drugs and extensive physical therapy, both at Rehab and at home, after my spine surgery. When I got tired or discouraged and failed to do my exercises or missed some doses, he didn't refuse to see me again.
Addiction is a disease; moralistic demands that the addict cure herself by an act of will or face the consequences are doomed to failure. That's what we do now.
I know there's a balance, I see it when I swing past. -J. Mellencamp
What exactly didn't I answer? Or did I simply not answer it to your satisfaction?
Panda writes:
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?
...silence...
*sigh*
Hyroglyphx writes:
I said that enablers are complicit in the death's of drug users. It's common sense.
You also said that doctors, etc. who facilitate safe drug use ensure the death of their patients - the two sentences are not mutually exclusive. If you want to change your position, then fine. But you should acknowledge it clearly.
Hyroglyphx writes:
Would you hand a suicidal patient a gun as a means of recovery? So why would you help a junkie to get high?
Different conditions require different treatments. It's common sense.
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:
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.
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. "Sometimes it takes hitting rock bottom" - and often even that is not enough.
Hyroglyphx writes:
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......
I agree: having well-meaning amateurs play 'doctors' is not recommended. 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.)
If you’re going to blame the so-called enabler’s then you also have to accept blame when supporting the drug policy. Both create victims, but personally I feel it is the later that that create by far the most appalling injustices. We talk about drugs destroying lives, but we ignore when the government does exactly that. You say remove incentives, but far too often the drug-war locks people into a life of crime and drugs. Where I live you can’t even get a job cutting hair if you have a felony record. Remove their ability to obtain work isn’t helpful. Making someone a sub-citizen is IMO a reason to do drugs.
The war on drugs is insane. People have drawn some very ridiculous lines in the sand. I have an old school mate who was growing medical marijuana and not being able to legally bust the person, the police instead called in child services who took the children claiming that the smell of pot while growing was actually harmful to the children. This is the sort of result you wind up having when rhetoric for the Drug War gets out of hand. Now the couple have a very expensive lawyer and quite possibly the county they live in will shortly have even less funds to spend on real issues rather than inventing issues.
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?
I've not seen anything suggesting that the A&E approch is highly effective, have you? It isn't a show I've watched, but seems I've seen some flashes about various people failing. Certainly, it seems a very expensive approach. Also, consider that they get to cherry-pick who they treat.
I can't see how free addict clinics could possibly be more expensive than the current societal costs. As I said, drugs are cheap. We are presently in the realm of the heavy net loss.
Cheap for the consumer, but think what it would take for the government to facilitate the need of the masses. First there has to be a lab which manufactures all sorts of narcotics. You have to pay these scientists to make it.
Then you have the daunting task of procuring the raw materials, like coca or opium, which are overseas.
Those are just some of the expensive challenges.
I don't think they would say the same thing. I'd appreciate evidence of that kind of consensus.
There is no shortage of literature on the web concerning enabling behavior
By the way, in response to your comments about nicotine to jar ('we've learned it is fatal')--in fact nicotine is not a pernicious drug. See my Message 40, Noble Nicotine, for a summary of its salutary effects.
The problem is with modes of delivery, smoking or chewing, that cause the cancer, emphysema, etc., with which nicotine is associated. As I noted in Noble Nicotine, patches are sometimes quite useful.
It's a philosophical point I was making. You said that addiction is a disease and the people can't help it. So we should just buy it for them since it's something beyond their control. So I responded by asking whether or not nicotine and alcohol users should expect the same treatment, being that they too are addicts.
You haven't addressed that point.
1. That kind of initial commitment from an addict is meaningless.
Precisely my point with enabling.
2. An addict can make only one mistake?
In order to make a mistake, they have to go through the process of checking out. Remember, they are receiving their drug of choice, which is slowly being tapered away.
3. We're going to cut your dose daily?
Maybe not daily, but the point I'm making is that the goal is to wean them off slowly. In between are sessions where they are educated about the dangers have therapy sessions where they can express themselves.
Perhaps the greatest benefit of free clinics hasn't been mentioned. By largely destroying the black market for drugs, free clinics would also drastically reduce the number of new addicts.
That won't stop black market drugs. The black market will respond with a drug with higher potency, OR (like they did with Crack Ecstasy or Meth), they'll simply create a new drug.
Addiction is a disease; moralistic demands that the addict cure herself by an act of will or face the consequences are doomed to failure. That's what we do now.
It isn't a moral demand, it's a simple matter of what is going to save their lives.
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
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?
...silence...
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.
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.
You also said that doctors, etc. who facilitate safe drug use ensure the death of their patients - the two sentences are not mutually exclusive. If you want to change your position, then fine. But you should acknowledge it clearly.
I said enabling behavior, and I've consistently stated that. You're harping on a semantical argument instead of actually addressing the underlying issue.
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.
The point you are overlooking is that dispensing unlimited drugs, for free, offers no solution to an addict. It's just a way to get a fix and you are perpetuating and exacerbating the problem. It's about as useful as handing a suicidal man a gun.
"Oh, sir, please allow me to cock the hammer back for you."
Being "nice" to people doesn't mean you're helping them.
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. "Sometimes it takes hitting rock bottom" - and often even that is not enough.
Exactly my point though. It's going to take an outside perspective telling them what the family has been saying all along for them to really take a step back and look at the carnage. It's going to take a drug treatment center to essentially incarcerate them and provide them declining doses to help.
A clinic which simply dispenses drugs for free at an endless credit line is not a solution, it simply adds to the problem.
I agree: having well-meaning amateurs play 'doctors' is not recommended. 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.)
That isn't a far stretch at all. Yes, doctors who perpetually administer drugs to addicts are complicit in the death of the addict. That's because there is no recovery plan, they just give what the addict wants.
You do know that not all drug users from overdose, I imagine. But their livers fail, they have irreparable brain damage, they develop infections and blood poisoning, etc.
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
I'll see if I can find a torrent. The tough love paradigm is an American mythos I find unpersuasive: sure, some folks respond, but I doubt the majority do, or we'd have no problem now...our love has been pretty tough. I expect the episodes of Intervention feature carefully selected addicts and outcomes. It's entertainment.
™ Version 4.2
(1)