|
Sent by a friend with guns
On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 23:26:13 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote: On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:42:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: I'm not arguing to do nothing. I'm arguing to focus on the damn problem. You and I aren't the problem. The hoods and druggies in the inner cities are the problem. What do you suggest be done about them? For one thing we can try to make their access to firearms more difficult. === Here's a modest proposal. Since we all agree that people are killing each other over drugs and drug money, why not decriminalize all drug use and drug possession. Then take it a step further by supplying registered drug users with all the drugs they want. Some European countries have adopted a similar model and they don't have the problems that we do. Sure, a certain number of people will OD or otherwise become unproductive but most of them are already unproductive. Education and good parenting should be sufficient to keep proliferation under control. === crickets Why is that? How better else to eliminate all drug crimes? |
Sent by a friend with guns
On 7/4/2015 10:30 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 23:26:13 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:42:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: I'm not arguing to do nothing. I'm arguing to focus on the damn problem. You and I aren't the problem. The hoods and druggies in the inner cities are the problem. What do you suggest be done about them? For one thing we can try to make their access to firearms more difficult. === Here's a modest proposal. Since we all agree that people are killing each other over drugs and drug money, why not decriminalize all drug use and drug possession. Then take it a step further by supplying registered drug users with all the drugs they want. Some European countries have adopted a similar model and they don't have the problems that we do. Sure, a certain number of people will OD or otherwise become unproductive but most of them are already unproductive. Education and good parenting should be sufficient to keep proliferation under control. === crickets Why is that? How better else to eliminate all drug crimes? Let's legalize and encourage everything that is illegal, immoral, or fattening. ;-) -- Respectfully submitted by Justan Laugh of the day from Krause "I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here. I've been "born again" as a nice guy." |
Sent by a friend with guns
|
Sent by a friend with guns
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 11:33:02 -0400, Justan Olphat
wrote: On 7/4/2015 10:30 AM, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 23:26:13 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:42:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: I'm not arguing to do nothing. I'm arguing to focus on the damn problem. You and I aren't the problem. The hoods and druggies in the inner cities are the problem. What do you suggest be done about them? For one thing we can try to make their access to firearms more difficult. === Here's a modest proposal. Since we all agree that people are killing each other over drugs and drug money, why not decriminalize all drug use and drug possession. Then take it a step further by supplying registered drug users with all the drugs they want. Some European countries have adopted a similar model and they don't have the problems that we do. Sure, a certain number of people will OD or otherwise become unproductive but most of them are already unproductive. Education and good parenting should be sufficient to keep proliferation under control. === crickets Why is that? How better else to eliminate all drug crimes? Let's legalize and encourage everything that is illegal, immoral, or fattening. ;-) === I said nothing about "encouraging" in my proposal. Those are your words. Let's start with talking about hard core heroin, meth or crack cocaine addicts. They've already been "encouraged" some how or other, most likely by other junkies trying to hook in prospective customers. The treatment success rate for these individuals is abysmally poor. There are few legal ways to raise the money they need to support their addiction so they frequently turn to crime of one sort or another, and frequently that crime is selling drugs. Selling drugs of course is dangerous work, competetive, and fraught with the possibility for all kinds of violence. So which is worse in your opinion? Free government supplied drugs of known purity with no strings attached, or successive generations of drug addicts turned pushers and street criminals? We've already got the latter so what is there to lose? |
Sent by a friend with guns
On 7/4/2015 3:33 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 11:33:02 -0400, Justan Olphat wrote: On 7/4/2015 10:30 AM, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 23:26:13 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:42:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: I'm not arguing to do nothing. I'm arguing to focus on the damn problem. You and I aren't the problem. The hoods and druggies in the inner cities are the problem. What do you suggest be done about them? For one thing we can try to make their access to firearms more difficult. === Here's a modest proposal. Since we all agree that people are killing each other over drugs and drug money, why not decriminalize all drug use and drug possession. Then take it a step further by supplying registered drug users with all the drugs they want. Some European countries have adopted a similar model and they don't have the problems that we do. Sure, a certain number of people will OD or otherwise become unproductive but most of them are already unproductive. Education and good parenting should be sufficient to keep proliferation under control. === crickets Why is that? How better else to eliminate all drug crimes? Let's legalize and encourage everything that is illegal, immoral, or fattening. ;-) === I said nothing about "encouraging" in my proposal. Those are your words. Let's start with talking about hard core heroin, meth or crack cocaine addicts. They've already been "encouraged" some how or other, most likely by other junkies trying to hook in prospective customers. The treatment success rate for these individuals is abysmally poor. There are few legal ways to raise the money they need to support their addiction so they frequently turn to crime of one sort or another, and frequently that crime is selling drugs. Selling drugs of course is dangerous work, competetive, and fraught with the possibility for all kinds of violence. So which is worse in your opinion? Free government supplied drugs of known purity with no strings attached, or successive generations of drug addicts turned pushers and street criminals? We've already got the latter so what is there to lose? I see no benefit to anyone by offering free high quality dope to junkies unless you consider the likelihood that the freebies would lead to overdosing en masse. -- Respectfully submitted by Justan Laugh of the day from Krause "I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here. I've been "born again" as a nice guy." |
Sent by a friend with guns
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 15:58:01 -0400, Justan Olphat
wrote: On 7/4/2015 3:33 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 11:33:02 -0400, Justan Olphat wrote: On 7/4/2015 10:30 AM, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 23:26:13 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:42:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: I'm not arguing to do nothing. I'm arguing to focus on the damn problem. You and I aren't the problem. The hoods and druggies in the inner cities are the problem. What do you suggest be done about them? For one thing we can try to make their access to firearms more difficult. === Here's a modest proposal. Since we all agree that people are killing each other over drugs and drug money, why not decriminalize all drug use and drug possession. Then take it a step further by supplying registered drug users with all the drugs they want. Some European countries have adopted a similar model and they don't have the problems that we do. Sure, a certain number of people will OD or otherwise become unproductive but most of them are already unproductive. Education and good parenting should be sufficient to keep proliferation under control. === crickets Why is that? How better else to eliminate all drug crimes? Let's legalize and encourage everything that is illegal, immoral, or fattening. ;-) === I said nothing about "encouraging" in my proposal. Those are your words. Let's start with talking about hard core heroin, meth or crack cocaine addicts. They've already been "encouraged" some how or other, most likely by other junkies trying to hook in prospective customers. The treatment success rate for these individuals is abysmally poor. There are few legal ways to raise the money they need to support their addiction so they frequently turn to crime of one sort or another, and frequently that crime is selling drugs. Selling drugs of course is dangerous work, competetive, and fraught with the possibility for all kinds of violence. So which is worse in your opinion? Free government supplied drugs of known purity with no strings attached, or successive generations of drug addicts turned pushers and street criminals? We've already got the latter so what is there to lose? I see no benefit to anyone by offering free high quality dope to junkies unless you consider the likelihood that the freebies would lead to overdosing en masse. === What about the huge reduction in crime and law enforceement expenses? A happy junkie doesn't go around robbing and assaulting people. |
Sent by a friend with guns
On 7/4/2015 5:19 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 15:58:01 -0400, Justan Olphat wrote: On 7/4/2015 3:33 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 11:33:02 -0400, Justan Olphat wrote: On 7/4/2015 10:30 AM, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 23:26:13 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:42:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: I'm not arguing to do nothing. I'm arguing to focus on the damn problem. You and I aren't the problem. The hoods and druggies in the inner cities are the problem. What do you suggest be done about them? For one thing we can try to make their access to firearms more difficult. === Here's a modest proposal. Since we all agree that people are killing each other over drugs and drug money, why not decriminalize all drug use and drug possession. Then take it a step further by supplying registered drug users with all the drugs they want. Some European countries have adopted a similar model and they don't have the problems that we do. Sure, a certain number of people will OD or otherwise become unproductive but most of them are already unproductive. Education and good parenting should be sufficient to keep proliferation under control. === crickets Why is that? How better else to eliminate all drug crimes? Let's legalize and encourage everything that is illegal, immoral, or fattening. ;-) === I said nothing about "encouraging" in my proposal. Those are your words. Let's start with talking about hard core heroin, meth or crack cocaine addicts. They've already been "encouraged" some how or other, most likely by other junkies trying to hook in prospective customers. The treatment success rate for these individuals is abysmally poor. There are few legal ways to raise the money they need to support their addiction so they frequently turn to crime of one sort or another, and frequently that crime is selling drugs. Selling drugs of course is dangerous work, competetive, and fraught with the possibility for all kinds of violence. So which is worse in your opinion? Free government supplied drugs of known purity with no strings attached, or successive generations of drug addicts turned pushers and street criminals? We've already got the latter so what is there to lose? I see no benefit to anyone by offering free high quality dope to junkies unless you consider the likelihood that the freebies would lead to overdosing en masse. === What about the huge reduction in crime and law enforceement expenses? A happy junkie doesn't go around robbing and assaulting people. You assume that junk makes a junkie happy and or law abiding. :-) -- Respectfully submitted by Justan Laugh of the day from Krause "I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here. I've been "born again" as a nice guy." |
Sent by a friend with guns
On 7/4/2015 5:19 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 15:58:01 -0400, Justan Olphat wrote: On 7/4/2015 3:33 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 11:33:02 -0400, Justan Olphat wrote: On 7/4/2015 10:30 AM, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 23:26:13 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:42:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: I'm not arguing to do nothing. I'm arguing to focus on the damn problem. You and I aren't the problem. The hoods and druggies in the inner cities are the problem. What do you suggest be done about them? For one thing we can try to make their access to firearms more difficult. === Here's a modest proposal. Since we all agree that people are killing each other over drugs and drug money, why not decriminalize all drug use and drug possession. Then take it a step further by supplying registered drug users with all the drugs they want. Some European countries have adopted a similar model and they don't have the problems that we do. Sure, a certain number of people will OD or otherwise become unproductive but most of them are already unproductive. Education and good parenting should be sufficient to keep proliferation under control. === crickets Why is that? How better else to eliminate all drug crimes? Let's legalize and encourage everything that is illegal, immoral, or fattening. ;-) === I said nothing about "encouraging" in my proposal. Those are your words. Let's start with talking about hard core heroin, meth or crack cocaine addicts. They've already been "encouraged" some how or other, most likely by other junkies trying to hook in prospective customers. The treatment success rate for these individuals is abysmally poor. There are few legal ways to raise the money they need to support their addiction so they frequently turn to crime of one sort or another, and frequently that crime is selling drugs. Selling drugs of course is dangerous work, competetive, and fraught with the possibility for all kinds of violence. So which is worse in your opinion? Free government supplied drugs of known purity with no strings attached, or successive generations of drug addicts turned pushers and street criminals? We've already got the latter so what is there to lose? I see no benefit to anyone by offering free high quality dope to junkies unless you consider the likelihood that the freebies would lead to overdosing en masse. === What about the huge reduction in crime and law enforceement expenses? A happy junkie doesn't go around robbing and assaulting people. I have two close friends who have been struggling with their respective kids' heroin addictions. Both situations have been going on for many years. The kids survive on "free" opiate substitutes like methadone between their "falling off the wagon" episodes. I've gone round and round about addiction ... be it drugs or booze. For a while I was convinced by the experts that it's a disease but I've come full circle back to believing it's a choice. A bad choice, but a choice nonetheless. Advocates of the "disease" theory are mostly rehab counselors who, in most cases, are recovering addicts themselves. They point at abnormal MRI brain scans of addicts. Of course they are abnormal. They have been under the influence of drugs or booze for years. Interestingly though, MRI scans taken after lengthy periods of abstinence (over a year) look normal again. Providing free drugs isn't a serious or viable option, IMO. One of the reasons we have such an explosive rise in opiate type addictions is due to the willingness of doctors to write prescriptions for just about any reason. This has to stop. Same with "anti-depressants". A recent report said that over 70 percent of prescriptions written for depression are medically unnecessary. It's become a fad, and to the users ... almost a badge of honor to brag about the drugs they are on. We need more of old school doctoring ... "Take two aspirins and call me in the morning". |
Sent by a friend with guns
|
Sent by a friend with guns
On Saturday, July 4, 2015 at 8:32:34 AM UTC-7, Justan Olphat wrote:
On 7/4/2015 10:30 AM, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 23:26:13 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:42:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: I'm not arguing to do nothing. I'm arguing to focus on the damn problem. You and I aren't the problem. The hoods and druggies in the inner cities are the problem. What do you suggest be done about them? For one thing we can try to make their access to firearms more difficult. === Here's a modest proposal. Since we all agree that people are killing each other over drugs and drug money, why not decriminalize all drug use and drug possession. Then take it a step further by supplying registered drug users with all the drugs they want. Some European countries have adopted a similar model and they don't have the problems that we do. Sure, a certain number of people will OD or otherwise become unproductive but most of them are already unproductive. Education and good parenting should be sufficient to keep proliferation under control. === crickets Why is that? How better else to eliminate all drug crimes? Let's legalize and encourage everything that is illegal, immoral, or fattening. ;-) -- Respectfully submitted by Justan Laugh of the day from Krause "I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here. I've been "born again" as a nice guy." Aren't we doing that now? |
Sent by a friend with guns
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 18:40:49 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: I disagree with you about the "addiction" gene. A responsible gene suggests physiological evidence that can be isolated and identified. To my knowledge, no such gene has ever been discovered. Many medical docs and researchers have reported that there is "no" evidence or proof of a medical reason for addiction. The ones claiming "disease" are shrinks and other addicts. === It is generally accepted, and there is fairly solid proof, that some people are genetically predisposed to alcoholism. If alcohol, why not opiates or other addictive substances? It doesn't really matter however because once addicted it is extremely hard to kick. That's why the war on drugs is doomed to failure. As long as the demand is there someone will try to be the supplier. The countries that supply free drugs to addicts have much less of a crime problem than we do and there is no incentive for drug dealers to recruit new users because there are no dealers. Who would pay extortionate prices to a dealer if you can get it for free? |
Sent by a friend with guns
On 7/4/2015 7:50 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 18:40:49 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: I disagree with you about the "addiction" gene. A responsible gene suggests physiological evidence that can be isolated and identified. To my knowledge, no such gene has ever been discovered. Many medical docs and researchers have reported that there is "no" evidence or proof of a medical reason for addiction. The ones claiming "disease" are shrinks and other addicts. === It is generally accepted, and there is fairly solid proof, that some people are genetically predisposed to alcoholism. If alcohol, why not opiates or other addictive substances? It doesn't really matter however because once addicted it is extremely hard to kick. That's why the war on drugs is doomed to failure. As long as the demand is there someone will try to be the supplier. The countries that supply free drugs to addicts have much less of a crime problem than we do and there is no incentive for drug dealers to recruit new users because there are no dealers. Who would pay extortionate prices to a dealer if you can get it for free? Can you provide some medical evidence .... not psychiatry ... of the "fairly solid proof" of a genetically predisposition to alcoholism? I've done a lot of research on this subject. There isn't any *medical" evidence. A lot comes down to the classic Sociology 101 "nature vs nurture" argument. Choice or disease ... it really doesn't matter except for the methods used to mitigate the problem. It's hard for me to accept issuing addicts narcotics or even booze as a solution. |
Sent by a friend with guns
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:14:02 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: It's hard for me to accept issuing addicts narcotics or even booze as a solution. === Why not? I think we both agree that success with treatment methods is a very rare thing. If we view addiction as a character flaw or moral failing that should be punished, we are doomed to keep repeating the same old, same old. |
Sent by a friend with guns
On 7/4/2015 8:36 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:14:02 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: It's hard for me to accept issuing addicts narcotics or even booze as a solution. === Why not? I think we both agree that success with treatment methods is a very rare thing. If we view addiction as a character flaw or moral failing that should be punished, we are doomed to keep repeating the same old, same old. It's not an issue of a character flaw or moral issue. It's a matter of correcting the need of a "feel good", an "escape" or realistically addressing other influencing factors. |
Sent by a friend with guns
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:39:51 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 7/4/2015 8:36 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:14:02 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: It's hard for me to accept issuing addicts narcotics or even booze as a solution. === Why not? I think we both agree that success with treatment methods is a very rare thing. If we view addiction as a character flaw or moral failing that should be punished, we are doomed to keep repeating the same old, same old. It's not an issue of a character flaw or moral issue. It's a matter of correcting the need of a "feel good", an "escape" or realistically addressing other influencing factors. === That's fine prior to physical addiction. Afterwards, not so much. |
Sent by a friend with guns
On 7/4/2015 8:55 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:39:51 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 7/4/2015 8:36 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:14:02 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: It's hard for me to accept issuing addicts narcotics or even booze as a solution. === Why not? I think we both agree that success with treatment methods is a very rare thing. If we view addiction as a character flaw or moral failing that should be punished, we are doomed to keep repeating the same old, same old. It's not an issue of a character flaw or moral issue. It's a matter of correcting the need of a "feel good", an "escape" or realistically addressing other influencing factors. === That's fine prior to physical addiction. Afterwards, not so much. Based on the conversations I've had with addicts ... both drugs (heroin) and booze ... I don't think there is any question that the drugs are more difficult to detox from and the process takes longer. That said, I've also seen someone go into an alcohol withdrawal seizure right in front of me on his forth day of medically supervised detox. However, following a successful detox period it becomes a choice as to staying clean for the rest of their lives. I am no expert by any means and my opinion is based solely on some personal experience over the past few years in trying to help someone overcome a serious problem with booze. Countless detox sessions, professional rehab and counseling at a nationally recognized facility and a commitment in the VA's alcohol abuse program all failed. What seems to be working (at least so far) is just some plain talk about the pressures and reasons he has felt a need to drink to excess over the years. Some confidence building and making him realize that his life experiences are not unusual in the bigger scheme of things and he has nothing to escape from or be embarrassed about. So far he has chosen *not* to drink anymore. |
Sent by a friend with guns
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 21:29:18 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 7/4/2015 8:55 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:39:51 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 7/4/2015 8:36 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:14:02 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: It's hard for me to accept issuing addicts narcotics or even booze as a solution. === Why not? I think we both agree that success with treatment methods is a very rare thing. If we view addiction as a character flaw or moral failing that should be punished, we are doomed to keep repeating the same old, same old. It's not an issue of a character flaw or moral issue. It's a matter of correcting the need of a "feel good", an "escape" or realistically addressing other influencing factors. === That's fine prior to physical addiction. Afterwards, not so much. Based on the conversations I've had with addicts ... both drugs (heroin) and booze ... I don't think there is any question that the drugs are more difficult to detox from and the process takes longer. That said, I've also seen someone go into an alcohol withdrawal seizure right in front of me on his forth day of medically supervised detox. However, following a successful detox period it becomes a choice as to staying clean for the rest of their lives. I am no expert by any means and my opinion is based solely on some personal experience over the past few years in trying to help someone overcome a serious problem with booze. Countless detox sessions, professional rehab and counseling at a nationally recognized facility and a commitment in the VA's alcohol abuse program all failed. What seems to be working (at least so far) is just some plain talk about the pressures and reasons he has felt a need to drink to excess over the years. Some confidence building and making him realize that his life experiences are not unusual in the bigger scheme of things and he has nothing to escape from or be embarrassed about. So far he has chosen *not* to drink anymore. === Good work, that's a great outcome. All we need now is to get you into the inner cities and convince these kids who are in poverty, from screwed up families, subject to all kinds of peer pressure, and exposed to professional drug pushers. |
Sent by a friend with guns
|
Sent by a friend with guns
On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 04:58:53 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: Certain areas of the south shore in MA are seriously affected by kids and young adults becoming addicted to heroin. It's a major crisis. === That surprises me. I've always thought of that area as being solidly middle class with stable families. Am I wrong? |
Sent by a friend with guns
On 7/5/2015 7:03 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 04:58:53 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Certain areas of the south shore in MA are seriously affected by kids and young adults becoming addicted to heroin. It's a major crisis. === That surprises me. I've always thought of that area as being solidly middle class with stable families. Am I wrong? You are not wrong. These are not "inner city", gang ridden locations. They are solidly middle class bedroom type communities in and around Plymouth county. In many cases the origins of the addiction starts with doctors and dentists being too liberal with Oxycontin prescriptions. Peer pressure in young people contributes in a major way with young people seeking instant pleasure and "fun". When Oxycontin becomes unavailable or too expensive heroin becomes the drug of choice because it's cheaper and readily available. The family member affected by heroin addiction is my niece. She has been hooked since high school. She is now in her 30's and is losing all her hair due to side affects of drug use. Once a very attractive girl and woman, she is almost unrecognizable today. She survives on methadone between relapse periods when she goes back to the heroin. There are no drug addicts in her blood relatives. If you talk to her when she has been clean for a while she will admit that it's a "choice" she makes, although a bad one. |
Sent by a friend with guns
On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 10:24:07 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 7/5/2015 7:03 AM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 04:58:53 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Certain areas of the south shore in MA are seriously affected by kids and young adults becoming addicted to heroin. It's a major crisis. === That surprises me. I've always thought of that area as being solidly middle class with stable families. Am I wrong? You are not wrong. These are not "inner city", gang ridden locations. They are solidly middle class bedroom type communities in and around Plymouth county. In many cases the origins of the addiction starts with doctors and dentists being too liberal with Oxycontin prescriptions. Peer pressure in young people contributes in a major way with young people seeking instant pleasure and "fun". When Oxycontin becomes unavailable or too expensive heroin becomes the drug of choice because it's cheaper and readily available. The family member affected by heroin addiction is my niece. She has been hooked since high school. She is now in her 30's and is losing all her hair due to side affects of drug use. Once a very attractive girl and woman, she is almost unrecognizable today. She survives on methadone between relapse periods when she goes back to the heroin. There are no drug addicts in her blood relatives. If you talk to her when she has been clean for a while she will admit that it's a "choice" she makes, although a bad one. === Sad situation for sure and it must be very tough on you and her parents. Perhaps this is naive on my part, but if she is already getting an opiate (methadone) at little or no cost, why would it be a problen to give her the heroin that she really craves? (assuming it was legal to do so) I'm sure everyone would like to see her totally clean and a fully functioning adult, but is that realistic after all these years as an addict? |
Sent by a friend with guns
On 7/5/2015 12:30 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 10:24:07 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 7/5/2015 7:03 AM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 04:58:53 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Certain areas of the south shore in MA are seriously affected by kids and young adults becoming addicted to heroin. It's a major crisis. === That surprises me. I've always thought of that area as being solidly middle class with stable families. Am I wrong? You are not wrong. These are not "inner city", gang ridden locations. They are solidly middle class bedroom type communities in and around Plymouth county. In many cases the origins of the addiction starts with doctors and dentists being too liberal with Oxycontin prescriptions. Peer pressure in young people contributes in a major way with young people seeking instant pleasure and "fun". When Oxycontin becomes unavailable or too expensive heroin becomes the drug of choice because it's cheaper and readily available. The family member affected by heroin addiction is my niece. She has been hooked since high school. She is now in her 30's and is losing all her hair due to side affects of drug use. Once a very attractive girl and woman, she is almost unrecognizable today. She survives on methadone between relapse periods when she goes back to the heroin. There are no drug addicts in her blood relatives. If you talk to her when she has been clean for a while she will admit that it's a "choice" she makes, although a bad one. === Sad situation for sure and it must be very tough on you and her parents. Perhaps this is naive on my part, but if she is already getting an opiate (methadone) at little or no cost, why would it be a problen to give her the heroin that she really craves? (assuming it was legal to do so) I'm sure everyone would like to see her totally clean and a fully functioning adult, but is that realistic after all these years as an addict? Thank God it isn't legal. -- Respectfully submitted by Justan Laugh of the day from Krause "I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here. I've been "born again" as a nice guy." |
Sent by a friend with guns
On Sun, 5 Jul 2015 13:35:16 -0400, Justan Olphat
wrote: On 7/5/2015 12:30 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 10:24:07 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 7/5/2015 7:03 AM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 04:58:53 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Certain areas of the south shore in MA are seriously affected by kids and young adults becoming addicted to heroin. It's a major crisis. === That surprises me. I've always thought of that area as being solidly middle class with stable families. Am I wrong? You are not wrong. These are not "inner city", gang ridden locations. They are solidly middle class bedroom type communities in and around Plymouth county. In many cases the origins of the addiction starts with doctors and dentists being too liberal with Oxycontin prescriptions. Peer pressure in young people contributes in a major way with young people seeking instant pleasure and "fun". When Oxycontin becomes unavailable or too expensive heroin becomes the drug of choice because it's cheaper and readily available. The family member affected by heroin addiction is my niece. She has been hooked since high school. She is now in her 30's and is losing all her hair due to side affects of drug use. Once a very attractive girl and woman, she is almost unrecognizable today. She survives on methadone between relapse periods when she goes back to the heroin. There are no drug addicts in her blood relatives. If you talk to her when she has been clean for a while she will admit that it's a "choice" she makes, although a bad one. === Sad situation for sure and it must be very tough on you and her parents. Perhaps this is naive on my part, but if she is already getting an opiate (methadone) at little or no cost, why would it be a problen to give her the heroin that she really craves? (assuming it was legal to do so) I'm sure everyone would like to see her totally clean and a fully functioning adult, but is that realistic after all these years as an addict? Thank God it isn't legal. === You object on moral/religious/ethical grounds? She and her family are already suffering. |
Sent by a friend with guns
Sorry to hear that Richard. Drugs can be a cruel mistress. It's too unfortunate that this is a lifestyle she seems to wish to persue.
|
Sent by a friend with guns
On 7/5/2015 1:50 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 5 Jul 2015 13:35:16 -0400, Justan Olphat wrote: On 7/5/2015 12:30 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 10:24:07 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 7/5/2015 7:03 AM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 04:58:53 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Certain areas of the south shore in MA are seriously affected by kids and young adults becoming addicted to heroin. It's a major crisis. === That surprises me. I've always thought of that area as being solidly middle class with stable families. Am I wrong? You are not wrong. These are not "inner city", gang ridden locations. They are solidly middle class bedroom type communities in and around Plymouth county. In many cases the origins of the addiction starts with doctors and dentists being too liberal with Oxycontin prescriptions. Peer pressure in young people contributes in a major way with young people seeking instant pleasure and "fun". When Oxycontin becomes unavailable or too expensive heroin becomes the drug of choice because it's cheaper and readily available. The family member affected by heroin addiction is my niece. She has been hooked since high school. She is now in her 30's and is losing all her hair due to side affects of drug use. Once a very attractive girl and woman, she is almost unrecognizable today. She survives on methadone between relapse periods when she goes back to the heroin. There are no drug addicts in her blood relatives. If you talk to her when she has been clean for a while she will admit that it's a "choice" she makes, although a bad one. === Sad situation for sure and it must be very tough on you and her parents. Perhaps this is naive on my part, but if she is already getting an opiate (methadone) at little or no cost, why would it be a problen to give her the heroin that she really craves? (assuming it was legal to do so) I'm sure everyone would like to see her totally clean and a fully functioning adult, but is that realistic after all these years as an addict? Thank God it isn't legal. === You object on moral/religious/ethical grounds? She and her family are already suffering. I object because keeping a doper doped up just to satisfy a craving is not my idea of solving the problem. She needs to be institutionalized and weaned off drugs completely. Then pray that she doesn't relapse when she's let out. Continuing on the path she's on now will mean certain death. Think of how the parents will suffer when they have to bury a daughter. -- Respectfully submitted by Justan Laugh of the day from Krause "I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here. I've been "born again" as a nice guy." |
Sent by a friend with guns
On 7/5/2015 12:30 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 10:24:07 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 7/5/2015 7:03 AM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 04:58:53 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Certain areas of the south shore in MA are seriously affected by kids and young adults becoming addicted to heroin. It's a major crisis. === That surprises me. I've always thought of that area as being solidly middle class with stable families. Am I wrong? You are not wrong. These are not "inner city", gang ridden locations. They are solidly middle class bedroom type communities in and around Plymouth county. In many cases the origins of the addiction starts with doctors and dentists being too liberal with Oxycontin prescriptions. Peer pressure in young people contributes in a major way with young people seeking instant pleasure and "fun". When Oxycontin becomes unavailable or too expensive heroin becomes the drug of choice because it's cheaper and readily available. The family member affected by heroin addiction is my niece. She has been hooked since high school. She is now in her 30's and is losing all her hair due to side affects of drug use. Once a very attractive girl and woman, she is almost unrecognizable today. She survives on methadone between relapse periods when she goes back to the heroin. There are no drug addicts in her blood relatives. If you talk to her when she has been clean for a while she will admit that it's a "choice" she makes, although a bad one. === Sad situation for sure and it must be very tough on you and her parents. Perhaps this is naive on my part, but if she is already getting an opiate (methadone) at little or no cost, why would it be a problen to give her the heroin that she really craves? (assuming it was legal to do so) I'm sure everyone would like to see her totally clean and a fully functioning adult, but is that realistic after all these years as an addict? I can't think of any parent or concerned relative who would want to just give up and let the addict continue to spiral out of control until they die due to an overdose. There's more to my story and reasons I feel the way I do. It involves another person but I am not ready to share much about it yet. |
Sent by a friend with guns
On Sun, 5 Jul 2015 15:01:41 -0400, Justan Olphat
wrote: On 7/5/2015 1:50 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 5 Jul 2015 13:35:16 -0400, Justan Olphat wrote: On 7/5/2015 12:30 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 10:24:07 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 7/5/2015 7:03 AM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 04:58:53 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Certain areas of the south shore in MA are seriously affected by kids and young adults becoming addicted to heroin. It's a major crisis. === That surprises me. I've always thought of that area as being solidly middle class with stable families. Am I wrong? You are not wrong. These are not "inner city", gang ridden locations. They are solidly middle class bedroom type communities in and around Plymouth county. In many cases the origins of the addiction starts with doctors and dentists being too liberal with Oxycontin prescriptions. Peer pressure in young people contributes in a major way with young people seeking instant pleasure and "fun". When Oxycontin becomes unavailable or too expensive heroin becomes the drug of choice because it's cheaper and readily available. The family member affected by heroin addiction is my niece. She has been hooked since high school. She is now in her 30's and is losing all her hair due to side affects of drug use. Once a very attractive girl and woman, she is almost unrecognizable today. She survives on methadone between relapse periods when she goes back to the heroin. There are no drug addicts in her blood relatives. If you talk to her when she has been clean for a while she will admit that it's a "choice" she makes, although a bad one. === Sad situation for sure and it must be very tough on you and her parents. Perhaps this is naive on my part, but if she is already getting an opiate (methadone) at little or no cost, why would it be a problen to give her the heroin that she really craves? (assuming it was legal to do so) I'm sure everyone would like to see her totally clean and a fully functioning adult, but is that realistic after all these years as an addict? Thank God it isn't legal. === You object on moral/religious/ethical grounds? She and her family are already suffering. I object because keeping a doper doped up just to satisfy a craving is not my idea of solving the problem. She needs to be institutionalized and weaned off drugs completely. Then pray that she doesn't relapse when she's let out. Continuing on the path she's on now will mean certain death. Think of how the parents will suffer when they have to bury a daughter. === I understand your point but it's important to realize that the success rate for curing long term opiate addicts is extremely poor. Not having been there I can only speculate, but I'm guessing that it must be a really good high and the mind keeps going back to it. |
Sent by a friend with guns
On 7/5/2015 3:01 PM, Justan Olphat wrote:
On 7/5/2015 1:50 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 5 Jul 2015 13:35:16 -0400, Justan Olphat wrote: On 7/5/2015 12:30 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 10:24:07 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 7/5/2015 7:03 AM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 04:58:53 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Certain areas of the south shore in MA are seriously affected by kids and young adults becoming addicted to heroin. It's a major crisis. === That surprises me. I've always thought of that area as being solidly middle class with stable families. Am I wrong? You are not wrong. These are not "inner city", gang ridden locations. They are solidly middle class bedroom type communities in and around Plymouth county. In many cases the origins of the addiction starts with doctors and dentists being too liberal with Oxycontin prescriptions. Peer pressure in young people contributes in a major way with young people seeking instant pleasure and "fun". When Oxycontin becomes unavailable or too expensive heroin becomes the drug of choice because it's cheaper and readily available. The family member affected by heroin addiction is my niece. She has been hooked since high school. She is now in her 30's and is losing all her hair due to side affects of drug use. Once a very attractive girl and woman, she is almost unrecognizable today. She survives on methadone between relapse periods when she goes back to the heroin. There are no drug addicts in her blood relatives. If you talk to her when she has been clean for a while she will admit that it's a "choice" she makes, although a bad one. === Sad situation for sure and it must be very tough on you and her parents. Perhaps this is naive on my part, but if she is already getting an opiate (methadone) at little or no cost, why would it be a problen to give her the heroin that she really craves? (assuming it was legal to do so) I'm sure everyone would like to see her totally clean and a fully functioning adult, but is that realistic after all these years as an addict? Thank God it isn't legal. === You object on moral/religious/ethical grounds? She and her family are already suffering. I object because keeping a doper doped up just to satisfy a craving is not my idea of solving the problem. She needs to be institutionalized and weaned off drugs completely. Then pray that she doesn't relapse when she's let out. Continuing on the path she's on now will mean certain death. Think of how the parents will suffer when they have to bury a daughter. You have to keep trying. You know her from the boating days up here. You'd be shocked if you saw her now. Sad. |
Sent by a friend with guns
|
Sent by a friend with guns
On 7/5/2015 11:33 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 04:58:53 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 7/4/2015 11:37 PM, wrote: On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 18:40:49 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 7/4/2015 6:22 PM, wrote: There is certainly an "addiction" gene or some other genetic disorder. The drug may change but the addiction problem doesn't usually change. It can be diverted to religion, certain types of hard work or some other drug but it will still be there. I always considered myself luck I dodged it because it is in my family but I have no problem walking away from anything. I can smoke with my buddies for several days and never think about it again after I leave. Same with anything else I am willing to try. I do avoid opiates at all costs. I have gutted it put after a lot of things where I had a prescription for some knock out drug I wouldn't fill. I disagree with you about the "addiction" gene. A responsible gene suggests physiological evidence that can be isolated and identified. To my knowledge, no such gene has ever been discovered. Many medical docs and researchers have reported that there is "no" evidence or proof of a medical reason for addiction. The ones claiming "disease" are shrinks and other addicts. There is plenty of evidence that these problems run in families and show up even when the kids live away from the rest of their people. We can quibble about the meaning of "gene" and even "addiction" (overused in my opinion) but it seems clear that something is being passed down from the parents. The fact that "Many medical docs and researchers" can't find a surgery or pill to fix the problem dies not mean it is not there. We have really just started drilling down on the human genome in any real detail and it is not surprising they haven't found the silver bullet. I am not sure they have their finger on the gay gene either but the supreme court says it exists. ;-) You still can't avoid the anecdotal evidence that some families share a tendency for addiction far greater than others. Lifestyle, means and parental supervision does not explain it all. Just look at the Kennedys. You are arguing nature vs nurture. There still is *no* medical evidence that drug abuse or alcoholism is passed on in the gene pool. In fact, there is *no* medical evidence either is due to a physiological condition or abnormality. Sure, a kid that grows up in a family of alcohol or drug abusers or in a neighborhood where they are prevalent stands a higher chance of becoming hooked but that doesn't mean they were born predisposed to becoming an addict. Certain areas of the south shore in MA are seriously affected by kids and young adults becoming addicted to heroin. It's a major crisis. You can't convince me that specific areas of a state or country is populated with people passing drug or alcohol genes. The problem is due to the social environment. Participation in social pressures is a choice. I could argue the same thing about being gay but that would be contrary to the current PC thinking. I think PC thinking is often screwed up for the same reasons social pressures can dictate fads or "what's in" and "what's out". |
Sent by a friend with guns
On 7/5/2015 3:34 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 5 Jul 2015 15:01:41 -0400, Justan Olphat wrote: On 7/5/2015 1:50 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 5 Jul 2015 13:35:16 -0400, Justan Olphat wrote: On 7/5/2015 12:30 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 10:24:07 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 7/5/2015 7:03 AM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 04:58:53 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Certain areas of the south shore in MA are seriously affected by kids and young adults becoming addicted to heroin. It's a major crisis. === That surprises me. I've always thought of that area as being solidly middle class with stable families. Am I wrong? You are not wrong. These are not "inner city", gang ridden locations. They are solidly middle class bedroom type communities in and around Plymouth county. In many cases the origins of the addiction starts with doctors and dentists being too liberal with Oxycontin prescriptions. Peer pressure in young people contributes in a major way with young people seeking instant pleasure and "fun". When Oxycontin becomes unavailable or too expensive heroin becomes the drug of choice because it's cheaper and readily available. The family member affected by heroin addiction is my niece. She has been hooked since high school. She is now in her 30's and is losing all her hair due to side affects of drug use. Once a very attractive girl and woman, she is almost unrecognizable today. She survives on methadone between relapse periods when she goes back to the heroin. There are no drug addicts in her blood relatives. If you talk to her when she has been clean for a while she will admit that it's a "choice" she makes, although a bad one. === Sad situation for sure and it must be very tough on you and her parents. Perhaps this is naive on my part, but if she is already getting an opiate (methadone) at little or no cost, why would it be a problen to give her the heroin that she really craves? (assuming it was legal to do so) I'm sure everyone would like to see her totally clean and a fully functioning adult, but is that realistic after all these years as an addict? Thank God it isn't legal. === You object on moral/religious/ethical grounds? She and her family are already suffering. I object because keeping a doper doped up just to satisfy a craving is not my idea of solving the problem. She needs to be institutionalized and weaned off drugs completely. Then pray that she doesn't relapse when she's let out. Continuing on the path she's on now will mean certain death. Think of how the parents will suffer when they have to bury a daughter. === I understand your point but it's important to realize that the success rate for curing long term opiate addicts is extremely poor. Not having been there I can only speculate, but I'm guessing that it must be a really good high and the mind keeps going back to it. It is a difficult addiction to break but it *is* breakable. There are many success stories. I've met people who were both alcoholics *and* hooked on opiates for years. One in particular was very helpful in educating me to the options available to help someone else I've been involved with getting help for. Places like AA and AN didn't work for him. He just quit both 20 years ago. Before that he was in and out of detox and rehab facilities on a regular basis. It's not done by substituting highs with other drugs though. It's done by will power and choice. |
Sent by a friend with guns
On 7/5/2015 3:34 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 5 Jul 2015 15:01:41 -0400, Justan Olphat wrote: On 7/5/2015 1:50 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 5 Jul 2015 13:35:16 -0400, Justan Olphat wrote: On 7/5/2015 12:30 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 10:24:07 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 7/5/2015 7:03 AM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 04:58:53 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Certain areas of the south shore in MA are seriously affected by kids and young adults becoming addicted to heroin. It's a major crisis. === That surprises me. I've always thought of that area as being solidly middle class with stable families. Am I wrong? You are not wrong. These are not "inner city", gang ridden locations. They are solidly middle class bedroom type communities in and around Plymouth county. In many cases the origins of the addiction starts with doctors and dentists being too liberal with Oxycontin prescriptions. Peer pressure in young people contributes in a major way with young people seeking instant pleasure and "fun". When Oxycontin becomes unavailable or too expensive heroin becomes the drug of choice because it's cheaper and readily available. The family member affected by heroin addiction is my niece. She has been hooked since high school. She is now in her 30's and is losing all her hair due to side affects of drug use. Once a very attractive girl and woman, she is almost unrecognizable today. She survives on methadone between relapse periods when she goes back to the heroin. There are no drug addicts in her blood relatives. If you talk to her when she has been clean for a while she will admit that it's a "choice" she makes, although a bad one. === Sad situation for sure and it must be very tough on you and her parents. Perhaps this is naive on my part, but if she is already getting an opiate (methadone) at little or no cost, why would it be a problen to give her the heroin that she really craves? (assuming it was legal to do so) I'm sure everyone would like to see her totally clean and a fully functioning adult, but is that realistic after all these years as an addict? Thank God it isn't legal. === You object on moral/religious/ethical grounds? She and her family are already suffering. I object because keeping a doper doped up just to satisfy a craving is not my idea of solving the problem. She needs to be institutionalized and weaned off drugs completely. Then pray that she doesn't relapse when she's let out. Continuing on the path she's on now will mean certain death. Think of how the parents will suffer when they have to bury a daughter. === I understand your point but it's important to realize that the success rate for curing long term opiate addicts is extremely poor. Not having been there I can only speculate, but I'm guessing that it must be a really good high and the mind keeps going back to it. There's no GOOD reason or excuse to do dope. You've just given an excellent reason to not legalize dope, thank you. :-) -- Respectfully submitted by Justan Laugh of the day from Krause "I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here. I've been "born again" as a nice guy." |
Sent by a friend with guns
On Sunday, July 5, 2015 at 11:38:58 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sun, 5 Jul 2015 10:51:55 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: Sorry to hear that Richard. Drugs can be a cruel mistress. It's too unfortunate that this is a lifestyle she seems to wish to persue. I am not sure she "wishes" to pursue this. I think she may have been predisposed to some kind of dependency and furthermore her kids may be too, even if they were taken away at birth and raised by other people. Possibly so Greg. I was going on Rich's word when he said " If you talk to her when she has been clean for a while she will admit that it's a "choice" she makes, although a bad one. " which I agree that it can be taken that this is the lifestyle she chooses or that that she's saying that she made a poor choice with regrets. Either way, it's still sad. |
Sent by a friend with guns
On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 15:34:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: I can't think of any parent or concerned relative who would want to just give up and let the addict continue to spiral out of control until they die due to an overdose. === I can understand your thinking at a personal level very easily. What about the big picture however with all the multi-generational inner city junkies and dealers? How do you fix that? |
Sent by a friend with guns
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 13:34:40 -0400, wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 12:30:27 -0400, Justan Olphat wrote: On 7/4/2015 12:00 PM, wrote: On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 11:33:02 -0400, Justan Olphat wrote: On 7/4/2015 10:30 AM, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 23:26:13 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:42:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: I'm not arguing to do nothing. I'm arguing to focus on the damn problem. You and I aren't the problem. The hoods and druggies in the inner cities are the problem. What do you suggest be done about them? For one thing we can try to make their access to firearms more difficult. === Here's a modest proposal. Since we all agree that people are killing each other over drugs and drug money, why not decriminalize all drug use and drug possession. Then take it a step further by supplying registered drug users with all the drugs they want. Some European countries have adopted a similar model and they don't have the problems that we do. Sure, a certain number of people will OD or otherwise become unproductive but most of them are already unproductive. Education and good parenting should be sufficient to keep proliferation under control. === crickets Why is that? How better else to eliminate all drug crimes? Let's legalize and encourage everything that is illegal, immoral, or fattening. ;-) Works for me, as long as you are not harming anyone but yourself. Gun ownership for everyone who wants one except the confirmed people harmers. Roger that. ;-) In that regard, I take suicide out of the mix and that is easily a third or more of gun deaths. This past weekend, Chicago was probably another third. -- Guns don't cause problems. Gun owner behavior causes problems. |
Sent by a friend with guns
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 17:48:16 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 7/4/2015 5:19 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 15:58:01 -0400, Justan Olphat wrote: On 7/4/2015 3:33 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 11:33:02 -0400, Justan Olphat wrote: On 7/4/2015 10:30 AM, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 23:26:13 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:42:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: I'm not arguing to do nothing. I'm arguing to focus on the damn problem. You and I aren't the problem. The hoods and druggies in the inner cities are the problem. What do you suggest be done about them? For one thing we can try to make their access to firearms more difficult. === Here's a modest proposal. Since we all agree that people are killing each other over drugs and drug money, why not decriminalize all drug use and drug possession. Then take it a step further by supplying registered drug users with all the drugs they want. Some European countries have adopted a similar model and they don't have the problems that we do. Sure, a certain number of people will OD or otherwise become unproductive but most of them are already unproductive. Education and good parenting should be sufficient to keep proliferation under control. === crickets Why is that? How better else to eliminate all drug crimes? Let's legalize and encourage everything that is illegal, immoral, or fattening. ;-) === I said nothing about "encouraging" in my proposal. Those are your words. Let's start with talking about hard core heroin, meth or crack cocaine addicts. They've already been "encouraged" some how or other, most likely by other junkies trying to hook in prospective customers. The treatment success rate for these individuals is abysmally poor. There are few legal ways to raise the money they need to support their addiction so they frequently turn to crime of one sort or another, and frequently that crime is selling drugs. Selling drugs of course is dangerous work, competetive, and fraught with the possibility for all kinds of violence. So which is worse in your opinion? Free government supplied drugs of known purity with no strings attached, or successive generations of drug addicts turned pushers and street criminals? We've already got the latter so what is there to lose? I see no benefit to anyone by offering free high quality dope to junkies unless you consider the likelihood that the freebies would lead to overdosing en masse. === What about the huge reduction in crime and law enforceement expenses? A happy junkie doesn't go around robbing and assaulting people. I have two close friends who have been struggling with their respective kids' heroin addictions. Both situations have been going on for many years. The kids survive on "free" opiate substitutes like methadone between their "falling off the wagon" episodes. I've gone round and round about addiction ... be it drugs or booze. For a while I was convinced by the experts that it's a disease but I've come full circle back to believing it's a choice. A bad choice, but a choice nonetheless. Advocates of the "disease" theory are mostly rehab counselors who, in most cases, are recovering addicts themselves. They point at abnormal MRI brain scans of addicts. Of course they are abnormal. They have been under the influence of drugs or booze for years. Interestingly though, MRI scans taken after lengthy periods of abstinence (over a year) look normal again. Providing free drugs isn't a serious or viable option, IMO. One of the reasons we have such an explosive rise in opiate type addictions is due to the willingness of doctors to write prescriptions for just about any reason. This has to stop. Same with "anti-depressants". A recent report said that over 70 percent of prescriptions written for depression are medically unnecessary. It's become a fad, and to the users ... almost a badge of honor to brag about the drugs they are on. We need more of old school doctoring ... "Take two aspirins and call me in the morning". It's a choice, as is stopping. -- Guns don't cause problems. Gun owner behavior causes problems. |
Sent by a friend with guns
On 7/6/2015 4:15 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 17:48:16 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 7/4/2015 5:19 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 15:58:01 -0400, Justan Olphat wrote: On 7/4/2015 3:33 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 11:33:02 -0400, Justan Olphat wrote: On 7/4/2015 10:30 AM, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 23:26:13 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:42:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: I'm not arguing to do nothing. I'm arguing to focus on the damn problem. You and I aren't the problem. The hoods and druggies in the inner cities are the problem. What do you suggest be done about them? For one thing we can try to make their access to firearms more difficult. === Here's a modest proposal. Since we all agree that people are killing each other over drugs and drug money, why not decriminalize all drug use and drug possession. Then take it a step further by supplying registered drug users with all the drugs they want. Some European countries have adopted a similar model and they don't have the problems that we do. Sure, a certain number of people will OD or otherwise become unproductive but most of them are already unproductive. Education and good parenting should be sufficient to keep proliferation under control. === crickets Why is that? How better else to eliminate all drug crimes? Let's legalize and encourage everything that is illegal, immoral, or fattening. ;-) === I said nothing about "encouraging" in my proposal. Those are your words. Let's start with talking about hard core heroin, meth or crack cocaine addicts. They've already been "encouraged" some how or other, most likely by other junkies trying to hook in prospective customers. The treatment success rate for these individuals is abysmally poor. There are few legal ways to raise the money they need to support their addiction so they frequently turn to crime of one sort or another, and frequently that crime is selling drugs. Selling drugs of course is dangerous work, competetive, and fraught with the possibility for all kinds of violence. So which is worse in your opinion? Free government supplied drugs of known purity with no strings attached, or successive generations of drug addicts turned pushers and street criminals? We've already got the latter so what is there to lose? I see no benefit to anyone by offering free high quality dope to junkies unless you consider the likelihood that the freebies would lead to overdosing en masse. === What about the huge reduction in crime and law enforceement expenses? A happy junkie doesn't go around robbing and assaulting people. I have two close friends who have been struggling with their respective kids' heroin addictions. Both situations have been going on for many years. The kids survive on "free" opiate substitutes like methadone between their "falling off the wagon" episodes. I've gone round and round about addiction ... be it drugs or booze. For a while I was convinced by the experts that it's a disease but I've come full circle back to believing it's a choice. A bad choice, but a choice nonetheless. Advocates of the "disease" theory are mostly rehab counselors who, in most cases, are recovering addicts themselves. They point at abnormal MRI brain scans of addicts. Of course they are abnormal. They have been under the influence of drugs or booze for years. Interestingly though, MRI scans taken after lengthy periods of abstinence (over a year) look normal again. Providing free drugs isn't a serious or viable option, IMO. One of the reasons we have such an explosive rise in opiate type addictions is due to the willingness of doctors to write prescriptions for just about any reason. This has to stop. Same with "anti-depressants". A recent report said that over 70 percent of prescriptions written for depression are medically unnecessary. It's become a fad, and to the users ... almost a badge of honor to brag about the drugs they are on. We need more of old school doctoring ... "Take two aspirins and call me in the morning". It's a choice, as is stopping. Thank you. Not many agree. |
Sent by a friend with guns
On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 04:58:53 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 7/4/2015 11:37 PM, wrote: On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 18:40:49 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 7/4/2015 6:22 PM, wrote: There is certainly an "addiction" gene or some other genetic disorder. The drug may change but the addiction problem doesn't usually change. It can be diverted to religion, certain types of hard work or some other drug but it will still be there. I always considered myself luck I dodged it because it is in my family but I have no problem walking away from anything. I can smoke with my buddies for several days and never think about it again after I leave. Same with anything else I am willing to try. I do avoid opiates at all costs. I have gutted it put after a lot of things where I had a prescription for some knock out drug I wouldn't fill. I disagree with you about the "addiction" gene. A responsible gene suggests physiological evidence that can be isolated and identified. To my knowledge, no such gene has ever been discovered. Many medical docs and researchers have reported that there is "no" evidence or proof of a medical reason for addiction. The ones claiming "disease" are shrinks and other addicts. There is plenty of evidence that these problems run in families and show up even when the kids live away from the rest of their people. We can quibble about the meaning of "gene" and even "addiction" (overused in my opinion) but it seems clear that something is being passed down from the parents. The fact that "Many medical docs and researchers" can't find a surgery or pill to fix the problem dies not mean it is not there. We have really just started drilling down on the human genome in any real detail and it is not surprising they haven't found the silver bullet. I am not sure they have their finger on the gay gene either but the supreme court says it exists. ;-) You still can't avoid the anecdotal evidence that some families share a tendency for addiction far greater than others. Lifestyle, means and parental supervision does not explain it all. Just look at the Kennedys. You are arguing nature vs nurture. There still is *no* medical evidence that drug abuse or alcoholism is passed on in the gene pool. In fact, there is *no* medical evidence either is due to a physiological condition or abnormality. Sure, a kid that grows up in a family of alcohol or drug abusers or in a neighborhood where they are prevalent stands a higher chance of becoming hooked but that doesn't mean they were born predisposed to becoming an addict. Certain areas of the south shore in MA are seriously affected by kids and young adults becoming addicted to heroin. It's a major crisis. You can't convince me that specific areas of a state or country is populated with people passing drug or alcohol genes. The problem is due to the social environment. Participation in social pressures is a choice. Gosh, I sure am agreeing with you a lot today. I also believe what you say in your first paragraph - it's a nurture issue. -- Guns don't cause problems. Gun owner behavior causes problems. |
Sent by a friend with guns
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:25 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com