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".

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.

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.

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 16:37:05 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 16:21:48 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

It's a choice, as is stopping.



Thank you. Not many agree.


Not many who actually know any addicts anyway.

BTW These guys have pretty good credentials
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/addiction/genes/

NIH (long URL)
http://tinyurl.com/nts844q

https://ncadd.org/for-parents-overvi...y-and-genetics

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16251987

The list of credible sources goes on for pages.

To deny this puts you in the same category as those who say being gay
is "just a choice" and you can rehab them out of it.

So?

:)
--

Guns don't cause problems.
Gun owner behavior causes problems.

On 7/6/2015 4:37 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 16:21:48 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

It's a choice, as is stopping.



Thank you. Not many agree.


Not many who actually know any addicts anyway.

BTW These guys have pretty good credentials
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/addiction/genes/

NIH (long URL)
http://tinyurl.com/nts844q

https://ncadd.org/for-parents-overvi...y-and-genetics

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16251987

The list of credible sources goes on for pages.

To deny this puts you in the same category as those who say being gay
is "just a choice" and you can rehab them out of it.



Don't interject being gay as evidence of your "gene" pass down argument.
There is still no *medical* evidence that drug addiction or alcoholism
is hereditary. They are certainly influenced by nurture but that makes
it a choice.

On 7/6/2015 5:40 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 16:48:48 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 7/6/2015 4:37 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 16:21:48 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

It's a choice, as is stopping.



Thank you. Not many agree.


Not many who actually know any addicts anyway.

BTW These guys have pretty good credentials
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/addiction/genes/

NIH (long URL)
http://tinyurl.com/nts844q

https://ncadd.org/for-parents-overvi...y-and-genetics

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16251987

The list of credible sources goes on for pages.

To deny this puts you in the same category as those who say being gay
is "just a choice" and you can rehab them out of it.



Don't interject being gay as evidence of your "gene" pass down argument.
There is still no *medical* evidence that drug addiction or alcoholism
is hereditary. They are certainly influenced by nurture but that makes
it a choice.




I only mention gay because it is in the news these days and the same
arguments you are making, are made about gay people.

We are really just scratching the surface of the human genome and I
think there are a lot of things buried in there that predispose us to
lots of things good or bad.
60 minutes just did a show yesterday about how they are doing gene
screening for a number of diseases and conditions in vitro.
I have $100 here that says in a year or two they will be identifying
the markers that indicate addictive personalities.



When science proves a connection of genes and addiction I will humbly
admit that I was wrong. But they haven't. What *has* happened is the
development and growth of a multi-billion dollar industry treating a
"disease" that doesn't exist.

On 7/4/2015 6:22 PM, 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".



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.

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?

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.

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.