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".

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.

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."

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.

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?

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.

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 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.

On 7/6/2015 4:29 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 16:12:57 -0400, John H.
wrote:



For one thing we can try to make their access to firearms more difficult.


Or make the punishment for illegal guns more severe - say five years, as a federal
offense. If the guns are used in a crime, an automatic ten years added to the
sentence.

Florida already has that law.
10, 20, Life



I doubt very much that those of a criminal mindset stop to think about
what the ramifications are if they are caught.