Alcoholism & Drug Addiction are Diseases

[Anonymous]

People are entitled to their personal beliefs about what addiction . But there is more evidence and data for and about it  an illness than for just about any mental illness which is why majority scientific opinion, the AMA, etc, recognize it as such . Internet battles wont really change that. Google link v google links battles get somwhat ridiculous. Imo a group of people who claim they have been "brainwashed" really have no buissiness telling people that their brain function and their actions are determined only through "willpower" as they should be able to understand others' struggles through their own expereince, but waddy gonna do

I wouldn't call this an "internet battle". I respect him for having his opinion, it's a ballsy one at that. If I were a genie and could just wish something like that true, I'd probably do it. BUT, we're in the real world and I'm in the U.S. and focus on all the close-minded attitudes here. I think in this discussion, whether or not addiction is a disease doesn't really matter. I think I'm coming from a feasibility position, the feasibility of how we can at least stop the atrocities we see and hear of every day - the laws, the gulags, the prisons, etc.

[psy]

You talk to people about legalizing heroin and you'll be laughed out of most towns in America.

It reduces crime and helps addicts quit in Switzerland:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/2 ... 47023.html

Plus.  If heroin were legal it would not have the same impurities it does today and would result in fewer overdoses.  Techincally, people don't overdose on heroin.  They have alleregic reactions to toxins (such as quinine) and other impurities or reactions with other drugs/alcohol.

http://www.peele.net/lib/heroinoverdose.html

You want harm reduction...  legalizing heroin could do it.  Heroin overdose was pretty much unheard-of back before it was criminalized.  Back then it's purity was 40 times that of current heroin too...

[psy]

If I were a genie and could just wish something like that true, I'd probably do it. BUT, we're in the real world and I'm in the U.S. and focus on all the close-minded attitudes here.

And a moderate is a necessary role.  I respect that.  I am not one, however.  I do not tone down my views because they are unpopular or viewed as unrealistic.  Sometimes a repeated kick to the head is just what people need.  I can defend my positions and in doing so cause people re-think what they "know".

[psy]

it has to be better than what it is today

I beg to differ.  Mandatory forced treatment for non-violent consensual crimes could be *far* worse than just incarceration.  At least in prison they don't try and reform your thinking.  Think of the long-term consequences.  Where do so many of the program staff come from?

You want another Synanon spawning ground, or you want to kill this thing?  That starts with stopping forced treatment of any kind.

[psy]

The "future-crime" thing has validity when you can show that you are preventing a significant number of rapes. If you can't demonstrate that prevention then there is no validity.

No. You're missing the point entirely.  Say I were to pull up statistics showing that African Americans comitted more crimes.  Even if that were true, it would not justify locking up all African Americans even if it would reduce crime.  Similarly, simply because more drug users commit crimes does not mean that it is justifiable to lock up or forceably treat ALL drug users.  Some can and do use responsibly (even hard drug users) and judging them as a whole instead of individually by their actions is prejudice.

Furthermore, you could say "well drug users are prone to rape" all you want but it might be just as accurate to say "rapists are prone to drug use".  Coincidence does not mean causality.  Rapists might choose certain drugs to enhance sexual performance or any number of reasons.  Criminals might also be more prone to drug use since they are already breaking the law.  Etc etc...  Saying "drugs cause crime" is oversimplifying greatly.  Even if it were true, statistically... as i've said, judging the group based on the actions of a few individuals is prejudice.

just so this doesn't get missed.

[Anonymous]

The "future-crime" thing has validity when you can show that you are preventing a significant number of rapes. If you can't demonstrate that prevention then there is no validity.

No. You're missing the point entirely.  Say I were to pull up statistics showing that African Americans comitted more crimes.  Even if that were true, it would not justify locking up all African Americans even if it would reduce crime.  Similarly, simply because more drug users commit crimes does not mean that it is justifiable to lock up or forceably treat ALL drug users.  Some can and do use responsibly (even hard drug users) and judging them as a whole instead of individually by their actions is prejudice.

Furthermore, you could say "well drug users are prone to rape" all you want but it might be just as accurate to say "rapists are prone to drug use".  Coincidence does not mean causality.  Rapists might choose certain drugs to enhance sexual performance or any number of reasons.  Criminals might also be more prone to drug use since they are already breaking the law.  Etc etc...  Saying "drugs cause crime" is oversimplifying greatly.  Even if it were true, statistically... as i've said, judging the group based on the actions of a few individuals is prejudice.

I can't agree with this one. Being an African-American and being a drug user are very different things. You don't have much choice about being an African-American whereas from what you were saying before, you have every choice to be a drug user. The drug and its effects are the issue, if I show 80% of all meth users show propensity to commit rape then I probably need to get that drug out of circulation (assuming my statistics are correct which here they obviously aren't). That doesn't even mean that I need to do anything in particular about those people. Some drugs are harmful, maybe none of our popular street drugs are, but you certainly wouldn't want to guzzle some hydrochloric acid, would you?

[psy]

I can't agree with this one. Being an African-American and being a drug user are very different things. You don't have much choice about being an African-American whereas from what you were saying before, you have every choice to be a drug user.

Ah but you're changing your argument here and you contradict yourself.  In either case, the choice/genetic does not matter to this portion of the argument.  Let's use religion instead.  If I could show that Muslims were more prone to blow themselves up on planes or commit terrorist acts, would that give me justification to search them more than others, or detain them without trial or so on and so forth.  Religion is a personal choice.  Drug use is a personal choice.  People should not be persecuted for either.  Judging the whole of ANY group by the actions of a portion of that group (even a majority) is wrong.  It's prejudice.  No sugarcoating it.  It's not fair to those who can and do use drugs responsibly.  People have a right to put what they want in their own bodies.  Self ownership is one of the most basic rights of all.  The state has no business messing with that.

[Anonymous]

This depends upon what you mean by treatment. For now, it could be very mellow - just take you out of the game and do some vocational training. Of course, you're right, they could screw it up and do a Synanon easily. Incarceration in a state prison here is no cakewalk, I know, I did 2 in Chino not too long after CEDU. Luckily my attorney made a deal where they expunged my record so I don't have that part of it to deal with and in this economy I sure wouldn't want to.

it has to be better than what it is today

I beg to differ.  Mandatory forced treatment for non-violent consensual crimes could be *far* worse than just incarceration.  At least in prison they don't try and reform your thinking.  Think of the long-term consequences.  Where do so many of the program staff come from?

You want another Synanon spawning ground, or you want to kill this thing?  That starts with stopping forced treatment of any kind.

[psy]

This depends upon what you mean by treatment. For now, it could be very mellow - just take you out of the game and do some vocational training.

Why not offer it free of charge to addicts who want to participate.  You don't even have to require they quit using (just not during the training for safety reasons).  In some studies, such as those in Switzerland and one in Vancouver, the addicts quit on their own or with therapy once they find meaning in life that doesn't revolve around drugs.

I have no doubt that if such a program existed, with such a condition (you don't have to quit), addicts would be lining up to help get their lives on track.  No need to incarcerate or forceably treat them when you can give the ones who want to quit a viable way out.  Sure it would be an unpopular idea, but results from elsewhere in the world prove it works.

From a practical standpoint, it's a hell of a lot cheaper than incarceration too!

[Anonymous]

Why not offer it free of charge to addicts who want to participate.  You don't even have to require they quit using (just not during the training for safety reasons).  In some studies, such as those in Switzerland and one in Vancouver, the addicts quit on their own or with therapy once they find meaning in life that doesn't revolve around drugs.

I have no doubt that if such a program existed, with such a condition (you don't have to quit), addicts would be lining up to help get their lives on track.  No need to incarcerate or forceably treat them when you can give the ones who want to quit a viable way out.  Sure it would be an unpopular idea, but results from elsewhere in the world prove it works.

From a practical standpoint, it's a hell of a lot cheaper than incarceration too!

I think that's a very good idea. Some problems people have are with life too and when they use drugs their actions are pinned on drugs while their other problems are really the root. What really helped me the most was to get a career going and start seeing some value in life.

[Anne Bonney]

It sounds like you are in favor of some complete legalization.

Personally, I am.  Look at what happened with the prohibition of alcohol.  Al Capone and the gangs rose to power precisely BECAUSE liquor was illegal.

This could make sense but remember what Zappa said about the U.S. being some corporate dictatorship. The slave system would not tolerate anything like this because it would bear a risk on production. Same reason the U.S. fought so hard against communism.

Remember what Zappa said about drugs.....

A drug is not bad. A drug is a chemical compound. The problem comes in when people who take drugs treat them like a license to behave like an asshole.

[Anne Bonney]

The "future-crime" thing has validity when you can show that you are preventing a significant number of rapes. If you can't demonstrate that prevention then there is no validity.

There's no way you can demonstrate prevention.  No one can.  Are you seriously suggesting that people be locked up for things they MIGHT do?

 

You talk to people about legalizing heroin and you'll be laughed out of most towns in America.

By some, but there is a growing segment of the population that understands what an utter and complete FAILURE the "drug war" has been.  Look into LEAP.  http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php

[Anne Bonney]

People are entitled to their personal beliefs about what addiction .

Wow, thanks.

But there is more evidence and data for and about it  an illness than for just about any mental illness which is why majority scientific opinion, the AMA, etc, recognize it as such .

Please cite your sources.  And the AMA?  Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze.

Internet battles wont really change that.

No, but sometimes it does cause people to regain their critical thinking skills and that's always good.


 

Imo a group of people who claim they have been "brainwashed" really have no buissiness telling people that their brain function and their actions are determined only through "willpower" as they should be able to understand others' struggles through their own expereince, but waddy gonna do

I can agree with that the same that I can agree that a bunch of so-called "reformed addicts" should NEVER be able to dictate public policy.

[Anne Bonney]

I can't agree with this one. Being an African-American and being a drug user are very different things. You don't have much choice about being an African-American whereas from what you were saying before, you have every choice to be a drug user.

Ah but you're changing your argument here and you contradict yourself. .

Moving the goalposts.  Common tactic.

[Anne Bonney]

This depends upon what you mean by treatment.

So you're really OK with forcing someone into treatment?  Why?  What purpose would it serve?  Virtually everyone agrees that no form of "help" will actually help unless the person in question believes they need help, right?  How is forcing anyone helpful at all?  And do you NOT see that that's EXACTLY how our parents were able to "admit" us into Straight?