Fornits
General Interest => Tacitus' Realm => Topic started by: Maximilian on September 14, 2010, 01:46:56 PM
-
Do you agree with current US government policy that makes certain substances illegal? Why or why not?
If you were allowed to decide for the entire country, which drugs would be legal to market and sell, and which would remain prohibited and punishable, which drugs would you choose? You can vote for as many of the options as you want in this poll.
Feel free to provide an explanation if you wish. Would you have regulations or just allow them to be sold at the local grocery store? Would you allow people to buy prescription medications without consulting a doctor, like you can buy herbal and dietary supplements?
Thanks for taking the time to vote.
-
Is it just me, or do all these threads by Max...
What illegal drugs would you legalize?
Do you believe in God?
How do you feel towards your parents?
Is Jail better than a program?
The Parents Side of the Story
seem like some desperate attempt to explain why so many of "us" aren't grateful for what was done "for" us? Kinda like the 'disgruntled druggie' thing we've all dealt with? We're either heathens, drug abusers, parent haters, deadbeats or just ungrateful little brats. Amirite?
It's probably just me.
:feedtrolls: (yeah, yeah...I know...I do it all the time. I'm looking for a 12 step group to help me out with it :seg: )
But, to stay on the thread topic - I'll let Law Enforcement Against Prohibition speak for me. They say it better than I ever could and they have lots of fancy statistics and sources that would take too much time to copy/paste here.
http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php (http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php)
-
I bet people will be pleased they no longer have to decide what is worthy of discussion, for themselves. The great Anne Bonney has made that decision for them.
You're reading too much into things, I start discussions because I don't want to talk about Whooter and Muslims all the time. But don't let me stand in the way of your conspiracies, I know people really enjoy them here.
-
I bet people will be pleased they no longer have to decide what is worthy of discussion, for themselves. The great Anne Bonney has made that decision for them.
No, I posed a question.
You're reading too much into things, I start discussions because I don't want to talk about Whooter and Muslims all the time. But don't let me stand in the way of your conspiracies, I know people really enjoy them here.
Ok, thanks.
-
You're welcome, and thanks for posting, and hopefully voting.
Just a reminder to people, you can vote for as many options as you wish.
I voted for Marijuana and Magic Mushrooms. I think by legalizing those a lot of wasted time by law enforcement could be avoided, and I think these are both generally safer than alcohol, as far as physical effects and addiction is concerned. I also believe magic mushrooms can be used for spiritual journeys, which I think can help people. I am also tempted to vote for Ecstacy since it seems to be able to help people, I've read articles about how it helps people in therapy, or when they are dying to accept it. So that should probably be legal too.
-
Weed.
...
-
Weed.
...
I didn't realize you favored legalization of pot. Huh. Learn something new every day.
Personally I favor the legalization of all substances.
Reason 1: It's not the government's business what you put in your body. You own your own body.
Reason 2: Legal drugs would eliminate the violent and bloody black market trade.
Reason 3: For the children! Legal drugs would be harder for kids to get. Right now, according to surveys of high schoolers, it's easier to get illegal substances than it is to get alcohol.
Reason 4: Legal drugs would be safer. If manufacturers were liable for their products, they would make sure that their heroin, for example, was pure and uncut. Most Heroin "overdoses" are actually poisonings or allergic reactions (http://http://www.peele.net/lib/heroinoverdose.html) (to quinine, for example). Before Heroin was illegal, overdoses were almost unheard of, despite it's potency being approximately 40 times what it is today.
Reason 5: Legal drugs would be cheaper. It would be less likely for people to turn to crime to support their bad habits if the price was not so high.
Reason 6: Many drugs that are prohibited now, such as Marijuana or Ibogaine, can actually be used to treat addictions to harder substances.
Reason 7: The money saved on drug war could reduce taxes or be spent on things which actually help the people.
I can go on and on. There is very little positive benefit to the drug war. Where is demand there will be supply, period.
-
Weed.
...
I didn't realize you favored legalization of pot. Huh. Learn something new every day.
Personally I favor the legalization of all substances.
Reason 1: It's not the government's business what you put in your body. You own your own body.
Reason 2: Legal drugs would eliminate the violent and bloody black market trade.
Reason 3: For the children! Legal drugs would be harder for kids to get. Right now, according to surveys of high schoolers, it's easier to get illegal substances than it is to get alcohol.
Reason 4: Legal drugs would be safer. If manufacturers were liable for their products, they would make sure that their heroin, for example, was pure and uncut. Most Heroin "overdoses" are actually poisonings or allergic reactions (http://http://www.peele.net/lib/heroinoverdose.html) (to quinine, for example). Before Heroin was illegal, overdoses were almost unheard of, despite it's potency being approximately 40 times what it is today.
Reason 5: Legal drugs would be cheaper. It would be less likely for people to turn to crime to support their bad habits if the price was not so high.
Reason 6: Many drugs that are prohibited now, such as Marijuana or Ibogaine, can actually be used to treat addictions to harder substances.
Reason 7: The money saved on drug war could reduce taxes or be spent on things which actually help the people.
I can go on and on. There is very little positive benefit to the drug war. Where is demand there will be supply, period.
I think part of the lure and fun when I was a teenager was that it was taboo and it separated me from my parents. I would like to see some data before I would vote for just opening up the flood gates and legalizing “everything”. But at least pot could be legalized right now. But I agree with your points. I would like to see it legalized if for any other reason so I could have access to some better stuff. Contacts are very limited when you hit my age.
A believe a couple of glasses of red wine and a little weed every night will add ten years to your life over the long haul.
I definitely agree with the whole supply and demand. The war on drugs has proven that economic theory.
...
-
I think part of the lure and fun when I was a teenager was that it was taboo and it separated me from my parents. I would like to see some data before I would vote for just opening up the flood gates and legalizing “everything”.
Ok. Here is a survey (http://http://www.casacolumbia.org/absolutenm/articlefiles/380-2009%20Teen%20Survey%20Report.pdf) showing drug availability to teens.
Another thing...
Reason 8: Legal drugs would not cause an increase in hard drug usage (http://http://www.csdp.org/publicservice/zogby2007.htm).
But at least pot could be legalized right now. But I agree with your points. I would like to see it legalized if for any other reason so I could have access to some better stuff. Contacts are very limited when you hit my age. A believe a couple of glasses of red wine and a little weed every night will add ten years to your life over the long haul.
:eek:
I'm adding this to my list of "100 things I never expected Whooter to say". So far i'm at two. This, and the earlier comment that Lichfield should be hung.
I definitely agree with the whole supply and demand. The war on drugs has proven that economic theory.
Well that's really the key issue. If a war cannot be won, there is really no point to continuing, especially since so much can potentially be gained by compromise.
-
I thought you would have known I smoked by my earlier life protesting and going to concerts in the early 70’s. I spent so much time sleeping in the streets around the spectrum in Philadelphia waiting for the ticket offices to open up that the homeless and I started to recognize and nod to each other. Ticket-tron was just getting started and they were only given a limited number of tickets to sell, so the only guarantee was the ticket office. Besides many other things I was a concert junkie.
A funny story is I saved about $200 working all summer in highschool (for one of my dads companies) and then a friend and I went in halves on some Brown organic Mescaline. I put in $100, spent one night breaking it down into hits, put the word out and made $700 in 2 weeks and we barely cut it down. That was a lot of money then.
I didn’t have the stomach for it though, it would have devastated my parents if I had gotten busted and had my name put in the paper for dealing drugs.
I would never do that stuff (mescaline) now nor would I sell.
Thanks for the links. My gut feel was that legalizing everything would not be successful because things didn’t seem to be going so well in Amsterdam. But I never really investigated the details as to why. But I do believe that if it were all legalized tomorrow there would not be a surge in demand but the quality would increase due to competition and rating requirements. Maybe even get a slot in Consumer reports! Lol.
...
-
I vote legalize for many reasons, but I think Big Pharma would take over, market the benefits of previously illegal drugs and it would end up a corporate racket.
I say, grow your own.
Tweakers drive me insane, and I wouldn't mind if they all found their own private Idaho somewhere. I would rather deal with anyone under any influence almost, than meth. Yes, I know that it is a Queen Bitch thing to say. There is possibly nothing more disturbing than a meth addict in the drug realm.
-
Canada is planning to decriminalize marijuana.....Senate says marijuana is not a gateway drug.
http://canadaonline.about.com/library/issues/blimj.htm (http://canadaonline.about.com/library/issues/blimj.htm)
-
I vote legalize for many reasons, but I think Big Pharma would take over, market the benefits of previously illegal drugs and it would end up a corporate racket.
I say, grow your own.
Tweakers drive me insane, and I wouldn't mind if they all found their own private Idaho somewhere. I would rather deal with anyone under any influence almost, than meth. Yes, I know that it is a Queen Bitch thing to say. There is possibly nothing more disturbing than a meth addict in the drug realm.
I believe Big Pharm would take over the synthetic stuff but the organics would be like little local micro breweries. We would all be exposed to the best pot available. Whole Foods would open up a new section which is humidity controlled along with a employee trained in cultivation, "potency scales" and curing to protect it package it and answer questions.
JOB, Chills Alien, smoking green and Americana would once again regain their proper place at the register.
...
-
Weed and Mushrooms are all natural and should not even be classified as drugs any more than Brocolli or Cabbage.
I do not think it is a crime to "pick yer poison" either.
I can honestly say that the drugs forced on me by Psychiatry are far worse than any street drug I have ever done.
I also like the whole freedom of choice concept.
A lot of Doctors will say "do our drugs not yours"....it's all ::fullofshit::
-
:eek:
-
Prop 19 is on the ballot in CA (http://http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/us/14marijuana.html?_r=2)
With strong backing from the SEIU and other mainstream groups.
-
Man, weed is getting twice as many votes as God ,in the other poll.
-
Legalize, absolutely.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGsEt-qtOqs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGsEt-qtOqs)
LEGALIZE IT
-
:rasta:
-
I just thought this might kill time waiting for more votes come in
Renew My Subscription
By: They Might Be Giants
Written: 2004
Though I don't write a whole lot of letters
I figured I'd better say something now
I saw the thing about the heartsick shut-in
Thought that I should cut in
And tell you 'bout how
It woke me from a life-long day dream
While I'd been aging you wrote it all down
And though I recognized the words when I read them
I know I never said them to people out loud
Renew my subscription
To Desperate Bellowing magazine
It sure does have a familiar ring
You might say I fit the description
Renew my subscription
To Miserable Freak Show quarterly
Every back-number I saw spoke to me
Acknowledging it's my addiction
Renew my subscription
I wanna be a much better person
Instead I worsen with every day
But there's a drug whose name I'm not sure of
Which I need more of to feel okay
They told me exercise and diet
If I would try it, would cure my ills
But though I'm already past my quota
I want another load o' those magic pills
Refill my prescription
To whatever that thing is
That makes the carpet stop turning into snakes
In lieu of my coming conniption
Refill my prescription
And free me from where I don't want to be
Standing outside the unopened pharmacy
Before I confirm your prediction
Refill my prescription
-
Prop 19 is on the ballot in CA (http://http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/us/14marijuana.html?_r=2)
With strong backing from the SEIU and other mainstream groups.
Nice!
-
I would make drug use MANDATORY. That way, we can keep the drug-testing apparatus in place, so those guys don't lose their jobs in today's tough economy. But the point remains, most people don't take enough drugs (you know who you are).
-
I would make drug use MANDATORY. That way, we can keep the drug-testing apparatus in place, so those guys don't lose their jobs in today's tough economy. But the point remains, most people don't take enough drugs (you know who you are).
Wow, I never thought of that. Drug testing equipment has become a very big industry. Maybe regulators or doctors could do screening on every patient during their physical to help collect data for research.
or.....
The government could screen each person as they enter work to check each persons level and base the "drug tax" on individual consumption.
...
-
All of them.
The government should leave people the fuck alone.
Robbery - there is a victim
Murder- there is a victim
Fraud- there is a victim
Assault- there is a victim
destruction of property- there is a victim
Drug usage- no victim, no crime- that is until a bunch of armed men, burst into somebody's home, or search someone's vehicle, and a person with a habit ( no matter how unhelthy it may be) who has caused no harm to anyone, ends up spending years in jail, with legitimate criminals.
Call me crazy, but when I see a crackhead, handcuffed face down on the floor, the cops don't look like heroes to me, they just look like bullies, sticking their noses into someone's else's business, and in my opinion victimizing someone who already has enough fucking problems. The longest I ve ever been able to sit through an episode of cops is about 5 minutes.
Paul St. John
-
What happens when that junkie, crackhead, whino, drunk, all run out of what they need, well they are looking for victims to exploit.
-
What happens when that junkie, crackhead, whino, drunk, all run out of what they need, well they are looking for victims to exploit.
Never heard of a person breaking into a home or killing someone to get a drink because it is legal and does not cost extreme amounts... With legalization it would be the same way with other substances... Low cost... Low crime rate..
-
What happens when that junkie, crackhead, whino, drunk, all run out of what they need, well they are looking for victims to exploit.
Never heard of a person breaking into a home or killing someone to get a drink because it is legal and does not cost extreme amounts... With legalization it would be the same way with other substances... Low cost... Low crime rate..
I have known many a drunk on the street that would slit your throat for that next drink. I guess it all depends where you grew up.
-
I have known many a drunk on the street that would slit your throat for that next drink. I guess it all depends where you grew up.
Maybe we should start prohibiting alcohol and pre-emptively arresting alcohol users. Goodness knows, if you say it's true, they must all be out to kill us. Will somebody please think of the children!
-
I have known many a drunk on the street that would slit your throat for that next drink. I guess it all depends where you grew up.
Maybe we should start prohibiting alcohol and pre-emptively arresting alcohol users. Goodness knows, if you say it's true, they must all be out to kill us. Will somebody please think of the children!
I guess if this is how you choose to perceive what I wrote.
-
Incidentally, fwiw, Oxycontin is technically not an "illegal drug."
-
I have known many a drunk on the street that would slit your throat for that next drink. I guess it all depends where you grew up.
Maybe we should start prohibiting alcohol and pre-emptively arresting alcohol users. Goodness knows, if you say it's true, they must all be out to kill us. Will somebody please think of the children!
I guess if this is how you choose to perceive what I wrote.
I was making a point about the prejudice of drug prohibition. It's future crime. You can't have X drug because X might cause you to do Y bad thing. Pre Juduced. You are judged before you do. The second problem there is that people consider alcoholism a disease (please discuss in other thread), and because a disease is an uncontrollable thing, it's really not their fault. It's the drug's fault. Sure it makes the addict feel good, but it's not objectively true (which is the only thing that really matters). Because it's really "the drugs" that are causing crime, there is enough public health consideration to take the rights to use them away. Or so the argument goes. Me? I believe in free choice and I believe that individuals should be judged on an individual basis, not by what is in their blood, but by what their actions are.
If people are harming others. Lock them up for those harmful actions. But if nobody is being harmed but consenting, responsible adults, leave them alone. The alternative to this is punishing all individuals (including responsible ones) based on group membership (drug users), which is wrong.
-
I have known many a drunk on the street that would slit your throat for that next drink. I guess it all depends where you grew up.
Maybe we should start prohibiting alcohol and pre-emptively arresting alcohol users. Goodness knows, if you say it's true, they must all be out to kill us. Will somebody please think of the children!
I guess if this is how you choose to perceive what I wrote.
I was making a point about the prejudice of drug prohibition. It's future crime. You can't have X drug because X might cause you to do Y bad thing. Pre Juduced. You are judged before you do. The second problem there is that people consider alcoholism a disease (please discuss in other thread), and because a disease is an uncontrollable thing, it's really not their fault. It's the drug's fault. Sure it makes the addict feel good, but it's not objectively true (which is the only thing that really matters). Because it's really "the drugs" that are causing crime, there is enough public health consideration to take the rights to use them away. Or so the argument goes. Me? I believe in free choice and I believe that individuals should be judged on an individual basis, not by what is in their blood, but by what their actions are.
If people are harming others. Lock them up for those harmful actions. But if nobody is being harmed but consenting, responsible adults, leave them alone. The alternative to this is punishing all individuals (including responsible ones) based on group membership (drug users), which is wrong.
Not much to argue there.
My point and it is very brief is, a full blown alcoholic suffering will come close to killing someone for his next drink or for trying to take his drink.
Trust me I know, my grandfather knocked me across the room when I was 5 years old for trying to remove a bottle from his sleeping hand. Just wanted to help "pa pa" put the bottle on the coffee table.
Addiction can be a nasty foe, very unpredictable.
-
Just because grandaddy was an drunk who preferred alcohol to you doesn't mean it applies to everybody. He made a choice. He continued to make choices. That's not a mental disease. That's assholitis. You might not just want to admit it because it's so close to home, or you see it through a dogmatic lens. It's why personal anecdotes are so unreliable. Most drunks are obnoxious and embarrassing to be around. Not a whole lot smack kids. Those who do probably would have smacked the kid for a couple hundred dollars while entirely sober. This is why it's fair to only judge those who commit crimes under the influence. To do otherwise is to judge the obnoxious yet relatively harmless other drunks their right to personal sovereignty... or those who use alcohol responsibly.
-
psy wrote;
:That's not a mental disease. That's assholitis."
Isn't that what alchoholism is in the first place? When your buzz if more impotant than anything or anyone else in your life.I'm sorry . I don't suffer drunks very well at all.I've seen people do the craziest shit in the world while drunk.Far worse than any illegal drugs.
-
Just because grandaddy was an drunk who preferred alcohol to you doesn't mean it applies to everybody. He made a choice. He continued to make choices. That's not a mental disease. That's assholitis. You might not just want to admit it because it's so close to home, or you see it through a dogmatic lens. It's why personal anecdotes are so unreliable. Most drunks are obnoxious and embarrassing to be around. Not a whole lot smack kids. Those who do probably would have smacked the kid for a couple hundred dollars while entirely sober. This is why it's fair to only judge those who commit crimes under the influence. To do otherwise is to judge the obnoxious yet relatively harmless other drunks their right to personal sovereignty... or those who use alcohol responsibly.
If only the world were that simple. Alcoholism and other forms of addiction reside in the realm of irrationality, where choices no longer matter.
-
What's his name wrote
"Alcoholism and other forms of addiction reside in the realm of irrationality, where choices no longer matter."
That's a complete cop out'(in the words of your precious program)
There are allways choices.
-
Just because grandaddy was an drunk who preferred alcohol to you doesn't mean it applies to everybody. He made a choice. He continued to make choices. That's not a mental disease. That's assholitis. You might not just want to admit it because it's so close to home, or you see it through a dogmatic lens. It's why personal anecdotes are so unreliable. Most drunks are obnoxious and embarrassing to be around. Not a whole lot smack kids. Those who do probably would have smacked the kid for a couple hundred dollars while entirely sober. This is why it's fair to only judge those who commit crimes under the influence. To do otherwise is to judge the obnoxious yet relatively harmless other drunks their right to personal sovereignty... or those who use alcohol responsibly.
If only the world were that simple. Alcoholism and other forms of addiction reside in the realm of irrationality, where choices no longer matter.
"Where choices no longer matter"??? Of course they matter. How is it that a lot of people decide to just quit and, lo and behold, they do? They get sick of arguing with family, sick of feeling sick, sick of losing jobs, sick of the guilt so one day they just up and quit. It truly does happen every day. It does have a clinical name - spontaneous remission. If someone is addicted to something to the point where they have physical symptoms of withdrawal, then they need medical help to detox. After that, it's their choice to stay clean or not. If someone isn't physically addicted to a substance (and in some cases even if they are), then they have a choice each and every time they go to pick up a drink/drug.
-
Why am I not fat, yet many people struggle with it? Why do I not have a gambling problem, but many people do? Because I choose to be this way? Is it really that simple? It's easy to point fingers and accuse people of willingly destroying their own lives. The reality is a lot more complicated than that.
-
Maxi pad wrote
"Why am I not fat"
For all we know , you are!
-
Why am I not fat, yet many people struggle with it? Why do I not have a gambling problem, but many people do? Because I choose to be this way? Is it really that simple? It's easy to point fingers and accuse people of willingly destroying their own lives. The reality is a lot more complicated than that.
Because those things don't interest you. Drugs and alcohol do. If your use of drugs or alcohol is effecting your life more negatively than positively, stop using them.
-
If your use of drugs or alcohol is effecting your life more negatively than positively, stop using them.
Well hell, all those rehab facilities should shutter their doors. Looks like Anne has found the solution to addiction. That's like telling a fat person to just stop eating, not very helpful really. Simplistic solutions to complicated problems will not work.
-
Why am I not fat, yet many people struggle with it? Why do I not have a gambling problem, but many people do? Because I choose to be this way? Is it really that simple? It's easy to point fingers and accuse people of willingly destroying their own lives. The reality is a lot more complicated than that.
Because those things don't interest you. Drugs and alcohol do. If your use of drugs or alcohol is effecting your life more negatively than positively, stop using them.
I don't know, he still sounds like a fatty to me
-
Why am I not fat, yet many people struggle with it? Why do I not have a gambling problem, but many people do? Because I choose to be this way? Is it really that simple? It's easy to point fingers and accuse people of willingly destroying their own lives. The reality is a lot more complicated than that.
Because those things don't interest you. Drugs and alcohol do. If your use of drugs or alcohol is effecting your life more negatively than positively, stop using them.
I don't know, he still sounds like a fatty to me
You aren't hurting my feelings, just the other posters who might actually be fat. But hey, if third grade humor is your thing who am I to say anything.
-
That's like telling a fat person to just stop eating, not very helpful really.
Personal responsibility is a bitch, I know.
-
If your use of drugs or alcohol is effecting your life more negatively than positively, stop using them.
Well hell, all those rehab facilities should shutter their doors. Looks like Anne has found the solution to addiction. That's like telling a fat person to just stop eating, not very helpful really.
Maybe not, but providing that person with a dietary / exercise plan can help.
-
That's like telling a fat person to just stop eating, not very helpful really.
Personal responsibility is a bitch, I know.
This is why nobody will ever come to you for help losing weight. Or why an alcoholic or addict would never go to Psy for help. You are free to your opinions, but take a look around at where people go to get help and you might learn something.
-
That's like telling a fat person to just stop eating, not very helpful really.
Personal responsibility is a bitch, I know.
This is why nobody will ever come to you for help losing weight. Or why an alcoholic or addict would never go to Psy for help. You are free to your opinions, but take a look around at where people go to get help and you might learn something.
Spoken like a true fatty
-
That's like telling a fat person to just stop eating, not very helpful really.
Personal responsibility is a bitch, I know.
This is why nobody will ever come to you for help losing weight. Or why an alcoholic or addict would never go to Psy for help.
I don't know about Psy, but I've had people come to me for help with drug/alcohol issues. They're doing just fine. I try to get my mom to stop eating so much. She doesn't want to.
You are free to your opinions, but take a look around at where people go to get help and you might learn something.
Where? AA? Treatment centers that use the 12 step model? Just because something has become popular/pop-culture doesn't mean it "works".
-
This is why nobody will ever come to you for help losing weight. Or why an alcoholic or addict would never go to Psy for help. You are free to your opinions, but take a look around at where people go to get help and you might learn something.
Just because I don't believe alcoholism or addiction is a disease doesn't mean I wouldn't help somebody i cared about to deal with the temptation from their bad habits in any available way. That being said, i'm not going to coddle them and lie and say that it's the alcohol's fault, or the drug's fault. I'm certainly not going to make the leap to saying that all drugs should be banned just because some people choose to use them irresponsibly. Some people drive irresponsibly. We don't ban cars or say that the cars drove the people irresponsibly.
-
This is why nobody will ever come to you for help losing weight. Or why an alcoholic or addict would never go to Psy for help. You are free to your opinions, but take a look around at where people go to get help and you might learn something.
Just because I don't believe alcoholism or addiction is a disease doesn't mean I wouldn't help somebody i cared about to deal with the temptation from their bad habits in any available way. That being said, i'm not going to coddle them and lie and say that it's the alcohol's fault, or the drug's fault. I'm certainly not going to make the leap to saying that all drugs should be banned just because some people choose to use them irresponsibly. Some people drive irresponsibly. We don't ban cars or say that the cars drove the people irresponsibly.
So what would you do? Sit them across from you at a table, and coldly explain they are choosing to destroy their own lives? You really think that is going to help someone with addiction? I'm not saying you aren't willing to help, I'm saying your advice is so corrosive that it would instantly cause the addict to turn around and walk out of the room. Addicts get told this all the time, 'why don't you just quit', it's not helpful, it's actually somewhat insulting and after hearing it a hundred times it can get old, quick.
I don't think drug prohibition effects addiction one way or the other. People who want to use will find it whether it's legal or not. End prohibition and you still have to deal with the health issue that is addiction. Just telling people to stop, isn't going to work. So what then?
-
That's like telling a fat person to just stop eating, not very helpful really.
Personal responsibility is a bitch, I know.
This is why nobody will ever come to you for help losing weight. Or why an alcoholic or addict would never go to Psy for help.
I don't know about Psy, but I've had people come to me for help with drug/alcohol issues. They're doing just fine. I try to get my mom to stop eating so much. She doesn't want to.
You are free to your opinions, but take a look around at where people go to get help and you might learn something.
Where? AA? Treatment centers that use the 12 step model? Just because something has become popular/pop-culture doesn't mean it "works".
I find it somewhat ironic that suddenly personal responsibility is so important when talking about addiction. But when talking about why we ended up in programs, it's suddenly somebody else's fault. Suddenly we are on an uncontrollable destiny, not of our own choosing. AA works for a lot of people, I have a hard time understanding why people are so offended by this truth, on fornits. The program ideology i was exposed to, is exactly what you are saying, that life is a series of choices. AA is actually contrary to the "programing" i received.
-
Anne Bonney wrote;
" I try to get my mom to stop eating so much. "
Maybe she could speak to max pain. I understand he has a weight problem also
-
Addicts get told this all the time, 'why don't you just quit', it's not helpful, it's actually somewhat insulting and after hearing it a hundred times it can get old, quick.
Because it's human nature to look for the easier way or they way to lay the responsibility on someone or something other than ourselves. It really does boil down to a decision one way or the other. You either decide to quit, or you don't. That applies whether or not someone joins AA or not, correct? You can't make someone quit, they have to decide.....right?
I don't think drug prohibition effects addiction one way or the other. People who want to use will find it whether it's legal or not. End prohibition and you still have to deal with the health issue that is addiction. Just telling people to stop, isn't going to work. So what then?
Telling, showing, threatening, scaring people isn't going to do anything until they make a decision that they don't like how they're living and they'd like to change it. Now, again......if someone has a physical addiction, they need medical detox, but beyond that it's up to them.
-
That's like telling a fat person to just stop eating, not very helpful really.
Personal responsibility is a bitch, I know.
This is why nobody will ever come to you for help losing weight. Or why an alcoholic or addict would never go to Psy for help. You are free to your opinions, but take a look around at where people go to get help and you might learn something.
What might I learn? Something 'bout the powerful medium of marketing and advertising? How to "win friends and influence people?" The keys to group management and organizational psychology?
-
Because it's human nature to look for the easier way or they way to lay the responsibility on someone or something other than ourselves. It really does boil down to a decision one way or the other. You either decide to quit, or you don't. That applies whether or not someone joins AA or not, correct? You can't make someone quit, they have to decide.....right?
As much flak as I receive for sounding like I'm "programmed", this sounds just like what we were told in the program, actually. I was constantly told that drug addiction is a choice, and it all boiled down to me choosing what type of person I wanted to be when I got out. Well, it turns out that, unfortunately, it's not that simple. The percentage of people who quit addictive substances (including cigarettes) cold turkey on their own, is very small.
Telling, showing, threatening, scaring people isn't going to do anything until they make a decision that they don't like how they're living and they'd like to change it. Now, again......if someone has a physical addiction, they need medical detox, but beyond that it's up to them.
I think addiction is a mental disease like depression or anxiety. Do we tell people who are depressed to buck up, and choose to be happy? Well, a few decades ago this is what people did. I don't see a good reason to take addiction back to the dark ages, when it's clear that options like AA have a positive impact on many people's lives. It's easier to quit with help, and sometimes people have to be convinced to stop before they kill themselves. If you haven't seen the show Intervention on A&E I suggest you watch it, and then come and tell me people choose to be that way.
-
I find it somewhat ironic that suddenly personal responsibility is so important when talking about addiction. But when talking about why we ended up in programs, it's suddenly somebody else's fault.
If you can't see the difference between an adult being responsible for their own actions and a child being forced into a "rehab", I can't help you.
Suddenly we are on an uncontrollable destiny, not of our own choosing.
That's right. I didn't choose to go to Straight and I certainly didn't choose to be abused there. However, how I choose to deal with it now is up to me.
AA works for a lot of people, I have a hard time understanding why people are so offended by this truth, on fornits.
Because there's no proof, other than anecdotal, that "it" does work and AA's own Dr. George Vaillant's study concluded that it was actually harmful to the alcoholic because it taught them that if they 'relapsed' (even having one drink) or rejected AA's teaching, then they were "certainly signing their own death warrant" (see 12 & 12). The poor souls believed it and went binge drinking.
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html)
n spite of the scarcity of good, properly run randomized longitudinal controlled studies of the effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous, there are still several good tests and studies which were done properly, and give us a good idea of what is happening.
There is experimental evidence that the A.A. doctrine of powerlessness leads to binge drinking. In a sophisticated controlled study of A.A.'s effectiveness (Brandsma et. al.), court-mandated offenders who had been sent to Alcoholics Anonymous for several months were engaging in FIVE TIMES as much binge drinking as another group of alcoholics who got no treatment at all, and the A.A. group was doing NINE TIMES as much binge drinking as another group of alcoholics who got rational behavior therapy.
Those results are almost unbelievable, but are easy to understand — when you are drunk, it's easy to rationalize drinking some more by saying,
"Oh well, A.A. says that I'm powerless over alcohol. I can't control it, so there is no sense in trying. I'm doomed, because I already took a drink. One drink, one drunk. I'm screwed, because I already lost all of my sober time. Might as well just relax and enjoy it now. Pass that bottle over here, buddy."
It's also easy to rationalize taking the first drink with,
"I'm powerless. I can't help it. The Big Book says that I have no defense against those strange mental blank spots when I'll drink again. Bottoms up!"
Dr. Jeffrey Brandsma and his associates Dr. Maxie Maultsby (co-inventor of Rational Behavior Therapy) and Dr. Richard J. Welsh did a study where they took some alcoholics who had been arrested for public drunkenness, and randomly divided them into three groups, which got one of:
1. A.A. treatment
2. Lay RBT (non-professional Rational Behavior Therapy, something invented by Dr. Maxie Maultsby and Dr. Albert Ellis, something very similar to SMART)
3. No treatment at all. This was the control group.
And the results were:
The variables that showed significant differences at outcome could be organized into three categories: treatment holding power, legal difficulties, and drinking behavior. Treatment holding power was indicated by the percentage of dropouts between intake and outcome (p = 0.05), the mean number of treatment sessions attended (p = 0.05), and the mean number of days in treatment. Less than one-third (31.6%) of the clients assigned to the AA group qualified for outcome measures in contrast to almost 60% for the lay-RBT group, and this occurred with equivalent attempts by our social work staff to keep the men in treatment, whatever type it was. Table 32 highlights these differences. See table at link above.
http://cbtrecovery.org/AAefficacyrates.htm (http://cbtrecovery.org/AAefficacyrates.htm)
Some information about AA's success rate comes from its own membership surveys. In particular, the rather famous 'Comments on AA's Triennial Surveys' document cited by Charles Bufe in Alcoholics Anonymous: Cult or Cure is AA's ID # 5M/12-90/TC, which was produced for internal purposes. It is also summarized in Vince Fox's Addiction, Change, and Choice (1993). The document is not listed in AA's 'Conference Approved Literature' but Fox was able to obtain a copy from AA.
AA's own analysis was that 50% of all those who try AA leave within 90 days, which they describe as cause for 'concern'. Their own data shows that is actually optimistic. In the 12-year period shown, 19% remain after 30 days, 10% remain after 90 days, and 5% remain after a year.
The retention rate of AA is 5% after one year.
So do we define the success rate as the retention rate? You'd have to tell me if you believe that success in AA is measured by whether people are still attending meetings.
Other observations:
60% of those surveyed were getting outside professional help. This means that any success (or failure) rate, however it is defined, can't be attributed entirely to AA.
One way to measure the success of AA would be by comparing 12-step based treatment with other treatments. A 1997 study found that 93% of American drug and alcohol treatment programs follow the 12-step model. So it would be pretty easy to tell, at least, whether 12-step programs work.
An extensive study (Hester and Miller, Handbook of alcoholism treatment approaches) shows that peer-based 12-step alcohol treatment programs do NOT have a higher success rate than no treatment at all. Facilitated 12-step treatment (trained facilitators guiding subjects through the twelve-step process) were marginally better. "The two tests of AA found it inferior to other treatments or even no treatment but were not sufficient to rank AA reliably."
Brief, non-confrontational interventions and motivational interviewing were found most effective.
If you define success as reduced drinking, absence of alcohol dependence, or a reduction in problem drinking, then you see different results. Success in AA is presumed to be total abstinence. But followup to many treatment programs finds people have done some drinking, or drink moderately (defined by the researcher, not the patient!). They would be considered failures in AA--but the behavior has changed. So if one wants to improve the statistical success rates of 12-step treatment, just broaden the definition of 'success' to include moderate drinking!
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/add ... le-disease (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/addiction-in-society/200901/addiction-myth-3-addiction-is-treatable-disease)
George Vaillant is a world renown alcoholism expert who identified this truth, then became a spokesperson for Alcoholics Anonymous and the disease theory. When he determined that his 12-step treatment program did no good, Vaillant intoned, "the best that can be said for our exciting treatment effort at Cambridge Hospital is that we were certainly not interfering with the normal recovery process." Chew on that! But, even this ridiculously modest claim is wrong.......
............In a separate non-clinical sample he studied, Vaillant found that the substantial majority achieved remission without entering AA. Yet Vaillant failed to cite a single case of natural recovery in his book! Every single case is of an AA success, or else of failures like "Tom Reardon," who foolishly "never learned to pick up the telephone" to call AA. The discrepancy between his data and his case studies is not very reassuring about Dr. Vaillant's mission.
-
I don't think drug prohibition effects addiction one way or the other.
No, but the public perception of drug addiction does affect drug prohibition (which is why this isn't off-topic). The disease debate ends up boiling down to: do drugs actually cause people to commit crimes. If you believe people have free will, the answer is no. Drugs might be a motivation but sufficient motivation is not an excuse to commit a crime. If I really really want to kill somebody, I can't just get off because I claim I really really wanted their money to buy smack. Drug users who commit crimes, even under the influence, know that what they are doing is wrong and choose to commit them anyway. Knowledge of wrongdoing is the key component in the insanity defense, not motive. The alternative is to let people who commit crimes off because of temporary mental defect and sentence them to "treatment" (which at that point becomes forced re-education by the state). Essentially it gives everybody under the influence a pass... a get out of jail free card.
-
Stealing is just a symptom of drug addiction, caused in part by the high price of drugs due to prohibition. So let's say they are made legal and the price plummets, is that going to affect the number of people who get addicted to drugs? If you can buy an eight ball for $5, isn't it more likely that more people will use, and use to a degree that causes them addiction and health problems? It comes down to what society would rather deal with, criminals stealing to support a drug habit of an expensive drug. Or less crime related to stealing for drugs, and more DUI, and the other problems associated with legal use of substances. We see the effects of alcohol, the car crashes, the family devastation due to alcoholism. Might legal drugs lead to similar issues? That is definitely a possibility. But as long as people are no longer breaking into homes or stealing car stereos, is that a worthy trade off?
People are held responsible for their crimes, their motive is irrelevant. The fact people will risk their freedom and commit crimes just to buy more drugs, I think, shows just how powerful a grip that addiction can be. Nothing rational about it, so to ask addicts to make rational choices is a non starter. This view is why so often people get so frustrated dealing with friends, or family members who are alcoholics/addicts. It's not as simple as choosing to be a good person, or a bad person. I don't know anyone who would choose to be an alcoholic or addict, it doesn't make any sense. There's something more to it, something that we currently do not understand fully. We don't recommend exorcisms for people hearing voices any longer, because eventually science caught up and figured out what was actually happening. The same will happen with addiction, eventually, but right now people do their best with what's available.
-
It's easier to quit with help, and sometimes people have to be convinced to stop before they kill themselves.
Of course. I agree. You can't convince a disease to stop but you can convince people that their lives are worth living and that they can change if they want. I even agree that support groups are a good thing. It may be possible to quit on your own, but why take a more difficult route. There are plenty of support groups out there (SMART, SOS), that can help people to learn self discipline and deal with their destructive desires and harmful self medication.
-
]
If you can't see the difference between an adult being responsible for their own actions and a child being forced into a "rehab", I can't help you.
But Anne, I never asked for your help, nor do I need it. Why is an adult responsible for their own actions, but a teenager is not? I am willing to take responsibility for my own role in why I ended up in a program, and the choices I made that led to that eventuality. I was not an innocent victim, or a child of ignorant and naive parents with more money than sense, duped by the evil program OZ into enrolling me for no reason at all. I made a series of poor choices that led me into the program, the road to the program was paved in my own bad choices. One of those decisions was to use drugs, I made that choice. but somewhere on that path I lost control, and what was a choice became a compulsion, a physical and psychological addiction. At that point, choice no longer mattered. I kept using until I almost died, and kept using after that even. I "choose" to remain sober now, because it's not a choice whether I use drugs or not, it's a choice of whether I live or die. At this point I choose to live. I better understand this choice now that I have been through rehab, and AA and understand the true nature of that choice.
But to boil down the issue of addiction to choice, is too simplistic, in my opinion. It ignores too much, and I can't or wouldn't ever suggest to people the solution is that easy. For me sobriety is an everyday struggle. Perhaps for some people, and I do believe most people actually, it's as simple as choosing whether not to use a substance, in a rational way. In my own mind, it's much more complicated than that. there is something inside me that compels me to work against my own self interest. Some people call this addiction, other people call it mental illness, and others even call it the Devil. Whatever it is, if it were so easy to simply wish it away, and choose to not be under it's influence I would have done it a long time ago. It's not that simple, for me at least.
-
If you can buy an eight ball for $5, isn't it more likely that more people will use
No. I don't know of anyone who isn't interested in cocaine that's going to all of a sudden become interested because it's cheaper. It might mean that we'd see an initial jump in people who already have an interest in it using, but I doubt (just my opinion, I know - but I think there is actual research that supports it) that it would create many actual 'new users'.
We see the effects of alcohol, the car crashes, the family devastation due to alcoholism.
So, should we go back to Prohibition days?
The fact people will risk their freedom and commit crimes just to buy more drugs, I think, shows just how powerful a grip that addiction can be. Nothing rational about it, so to ask addicts to make rational choices is a non starter.
Depends on your definition of "addict". Mine is someone who is physically addicted to a substance.....that they experience physical withdrawal symptoms - higher heart rate/blood pressure and then, conversely, extreme low blood pressure, cold sweats, diarrhea, vomiting etc. - when denied the substance.
We don't recommend exorcisms for people hearing voices any longer, because eventually science caught up and figured out what was actually happening. The same will happen with addiction, eventually, but right now people do their best with what's available.
Because it's been so ingrained into society now that the 12 step method is virtually the only way (just as exorcism was viewed as), there's very little interest in finding/funding something new.
-
Stealing is just a symptom of drug addiction, caused in part by the high price of drugs due to prohibition. So let's say they are made legal and the price plummets, is that going to affect the number of people who get addicted to drugs? If you can buy an eight ball for $5, isn't it more likely that more people will use, and use to a degree that causes them addiction and health problems?
OK, Max. I have an assignment for you. I want you to go out and ask random non-drug-users whether they've been just dying to try smack but have avoided it simply because it's illegal. When you find that one guy, the one nobody has ever met, bring him here.
See this survey (http://http://www.csdp.org/publicservice/zogby2007.htm).
If hard drugs such as heroin or cocaine were legalized would you be likely to use them? 99% SAY "NO"
It comes down to what society would rather deal with, criminals stealing to support a drug habit of an expensive drug. Or less crime related to stealing for drugs, and more DUI, and the other problems associated with legal use of substances. We see the effects of alcohol, the car crashes, the family devastation due to alcoholism. Might legal drugs lead to similar issues? That is definitely a possibility. But as long as people are no longer breaking into homes or stealing car stereos, is that a worthy trade off?
The same argument I just made above applies here. Legality of a substance is not likely to affect use. It's not likely to affect whether or not people drive under the influence. I'm not advocating letting people drive under the influence of smack or whatever. I think that what's done with alcohol should be done with drugs. Drugs should be evaluated on an indiviudal basis and reasonable limits should be set. An even better approach would be not to test for substances, but to test ability (for intoxication). If a person can't complete a test of ability, regardless of cause, they should be charged with reckless endangerment or even attempted murder. I'm all in favor of throwing the book at people who endanger others in such a manner and not at all in favor of letting them off with a few AA meetings.
This view is why so often people get so frustrated dealing with friends, or family members who are alcoholics/addicts. It's not as simple as choosing to be a good person, or a bad person. I don't know anyone who would choose to be an alcoholic or addict, it doesn't make any sense.
Maybe they are using it to deal with or otherwise coping with an actual disease. I do agree compulsive substance use can be a symptom of disease, but i'll never accept that a conscious behavior in itself, however repetitive, can constituted a disease. People choose to do irrational things all the time. People jump off bridges. They gamble (no substances there). They are otherwise self destructive. Sometimes they hate themselves. Sometimes they're depressed. Sometimes there is some other mental illness.
There's something more to it, something that we currently do not understand fully. We don't recommend exorcisms for people hearing voices any longer, because eventually science caught up and figured out what was actually happening. The same will happen with addiction, eventually, but right now people do their best with what's available.
Sorry, but AA is not science. It's more akin the the exorcism you talk about. AA was never science based. It was and is faith-based. The problem, like in the dark ages, is that it's gained so much influence those who dare speak ill of it or present addiction as a choice get burned at the stake as heretics. There is no scientific basis behind the commonly held belief that addiction is a disease. There *may* be genetic influence (even that is weak) but even if a person is born to "like" a substances more than others, it's still just a sliding scale of desire, not an overwhelming compulsion.
-
Why is an adult responsible for their own actions, but a teenager is not?
Because they're children with still developing and growing brains.
I am willing to take responsibility for my own role in why I ended up in a program, and the choices I made that led to that eventuality. I was not an innocent victim, or a child of ignorant and naive parents with more money than sense, duped by the evil program OZ into enrolling me for no reason at all.
Good for you. I was an innocent victim of Straight.
I made a series of poor choices that led me into the program, the road to the program was paved in my own bad choices. One of those decisions was to use drugs, I made that choice. but somewhere on that path I lost control, and what was a choice became a compulsion, a physical and psychological addiction.
Ok....I didn't and I was still sent off to Straight and abused.
But to boil down the issue of addiction to choice, is too simplistic, in my opinion. It ignores too much, and I can't or wouldn't ever suggest to people the solution is that easy. For me sobriety is an everyday struggle. Perhaps for some people, and I do believe most people actually, it's as simple as choosing whether not to use a substance, in a rational way. In my own mind, it's much more complicated than that. there is something inside me that compels me to work against my own self interest. Some people call this addiction, other people call it mental illness, and others even call it the Devil. Whatever it is, if it were so easy to simply wish it away, and choose to not be under it's influence I would have done it a long time ago. It's not that simple, for me at least.
Ok
-
Depends on your definition of "addict". Mine is someone who is physically addicted to a substance.....that they experience physical withdrawal symptoms - higher heart rate/blood pressure and then, conversely, extreme low blood pressure, cold sweats, diarrhea, vomiting etc. - when denied the substance.
Right, but even then, people can still choose whether they want to commit crimes, or whether they want to take the steps to quit. There are drugs that can help with withdrawals and people who have been as you describe have put their lives back together.
-
Why is an adult responsible for their own actions, but a teenager is not?
Because they're children with still developing and growing brains.
I disagree. I think they both are. If we're going to advocate giving kids rights to refuse treatment we have to hold them accountable for their actions. Kids are told from a very young age that stealing is wrong. If they steal to support a habit, imprison them for the theft.
-
]
If you can't see the difference between an adult being responsible for their own actions and a child being forced into a "rehab", I can't help you.
But Anne, I never asked for your help, nor do I need it. Why is an adult responsible for their own actions, but a teenager is not? I am willing to take responsibility for my own role in why I ended up in a program, and the choices I made that led to that eventuality. I was not an innocent victim, or a child of ignorant and naive parents with more money than sense, duped by the evil program OZ into enrolling me for no reason at all.
You may have been an unruly monster but lots of other kids aren't. There is no due process or proper diagnosis.
-
No. I don't know of anyone who isn't interested in cocaine that's going to all of a sudden become interested because it's cheaper. It might mean that we'd see an initial jump in people who already have an interest in it using, but I doubt (just my opinion, I know - but I think there is actual research that supports it) that it would create many actual 'new users'.
I think it will depend on whether or not they can market it, like they do alcohol. I think it's common sense that once the fear factor of getting arrested is removed, that people will use it more often than they do now. If it was available at the liquor store on the corner, it might be hard to resist, at least for some people.
So, should we go back to Prohibition days?
No. Prohibition isn't the answer to addiction, take a look at Mexico right now. It causes many more problems than it solves. One of which is people letting their friends die of overdose, because they are too afraid of calling an ambulance. Addiction is a health and psychological issue, police shouldn't be dealing with it, in my opinion.
Depends on your definition of "addict". Mine is someone who is physically addicted to a substance.....that they experience physical withdrawal symptoms - higher heart rate/blood pressure and then, conversely, extreme low blood pressure, cold sweats, diarrhea, vomiting etc. - when denied the substance.
.
When they are cutting up a line praying they won't have to use, wishing they could just stop, right before they do another line. When you use drugs, and you wish you weren't, that's addiction.
Because it's been so ingrained into society now that the 12 step method is virtually the only way (just as exorcism was viewed as), there's very little interest in finding/funding something new.
I'm sure there are teams of medical researchers working on the addiction cure pill as we speak. If they came up with it, think of how much money could be made off it. I was given a prescription drug that was supposed to curb my drug appetite, it didn't work. I think eventually they will be able to find the reason some people are addicts and others are not, and perhaps "correct" the issue and turn addicts into normal, responsible, substance users like most people are.
-
I think it will depend on whether or not they can market it, like they do alcohol. I think it's common sense that once the fear factor of getting arrested is removed, that people will use it more often than they do now. If it was available at the liquor store on the corner, it might be hard to resist, at least for some people.
And yet drunks who quit drinking manage to avoid alcohol, even though it's everywhere. Just because some people have little self control doesn't mean we have to restrict the rights of everybody else to protect those few idiots from themselves.
So, should we go back to Prohibition days?
No. Prohibition isn't the answer to addiction, take a look at Mexico right now. It causes many more problems than it solves. One of which is people letting their friends die of overdose, because they are too afraid of calling an ambulance. Addiction is a health and psychological issue, police shouldn't be dealing with it, in my opinion.
So you wouldn't favor forced treatment?
Depends on your definition of "addict". Mine is someone who is physically addicted to a substance.....that they experience physical withdrawal symptoms - higher heart rate/blood pressure and then, conversely, extreme low blood pressure, cold sweats, diarrhea, vomiting etc. - when denied the substance.
.
When they are cutting up a line praying they won't have to use, wishing they could just stop, right before they do another line. When you use drugs, and you wish you weren't, that's addiction.
No. That's a failure to realize the choices you have, and a failure to take the necessary steps to end the bad habit.
-
Depends on your definition of "addict". Mine is someone who is physically addicted to a substance.....that they experience physical withdrawal symptoms - higher heart rate/blood pressure and then, conversely, extreme low blood pressure, cold sweats, diarrhea, vomiting etc. - when denied the substance.
Right, but even then, people can still choose whether they want to commit crimes, or whether they want to take the steps to quit.
Totally agreed. Didn't mean to imply otherwise.
There are drugs that can help with withdrawals and people who have been as you describe have put their lives back together.
Yup, suboxone has done wonders for many. Ibogaine (although not yet legal in the U.S. I believe) has as well.
-
Stealing is just a symptom of drug addiction, caused in part by the high price of drugs due to prohibition. So let's say they are made legal and the price plummets, is that going to affect the number of people who get addicted to drugs? If you can buy an eight ball for $5, isn't it more likely that more people will use, and use to a degree that causes them addiction and health problems?
OK, Max. I have an assignment for you. I want you to go out and ask random non-drug-users whether they've been just dying to try smack but have avoided it simply because it's illegal. When you find that one guy, the one nobody has ever met, bring him here.
See this survey (http://http://www.csdp.org/publicservice/zogby2007.htm).
If hard drugs such as heroin or cocaine were legalized would you be likely to use them? 99% SAY "NO"
What people say, and what they do are not necessarily in agreement all the time. Especially when talking about drug use.
The same argument I just made above applies here. Legality of a substance is not likely to affect use. It's not likely to affect whether or not people drive under the influence. I'm not advocating letting people drive under the influence of smack or whatever. I think that what's done with alcohol should be done with drugs. Drugs should be evaluated on an indiviudal basis and reasonable limits should be set. An even better approach would be not to test for substances, but to test ability (for intoxication). If a person can't complete a test of ability, regardless of cause, they should be charged with reckless endangerment or even attempted murder. I'm all in favor of throwing the book at people who endanger others in such a manner and not at all in favor of letting them off with a few AA meetings.
The more drunk/high somebody gets, the less likely they are to make a rational and reasoned choice. That's why so many people drive drunk/high even though the consequences are fairly severe. If you did a poll like your previous question, how many people would say they plan on driving drunk in the future? Now compare that with the amount of people who do eventually drive drunk, does it match?
Maybe they are using it to deal with or otherwise coping with an actual disease. I do agree compulsive substance use can be a symptom of disease, but i'll never accept that a conscious behavior in itself, however repetitive, can constituted a disease. People choose to do irrational things all the time. People jump off bridges. They gamble (no substances there). They are otherwise self destructive. Sometimes they hate themselves. Sometimes they're depressed. Sometimes there is some other mental illness.
Well disease is only a word, you can call it whatever you like. I call it addiction. Suicide I believe is an end result of mental illness. Gambling can be an addiction. If you hate yourself enough to harm yourself, that's probably a mental illness as well, same as depression. I also believe that addiction can happen despite not having any other major issues to deal with, it can be an issue all in of itself. I've heard a lot of stories about people who were living the good life, got involved in recreational drugs with their buddies, and for some reason they kept going down the dark path, while their friends were able to remain responsible users.
Sorry, but AA is not science. It's more akin the the exorcism you talk about. AA was never science based. It was and is faith-based. The problem, like in the dark ages, is that it's gained so much influence those who dare speak ill of it or present addiction as a choice get burned at the stake as heretics. There is no scientific basis behind the commonly held belief that addiction is a disease. There *may* be genetic influence (even that is weak) but even if a person is born to "like" a substances more than others, it's still just a sliding scale of desire, not an overwhelming compulsion.
I'm saying until science can cure addiction, people will use whatever is available to them that works. For now, that appears to be AA. If it didn't work, people wouldn't show up, and AA would cease to exist. Some people choose to go the psychiatric route and use medication, other people choose to go cold turkey on their own, and this shows there is no sure fire solution to addiction. I'm sure people with mental illness found a way to cope before modern medical psychology and psychiatry, and I feel that is the stage addiction is in. People know it exists, they don't really know why, or how, but they want to do their best to help themselves in the meantime.
-
For me personally I feel that people who claim they had a "GOOD PROGRAM EXPERIENCE" still have a problems accepting truth over fact. The conditioned behavior and words that the program saved my life is a phrase is mostly prominent when a person has been indoctrinated. Once indoctrinated the person becomes a sadomasicist believing they deserve the punishment and abuse that they receive while being warehoused..It's like a movie I saw once where teenagers have a microchip installed that helps control their behavior.... Just ain't right..... The kid does not grow on their own, forced to be a certain way which in the end the kid will either be stuck or will rebel..
-
Why is an adult responsible for their own actions, but a teenager is not?
Because they're children with still developing and growing brains.
I disagree. I think they both are. If we're going to advocate giving kids rights to refuse treatment we have to hold them accountable for their actions. Kids are told from a very young age that stealing is wrong. If they steal to support a habit, imprison them for the theft.
Point taken. I didn't mean that teens are not to be held accountable for their actions. What I meant was, as a response to Max suggesting that kids are responsible for themselves being placed in programs, that there is a difference between an adult making a decision to use drugs and a teen being forced into rehab for a problem he/she may or may not have.
-
When they are cutting up a line praying they won't have to use, wishing they could just stop, right before they do another line. When you use drugs, and you wish you weren't, that's addiction.
No, it's a lack of self control.
I'm sure there are teams of medical researchers working on the addiction cure pill as we speak.
I never said anything about pills.
If they came up with it, think of how much money could be made off it.
As much money as the "treatment" industry makes now?
-
If religion didn't work, people wouldn't show up, and religion would cease to exist.
And I wonder why that doesn't happen.
-
And yet drunks who quit drinking manage to avoid alcohol, even though it's everywhere. Just because some people have little self control doesn't mean we have to restrict the rights of everybody else to protect those few idiots from themselves.
I agree prohibition is not an effective way to keep people from using substances, obviously it's been proven a complete failure. But when drugs are made legal, there will be people suffering from addiction issues, and calling them idiots and ridiculing their poor "decisions" in life is not going to help them.
No. That's a failure to realize the choices you have, and a failure to take the necessary steps to end the bad habit.
That's exactly what addiction is, because what you describe sounds so simple and easy. Just say no. Yes, we've all heard that before, but it's too simplistic and it doesn't work.
-
Stealing is just a symptom of drug addiction, caused in part by the high price of drugs due to prohibition. So let's say they are made legal and the price plummets, is that going to affect the number of people who get addicted to drugs? If you can buy an eight ball for $5, isn't it more likely that more people will use, and use to a degree that causes them addiction and health problems?
OK, Max. I have an assignment for you. I want you to go out and ask random non-drug-users whether they've been just dying to try smack but have avoided it simply because it's illegal. When you find that one guy, the one nobody has ever met, bring him here.
See this survey (http://http://www.csdp.org/publicservice/zogby2007.htm).
If hard drugs such as heroin or cocaine were legalized would you be likely to use them? 99% SAY "NO"
What people say, and what they do are not necessarily in agreement all the time. Especially when talking about drug use.
The same argument I just made above applies here. Legality of a substance is not likely to affect use. It's not likely to affect whether or not people drive under the influence. I'm not advocating letting people drive under the influence of smack or whatever. I think that what's done with alcohol should be done with drugs. Drugs should be evaluated on an indiviudal basis and reasonable limits should be set. An even better approach would be not to test for substances, but to test ability (for intoxication). If a person can't complete a test of ability, regardless of cause, they should be charged with reckless endangerment or even attempted murder. I'm all in favor of throwing the book at people who endanger others in such a manner and not at all in favor of letting them off with a few AA meetings.
The more drunk/high somebody gets, the less likely they are to make a rational and reasoned choice. That's why so many people drive drunk/high even though the consequences are fairly severe. If you did a poll like your previous question, how many people would say they plan on driving drunk in the future? Now compare that with the amount of people who do eventually drive drunk, does it match?
Maybe they are using it to deal with or otherwise coping with an actual disease. I do agree compulsive substance use can be a symptom of disease, but i'll never accept that a conscious behavior in itself, however repetitive, can constituted a disease. People choose to do irrational things all the time. People jump off bridges. They gamble (no substances there). They are otherwise self destructive. Sometimes they hate themselves. Sometimes they're depressed. Sometimes there is some other mental illness.
Well disease is only a word, you can call it whatever you like. I call it addiction. Suicide I believe is an end result of mental illness. Gambling can be an addiction. If you hate yourself enough to harm yourself, that's probably a mental illness as well, same as depression. I also believe that addiction can happen despite not having any other major issues to deal with, it can be an issue all in of itself. I've heard a lot of stories about people who were living the good life, got involved in recreational drugs with their buddies, and for some reason they kept going down the dark path, while their friends were able to remain responsible users.
Sorry, but AA is not science. It's more akin the the exorcism you talk about. AA was never science based. It was and is faith-based. The problem, like in the dark ages, is that it's gained so much influence those who dare speak ill of it or present addiction as a choice get burned at the stake as heretics. There is no scientific basis behind the commonly held belief that addiction is a disease. There *may* be genetic influence (even that is weak) but even if a person is born to "like" a substances more than others, it's still just a sliding scale of desire, not an overwhelming compulsion.
I'm saying until science can cure addiction, people will use whatever is available to them that works. For now, that appears to be AA. If it didn't work, people wouldn't show up, and AA would cease to exist. Some people choose to go the psychiatric route and use medication, other people choose to go cold turkey on their own, and this shows there is no sure fire solution to addiction. I'm sure people with mental illness found a way to cope before modern medical psychology and psychiatry, and I feel that is the stage addiction is in. People know it exists, they don't really know why, or how, but they want to do their best to help themselves in the meantime.
Got a doctors degree in medicine or psyciatry or at least have a license to practice medicine??? Same problem exist with most programs !!!
-
For me personally I feel that people who claim they had a "GOOD PROGRAM EXPERIENCE" still have a problems accepting truth over fact. The conditioned behavior and words that the program saved my life is a phrase is mostly prominent when a person has been indoctrinated.
Or maybe, it's true. Believe it or not, not everybody who goes to a program is abused and brainwashed, and some of us deserved to be there.
-
That's exactly what addiction is, because what you describe sounds so simple and easy. Just say no. Yes, we've all heard that before, but it's too simplistic and it doesn't work.
It actually does, if you apply it. If you just give yourself to this simple program and don't pick up a drink, ever, for any reason, no matter what excuses you tell yourself - you'll be fine. :seg2:
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-addmonst.html (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-addmonst.html)
-
If it didn't work, people wouldn't show up, and AA would cease to exist.
A lot of people show up to Scientology 'services' and swear that it 'works'. Doesn't make it true or make them any less a cult.
Just because something is popular or has captured the attention of pop-culture (Dr. Drew, "Dr." Phil, "Dr." Laura etc), doesn't mean it "works".
-
THIS JUST IN...
MAX IS REALLY A SVELT, WELL ADUSTED LATVIAN FARMER
Well,how do we know "he's" not.
-
If it didn't work, people wouldn't show up, and AA would cease to exist.
A lot of people show up to Scientology 'services' and swear that it 'works'. Doesn't make it true or make them any less a cult.
Just because something is popular or has captured the attention of pop-culture (Dr. Drew, "Dr." Phil, "Dr." Laura etc), doesn't mean it "works".
Well it obviously works for the people attending, otherwise they wouldn't show up. It's not up to you, or me, to decide what works for other people, that's their choice. People have different needs and seek them out in different ways. Organizations like AA and even Scientology must offer something to the people who attend, otherwise why would they go? Mass brainwashing? Different strokes for different folks. If people can get off drugs or alcohol with religion, or whatever, good for them. Whatever works.
-
AA says "Rarely have we seen a person fail who have thouroughly followed our path" All they would need would be Billy May to plug this sales pitch and they could save the world...
If you look closely that is part of their sales pitch, just a few steps away from being like scientology... just a lower for of dogmatic belief... just not extorting money.
-
If it didn't work, people wouldn't show up, and AA would cease to exist.
A lot of people show up to Scientology 'services' and swear that it 'works'. Doesn't make it true or make them any less a cult.
Just because something is popular or has captured the attention of pop-culture (Dr. Drew, "Dr." Phil, "Dr." Laura etc), doesn't mean it "works".
On the reverse there are few people who have stated that programs didnt work for them, but that doesnt mean that programs are ineffective. It just means that their individual experience was great.
...
-
MY SINCERE APOLOGIES TO THE LATVIAN FARMING COMUNNITY
-
Well it obviously works for the people attending, otherwise they wouldn't show up. It's not up to you, or me, to decide what works for other people, that's their choice. People have different needs and seek them out in different ways. Organizations like AA and even Scientology must offer something to the people who attend, otherwise why would they go? Mass brainwashing? Different strokes for different folks. If people can get off drugs or alcohol with religion, or whatever, good for them. Whatever works.
That's your belief....fine, but AA tries to convince people that they'll die without AA ***. I have a problem with that and want to see the truth told. Have you nothing to say about Vaillant's study (George E. Vaillant, M.D., member AA's General Service Board) that shows that AA actually increases binge drinking (not to mention the date rate among alcoholics) and thus endangers people? Please try and see past your own bias and don't shoot the messenger (Orange Papers). Really take a look at the study, which happens to be on Orange Papers because AA doesn't really want the study publicized.
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html)
***12&12 p.174, Tradition Nine
Unless each A.A. member follows to the best of his ability our suggested Twelve Steps to recovery, he almost certainly signs his own death warrant.
-
If it didn't work, people wouldn't show up, and AA would cease to exist.
A lot of people show up to Scientology 'services' and swear that it 'works'. Doesn't make it true or make them any less a cult.
Just because something is popular or has captured the attention of pop-culture (Dr. Drew, "Dr." Phil, "Dr." Laura etc), doesn't mean it "works".
On the reverse there are few people who have stated that programs didnt work for them, but that doesnt mean that programs are ineffective. It just means that their individual experience was great.
The burden of proof is upon those claiming efficacy.
-
AA tries to convince people that they'll die without AA ***. I have a problem with that and want to see the truth told.
Well some people do die if they don't get sober. So it is the truth, I don't know how you can claim it isn't. What is your "truth" that you want to see told? To me it seems like you have a similar, yet slightly different interpretation of addiction and how to treat it than AA, and instead of embracing the similarities and good aspects of AA you dismiss it completely based on select examples of what you view as inaccuracies. To me this is like the differences between similar religions, in the scheme of things the differences are relatively minor and everyone who attends, no matter what the sect, is a believer in some form or another. In this case of AA I am not a preacher, I am just a believer who will go from church to church seeking answers, I am a non denominational addict seeking answers. I've gone to rehab and read books that aren't based on AA. I've also gone to AA meetings, and to me it's an effective self help group filled with amazing and selfless people who just want to help others, while at the same time helping themselves. Nitpicking terminology or isolated quotes in Aa ideology to me, misses the point entirely. Like arguing over scriptural differences between sects, when in the end all I seek is God. The only truth in addiction is what works for people, and for a lot of people that's AA. I'm not an AA scholar, I don't have any answers other than my own opinion that I think it helped me.
-
AA tries to convince people that they'll die without AA ***. I have a problem with that and want to see the truth told.
Well some people do die if they don't get sober. So it is the truth, I don't know how you can claim it isn't.
You're moving the goalposts. Getting sober does not equal AA. People aren't going to die if they leave AA, even if the do have a problem. There are other options.
What is your "truth" that you want to see told?
That....People aren't going to die if they leave AA, even if the do have a problem. That there are other options. That AA is more a religion than a simple self help group. That it often raises the binge drinking and death rate of alcoholics.
To me it seems like you have a similar, yet slightly different interpretation of addiction and how to treat it than AA, and instead of embracing the similarities and good aspects of AA you dismiss it completely based on select examples of what you view as inaccuracies.
I dismiss it because it tries to tell people that AA is the only way, i.e. the 12 & 12 saying that if they leave they "surely are signing their own death warrant". That's not true and it's dangerous to convince people that it is.
To me this is like the differences between similar religions, in the scheme of things the differences are relatively minor and everyone who attends, no matter what the sect, is a believer in some form or another.
I agree....AA completely smacks of religion. So then, what becomes of the non-believers? Just as religion isn't "the" answer for everyone, neither is AA despite the dire warnings of someone signing their own death warrant if they reject AA's path.
In this case of AA I am not a preacher,
Coulda fooled me.
Nitpicking terminology or isolated quotes in Aa ideology to me, misses the point entirely.
I don't think it's nitpicking to point out that their own guy's study revealed that AA not only didn't "work", it often caused binge drinking and raised the death rate among alcoholics. He chooses to leave that nit out when he speaks of AA.
Like arguing over scriptural differences between sects, when in the end all I seek is God. The only truth in addiction is what works for people, and for a lot of people that's AA. I'm not an AA scholar, I don't have any answers other than my own opinion that I think it helped me.
Ok
-
OK ok ok. Sort of my fault but I think this thread has veered a bit off-topic. If we're going to talk about AA or the disease concept, let's talk about it as it relates to drug prohibition. A debate on whether AA works is something better suited to the Addiction Treatment Philosophies forum.
-
You're moving the goalposts. Getting sober does not equal AA. People aren't going to die if they leave AA, even if the do have a problem. There are other options.
For many people getting sober does equal AA, or at least partly attributed to it. It's not a certainty people are going to die if they leave AA, but if they continue to use they might if they don't get help. Yes there are other options, most of which cost a lot of money, something not everybody has access to.
That....People aren't going to die if they leave AA, even if the do have a problem. That there are other options. That AA is more a religion than a simple self help group. That it often raises the binge drinking and death rate of alcoholics.
They might die, many people do die from alcoholism and drug overdoses every year. I would say AA is a spiritual self help group, they are open to people of any religions and there only goal is to help people get sober. They believe part of this involves spirituality, and things beyond ourselves like a Higher power, I think that's a positive aspect and something that traditional therapists or drug rehab tend to ignore.
I dismiss it because it tries to tell people that AA is the only way, i.e. the 12 & 12 saying that if they leave they "surely are signing their own death warrant". That's not true and it's dangerous to convince people that it is.
I agree....AA completely smacks of religion. So then, what becomes of the non-believers? Just as religion isn't "the" answer for everyone, neither is AA despite the dire warnings of someone signing their own death warrant if they reject AA's path.
Think about this for a minute. How many kids die in programs every year? Two, three, ten? Compare that to the amount of people who die of alcoholism, and drug addiction. Fornits is filled to the brim with dire warnings about how your kid will be harmed or killed in a program, many tears are shed here for these kids, and rightfully so. So think about people who become friends with people who deal with addiction issues, how many of their friends have they seen kill themselves through alcohol or drug use? Tens of thousands of people die of these reasons every year, so the dire warnings, in my opinions are both justified and accurate. Your cause is saving young kids in programs, and offer the same type of warnings to parents, it's the same thing, the posters here of all people should understand this. Their cause is to help and save people from themselves and their addictions. If people don't feel AA helps them they don't need to go, it's that simple. But their doors are open for anybody who needs it. I think they are wonderful.
-
OK ok ok. Sort of my fault but I think this thread has veered a bit off-topic. If we're going to talk about AA or the disease concept, let's talk about it as it relates to drug prohibition. A debate on whether AA works is something better suited to the Addiction Treatment Philosophies forum.
Fair enough, I'll try to keep it on topic. But to be honest, sending a discussion to the ATP forum seems to be the kiss of death, as far as discussion goes. Not many people are seeming to opt in to that forum.
-
This is why nobody will ever come to you for help losing weight. Or why an alcoholic or addict would never go to Psy for help. You are free to your opinions, but take a look around at where people go to get help and you might learn something.
Just because I don't believe alcoholism or addiction is a disease doesn't mean I wouldn't help somebody i cared about to deal with the temptation from their bad habits in any available way. That being said, i'm not going to coddle them and lie and say that it's the alcohol's fault, or the drug's fault. I'm certainly not going to make the leap to saying that all drugs should be banned just because some people choose to use them irresponsibly. Some people drive irresponsibly. We don't ban cars or say that the cars drove the people irresponsibly.
Psy, that's not hard to accept. For most addicts and alcoholics it is not the substance that is really kicking there ass, but the symptoms behind the affliction. Old saying, get a drunk horse thief sober and what do you got, a sober horse thief. It does come down to decisions and some just don't have the intestinal fortitude to stop killing themselves.
One point I will not argue about is what happens when I ingest alcohol as compared to when you ingest alcohol, Psy. For whatever reasons (physically or mentally) I have a different response then others (not everyone) just most. From day one, I have always drank till I about passed out,
-
Anne Bonney wrote;
" I try to get my mom to stop eating so much. "
Maybe she could speak to max pain. I understand he has a weight problem also
None ya, why are you giving Max such a hard time. Don't like this thread or Max move on. Being immature does not look good for a 54 year old.
-
OK ok ok. Sort of my fault but I think this thread has veered a bit off-topic. If we're going to talk about AA or the disease concept, let's talk about it as it relates to drug prohibition. A debate on whether AA works is something better suited to the Addiction Treatment Philosophies forum.
Fair enough, I'll try to keep it on topic. But to be honest, sending a discussion to the ATP forum seems to be the kiss of death, as far as discussion goes. Not many people are seeming to opt in to that forum.
Maybe because some people don't know about it. But the word will get round. There is a lot of interest in the discussion as is evidenced by this thread.
-
I'd like to introduce ibogaine -- as a way to kick heroin -- as a part of this discussion. To stay on point...not only should heroin be legalized, but humane and effective treatment should be available to those who are addicted to it and have a desire to be done with it. Ibogaine therapy is available in other countries, but so far it is not available in America...(I hope this isn't too far off topic.)
-
While it may seem extreme, I would decriminalize all drugs that are currently illegal even via prescription.
The 'War on Drugs' is a war on the American People. It would actually be better for everyone if this 'war' did not exist.
The 'war' does not work. People can get drugs within a few minutes. We don't really have to concern ourselves about what would happen if these drugs were legal. As things are now, it is as if they are legal, as far as the ability to acquire drugs.
So, what would change would be the State itself. The money spent on this 'war', would be spent elsewhere. We would be a more free society. A safer society. A more wealthy society.
-
While it may seem extreme, I would decriminalize all drugs that are currently illegal even via prescription.
The 'War on Drugs' is a war on the American People. It would actually be better for everyone if this 'war' did not exist.
The 'war' does not work. People can get drugs within a few minutes. We don't really have to concern ourselves about what would happen if these drugs were legal. As things are now, it is as if they are legal, as far as the ability to acquire drugs.
So, what would change would be the State itself. The money spent on this 'war', would be spent elsewhere. We would be a more free society. A safer society. A more wealthy society.
AMEN!
-
While it may seem extreme, I would decriminalize all drugs that are currently illegal even via prescription.
The 'War on Drugs' is a war on the American People. It would actually be better for everyone if this 'war' did not exist.
The 'war' does not work. People can get drugs within a few minutes. We don't really have to concern ourselves about what would happen if these drugs were legal. As things are now, it is as if they are legal, as far as the ability to acquire drugs.
So, what would change would be the State itself. The money spent on this 'war', would be spent elsewhere. We would be a more free society. A safer society. A more wealthy society.
God damn. Spot on!
-
How about over the counter sodium pentathol. 'Cause every body needs to get thier truth on. Especially around here
-
If the US ends the drug war, which I do believe will happen eventually, then there will be a big increase in the number of treatment centers, and the health aspect of treating addiction will probably receive some of the government funding now going to police, jails, etc. So when we talk about why and how the drug war should end, it's all important to discuss the topic of the impacts that it might have on society, and the solutions that might work at preventing or treating some of the side effects of free access to strong intoxicants. I don't really believe the studies about people saying they won't use illegal drugs if they were made legal. When corporations are allowed to sell these products, it will be in their financial interest in expanding their customer base, which involves heavy marketing. If cocaine and heroin is produced by professionals and companies, then they will probably be much safer to use, and the dosage much easier to predict and overdoses less likely, which is a good thing. But making illegal drugs safer, and easier to access, and acceptable in society will mean that more people use them. To ignore this is to ignore human nature. Will employers still drug test or will that become illegal and an invasion of privacy? What age will someone be able to buy cocaine from the corner store? How many OxyContins would a person be allowed to buy everyday?
With the end of the drug war, will come a boon in the treatment industry, and it will probably be government funded. I do believe the treatment industry is much more effective in dealing with these problems than the justice system, for obvious reasons. But if people here are so anti-treatment and anti-AA, I am curious what they propose to do with the many new people who become addicted to the very addictive drugs listed in this list we all voted on. There will be many unintended side effects that must be dealt with, and failing to address them will mean the continuation of the drug war because people will be afraid of these effects if there is not a rational solution to offer as an alternative to the existing system.
-
I think any negative effects of such a policy would be outweighed by the obvious positive ones, like taking all that money out of the hands of Mexican and American organized crime and putting a big chunk of it (via taxes) into the US Treasury. And getting those drugs off the corner and off the school yards and into a liquor store or drug store, which would only sell to adults. There may be an initial spike in drug use but I think that would equalize when the novelty wore off. And if more people need treatment, let them get it. My main beef is with teen programs from which you CANNOT leave. If all drugs were legal and regulated, teens would have a harder time getting them. And if Mom or Dad could go to the liquor store, buy a joint and smoke it, maybe they wouldn't be so uptight and intolerant. Maybe they would not be so quick to condemn their own children to a thought reform gulag.
-
But if people here are so anti-treatment and anti-AA,
Wait...who said anything about being "anti-treatment"?
-
How about over the counter sodium pentathol. 'Cause every body needs to get thier truth on. Especially around here
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :rocker: :rofl: :rofl: :cheers: :rasta:
-
If the US ends the drug war, which I do believe will happen eventually, then there will be a big increase in the number of treatment centers, and the health aspect of treating addiction will probably receive some of the government funding now going to police, jails, etc. So when we talk about why and how the drug war should end, it's all important to discuss the topic of the impacts that it might have on society, and the solutions that might work at preventing or treating some of the side effects of free access to strong intoxicants. I don't really believe the studies about people saying they won't use illegal drugs if they were made legal. When corporations are allowed to sell these products, it will be in their financial interest in expanding their customer base, which involves heavy marketing. If cocaine and heroin is produced by professionals and companies, then they will probably be much safer to use, and the dosage much easier to predict and overdoses less likely, which is a good thing. But making illegal drugs safer, and easier to access, and acceptable in society will mean that more people use them. To ignore this is to ignore human nature. Will employers still drug test or will that become illegal and an invasion of privacy? What age will someone be able to buy cocaine from the corner store? How many OxyContins would a person be allowed to buy everyday?
With the end of the drug war, will come a boon in the treatment industry, and it will probably be government funded. I do believe the treatment industry is much more effective in dealing with these problems than the justice system, for obvious reasons. But if people here are so anti-treatment and anti-AA, I am curious what they propose to do with the many new people who become addicted to the very addictive drugs listed in this list we all voted on. There will be many unintended side effects that must be dealt with, and failing to address them will mean the continuation of the drug war because people will be afraid of these effects if there is not a rational solution to offer as an alternative to the existing system.
I wonder if that is really true?
The Drug Treatment Part.
Most people who enter drug treatment do so as a result of a Court Order, or some other State sanction.
The negative effects of the War on Drugs far outweigh any benefit.
By any measure.
Check out this site...
http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm (http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm)
-
The Drug Treatment Part.
Most people who enter drug treatment do so as a result of a Court Order, or some other State sanction.
Which is ends up basically meaning "state ordered re-education" if you think about it. "Don't agree with us about drugs? You have a problem, which we're going to fix whether you like it or not."
-
The Drug Treatment Part.
Most people who enter drug treatment do so as a result of a Court Order, or some other State sanction.
Which is ends up basically meaning "state ordered re-education" if you think about it. "Don't agree with us about drugs? You have a problem, which we're going to fix whether you like it or not."
I think the judge has to do something. I dont know what the studies show in this area but the judge usually has the choice of sending the guy to jail or rehab. rehab is geared towards education where as jail is strictly punitive. So they should try education first.
...
-
While it may seem extreme, I would decriminalize all drugs that are currently illegal even via prescription.
The 'War on Drugs' is a war on the American People. It would actually be better for everyone if this 'war' did not exist.
The 'war' does not work. People can get drugs within a few minutes. We don't really have to concern ourselves about what would happen if these drugs were legal. As things are now, it is as if they are legal, as far as the ability to acquire drugs.
So, what would change would be the State itself. The money spent on this 'war', would be spent elsewhere. We would be a more free society. A safer society. A more wealthy society.
God damn. Spot on!
I have been thinking about this for awhile, and I have not voted yet. I think the concept of decriminalization should be considered, at least in some cases, as a better alternative to legalization.
On this subject I find it hard to separate my personal opinion from affecting my opinion on an appropriate social stance regarding drugs, so I will just say it. I believe any adult should be free to use marijuana, BUT legalization will impose laws upon small- non comercial growers and regulations for what is marketable, similar to tobacco, which can account for why no one grows that themselves for sale. In the case of marijuana I think decriminalization is a better solution than legalization.
I have similar, but different feelings regarding psychedelics. I don’t think lsd or mushrooms are totally safe, but In these cases, imo, people should have the right to have these experiences if they want. It is my feeling that these experiences are very spiritual for people, and they shouldn’t be dominated by a corporate definition of ‘what it is supposed to be’ or ‘what is the perfect dose’. I’d go on, but again my opinion is that decriminalization is a better answer to legalization in this case.
I don’t think any good can come from allowing meth use. I don’t think heroin can generally be used responsibly. Coke ? Ecstasy? I just can’t condone legalizing these drugs. I think they can be harmful, but I also cannot deny that more problems come from prohibition and the war on drugs. Issues of impurity, criminal control of the product, jailing of harmless users, etc….
Again, I have not voted yet, but I think decriminalization is a viable alternative answer to this questionnaire.
-
You've gotta be kidding me
Look at the poll. these numbers are so low, they point to nothing.
What , about a billion or so people out here on the web somewhere.
And this drug poll has garnered at last check 63 votes?
AND YOU CAN VOTE MULTIPLE TIMES
63 GODAMN VOTES?
The people have spoken
A little
-
MORE ON THIS AS IT DEVELOPES[attachment=0:2g7s7gjy]THIS JUST IN.gif[/attachment:2g7s7gjy]
-
And this drug poll has garnered at last check 63 votes?
AND[/b] YOU CAN VOTE MULTIPLE TIMES
Nope. You can only vote once.
-
How many members here have multiple sign in names.
Can't they vote under each one?
Just like in Chicago
-
The Drug Treatment Part.
Most people who enter drug treatment do so as a result of a Court Order, or some other State sanction.
Which is ends up basically meaning "state ordered re-education" if you think about it. "Don't agree with us about drugs? You have a problem, which we're going to fix whether you like it or not."
I think the judge has to do something. I dont know what the studies show in this area but the judge usually has the choice of sending the guy to jail or rehab. rehab is geared towards education where as jail is strictly punitive. So they should try education first.
So, what if it's truly just someone who enjoys smoking pot? They don't need to be educated about it. Someone who just got caught with a joint, no driving under the influence or anything that has harmed anyone else....just a recreational user who doesn't think it's bad or dangerous or the dreaded 'gateway drug'? He is then forced to either go to jail or be "re-educated" and we all know what the obvious choice would be so it ends up just like has been said. The 'state' says he has a problem, even though he doesn't agree, and in order to avoid jail he is sentenced to endure the re-education to convince him of something he doesn't believe and isn't true - that's it's dangerous, a gateway drug etc.. And not to get back off topic, but how many of the treatment centers use the 12 step model, which amounts to sentencing someone to participate in a religion.
The legalization v. decriminalization is a valid point to argue. There's some good information here http://www.dpft.org/policy.htm (http://www.dpft.org/policy.htm) from, of all places, Texas and of course, here http://blog.norml.org/2010/03/08/real-w ... alization/ (http://blog.norml.org/2010/03/08/real-world-ramifications-of-cannabis-legalization-and-decriminalization/).
This is a really interesting and completely frightening look inside the mind of Richard Nixon regarding pot. It's a transcript from some of his infamous tapes. There's some ranting about "the gheys", "the darkies" and "the joos" too. Scary man. http://www.csdp.org/research/nixonpot.txt (http://www.csdp.org/research/nixonpot.txt)
Decrim is a baby step, but it still leaves pot as being illegal and subject to fines, effects on jobs etc. The result is the same.....being punished for using a plant.
States that have decriminalized pot.
(http://http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b2/Map-of-US-state-cannabis-decriminalization-laws2.svg/400px-Map-of-US-state-cannabis-decriminalization-laws2.svg.png)
-
Fl. will never decriminalize. They would just as soon build more and more prisons.
Smoking a joint helps better than 3 of my prescription drugs for nausea ,pian,and blood pressure.
In fact I have to be careful, if I think i'm gonna' burn the hay I skip my blood pressure med for that day 'cause it can sometimes drop too low. Not to mention , no prescription drug has ever made me laugh!
-
Fl. will never decriminalize. They would just as soon build more and more prisons.
Yep....if decriminalization/legalization does come to FL, it'll be a damn long time before it happens.
Smoking a joint helps better than 3 of my prescription drugs for nausea ,pian,and blood pressure.
In fact I have to be careful, if I think i'm gonna' burn the hay I skip my blood pressure med for that day 'cause it can sometimes drop too low. Not to mention , no prescription drug has ever made me laugh![/i][/b]
:nods: :nods:
I've been able to give up pretty much all meds that I used to be on too. It's a shame that it's so stigmatized because it truly is a miracle medicine, IMO.
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
You're de-railing the thread, Joel... :roflmao:
(kidding)
-
While it may seem extreme, I would decriminalize all drugs that are currently illegal even via prescription.
The 'War on Drugs' is a war on the American People. It would actually be better for everyone if this 'war' did not exist.
The 'war' does not work. People can get drugs within a few minutes. We don't really have to concern ourselves about what would happen if these drugs were legal. As things are now, it is as if they are legal, as far as the ability to acquire drugs.
So, what would change would be the State itself. The money spent on this 'war', would be spent elsewhere. We would be a more free society. A safer society. A more wealthy society.
God damn. Spot on!
I have been thinking about this for awhile, and I have not voted yet. I think the concept of decriminalization should be considered, at least in some cases, as a better alternative to legalization.
On this subject I find it hard to separate my personal opinion from affecting my opinion on an appropriate social stance regarding drugs, so I will just say it. I believe any adult should be free to use marijuana, BUT legalization will impose laws upon small- non comercial growers and regulations for what is marketable, similar to tobacco, which can account for why no one grows that themselves for sale. In the case of marijuana I think decriminalization is a better solution than legalization.
I have similar, but different feelings regarding psychedelics. I don’t think lsd or mushrooms are totally safe, but In these cases, imo, people should have the right to have these experiences if they want. It is my feeling that these experiences are very spiritual for people, and they shouldn’t be dominated by a corporate definition of ‘what it is supposed to be’ or ‘what is the perfect dose’. I’d go on, but again my opinion is that decriminalization is a better answer to legalization in this case.
I don’t think any good can come from allowing meth use. I don’t think heroin can generally be used responsibly. Coke ? Ecstasy? I just can’t condone legalizing these drugs. I think they can be harmful, but I also cannot deny that more problems come from prohibition and the war on drugs. Issues of impurity, criminal control of the product, jailing of harmless users, etc….
Again, I have not voted yet, but I think decriminalization is a viable alternative answer to this questionnaire.
I don't think any good has come from the government.
They can't even stop planes from flying into buildings.
When they figure that whole thing out, then we'll discuss other responsibilities they might deserve.
The National Government has failed us.
Now, I may be against a whole lot of things. That does not mean that the power of government should slam down on somebodies head.
Someone who is caught using drugs, that is none of the governments business. It has nothing to do with them.
Please explain one good thing the government has done in the 'War on Drugs', just one single thing.
That should be easy.
-
If I where Queen of the Forrest I'd make marijuana leagle. It would be considered a cash crop like wheat, hops, barley, grapes, blackberries, strawberries. . . and what is marketed as an intoxicant - like beer or wine - would be taxed and regulated the same way.
All else I would de-criminalize. Fines would be imposed and in some cases large fines - much as we now see with traffic violations - but there would be no jail or criminal record resulting. The fines I would use to fund education, work skills development, treatment research and recovery treatment for anyone who wants it. I would also re-direct the current drug war funding to the same.
-
Makes sense, Buzz.
Question: Can pot baked in foods generate the same high as pot smoked? Can pot brownies have a medicinal effect on pain/eating issues due to cancer, or is it best to toke it? What about the vape? I'm not pot savvy enough to know but need the info.
-
http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfL3qSjJriU&feature=related
Judging from the above Brownies will do the trick.
If you need to smoke it for medical reasons, but don't like the harshness in your lungs try a water pipe.
-
Thanks! It's not for me but for someone else who is also not very pot savvy.
All it does for me is make me eat and sleep, which is why it doesn't appeal. But it is exactly what I'd want if I had an illness.
-
If you need to smoke it for medical reasons, but don't like the harshness in your lungs try a water pipe.
Or a vaporizer. Vaporizers vaporize the cannibinoids into a bag without burning anything. It works by the principle that the active ingredients only need to be heated, not necessarily burnt, in order to be released into the air. A bag of "vapor" is filled up and you inhale that. There is no negative health risk (even if it's true that pot can cause lung cancer as that's only speculation). They make portable ones as well. It also leave very little residual smell as no smoke is released from the "bowl" and if you blow out into a "spoof" there is no residual smell at all nothing is exhaled. It's basically a "closed system" from the pot to you.
-
If you need to smoke it for medical reasons, but don't like the harshness in your lungs try a water pipe.
Or a vaporizer. Vaporizers vaporize the cannibinoids into a bag without burning anything. It works by the principle that the active ingredients only need to be heated, not necessarily burnt, in order to be released into the air. A bag of "vapor" is filled up and you inhale that. There is no negative health risk (even if it's true that pot can cause lung cancer as that's only speculation). They make portable ones as well. It also leave very little residual smell as no smoke is released from the "bowl" and if you blow out into a "spoof" there is no residual smell at all nothing is exhaled. It's basically a "closed system" from the pot to you.
:cheers: