On 2005-09-16 16:15:00, Sophie wrote:
So if not XA... then what? What is your solution for the "junkie snatching purses or the sweet little old lady getting drugs from her doctor"? That's the part that confuses me. I get it why you don't like straight and the 12 step fellowships. What I don't get is ...what is YOUR solution?
The solution to the junkie snatching purses is real easy. Do like they do in merry ol'e England and Switzerland; make it legal. (uh, the heroin, not the purse snatching) My only dissagreement w/ their approach is that I don't think all tax payors should be compelled to provide the drugs, supplies and other expense items any more than I should be compelled to pay for stepcraft based programs. Before we tried to help the poor junkies, heroin was freely available from any corner apothacary or the Sears catalog for the same price per dose as aspirin. Whe had addicts, to be sure. Especially following our wars. But they weren't ever desperate for a fix. There was no such thing as drug crime at all. Drug crime and drug cartels and narco terror and drug gangs are all entirely a consequence of prohibition.
That might even go a long way toward helping the little old lady who's getting bad advice and/or the wrong or too many drugs from her doctor. There's a broad perception in our society that if you follow your doctor's advice, you'll be a-ok. That, of course, is rediculous. Doctors 1) are falible human beings just like the rest of us and 2) don't know a damned thing you don't tell them, except that narrow bit of data they can get from lab tests.
So then we'd be left w/ only the actual consequences of substance abuse on the individual user. From a public polic/public health standpoint, that's entirely negligable. No more public response is required exept to quit medaling in the private affairs of others.
On a personal level, XA wouldn't be so bad on an entirely voluntary basis if it's adherants would recognize that it is, indeed, a religion and has no place in public policy. Have I mentioned that my big problem w/ the stepcult is it's way of seeping into public policy?
I know this is hard to swollow, but we don't really have a huge drug problem. Addiction rates have not changed significantly in all the years since the Harrison Narcotics Act. Before that, we won WWII, finished the Panama Canal and used to produce the best thinkers, writers and entrepreneurs the world had ever seen. Usage rates go up in times of stress and down in times of peace and plenty. That seems to be the only reliable correlation.
So.. how about we eliminate DEA, ATF, area taskforces, DARE, NIDA, the Ad Council and all the rest of the ineffective drugwar apparatus,
immeidately, if not sooner, cut all forms of taxes accross the board commensurate to the dime w/ those spending cuts and see if the ensuing prosperity will do it's thing and reduce desperation and, hence, the need for self medication?
The remainder of the problem will at least not be our problem and maybe those folks most susceptable to substance abuse will have less stress to medicate now that we're not actively at war with them.
In all seriousness, though, look to history. Find out what kinds of problems we actually had (or the lack thereof) before we started trying to fix this thing. I think, at the bottom of it, harmful substance use is a minor problem that has been with us always and we just have to accept it just like acne and menopause. So minor, in fact, that few, if any, of the major religions even give it ink in their holy texts.
The way we're doing it now is not helping, is very expensive, is pissing off our neighbors and our own fellow countryment. What was that thing about continuing w/ a practice despite adverse consequences?
I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absenteed myself from Christian assemblies.
--Benjamin Franklin, American Founding Father and inventor
_________________
Ginger Warbis ~ Antigen
Drug war POW
Seed Chicklett `71 - `80
Straight, Sarasota
10/80 - 10/82
Apostate 10/82 -
Anonymity Anonymous