Fornits

Fornits Home for Wayward Web Fora
An open discussion about the troubled parent industry

Quote from: "DannyB II"

Quote from: "Joel"

E-mails are a bad idea because some wise guy would post them on fornits.  I am  guilty of that.  The same is applicable towards communications on facebook.  

People may ask former staff, "What have you got to hide?"  My response would be, "I have done this before, other family members were affected, so no thanks.  You can thank Angela Smith from HEAL for that."  This is something I tried to move on from and it still is difficult.

If people are still persistent about this idea, then send your questions to Antigen.  She could post them on fornits for former staff to answer.   I think it would better if she moderated this discussion.

:shamrock:  :shamrock:
This is the most rational idea I have heard so far. This would work if we could pick a particular night that this discussion could happen for a set period of time. Just some beginning thoughts.
Thanks Joel...
Danny...

  :timeout: Hold up, am I being drafted?

I publish my contact info liberally, but that's because I'm in the business of hosting websites. I decided a long time ago that it was worth the (sometimes considerable) risks. But I wouldn't recommend anyone else making that decision lightly, especially if you were on staff and/or a particularly hard assed oldcomer/expediter/etc. Shit, even if you weren't. I was never much of a hard ass. Rarely got called on to do a restraint. I think I actually participated in one once and just tacitly refused to actually hurt the girl. I didn't think I had made a lot of enemies but I've run into people in recent years who were really scared of me. But no one has really tried to interfere with my life except for ed-cons and program operators who have sued me or threatened to sue me.

No, I'd suggest ya'll just do what DJ and Che have done (though I think Che would agree that it wouldn't hurt to leave out the donkey fucking references) Just talk about whatever strikes you as worth discussing and try and leave the personal attacks alone.

Quote from: "Whooter"

It’s one of the clearest examples. Substance use is strongly related to continued criminal activity in this group, and it makes sense to focus on this behavior for intervention. In fact, the study shows that treatment for substance use can reduce offending.
Levels of substance use and associated problems are very high in these young offenders.

Point 1: Drugs are illegal.  Of course if drug use goes down, crime will go down.  Drug use is a crime in itself and Illegal drug users are criminals by definition.  Does the study bother to mention which crimes?  Are they related to drugs, and how is "drug-related" defined?  Drug related often means "while under the influence of a drug".  Well.  I drink iced tea all day.  If I rob a convenience store, that's not a "caffeine related" crime.  Drugs don't do crimes.  People do crimes.

Point 2: They claim substance use is strongly related to criminal activity.  Point one applies as well, but something else worth considering is the notion that people who already commit crimes might be more likely to use drugs than those who do not break the law (and thus would not be using illegal drugs). If you're robbing convenience stores and stealing cars, you're probably not going to worry about getting busted for smoking pot.  Coincidence is not causation.  Drug use could be blamed on criminal pastimes just as easily as you could blame criminal pastimes on drugs.  I admit it could go the other way, not because of the drugs themselves, but because the action of taking drugs is a crime, and once a person thinks of himself as a criminal he's likely to commit more crimes.

Side note: Either way.  If you legalize drugs, the crime surrounding it disappear.  Drugs by themselves in society don't cause crime.  Drug Prohibition causes crime, just as alcohol prohibition created the mob.  People who smuggle drugs kill and maim and so forth because that is the nature of an illegal business.  People who use drugs regularly are excluded from legitimate jobs they could otherwise do by draconian "drug free" workplace laws.  As a result, some choose to commit crimes to support their habits.  It doesn't justify it, But it does explain it.  Excluding them from jobs on the basis of what they choose to put in their bodies, rather than their performance, is also wrong.  Drug usage, even drug abuse, does not make a person automatically immoral in other areas of their lives.  It's a choice, and like the choice of a religion, it's unjust to be prejudiced against.   Would they be criminals if society didn't treat them like it?  I don't think so.  Were drugs (even heroin) legal, pure (many poisonings are mislabeled "overdoses"), cheap, and freely available to users, I believe the worst harm surrounding drug use could be stopped. Drug use can never be eradicated.  It's a constant, illegal or not.  What we can do is get rid of the worst of the harm surrounding it.

And here's an article about legal heroin in Switzerland you might want to consider:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/2 ... 47023.html

Quote from: "article"

"The aim is that the patients learn how to function in society," he said, adding that after two to three years in the program, one-third of the patients start abstinence-programs and one-third change to methadone treatment..