Author Topic: To all the dummies who think the US should legalize drugs  (Read 3833 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Anne Bonney

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5006
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: To all the dummies who think the US should legalize drug
« Reply #15 on: May 26, 2010, 10:45:52 AM »
Two separate couples in Oregon let their 16 year old son and 15 MONTH old daughter die a painful death from a very easily treatable infection because of their religious beliefs.  OUTLAW THE BIBLE!!!!!




http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/02/ ... 265231487/

OREGON CITY, Ore., Feb. 3 (UPI) -- An Oregon couple have become the first members of a faith-healing church to be convicted for allowing a child to die without medical care.

Jeffrey and Marc Beagley were found guilty Tuesday of criminally negligent homicide in the 2008 death of their son, Neil, The (Portland) Oregonian reported. Neil Beagley, 16, died of a congenital urinary blockage.

The Beagleys are members of Followers of Christ, an Oregon church that treats medical problems with prayer, anointing and laying on of hands. While other children have died in recent years, the Beagleys are the first to be found guilty of causing a child's death.

"This is a signal to the religious community that they should be on notice that their activities will be scrutinized," said Steven K. Green, head of the Center for Religion and Democracy at Willamette University.

The maximum sentence for criminally negligent homicide is 10 years, but the Beagleys, as first-time offenders, are likely to receive no more than 18 months. Steve Lindsey, Marci Beagley's lawyer, said he would ask for probation under a state law that creates an exception for parents motivated by religious belief. He said counseling, medical supervision for the couple's daughter and cooperation with child welfare officials would educate members of the Followers of Christ on their legal responsibility to their children.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23882698/

OREGON CITY, Ore. - A couple whose church preaches against medical care are facing criminal charges after their young daughter died of an infection that authorities said went untreated.

Carl and Raylene Worthington were indicted Friday on charges of manslaughter and criminal mistreatment in the death of their 15-month-old daughter Ava. They belong to the Followers of Christ Church, whose members have a history of treating gravely ill children only with prayer.

Ava died March 2 of bronchial pneumonia and a blood infection. The state medical examiner’s office has said she could have been treated with antibiotics.

Dr. Christopher Young, a deputy state medical examiner, said the child’s breathing was further hampered by a benign cyst on her neck that had never been medically addressed, The Oregonian reported.

Laws passed in the 1990s struck down legal shields for faith-healing parents after the deaths of several children whose parents were members of the fundamentalist church.

Since those laws took effect in 1999, “We haven’t seen any cases of significant medical neglect ... until now,” said child abuse Detective Jeff Green of the Clackamas County Sheriff’s Office.

The Worthingtons could face more than six years if convicted on the manslaughter charges and up to a year on the mistreatment charges, said Greg Horner, chief deputy district attorney. They were released on $250,000 bail, he said.

Horner said he didn’t know whether the couple had lawyers to speak for them. A number listed for the couple was disconnected. A man who answered the phone at the church Monday would not identify himself and said: “We’ve been told ’No comment.”’

The Worthingtons also lost a baby boy in 2001, but an investigation was closed after family members told police the child was stillborn. Several other Followers of Christ children have also been stillborn or died during home births in recent years, and none of the deaths resulted in criminal charges, authorities have said.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
traight, St. Pete, early 80s
AA is a cult http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cult.html

The more boring a child is, the more the parents, when showing off the child, receive adulation for being good parents-- because they have a tame child-creature in their house.  ~~  Frank Zappa

Offline SUCK IT

  • Posts: 411
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: To all the dummies who think the US should legalize drug
« Reply #16 on: May 27, 2010, 01:04:48 AM »
Let's talk mathematics, that's science based, right?  Let's say you are a parent of a troubled youth and you are crunching the numbers. What are the chances, mathematically speaking, that your kid will use and possibly become addicted to illicit dangerous drugs? What might the chances be that the troubled youth might consider or even attempt to take their own life, mathematically speaking? These numbers can be found. Then calculate the chances of the troubled youth being injured or killed while in a treatment program. Which of these scenarios, has the greatest chances? Which of these the least? Let's do this honestly, mathematically, science based calculation. What is the result?  Keep your answers in mind as you read ahead.

Posters here on fornits argue that adolescent treatment centers are a danger to youth. Therefore they should be heavily regulated by government, or preferably banned outright, a total and complete prohibition of adolescent treatment center. I'm not making this up, most of the regular posters here have this view*. But when it comes to illegal drugs, these same people make the argument that they should be at every convenience store. You should be able to buy bottles of OxyContin as easily as vitamins, or a dozen rocks of pure crack cocaine as easily as you would buy milk. But, mathematically, science based look at the numbers will inevitably yield the result that drugs are statistically much more likely to harm a troubled youth than a treatment center. Self injury is also statistically much more likely to occur to a troubled youth than harm done to them by employees or peers at a treatment center.

Keeping all of these facts in mind, how does a typical lets ban all the programs poster reconcile this hypocrisy? It would appear the only explanation is the typical anti treatment fornits extremist suffers from severe cognitive dissonance, either intentionally or perhaps they are brainwashed into the group think of the fornits regulars. It's sad to see this is the case, and this thread is evidence of this uneven calls for prohibitions depending on what it is you are prohibiting. It's not based on what is truly dangerous to a troubled youth, it is based solely on your own singular experience which you attempt to blackmail the world with your bitternes and use an experience many go through fine as an excuse to live in perpetual victim hood, all the while blaming others for your own bad choices. Take some accountability for once in your life and realize you created your own path and only have yourself to blame. Programs are needed and aren't going anywhere despite the whining on this forum, bet on it.

*The exception to this of course would be Psy. As someone who voluntarily signed themselves into an adult, state regulated treatment facility no amount of regulation could ever keep that from happening. So I can imagine that Psy has a somewhat different view of how necessary regulation might be, since as all fornits posters inevitably do, shape their view of an entire industry around their own singular experience.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
one day at a time

Offline Anne Bonney

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5006
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: To all the dummies who think the US should legalize drug
« Reply #17 on: May 27, 2010, 02:45:20 PM »
Quote from: "SUCK IT"
Let's talk mathematics, that's science based, right?  Let's say you are a parent of a troubled youth and you are crunching the numbers. What are the chances, mathematically speaking, that your kid will use and possibly become addicted to illicit dangerous drugs? What might the chances be that the troubled youth might consider or even attempt to take their own life, mathematically speaking? These numbers can be found. Then calculate the chances of the troubled youth being injured or killed while in a treatment program. Which of these scenarios, has the greatest chances? Which of these the least? Let's do this honestly, mathematically, science based calculation. What is the result?  Keep your answers in mind as you read ahead.

Dunno....what are they?  Let's see 'em.


Quote
Posters here on fornits argue that adolescent treatment centers are a danger to youth.

Some adolescent treatment centers.  Mostly, the one's using the TC approach with the extreme isolation from everyone including family, peer pressure environment and the level system.


Quote
Therefore they should be heavily regulated by government, or preferably banned outright, a total and complete prohibition of adolescent treatment center.

Some centers.


Quote
I'm not making this up, most of the regular posters here have this view*.

Yes you are.

 
Quote
But when it comes to illegal drugs, these same people make the argument that they should be at every convenience store. You should be able to buy bottles of OxyContin as easily as vitamins, or a dozen rocks of pure crack cocaine as easily as you would buy milk.

Another strawman.  I don't think anyone's advocated selling oxycontin alongside the beer.  The marijuana??  Sure, you bet!  What we have been advocating (those of us that believe in legalization) is in line with what these guys believe:

http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php    Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) is a non-profit, international, educational organization comprising former and current police officers, government agents and other law enforcement agents who oppose the current War on Drugs.

Quote
LEAP Statement of Principles

1. LEAP does not promote the use of drugs and is deeply concerned about the extent of drug abuse worldwide. LEAP is also deeply concerned with the destructive impact of violent drug gangs and cartels everywhere in the world. Neither problem is remedied by the current policy of drug prohibition. Indeed, drug abuse and gang violence flourish in a drug prohibition environment, just as they did during alcohol prohibition.

2. LEAP advocates the elimination of the policy of drug prohibition and the inauguration of a replacement policy of drug control and regulation, including regulations imposing appropriate age restrictions on drug sales and use, just as there are age restrictions on marriage, signing contracts, alcohol, tobacco, operating vehicles and heavy equipment, voting and so on.

3. LEAP believes that adult drug abuse is a health problem and not a law-enforcement matter, provided that the abuse does not harm other people or the property of others.

4. LEAP believes that adult drug use, however dangerous, is a matter of personal freedom as long as it does not impinge on the freedom or safety of others.

5. LEAP speakers come from a wide divergence of political thought and social conscience and recognize that in a post-prohibition world it will take time to strike a proper regulatory balance, blending private, public and medical models to best control and regulate “illicit drugs.” LEAP speakers are free to advocate their view of better post-prohibition stratagems without toeing a LEAP “party line.”

6. LEAP recognizes that even in a post-prohibition world, still, drugs can be dangerous and potentially addictive, requiring appropriate regulation and control. Even in a free-market economy, reasonable regulation for the purposes of public health is a long-standing, accepted principle. Such regulation must not allow casual, unfettered or indiscriminate drug sales.

7. LEAP believes that government has a public health obligation to accurately ascertain the risks associated with the use of each “illicit drug” and a duty to clearly communicate that information to the public by means of labeling and warnings similar to what is done regarding food, tobacco, alcohol and medicine.

8. LEAP believes that an inordinate number of people have been misguidedly incarcerated for violation of zero-tolerant, nonviolent, consensual “drug crimes.” The end of drug prohibition will allow those persons to be promptly released, to have their record of conviction expunged, and their civil rights completely restored. However, the repeal of drug prohibition does not imply the exoneration from charges for connected offenses, such as violent crimes, gun crimes, theft, or driving under the influence of drugs. Furthermore, LEAP believes that people using alcohol or other drugs must be held accountable for any misbehavior, which harms other people or property of others, while under the influence of mind-altering substances.

9. LEAP believes that persons suffering from drug abuse afflictions and addiction, who want help, should be provided with a variety of help, including drug treatment and drug maintenance, even for uninsured addicts. LEAP believes that with an end to drug prohibition and regained control of criminal justice expenditures, a fraction of those savings would be more than sufficient to pay for expanded addiction services.

10. LEAP recognizes that different “illicit drugs” pose differing risks of harm. As such, in a post-prohibition world, LEAP recognizes that an appropriate set of regulations and control for one substance may not be a suitable or sufficient regulation and control for another substance. LEAP believes that the nation states of the world and various states within the United States must be given the regulatory latitude to try new models that wisely balance the notions of freedom over one’s own body with the need for common sense regulation of drugs to reduce death, disease, addiction and harm.




Quote from: "SUCK IT"
But, mathematically, science based look at the numbers will inevitably yield the result that drugs are statistically much more likely to harm a troubled youth than a treatment center. Self injury is also statistically much more likely to occur to a troubled youth than harm done to them by employees or peers at a treatment center.


Citation please.  Also depends on what kind of treatment center your talking about and whether or not it was forced or voluntary.

Quote
Keeping all of these facts in mind, how does a typical lets ban all the programs poster reconcile this hypocrisy?

It's only hypocritical in your narrow view of the world, dearie.


Quote
and this thread is evidence of this uneven calls for prohibitions depending on what it is you are prohibiting.

Uhhh, yeah.  You'd want to blanketly prohibit everything?  I prefer to take a look at things and decide if there's an inherent danger.


Quote
It's not based on what is truly dangerous to a troubled youth, it is based solely on your own singular experience which you attempt to blackmail the world with your bitternes and use an experience many go through fine as an excuse to live in perpetual victim hood, all the while blaming others for your own bad choices.

In your narrow world view, maybe but not in the real world.

Quote
Take some accountability for once in your life and realize you created your own path and only have yourself to blame.

You're assuming a couple of things here.  That we don't take responsibility, which you have no way of knowing and that there was anything "wrong" with us in the first place that would have required the "treatment" that we received at these hellholes.
Quote
Programs are needed and aren't going anywhere despite the whining on this forum, bet on it.


Maybe....but hopefully they won't be as prolific (we're seeing evidence of that now in decreased enrollments, closing/combining of schools etc.) and maybe they'll be a bit safer.

Quote
*The exception to this of course would be Psy. As someone who voluntarily signed themselves into an adult, state regulated treatment facility no amount of regulation could ever keep that from happening. So I can imagine that Psy has a somewhat different view of how necessary regulation might be, since as all fornits posters inevitably do, shape their view of an entire industry around their own singular experience.

Underhanded dig at someone who sought help and received abuse.  Classy.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
traight, St. Pete, early 80s
AA is a cult http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cult.html

The more boring a child is, the more the parents, when showing off the child, receive adulation for being good parents-- because they have a tame child-creature in their house.  ~~  Frank Zappa

Offline SUCK IT

  • Posts: 411
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: To all the dummies who think the US should legalize drug
« Reply #18 on: May 27, 2010, 02:52:56 PM »
You obviously do not have the ability to be honest with yourself.

What is more likely to happen to a troubled youth?

1. They use illegal drugs
2. They attempt to harm themselves
3. They are injured or killed in a treatment center

If you were truly interested in protecting troubled youth you could not possibly be for the legalization of all drugs, while proposing heavy regulation or prohibition of treatment centers. It doesn't equate logically, but I know that is something that is lacking on this forum. Two points for your effort though.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
one day at a time

Offline Anne Bonney

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5006
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: To all the dummies who think the US should legalize drug
« Reply #19 on: May 27, 2010, 03:05:53 PM »
Quote from: "SUCK IT"
You obviously do not have the ability to be honest with yourself.

What is more likely to happen to a troubled youth?

1. They use illegal drugs
2. They attempt to harm themselves
3. They are injured or killed in a treatment center
4.  None of the above (added by Anne Bonney)


I pick 4.

Quote
If you were truly interested in protecting troubled youth you could not possibly be for the legalization of all drugs, while proposing heavy regulation or prohibition of treatment centers. It doesn't equate logically, but I know that is something that is lacking on this forum.

It is logical.  Take a look how it's worked out in countries that have done it.  Drug use, specifically among teens, has actually dropped and the number of those that voluntarily sought treatment went up.  

Research before you speak.



http://www.time.com/time/health/article ... 46,00.html

The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.

"Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does."
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
traight, St. Pete, early 80s
AA is a cult http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cult.html

The more boring a child is, the more the parents, when showing off the child, receive adulation for being good parents-- because they have a tame child-creature in their house.  ~~  Frank Zappa

Offline psy

  • Administrator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 5606
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
    • http://homepage.mac.com/psyborgue/
Re: To all the dummies who think the US should legalize drug
« Reply #20 on: May 27, 2010, 04:35:18 PM »
Couldn't have said it better, Anne.  And as a side note it's worth noting that I personally do not support regulation of the industry (or just about anything).  SUCK IT knows this but decided to lie about it anyway.  I have my reasons for this which i've explained over and over.  I've never been against voluntary anything (so long as it's truly voluntary meaning informed consent).  All I have a problem with and what should be abolished is forced treatment of all forms.  This isn't so much a regulation as it is an affirmation of the existing right of each person to self ownership and the right to choose their own medical treatment.  My beliefs couldn't be more consistent.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Benchmark Young Adult School - bad place [archive.org link]
Sue Scheff Truth - Blog on Sue Scheff
"Our services are free; we do not make a profit. Parents of troubled teens ourselves, PURE strives to create a safe haven of truth and reality." - Sue Scheff - August 13th, 2007 (fukkin surreal)

Offline psy

  • Administrator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 5606
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
    • http://homepage.mac.com/psyborgue/
Re: To all the dummies who think the US should legalize drug
« Reply #21 on: May 27, 2010, 04:38:24 PM »
Quote from: "Anne Bonney"
Underhanded dig at someone who sought help and received abuse.  Classy.
FWIW, i wasn't seeking and did not need any help.  I wasn't abusing drugs or drinking to excess and even it I was it still wouldn't have justified what they did.  It was abuse, not treatment.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Benchmark Young Adult School - bad place [archive.org link]
Sue Scheff Truth - Blog on Sue Scheff
"Our services are free; we do not make a profit. Parents of troubled teens ourselves, PURE strives to create a safe haven of truth and reality." - Sue Scheff - August 13th, 2007 (fukkin surreal)