Castanet

Loki2u wrote:

GordonH wrote:Every addict makes a choice, to either actually get clean (only if they are serious) or get there next fix. If it's the latter one they really don't care if it kills them or not, they just want that high.

Meanwhile the government is spending huge amounts of money on people, who just turn around and do it again to themselves.

If you think that "addiction" is a choice then you clearly do not understand the meaning of addiction and further discussion with you is pointless.

You prove my point with your second statement. Why do you think they do it over and over again?

Absolutely you make choicea that lead to addiction. What do u mean its not a choice. Ideas like this get people no where

^^^ who decided to start taking the drugs or alcohol, the individual who becomes an addict.

Absolutely every time I've ever been prescribed any type medication, I first find out it side effects. Then I decide (not any doctor) if the benefits out weighs the side effects. I have refused any & all habit/addictive causing med's.
This is my body & my choice, unfortunately far to many people blindly take what's given them with no questions.

Jflem1983 wrote:
Absolutely you make choicea that lead to addiction. What do u mean its not a choice. Ideas like this get people no where

I agree 100 percent that choices are made that lead to addiction-that's not what I was referring to. Once you 'become' addicted, it stops becoming a choice. Hence, where the definition comes in that you may also want to research.

Based on my personal experience, there were countless times I wanted to quit, I just couldn't and I didn't know how. I'm lucky there were resources available to help me out.

Look, I understand the issue is much more complex and multi-layered than the statements made above, but if some people don't even understand what 'addiction' is to begin with....how are we even supposed to start coming up with logical solutions?

^^^everyone always has choices:
either get that fix or go and get clean, both are a choice.

I believe that those with a hardened attitude and the "CHOICE" theory are thinking about a historical reality that no longer exists.

Yes indeed, most opiod addictions in the late 20th century started with a choice to use heroin. Sometimes out of desperation at a horrible situation (sexual abuse, domestic abuse, being drafted and sent to Viet Nam, etc.) and sometimes out of simple bad choices.

That is no longer the case. The overwhelming majority of current opiod abusers started out with prescription drugs. https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/relationship-between-prescription-drug-heroin-abuse/prescription-opioid-use-risk-factor-heroin-use

An awful lot of folks get and got addicted because opiods like Oxycodone were loosely and over prescribed. Accidents, sports injuries, illnesses - there were efforts by pharmaceutical companies to characterize Oxycontin as "safe" and easy pain management. http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/oxycontin-users-await-compensation-from-canadian-lawsuits-1.3432273

The choice those folks made? They trusted their doctors.

So the perspective expressed regarding choices has changed. It may have been a valid one in the 1980s, but things changed very rapidly when big pharma got into the game.

I myself was prescribed Oxycontin by a dentist. Fortunately I choose to read up on any pills I take, and chose to flush them - or who knows? Some people get addicted very easily.

Pretty hard to characterize that fellow in the lawsuit article as bad person, and yet once hooked, he admits to resorting to crime to feed his habit. Just a regular working family man that innocently got on the wrong train.

Hobbyguy said in part:


"IF the unfortunates who are addicted to opiods had access to government supplied regulated and consistent dose opiods..."

1) then they would NEVER get off the drugs. It would make it easier for them to stay addicted - remember even if the drugs they are doing are legal and supplied to them, IF as you say they would make the choice to quit (which I don't believe for a nano-second) they would STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH WITHDRAWAL and if it were legal they would give up at the first discomfort and grab a fix.

Only way out of a drug life is to get off the drugs - one way or the other.

I don't even understand why this is newsworthy. Scary images are being used on cigarette packages. There will probably also be scary pictures on commercial pot packaging. So some funeral home tried to use scare tactics to turn people off of drugs (I'm sure they see tons of OD victims and their grieving families and are sick of it).

The government obviously doesn't know how to deal with the problem. Maybe the answer is to just let natural selection run its course and hope that the addiction trait will be eliminated from the population over time.

hobbyguy wrote:I believe that those with a hardened attitude and the "CHOICE" theory are thinking about a historical reality that no longer exists.

Yes indeed, most opiod addictions in the late 20th century started with a choice to use heroin. Sometimes out of desperation at a horrible situation (sexual abuse, domestic abuse, being drafted and sent to Viet Nam, etc.) and sometimes out of simple bad choices.

That is no longer the case. The overwhelming majority of current opiod abusers started out with prescription drugs. https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/relationship-between-prescription-drug-heroin-abuse/prescription-opioid-use-risk-factor-heroin-use

An awful lot of folks get and got addicted because opiods like Oxycodone were loosely and over prescribed. Accidents, sports injuries, illnesses - there were efforts by pharmaceutical companies to characterize Oxycontin as "safe" and easy pain management. http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/oxycontin-users-await-compensation-from-canadian-lawsuits-1.3432273

The choice those folks made? They trusted their doctors.

So the perspective expressed regarding choices has changed. It may have been a valid one in the 1980s, but things changed very rapidly when big pharma got into the game.

I myself was prescribed Oxycontin by a dentist. Fortunately I choose to read up on any pills I take, and chose to flush them - or who knows? Some people get addicted very easily.

Pretty hard to characterize that fellow in the lawsuit article as bad person, and yet once hooked, he admits to resorting to crime to feed his habit. Just a regular working family man that innocently got on the wrong train.

Uhhhh, the report refers to "nonmedical" pain killer use as a leading cause of opioid addiction. That means not prescribed by a doctor. Some idiot gets hold of some pain killers to use for fun and ends up an addict.

Lets just give em all free heroin then. That oughta fix the problem. The stupidity of the left is amazing

and then some...

GordonH wrote:^^^ who decided to start taking the drugs or alcohol, the individual who becomes an addict.

Absolutely every time I've ever been prescribed any type medication, I first find out it side effects. Then I decide (not any doctor) if the benefits out weighs the side effects. I have refused any & all habit/addictive causing med's.
This is my body & my choice, unfortunately far to many people blindly take what's given them with no questions.

same here, god forbid if someone has to be in pain once in a while, they go straight for the pain killers

It is not a left or right thing.

Go back to the beginning and the concept of prohibition. Worked really well for alcohol (which is just another addictive drug) didn't it?

The drug prohibition specific to alcohol had all manner of negative consequences, including:

1) criminalizing otherwise regular folks
2) creating a lot of smuggling
3) creating dealer criminal networks (bootleggers, speakeasies etc.)
4) created a rise in criminal gang and organized crime activity
5) created a lot of violent crime and increased crime in general
6) cost governments and taxpayers a LOT of money for no positive outcome.

Basically, the arguments against decriminalization and treating drug addicts are the same ones used to justify alcohol prohibition. Really worked out well didn't it?

hobbyguy wrote:It is not a left or right thing.

Go back to the beginning and the concept of prohibition. Worked really well for alcohol (which is just another addictive drug) didn't it?

The drug prohibition specific to alcohol had all manner of negative consequences, including:

1) criminalizing otherwise regular folks
2) creating a lot of smuggling
3) creating dealer criminal networks (bootleggers, speakeasies etc.)
4) created a rise in criminal gang and organized crime activity
5) created a lot of violent crime and increased crime in general
6) cost governments and taxpayers a LOT of money for no positive outcome.

Basically, the arguments against decriminalization and treating drug addicts are the same ones used to justify alcohol prohibition. Really worked out well didn't it?

Are we really gonna compare beer to heroin.

Well since u went there. What percentage of people enjoy a beer. U wanna see similar numbers for heroin. We are on our way there


Be like a rite of passage. 14 years old get your first heroin needle from a buddies dad. Can see it now.

That the world u want hobby

Be great when all hard drugs are sold by govt. Then those supporting organised crime as in those against that are shut down .

As hobby points out the only reason crime pays is because of the drug war .which was the single biggest waste of money unleashed on tax payers of any country

maryjane48 wrote:Be great when all hard drugs are by govt. Then those supporting organised crime as in those against that are shut down .

As hobby points out the only reason crime pays is because of the drug war .which was the single biggest waste of money unleashed on tax payers of any country

IMHO even if all the drugs on the face of the planet were legal and sold in The Government Druggie Stores I'm betting there would still be a black market and people would still be dying because (1) it would still be cheaper to buy it on the streets for some folks and (2) the street drugs would still be laced with fentanyl which kills. Organized crime isn't going to give up this very lucrative piece of the pie easily - they will always have customers don't ever kid yourself. Government won't pass up an opportunity to make more taxes so they will set their price tags higher for the "convenience" of doing clean drugs. I avoid saying "safe" drugs because no matter who is peddling it, the drugs will destroy your brain and body so you are not "safe" if you are doing drugs. You might not get dead today, but even with the Govt supply you will eventually get dead because they absolutely obliterate your body and brain.

Are all you people who are for legalizing it suggesting that since addiction has been labelled an illness they should get their drugs for free? Or through Pharmacare with reimbursement? Alcoholics don't get their fifth for free. Smokers don't get their puffs for free (look how expensive puffs are - lots of people were able to quit just because they weren't going to pay the price of a pack).

I'll be damned if I am going to start paying my taxes so people can freely do drugs. So it will be sold in Government Drug Stores and people won't be able to afford it because drugs will be WAY more expensive than booze. Eventually they will lose their jobs because they will be zoned out of their brains most of the time with seriously destroyed brain cells, won't be able to hold down a job, on the dole, and looking for subsidies for their fix. Be a frosty day in hell my friends that I would ever support that.