Posted on 03/26/2012 11:07:14 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies
I'm not sure we can't get that done using the existing penal system ... but the underlying principle you state is rock solid.
I understand and agree, that’s why I have come up with a new solution to the problem. It would be a building that housed only drug abusers, they could not get out, the only way out of the building would be for the staff to service the vending units (replacing drugs) and one to monitor an intercom in case one came to clarity and desperately wanted to get clean rather than eventually overdose. If it was a person who never asked before, there would be an armed team that went in the only entrance (multiple locked foyers) to get that one person out. If they had failed at getting clean a prior time, they would be ignored as they proved the past time that wanting to get clean was not really what they genuinely wanted.
People have to accept the consequences for misusing and abusing drugs and hurting/murdering/stealing from others. It is almost impossible to cure drug addiction personalities. That is because almost none of them want to sincerely give up the drugs. THere are those people who would like to get the high but are scared of addiction, bad health, or realize it’s not a workable way to live life, and/or don’t want to ever be in a position to hurt or murder others because they were high, and they therefore don’t do drugs. To them they understand the benefits to avoiding drugs outweigh the consequences of screwing up while on drugs even though you feel real good while screwing up. We already know this because we all make choices regarding alcohol.
Drugs are much more potent and therefore addictive than alcohol. And believe me, alcohol is addictive. Wouldn’t have AA and a whole bunch of people making money getting people sober if it wasn’t. We lose a lot of innocent people to drunks. We have a lot of wrecked lives and families do to drunks. Their own families and lots of others’ families who are innocent victims of the drunks.
Therefore a more drastic solution is required if drugs are to be legalized. ANd it’s the one I’ve outlined. We tolerate just one screwup before being put in a facility you can’t get out of, but you will get your drugs there, they will be safe and pure, as much as you want. We believe you only once if you say, while in that facility, you want to get clean. You only get one time at getting clean. You use drugs again, you’re back in and you never get out alive, as you’ve proven you can’t stay clean and really at your core want your drugs above anything else.
I have come up with a new solution to the problem. It would be a building that housed only drug abusers
This approach worked for years ... until the U.S. Government pressured them into discontinuing it — the drugs were made illegal, and hence costly, and the addicts were tossed out of their normal lives (due to the cost of the now illegal drugs). And now England had a drug addictioni problem, with overdose deaths, petty crime to support their habits, and police corruption with drug money profits.
Just another case of lofty motives leading to disasterous results.
Some drugs are. According to research cited by the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine, of all those who ever used alcohol 15% at some point became dependent; the corresponding figures for other drugs are:
Heroin: 23%
Cocaine: 17%
Marijuana: 9%
Psychedelics: 5%
This approach worked for years ... until the U.S. Government pressured them into discontinuing it — the drugs were made illegal, and hence costly, and the addicts were tossed out of their normal lives (due to the cost of the now illegal drugs). And now England had a drug addictioni problem, with overdose deaths, petty crime to support their habits, and police corruption with drug money profits.
Just another case of lofty motives leading to disasterous results.
You're too generous. The U.S. government may have had lofty motives for the failed policy it has imposed on its own citizens - but to push that policy on another country that had a working policy is clearly a simple case of bureaucratic arrogance and @$$-covering.
Meth is more addictive than any of those you listed. That’s a real big one right now.
But do you see the total illogic here?
They are addicts. THey go to doctors to ‘get their fix’.
They aren’t fixing anything. These people will be perpetual addicts with the blessing of the state the rest of their lives. They aren’t trying to get them to not be addicts. They aren’t correcting anything. They are enabling the addict for the rest of their lives.
That program is what Keith Richards credits for him being able to survive his years of heroin use. Apparently the program gave only only top end pharmaceutical grade, very clean. I won’t go so far as to say it’s actually a good solution, but it does show once again that the primary source of the problems of drugs comes from the illegality.
Did you even read my posts about this? This is for the people who have demonstrated they cannot handle being on drugs. People that injure, murder, kill, or steal from others because of drugs.
This approach worked for years
They aren’t trying to get them to not be addicts. They aren’t correcting anything. They are enabling the addict for the rest of their lives.
And whose business is that, if they weren't violating anyone's rights nor becoming burdens on society?
This is for the people who have demonstrated they cannot handle being on drugs. People that injure, murder, kill, or steal from others because of drugs.
No, Mack's post was about people who were handling it, and the policy that allowed them to do so.
Yes and no - addicts who have completed treatment have a higher relapse rate for meth than for other drugs ... but the percentage of dependence among past-year users is actually much smaller for meth (22%) than for heroin (58%), and also smaller than for cocaine (27%).
I am sorry, doctors giving people drugs they are addicted to, is not doing ANYTHING to cure them of their addiction.
They will be taking it the rest of their lives if there is no goal to get them clean.
If this is the case why not have all the non-addicts claim they are addicts to get clean drugs and sell them, since they are all paying for them? Why don’t I get free drugs that I need to keep living a normal life? I have severe allergies, why can’t I go to the govt clinic and get free tylenol allergy sinus whenever I need some?
I am talking about doing NOTHING to people who can handle drugs. The addicts get to have as much as they want to the point of overdose - but it will be clean and pure and given by the govt. But they will be in a secure building for their safety and ours. If they decide they want to be clean they get one shot. If they backslide they’re back in the building until they overdose. They’ve proven they want the drug more than anything else.
And really, to use Keith Richards as an example of govt-given drugs to “maintain a normal life” is absolutely the worst example you could ever give. Keith is hardly functional, or “normal”. The guy looked 100 before he was 50. Getting govt heroin hardly affected the toll his lifestyle (that included drugs) took on him. He is hardly the posterchild you want to prop up as being the success story for govt giving people drugs. Seriously. Out of curiousity, are you on government drugs right now? Given that example I have to ask.
This approach worked for years
They aren’t trying to get them to not be addicts. They aren’t correcting anything. They are enabling the addict for the rest of their lives.
And whose business is that, if they weren't violating anyone's rights nor becoming burdens on society?
This is for the people who have demonstrated they cannot handle being on drugs. People that injure, murder, kill, or steal from others because of drugs.
No, Mack's post was about people who were handling it, and the policy that allowed them to do so.
I am sorry, doctors giving people drugs they are addicted to, is not doing ANYTHING to cure them of their addiction.
Agreed, it's maintenance not a cure - just as injected insulin doesn't cure diabetes.
If this is the case why not have all the non-addicts claim they are addicts to get clean drugs
I imagine that under that policy doctors questioned/examined patients to try to screen out fake addicts. It's either that, or just sell it in a regulated manner to any adult with the money to pay for it, as we do with the drug alcohol.
and sell them, since they are all paying for them? Why don’t I get free drugs that I need to keep living a normal life? I have severe allergies, why can’t I go to the govt clinic and get free tylenol allergy sinus whenever I need some?
The cost wasn't zero but "nominal" - and my preferred policy would be to have users pay the full cost.
I am talking about doing NOTHING to people who can handle drugs.
I prefer that policy to the one Mack described - but I prefer even the one he described to our current counterproductive policy.
And really, to use Keith Richards as an example of govt-given drugs to “maintain a normal life” is absolutely the worst example you could ever give. [...] Out of curiousity, are you on government drugs right now? Given that example I have to ask.
That was Mack's example, not mine. What drugs are you on that have rendered you unable to distinguish between "Mack the knife" and "JustSayNoToNannies"?
Rebuttal to “Fact 4” at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2893202/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.