The addict chose their path initially. Certainly few people would wake up one morning and think “My life is going great, Job,home,family, money, I think I’ll give all this up to live on the streets, steal and rob, eat out of dumpsters for a fast rush and chase that elusive initial high. Rinse and repeat daily”.

So we “maintain” them with free .gov supplied drugs. Is it then fair to not give free prescription drugs to persons afflicted with medical conditions that they had no choice over aka, cardiac, renal, cancer, glaucoma, etc?

Maybe it’s time for voluntary/involuntary drug treatment programs/institutional treatment. Or a combination of the same. One and done would be harsh, so make it two times, a second chance. Third time, nope, at least not with local,state or federal help.

I don’t condone ending the use of Narcan but the dependence of that as a safety net is worrisome, it has become normalized such as used needles on sidewalks.

This is much like the idea of giving free housing, food, etc. to the homeless.
A few may get in that position due to circumstances totally beyond their control, but that number is extremely low.
It's another law of nature, kind of like water seeking it's level.

quote:

Originally posted by PHPaul:

quote:

Originally posted by Imabmwnut:
Legalize everything. Let nature take its course.

And restrict the use of Narcan.

And their children? Their parents? This Darwin concept only works in isolation. There’s unimaginable heartache and destruction to the families of addicts. A program that is sure to produce more addicts, sanctioned by indifference and detached reflection, fails to consider ramifications to the innocent.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
And their children? Their parents? This Darwin concept only works in isolation. There’s unimaginable heartache and destruction to the families of addicts. A program that is sure to produce more addicts, sanctioned by indifference and detached reflection, fails to consider ramifications to the innocent.

I’ve refrained from commenting so far, but speaking as someone who recovered from a hopeless state of mind and body, some of the commentary from people I like and respect I’m reading in this thread is… shockingly callous.

Nobody takes that first drink or drug thinking they’re going to throw their entire life away, and I guarantee you that everyone who dies from this, if they could go back in time before the end, and slap it out of their younger version’s hand at that moment, absolutely would. I accept that the rest of humanity will never understand us, and I understand why so many hate us, but it still hurts to see.

With the above quote in mind, I post this from the OP:

quote:

I expect the same result with drugs, ie. still a problem, but not to the numbers that seem predicted. Darwin will demand its pound of flesh.

For someone who supposedly had a career researching addiction, you seem to actually understand very little about it, extending especially to the quoted commentary which actually stuns me to a degree I have no response for. There’s a whole world of people affected by addicts and active addiction who are served no benefit by Darwin taking his pound of flesh, especially when no small portion of that pound is theirs. That you either don’t know that, or more likely, do not care is appalling.

Your proposed solution is horrifying, for addicts, for society, for everyone remotely involved.

*Edit - Fixed bizarre autocorrects.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: P220 Smudge,

So, to play, somewhat, devil's advocate - the addiction gene is selected against, historically - and it is more prevalent in certain backgrounds.

The addicts I know, who are good people, all get sober rather young - pretty much "as soon as I made Mama/Auntie/Wife/etc cry."

The ones who get sober past 40, unless they didn't "lose control" until they were older, are a-holes, who got scared.

They tend to stay a-holes. They work on it, sorta, but there's a lot of toxic personality traits required to use into middle-age.

Its not just the gene, it also requires a complete indifference to others in your life.

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:
So, to play, somewhat, devil's advocate...

Every time you open your mouth on addiction, you're advocating the death penalty for dealers and/or users, or life imprisonment in a mental institution for teenagers who smoke weed, so going on about toxic personality traits is somewhat amusing. You're well past the point of me taking you seriously, let alone wanting to engage you in debate about it on an intellectually honest footing. I don't know why it's such a topic of interest to you, but you're quite literally the last person on Sigforum I'm going to try to have any kind of a discussion about it with.

To be honest, you’ve said the same about me. And it actually turns out we see eye to eye on an awful lot.

We just suffer from different life experiences that have each of us very entrenched.

I just come from a family of alcoholics.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
To be honest, you’ve said the same about me.

Not in those words that I recall, and certainly not in the last five years at least. I had some strong opinions about some opinions of yours about weed, but time proved you right and me wrong, and I am not above admitting that. The state took what it wanted and law enforcement was used to enforce it. You called it. Things didn't improve for anyone, the roles just shifted slightly. I said that wouldn't happen, and I was wrong. If I remember correctly, that was also shortly after I joined the forum, so it's closing on nearly fifteen years ago now.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
And it actually turns out we see eye to eye on an awful lot.

Yes, but we both have a lot of experience with the matter, just on different sides of it. I've been willing to listen to your position with an open mind since I got sober, and you've been willing to hear me out. While we've not always agreed, neither of us has pretended to have the answer, unless I've missed that somewhere. You don't go around spouting absurd hyperbole except when it's clear you're being facetious, and I've done the same. I know when I talk shop with this stuff with you, you're giving me your professional perspective based on a lot of time put in, and coming from a family of basically all law enforcement, I know what that's worth. I know I'm not debating with a guy who makes ice cream and responds to my personal experiences with links to medical journals. I respect your experience and your positions on things, even if I don't always agree, because I was raised by some people who dealt with all of that stuff day-in, day-out. In turn, you've been respectful of my own opinions even when you didn't agree, because... well I'm not sure why other than you're a stand-up guy, but you have been respectful all the same.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
We just suffer from different life experiences that have each of us very entrenched.

I used to be entrenched, but I came to have my entire perspective on life phase-shifted. If anything, I'm more of the position that not only do I not have the answer, but neither does anyone else, or we'd already be in a much better place for it, societally speaking. Science may one day have an answer for us, but until then, the best thing we have is twelve step programs and people coming to a place where they're willing to honestly work them. They'll work even better when judges will stop dumping people who aren't ready to get sober in the laps of groups not equipped to babysit junior criminals. That's what my experience so far tells me, and brother, have I been there.

It's not exactly the same thing, but it's close enough for me that when I see guys who have no practical or professional experience dealing with addiction offering opinions that range from comical to jaw-droppingly heartless, all I can think of is "these are the same guys who get worked up at 'shoulder thing that goes up."

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
I just come from a family of alcoholics.

Me too.