Hard Drugs Ruining Society

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Cedars:

Which fallacies are you refering to, regarding drugs?

All of the conclusions we have drawn based upon a false image of what it means to be human. Some of these fallacies are:

1. public education is not a contradiction in terms

2. rights are 'granted'

3. the government needs to protect people from making bad decisions

4. freedom is relative to democracy

5. voting identifies truth

6. it is correct for the government to interfere in/control the economy

7. it is the governments job to provide its populace with the necessities(food, etc)

8. people in different cultures or of difference 'race' have different truths

9. truth is not universal

10. there are no absolutes

 

Those are things that I think are accepted as true and in my mind they are false.

 

Is that enough?

[Racoon]

Cedars Is right, in that its simply "easier to Lock Users up."

But it is Not more cost effective! :cup:

 

What happens after they serve their 5 - 10 years?? :shrug:

Are they Rehabiltitated?? Hell No!!

They are more Hell Bent on doing same thing!

Plus a lot more shrewder on how to do it.

 

So instead of spending $ 50,000 a year to lock up some stupid tweeker, for

5 - 10 years, Spend $30,000 for 1 year to get his life cleaned up!!! :cup:

If that doesn't work, then yeah, make him pay for his mistakes.

 

Thats assuming he Didn't commit a violent Felony; But rather got Busted for use/possesion.

[Cedars]

Cedars: All of the conclusions we have drawn based upon a false image of what it means to be human. Some of these fallacies are:

1. public education is not a contradiction in terms

2. rights are 'granted'

3. the government needs to protect people from making bad decisions

4. freedom is relative to democracy

5. voting identifies truth

6. it is correct for the government to interfere in/control the economy

7. it is the governments job to provide its populace with the necessities(food, etc)

8. people in different cultures or of difference 'race' have different truths

9. truth is not universal

10. there are no absolutes

 

Those are things that I think are accepted as true and in my mind they are false.

 

Is that enough?

 

These are pretty broad generalisations. Could you explain how they relate this topic?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Cedars:

These are pretty broad generalisations. Could you explain how they relate this topic?

lol. You've got a good point. I guess they are all related in the sense that they all derive from the belief that we aren't responsible for our own lives. The current insane method of dealing with 'societal drug use' is one of the heads of the monster.

And another reason they are important taken together is that they respresent many symptoms of the same problem.

One of the reasons these things don't get handled correctly is that we've bought into the idea that there isn't a common thread which can be addressed. We've bought into this stuff as 'too complicated' to fix so nobody pays it any attention and we don't look for patterns.

[Tarantism]

2. rights are 'granted'

 

yeh they are.

 

3. the government needs to protect people from making bad decisions

 

they dont need to, they do anyway. why cant americans decide their own moral decisions. people disagree on many things, i think that there is nothing wrong with smoking weed, some people do, and because of those "some people" i cant do what i enjoy. a victemless crime, man.:)

 

4. freedom is relative to democracy

 

haha, freedom is relative period. not that it should be, but the governments propaganda tells me im free, but if i took my free will and decided that my neighbor needs to die a horrible death, i get put to death. not free.

 

*disclaimer: the author of this post wouldnt harm a fly.

 

5. voting identifies truth

 

haha, which side of the truth :)

 

8. people in different cultures or of difference 'race' have different truths

 

people of the same race have different truths. people from the same country have different truths. these things are phallic, or should be phallic.

9. truth is not universal

 

i dont think that anyone out of any of us know anything at all about truth.

[Cedars]

The current insane method of dealing with 'societal drug use' is one of the heads of the monster.

 

One of the reasons these things don't get handled correctly is that we've bought into the idea that there isn't a common thread which can be addressed. We've bought into this stuff as 'too complicated' to fix so nobody pays it any attention and we don't look for patterns.

 

OK. First, I am going to try to respond and interpret how this fits into drugs ruining society.

 

I agree that there is too much governmental interference regarding societal drug use. I think that marijuana (for example) should be as legal as tobacco or alcohol. Preferably like alcohol, so people could grow their own, just like I can brew a certain amount of alcohol for myself, should I choose to invest the time and money in such a project.

 

As far as their being a common thread, what do you think that is? I find that there are no absolutes when dealing with people and their reasons for getting involved so deeply into a drugs use that they forfeit not only their freedom, but all too often their health (physical and mental) their family, their home and job, and even their futures.

 

I don’t think there is a single fix for this problem and I don’t see how people have determined its too complicated to fix. While not necessarily agreeing with the mandatory minimums and other law enforcement approaches and penalties, I don’t understand how one can interpret this as giving up. It seems to me it is a portion of the populations idea of how to fix the problem.

 

To be continued…

[justforfun]

I haven't read all these threads but Ive gotta jump in. You're finally talking about a scientific subject that I'm an EXPERT! in...

They say that alcoholism is a disease, but i think it is a sympton. Sympton of what? that varies with the individual. With Americans it has a lot to do with what is wrong with our beloved country and ypou can go over to the sign-of-the-times- website and get an earful of that.

now timothy Leary went out on a limb and praised LSD to the moon, and I agreed with him, thinking no harm, but I have heard something recently about DNA damage so I don't know. Hmmmm. Not much of an expert after all. Anyway, when George Bush and his bunch all get impeached alcoholism and drug abuse will get much better. You heard it here first?

[Cedars]

I guess they are all related in the sense that they all derive from the belief that we aren't responsible for our own lives. The current insane method of dealing with 'societal drug use' is one of the heads of the monster.

And another reason they are important taken together is that they respresent many symptoms of the same problem.

 

Now I am interpreting some of the other points on the many heads of the monster.

 

Government oversight/laws not only attempt to protect ourselves from bad choices, they attempt to protect those who didnt make a bad choice from problems created by others from their bad choices (drunk driving laws for example). Food production laws and oversight for another example. Do you have any idea the amount of sickness that occurs from food processing errors? This problem has been marginalized by government laws and oversight. When was the last time you opened an item that was canned or bottled to find the contents had been spoiled by contamination at the production level? Every time a production line has to shut down and be cleaned costs them money. But without the threat of government oversight and penalty, you would be seeing alot more meat contamination and spoilage in your canned/bottled foods.

 

The pharmaceutical companies sell drugs to other countries for less money than they charge Americans for. Why are we paying more for this? Because the government has fallen down on the job. I do not understand why they are not going after these companies under RICO or some other existing law for price fixing. Should we discuss the rolling blackouts in California a few years back and the Enron scandal? People/business does need oversight because if given a chance too many of them will not be altruistic in their business practices.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Cedars:

I find that there are no absolutes when dealing with people and their reasons for getting involved so deeply into a drugs use that they forfeit not only their freedom, but all too often their health (physical and mental) their family, their home and job, and even their futures.

And that means that we're supposed to slip in there and fix it for them? We can't. I can't. You can't. I grew up in a family of alcoholics and if they don't want to stop, they won't. We can make it illegal and then we just create a nation of lawbreakers, fill the jails with users and pushers and miss the whole freaking point. Not to mention create a whole new layer of society involved at the highest levels supplying the demand which will not go away. But we can all pretend we're doing something about it then, and that's all that gets accomplished. We can pretend. Their 'reasons' for getting so deeply involved do not concern me unless I am the reason. That's free will...theirs. And I will not accept guilt for their actions and their choices.

[Cedars]

So instead of spending $ 50,000 a year to lock up some stupid tweeker, for

5 - 10 years, Spend $30,000 for 1 year to get his life cleaned up!!! :)

If that doesn't work, then yeah, make him pay for his mistakes.

 

Thats assuming he Didn't commit a violent Felony; But rather got Busted for use/possesion.

 

The reason the penalty is moving away from treatment and more towards lock'em up is simply, treatment doesnt work for the majority of users. The statistics for the first year are pretty good, but by the time you hit 5 years, those remaining straight fall to between 5 and 15%.

 

Now I hold the treatment industry responsible for most of this. Their sucess rates were much higher before the courts became involved and mandating treatment for casual use. The treatment industry encouraged this in an attempt to "help" more people become sober. The origins of treatment was a commitment by the person to maintain sobriety before entering treatment. They WANTED to give up use.

 

There are other approaches that could be taken with users and society. I think its somewhere in europe where they deal with DUI offenders with an approach of teaching the user how to use responsibly. I wish I could remember the name of the program I watched about this, but basically they taught the user to use at home, and under a reward to oneself approach. By teaching these persons how much they could drink and when, the sucess rate for these persons staying out of the legal system was remarkably sucessful for the long term. And it also reduced the amount of alcohol the user willingly took on their own. The way I remember this program, they showed it from a purely alcohol aspect and I do not know if they used this approach for drugs also.

[Cedars]

Cedars: And that means that we're supposed to slip in there and fix it for them? We can't. I can't. You can't. I grew up in a family of alcoholics and if they don't want to stop, they won't. We can make it illegal and then we just create a nation of lawbreakers, fill the jails with users and pushers and miss the whole freaking point. Not to mention create a whole new layer of society involved at the highest levels supplying the demand which will not go away. But we can all pretend we're doing something about it then, and that's all that gets accomplished. We can pretend. Their 'reasons' for getting so deeply involved do not concern me unless I am the reason. That's free will...theirs. And I will not accept guilt for their actions and their choices.

 

I understand your points about them not wanting to stop. I had relatives doing time for bootlegging during prohibition and their children in orphanages while mom did her time. They were not bootlegging to supply the demand of others, they did it to support their own use. They drank much of their profits with the very persons who were their customers.

 

I think the main problem with the growth of meth is 1. the DEA getting involved in medicine. No matter what other factors, the base point of use is the user thinks they are getting something out of this drug. And the DEA oversight and the political pressure on the AMA relegated methamphetimine to the category of limited medicinal use.

 

Oops Gotta go, My Name is Earl is on :)

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Cedars:

I think the main problem with the growth of meth is 1. the DEA getting involved in medicine. No matter what other factors, the base point of use is the user thinks they are getting something out of this drug. And the DEA oversight and the political pressure on the AMA relegated methamphetimine to the category of limited medicinal use.

I agree. And this shows 3 points that are critical to the discussion: government (DEA) getting involved in health care, the user makes the decision to use, and political (voting - see my list of fallacies) pressure brings it about.

The cause is the user deciding to use. But the moment we attempt to stop the user from making the decision to use, we enter the no-man's land of trying to understand why others do what they do. We become slaves to their mind-games the moment they see that we care about their lives more than they do. If they had a healthy attitude about their relationship with existence they wouldn't be 'using' and they wouldn't end up manipulating the rest of us.

Users use because the world is incomprehensible to them in part or completely and healthy mental activity does not provide them with the pleasure that they need. Sometimes it's just an escape from pain.

In my list of fallacies, I showed Public Education as a contradiction in terms. It belongs in this discussion since I think it is the root cause of drug use.

'Public Education' has pre-empted rational exploration into education, into understanding what learning is all about and practically, it has stolen that market and maintains a coercive monopoly on it. If one comes along with an alternative and attempts to open a school that teaches children differently, it still has to maintain legislated standards of what the kids have to 'learn'. It's simple. If you define the criteria for the finish line, you control the race. And if your intent is to maintain a 'caste' system, well, PE is your 'uh-number uh-one uh-guy'.

To teach people to perceive existence with all of their tools is not the mandate of PE. That's the real culprit here.

After forcing children to become 'educated' I think we should have to supply them with all the drugs they want free of charge.

[niviene]

I am someone who personally feels that we should step back and let those who want to do those drugs feel free to kill themselves, as long as they know that when they do so, there won't be any government aid to save them from the streets or a slow, torturous death... our money should be spent to help those who want and need help, not those who voluntarily go out of their way to make themselves ill.

 

One of the worst things about meth, however, is how it's made. It is an extremely dangerous drug to make... you can't miss a place that makes it, you'll see the glass bottles all over the place. The ether is horrible. A lot of these guys who make it will also try to dispose of byproduct (or whatever else might be around if they get raided) by dumping it down the drains. Then you can rest assured th at the property and all surrounding properties will have to be evacuated - and declared unlivable and leveled - all at the owner's expense, mind you. Landlords who pay no attention to what's going on on their property deserve to be stuck with this large bill. They also have to pay for the excavation and cleaning of alllllll those pipes. Sucks to be them.

 

Also, police officers who go into these places are much braver than I am. During the academy, we had to watch a video about strategy involving takedown in a meth lab. This particular man had been involved in a few of the most famous raids ever... and the reason he hosted the show was because he was slowly dying and wanted to get his info out to as many as possible before he went. He sat in a chair and held a bucket in his lap - he spit into it, every few words, and often drooled on himself or had snot running out of his nose. He had raided a meth lab (highly, highly flammable) in which a tiny spark had gone off, and even though he was not inside, the gases which sparked burned out all of his mucous membranes. By the time we saw the video, he was actually already dead, but I'll never forget both what he said and what he had to live through during his last days. I guess in order to work in a meth lab, you'd have to be pretty spazzed out to begin with.

 

As I said previously, though, if one person wants to destroy his or her own life, I feel that the life in question is the property of that person, and that choice belongs solely to that individual - not society. However, that person should be made aware somehow that by removing himself from constructive life within society - as in, by not making it worse or more difficult for others to live (at least voluntarily, that is) by having to support a vegetable or someone incapable of working later on - that they are also removing themselves from the aid society might provide should they find themselves in trouble (financially or otherwise). Everybody makes mistakes... maybe we give them one shot to get better, they come to a center and say they want help, and we help them out, treat them, get them clean, etc. But, if they fall back into it again, they are on their own. Drug induced crimes should also be punished more stiffly - as negligences.

 

Voluntarily taking a drug should be any person's right to do - but if that voluntary action leads to the harming of others, that person should be completely responsible for all negative outcomes. That would make it a lot easier for everyone - I would much rather be able to avoid a house with a sign on it that clearly read "Meth Lab - Danger".....

[Tarantism]

I am someone who personally feels that we should step back and let those who want to do those drugs feel free to kill themselves, as long as they know that when they do so, there won't be any government aid to save them from the streets or a slow, torturous death... our money should be spent to help those who want and need help, not those who voluntarily go out of their way to make themselves ill.

 

yes and everyone who doesnt can be bored and die anyways. haha fun for all!

[Roji]

great idea survival of the fittest and all maybe... But what if that persons is your brother or sister or a parent what then?

[niviene]

great idea survival of the fittest and all maybe... But what if that persons is your brother or sister or a parent what then?

 

What about it? I have people like this in my family who have been offered help (and who have received help) so many times that it's become a joke to even consider it. It gets to the point where you have to cut your losses, unfortunately. You have to realize that you can't help someone who doesn't want to be helped - if not, are you going to try and force them into it? Tie them up, lock them up, etc etc? Can you lock them up forever? What kind of person does that make you? If you were in their shoes, would you be happy that your rights were being violated? If my brother decides to lay around and smoke crack all day and kill himself, that's his own right. I'll do what I can to help him myself, but if he doesn't want the help, my efforts are useless.

[Roji]

if your brother was about to fall off a bridge would you try to save him?

or would you let him fall?

when some one starts taking drugs they are normally going with the croud, trying to escape, or have been presured into it.

but as a sibling you can normally see signs of this happening.

so if you can see what im trying to point out here; you have a period of time where its possible to save someone from getting to far gone.

thats when they will recognise there mistake