Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A fix for the opioid epidemic, Let addicts die.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Clever commodification of certain biochemical fundamentals of humans there. It's a bit... short sighted... The perfect drug is a palliative with no nocive effects than can and has to be taken indefinitely. Since this stuff clearly leads to quick dependency to the point where people crash and burn, that in the end hurts sales.

    Frankly, it looks like not so much a problem of capitalism, as the US peculiar variety — i.e. it is based on an implicit assumptions of unlimited supply of new ndividuals to which opioids can be sold. Since there will always be more people to replace them (immigrants or just quick breeders).

    If that isn't quite the case, it becomes a game of managing a relative scarcity, i.e. how to sell as much opioids to as many people as possible, for as long as possible, to maximize profits.

    Then there's another question if it is still possible to have a society based on a public sphere involving more functions than the market or the current brand of politics? It's down to just te two now. Do away with politics (which is already in a bad way), and there will just be this peculiar brand of market logic.

    Comment


    • #17
      In the late 18th century Americans consumed 8 oz of alcohol a day. That means they were seldom sober by today's standards. It is a tradition that negatively impacts society today. According to the CDC excessive drinking is a 224 billion dollar problem.

      https://www.cdc.gov/features/alcoholconsumption/

      Obesity cost to society come in a close second at 147 billion. Social assistant programs cost around 1 trillion a year a highly contested number ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...re-each-year/?utm_term=.ead3b266fa3d ) I suspect however that if you include make work projects it is even more. It seems a good percent of the population is some combination of stoned, fat and lazy and that likely has always been the case.

      The real question as I mentioned earlier is the moral hazard that is implicit in a free society when anti social behavior is enabled by both private and public assistance. Totalitarian states can create disincentives that encourage responsible behaviour. The more irresponsible the population the more likely that authoritarian solutions will creep in. For example the war on drugs has created a police state mentality in law enforcement. Strict control of immigration is only necessary because social assistance encourage the undesirable elements to migrate.

      A free society requires a responsible population. If you feed the bears they become lazy and dangerous. To some extent it is the denial of scientificly established genetic propensities, the blank slate theory, that makes socialism so dysfunctional. Evolution does not stop being relevant above the neck. Calling everyone who understands the limitations of nurture a Nazi is not helpful.

      It is the feminization of society that believes nurture is a solution to every problem that makes democracy nearly impossible today. Treating every disadvantaged individual as an infant that cannot be held responsible for their choices paradoxically imposes the need for totalitarian solutions. Female nurturing must be balanced by male encouragement for independence.
      We hunt the hunters

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
        In the late 18th century Americans consumed 8 oz of alcohol a day. That means they were seldom sober by today's standards. It is a tradition that negatively impacts society today. According to the CDC excessive drinking is a 224 billion dollar problem.

        https://www.cdc.gov/features/alcoholconsumption/

        Obesity cost to society come in a close second at 147 billion. Social assistant programs cost around 1 trillion a year a highly contested number ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...re-each-year/?utm_term=.ead3b266fa3d ) I suspect however that if you include make work projects it is even more. It seems a good percent of the population is some combination of stoned, fat and lazy and that likely has always been the case.

        The real question as I mentioned earlier is the moral hazard that is implicit in a free society when anti social behavior is enabled by both private and public assistance. Totalitarian states can create disincentives that encourage responsible behaviour. The more irresponsible the population the more likely that authoritarian solutions will creep in. For example the war on drugs has created a police state mentality in law enforcement. Strict control of immigration is only necessary because social assistance encourage the undesirable elements to migrate.

        A free society requires a responsible population. If you feed the bears they become lazy and dangerous. To some extent it is the denial of scientificly established genetic propensities, the blank slate theory, that makes socialism so dysfunctional. Evolution does not stop being relevant above the neck. Calling everyone who understands the limitations of nurture a Nazi is not helpful.

        It is the feminization of society that believes nurture is a solution to every problem that makes democracy nearly impossible today. Treating every disadvantaged individual as an infant that cannot be held responsible for their choices paradoxically imposes the need for totalitarian solutions. Female nurturing must be balanced by male encouragement for independence.
        All of population is addicted to one thing or another. Nanny state is a combination of the "nurture" and "male encouragement" you speak of. The necessity to feed bears is when you put them in a zoo; which is what nationstates and laws have made of modern societies. It is close to impossible to control people, and completely impossible to control addicts.

        Close a door and call man irresponsible if he opens it? Who decides, what and for whom? Responsibility only exist when you are free to make decisions.

        If you thrive in a capitalist society does that mean it is some sort of natural state that all of society should be in? That I should be happy in a day job; spending my breaks staring out the window thinking why am I spending such wonderful day in front of the desk when I could be out in the sunshine? Work made sense when it was required for survival(didn't make it any more fun of course), but now everything just seem to be a cog in a machine of endless selling and consumption, with production outsourced to far away places. So when you call for responsibility; responsibility of what exactly? Of being a good worker? Consumer? Or a person? Does a responsible person kick the man in the gutter? How can you tell another man to be a responsible person and at the same time require him to be so by standards you have set? And then, let us not forget that those with money and power will not live with any of the rules they have set or influenced, not since the dawn of time.

        All of these things run in the surface as well as in a much deeper level.

        Responsible population requires a free society, and not the other way around.
        Wisdom is personal

        Comment


        • #19
          Don't just stop with curing opioid addiction, UH, go on and cure heart disease birth defects, cancer, starvation and a host of other human problems by letting them all die.
          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            Don't just stop with curing opioid addiction, UH, go on and cure heart disease birth defects, cancer, starvation and a host of other human problems by letting them all die.
            False dichotomy. Addiction to opioids is usually something someone chooses on some level. One does not normally become a drug addict, particularly one to illegal drugs, by accident or genetic cause.
            That is, it's a lifestyle choice, not something you innately do.

            Birth defects, cancer, etc., are not things you normally have a choice about. In some cases, yes with cancer. You smoke? You get cancer related to smoking, that's on you. Nobody owes you anything for that. You deal with it.

            So, the choice between not overly helping addicts is far different from diseases caused by issues that were not personal choice.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Karri View Post
              All of population is addicted to one thing or another. Nanny state is a combination of the "nurture" and "male encouragement" you speak of. The necessity to feed bears is when you put them in a zoo; which is what nationstates and laws have made of modern societies. It is close to impossible to control people, and completely impossible to control addicts.

              Close a door and call man irresponsible if he opens it? Who decides, what and for whom? Responsibility only exist when you are free to make decisions.

              If you thrive in a capitalist society does that mean it is some sort of natural state that all of society should be in? That I should be happy in a day job; spending my breaks staring out the window thinking why am I spending such wonderful day in front of the desk when I could be out in the sunshine? Work made sense when it was required for survival(didn't make it any more fun of course), but now everything just seem to be a cog in a machine of endless selling and consumption, with production outsourced to far away places. So when you call for responsibility; responsibility of what exactly? Of being a good worker? Consumer? Or a person? Does a responsible person kick the man in the gutter? How can you tell another man to be a responsible person and at the same time require him to be so by standards you have set? And then, let us not forget that those with money and power will not live with any of the rules they have set or influenced, not since the dawn of time.

              All of these things run in the surface as well as in a much deeper level.

              Responsible population requires a free society, and not the other way around.
              The first thing every child should be taught is the art of happiness which should not be confused with pleasure or contentment.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5eFpURa2Z8
              We hunt the hunters

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                False dichotomy. Addiction to opioids is usually something someone chooses on some level. One does not normally become a drug addict, particularly one to illegal drugs, by accident or genetic cause.
                That is, it's a lifestyle choice, not something you innately do.

                Birth defects, cancer, etc., are not things you normally have a choice about. In some cases, yes with cancer. You smoke? You get cancer related to smoking, that's on you. Nobody owes you anything for that. You deal with it.

                So, the choice between not overly helping addicts is far different from diseases caused by issues that were not personal choice.
                Addiction is a choice. Sure

                Not to mention that there is a number of studies suggesting that one does indeed have a higher risk of this or that depending on genetics.

                Cancer, how healthy lifestyle do you lead? Something as simple as eating meat rises your risk of getting cancer.

                Addicts always find reasons, like you do...
                Wisdom is personal

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                  False dichotomy. Addiction to opioids is usually something someone chooses on some level. One does not normally become a drug addict, particularly one to illegal drugs, by accident or genetic cause.
                  That is, it's a lifestyle choice, not something you innately do.

                  Birth defects, cancer, etc., are not things you normally have a choice about. In some cases, yes with cancer. You smoke? You get cancer related to smoking, that's on you. Nobody owes you anything for that. You deal with it.

                  So, the choice between not overly helping addicts is far different from diseases caused by issues that were not personal choice.
                  It's not like they are going to die peacefully, it will turn into the zombie apocalypse. Just kidding.

                  You could take a Darwinian perspective but nothing guarantees that intelligent, cooperative, and the non violent will out compete the savages and society won't turn into an even worse hell hole. There is a reason that there are so many psychopaths out there.
                  We hunt the hunters

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Bow View Post
                    Why should we feel sorry for the "druggies"...nobody put a gun to their head and told them to start popping pills etc, we all got problems in life but dont start popping and everybody has to feel sorry for me...

                    Toulon France
                    Well.... that's one way to look at it.

                    I take a middle ground. Give them a chance to come back to us, and put it that way to them.
                    The addicts are not one of us, our society, and they can return to it by curing themselves. Stay good and all will be forgiven... but only if they can stay off the junk.
                    Period.
                    For the rest, well, there is always the goodbye cocktail. Something that sends them on the ultimate trip. Lasts as long as their body can hold out, but nobody comes back from it. Just drift away...
                    And if you ask any real addicts, that's really what they are looking for.

                    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    Don't just stop with curing opioid addiction, UH, go on and cure heart disease birth defects, cancer, starvation and a host of other human problems by letting them all die.
                    Yeah, how about that, everyone dies of something.
                    Amazing, isn't it?

                    Or as Rod Serling put it; "All men are born condemned to death, time and method of execution being the only variables."

                    Why try to fool people into believing otherwise... has killing off spirituality finally put the purveyors of Cultural Marxism in an untenable position?
                    "Why is the Rum gone?"

                    -Captain Jack

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Karri View Post
                      Addiction is a choice. Sure

                      Not to mention that there is a number of studies suggesting that one does indeed have a higher risk of this or that depending on genetics.

                      Cancer, how healthy lifestyle do you lead? Something as simple as eating meat rises your risk of getting cancer.

                      Addicts always find reasons, like you do...
                      So now we get the fallacy of composition. That is, the claim that every part of the whole is the same as the whole.
                      Addiction may have a genetic component. That doesn't mean you'll become an addict however, or that your particular addiction will be horribly deleterious to your health.
                      Cancer is the same way. You may live an extremely healthy lifestyle and still get cancer.

                      None of that precludes or argues against society deciding that some people aren't worth the expense of saving when they do stupid things. Why keep the obvious career criminal in prison? If someone is so hell bent on a life of crime why keep them incarcerated and alive taking up resources?

                      It's fine by me if you choose to help drug addicts, the homeless, etc. On the other hand, I don't see where in many cases society should force that choice on me. It's one thing when it's your money and time being used. It's totally another when it's the public's time and money that's involved.

                      It's one more argument against Socialism. Forcing people to be altruistic is simply wrong. Its really no different than forcing everyone to join a state run religion.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                        Works for me...
                        Spoken like a true Conservative.
                        The ignorance of the alt-right knows no bounds.
                        It's like your homeless veterans argument all over again.

                        Someone's homeless must be their fault.
                        Someone's addicted to painkillers, must be their fault.
                        Someone's poor, must be their fault.

                        Do you really think people get up one morning and decide to be an addict? Homeless? Poor?

                        Conservatives don't deserve to call themselves religious as they are an embarrassment to Jesus.
                        Conservatives in the U.S. won't be happy until Jim Crow returns and "White Heterosexual Only" signs are legalized.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Anthrax View Post
                          Spoken like a true Conservative.
                          The ignorance of the alt-right knows no bounds.
                          It's like your homeless veterans argument all over again.

                          Someone's homeless must be their fault.
                          Someone's addicted to painkillers, must be their fault.
                          Someone's poor, must be their fault.

                          Do you really think people get up one morning and decide to be an addict? Homeless? Poor?

                          Conservatives don't deserve to call themselves religious as they are an embarrassment to Jesus.
                          Here we see a whole host of logical fallacies.

                          It starts with the usual ad hominem, then goes into a combination an irrelevant appeal to pity and the all-or-nothing argument in combination.

                          Do I think people get up one morning and decide to become an addict or homeless, or poor? Although your question is worded poorly making it more of a begging the question type of statement, the answer is "Yes, I do."
                          I think there are people who spend money they don't have, take out stupid loans like payday and auto title loans at usurious rates and then have their credit destroyed, followed by their stuff repossessed, and end up poor because they were stupid, greedy, narcissistic, or some combination thereof.
                          Some people start doing drugs, smoking, or other addictive behavior because their parents, friends, or social circle does these things. Others simply try it, then get hooked.
                          Many homeless are because they want to be or because they can't figure out how not to be. Remember the cop that bought the homeless guy in NYC a pair of shoes last winter? A few days later the cop saw the guy barefoot again. He sold the shoes.

                          As for the last statement, I wouldn't know and it doesn't apply to me as I'm not a Christian.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I'm addicted to living my life in peace and not supporting horrible people that have no self control. The state should excuse me of paying taxes because it traumatizes me and I need everyone else to feel sorry for me because I'm a victim of liberal harassment. After all I'm a toxic white male so my taxable income is clearly tainted.

                            It's time to call a spade a spade. If you are a drug addict you are not a victim you are a narcissistic piece of dung. If you are a white heterosexual male on average you are supporting two or three pieces of dung and a couple of women study graduates on your productivity. At the same time as you are literally feeding, housing, providing utilities and protecting the liberal snobs and losers they get to call you names and tell you what a horrible person you are because of factors you had no control over.

                            Maybe it's time to take MGTOW a step further and let the liberals and all their victims fend for themselves. Most of them would be dead in two weeks. The arrogant c word bigots can kiss my ass.

                            I don't feel the least bit guilty for all the victims in the world because I had nothing to do with their problems. In the future if you want to be feed, housed, clothed, water, electricity, heat, and transportation ask nicely.
                            We hunt the hunters

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Anthrax View Post
                              Spoken like a true Conservative.
                              The ignorance of the alt-right knows no bounds.
                              It's like your homeless veterans argument all over again.

                              Someone's homeless must be their fault.
                              Someone's addicted to painkillers, must be their fault.
                              Someone's poor, must be their fault.

                              Do you really think people get up one morning and decide to be an addict? Homeless? Poor?

                              Conservatives don't deserve to call themselves religious as they are an embarrassment to Jesus.
                              Bold Mine.

                              If you think this is about prescription medication abuse, you might want to check yourself into rehab for abuse of Schedule II Narcotics. This wave has nothing to do with with prescription medication abuse, which has been hammered hard in the last 8 years with legislation at the state and federal levels and new regulations using modern technology to track narcotic pain medication prescriptions.

                              This is about HEROIN. No one holds you down and shoots you up, and no doctor prescribes HEROIN. Also, these are not your 60 year old people in chronic pain that are ODing, they're 20 and 30 year olds. And they're not ODing once, they're repeatedly overdosing on HEROIN (or heroin cut with fentanyl or carfentanil).

                              What we found was when we cut the taps on Oxycodone and derivatives, the young generation of junkies, you know the ones that were never prescribed it and were buying it off the street for a quick high, switched to heroin as the price per pill went through the roof. And the cartels are all to happy to oblige, as are Chinese manufacturers shipping to the Cartels in Mexico.

                              I do feel for the ones that were prescribed narcotic pain meds and got addicted. Might be why I refused to take any, even post surgery (that hurt like hell by the way). However, we are not talking about those people. We are talking about drug abusers who rarely if ever were prescribed a medication before they began abusing narcotics. Sh!t, we're even running into Fentanyl laced Weed!

                              So to answer your questions:

                              Homeless? Could be your fault, could be decisions you've made. Also could be mental illness or some crazy circumstance beyond anyone's control.

                              Drug Addict? Could be because you had surgery and were given too much of a prescription for pain meds for high order pain. However, given that most of us don't run around with high order pain in our early 20s through age 30, it's highly likely that this was a personal choice at some point if not all points.

                              Poor? Could be that you grew up poor and live in a poor area with no opportunities. Could be that you make poor personal decisions and are therefore poor.

                              Personal Choice might not be the only factor in play in these situations. However, since we know there are homeless that are no longer because they made personal decisions to take steps to improve their life; there are former addicts because they made personal decisions to obtain help and stay on the wagon; and there are rich people who grew up poor in low opportunity communities, Personal Choice IS a factor, the only question is the degree to which it is in each and every individual situation.

                              ----------------------

                              I'm ambivalent about this whole 3 strikes idea, mostly because it puts huge liabilities on the dispatchers themselves, and it's not practical.

                              However, we need to have an HONEST conversation about the rampant opiod abuse. And when officers and medics can drive to these residences without the aid of a map because they've been there so much for overdoses, there is a real problem.

                              4 years ago it was all about 'saving lives'. (this might not apply to every state but it's relatively universal)

                              We decriminalized narcotics and paraphernalia located at the scene of a reported overdose to encourage people to call rather than try to clean up first out of fear of going to jail.

                              We made NARCAN available to Law Enforcement as they're usually first on scene.

                              We made NARCAN available to the public so junkies could have the anti-opiate on hand if someone ODed.

                              The result of these 'lifesaving measures'? An increase in overdoses. We have 'saved' them right into having no consequences for their decisions. We have encouraged people to try stronger doses, stronger narcotics because they have the sense of 'security' that they'll be 'saved' if they screw up. We have encouraged a younger generation to engage in heroin use because as long as enough Narcan is close enough they're in a consequence free environment.

                              It is very easy for one to stand on their pedestal and talk about 'helping people' and how society has 'gotten them addicted'. It is entirely different to be in the trenches with it, with people who haven't had a valid opiod prescription in their life, with people who overdose so regularly you don't need to document anything, you can just change the date on your bloody report and copy it.

                              To put it in a metaphor, if someone swims into a rip current, and the lifeguard saves them that's great. If they then turn around and run back into that rip current knowing full well what it is, should the lifeguard continue to save them from their own actions at risk to his life? Because the first responders are literally risking their lives to save these people, the dope is that potent.

                              So what's the answer? If it's society's fault we fixed that years ago, tightening regulations and making it actually the general policy of doctors to NOT prescribe opiods. Now who's fault is it?

                              Sorry about the rant, one of our sister agencies just had an officer rushed to the hospital for an overdose. He had stopped an impaired driver and touched him during the traffic stop.....touched..... When you practically need to wear a Tyvek suit and a SCBA in order to pull over a car, it's gotten ridiculous.
                              Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Tac: verything I've read about the subject points exactly at the other direction; this all started because of painkiller addiction. Opioids in other words, which heroin is.

                                Once you become addicted you start abusing, and once you start abusing you need to get the stuff some other than legal way...and heroin is much cheaper than "painkillers".

                                I mean you say it yourself:
                                "tightening regulations and making it actually the general policy of doctors to NOT prescribe opiods. Now who's fault is it? "

                                This is not a discussion of "fault(childish thing to even consider)", it's about what happened. If an opioid addict no longer gets the opioids from the doctor he gets them from the dealer; and the cartels have made sure they have something cheap and good to offer. And so forth.
                                Wisdom is personal

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X