Posted on Jan 11, 2016
0
0
0
"Should your tax money be being spent to support drug addicts?"
Alternatively
"Should Congress be mandating that sick people die?"
Alternatively
"Should Congress be mandating that sick people die?"
It Took 20 Years For The Government To Pay For An Obvious Way To Prevent HIV
Posted from fivethirtyeight.com
Health
Politics
Drugs
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 3
0
0
0
If you do not want aids there are a number of behaviors you can avoid or at least protect yourself against.
Unprotected sex, especially anal, as it creates a lot of bleeding and has other fluids mixing etc. But any unprotected sex is dangerous (not just aids either).
Any sort of drug use that requires injection unless you have a sterile needle source. No, I should not be providing (through taxpayer dollars) the clean needles. Life is tough, it is even tougher if you are stupid. Get smart, get help or better yet, just avoid the risky behavior in the first place. We are all the victims or our bad decisions.
Unprotected sex, especially anal, as it creates a lot of bleeding and has other fluids mixing etc. But any unprotected sex is dangerous (not just aids either).
Any sort of drug use that requires injection unless you have a sterile needle source. No, I should not be providing (through taxpayer dollars) the clean needles. Life is tough, it is even tougher if you are stupid. Get smart, get help or better yet, just avoid the risky behavior in the first place. We are all the victims or our bad decisions.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Cpl Jeff N. - Corporal; You are quite correct when you say that any type of [excessive] drug use is stupid. That includes alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, and a whole raft of other "non-nutritional" substances.
That, however, doesn't negate the fact that human beings have a lengthy history of indulging in "stupid" behaviours that are harmful to them.
IF the cost of a "needle exchange" program were (let's say) 10% of the cost to society of the harm that it averts, and assuming that your taxes could be reduced by the difference, would you support a "needle exchange" program?
When you talk about "getting help", I'd like to draw your attention to the recent release of statistics from Vancouver BC (I happen to live near there) which showed that it was costing approximately $65,000 per year to "help" each person who was "poor". Since the average Canadian per capita income is only around $35,000 per year, it looks like it would be cheaper (and probably more productive) simply to put "the poor" on salary at around $45,000 per year and wipe out poverty completely. (I say $45,000 because you have to look after those who are fully employed in "helping the poor" once you completely wipe out their jobs.)
While I don't approve of intravenous drug use, I'm even more opposed to paying twice as much to let the system fester than I am to doing some harm reduction.
That, however, doesn't negate the fact that human beings have a lengthy history of indulging in "stupid" behaviours that are harmful to them.
IF the cost of a "needle exchange" program were (let's say) 10% of the cost to society of the harm that it averts, and assuming that your taxes could be reduced by the difference, would you support a "needle exchange" program?
When you talk about "getting help", I'd like to draw your attention to the recent release of statistics from Vancouver BC (I happen to live near there) which showed that it was costing approximately $65,000 per year to "help" each person who was "poor". Since the average Canadian per capita income is only around $35,000 per year, it looks like it would be cheaper (and probably more productive) simply to put "the poor" on salary at around $45,000 per year and wipe out poverty completely. (I say $45,000 because you have to look after those who are fully employed in "helping the poor" once you completely wipe out their jobs.)
While I don't approve of intravenous drug use, I'm even more opposed to paying twice as much to let the system fester than I am to doing some harm reduction.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
COL Ted Mc Nicotine &, Caffeine are not mind altering drugs that render you unable to function in society. Neither is alcohol if used responsibly. I don't know of any responsible heroin (or other intravenous drugs) users. Most are non functional and unable to operate within any reasonable norms.
You seem to operate in the mindset that we must either give them needles or provide for their well being to the tune of $45-$65k per year. I suggested neither. If you find yourself addicted to drugs, look in the mirror, that is who did it and that is who is responsible to resolve the issue (perhaps parents, spouses, friends but not the taxpayers). Society continues to enable people such as this and now we have a pretty large heroin addiction issue in the U.S. again. You get more of the behavior you encourage/enable and we all know it. Providing heroin addicts needles is not the answer. Sometimes you have to let Darwinian solutions work themselves out.
You seem to operate in the mindset that we must either give them needles or provide for their well being to the tune of $45-$65k per year. I suggested neither. If you find yourself addicted to drugs, look in the mirror, that is who did it and that is who is responsible to resolve the issue (perhaps parents, spouses, friends but not the taxpayers). Society continues to enable people such as this and now we have a pretty large heroin addiction issue in the U.S. again. You get more of the behavior you encourage/enable and we all know it. Providing heroin addicts needles is not the answer. Sometimes you have to let Darwinian solutions work themselves out.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Cpl Jeff N. - Corporal; While YOU might not know any "responsible Heroin users" they exist. They have always existed. Unfortunately, most of the time you don't hear anything about them because they are "responsible Heroin users" and aren't using "street drugs".
[ASIDE 1:- the 1965 edition of "The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics" contained a case study of a London surgeon who had been a Heroin addict from the time he was about 20 years old and whose addiction didn't become known until he gave up his license to practice medicine in his 70s and was no longer able to write his own prescriptions.]
[ASIDE 2:- When the first human tests were conducted on Heroin, absolutely no subjects became addicted to it. The statistical odds against everyone in the lab where it was developed being "Heroin Immune" are staggering, but that is what happened.]
[ASIDE 3:- Heroin actually acts quite slowly. The "Rush" that the street addicts get if from the adulterants which the drug dealers have introduced into the Heroin. This practice started during the Yellow Fever epidemic in New York when the drug dealers started adding Quinine to the Heroin to protect their customers from the Yellow Fever which was being spread because of the sharing of needles. Needless to say, the Quinine produces a fantastic "rush" so the dealers who did add it could get a better price for their product as well as sell it to their customers for longer, so the adulteration was simply "good business" on their parts.]
Addiction is a multi-faceted issue, some of it is physical and some of it is psychological.
One way of looking at (psychological) addiction (both to drugs and to alcohol) is that it IS a "coping mechanism" - admittedly one that is (long-term) non-productive, but a coping mechanism none the less. If the addict is able to overcome the underlying psychological issue, then (unless physical addiction has set in) the addiction no longer becomes necessary and tends to whither on its own.
PS - As far as "Darwinian Solutions" go, wouldn't it be cheaper and faster just to let the cops shoot Heroin addicts in the head when they were discovered rather than spending a lot of valuable personnel resources and taxpayers' money on keeping them alive?
[ASIDE 1:- the 1965 edition of "The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics" contained a case study of a London surgeon who had been a Heroin addict from the time he was about 20 years old and whose addiction didn't become known until he gave up his license to practice medicine in his 70s and was no longer able to write his own prescriptions.]
[ASIDE 2:- When the first human tests were conducted on Heroin, absolutely no subjects became addicted to it. The statistical odds against everyone in the lab where it was developed being "Heroin Immune" are staggering, but that is what happened.]
[ASIDE 3:- Heroin actually acts quite slowly. The "Rush" that the street addicts get if from the adulterants which the drug dealers have introduced into the Heroin. This practice started during the Yellow Fever epidemic in New York when the drug dealers started adding Quinine to the Heroin to protect their customers from the Yellow Fever which was being spread because of the sharing of needles. Needless to say, the Quinine produces a fantastic "rush" so the dealers who did add it could get a better price for their product as well as sell it to their customers for longer, so the adulteration was simply "good business" on their parts.]
Addiction is a multi-faceted issue, some of it is physical and some of it is psychological.
One way of looking at (psychological) addiction (both to drugs and to alcohol) is that it IS a "coping mechanism" - admittedly one that is (long-term) non-productive, but a coping mechanism none the less. If the addict is able to overcome the underlying psychological issue, then (unless physical addiction has set in) the addiction no longer becomes necessary and tends to whither on its own.
PS - As far as "Darwinian Solutions" go, wouldn't it be cheaper and faster just to let the cops shoot Heroin addicts in the head when they were discovered rather than spending a lot of valuable personnel resources and taxpayers' money on keeping them alive?
(0)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
COL Ted Mc . Responsible heroin users. That is funny. Believe what you choose to believe Ted. Heroin is an narcotic and is highly addictive. There might be "functioning" heroin users, that does not make the "responsible" heroin users. Heroin is an opioid and is highly addictive. There are a number of ways to take it but injection is the most common.
I think people need to be accountable for their behavior. If they want help, they can get it but providing and enabling drug addicts is cruel and immoral. Of course you want to go to just having them shot rather than making them accountable because that is how enablers like to talk. Either we have to encourage and enable them or have the cops shoot them, right Ted? No happy medium allowed.
I think people need to be accountable for their behavior. If they want help, they can get it but providing and enabling drug addicts is cruel and immoral. Of course you want to go to just having them shot rather than making them accountable because that is how enablers like to talk. Either we have to encourage and enable them or have the cops shoot them, right Ted? No happy medium allowed.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
The entire premise of your argument is flawed. It is not the government's responsibility to protect unmarried people from engaging in unprotected sex.
(0)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
COL Ted Mc, I inferred that you were asking those questions specifically to bolster a certain premise that you might have -- a habit that @Capt Walter Miller has demonstrated a propensity for if you've ever followed the discussions he generates.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Capt Jeff S. - Captain; I ask questions because the question seem like they should be asked.
You might have missed the "alternatively" in the OP and the fact that it would take some REALLY convoluted logic to get BOTH of the questions to support the same "certain premise"?
PS - There isn't anything wrong in asking a question where the (implied) answer "tends to bolster a certain premise" because you can always dispute the (implied) answer and provide a different one (which you can then bolster with YOUR version of "what the facts mean" [as opposed to YOUR version of "the facts"]).
You might have missed the "alternatively" in the OP and the fact that it would take some REALLY convoluted logic to get BOTH of the questions to support the same "certain premise"?
PS - There isn't anything wrong in asking a question where the (implied) answer "tends to bolster a certain premise" because you can always dispute the (implied) answer and provide a different one (which you can then bolster with YOUR version of "what the facts mean" [as opposed to YOUR version of "the facts"]).
(0)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
Well, I'll just cut to the chase. It's not the job of the Federal Government to regulate people's morality, nor is it the job of government to damage control for people's irresponsible behavior. The decision to engage in extramarital sex is a choice that taxpayers should not be saddled with bearing the costs of. Those who play are the ones who should pay. Education, personal accountability, discipline and self-control are a form of preventive maintenance and would go much further to help our society than free birth control, which does NOTHING to change people's irresponsible behavior; rather, it just gives those who can't afford children the green light to engage. @@
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google