Think Twice Before You Think...

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Not sure if you still can compare whatever she was smoking to the current generations of cigarettes. I've read somewhere that the level of nicotine and tar in some cigarettes has significantly risen over the past decade or so.

That was the basis of the American tobacco settlement. They "corrected" cigarettes to be more addictive, all the while testifying before Congress, etc. that there was no evidence they were. And they concentrated on addicting minors, (despite laws limiting sales to them) because a good addiction starts there.

The thing is, we already KNOW how these things are done. We already know about targeted advertising, and why it works. We already know about diversifying the product line to appeal to niche buyers. We already know what price point draws what crowd. We already know how to breed and grow it to make it MORE potent and addictive.

We already know it's full of carcinogens. We already know it messes with your hormones. We already knows it impairs cognition, memory, and the ability to drive. We already know that long term use frequently leads to the need for higher dosages to get the same effect. We already know it can increase cardiac risk, we already know it decreases motivation.

So. We know it's bad for us. We know that the people who would wind up producing and selling it have a long history of not caring about their customer's health. (Surprised? See what happens if you grow tobacco in the yard.) We know that the BEST recommendation anyone can come up with so far for it is that it has the potential to make us fat. We know that the younger you start with psychotropic and addictive substances, the more likely you'll have addiction problems. This probably has to do with brain development.

AND we know that, even illegal, it's widely used.

This is an argument for making it legal?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Let's see, in favor of jail.

Sending someone to jail causes more problems then it solves. And all the problems you list would occur anyway, since drug offenders are not kept in jail for anywhere near the rest of their lives. It would make more sense to just execute them.

Are you saying that you think treatment is useless?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Sending someone to jail causes more problems then it solves.

Getting wasted causes more problems than it solves, too. The question is, for whom is it causing a problem?

I'm in favor of treatment. But I'm not in favor of addicts running around in the community. I want them all to hit bottom day one . I want them clear from the get-go that their anti-social behavior will NOT be tolerated, and they can quit or be kept where contributing citizens aren't at risk from them.

We've got, what, over 6.5 MILLION binge drinkers between 12 and 20. That's not a glass of wine occasionally. That's a problem. We have new tobacco smokers every day. That's a problem. They put Surgeon General cigarette labels on in 1966!!!! What is up with anyone who started after that? There's all kinds of evidence that young people are hurt differently by exposure to these things than older people. http://no-smoking.org/june03/06-27-03-3.html

So am I going to lay down and say, 'Naw man, chillax. We need treatment to be available to people who think they need it.'?

I am supposed to wait until a drug addict decides he/she needs treatment. And, in the meantime, people who have demonstrably impaired thinking will go on, running into trees, raising children, voting...

No thanks. I'm okay, and I think they need to smarten up.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Addicts operate heavy machinery and hurt people.
They're disproportionately represented as victims of violent crime.
They steal things to support their habits.
They engage in unsafe sexual practices...
As a result, they contract and spread disease and have neglected children.
They cost employers millions of dollars in accidents, lost productivity and health care costs.
They're hard on families.
They suck money out of the mental health system.

That's just a few, I'm not concentrating.
What's your case for leaving them on the street?

Don't tell me "kids are smart" to support "therefore they try drugs."

That's ridiculous.

"TWO THUMBS UP!"
~Ebert & Roeper

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

No thanks. I'm okay, and I think they need to smarten up.

I heard an interesting interview on NPR a few weeks back. I don't remember the guy's name, but he was famous among mountain climbers for his accomplishments in the sport. He did the ultra-extreme kind of climbing, up sheer cliffs no one had done before. He even witnessed a fellow climber who died from a fall, also a very accomplished climber who just made one mistake at the wrong time.

The gist of the book he was writing is that, eventhough he loved the sport and the thrill that it brought, it simply wasn't worth the risk. Even the carefulest and most skilled climber can die when they put themselves at risk in that way. And that death could effect a whole lot of other people as well. Needless to say, he took a good bit of heat from people who loved the sport over his statements.

The story made me think that some people, for whatever reasons, are thrill seekers by nature. Maybe the do it for the "high", or maybe they do it to avoid other things they do not want to deal with. Either way, they will always be a part of our society.

I'm all for treating these kinds of people, and for taking every reasonable step to limit the damage they will do but, as alcohol prohabition showed us in the twenties, the ban and punish approach doesn't work where basic human nature is involved. And, forcing things underground can lead to a whole host of other issues that can make society even worse when you look at the big picture.

If you approach societal problems with the erroneous assumption that you can one day eliminate them, you are doomed to failure and often blind to the problems your "solutions" may bring about. I prefer a pragmatic approach, that recognizes the need to balance preventative measures with how those measures may effect other factors.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

This is an argument for making it legal?

Is that what you read in my comment? All I was saying is that you can't really compare former cigarettes with modern-day ones as the contents and doses have changed.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Is that what you read in my comment? All I was saying is that you can't really compare former cigarettes with modern-day ones as the contents and doses have changed.

I just started to explain to you and got run away with.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

The story made me think that some people, for whatever reasons, are thrill seekers by nature. Maybe the do it for the "high", or maybe they do it to avoid other things they do not want to deal with. Either way, they will always be a part of our society.

I'm all for treating these kinds of people, and for taking every reasonable step to limit the damage they will do but, as alcohol prohabition showed us in the twenties, the ban and punish approach doesn't work where basic human nature is involved. And, forcing things underground can lead to a whole host of other issues that can make society even worse when you look at the big picture.

If you approach societal problems with the erroneous assumption that you can one day eliminate them, you are doomed to failure and often blind to the problems your "solutions" may bring about. I prefer a pragmatic approach, that recognizes the need to balance preventative measures with how those measures may effect other factors.

that people are just naturally stupid. Okay, maybe they are. If so, I want them rounded up to be stupid where they can't be dangerous to their neighbors. I want them deprived of the ability (not just the right) to get behind the wheel. If a vehicle is involved in an accident caused by substance abuse, it's not covered by insurance, and it's not returned to the owner, unless it was recorded stolen. I want them to lose the right to vote and hold office if they encourage other people to be stupid, too, by selling or providing drugs and alcohol to minors. And this would eliminate "affirmative defense" when it came to selling to minors, btw. You make a mistake on that, your ass in jail. If your minor child gets inebriated with your stash, whatever it is, you go to jail.

Do you think people with liquor stores outside college campuses would be more careful? Do you think parents would stop handing out the car keys, and treating their kids to alcohol in the home (perfectly legally, in most jurisdictions.) No, some of them would keep on being stupid. But some would smarten up. I want those.

I've seen people give beer to infants. I've seen people teach toddlers to drink until they fell over. That's legal. But those kids, statistically, have about ZERO chance of getting through life without problems with addiction. Because their brains are deformed to seek that sensation, before they ever have a chance to decide.

If tougher laws that restrict access to drugs give kids THREE MORE MONTHS, on average, before they try it for the first time, that's 3 months when they aren't setting themselves up to have to get clean later. It's 3 more months for them not to drive drunk. It's 3 more months to learn how to pick sexual partners. It's 3 months to learn a little bit more about how to love themselves and make good choices. And there are people who will be there, every hour of those 3 precious extra months, praying for them and trying to get them there. Give those people 3 more months.

People did not believe you could raise the drinking age to 21. They didn't believe you'd ever pass laws for restricted licenses. They didn't believe you'd get drug testing in the workplace.

No one believed you'd either get, or need, speed limits, either.

People may be stupid. But they're not as stupid as you think, maybe.

[BeardofPants]

What happens to the children of the people who get sent to jail? The BFs parents were opium and heroin junkies when he was a tyke. He grew up with them 'shooting up' and was born a heroin addict. His parents have both since cleaned up and hold respectable govt jobs. Something that may not have been possible if they'd been locked away instead of re-habilitated. And the BF turned out fine, btw.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

...And the BF turned out fine, btw.

Better than that... he wound up with you!

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

or set on a chain gang with no treatment. And a lot of people face addiction and go on to be stronger people.

But, as a civilization we should be on it right away. We should work to, at the very least, postpone exposure to addictive substances as long as possible, and provide strict and supportive care for entire families when addiction develops.

God Grant me
The Serenity to accept the things I can't change.
Courage to change the things I can, and
Wisdom to know the difference.

is a prayer wound up with the AA tradition. I think we ought to meet the challenge of changing how people relate to addiction. I can't imagine anyone here saying, 'Yup. 25% of the population dies of scurvy. You've gotta expect it.'

The history of humans, checkered as it is, is nonetheless full of times we've agreed to turn away from ignorance. We fight disease. We oppose slavery. We work to free the oppressed. There are backsliders and pockets of evil, certainly. And there are also times when people of good intent differ on where 'wisdom to know the difference' points the way.

But this shouldn't be one of them. The evil of drug use outweighs the good, taken all in all. Let's stay clear on that.

[The Gaffer]

I agree with Sis's comments about the costs to society of drug taking.

However,
1) the costs of locking them up somewhere are far from trivial
2) not all drugs are the same

We already know about targeted advertising, and why it works.

3) why aren't we aggressively going after the people who perpetrate this, knowingly???

[hectorberlioz]

I agree that mere potheads aren't worth incarcerating...

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

1) the costs of locking them up somewhere are far from trivial

We have another school referendum coming.

How are you going to stop people, in a capitalist economy, from advertising something legal? It has to be a controlled substance, first.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I agree that mere potheads aren't worth incarcerating...

Good. Now go write your representatives...

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by Valandil

Better than that... he wound up with you!

fate has a twisted smile sometimes!

(heh just kidding BoP! :kiss: )

Best, BB
xx