POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.off-topic : Transmogrify : Re: Transmogrify Server Time
4 Sep 2024 09:17:58 EDT (-0400)
  Re: Transmogrify  
From: Patrick Elliott
Date: 29 Jul 2010 15:53:24
Message: <4c51dc34$1@news.povray.org>
On 7/28/2010 3:53 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 15:21:43 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Problem, as I maybe muddled a bit in the other post where I said this,
>> is there are drugs, and then there are drugs.
>
> Sure, I don't know that I would be for legalization of heroin or crack
> cocaine.
>
>> You get mild ones, like pot, you get the harder ones, which you keep
>> needing to take more and more of, but which are fairly tame, then you
>> get into the stuff where the things you describe above are the "norm",
>> for when the hit starts to wear off.
>
> I don't know though that I buy the argument about "gateway drugs".  From
> my perspective, it's about personal responsibility and self-control.
>
Gateway drugs are bullshit. That "hypothesis" was that you take X and 
end up taking Y to get higher later. Its pure nonsense. What I am 
talking about is taking less than half an ounce, and, depending on your 
personal biology, having to have a full ounce **of the same thing**, a 
few years later, or having to take it several times a day, or "both". I 
am talking about people taking stuff where the withdrawal can kill you, 
without proper controls, and not being on it makes you more dangerous 
than being stoned, but you are useless in "either" condition.

>> Those later ones are not going to
>> be "better" if you make any of it legal, or give out prescriptions, or
>> build something like the old opium dens, to do it "safely", etc. About
>> 10% of the population have odd quirks in their biology that make them
>> able to take "most" of this stuff, and walk away without needing it
>> again. On the other end is the 10% that will drop dead, the first time
>> they take something, the rest are like someone who intentionally jammed
>> their foot in a wood chipper, because someone said it would be fun, and
>> societies reaction, as a whole, to those people ranges from, "Pray and
>> it will grow back, but don't go to them damn doctors.", to, "Why should
>> the state use my money to give you an artificial foot, or therapy, its
>> your own damn fault!" Problem with this idiot way of looking at the
>> problem is, of course, if there where thousands of people missing feet,
>> all over the place, it *might* just have an impact of everyone else's
>> well being and safety, thus making both the "do nothing, its all in your
>> mind" people, and the, "I won't pay for it!", people, all complete
>> idiots. But, then.. I suppose you could just fix the problem by throwing
>> everyone that is missing a foot in jail. It would be so much easier,
>> even if it costs 500 times as much.
>
> Or you could hold people accountable for their personal decisions.  They
> stick their foot in the woodchipper, fine, but that injury isn't covered
> by insurance because it's self-inflicted (for example).  Action and
> consequence.
>
> And yes, that would have an impact on their immediate family.  Again,
> that's a consequence of their action.  My family member who went to
> prison for his DUI offense had consequences for his actions as well, and
> they affected more than him.  That's life, and he's accepted those
> consequences.
>
> It bothers me greatly that people think there should be no consequences
> for what they do.
>
The problem here is, making them take responsibility doesn't solve the 
damn problem. They did it. Now they are stuck with the problem, and no, 
the consequences *may* extend beyond their immediate family. Lets say it 
was loss of hearing, or blindness, or some other thing. Its not about if 
there are consequences. Most people have no damn clue how *big* the 
consequences can be, figure that most of what people are telling them 
are lies, since they can't imagine it being as bad as described, they 
may have the perception that others are doing it, so they should, and a 
whole host of other things. Even the ones that try to get off it, 
because they realize they made a mistake, are stuck in a situation where 
they are **permanently** wanting to stick their foot in the wood chipper 
again. Their brain chemistry has changed, and they can't **stop** 
wanting to *ever*. I would say that *that* is a pretty damn big 
consequence, in and of itself, without all the other garbage people drop 
in their laps, including the, often, complete destruction of their 
lives, which just make it all that more tempting to give in to the need 
they can't ever get rid of.

It is, on some level, right up there with cutting someone's hand off, as 
punishment for stealing a single fig from someone's fruit cart. People 
are not willing to stop at punishing them for what they *did* do, or 
recognizing that the consequences are *already* more than they can 
imagine, they feel they have to keep punishing these people, even to the 
point of refusing to help keep them from falling back into using, based 
on one, single, initial mistake. And that is just idiocy.

Fixing the problem isn't going to come from telling someone that has 
*lost* most of their ability to avoid being tempted, but is rather 
permanently feeling tempted now, that they need to show "more self 
control". Most of us normal, non-drug using, people have no damn clue 
what that word actually means. We just assume its like waking up and 
picking between whether to wear underwear or not, before going to work, 
and we imagine the consequence to be not much worse than having to not 
make the *wrong* mistake again, having opted for not wearing any, then 
splitting our pants, or some similar "choice".

The whole point of the "lost a foot" analogy is to point out that, once 
the choice is made, it doesn't matter what help you give them, or how 
often, etc., they live with the consequences, every single day of their 
lives, forever, short of finding a way to cure the actual chemical 
dependence, which never goes away. You can either treat them like 
someone worth help, or you can treat them like shit. Which solution do 
you imagine will help them avoid losing control again?

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>


Post a reply to this message

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.