 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Me, I've never really figured out the difference between "addictive" and
"habituating".
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
C# - a language whose greatest drawback
is that its best implementation comes
from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/29/2010 2:03 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Yep. Sucks, don't it? At the point where they're wanting to continue,
> someone certainly can intervene (and many people do). But consider this
> as well - that person who's so hooked they're going to get their fix
> however they can is going to break some other law in order to do so, and
> land themselves in jail. They don't allow drugs in jail (and the types
> of drugs we're talking about, they shouldn't allow), so they get a chance
> to be rehabilitated.
>
Man are you clueless. One of the **biggest** problems in US jails, other
than putting killers in with people that did lesser offenses, and people
killing each other, as a result, is that they **still** find ways to
smuggle the drugs in, and most jails tend to be run by people, operating
under rules written by people, who are even bigger hard asses about this
than you are, and **Do not believe** in wasting money on "any" kind of
rehab, beyond absolutely necessary to keep someone from dying from it.
No rehab for drugs, no rehab for their behavior, no rehab for
"anything". The #1 reason why you get so many religious groups in them,
peddling their version of rehab, is because the state won't spend a
dime, either to make sure the rehab they do get is actually effective
(and, as I said, the woo based stuff, whether its drug addiction, or
robbery prevention, has a shitty recidivism rate), never mind on
providing any alternative. The view point of the people that think
jailing everyone in sight, and who manage to end up running these
programs, and deciding what is funded, is that "no one" in there
deserves *anything*. The fact that this has turned most of them into
revolving doors, or worse, trade shows for more effective means of
hiding drugs, selling drugs, robbing buildings, scamming people out of
money, etc., they simply deny, completely.
We are dealing with a justice system, whose "solution", more often than
not, is not too far different from the old days when England simply
dumped every malcontent that wasn't useful to them on Australia, with a
small handful of troops to keep them away from the port, and said, "We
wash our hands of you." The last time anyone even seriously talked about
"real" rehab in jails the reaction was, "Just let in more priests.", the
state can't afford to do anything.
Its *exactly* the same idiot logic as you get with immigration. One side
says, "Throw them all out, arrest everyone in sight, and don't let them
back in.", the other side says, "OK, but what about the ones that
actually have businesses, have lived here for more than 10 years, have
kids, etc., and are **not** on welfare, like you accuse them of?", to
which the other side replies, "Deport them too, we don't give a damn!
You people just want them all to stay here!"
You tell someone, "We need effective rehab, both for drug use and other
behaviors in our jails.", the other side's reaction is **always**, "Why
the hell should we waste money on any of them?" The reply is, "Because
they will be out of jail at some point, in which case, as things stand,
they will still be doing the same things, only now you let them get more
dangerous, because you didn't want to do a damn thing to help them find
a better solution." The reply is **always**, "So, make the sentence
longer. If they never get out of jail, we don't have to worry about them
being worse when they get out!"
The stupidity of the system we are using, and the blind refusal to
recognize that its more complex than one side makes it, and we need to
solve *all* of the problems, not just the ones that make it "look" like
they are protecting the public, is complete fracking madness. Europe
seems to get this. The US, has half its population with its heads up
their asses, and thus, it just gets worse and worse. And part of that is
this perception that, "Individual responsibility", somehow trumps all,
if its something like drug use, but, too many of the people making this
claim, not that you do, but **way** too many of them, immediately blame
everyone else for *their* mistakes, when they make them, and no one
seems to grasp that "sometimes", to have a safe, sane, and stable
society, there has to be a recognition that some people need **help**,
and that giving it to them is better for everyone, not just the guy that
some jerk thinks should be allowed to do anything they like, with the
only consequence always being to tell them, "Screw you, we won't help you!"
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:39:44 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 7/29/2010 1:47 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:32:12 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/28/2010 4:08 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> PMFA, but where did you get your medical degree from? If you're
>>>> going to make assertions like that, I'd like to see them backed up by
>>>> some sort of credentials that show you have some expertise in the
>>>> field. (And before you ask, no, I don't have such expertise). Or a
>>>> cite from a reputable source would suffice as well.
>>>>
>>> You don't need a medical degree to read articles on the effects of
>>> these things, and no, I don't have, or remember, the specific
>>> magazines, or which issues.
>>
>> Fair enough, but are you certain you're not falling to confirmation
>> bias?
>>
> How is, "Taking there chemicals does X, and we can test people that take
> it and *show* that it does. Not to mention it never goes away, and every
> medical professional says that the people they treat never lose the
> addiction, they just learn to avoid every place, person, or thing that
> helped trigger it.", qualify as confirmation bias?
Assumption: You're only reading sources that agree with something you
already think. Again, just a question.
>>> I did say most. And, as I pointed out, it also depends on the person's
>>> own biology. Some people seem to be damn near completely immune to
>>> addiction. Others.. would be addicted by something as mild as
>>> caffeine.
>>
>> So basically, people need to be protected from themselves? I don't buy
>> that. Making mistakes is part of life, and not something people should
>> be insulated from. Experience is one of the best teachers out there.
>>
> We protect people from themselves all the damn time. Everything from, "
> "Don't drive drunk, or we will arrest you.",
That's protecting the public, not the individual.
> to, "You can't swim in the
> sewage pond, so we put big warning signs and a fence around it.",
That's perhaps the best example.
> to,
> "You vehicle **must** have working turn signals.",
That's about the public, not the individual. My turn signal doesn't tell
me anything, it's a way of telling others what you're about to do.
> etc., are all about
> protecting not just the rest of the people, but the moron doing it.
I disagree.
> Experience, **a lot of the time** won't teach you anything, because in
> most of those cases you will be either dead, or permanently disabled, by
> experiencing it. So, don't give me the whole, "We shouldn't protect
> people from themselves.", BS. This is only true for the things *you*
> think we shouldn't do that for. I am certain there are plenty of things
> that you do think we should, a whole host of laws and rules to do so,
> and like most people that want to treat drug use as a "special" category
> of, "Stupid things people do to themselves.", you just don't like *it*
> being in that category, for no reason that I, personal, can see as
> rational.
Sure, and if I drive my car into a tree and die as a result, that's my
own fault (assuming I was in control at the time, of course). When I
broke my leg rollerblading, the other person was scared out of her mind
that I was going to sue - so much so, that she sent a friend over to
apologise to me. I told her to tell her friend that while she was going
the wrong way in the rink, it was my own fault because I shouldn't have
been on a rink with *experienced* people (and designated as a "speed
rink" my second time out on rollerblades.
Most people would've been looking for a lawyer. I was injured, I had a
broken leg. It was my own damned fault and nobody else's.
It inconvenienced me and it inconvenienced my family. That's the price
we all paid. <shrug> That's life.
>>> Sound all well and good, but you are presuming that the criminal
>>> system always catches these people, and no one that is sitting at home
>>> doing that didn't do anything wrong to get their hit.
>>
>> I'm presuming nothing. I meet about once a month with a representative
>> of the SLC police department, and he and I have very interesting chats
>> about how police work is actually done and how effective it is.
>>
>> One of the things I take away from the conversations time and again is
>> that if they didn't have to spend so much time dealing with non-violent
>> offenders, they might actually be able to catch more people committing
>> crimes against people& property.
>>
> I don't dispute that, and have said so, but the problem is that you are
> classing people that are, "not in their right minds", by choice or
> otherwise, in the same category as, "non-violent", in some cases. We
> also prefer to arrest someone who is intentionally acting in a way that
> *could* cause someone else harm. As I said, people on certain drugs do
> not just all, "sit around at home, being stoned", they go places, they
> do it in public, they get into their heads, while in a state of mind
> where they *can't* make rational decisions, to do things that get
> themselves and others killed.
And when they get dangerous, they should be stopped.
> By your logic, it would be perfectly fine
> to let mental patients out, even if classed as, "potentially dangerous",
> because that particular day they are not "acting" dangerous, never mind
> that they could turn at any moment, due to their condition.
Um, no, that's something different. Someone who's schizophrenic is quite
different from someone who *voluntarily* takes crack cocaine. And now
you'll argue that the addiction makes it a compulsion, not voluntary, but
they voluntarily started taking it.
> As for effectiveness.. Watched something a while back on the subject of
> law enforcement and [...]
Interesting, but not really relevant to the discussion.
>>> Any other way of looking at it only appears *sane* if you assume
>>> neither you, nor anyone you know, will *ever* be the victim. Which one
>>> could argue is either arrogant, or stupid.
>>
>> Nobody every said life was safe. Or fair.
>>
> No, but one of the functions of society is to make it safer, and at
> least try to make it fairer (even if some people still seem to want to
> make it as unfair as possible, but that is a whole other issue..)
There's safer and fairer when it's in the public interest, and then
there's "safer and fairer" which removes all the risk from life entirely,
and that latter removes the responsibility and consequences of actions
from individuals and places it on society. "It's not *my* fault I shot
the store clerk, it's *society's* fault that they didn't protect the
store clerk from me as effectively as they should have."
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:10:39 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Man are you clueless.
Nice way to carry on a conversation, Patrick - start with argumentum ad
hominem. I'm outta here.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30/07/2010 9:47 PM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Which makes a huge difference. Mind, one of the things that makes it
> easy to withdraw from **is** the fact that it doesn't have an effect so
> massive that it permanently changes brain chemistry. Maybe we need a
> different definition. Addictive means - you would have some level of
> withdrawal from it. ??? means - You can't ever completely withdraw from
> it at all, and your attempt to do so will be long, painful, and incomplete.
>
Is there anything that you can’t withdraw from> I know that if you take
excess alcohol for a long enough period it does alter your brain and
organs permanently.
> Part of the problem in many of these things is that we end up using the
> same word to describe things that, while they make work similarly, can
> have **drastically** different impacts. Its like someone with MS. I had
> a teacher with that, and up until a few months before it killed him, he
> *seemed* completely normal. There was a friend of the family who had a
> kid with it too, and he was semi-normal, up until about 10-12, then, by
> the time he was 15 or so he was in a wheel chair, barely able to speak,
> etc. Same condition, completely different results. Addiction is like
> that. All addiction works much the same, but *some* forms of it are
> severely debilitating, and leave lasting scares, which someone opting to
> drink soda pop, instead of taking crack, **doesn't have to worry
> about**, even if, in principle, the result uses the same word to
> describe it.
True and as you said earlier drugs have different effects on different
people. I’m prescribed dihydrocodine which is addictive. But when I stop
taking it the only effect I get is that my skin itches, which is quite
easy for me to cope with. Other people get more severe symptoms. Having
said that, I don’t know if it is because I have built up a tolerance to
it. The first time I took 15 mg I was away with the fairies. Now I can
take 60 mg and all I feel is a bit buzzy and I talk a lot. I’m certainly
not dependant on it. Different strokes for different folks. :-D
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30/07/2010 9:53 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Me, I've never really figured out the difference between "addictive" and
> "habituating".
>
I think that we (in the UK) call it dependant. Not physically addicted
but mentally requiring it. Addicted means your body requires it to
function without withdrawal symptoms.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> but mentally requiring it.
And what does that *mean*? How can you "mentally require it" without a
physical change to your body?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
C# - a language whose greatest drawback
is that its best implementation comes
from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30/07/2010 10:55 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> but mentally requiring it.
>
> And what does that *mean*? How can you "mentally require it" without a
> physical change to your body?
>
My laymans definition is: You like the effects of the drug so much you
want to keep taking it even if there are no physical withdrawal
symptoms. For instance as with grass or pot, you don’t get the heebie
jeebies when you stop taking it but some people can’t bring themselves
to stop. Even if it is ruining their lives.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:55:11 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> How can you "mentally require it" without a physical change to your
> body?
It's a habit, like some people who have a nervous twitch - they may not
even be aware that they're doing it, because it's just part of their
persona.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> My laymans definition is: You like the effects of the drug so much you
> want to keep taking it even if there are no physical withdrawal
> symptoms.
Yeah. I mean, I get that. I just don't know why there's a term for "good
drugs" that makes it sound awful. Why wouldn't you say anything you really
really like is "habituating"?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
C# - a language whose greatest drawback
is that its best implementation comes
from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
