The pathetic Leftist faith in verbal magic rolls on
Don't label heroin users as 'junkies'
"People should stop calling heroin users "junkies" or "addicts", an influential think tank on drugs has said. The UK Drug Policy Commission said such names stigmatised users and made it more difficult to get off drugs.
Its report suggested that the policing of drugs on the streets and methadone programmes forcing users to go to chemists were "publicly humiliating".
Instead, the study said that British society needed to show more compassion towards drug users. Authors of the six-month report said the terms "junkie" and "addict" were distrustful and judgmental and led to feelings of low self-worth among drug users.
"The crux of this problem, I'm afraid, is the persistent view that drug addiction is the problem of the addict," he said. [It isn't??]
Source
Drug addicts have for some time been referred to simply as "users" in professional circles -- but even that vague term has already acquired a tone of contempt.
14 comments:
So....there's nothing wrong with drug abuse, per se? What if we call them thieves and liars, since that's what most people addicted to these substances become in their efforts to maintain their habit. How would that affect their self-esteem?
The problem isn't drug use - if all you were doing was killing yourself, I wouldn't give a rat's arse if you were shooting up heroin while smoking crack and huffing solvent. The problem is that (a) you tend to become a criminal in your attempts to fund your habits, and (b) you expect the Emergency Rooms to treat you for your ODs and related health problems whether you can afford treatment or not.
Honestly, whether calling you an "addict" hurts your self esteem is the least of MY worries. What next? Restricting your ownership of fire-arms used to obtain funding for your habit is also detrimental to you as an individual?
Junkies, addicts?
Actually, there's only one thing I'd like to call them: DEAD!
bogsidebunny
Junkies don't care what you call them. They just want that next fix and will do anything to get it. They will kill you or even their own family members to get that next fix.
The first step in solving any problem is to accurately identify the problem to be solved.
One of AA's most famous requirements of its participants is the statement "Hello. My name is ________ ________ and I'm an alcoholic." They understand that clearly recognizing the addition is absolutely necessary before that addiction can be overcome. Even participants who have been sober for decades still need the reminder that it's a lifelong struggle against addiction.
This commission is trying to be "compassionate", but what they're actually accomplishing is to strengthen the addicts' bondage to drugs. This is exactly kind of muddled thinking described by the statement "So open-minded that their brain leaks out."
Drug use and drug abuse are two different things. Millions of people can experiment with drugs without becoming drug abusers just like most people drink and gamble without becoming alcoholics or degenerate gamblers.
Eventually we're going to have to legalize drugs unless everyone's willing to pay more taxes to build more jails to house more people for using drugs.
You're right Bobby, but only to a point. It all depends on the drug involved and the basic nature of the person using it. Some people are weak (mentally, emotionally, etc.) and are prone to become addicted to almost anything. I've known other people who have been occasional (on and off) users of marijuana for "many" years with no signs of addiction or any other negative impact.
On the other hand, some drugs are so powerful, (crack, meth, hallucinogens, etc.) that the user, no matter how strong they think they are, is totally hooked with the first hit.
You think crack and meth are addicting? Here's the next addiction that will swallow the nation, and most people don't even see it coming.
http://cbs3.com/health/Health.Alert.Stephanie
.2.1877150.html
Yeah, drugs will be legalized - but only so large corporations can be sued for adverse health effects when they market them.
Who in their right mind thinks that some large company is going to market ANY currently controlled substance for recreational purposes, given the current climate regarding tobacco and alcohol in the courts?
If you get drunk at my bar, and you get in your car and kill 15 people in an accident, they come after ME!
If you smoke for 30 years, reading the little warning on the side of the box every time, and then get lung cancer, you go after Brown-Foreman.
And you want to throw NEW drugs into this mix? What HAVE you been smoking?
The only drug that will be legalized is marijuana, and it will happen (is happening) slowly as do all things that are "different". The govt has been using fear, hysteria, and phony doctors/scientists for decades, and has yet to prove any negative effects of the weed, a weed that has been in use for a thousand years. BTW, they have been using the very same tactics to shove the global warming scam down the throats of America, and it too is a failure.
As for the so-called "hard-core" drugs, they will not be legalized. The main reason being that too many people, and big corporations, are making unimaginable amounts of money from them. There are South American countries that owe "tens-of-Billions" to American banks and insurance companies, and the only way they can hope to repay those loans is via their illegal drug sales. This is not a secret to any one. Example: Most of the large banks and condos in southern FL. are there as a direct result of "massive" infusions of illegal drug money. And FL. is far from the only place.
"You're right Bobby, but only to a point. It all depends on the drug involved and the basic nature of the person using it."
---Well, I have more faith in people than in government agencies.
"Some people are weak (mentally, emotionally, etc.) and are prone to become addicted to almost anything."
---I agree, and in a perfectly libertarian world the weak perish and the strong survive. In fact, there used to be a time that neither the DEA nor the ATF existed and Americans did all kinds of drugs, including heroin, morphine, opiates, cocaine, marihuana, you name it. Drugs laws came out of racist fears, people thought drugs made blacks rape white women, it was hysteria.
In our world today, we're only saving the weak for a little while, until they get hooked again. It's like Lindsay Lohan, she only served 13 days in prison and now is back to rehab. How many times has she been in rehab already? How many times do we have to keep saving her? Maybe it would be better if we simply let her self-destruct. If she doesn't appreciate her life, why should I?
"On the other hand, some drugs are so powerful, (crack, meth, hallucinogens, etc.) that the user, no matter how strong they think they are, is totally hooked with the first hit."
---I think it takes more than a hit for someone to get hooked. Besides, what about people who are hooked on spending? Who buy houses they can't afford? Who overeat until they weight 300 or 400 pounds?
"Most of the large banks and condos in southern FL. are there as a direct result of "massive" infusions of illegal drug money. And FL. is far from the only place."
---I saw Cocaine Cowboys to, but those days are over. Most illegal drugs come from Mexico now, it's a lot easier and cheaper than evading the Coast Guard with small planes or powerboats.
During the 1980s it's true that a lot of condos, car dealers, and banks made huge profits thanks to drug dealers, but after the federal government started getting really tough with the war on drugs it all went to hell. Our real estate market is crap, we overbuilt and supply exceeds demand.
"You're right Bobby, but only to a point. It all depends on the drug involved and the basic nature of the person using it."
---Well, I have more faith in people than in government agencies.
"Some people are weak (mentally, emotionally, etc.) and are prone to become addicted to almost anything."
---I agree, and in a perfectly libertarian world the weak perish and the strong survive. In fact, there used to be a time that neither the DEA nor the ATF existed and Americans did all kinds of drugs, including heroin, morphine, opiates, cocaine, marihuana, you name it. Drugs laws came out of racist fears, people thought drugs made blacks rape white women, it was hysteria.
In our world today, we're only saving the weak for a little while, until they get hooked again. It's like Lindsay Lohan, she only served 13 days in prison and now is back to rehab. How many times has she been in rehab already? How many times do we have to keep saving her? Maybe it would be better if we simply let her self-destruct. If she doesn't appreciate her life, why should I?
"On the other hand, some drugs are so powerful, (crack, meth, hallucinogens, etc.) that the user, no matter how strong they think they are, is totally hooked with the first hit."
---I think it takes more than a hit for someone to get hooked. Besides, what about people who are hooked on spending? Who buy houses they can't afford? Who overeat until they weight 300 or 400 pounds?
"You're right Bobby, but only to a point. It all depends on the drug involved and the basic nature of the person using it."
---Well, I have more faith in people than in government agencies.
"Some people are weak (mentally, emotionally, etc.) and are prone to become addicted to almost anything."
---I agree, and in a perfectly libertarian world the weak perish and the strong survive. In fact, there used to be a time that neither the DEA nor the ATF existed and Americans did all kinds of drugs, including heroin, morphine, opiates, cocaine, marihuana, you name it. Drugs laws came out of racist fears, people thought drugs made blacks rape white women, it was hysteria.
In our world today, we're only saving the weak for a little while, until they get hooked again. It's like Lindsay Lohan, she only served 13 days in prison and now is back to rehab. How many times has she been in rehab already? How many times do we have to keep saving her? Maybe it would be better if we simply let her self-destruct. If she doesn't appreciate her life, why should I?
"On the other hand, some drugs are so powerful, (crack, meth, hallucinogens, etc.) that the user, no matter how strong they think they are, is totally hooked with the first hit."
---I think it takes more than a hit for someone to get hooked. Besides, what about people who are hooked on spending? Who buy houses they can't afford? Who overeat until they weight 300 or 400 pounds?
Bobby, i assume you've developed a stutter?
And no, i didn't see Cocain Cowboy. I was there. As for the banks, condos, and developments built in FL with drug money, they're still there, albeit under different names, and in many cases under new ownership. Most of the old drug lords are dead now.
And don't be fooled into thinking FL isn't still a major corridor, it is. No, it's not like the wild 80's, but it's still very active, especially for large shipments.
"I think it takes more than a hit for someone to get hooked."
That's generally what the uninformed public believes. Ask the users.
"Bobby, i assume you've developed a stutter?"
---What do you mean by that?
"And no, i didn't see Cocain Cowboy. I was there. As for the banks, condos, and developments built in FL with drug money, they're still there, albeit under different names, and in many cases under new ownership. Most of the old drug lords are dead now."
---I was there to, the Miami of the 90s and 2000s is not the Miami of the 80s. In the old days any schmuck could sell real estate, open a bank, open a car dealership and make a killing doing a little money laundering for the cartels. Those days are gone, I don't know who's making a killing now other than the people who buy houses to grow marijuana inside.
"And don't be fooled into thinking FL isn't still a major corridor, it is. No, it's not like the wild 80's, but it's still very active, especially for large shipments."
---Well, I'm not familiar with the shipping industry, I do know that customs does x-ray many of the containers, but I'm sure with all the cargo coming they miss a lot of stuff. If you like the topic of drugs, I recommend the book "Snow Blind," it's filled with fascinating details.
"That's generally what the uninformed public believes. Ask the users."
---I am very skeptical of anti-drug propaganda. The drug war has been a huge business to the DEA and private rehab places that can charge thousands of dollars to cure just one person.
Even if some drugs were extremely addictive as you say, legislating against them only makes them more expensive.
It's already happening with tobacco, by the time a pack of cigarettes reaches $20 or $30 in New York you're going to see an explosion of tobacco guns.
In fact, according to this article, tobacco smuggling already pays for terrorism.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/742381/smuggled_cigarettes_paying_for_terrorism.html
Post a Comment