Print Topic - Archive
Rotterdam NY...the people's voice / Chit Chat About Anything / Drug Addiction: An Illness Or A Crime?
Posted by: Admin, July 8, 2008, 4:25pm
http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=701857&category=OPINION&newsdate=7/8/2008
Quoted Text
Drug addiction an illness, not a crime
By ANTHONY PAPA
First published: Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Tatum O'Neal, the Oscar-winning actress, took a plea deal last week stemming from her June 1 arrest while supposedly trying to score some crack cocaine on the Lower East Side of Manhattan. She was initially charged with possession of a controlled substance and faced a year in prison if convicted. The court allowed her to plead out to a disorderly conduct charge and ordered her to attend two half-day drug treatment sessions. If she follows the court's orders, the cocaine possession charges will be dismissed.
O'Neal has been open about her history of heroin addiction as outlined in her memoir, "A Paper Life." When she was arrested by undercover officers, they searched her and found two bags of cocaine along with an unused crack pipe. She had initially told police she was doing research for an acting role. Then she changed her story and told them that the death of her 16-year-old dog nearly triggered her into relapse.
Some say O'Neal was treated with a slap on the wrist. Others say she did not deserve to do any jail time because of her addiction. This raises a critical question that we as a society need to address. Should we treat drug addiction as a criminal matter, or as a medical problem?
For most people, treatment is a much more effective approach than imprisonment for successfully breaking their addictions, yet our prisons are full of individuals whose only crime is their drug addiction.
According to Justice Department statistics, the United States has more prisoners than any country in the world, 2.5 million and rising. In 2006, the Justice Department recorded the largest increase since 2000 in the number of people in prisons and jails. Criminal justice experts attribute the exploding prison population to harsh sentencing laws and record numbers of drug law violators entering the system, many of whom have substance abuse problems.
Nonviolent drug offenders like Tatum O'Neal should be given an opportunity to receive treatment, not jail time, for their drug use. This would be a more effective (not to mention much more affordable) solution for both the individual and the community. Prosecutors in many states, most notably New York, have leeway to recommend a defendant to treatment instead of incarceration. More than likely, however, they will not do it. This is because it would not be considered a victory for them. The system does not reward prosecutors for doing the compassionate thing.
O'Neal can be an example for millions of young people. One can only hope that her experiences with addiction and the realities of the drug war will encourage her to join the movement to reform U.S. drug policy. If she decides to take up the cause of treatment, she could help change laws across the country. After all, if treatment instead of jail is good enough for her as she struggles with her addiction, surely it is good enough for the thousands of others just like her who struggle with their own substance abuse problems.
Like depression, addiction affects tens of millions of Americans. How best to treat it is a serious a question we need to explore. Rich or poor, young or old, addiction has no boundaries. But the drug war does. Our long war on drugs has stifled the open debate society should be having about the nature of addiction and how best to deal with it. It is time to treat addiction for what it is -- a medical problem, not a criminal one.
Anthony Papa is a communications specialist for the Drug Policy Alliance, http://www.drugpolicy.org.
Posted by: Sombody, July 9, 2008, 6:16pm; Reply: 1
Smoking cigarrettes- a crime ?
Posted by: Rene, July 9, 2008, 9:44pm; Reply: 2
I wouldn't go so far as to say a crime, but I would say life is full of choices.
Posted by: bumblethru, July 9, 2008, 9:49pm; Reply: 3
Smoking cigarettes- a crime ?
Yes smoking cigarettes is a crime if someone is caught smoking in a restricted area. Or buying cigarettes over the internet and having them shipped to your home in NYS. And that is just NYS. Other states have even stricter restrictions. So yes, cigarette smoking is a crime...and a choice...just like every other drug including caffeinated coffee in the morning.
Posted by: Sombody, July 9, 2008, 11:31pm; Reply: 4
Addiction is a Neurological Disorder
Addiction is a neurologically based disease. For many years recovery specialists have compared alcoholism or addictions to a physical disease: like diabetes. In reality addictions are more closely related to a neurological disorder like Tourette's Syndrome* than they are to diabetes.
If the problems you suffer stem from severe alcoholism or addiction, you must accept that these problems are not primarily mental or free will issues. Addictions are not about will power.
The that an addict "could change if he wanted to" is a serious misunderstanding of the long term dynamic of addictive disorder. The fact is precisely that an addict cannot change in the long run even if he wants to! That is the definition of addiction: "the loss of control over the use of a substance." It is important to understand that this loss of control is manifested not in terms of days or weeks, but in longer term behaviors: terms of months and years.
Posted by: JoAnn, July 9, 2008, 11:50pm; Reply: 5
I smoke. And it was "my choice" many years ago. And I am now addicted to cigarettes and that too was "my choice". I blame no one nor do I place "my addictive choice" on the tobacco industry or anyone else. I take full responsibility for the choices I have made in my life, both good and bad, and will live with the consequences, either good or bad.
Posted by: Rene, July 10, 2008, 12:36am; Reply: 6
I chose to smoke and I chose to give it up, although I choose to enjoy a cigarette now and then. Anyone who chooses to use substances of any type in this day and age knows what the consequences can and probably will be. The substance should not have been chosen in the first place. I don't mean to sound so merciless but I am weary of excuses people make for their own misjudgements. (Is that a word?)
Posted by: Sombody, July 10, 2008, 6:26am; Reply: 7
Cigarettes are not a good example- up until 2001 they actually didnt even meet the legal or medical definition for addiction- sort of like saying your addicted to rocky road ice cream.
Rene I guess without trying to sound merciless you pretty much are- So i guess with just enough willpower you should be able to do anything. You know like mind over matter-
Posted by: CICERO, July 10, 2008, 9:49am; Reply: 8
Addiction is a Neurological Disorder
Addiction is a neurologically based disease. For many years recovery specialists have compared alcoholism or addictions to a physical disease: like diabetes. In reality addictions are more closely related to a neurological disorder like Tourette's Syndrome* than they are to diabetes.
I think what Rene is saying is, with all the information available out there, people don't have to test their pre-disposition to addiction by ingesting drugs and alcohol to see if they're addicts. You're saying that people are alcoholics or addicts right out of the womb, and don't have a choice but to become an addict in adulthood.
So, what you're suggesting is, I might have been born a crack addict, I just don't know because I haven't used crack in my life. And you're saying that I may still become a crack addict, if I were born pre-disposed to crack addiction, and I am unable to consciencely resist the urge for crack. Even having no knowledge of the feeling or high crack produces.
That's a tough sell for me. But in a world where people need excuses for their lack of self control and poor personal choices, this line of thinking fits perfectly.
Posted by: Shadow, July 10, 2008, 9:54am; Reply: 9
Studies have shown that nicotine addiction is as hard to kick as a heroin addiction for a lot of people.
Posted by: CICERO, July 10, 2008, 10:36am; Reply: 10
Cigarettes are not a good example- up until 2001 they actually didnt even meet the legal or medical definition for addiction- sort of like saying your addicted to rocky road ice cream.
Soooooooooo, the medical definition of addiction prior to 2001, which excluded nicotine as an addictive substance is the correct definition? I thought medical science was progressive? Which means new studies and conclusions replace old outdated ones. I guess if the new information doesn't fit your argument, you stick with the old info.
Posted by: Sombody, July 10, 2008, 11:39am; Reply: 11
Prior to 2000 part of the medical and legal definition for ADDICTION included a requirement that the dose needed to increase accordingly to reach the users high-
Dont you remember - how do you think the cigarette manufacturers could swear in front of congress tha cigarettes were not addicting- short memory everyone- they cant do that anymore
The lay public including myself often misuse the correct term- such as in a craving- devoted or whatever-
Im not an expert- and apparently no one here has anyone in their family that has any of these cravings or addictions and if they do they are probably not invited to Thanksgiving dinner- or whatever
Posted by: CICERO, July 10, 2008, 12:00pm; Reply: 12
Im not an expert- and apparently no one here has anyone in their family that has any of these cravings or addictions and if they do they are probably not invited to Thanksgiving dinner- or whatever
Sure there are people in my family with addictions or cravings. I just don't except excuses for their personal choices which got them to that point of not being able to control those cravings. Everybody is faced with choices in life, and there is tons of information made available showing the pitfalls of making certain unhealthy choices. And I'm not saying that I am immune of making these poor choices, I'm saying that I hold myself responsible for my poor choices and the consequences that come with them. I don't like being labeled a victim.
Posted by: bumblethru, July 10, 2008, 12:19pm; Reply: 13
The government/medical society and every bleeding heart liberal would like nothing more than to make us all feel like victims of society. This allows them the luxury of dipping into our pockets in the name of taxes to fund programs for 'people who make bad choices'. There is clearly more information available through the internet, magazines, tv, media, library etc....on the positive and negative effects of just about everything out there. Ya don't need to be an expert...just literate!!
Posted by: Rene, July 10, 2008, 12:45pm; Reply: 14
Great discussion, and I am truly sorry to sound so merciless. It is not my nature and has taken a while to develop that attitude, but I am at the end of my rope with excuses being made for others bad choices and having to pay for their bad choices to boot. From the time we were children we were told "Just say no to drugs", "drugs are bad for you". "don't "drink and drive". It isn't anything we don't already know by the time we reach an age of decision. The effects of drugs and drinking and driving etc. is all over tv, in the news, in our schools. and hopefully re enforced every single day at home from parents.
Cicero's analysis of my statement is correct. Don't start the use of drugs to begin with.
Posted by: JoAnn, July 10, 2008, 1:26pm; Reply: 15
Personal choice and personal responsibility just don't seem to be in our vocabulary anymore. Like I stated in another post, "I made the personal choice to smoke".
I have three adult children and "they made the personal choice not to smoke". Two of them did smoke at one time but, "they made the personal choice to quit" years ago.
Posted by: Shadow, July 10, 2008, 1:45pm; Reply: 16
As an ex-smoker of too many years I found it difficulty to say the least to quit smoking. It was my choice when I was a youngster to decide to smoke in the first place so I made a bad decision and it wasn't advertising on the TV that influenced me.
Posted by: Sombody, July 10, 2008, 6:57pm; Reply: 17
The government/medical society and every bleeding heart liberal would like nothing more than to make us all feel like victims of society. This allows them the luxury of dipping into our pockets in the name of taxes to fund programs for 'people who make bad choices'. There is clearly more information available through the internet, magazines, tv, media, library etc....on the positive and negative effects of just about everything out there. Ya don't need to be an expert...just literate!!
More like give you an oportunity to help your fellow man- The thought process of the " compassionate conservative " is hard to figure out. They always like to thow paranoia in there- you know someone is always trying to get thier wallet.-
Posted by: bumblethru, July 10, 2008, 7:07pm; Reply: 18
Helping your fellow man starts with the person we look at everyday in the mirror. OURSELVES!! We have become so complacent, that we do in fact depend on the government to take care of our woes. And it costs $$$$$ to take care of our woes. So the government comes up with words like, addiction and dysfunctional and poor and minority etc....in other words VICTIMS! And that my friend is NOT helping our fellow man. It is just keeping him/her down so the government can boast about how wonderfully they take care of their citizens. And a fine job they are doing, wouldn't ya say? :-/
Posted by: Sombody, July 10, 2008, 7:19pm; Reply: 19
An excellent argument for not lifting a finger-
Posted by: CICERO, July 10, 2008, 7:42pm; Reply: 20
Compassionate Conservatism was a campaign slogan to get G.W. Bush elected. Compassion is an emotion that only the individual can act upon. Helping people through selfless acts of compassion. It can't be legislated by government, and force people to pay into a system that supposed to help their fellow man. Because what you end up with is, resentment toward those who they are supposed to be helping.
Conservatives believe in personal responsibility. Whether it's our personal responsibility to take care of your fellow man, either by donating money or time to a church organization, or one of the many other non-governmental charitable organizations which help those in need. Not by forcing money out of my pocket to pay into a huge bureaucratic welfare program which has been proven to be ineffective. Or the belief that those who they are helping need to take personal responsibility for themselves and their actions, and that the compassion isn't unconditional. Throwing unlimited amounts of money at generational poverty or habitual drug use only perpetuates the bad behavior.
So let me try to break down the thought process.
Personal responsibility
Large government programs ineffective
Empowering the individual
Excuses aren't answers
Posted by: Sombody, July 10, 2008, 8:08pm; Reply: 21
My primary college education was phys ed- I have felt for years that we are a nation of fat pigs-
The concept of personal responsibility in health care (exercising, maintaining a healthy weight, and not smoking) is rewarded by feeling better and spending less money. Now that sounds Republican-
Addiction to being lazy is very powerful- or wait its really a personal choice-
Posted by: Shadow, July 10, 2008, 9:15pm; Reply: 22
We all have to take responsibility for our weight and physical condition and you're right being lazy is a personal choice. My primary college education was forestry always outside in the weather and lots of physical activity and fresh air. The real benefit is being healthy and not having to use the health care system except for physicals in order to get my prescriptions renewed.
Posted by: CICERO, July 10, 2008, 10:21pm; Reply: 23
Addiction to being lazy is very powerful- or wait its really a personal choice-
I guess it depends if we are going by the pre 2000 medical and legal definition of ADDICTION. The user of lazy has to increase the dose of lazy, in order to reach the high of slothfulness. Only then, may they be an ADDICT.
Posted by: Rene, July 11, 2008, 12:39am; Reply: 24
In response to Cicero's post #20 of this thread, a hearty Amen.
Posted by: senders, July 12, 2008, 12:24am; Reply: 25
Quoted Text
Main Entry: 1con·ser·va·tive
Pronunciation: \kən-ˈsər-və-tiv\
Function: adjective
Date: 14th century
1: preservative
2 a: of or relating to a philosophy of conservatism bcapitalized : of or constituting a political party professing the principles of conservatism: as (1): of or constituting a party of the United Kingdom advocating support of established institutions (2): progressive conservative
3 a: tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : traditional b:
marked by moderation or caution > c: marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners
4: of, relating to, or practicing Conservative Judaism
— con·ser·va·tive·ly adverb
— con·ser·va·tive·ness noun
Quoted Text
Main Entry: com·pas·sion
Pronunciation: \kəm-ˈpa-shən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French or Late Latin; Anglo-French, from Late Latin compassion-, compassio, from compati to sympathize, from Latin com- + pati to bear, suffer — more at patient
Date: 14th century
: sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it synonyms see pity
— com·pas·sion·less \-ləs\ adjective
I think one should have a conservative compassion.......after all there are no crosses lined up with folks to be crucified........and everything has a time and it is presented to everyone everyday......
Posted by: Sombody, July 12, 2008, 3:34pm; Reply: 26
Sounds like most have grown up with the paradigm that God helps those that help themselves -
Maybe my thinking is different- my grandmother told us God helps those that cant help themselves-
Posted by: bumblethru, July 12, 2008, 4:25pm; Reply: 27
Otay then....let's put it in the hands of God and take it out of the government's hands. I'm sure God could do a better job. Sounds reasonable right? EXCEPT....there is no mention in the Bible that says..."God helps those that help themselves" OR "God helps those who can't help themselves". If there is I must have skipped over it. Perhaps your grandmother told you what verse that was from and could share it with us.
Posted by: Sombody, July 12, 2008, 4:33pm; Reply: 28
Lighten up - there is no scripture or verse- She also said- When you pray- move your feet-
Maybe you might want to check out the Beatitudes one more time though-
Posted by: CICERO, July 12, 2008, 5:48pm; Reply: 29
I believe it was Ben Franklin who was quoted in an Almanac say "God helps those who help themselves"
Posted by: Sombody, July 13, 2008, 8:22am; Reply: 30
Personal choice and personal responsibility just don't seem to be in our vocabulary anymore. Like I stated in another post, "I made the personal choice to smoke".
I have three adult children and "they made the personal choice not to smoke". Two of them did smoke at one time but, "they made the personal choice to quit" years ago.
I do not see addictions being about will power. Thinking that an addict "could change if he wanted to" I feel- is a misunderstanding of the long term dynamic of addictive disorder.
Addicts have lost control is because - medicine says they have suffered permanent physical neurological changes based in their brains and nervous systems. The disorder manifests in long term obsessive-compulsive behaviors outside the realm of the addicts own control.
True the use of chemicals begins with chosen behavior- but if addiction develops, the problem has moved outside the realm of free choice. It has developed into a long term mental and physical neurological disorder- but of course I see this view does not go over well with the " Captain of my ship- master of my fate " crowd-
Posted by: CICERO, July 13, 2008, 12:55pm; Reply: 31
but of course I see this view does not go over well with the " Captain of my ship- master of my fate " crowd-
Opposed to the "If it feels good- do it" crowd. Or the " I have no control over my behavior - I have mommy and daddy issues" crowd.
I choose the captain of my ship crowd. I don't know about master of my fate, there are too many thing out of my control to make that claim. But the things I put into my body, I choose.
Posted by: Sombody, July 13, 2008, 1:27pm; Reply: 32
I choose the captain of my ship crowd. I don't know about master of my fate, there are too many thing out of my control to make that claim. But the things I put into my body, I choose.
I dont think we are really talking about you or me- sitting here on a nice Sunday morning drinking coffee- reading the paper and typing away- We are talking about addiction-
'Feelings' involved in drug or alcohol ADDICTION are based in neurology. Addiction is based in physical dependency created by neurotransmitter balances that have gotten screwed up , and are then driven by millions of new living, functioning active neurological pathways which have been established to sustain the condition in the addicts brain.
The new neurological pathways are permanently established, and they will not just disappear. It is not simply mind over matter- a crime?
Posted by: JoAnn, July 13, 2008, 2:29pm; Reply: 33
Should we then view sex addicts and people addicted to gambling an addiction that is based in physical dependency created by neurotransmitter balances that have gotten screwed up , and are then driven by millions of new living, functioning active neurological pathways which have been established to sustain the condition in the addicts brain?
Posted by: CICERO, July 13, 2008, 4:03pm; Reply: 34
I dont think we are really talking about you or me- sitting here on a nice Sunday morning drinking coffee- reading the paper and typing away- We are talking about addiction-
'Feelings' involved in drug or alcohol ADDICTION are based in neurology. Addiction is based in physical dependency created by neurotransmitter balances that have gotten screwed up , and are then driven by millions of new living, functioning active neurological pathways which have been established to sustain the condition in the addicts brain.
The new neurological pathways are permanently established, and they will not just disappear. It is not simply mind over matter- a crime?
I think we are confusing chemical dependancy with addiction. When ingesting an intoxicating chemical, whether alcohol, or heroin. Prior to taking them, most people in America are well aware of the risks and potential consequences of doing so. There's where the choice lies. If I choose to start using heroin, and I form a chemical dependancy to it. Not knowing how my body and mind are going to act under the control of this addiction, and I start robbing and stealing to feed my dependancy. I believe I should be held criminally responsible for the crimes I commit do to the addiction, because the initial choice to use a powerful opiate like heroin was made prior to dependancy.
Don't play with fire, because you just might get burned.
Posted by: Sombody, July 13, 2008, 6:07pm; Reply: 35
I think we are confusing chemical dependancy with addiction. When ingesting an intoxicating chemical, whether alcohol, or heroin. Prior to taking them, most people in America are well aware of the risks and potential consequences of doing so. There's where the choice lies. If I choose to start using heroin, and I form a chemical dependancy to it. Not knowing how my body and mind are going to act under the control of this addiction, and I start robbing and stealing to feed my dependancy. I believe I should be held criminally responsible for the crimes I commit do to the addiction, because the initial choice to use a powerful opiate like heroin was made prior to dependancy.
Don't play with fire, because you just might get burned.
Im not confusing anything. The idea that an addictive impulse is the result of a nerve impulse - leave most people unsympathetic. Addicts and non addicts alike have a hard time believing that drug or alcohol use is anything more than a choice that is made in response to a habit. Deep down inside, most people believe that at it's root - the behavior is always a choice. They are very wrong.
Im not sure your understanding the physiology-
The criminal behavior you reference is criminal- not the addiction.
Posted by: Sombody, July 13, 2008, 6:41pm; Reply: 36
Should we then view sex addicts and people addicted to gambling an addiction that is based in physical dependency created by neurotransmitter balances that have gotten screwed up , and are then driven by millions of new living, functioning active neurological pathways which have been established to sustain the condition in the addicts brain?
JoAnn- I have made an attempt at trying to understand the cause and effect of drug/chemical/alcohol addiction because of recovering family members -I have not looked at other compulsive behaviors . Ted Bundy did some very telling interviews with Dr. James Dobson that might give you some insight into sexual addiction-
Posted by: Shadow, July 13, 2008, 9:01pm; Reply: 37
Why is it if the brains of addicted people have neurological pathways formed from drugs some are able to kick the dependency after rehab and some don't.
Posted by: Sombody, July 13, 2008, 9:33pm; Reply: 38
Why is it if the brains of addicted people have neurological pathways formed from drugs some are able to kick the dependency after rehab and some don't.
Here is the anlogy I heard many years ago- Most people can not wiggle their ears. The wiggling of the ears is really nothing but flexing the muscles of the scalp above the ears- but the reason most people can not wiggle their ears is because they are not familiar with the neurological pathway which controls the muscle of the scalp above their ears.
However, every person in the world can be trained to wiggle their ears. Put electrodes to the muscles of the scalp above the ears causes the muscles to contract. Once the person feels where these muscles are, he finds that in fact he CAN wiggle his ears. He couldnt wiggle his ears before, was because he had not established the neurological pathway which enabled him to do so.
Before the electrode - there was no neurological pathway. After the electrode - the pathway has been established. The overwhelming craving for drugs or alcohol that endlessly defeats addicts is in reality a neurological impulse - and they have absolutely no control over the craving when it is triggered. All they know is that they want, they need, they feel they MUST have the drug. This "desire", this craving is not a free choice. This desire is an electro-chemical neurological brain impulse.
This is why pschiatry refers to PROGRAMS almost like reprograming your computer- a plan of action- But the answere to your question- Some get rewired and some dont-
Hey- I dont know jack- and Im not defending anyone or anything- I am at least am tying to understand - addicts need professional help- you nor I or normal people are just not equipped to deal with them-
Posted by: CICERO, July 13, 2008, 9:59pm; Reply: 39
Tell me if I understand your ear wiggling analogy. If you CHOOSE to put the electrode device on your head to establish pathways, you will then LEARN that behavior. And everybody's capable of learning that behavior. Everybody's a potential addict.
I'm so confused. There's physical addiction, psychological addiction, compulsive behavior, then you have your mania's like kleptomania, pyromania, you also have gambling addictions, sex addictions, internet addictions. There's even such a thing called hyper-religiosity or an addiction to religion. It's just a bunch of psycho babble labels. I'd rather call it what it is........The human condition.
Posted by: Sombody, July 13, 2008, 11:01pm; Reply: 40
Your confusion comes from the fact you have political correctness muddling that little ole brain of yours- It always affects comprehension-
Posted by: Rene, July 13, 2008, 11:26pm; Reply: 41
After reading this entire thread and even participating I will admit to a state of confusion also. While I may have pity for these people I guess my bottom line is why do we as a society have to continue to pay for their "addiction"? I don't mean just financially, but also in the form of muggings, robberies, murders, emotional strain on family/friends etc. to feed their addictions. When, where, and how does the cost of others mistakes and/or addiction stop costing me?
Posted by: Sombody, July 14, 2008, 3:06pm; Reply: 42
After reading this entire thread and even participating I will admit to a state of confusion also. While I may have pity for these people I guess my bottom line is why do we as a society have to continue to pay for their "addiction"? I don't mean just financially, but also in the form of muggings, robberies, murders, emotional strain on family/friends etc. to feed their addictions. When, where, and how does the cost of others mistakes and/or addiction stop costing me?
Cost ? Yes the financial burend is gigantic- so lets not be so myopic- is $ 40- $ 50,000 per year per offender in jail/prison the best use of the taxpayers money ? Your money -
Posted by: JoAnn, July 14, 2008, 3:25pm; Reply: 43
I don't think it is the best use of taxpayer's money when the taxpayers are paying for other people's bad choices. In or out of jail/prison.
I believe that the taxpayers are already paying for "preventative" information at Federal, State and local levels of government, including our school systems as well.
The taxpayers are already paying to educate against addictive substances/behaviors. Should the taxpayer have to continue to pay even after the masses have been informed and some still "choose" an addictive path in life?
Posted by: Rene, July 14, 2008, 6:15pm; Reply: 44
I shouldn't have to compare the lesser of two evils. Do I want to spend a lifetime of public benefits or do I want to spend to house in prison? That is not fair. I should not have to pay my hard earned $$$ in the first place. If they have commited violent crimes against law abiding and good citizens to feed their addiction then I would have to choose jail.
Posted by: Sombody, July 14, 2008, 7:20pm; Reply: 45
I shouldn't have to compare the lesser of two evils. Do I want to spend a lifetime of public benefits or do I want to spend to house in prison? That is not fair. I should not have to pay my hard earned $$$ in the first place. If they have commited violent crimes against law abiding and good citizens to feed their addiction then I would have to choose jail.
DRUG ADDICTION- An illness or a crime ?
Well we know stealing- burglery- murder child abuse- etc are crimes- unless now your referring to being addicted to crime- I think I see why it is easy to get confused- your confusing the topic.
Your view of" am I my brothers keeper" ? is, "Hell, no! Why should I waste time and money on my fellow citizens not directly related to me. Let all those other poor bastards accept individual responsibility. If they can't do that, screw 'em!"
I happen to hold the view that I am my brothers keeper- which is why I dont complain when someone needs a double bypass because they never exercised - ate poorlly and clogged up their arteries- so I have to pay a portion forfor their poor choices- no problem
Posted by: CICERO, July 14, 2008, 11:05pm; Reply: 46
A possible solution would be to legalize drugs and tax the hell out of it. Then use the tax money generated to pay for the programs to treat the addicts. It may increase the number of addicts, but at least the non addict wouldn't have to pay for those who CHOOSE a lifestyle of addiction. Much like alcohol and cigarette tax.
Are there people addicted to sobriety? And if so, did they choose it or was a neurological pathway establish due to a compulsive behavior of sobriety?
Posted by: Rene, July 14, 2008, 11:35pm; Reply: 47
DRUG ADDICTION- An illness or a crime ?
Well we know stealing- burglery- murder child abuse- etc are crimes- unless now your referring to being addicted to crime- I think I see why it is easy to get confused- your confusing the topic.
I'm not confusing the topic. I am referring to crime, violent crime being a result of addiction. Why should I have to choose between paying for someones lifelong therapy and all the trimmings or spending the funds to house them in prison. I'm just saying that for those who commit violent crimes against innocent people to feed their drug habit it is better to have them out of society. Better for them? probably not, better for innocent people who feel their wrath. I think so.
I am also in favor of helping my fellow man. Everyone falls on hard times, some fight addiction. I don't mind some type of temporary help for this segment of the population. It is when the "help" becomes clearly enabling someone in a lifelong career of living off the system that I have a problem. I'll ask you again, when, where, and how does it ever end? Do we support for two years? five years? for life? They say we work the first 3.5 months to pay income taxes. I don't know about you but our next couple months income goes pretty much to property and school taxes. That is almost six months income to taxes. How much of our income goes to fund social programs for those afflicted with addictions, work phobias? Regardless of how generous I would want to be to those less fortunate there will come a point when my few months of discretionary income will no longer pay for my own personal necessities let alone social programs.
Posted by: senders, July 14, 2008, 11:37pm; Reply: 48
As for the neurological pathways and their uses and trainings----pavlovs dog, sesame street, computers, cell phones, tone of conversations, American idol, playboy, steroids, etc etc.......
I'm so excited to see what comes of the next generation when they become adults----BTW do they have a label yet......
an addiction is not an illness it is a condition of an illness,,,,is heart disease an illness--IMHO it is a condition of an illness......
to me an illness would be viral,cancer and things of that nature that are foreign to our bodies.......JMHO
Posted by: Rene, July 15, 2008, 12:29am; Reply: 49
This is one of those subjects that is lose/lose. For the addict, for the families of addicts, for the crime victims of addicts, and for the citizen expected to pay the associated costs. If we go your way, Somebody, then it becomes acceptable behavior, not necessarily rewarded but definately enabling. Yet, if we subscribe to my thoughts what will we have as a society? These people can't be ignored, can they? What would happen? I don't mean if shunned by family, but shunned by society, financially as well as emotionally?
Posted by: bumblethru, July 15, 2008, 4:29pm; Reply: 50
There would be no perpetrators if there were no victims. People make the choice to victimize themselves with drugs/alcohol. It IS all about choice! And I refuse to feel responsible for or guilty because other people 'choose' to make 'addictive choices'.
Posted by: Admin, July 23, 2008, 5:42am; Reply: 51
http://www.dailygazette.com
Quoted Text
Addiction treatment facilities to go smoke-free
ALBANY — Many drug addicts, problem gamblers and alcoholics will find it harder to kick their habits in New York than anywhere else in the country now that smoking will be banned in all public and private recovery centers.
For some, taking away the tobacco crutch could be just enough to keep them from getting clean and sober, or from trying at all.
New York’s 13 state-run addiction treatment centers have been tobacco free for more than 10 years. New regulations that take effect Thursday will apply to all treatment centers — which has some facilities worried that people who need help for drugs and alcohol won’t pursue it because they aren’t ready to quit smoking.
Bryan Lapsker, a 21-year-old PCP addict from Brooklyn who has been getting help for his addiction at a treatment center in Queens for nearly nine months, has been dreading the change every day.
“Nicotine helps [addicts] get through the day,” he said. “Now you take the nicotine away from us, it’s almost impossible to get through the day . . . addiction is addiction, I understand that, but nicotine is a legal substance.”
Legal or not, state officials behind the new rules believe banning tobacco is critical to successful treatment programs.
“Often times smoking was given as a reward in the day-to-day treatment programs, and we need to make sure that we’re changing the culture to really promote an overall recovery plan that involves health and wellness for the optimal chance for recovery,” said Karen Carpenter-Palumbo, the commissioner of the New York Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services.
In New York, an average of 18.2 percent of the public smokes, but 92 percent of the chemically dependent population smokes, she said.
Addicts are more likely to have long-term success if they quit smoking at the same time they enter treatment, Carpenter-Palumbo said.
An $8 million grant from the state Department of Health will help train employees to deal with treating nicotine dependence and provide free nicotine replacements.
Posted by: Rene, July 23, 2008, 11:44am; Reply: 52
Quoted Text
An $8 million grant from the state Department of Health will help train employees to deal with treating nicotine dependence and provide free nicotine replacements.
Geeez........I'm sorry, but I just can't believe this. Worry about the crack or heroin addiction then target the smoking if the state feels it needs to. $8 million of our taxpayer $$$$$$$. Unbelievable
Posted by: Shadow, July 23, 2008, 12:21pm; Reply: 53
Government at it's best, waste, tax and spend.
Posted by: Sombody, July 23, 2008, 4:42pm; Reply: 54
An absolute waste of money- especially when you look at the study done by Phillip Morris in the Czech Republic which shows that smokers save the government money because smokers die-
The costs imposed on public finance by smokers are offset by tobacco-related tax contributions and external POSITIVE EFFECTS OF SMOKING ( early death )
The negative financial effects of smoking (such as increased health care costs) are more than offset by positive effects (such as excise tax and VAT collected on tobacco products).
Posted by: bumblethru, July 23, 2008, 9:50pm; Reply: 55
If this is all true, than anyone with 'any' addiction, including food addictions, should be left to their vices. Then they can all die early and save the government a ton of money. Just think of the money they would save on all of those 'anti addiction' taxpaid programs. Not to mention the social security, huh?
Posted by: Sombody, July 23, 2008, 10:52pm; Reply: 56
If this is all true, than anyone with 'any' addiction, including food addictions, should be left to their vices. Then they can all die early and save the government a ton of money. Just think of the money they would save on all of those 'anti addiction' taxpaid programs. Not to mention the social security, huh?
Sadly and somewhat myopicly the first few responses to spending ( any additional )money for another program to treat another seemingly less important addiction - puts everyones hand on their "taxpayer wallet "-
Well if the bottom line is money then readem and weep the study can be found here-
http://www.mindfully.org/Industry/Philip-Morris-Czech-Study.htmOuch-
Posted by: senders, July 23, 2008, 11:05pm; Reply: 57
What's even more funny is this little quote....
Quoted Text
Many drug addicts, problem gamblers and alcoholics will find it harder to kick their habits in New York than anywhere else in the country now that smoking will be banned in all public and private recovery centers.
While the commercials and ads play all over NYS.....FREE MONEY FOR THE GOVERNMENT.....we just switched one 'feel' for another......what the hell difference does it make----there is nothing new under the sun.......
anyone care to go out for drinks..... :P
Posted by: Admin, July 24, 2008, 9:02am; Reply: 58
http://www.dailygazette.com
Quoted Text
Tobacco bill worth passing
President Bush has wisely dropped his opposition to the housing bailout bill, but apparently not another piece of worthy legislation: a bill that would empower the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco. If Congress passes the legislation soon, as expected, it may not survive a veto.
Nicotine, the ingredient in cigarettes that keeps smokers coming back for more, is a heavily addictive drug by all accounts. Cigarette makers can adjust its content in cigarettes, and have done so in the wrong direction — upward — over the years to make their product even more addictive. This is reason enough for the government agency that regulates drugs and the companies that make them, to regulate cigarettes.
The administration argues, weakly, that doing so would overburden the FDA. If that’s the case, then give the watchdog agency more money and let it do more hiring. The notion that the health of tens of millions of Americans is somehow not worth such an expense is absurd and, frankly, insulting.
The administration also cites a flaw in the bill that would ban flavored cigarettes, but not menthol. Cigarette makers were also recently found to be manipulating the menthol content of their products, using less on brands marketed to young smokers and more on those marketed to adults. With menthol brands the overwhelming choice of African-American smokers, the bill’s exemption has been decried as racist. President Bush’s health secretary cited this issue as a reason for Congress to reject the bill, and while it would be better for legislators to amend the bill and include menthol in the ban, the FDA could accomplish the same thing were it given regulatory power over the industry.
It should be, and Congress should override Bush’s expected veto — unless he changes his mind.
Posted by: Sombody, July 24, 2008, 9:30pm; Reply: 59
If this is all true, than anyone with 'any' addiction, including food addictions, should be left to their vices. Then they can all die early and save the government a ton of money. Just think of the money they would save on all of those 'anti addiction' taxpaid programs. Not to mention the social security, huh?
But on top of that- always using " no more taxpayer money to fund addiction programs " I feel is narrow minded thinking-
You can see the Czech Phillip Morris study is quite thourogh- I have a hard copy of a newspaper that reporteded it when it originally came out- and an apology by Phillip Morris a few day later - (Im still not sure what that was about - )
bottom line the study shows smokers SAVE THE GOVERNMENT $ 150 MILLION A YEAR-
Print page generated: November 19, 2008, 9:25am