Prev Page 2 of 3 1 2 3 Next You cannot reply to this topic Go to first unread post 67 replies to this topic

[wamberal]

Harcourt, on 2009-11-08 01:20:05, said:

On the one hand, I agree. Let Darwin's Theory work, and stop interfereing in our species' evolution.

On the other hand, using your Canadian emergency room example, the crackhead's "self inflicted" injuries are perhaps just as valid an illness as the "normal citizens" because many addicts can not help themselves. They made a mistake years ago and now suffer the disease of addiction.....like your BiL. It's not the vomiting of blood that is the highest priority to treat but his addiction.


There may also be a very practical reason behind the Thai way. Dead people can't pay. Makes sense.

There are plenty of misconceptions as to what "survival of the fittest" means. Darwin was referring simply to the importance of reproduction. He was talking about those who have the most offspring, they are the fittest in terms of his theories.

A crackhead could have dozens of kids, unfortunately, as could an alcoholic, or almost anybody. They might die young themselves, but that is kind of beside the point. They have passed on their genes, and that is what counts as "survival".

[thaimite]

I agree it's a slipery slope, but that is no excuse for not doing something.
At the end of the day people have to start taking responsibilty for their own actions.
Trip on a crack on the pavement? The court awards you a free eyesight test!

[phetaroi]

smokie36, on 2009-11-07 16:06:33, said:

Do we all sit in the treetops enjoying the fruits of the forest while those who have fallen wade through the swamp without offering an olive branch?

None of us know what troubles lead a person to begin destroying themselves. Some compassion is surely needed at all levels of society or we may as well be chimps.

Easy to condemn people but its a long hard road to recovery for any addict.

I don't really agree for a number of reasons.

My nephew...who always was a little jerk (and that's putting it politely), eventually committed some felony (I never asked what it was and was never told) and ended up in Florida state prison for a short stretch. After he got out he found it impossible to hold almost any job very long. Usually it had to do with the employer finding out he was an ex-con. Of course, that meant he lied on his application, so he would be fired. One of those rare days when we were actually having a conversation he related his job odyssey and said, "You know Uncle Terry, life is so difficult and unfair." I replied, "No, S...., it really isn't. Everyone I know basically followed the law, did at least a little college, got a job, and got on with their life. You chose not to do college. You chose to commit a felony you knew could result in prison. Now you are paying the price. I'd say life was entirely fair to you."

Now, lest you think I have no heart, I can compare that to my own son who -- one day chose to do something totally out of character -- and got caught and also went to jail. To some extent ruined his life. He was wrong and he paid and continues to pay. The difference, my nephew had a long pattern of making bad choices. My son made one bad choice. He pulled himself up by the bootstraps, so to speak, and is doing alright now.

I also think few of us have any understanding of what addicts go through, or even if someone who drinks or take drugs is an addict. My father was a pretty good man who drank...a lot. After retirement from the military, for example, he drank a quart of Black Velvet a day...and that was just what he drank at home, not mentioned every late afternoon/early evening when he would make the rounds. He also smoked 3-4 packs of cigarettes a day from the time he was a young man until about age 60. What was interesting, he could stop drinking anytime he chose to, and for any good reason would...for a specific period of time he decided upon, after which he would begin drinking again. One day at around age 60 he called and said, "Guess what I did!" Of couse, I had no idea. "I quit smoking!" Wow. After all these years. Did you use the patch or what?" "No, on [I forgot the date] I just stopped. period." And for 20 years he never smoked again. At age 80, when it was nearing the end but he was still living at home, I went to visit. I was surprised that he was smoking again. "The doc says I won't last the year and there's not much more in life I can still enjoy, but I can still enjoy an occasional smoke." All of his life, in terms of his addictions, he could still make choices.

[phetaroi]

nisakiman, on 2009-11-07 16:30:40, said:

Huey, on 2009-11-07 20:44:10, said:

I actually agree with sentiment that chronic drug addicts (those who have dropped of treatment or return to drugs after free treatment is provided) should not be allowed free medical treatment. Though it should be made available free to those who respect themselves enough to stay clean or never start in the first place. And yes that includes alcoholics as well.

If Crack Heads would die quicker Crack would be less of a problem.

And people who eat too much, or the "wrong" kind of food (according to the "experts)?

Or people who put their lives at risk mountaineering?

Or people who choose a (high risk) career in the armed forces?

Or divers?

Or people who drive on busy highways?

It's a slippery slope, once you get on it. We can all make choices that will put our lives / health at risk. Yes, some are more obvious than others, but the principle remains the same.

"You have had a heart attack because you insisted on jogging, although you are past 50 years old. Therefore the fault is yours, you brought it upon yourself, so you must pay."

A slippery slope indeed.

This, I think, is the challenge. Where to draw the line. Yet, to me there's an awfully big difference between choosing to start using cocaine and choosing to drive on an interstate highway.

[cognos]

sgunn65, on 2009-11-08 08:29:23, said:

I won't get into the arguments about addiction being a disease as my views have been aired on this forum many times and i also treat drug users and alcoholics here in the LOS for a living.

But as the op said the injuries sustained are self inflicted. If that is the criteria to determine whether someone should pay, ask your selves this.

If a rugby player breaks a leg should he also pay??

Just like the drug user he:

Started off with one game
He knew it was dangerous
He knew he could get hurt playing rugby
He continued playing in the full knowledge of the risk
He has probably been injured before but went back to it nonetheless

Apart from the social and legal elements what is different?

change rugby to hockey and that me..point taken

[way2muchcoffee]

phetaroi, on 2009-11-08 08:45:25, said:

Yet, to me there's an awfully big difference between choosing to start using cocaine and choosing to drive on an interstate highway.

Certainly. But how about an abused child who, at 13 'chooses' to use cocaine to numb the pain? That child grows to be a 'half-man' addict. Shall we exercise compassion, or just get a rope and take him to the nearest hanging tree?

Edited by way2muchcoffee, 2009-11-08 09:30:50.

[neverdie]

way2muchcoffee, on 2009-11-08 09:29:48, said:

But how about an abused child who, at 13 'chooses' to use cocaine to numb the pain? That child grows to be a 'half-man' addict. Shall we exercise compassion, or just get a rope and take him to the nearest hanging tree?

ohhh no, not the old abused child theory! I mean afterall, thats where all our mass murderers, perverts, voilent criminals and other evil beings come from.....child abuse .

[seedy]

I drugged and drank for the better part of my life. Been clean and sober over 15 years now.
People who have posted on this forum - and shown compassion - reflects the percentage of the general population who show the same.
No wonder the world is in the state it is in.

[PhilHarries]

neverdie, on 2009-11-08 10:32:34, said:

I agree that its a slippery slope but absolute nonesense that anyone would consider including people in the armed forces in the same group as junkies and asssholz.

Yes, of course it is absolute nonsense and I doubt if anybody would ever seriously suggest it but once you start disenfranchising a sector of the population, particularly if for an activity that isn't illegal, you have opened Pandora's box. So we say, okay no free medical treatment for smokers and boozers but aren't they then entitled to turn round and demand a tax or, in the UK, National Insurance rebate? If you ain't going to treat me when I'm sick I'm dam_ned if I'm going to pay into your scheme.

Maybe a bit different in the US where you don't have the same level of state funded healthcare, or don't YET, but the principle is the same.

[neverdie]

Phil,

I dunno how the various health schemes around the world work, but one of the first things that pops up is people saying they're not paying tax for this or tax for that. Having said that, alot of the time you wouldnt know exactly where your tax is going anyway.

I attended private schools when I was a boy (forgetting the fact that there may have been some govt funding for private schools). I have never had kids, so why the hel_l should my tax dollars go towards the education of other peoples children? IT JUST CAN'T WORK THAT WAY, Can it?

How bout the smoker who is injured when a brick is dropped on his toe? Sure he can get is sore toe attended to, its just his advanced lung cancer we have problems with forking out for.

[way2muchcoffee]

neverdie, on 2009-11-08 09:59:27, said:

way2muchcoffee, on 2009-11-08 09:29:48, said:

But how about an abused child who, at 13 'chooses' to use cocaine to numb the pain? That child grows to be a 'half-man' addict. Shall we exercise compassion, or just get a rope and take him to the nearest hanging tree?

ohhh no, not the old abused child theory! I mean afterall, thats where all our mass murderers, perverts, voilent criminals and other evil beings come from.....child abuse .

Not really a theory mate. Plenty of statistical evidence out there. If you were one of these 'abused' children, or worked in any profession that puts you in close contact with them, you might have a bit more insight and wouldn't be so dismissive.

Edited by way2muchcoffee, 2009-11-08 10:58:00.

[noahvail]

neverdie, on 2009-11-08 10:59:27, said:

way2muchcoffee, on 2009-11-08 09:29:48, said:

But how about an abused child who, at 13 'chooses' to use cocaine to numb the pain? That child grows to be a 'half-man' addict. Shall we exercise compassion, or just get a rope and take him to the nearest hanging tree?

ohhh no, not the old abused child theory! I mean afterall, thats where all our mass murderers, perverts, voilent criminals and other evil beings come from.....child abuse .

Gotta love the sarcasm and your meaning is correct. Way back in the States, I was a counsellor in a government-funded clinic. Dealt with all of the above except ('mass') murderers. There was an interesting study done around that time. Seems that 80% of that population claimed child abuse. But when put on lie detectors, turns out only 20% had been abused. (The numbers were around 80/20, can't remember the specifics...but it was close enough to the 80/20 rule.)

Compassion vs economic reality. I suppose we have to draw a line somewhere...but where? In the US, it seems to be the insurance companies and government regulations have made that decision for us. I reckon that whatever line is drawn, no matter who draws it, there will be critics on both sides of that line.

[IanForbes]

I try to do unto others BEFORE they have a chance to do unto me.

It is better to help people help themselves than give handouts. There will always be people who have personal problems. They need help as much as people who only have the occasional lapse of judgement. There IS enough money available for everyone if those at the top don't get too greedy. I just wish the governments would get out of people's private lives. It's easy enough to set a few restrictions on risky behaviour. Have a few basic standards and let the people pay for the excess.

[thaimite]

IanForbes, on 2009-11-08 12:09:08, said:

I try to do unto others BEFORE they have a chance to do unto me.

It is better to help people help themselves than give handouts. There will always be people who have personal problems. They need help as much as people who only have the occasional lapse of judgement. There IS enough money available for everyone if those at the top don't get too greedy. I just wish the governments would get out of people's private lives. It's easy enough to set a few restrictions on risky behaviour. Have a few basic standards and let the people pay for the excess.

Agreed

[cognos]

seedy, on 2009-11-08 10:01:05, said:

I drugged and drank for the better part of my life. Been clean and sober over 15 years now.
People who have posted on this forum - and shown compassion - reflects the percentage of the general population who show the same.
No wonder the world is in the state it is in.

we need compassion... AND EDUCATION..ignorance is bliss

[neverdie]

noahvail, on 2009-11-08 11:02:54, said:

neverdie, on 2009-11-08 10:59:27, said:

way2muchcoffee, on 2009-11-08 09:29:48, said:

But how about an abused child who, at 13 'chooses' to use cocaine to numb the pain? That child grows to be a 'half-man' addict. Shall we exercise compassion, or just get a rope and take him to the nearest hanging tree?

ohhh no, not the old abused child theory! I mean afterall, thats where all our mass murderers, perverts, voilent criminals and other evil beings come from.....child abuse .

Gotta love the sarcasm and your meaning is correct. Way back in the States, I was a counsellor in a government-funded clinic. Dealt with all of the above except ('mass') murderers. There was an interesting study done around that time. Seems that 80% of that population claimed child abuse. But when put on lie detectors, turns out only 20% had been abused. (The numbers were around 80/20, can't remember the specifics...but it was close enough to the 80/20 rule.)

Compassion vs economic reality. I suppose we have to draw a line somewhere...but where? In the US, it seems to be the insurance companies and government regulations have made that decision for us. I reckon that whatever line is drawn, no matter who draws it, there will be critics on both sides of that line.

Well said B.

Its also funny that nobody ever seems to mention all those child abuse victims that grow into loving responsible members of the community. Strange that.

[way2muchcoffee]

neverdie, on 2009-11-08 13:01:20, said:

Its also funny that nobody ever seems to mention all those child abuse victims that grow into loving responsible members of the community. Strange that.

I see. So by your logic, cigarette smoking does not cause cancer because millions of people who smoke cigarettes never get it. Drunk driving isn't dangerous. Obesity doesn't lead to heart problems. The list goes on. An interesting argument.

Edited by way2muchcoffee, 2009-11-08 13:14:50.

[neverdie]

^
Im a little bizzare at times, but I would never go that line. Please let me pick and chose which way I would like to jump at any given moment....THANKYOU!

Edited by neverdie, 2009-11-08 13:15:09.

[way2muchcoffee]

neverdie, on 2009-11-08 13:14:33, said:

^
Im a little bizzare at times, but I would never go that line. Please let me pick and chose which way I would like to jump at any given moment....THANKYOU!

LOL. Unexpected response made me spit my coffee. Anyway, I reckon we've veered off topic for long enough....

Edited by way2muchcoffee, 2009-11-08 13:25:07.

[neverdie]

^Som nom na!

[Huey]

I love how some idiots extend every idea they don't agree with into absurdity. Like here I am talking about dropping health car for drug users who AFTER they have been given treatment, rehab, ect. Still choose to go back too it.

And I got people talking about making High Ways, no health care zones, and equating Soldiers and Athletes to these dregs.

Stop making excuses for these people, and let them be accountable for their actions. And this is coming from someone who grew up for most of his young adult life in a drug infested ghetto. See that shit first hand and see how much sympathy you have for them. Or better yet what they do to a neighboorhood. Personally. I wish we had drug laws like Saudi Arabia for hard core drugs, like Meth, coke, opiates and such.


There was a poster her who said they believed in dangling a "Carrot" in front of people to coerce them into quitting their drug habit. He then proceeded to give the example of his wife threatening to leave. Dude that's not a carrot danging in front of you. Thats a GUN IN YOUR FACE! Thats like saying Quit or Else!

And it worked! Proof positive that hard core laws will seriously reduce the drug problem.

[neverdie]

Huey, on 2009-11-08 14:01:03, said:

Thats a GUN IN YOUR FACE! Thats like saying Quit or Else!

And it worked! Proof positive that hard core laws will seriously reduce the drug problem.

Thats the only part of my old job I missed, seeing the look on someones face when they were looking down the barrel of my pistola.... Priceless.

Edited by neverdie, 2009-11-08 14:12:08.

[CobraSnakeNecktie]

What an ignorance festival. Do some research on addiction before polluting the cyberspace with such garbage. Addicts need help of course because they hurt other people in society, model self destrustive coping habits and create yet more addicts.

Thailand has record high levels(top 5-10 per capita) of alcohol abuse for any country. Countries around the world should follow the examples of countries that deal with addiction by reducing their numbers.

Following Thailand on substance abuse issues is pure retardation. What is next following Russia on how to treat alcohol abuse?

[473geo]

cognos, on 2009-11-08 08:50:29, said:

sgunn65, on 2009-11-08 08:29:23, said:

I won't get into the arguments about addiction being a disease as my views have been aired on this forum many times and i also treat drug users and alcoholics here in the LOS for a living.

But as the op said the injuries sustained are self inflicted. If that is the criteria to determine whether someone should pay, ask your selves this.

If a rugby player breaks a leg should he also pay??

Just like the drug user he:

Started off with one game
He knew it was dangerous
He knew he could get hurt playing rugby
He continued playing in the full knowledge of the risk
He has probably been injured before but went back to it nonetheless

Apart from the social and legal elements what is different?

change rugby to hockey and that me..point taken

Having being involved in lower,lower, league football I can assure you that additional sports injury insurance was a condition of running a team in those leagues I was involved with, so sports injuries already have a built in solution. I doubt the drug ghettos have such a requirenent for entry!!!

[Harcourt]

CobraSnakeNecktie, on 2009-11-08 22:10:41, said:

What an ignorance festival. Do some research on addiction before polluting the cyberspace with such garbage. Addicts need help of course because they hurt other people in society, model self destrustive coping habits and create yet more addicts.

Thailand has record high levels(top 5-10 per capita) of alcohol abuse for any country. Countries around the world should follow the examples of countries that deal with addiction by reducing their numbers.

Following Thailand on substance abuse issues is pure retardation. What is next following Russia on how to treat alcohol abuse?

Most of what you say sounds right to me, but to be fair, the OP is talking about one aspect, from a certain perspective.

Making the suggestion that addicts may be able to help themselves if given enough motivation (carrot or stick, in this case the stick of big bills), is not an ignorant question untill all the answers and options have been considered.
There's also the aspect of fairness to the taxpayers....again on the assumption that addicts can help themselves.
Sounds like a reasonable topic to discuss.....even if YOU already know the answer. What's your suggestion to counter the OP and all the "ignorance festees"?

Edited by Harcourt, 2009-11-08 17:12:46.