psychoslice
Veteran Member
Yes, and I hope you are right.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Cops catch 'em, Courts jail 'em Obama turns 'em loose!
- Thread starter jeager106
- Start date
No, a disease is type one diabetes or cancer. Addiction is full blown stupidity, and a choice. Some people are addicts just to extort sympathy from others -- screw 'em.
It's the same as trying to treat any mental illness, really.Yes, and I hope you are right.
Yea it is, they chose to become the way they are. They are responsible for their actions on the junk. If they don't like what they are doing they can put down the heroin, crack, meth, and whatever else and go back to whatever normal is. But, they don't want that -- they want to make their lives miserable and the lives of everyone else around them miserable. Selfish as hell...
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Of course, and when one is in that mind, one needs to be kept away from the public, until they are so called sane.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Yes, some with mental illness are a danger to themselves and others, I have been there myself after threatening people with an ax.
We just need to take our junkies and automatically draft them into the military (without pay, they'd by drugs), and then make them front line troops. Body shields for America's finest.
I think that's what ISIS does with their junkies too.
You really have no clue how drug addiction works. I think you're just trolling in this thread. Shameful.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Well ISIS are idiots, we are more civilized than that, at least I hope so.We just need to take our junkies and automatically draft them into the military (without pay, they'd by drugs), and then make them front line troops. Body shields for America's finest.
Sorry I can't sympathize with someone with 10 felonies not being able to get a job.
CONSEQUENCES.
Consequences cannot be avoided. It can be health issues, brain or organ damage,
lack of skills and or education, or lack of DESIRE to do better.
My neighbors brother did 10 years in San Quentin for attempted homicide and can't
find any decent job. I've met him and he's a nice enough fellow....now.
Still he can't find decent long term work.
Sorry. Consequences.
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/rehabilitation/
Google rehabilitation programs in different states for criminal offenders.
There are many yet few take advantage of them.
To rehabilitate someone they probably should WANT these programs.
Too many do not.
I have a GOOD friend, also in A.A. that did 7 years in prison.
He took courses offered to him and had been gainfully employed for years now.
He met and married a nurse and between the two they make far more money that I
ever did.
His name is Vince and he spends much time helping other alcoholics to recover
and lead sound lives. He points those people to programs where they can get
help and job skills.
He won't was one second with someone that won't take the assistance.
A FEW of the services offered my my State of Ohio.
Programs & Services
Too many just won't do that.
B.V.R. paid for my college degrees.
I finished my work life as a supervisor at G.M.
I was physically disabled. I rehabbed from booze in Glenbeigh hospital and maintain
by attending lots of A.A. meetings.
My four kids tell me I'm a great dad and that is priceless.
I donate my time helping other sufferers and encourage them to obtain skills/education.
Anyone want to kick my worthless A$$ to the curb????
CONSEQUENCES.
Consequences cannot be avoided. It can be health issues, brain or organ damage,
lack of skills and or education, or lack of DESIRE to do better.
My neighbors brother did 10 years in San Quentin for attempted homicide and can't
find any decent job. I've met him and he's a nice enough fellow....now.
Still he can't find decent long term work.
Sorry. Consequences.
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/rehabilitation/
Google rehabilitation programs in different states for criminal offenders.
There are many yet few take advantage of them.
To rehabilitate someone they probably should WANT these programs.
Too many do not.
I have a GOOD friend, also in A.A. that did 7 years in prison.
He took courses offered to him and had been gainfully employed for years now.
He met and married a nurse and between the two they make far more money that I
ever did.
His name is Vince and he spends much time helping other alcoholics to recover
and lead sound lives. He points those people to programs where they can get
help and job skills.
He won't was one second with someone that won't take the assistance.
A FEW of the services offered my my State of Ohio.
Programs & Services
- Reentry
- Education
- Offender Workforce Development
- Citizen Circles
- Intensive Program Prisons
- Community Service
- Victim Services
- Ohio Risk Assessment System
Too many just won't do that.
B.V.R. paid for my college degrees.
I finished my work life as a supervisor at G.M.
I was physically disabled. I rehabbed from booze in Glenbeigh hospital and maintain
by attending lots of A.A. meetings.
My four kids tell me I'm a great dad and that is priceless.
I donate my time helping other sufferers and encourage them to obtain skills/education.
Anyone want to kick my worthless A$$ to the curb????
But see, there is someone working out their problem. It's a completely different thing. They're not blaming the system they're just trying to fly straight again. Nothing would EVER stop someone who would go to these sorts of efforts from getting back on their feet. That's why I'm not sympathetic to the other case -- one person is trying to do everything they can to correct themselves and the others are rotting. Anyone doing that sort of effort to make progress is trying to beat the demon on their back, so to speak, and they have my respect. They aren't expecting others to do it, or content with what they have now. They're struggling and doing their best to thrive.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Which is where the whole "rehabilitation over incarceration" thing comes from. I have no problems with court appointed rehabilitation with confinement in a medical facility if it is necessary. It will get help for those who need it, and save tax payers a ton of money in the long run.
I've known enough addicts to know it's not "them." There is a reason why addicts use terms and phrases revolving around the drugs controlling someone.
Have you never paid attention to those trying to quit smoking? It's a hard habit to break. And though with the body things generally and eventually "go back to normal (there are many factors and variables to consider)," but there is a period of intense cravings and withdrawals, which can be deep and painful.
If you ever get to know any addicts, you'll notice that they tend to suffer in silence, and be extremely miserable. Generally they were already hurting, physically or mentally, when they turned to drugs in the first place. Eventually usage becomes habit, and habit becomes addiction. This is the same process that happens with legal synthetic opiate medications when someone gets addicted to those, and that is a group that throws your whole "wants to be that way" out the window. And when they become addicted, they do start talking differently, acting differently, and turn into a different person. Their brain chemicals are out of whack, which causes major disruptions in cognitive processes as well as various physical functions. Studies do actually show that people can be healed and make a recovery. But they do need help because they are in a very deep and dark place emotionally, and having an appropriate support system and healthy environment generally makes or breaks a recovery.
Er, they would've been helped more by not being thrown in prison in the first place. And Ohio's social services are for ****. They're way overburdened and way underfunded. I know this because I've been dealing with them for over a decade. The mental health services here in particular are awful.
I don't think you all read my complete statement. Anyone that wants to put substances into their own body should be able to pay their own bills when the time is called for.
I didn't say lock them up and throw away the keys.
Dont ask for a freebie to get yourself out of addiction or pay for your health bills.
Is that fair to ask?
I'm in the camp that all drugs ought to be legal, but (lightly) regulated. If heavily regulated or taxed, it's just inviting black market operators back into the fold to deliver same product with less regulations, less cost (less taxes).
I'm also unclear why some people see certain things as drugs but not all drugs are considered 'drugs.' Someone brought up nicotine earlier (that's a drug, and no it does NOT cause cancer). Caffeine is a drug. Sugar is a drug. Of all the drugs I've tried in my life, sugar is easily the most addictive. I highly doubt there would be the extent of 'obesity problem in America' if sugar wasn't so addictive. If it were somehow illegal, I think the problem would be worse. But with caffeine and sugar rightfully added into the mix, I'd challenge anyone to find a non-drug user in the population. Not a straw man, but dealing with facts. They are legal drugs, they produce consequences in users (some of which is clearly addiction) and they are essentially lightly regulated, or at a point where you can obtain these drugs on virtually every block in a downtown section of all towns/cities in America, and I imagine much of the civilized world.
IMO, alcohol is one of the worst drugs in terms of harms it does to individuals, families and a community. But I think we all know how well Prohibition worked out. It didn't. It proved to be far more dangerous/costly to society by making it illegal.
There is and ought to be degrees of harm associated with drugs and then treated in a legal way, accordingly. I do think this already occurs. But I feel everything gets greatly distorted when certain things are treated as "that's not really a drug" while other substances are treated as "pure poison - even though if a human ingests it, they will not surely die that day." Alcohol is toxic. It's very much addictive. It can/has torn families apart. And yet, it is legal and has around .00000001% chance of ever being made illegal in the U.S. ever again.
With all that said, I somewhat to mostly feel this thread is missing what is stated in OP. That Obama is deciding single-handedly to overturn criminal convictions on something that is illegal. This could be done with any crime, and I think much of the same arguments for 'why it is best this person not be in jail' would be true for arguably all cases, but for sure some. The main point I take away from OP is that it ought not be left up to one person to make such decisions. And really won't amount to much if / when this person leaves their position and the laws remain the same, such that addicts who don't take opportunity to clean up will plausibly be right back in jail for mere usage/possession.
I'm also just going to add something from recent personal experience. A friend I know well is allegedly now a crack user. I've not seen this friend use, nor have I seen the person appear like an abuser/strung out whenever I see them. But it came to my attention because this person who I've known to be one that will lie/deny their lying is now stealing, from friends, to the tune of 4 figures. I've known this person for over 40 years and not until about a week ago did I ever think of them as a thief. I do readily blame this on 'crack addiction' as only way it makes sense to me. This same person has been heavily addicted to other substances and I'm fairly confident they were never a thief. Now, given recent circumstances, I see this person's life spiraling downward, such that I'm not sure how to help the person and honestly I do think going to jail is perhaps the most helpful, though realize that is debatable.
I personally see crack, meth, and heroin in another stratosphere in terms of harm / disorder they add to the user's life, assuming the user is not a (truly) moderate user, and closer to frequent user/addict. I see alcohol and sugar as a step below those, and probably could put a few other substances in this category, but I think this helps with perspective. Marijuana, nicotine, caffeine and a few other substances, I'd put below that. I don't believe I've ever seen frequent users/addicts of those substances cause problems to other people or destroy families over their ongoing desire for use. Prescription drugs I'd probably put below those, though that is debatable, as there are clearly drugs in this area that are harmful, addictive and costly (affecting overall insurance rates or taxpayers).
I'm still going to favor legalizing all of it, and lightly regulating substances. But a drug like crack does strike me as type of substance that if one is continually choosing to use it, and may be prone to stealing from others to get their next fix, then perhaps jail is the best place for them. Jail can/ought to include treatment, but reality is a person likely needs their own version of 'bottoming out' before recovery makes sense enough to truly being committed to not using.
I'm also unclear why some people see certain things as drugs but not all drugs are considered 'drugs.' Someone brought up nicotine earlier (that's a drug, and no it does NOT cause cancer). Caffeine is a drug. Sugar is a drug. Of all the drugs I've tried in my life, sugar is easily the most addictive. I highly doubt there would be the extent of 'obesity problem in America' if sugar wasn't so addictive. If it were somehow illegal, I think the problem would be worse. But with caffeine and sugar rightfully added into the mix, I'd challenge anyone to find a non-drug user in the population. Not a straw man, but dealing with facts. They are legal drugs, they produce consequences in users (some of which is clearly addiction) and they are essentially lightly regulated, or at a point where you can obtain these drugs on virtually every block in a downtown section of all towns/cities in America, and I imagine much of the civilized world.
IMO, alcohol is one of the worst drugs in terms of harms it does to individuals, families and a community. But I think we all know how well Prohibition worked out. It didn't. It proved to be far more dangerous/costly to society by making it illegal.
There is and ought to be degrees of harm associated with drugs and then treated in a legal way, accordingly. I do think this already occurs. But I feel everything gets greatly distorted when certain things are treated as "that's not really a drug" while other substances are treated as "pure poison - even though if a human ingests it, they will not surely die that day." Alcohol is toxic. It's very much addictive. It can/has torn families apart. And yet, it is legal and has around .00000001% chance of ever being made illegal in the U.S. ever again.
With all that said, I somewhat to mostly feel this thread is missing what is stated in OP. That Obama is deciding single-handedly to overturn criminal convictions on something that is illegal. This could be done with any crime, and I think much of the same arguments for 'why it is best this person not be in jail' would be true for arguably all cases, but for sure some. The main point I take away from OP is that it ought not be left up to one person to make such decisions. And really won't amount to much if / when this person leaves their position and the laws remain the same, such that addicts who don't take opportunity to clean up will plausibly be right back in jail for mere usage/possession.
I'm also just going to add something from recent personal experience. A friend I know well is allegedly now a crack user. I've not seen this friend use, nor have I seen the person appear like an abuser/strung out whenever I see them. But it came to my attention because this person who I've known to be one that will lie/deny their lying is now stealing, from friends, to the tune of 4 figures. I've known this person for over 40 years and not until about a week ago did I ever think of them as a thief. I do readily blame this on 'crack addiction' as only way it makes sense to me. This same person has been heavily addicted to other substances and I'm fairly confident they were never a thief. Now, given recent circumstances, I see this person's life spiraling downward, such that I'm not sure how to help the person and honestly I do think going to jail is perhaps the most helpful, though realize that is debatable.
I personally see crack, meth, and heroin in another stratosphere in terms of harm / disorder they add to the user's life, assuming the user is not a (truly) moderate user, and closer to frequent user/addict. I see alcohol and sugar as a step below those, and probably could put a few other substances in this category, but I think this helps with perspective. Marijuana, nicotine, caffeine and a few other substances, I'd put below that. I don't believe I've ever seen frequent users/addicts of those substances cause problems to other people or destroy families over their ongoing desire for use. Prescription drugs I'd probably put below those, though that is debatable, as there are clearly drugs in this area that are harmful, addictive and costly (affecting overall insurance rates or taxpayers).
I'm still going to favor legalizing all of it, and lightly regulating substances. But a drug like crack does strike me as type of substance that if one is continually choosing to use it, and may be prone to stealing from others to get their next fix, then perhaps jail is the best place for them. Jail can/ought to include treatment, but reality is a person likely needs their own version of 'bottoming out' before recovery makes sense enough to truly being committed to not using.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
I am not a gabbling man, but yes, we are more civilized.Wouldn't make any bets!