4 ms·

So what? None of my business or yours. People should be allowed to destroy themselves by any means of their choosing.

by DontchaKnowit 4y ago

Zetice 4y ago
Dismissing people’s pain and sadness is a pretty cynical thing to do…
- DontchaKnowit 4y ago
  I'm not - I think its wrong and cynical to gatekeep someones usage of a drug : whos to say what is theraputic and what is degenerate junky usage? You know what is cynical? Putting up barrier after barrier that makes it hard for ANYONE to obtain a medication that can genuinely help people because we dissapprove of how some people use the drug on their own bodies. Criminalizing the possession if a drug doesnt do jack shit to help people who are addicted - it just drives them into sketchy situations to obtain it and throws them in jail if theyre caught. And to top it all off it makes it incredibly difficult to obtain it even if you play by the rules.
  - Zetice 4y ago
    Okay but there are addicts out there, they have families, and your glib reply was offensive to those people, to me.
    - DontchaKnowit 4y ago
      I did not intend to be glib or offensive. But I do not apologize for my assertion that humans ought to have sovereignty over their own bodies. It is not the job of the governmemt to concern itself with what the citizenry does to their own bodies.
      - Zetice 4y ago
        That’s not what I commented about, your lack of empathy towards other human beings is callous. Don’t fall for that trap.
        DontchaKnowit 4y ago
        I'm not lacking empathy. I think it is more harmful than helpful to deny addicts the drug they are addicted to than to provide them legal means to obtain it. Especiallu in the case of something like amphetamine, which does not directly cause bodily harm (an argument could be made that things like heroin and alcohol, which can and do directly kill, should be withheld) When you prevent an addict from obtaining via legal means, all you are doing is forcing them to find illegal means, which may involve interacting with dangerous individuals or outright theft. I do not believe my comment about allowing people to destroy themselves displays a lack of empathy - I dont think a family member or friend should not intervene if someone is engaging in self destructive behaviour. But I do think it is immoral for the government to prevent someone from destreying themselves. It is not the mamdate of the government to prevent self harm. I think addiction is not an issue in a vacuum. It is caused by underlying issues. We need to learn to accept addicts as they are. You cannot help someone when their needs are not met. To an addict, the drug is a need. That need must be met before deeper issues can be addressed. It is a fallacy (and dare I say a lack of compassion) to push addicts to the fringe of society by denying them legal means to carry on with their addiction.
        LorenPechtel 4y ago
        Alcohol actually is relevant--and note what happened when we were stupid and tried banning it. Opiates used at a sustained level are actually not that harmful--the danger comes from those who are deliberately seeking the extremes (things like crushing the time-release pills and snorting them) and from the lack of quality control of the illegal marketplace. We don't see the chronic pain patients keeling over left and right from ODs--except when we try to deny them the relief and drive them to the illegal market or to suicide. If the cause of their pain doesn't otherwise mess them up they can often lead reasonably normal lives. We also have a problem with confusing habituation with addiction. A patient who needs controlled substances will likely habituate and be in a bad way if they're denied but that doesn't mean they are addicts--you can seek the relief the drugs bring without seeking the drugs themselves. If the underlying problem is resolved you taper them off and it's not an issue. Part of the opioid crisis was the doctors being deceived into thinking the tapering wasn't needed. The CDC has finally realized that cutting them too quickly is medically bad--but the system is still geared to persecute drug seekers and catches too many innocents in the loop. Woe to the patient that loses the doc that has been handling the drugs! (And it's not always because they were going to a pill mill. Doctors are human, they retire, they get sick, they die. And the DEA likes to pressure pain management docs into retirement.)
    - LorenPechtel 4y ago
      The thing is the primary harm comes not from the drugs but from the illegal market and from the controls that are put in place. This is especially true of the drugs that are both therapeutic and recreational.
HybridCurve 4y ago
I believe most people here would not argue against the right to autonomy. Furthermore, if the government itself was against it, people who attempt suicide would be charged as criminals. The issue when it comes to substance use is that people under the influence will potentially cause harm to others. Substance abuse is often a symptom of other problems, particularly with mental health, and instead of simply loosening restrictions on meds it's better to direct individuals through the healthcare system for proper diagnosis, treatment and monitoring. Most of your comments just read like you are frustrated and need to vent, which is fine, but remember your audience on this forum is strongly deliberative.

So what? None of my business or yours. People should be allowed to destroy themselves by any means of their choosing.

Zetice 4y ago

Dismissing people’s pain and sadness is a pretty cynical thing to do…

DontchaKnowit 4y ago
I'm not - I think its wrong and cynical to gatekeep someones usage of a drug : whos to say what is theraputic and what is degenerate junky usage? You know what is cynical? Putting up barrier after barrier that makes it hard for ANYONE to obtain a medication that can genuinely help people because we dissapprove of how some people use the drug on their own bodies. Criminalizing the possession if a drug doesnt do jack shit to help people who are addicted - it just drives them into sketchy situations to obtain it and throws them in jail if theyre caught. And to top it all off it makes it incredibly difficult to obtain it even if you play by the rules.
- Zetice 4y ago
  Okay but there are addicts out there, they have families, and your glib reply was offensive to those people, to me.
  - DontchaKnowit 4y ago
    I did not intend to be glib or offensive. But I do not apologize for my assertion that humans ought to have sovereignty over their own bodies. It is not the job of the governmemt to concern itself with what the citizenry does to their own bodies.
    - Zetice 4y ago
      That’s not what I commented about, your lack of empathy towards other human beings is callous. Don’t fall for that trap.
      - DontchaKnowit 4y ago
        I'm not lacking empathy. I think it is more harmful than helpful to deny addicts the drug they are addicted to than to provide them legal means to obtain it. Especiallu in the case of something like amphetamine, which does not directly cause bodily harm (an argument could be made that things like heroin and alcohol, which can and do directly kill, should be withheld) When you prevent an addict from obtaining via legal means, all you are doing is forcing them to find illegal means, which may involve interacting with dangerous individuals or outright theft. I do not believe my comment about allowing people to destroy themselves displays a lack of empathy - I dont think a family member or friend should not intervene if someone is engaging in self destructive behaviour. But I do think it is immoral for the government to prevent someone from destreying themselves. It is not the mamdate of the government to prevent self harm. I think addiction is not an issue in a vacuum. It is caused by underlying issues. We need to learn to accept addicts as they are. You cannot help someone when their needs are not met. To an addict, the drug is a need. That need must be met before deeper issues can be addressed. It is a fallacy (and dare I say a lack of compassion) to push addicts to the fringe of society by denying them legal means to carry on with their addiction.
        LorenPechtel 4y ago
        Alcohol actually is relevant--and note what happened when we were stupid and tried banning it. Opiates used at a sustained level are actually not that harmful--the danger comes from those who are deliberately seeking the extremes (things like crushing the time-release pills and snorting them) and from the lack of quality control of the illegal marketplace. We don't see the chronic pain patients keeling over left and right from ODs--except when we try to deny them the relief and drive them to the illegal market or to suicide. If the cause of their pain doesn't otherwise mess them up they can often lead reasonably normal lives. We also have a problem with confusing habituation with addiction. A patient who needs controlled substances will likely habituate and be in a bad way if they're denied but that doesn't mean they are addicts--you can seek the relief the drugs bring without seeking the drugs themselves. If the underlying problem is resolved you taper them off and it's not an issue. Part of the opioid crisis was the doctors being deceived into thinking the tapering wasn't needed. The CDC has finally realized that cutting them too quickly is medically bad--but the system is still geared to persecute drug seekers and catches too many innocents in the loop. Woe to the patient that loses the doc that has been handling the drugs! (And it's not always because they were going to a pill mill. Doctors are human, they retire, they get sick, they die. And the DEA likes to pressure pain management docs into retirement.)
  - LorenPechtel 4y ago
    The thing is the primary harm comes not from the drugs but from the illegal market and from the controls that are put in place. This is especially true of the drugs that are both therapeutic and recreational.

HybridCurve 4y ago

I believe most people here would not argue against the right to autonomy. Furthermore, if the government itself was against it, people who attempt suicide would be charged as criminals. The issue when it comes to substance use is that people under the influence will potentially cause harm to others. Substance abuse is often a symptom of other problems, particularly with mental health, and instead of simply loosening restrictions on meds it's better to direct individuals through the healthcare system for proper diagnosis, treatment and monitoring. Most of your comments just read like you are frustrated and need to vent, which is fine, but remember your audience on this forum is strongly deliberative.