Talk-Polywell.org

The bad news is the dramatic lag between these advances in science and their appreciation by the general public or their application in either practice or public policy settings. There is a wide gap between scientific facts and public perceptions about drug abuse and addiction. For example, many, perhaps most, people see drug abuse and addiction as social problems, to be handled only with social solutions, particularly through the criminal justice system. On the other hand, science has taught that drug abuse and addiction are as much health problems as they are social problems. The consequence of the gap is a significant delay in gaining control over drug abuse problems.

http://www.chem.arizona.edu/courseweb/0 ... isease.pdf

The author of the above was the Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) from 1994-2001.

Any one care to tell me how putting a government gun to people's heads is going to fix a brain disease? Unless of course you contemplate pulling the trigger. Every time.

=====

This just is just further confirmation of my point that most people who pontificate on drugs are totally ignorant on the subject. From the general public I can get it. To some extent. But on a science oriented board? It is a disgrace.

On the other hand, science has taught that drug abuse and addiction are as much health problems as they are social problems.

You seem to argue that everyone sees it as a social only problem, or at least heavily weighted to social, when in fact it is heavily weighted to health.
This guy says it is equal health and social.
What are your social solutions? It appears to be to focus on the health aspect only.

Can you clarify your solution set to address both health and social?
Your health answer, as I understand, is "leave it be, it is really ok and a non-issue". How does this address the social aspects?
How do I get my younger sister to stop pissing her life away, and potentially her son's? Her pattern is clear, low income semi-migrant work to sustain a delusional life style enhanced and enabled by drug escapism.
Do I keep providing her drugs and ask her nicely to seek medical help she can not pay for (so I must via taxes)? Or do I seek a legal action resulting in court order that sends her to rehab, and forces treatment on her for this "health problem"? I can not assume she will be willing to go, as she has refused in the past, denying there is any problem.

First: You must remember that he is a government scientist. He needs to keep the money coming. So he is going to shade his exposition.

The important and central point is that addiction is a brain disease.

Second: please explain to me how law enforcement can fix a brain disease.

If law enforcement is powerless to fix a brain disease ALL the money we are spending on enforcing drug laws is a TOTAL waste. In fact it is counter productive causing more waste than just the money spent.

I understand my arguments will not sway you. They are not for you. They are for the next generation.

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - Max Planck

Can you clarify your solution set to address both health and social?

End Prohibition.

1. The drugs will cost pennies a day.
2. Criminals will no longer be financed by prohibition.

Drug taking is not the problem. It is the underlying problem for which people are taking the drugs that is the problem. We can generically classify that as PTSD. The PTSD in the main is caused by child abuse. Which if my previous analysis is correct is epidemic in the US.

You tell me how to get parents to stop abusing their children. I'm all ears.

ladajo wrote:How do I get my younger sister to stop pissing her life away, and potentially her son's?

If your question is rhetorical, please ignore what I write.

If your question is not rhetorical: With respect, I submit your duty to your sister is limited. She is an adult who is making her own, bad, decisions. Your concern for your nephew may be pointing you in a better direction. He is not an adult and your influence on him may be greater because of his youth.

I'm not sure child abuse is endemic or epidemic in the USA, but I have read recently there is a genetic (or epigenetic) component to how well people deal with stress. From what I read your sister was in a regimen (scholastically and athletically) that would stress the hell out of a lot of people. Drugs may have been a way to deal with that stress, now academic and athletic stress may be gone, but the drugs are a habit. I saw something similar with two high school friends who came under the influence of a handsome, charismatic young man. My friends, who were painfully bright, apparently turned into pot users and the light went out of their eyes. I haven't stayed in contact with them, but I hope they recovered.

I think William Blake wrote: "The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom." I am infuriated by this idea because it unfortunately seems to be true, for some people, like your sister.

MSimon wrote:"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - Max Planck

"Science advances, funeral by funeral." - Anonymous

"The PTSD in the main is caused by child abuse. Which if my previous analysis is correct is epidemic in the US. "

Yeah. Just like 1 out of 3 women are victims of rape, and 89.7 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot.

You've presented 1 study that claims vast incidence rates of child abuse. Let's see it replicated so it's believable.

not sure child abuse is endemic or epidemic in the USA, but I have read recently there is a genetic (or epigenetic) component to how well people deal with stress.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... genes.html

TDPerk wrote:"The PTSD in the main is caused by child abuse. Which if my previous analysis is correct is epidemic in the US. "

Yeah. Just like 1 out of 3 women are victims of rape, and 89.7 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot.

You've presented 1 study that claims vast incidence rates of child abuse. Let's see it replicated so it's believable.

I actually did the math on this board and showed my work. What have you got?

Msimon,
I have been thinking... (yeah when the hell did that happen? ).
Maybe you do have a point with the whole drug war thing.
We are not that different in the way we think, please correct me, if I am wrong:
-We both want to get rid of the criminals and protect the victims/addicts.
-We both do not want to have the addicts/victims treated as criminals. They are not criminals. So we are on the same page here.

However, I focus on reducing the number of drug addicts (victims) and you focus on reducing the number of drug criminals.
I also see reducing the number of drug crime as only a partial win. The crime will then simply shift to something else (prostitution, or new designer drugs that are not covered by the new laws whatever else comes along). Also some designer drugs can be too dangerous to legalize.

Still, I am willing to talk this out.
I am pretty much OK with an approach as they have it in Portugal.
That is perfectly fine. I do like that the drug users/addicts are not criminalized. However this allone does not give you anything that you want (get rid of the drug associated crime).

I would even condone if the government handed out the drugs for a very low price (always underbidding the criminals, no matter how low the street price gets) but under the condition that it happens under medical supervision. Addicts would have to get their drugs from a medical doctor, or a clinic of some sorts. This would guarantee hygienic conditions to counteract diseases associated with drug abuse(e.g. HIV and Hepatitis, methmouth, etc) it would also get rid of used needles lying around in children's sandboxes in parks, or public toilets and stuff like that. It would also make sure that the addicts do not overdose, since the amounts made available to them would be limited to save doses. The medical supervision could also come with a psychological observation and the offer of psychological suppport. If these people really are just "selfmedicating" then this sure should be very welcome by them. The other benefit would be a large source of information on the potential negative effects of drug abuse on the brain. Maybe there would even be the possibility to find treatments that counteract such negative effects. I know that you have studies that deny such negative effects, or that put them on the same level with alcohol, etc, etc, but I have seen studies that say otherwise and I do not trust this at all. Messing with the brain is not good. Drugs mess with the brain. So we should look into this really well.

Anyway, my proposed approach would not be entirely without problems either.
I can see several problematic scenarios with this and it would take a while and more than one brain to sort these out. But lets first try to come to a common ground on the basic approach
What do you think about this proposal? Would this be a compromise that you could accept?
Where would you see potential problems with this?

Just mentioning the word "drugs" seems to make people get VERY irrational.

Alcohol is a bigger problem by a factor of 10 or 20. I have yet to hear anyone anywhere in the last 40 years suggest prohibition is the answer.

Why?

Skipjack,

I fail to see why people who self medicate for real problems are in any way a problem.

You fix the cause of drug taking and the drug taking goes away.

Unfortunately we have nothing for PTSD. Nothing. Compassionate medicine would then say - let us do what we can to ease the pain. i.e. pain relievers.

I'm no Nietzsche fan but he had this one right:

"Distrust anyone in whom the desire to punish is powerful" Friedrich Nietzsche

BTW the medical profession in America is on my page re: drugs and self medication. Pity their protocols are not common knowledge.

Skipjack,

The error in your thinking is fundamental. The corrective:

Drugs Do NOT Cause Addiction.

If drugs do not case addiction making them freely available will change nothing except the criminal status of users.

Drugs Do NOT Cause Addiction

Uhm, that depends on how you look at it. Substances can be addictive. Lets say it like that. Nikotine, e.g. will cause severe withdrawal effects once you try to get off it. I know that from own experience. Of course until this day Philip Morris will deny that nikotine is addictive and causes lung cancer...

I fail to see why people who self medicate for real problems are in any way a problem.

Because this self medication causes many deaths every year?
Also, because self medication is bad, no matter what drug you are using. People in the US do it a lot because they cant afford going to a doctor, but just like you can die from taking some prescription drug when/how you should not, currently illegal drugs do so as well.
So they should be administered by a doctor. What is the problem with that?

Alcohol is a bigger problem by a factor of 10 or 20.

Is it? Compared to the amount of alcohol users, there are a lot less addicts. Also and I have told you that before, the usual comparisons of alcohol to other drugs are flawed since they neglect the usual dosage and the genetic makeup of the users.