Punish all drug users!

[Ktoyou]

The real problem with drug abuse is not the suppliers and dealers, but the users. If there was no demand for these stupid narco and speed drugs, the supply business would go away.

Figure it this way; their are some big suppliers who sell the junk, but have never been stupid to use it themselves. They are business persons and they are immoral and their business should be illegal, and they should go to prison, but so should the users.

The users are really worse because they create the demand that keeps suppliers in business.

It is all so stupid; what if I sold ice cream that tasted like rotten fish, would you buy it? No, you would not, but that is the same reasoning a normal person would have about these illicit drugs.

The users are obviously to stupid to be educated about the harm drugs do to their health. So, they must be trained, not educated.

I say catch them the first time and place them into a behavioural training program. Give then mild shocks when they begin craving drugs, or thinking about drugs. Show them pictures on all kinds of activity and include some using drugs, then, if their body gets excited, shock them. Talking does no good with these irrational people; you need to train their body, not the mental attitude.

Now, if they use again then sending them to long prison terms seems reasonable to some; however, prison can only store the more dangerous criminals. We need to find new ways to let them live and work without the freedom to make choices, since they cannot make good decisions on their own.

Kill the demand, end the drug problem, it is that simple.

 

[drbrumley]

You seem upset.

 

[drbrumley]

so the answer to this is to house, feed, use water for showers and such at our expense. Nope, don't think so.

 

[Ktoyou]

so the answer to this is to house, feed, use water for showers and such at our expense. Nope, don't think so.

No, I have a nice work camp model in mind, were they pay all their own expenses and do not suffer ill conditions. Habitual drug abusers have some need to change their body chemistry to cope wit anxiety, or depression. Some are curable and may live independently with time.

What angers me is we always place full blame on the supplier, and give the user a pass because we seem to think today, they are as innocent as pets and cannot help being addicts. This is baloney. They are usually lazy and look for a quick remedy to the problem they face each day.

 

[drbrumley]

No, I have a nice work camp model in mind, were they pay all their own expenses and do not suffer ill conditions.

How they gonna do that if they have no job?

I guess by work camp you mean they work to stay there, by force of law of course...

 

[Ktoyou]

How they gonna do that if they have no job?

I guess by work camp you mean they work to stay there, by force of law of course...

Yes, it is an alternative to minimum security prison. We need to get real on this, as prison costs are out of hand and only the meanest hardiest and deadly persons need maximin prison. The way it is set up by law, is cheaper to keep them than kill then, which is completely nuts measured bu any other past culture.

The dope addicts I am addressing are seldom very dangerous and with detox, most can work. Problem is we have hangups on what individual right means, and fear forcing labour on those who violated the law. Yet, it is a better system , as it gives the dope users are means to earn a trade and perhaps earn to an educational mark.

Work camps need not be like concentration camps, rather more like minimum security prison but with the benefit of full employment, which pays for all of the facility. I base this on the 'company town' model, popular and profitable in the 1920s.

 

[Truster]

Like everyone else that has an opinion on addictions and addicts you don't even understand the true meaning of the affliction that the world has labeled addiction.

 

[Ktoyou]

Like everyone else that has an opinion on addictions and addicts you don't even understand the true meaning of the affliction that the world has labeled addiction.

You may disagree with me on the subject. What you cannot do is make any assumptions about what I know, or do not know, without being a judgemental bigot.

 

[The Barbarian]

The real problem with drug abuse is not the suppliers and dealers, but the users. If there was no demand for these stupid narco and speed drugs, the supply business would go away.

Figure it this way; their are some big suppliers who sell the junk, but have never been stupid to use it themselves. They are business persons and they are immoral and their business should be illegal, and they should go to prison, but so should the users.

The users are really worse because they create the demand that keeps suppliers in business.

It is all so stupid; what if I sold ice cream that tasted like rotten fish, would you buy it? No, you would not, but that is the same reasoning a normal person would have about these illicit drugs.

The users are obviously to stupid to be educated about the harm drugs do to their health. So, they must be trained, not educated.

I say catch them the first time and place them into a behavioural training program. Give then mild shocks when they begin craving drugs, or thinking about drugs. Show them pictures on all kinds of activity and include some using drugs, then, if their body gets excited, shock them. Talking does no good with these irrational people; you need to train their body, not the mental attitude.

Now, if they use again then sending them to long prison terms seems reasonable to some; however, prison can only store the more dangerous criminals. We need to find new ways to let them live and work without the freedom to make choices, since they cannot make good decisions on their own.

Kill the demand, end the drug problem, it is that simple.

Addiction is pretty much a brain disease. And it's tough to change. I think your idea has some promise, but parts of it might run afoul of the Constitution. If I have a choice between helping addicts kick their habits, and keeping freedom, I'll go with freedom.

There's another issue:

Negative reinforcement in drug addiction: the darkness within
Current Opinion in Neurobiology
Volume 23, Issue 4, August 2013, Pages 559-563
George F. Koob
Drug seeking is associated with the activation of reward neural circuitry, but I argue that drug addiction also involves another major source of reinforcement, specifically negative reinforcement driven by the ‘dark side’ (i.e., a decrease in the function of normal reward-related neurocircuitry and persistent recruitment of the brain stress systems). This combination forms the antireward system or ‘darkness within.’ Understanding the neuroplasticity of the neurocircuitry that comprises the negative reinforcement associated with addiction is the key to understanding the vulnerability to the transition to addiction, misery of addiction, and persistence of addiction.


This study suggests that you might be right:


Negative reinforcement learning is affected in substance dependence
Drug Alcohol Depend. 2012 Jun 1; 123(1-3): 84–90.
Laetitia L. Thompson, et al
Our findings suggest that negative reinforcement is a valuable construct to study in substance dependent individuals. SDI did not change their responding when presented with large magnitude losses, while CTL did. Further research is needed to determine if this insensitivity to the magnitude of negative reinforcers generalizes to drug-related phenomena. Behavioral management strategies remain the most effective treatments for cocaine and stimulant dependence. Consequently, ascertaining the effects of frequency and magnitude as potentially salient types of negative reinforcers deserves further study and may contribute to behavioral treatments of addiction.

 

[Ktoyou]

Addiction is pretty much a brain disease. And it's tough to change. I think your idea has some promise, but parts of it might run afoul of the Constitution. If I have a choice between helping addicts kick their habits, and keeping freedom, I'll go with freedom.

You got it; a good defense attorney would argue that and it would hold. Thus, the issue would be an a priori, ( I mean before the fact, not theoretical deduction) change in the law regarding limits on individual right for those who transgress the law. This has swung widely both ways is recent times.

It would take a theoretical deduction based on social needs more than preservation of ideas to make for the legal changes to make such sanctions within the law. There has been some president in a few cases ie. Kansas v Hendricks). The change would have to come out of the realization that cases of mental abnormality require the state to respond differently to those with certain mental ( brain) disturbances. This would be met with great resistance, yet as the drug use problem escalates, the prison solution may seem more oppressive than a change regarding the difference in treatment of mental defective persons.

There is another issue, young kids who think drug use is 'cool' and shows rebellion. Illicit drug use needs to be portrayed as dismal and images of hopeless weak disable who hold to the lowest ranks of society. Hopefully kids, on day, will come to see the drug use as a ugly deceased person, much like cancer is perceived today.

This study suggests that you might be right:

Yes, I am up on these studies, and the resistance to force persons to receive such treatments. This relates back to the issue of law on individual rights when one transgresses the law.

 

[Truster]

You may disagree with me on the subject. What you cannot do is make any assumptions about what I know, or do not know, without being a judgemental bigot.

The conclusions you've expressed prove you have no idea what you're talking about. I came out of 30 years of addiction and when converted I began a study to discover why my addiction was lifted.

 

[Ktoyou]

The conclusions you've expressed prove you have no idea what you're talking about. I came out of 30 years of addiction and when converted I began a study to discover why my addiction was lifted.

You are acting like a simple minded idiot.

 

[Truster]

You are acting like a simple minded idiot.

An idiot that has done an etymological study on the word addict and discovered it is a heterological word that was used to replace a autological term. You however being ill-equipped to follow through on my statement must turn to ad hominem as a form of feeble defence.

I've given you the facts.

 

[Ktoyou]

An idiot that has done an etymological study on the word addict and discovered it is a heterological word that was used to replace a autological term. You however being ill-equipped to follow through on my statement must turn to ad hominem as a form of feeble defence.

I've given you the facts.

you are making it personal by your assumptions about me, which is irrelevant and silly. Thus my ad hominem is more a frustration at a silly, obtuse, and tangential statement, not directed at you personally. Nobody cares how you define the word; most all know and agree with my common use of the word.

You need to make your argument and forget about how you personally feel about the author.

 

[glorydaz]

You may disagree with me on the subject. What you cannot do is make any assumptions about what I know, or do not know, without being a judgemental bigot.

He is that, as you'll soon see.

 

[popsthebuilder]

You usually come off as relatively informed.

That unfortunately is not the case here.

"Users must be stupid and are worse than dealers"......read the Bible. The burdened and down trodden and afflicted are allowed ease of mind.

It is the selfish desires for material attainment of the dealer/ pharmaceutical company that is knowingly destoying the lives of their neighbors and their families due to greed.

Please educate yourself before shooting off half cocked..... unfortunate things can happen that way.

peace

The real problem with drug abuse is not the suppliers and dealers, but the users. If there was no demand for these stupid narco and speed drugs, the supply business would go away.

Figure it this way; their are some big suppliers who sell the junk, but have never been stupid to use it themselves. They are business persons and they are immoral and their business should be illegal, and they should go to prison, but so should the users.

The users are really worse because they create the demand that keeps suppliers in business.

It is all so stupid; what if I sold ice cream that tasted like rotten fish, would you buy it? No, you would not, but that is the same reasoning a normal person would have about these illicit drugs.

The users are obviously to stupid to be educated about the harm drugs do to their health. So, they must be trained, not educated.

I say catch them the first time and place them into a behavioural training program. Give then mild shocks when they begin craving drugs, or thinking about drugs. Show them pictures on all kinds of activity and include some using drugs, then, if their body gets excited, shock them. Talking does no good with these irrational people; you need to train their body, not the mental attitude.

Now, if they use again then sending them to long prison terms seems reasonable to some; however, prison can only store the more dangerous criminals. We need to find new ways to let them live and work without the freedom to make choices, since they cannot make good decisions on their own.

Kill the demand, end the drug problem, it is that simple.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Truster]

you are making it personal by your assumptions about me, which is irrelevant and silly. Thus my ad hominem is more a frustration at a silly, obtuse, and tangential statement, not directed at you personally. Nobody cares how you define the word; most all know and agree with my common use of the word.

You need to make your argument and forget about how you personally feel about the author.

Because most agree, most are wrong.

 

[glorydaz]

You usually come off as relatively informed.

That unfortunately is not the case here.

"Users must be stupid and are worse than dealers"......read the Bible. The burdened and down trodden and afflicted are allowed ease of mind.

It is the selfish desires for material attainment of the dealer/ pharmaceutical company that is knowingly destoying the lives of their neighbors and their families due to greed.

Please educate yourself before shooting off half cocked..... unfortunate things can happen that way.

peace

So pops wants us to believe that drug addicts are merely innocent victims, and have no responsibility for their drug addiction. Always blame someone else for your own deeds. That's the name of the game in this day and age. Poor druggies. Poor meth heads. Poor needle pushers.

It's like my liberal friends that curse the oil companies and pipelines while driving the wheels off their cars to see all the latest concerts and vacation in Disney Land.

Supply and demand....stop demanding or shut up.

 

[glorydaz]

Because most agree, most are wrong.

Flat earther? :shocked:

 

[Ktoyou]

You usually come off as relatively informed.

That unfortunately is not the case here.

"Users must be stupid and are worse than dealers"......read the Bible. The burdened and down trodden and afflicted are allowed ease of mind.

It is the selfish desires for material attainment of the dealer/ pharmaceutical company that is knowingly destoying the lives of their neighbors and their families due to greed.

Please educate yourself before shooting off half cocked..... unfortunate things can happen that way.

peace

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

My argument is about how demand and creates supply. The users create the demand, and I am not defending suppliers, as I have said they are immoral criminals, yet so are the users.

To end drug abuse we have to reduce and eventually end the demand. To do this we must realise that drug users are responsible for their own lives; few, if any, were forced to used illicit drugs, it was their choice be irresponsible.

There is no need to make any accusations towards me, just towards my position and rational regarding my argument.