One claim I've heard from more than a few folks on the left is that the 1994 Crime Bill was racist for imposing different penalties for crack cocaine than for powder cocaine. The rationale is that poor minorities were more likely to use crack, and this allowed larger numbers of minorities to be jailed for their crack use.
Now. as most of us know, Biden sponsored and took credit for the 94 crime bill. Which should mean that as the person responsible for this racist abomination, that he'd be considered racist. But for some reason he's immune form being accused of racism no matter what he says or does.
https://wset.com/news/nation-world/federal-government-to-pay-for-crack-pipes-meth-pipes-as-part-of-harm-reduction-strategy-samhsa-sunstance-abuse-mental-health-health-services-agency-various-illicit-drugs-cocaine-crystal
So, now the Biden administration has decided that the US taxpayers should also be picking up the tab so minorities (remember the objection to the "94 crime bill that minorities were the primary users of crack), can get free crack pipes.
If I was a conspiracy theory person, I might think that Biden is trying to get more minorities hooked on crack, or otherwise inflict harm on minorities, but I'm not.
There appears to be some confusion regarding the inclusion of actual crack pipes in these kits. Honestly, the notion that there is anything healthy or valuable in facilitating or encouraging people to smoke crack, is simply ludicrous. The fact that various government folks think that drugs like crack or heroin are fine as long as they're used safely makes me wonder what drugs these folx are on.
101 comments:
Ah, but one needn't be a conspiracy theorist to note how freakin' stupid the proposal is and thus how stupid Biden is for proposing the policy. But even that would provoke vile blow back from low intellect people who provided ten reasons Biden was the better choice in 2020.
As to Biden's racism, well we can point to a variety of comments he's made which stand as evidence of that.
I do find it interesting that many of those who cited the '94 crime bill as being a disaster for minorities (specifically blacks), can somehow put that aside and vote for the person responsible for the law. Not to mention, Harris' track record for prosecuting minorities. Clearly, the GOP policies would be much worse than a racist crime bill and free crack pipes.
https://www.salon.com/2022/02/09/right-goes-wild-with-claims-biden-handing-out-crack-pipes-to-end-racism-hes-not/
Fyi.
The notion of data-driven programs for reducing risk is factual and rational. Because of course it is.
The rightwing nutty claims you're passing on that there's some race element to this story is not factual. Because of course it isn't.
FYI.
As I noted in my correction.
Of course, anything that facilitates the continued ingestion of hard drugs by addicts most assuredly has their best interests at heart. Because frequent use of crack is part of a "healthy" lifestyle.
But no one - literally NO ONE - is arguing that frequent use of Crack is a good thing. You know this, right?
And yes... the social, mental health and health experts DO have the addicts' best interests at heart. You do understand that too, right?
Do you not know any of the helper experts or groups doing this work? They all, by all evidence I've seen, are doing their best to find the most helpful solutions and answers. Oftentimes because they or one of their loved ones have suffered through addiction and they know firsthand how awful these addictions are. That is why they do and read and heed the best practices of researchers and experts.
Are you suggesting something else?
Craig... "Honestly, the notion that there is anything healthy or valuable in facilitating or encouraging people to smoke crack, is simply ludicrous."
And I totally get that this is your opinion. It's the opinion of many non-experts not familiar with the latest research or best practices.
But that's not the opinion of experts in the field. So why would anybody think your opinion is weightier than the experts' opinions, which are data driven?
Craig... "The fact that various government folks think that drugs like crack or heroin are fine as long as they're used safely makes me wonder what drugs these folx are on."
Instead of speaking from a place of ignorance, why don't you read what the experts are actually saying? Hint: they're not saying it's fine to use crack.
Because facilitating addicts to continue doing something that's "not a good thing" is somehow in their best interests?
Look, I get that your obsession with following the "experts" and "data" drives you to endorse all sorts of things.
It's just that common sense tells me that encouraging people to continue to use drugs like crack and heroin, and facilitating their doing so doesn't pass the smell test. Who's liable when someone OD's after getting a "clean needle" or "crack pipe safety kit" from some governmentally funded program?
Yes, my opinion is that facilitating continued use of hard drugs is not a good thing. It doesn't appear to contribute to either physical or mental health.
It does contribute to the decline of quality of life in various large cities though.
" and encourage govermentally funded facilitation of hard drug use, I disagree.
I guess ignoring the whole hypocrisy of Biden's crime bill, and Harris' use of the crime bill to jail large amounts of black folks, just isn't worth a comment.
Dan,
Strangely enough, I'm pretty libertarian on hard drugs, and slightly more on weed. I come down on allowing people the freedom to make reasonably informed decisions about ingesting substances that carry inherently high risks of harm, as long as they don't expect the taxpayers to support their addiction. I don't have a problem with government funding rehab, within reason, but I have a problem with expecting taxpayers to fund unhealthy behavior. If people want to do stupid things, I say let them. Just accept and deal with the consequences of your choices as long as you continue the harmful behavior.
Here again we see Dan being a sheep and suggesting that "experts" are intelligent in doing something that enables a behavior they're trying to eliminate. I can't think of any case where alcoholics were "treated" by giving them a way to continue drinking. There's only one way to end addiction: stop engaging in the addictive behavior. It ain't easy. It truly sucks. Just quitting smoking taught me that, as if I needed to quit to know that's the truth. And I've associated with others addicted to one thing or another who also suffered in ending their addiction. Never was imbibing the substance to what they were addicted part of the process. It was always regarded as "falling off the wagon" or some similar expression. There are no "experts" who would pretend otherwise. There are only those who think they offer better than that which has always worked for those truly dedicated to quitting. Those aren't "experts". They're assholes. In Dan's mind, they're "birds of a feather".
Craig... "Because facilitating addicts to continue doing something that's "not a good thing" is somehow in their best interests?"
Indeed, it can be. Look, here's the point of these type of programs:
"The funding, which was announced and open for applications in December,
is meant to increase access to harm-reduction services,
preventing overdose deaths and
minimizing health risks
associated with drug use."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/02/10/biden-smoking-kits-pipes-addiction/6724719001/
Now, think about it: If an addict who is addicted to this awful stuff (and again, you DO understand that literally NO ONE is saying these addictions are good... tell me you understand that - it's important to me that you can understand that very basic reality) and he does NOT minimize their risks and they end up killing themselves, what are the odds that this addict is going to get better?
Come on, seriously, you can answer this question: What are the odds a dead addict is going to every recover? Isn't it the case that in 100% of such cases, that the addict will not recover because, being dead, they missed that chance?
Do you understand that point?
What is missing in that point?
Look, I get to people who are not part of systems to help addicts, it CAN be confusing and hard to understand? Why DON'T we just outlaw all drugs and criminalize addiction and remove all drugs from being accessible?
But we tried that and it doesn't work. It never does. I used to be a strong advocate of the abstinence-only, "just say no" approaches. I changed my position when I realized that's a failing approach that only makes matters worse, not better. If criminalizing drugs worked and was effective, I might support it. But the bottom line is, it just doesn't work.
Same for demonizing drug addiction and playing hardball with addicts. That approach kills and maims more people than it saves. It's not an effective, rational answer, even though to the non-addict and those not familiar with the layered problems of addictions, it might make sense. It doesn't. Or that is, the "get tough" approach DOES result in fewer addicts, because they end up dying in masses. So, if dead addicts is a good solution to you (the whole, "They brought it on themselves" thinking), then maybe that approach makes sense... but only if you're okay with more, not fewer people dying and being disabled from/by their addictions.
Read about it...
https://www.samhsa.gov/find-help/harm-reduction
https://harmreductionjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12954-017-0178-6
https://www.recoveryanswers.org/resource/drug-and-alcohol-harm-reduction/
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-addiction/201904/how-harm-reduction-is-saving-lives
If you think about saving addicts' lives like you (probably) think about saving people's souls, you don't ask "sinners" to get perfect in order to get saved, do you? You don't insist they stop all sinning and bad actions before they start going to church. You tell them that God loves them just as they are, right now, today, and wants to help them... to save them.
Expecting "sinners" to be perfect before they start attending your church or getting saved would never work and you probably would never advocate any church take that approach.
The same is true for those suffering from addictions. We want to accept them as they are and help them and in the meantime, keep them safe so they don't die from their addictions (or cause harm to others).
Does any of that help for the experts' opinions to make more sense?
Craig...
"Look, I get that your obsession with following the "experts" and "data" drives you to endorse all sorts of things."
Also Craig...
"It's just that common sense tells me that encouraging people to continue to use drugs like crack and heroin, and facilitating their doing so doesn't pass the smell test. "
Yes. I DO try to listen to "experts" (or just experts, as we normally would refer to such scholars and helpers) and "data" (or just data, as we normally would refer to factual information). Why is that concept so foreign and unappealing to you?
And yes, I get that what YOU (someone who is not an expert in addiction prevention and recovery, I presume) think that your ignorant and uninformed opinion is "common sense," but you do have the ability to recognize that what may SEEM like "common sense" to an uninformed non-expert is NOT at all rational or common sensical? For instance, it may not make sense to me as someone who is not a surgical expert, to cut into someone's actual body - their skull and brain even!! - to "help" them get better, but experts do that all the time and it IS common sense... IF you have the expertise to understand why or if you can just trust that the experts might know better than you do, if you're not an expert.
Craig, again...
"It's just that common sense tells me that encouraging people to continue to use drugs like crack and heroin, and facilitating their doing so doesn't pass the smell test. "
1. Who is encouraging people to continue to use and abuse crack and heroin? Give me some names, some data to support such a charge. Or admit you can't.
2. Do you not see the difference between an addiction experts saying to an addict, "Look, you and I both know the harms and consequences that come from your addiction, so I'm not preaching to you about what you already know. I'm just saying, IF you're going to use, then take these steps to do it in a safer manner... to stay alive for that day when you ARE in a place to kick this habit..." Between saying that and saying, "Yes, go on, use and abuse crack and heroin all you want, go for it, it's great! Good job, just keep doing that!"
The former is a data-driven rational expert approach to dealing with a real problem and the other is a fantasy that doesn't exist in the real world. Do you understand that?
Craig... " I don't have a problem with government funding rehab, within reason, but I have a problem with expecting taxpayers to fund unhealthy behavior."
What is the data showed (as it does) that the "just say no" legalistic/moralistic approach costs the taxpayers MORE than the Harm Reduction approach does? If you recognized that reality, would your opinion change?
Or are you a "Cut off your nose to spite your face" mentality that believes in punishment (either legal or societal or just medical/mortal punishment) is more important than SAVING money through Harm Reduction approaches?
While I'm waiting to see if you can agree to the simple obvious reality - that no one working in this field "think that drugs like crack or heroin are fine as long as they're used safely" and/or that "frequent use of crack is part of a "healthy" lifestyle" and/or that using crack/heroin is a "healthy" option - that each of these slanderous and stupidly false claims are just not reality...
While waiting to see if you can acknowledge that very base level of reality AND (ideally) apologize and retract for making such stupidly false claims/suggestions in the first place, here's an article that points out the bottom line money savings in harm reduction programs. That funding these sorts of programs with tax dollars (or otherwise) SAVES us tax dollars in the end. Not to mention the lives that are improved and saved (and the economic benefits from those saved lives).
"Among several studies is a 2018 National Institute of Drug Abuse report which finds a return of $4 to $7 from each dollar spent on addiction treatment programs due to the decline of drug-related crime and criminal justice costs. Such results can ultimately benefit all community members by reducing expenditures on law enforcement and increasing spending that improve their quality of life.
The overarching conclusion is simple: Harm reduction and treatment will reduce both the heartbreak families suffer when their loved ones die or are chronically ill and the fatal and non-fatal costs associated with illicit substance use that our communities and state bear."
https://wvpolicy.org/saving-lives-and-saving-money-the-case-for-harm-reduction-in-kanawha-county-wv/
"a return of
$4 to $7 from each dollar spent
on addiction treatment programs due to the decline of drug-related crime and criminal justice costs.
Just to point out one of the many, many sources that show the obvious benefits in terms of lives, society and bottom line fiscal common sense to listening to experts when it comes to best practices for dealing with addictions.
Beyond your "gut feeling" about what "makes sense to you," do you have ANY data or research that contradicts the current best practices being promoted by experts who ARE looking at the data, as well as just using common sense? Or are you relying entirely on your best guess coming from a place of ignorance on the topic?
Gut feelings only get one so far.
"is meant to increase access to harm-reduction services,"
Interesting that we're measuring intentions, not results.
Now, think about it: If an addict who is addicted to this awful stuff (and again, you "DO understand that literally NO ONE is saying these addictions are good... tell me you understand that - it's important to me that you can understand that very basic reality) and he does NOT minimize their risks and they end up killing themselves, what are the odds that this addict is going to get better?"
Do you understand that I never said what your question implies I said. The problem with your construct is that the primary risk factor of smoking crack, is smoking crack. As long as you are facilitating the primary risk factor (smoking crack), "minimizing" ancillary risk factors (a chipped crack pipe) don't seem to help much.
"Come on, seriously, you can answer this question: What are the odds a dead addict is going to every recover? Isn't it the case that in 100% of such cases, that the addict will not recover because, being dead, they missed that chance?"
Both stupid, rhetorical, and answering your own question, impressive.
"Do you understand that point?"
Yes.
"What is missing in that point?"
That the federal government is facilitating the primary risk factor for people who use crack, actually using crack.
"Why DON'T we just outlaw all drugs and criminalize addiction and remove all drugs from being accessible?"
What an idiotic "question". Because total bans don't work. Strangely enough, people who want to engage on certain behaviors don't always obey the law when it interferes with their behavior. Hence, my earlier point. If people want to engage in dangerous behavior that only hurts themselves, then let them as long as they don't expect to be facilitated in their behavior by the public.
"Does any of that help for the experts' opinions to make more sense?"
If the goal is to reduce the ancillary risks, then sure. If the goal is to eliminate the primary risk factor, then it doesn't make sense to encourage the behavior that constitutes the primary risk.
Ultimately, the problem is that total abstinence (in any case) is the only 100%, absolutely, certain, guaranteed way to eliminate the risk from a behavior. The fact the people chose to ignore this reality, doesn't mitigate the fact that it's true. The reality is that virtually everyone who knowingly takes their first hit of crack, heroin, or any highly addictive drug, does so knowing that it's likely that they'll become addicted and harm themselves. Just like with cigarettes or booze or anything else.
"Why is that concept so foreign and unappealing to you?"
It's not at all. I frequently provide you with all sorts of information from experts "experts", plenty of data, and even peer reviewed studies, yet you rarely pay attention to it if it contradicts your narrative. Similarly, I don't trust the "experts" and "data" you occasionally present as you tend to cherry pick what you present to support your biases and narratives. But even when acknowledging "experts", one can use their own judgement to draw conclusions about the topics at hand.
For example, the "experts" in CA are insisting that masks be worn everywhere. That school children be masked in school, that people be masked in bars and restaurants. Yet we continually see politicians ignoring the "experts", and we just watched 80,000 plus people in CA spend four+ hours together without masks. We see "experts" in other places in the world who look at the "data: and reach completely different conclusions than the "experts" in the US. I'm not interested in you presenting "experts" who only agree with you, nor am I interested in you pretending to accept what the "experts" say when that acceptance stops when the "experts" don't support your biases.
1. Various levels of government are facilitating the use of crack and heroin and other drugs by providing support for those who choose to use them.
2. I understand the difference. It's similar to someone working with a person who loves to play Russian Roulette. They tell them, "I can't tell you, or help you stop, engaging in this dangerous behavior. Since you are going to engage in this dangerous behavior anyway, why not use a .22, instead of a .50AE." By focusing on the ancillary "safety" issues, they're just allowing/encouraging/facilitating the addicts to continue the primary risky behavior.
The problem you have is defining the goal. If the goal is to get people off dangerous drugs, then facilitating their continued use isn't really working toward that goal. If the goal is to keep crack addicts from getting Hepatitis or other ancillary negative consequences, then that's great. You just end up with a bunch of "healthy" addicts.
Strangely enough, I used to be under the impression that the folks at AA/NA were "experts" in dealing with addiction. I could be wrong, but don't those "experts" focus on abstaining from using ones chemical of choice? Maybe you should tell them that they shouldn't waste time on abstinence and focus on making sure their members get high quality, well produced, clean, intoxicants instead.
So, the answer is, you truly don't understand the problem or the responses to the problem and that you can't save a dead addict. The federal gov't is listening to experts who are looking at research that shows keeping addicts alive to get help is the best option.
So, you are factually wrong when you say that these experts think drug addiction is okay or healthy. Just simply wrong. It's a stupidly false thing to say. I don't know how to help you with that but a person who believes in "thou shalt not bear false witness" should really try harder and apologize when caught in a false witness.
And the data does support this approach and I guess you just don't understand that. But again, a person who probably cares about addicts should really try harder to understand why the experts are recommending their best practices.
And if you have no experts who are recommending another way and you're operating purely from your gut feelings about this.. well, you should learn that listening to experts is not a bad thing.
Interesting note. We know that Fentanyl is flooding across our southern border in massive quantities. I guess it's more important to spend money on kits to lower the ancillary risks of smoking crack, than to step up interdiction at the border.
Craig.. " If the goal is to get people off dangerous drugs, then facilitating their continued use isn't really working toward that goal."
Of course it is. Look at the data, the research.
Craig... "I used to be under the impression that the folks at AA/NA were "experts" in dealing with addiction. I could be wrong, but don't those "experts" focus on abstaining from using ones chemical of choice?"
I haven't seen anywhere where NA (or AA) is insisting, as a group, that harm reduction is not a valid, data-supported answer. What they tend to say (and I've been to the meetings and read what they've had to say and know people in these communities) is that different approaches work for different people. They (and I) fully support going cold turkey or embracing an abstinence approach IF IT WORKS for a person. IF it's not working, then they and I and experts support OTHER options.
Understand?
Again, listen to what the experts, including some folks in the 12 step world, are saying and look at the data:
https://www.summahealth.org/flourish/entries/2019/09/harm-reduction-vs-abstinence
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/narcotics-anonymous
https://filtermag.org/harm-reduction-works-narcotics-anonymous/
And, just to address the point: I also am aware that there are some in the 12 Step world who say that is the ONLY way to do it... and they're quite dogmatic about it. They are, more often than not, the ones for whom the 12 Step program worked. Not everyone fits that model. That's sort of the point.
Also, more on the AA/NA/12 Step model that you really should be aware of, if you're going to talk about that model. You should read this whole article and others like it. Be informed...
"AA clearly and publicly states the organization does not engage in or sponsor research. Now covering more than 300 different issues, adaptations of AA continue to underpin the programmatic foundations and referrals for many SUD treatment facilities without the presence of an equally robust scientific research base.
While elements of 12 Step have been studied and found to be effective, such as sober sponsorship and 12-Step facilitation therapy, the scientific, peer-reviewed literature is inadequate compared with the rates of addiction and related fatalities seen today and common treatment theory in popular facilities and programs."
https://www.socialworktoday.com/archive/JF18p20.shtml
Also, if we're going to rely on gut feelings and "common sense-of-the-uninformed" model, we might be tempted to say, "But I don't know about the 12 Step model - getting a bunch of addicted people together to talk about their struggles sounds like a recipe for bad modeling and people falling off the wagon..."
Uninformed common sense is only worth as much as the "sense" in that equation. Bad common sense = bad results, most likely.
Be informed:
"Let's start with the surprising statistic that you share in The Sober Truth which is that AA, the quintessential 12 Step Program, has only about a 5 to 10% success rate...
...first of all, there was never any scientific evidence for it then or now, which I'll come to …But people were desperate.
People were desperate to find something, and they latched onto [AA] the way people do with a lot of ideas which turn out to be not actually useful, but they're exciting.
By the mid-1940s, the AMA had reversed its position and [the 12 Steps] became the standard in this country. Many people came to believe that AA was the treatment or the best treatment for alcoholism without any evidence, and that's been true ever since...
if we're prescribing AA for 100% of the people - or almost 100% - and 90% of the time it's the wrong thing to do, then we are sending them to the wrong place.
Not only that, it's extremely harmful to send them to the wrong place.
And anybody who's been in this field for any time knows of people who have spent decades literally, going back and back to AA because they believe that it should work."
https://www.theclearingnw.com/blog/sober-truth-lance-dodes-12-step-programs-interview
I'm curious. Do you have any experience working with NA or AA and those involved involved?
Do you have any experience and actually working with folks with addiction problems? Or are your gut feeling all just based on an outsider's idea of what you think may be best?
Have you taken any classes on addiction or attended conferences or studied the data in any significant way?
"What is the data showed (as it does) that the "just say no" legalistic/moralistic approach costs the taxpayers MORE than the Harm Reduction approach does? If you recognized that reality, would your opinion change?"
Since you have (intentionally) chosen to misrepresent my position, I see no reason to answer your question.
"Or are you a "Cut off your nose to spite your face" mentality that believes in punishment (either legal or societal or just medical/mortal punishment) is more important than SAVING money through Harm Reduction approaches?"
Again, if you're going to base your questions on your made up, bullshit, misrepresentations of my positions, I see no reason to dignify them with an answer.
How many addicts stop using as a result of these programs?
My issue isn't with the programs themselves, it's with the government facilitating the continued use of highly addictive, dangerous, illegal drugs. But as always, feel free to make shit up and pretend that it's my position.
Craig... "My issue isn't with the programs themselves, it's with the government facilitating the continued use of highly addictive, dangerous, illegal drugs."
But, IF the gov't doesn't fund these sort of programs and
IF addiction problems increase (as we see) and
IF people continue dying and being seriously harmed by these addictions
THEN it WILL (and does) cost the gov't money.
So, by FUNDING them, we actually save money.
Do you understand that reality? Or, if you have not seen the evidence (read what I've provided you, in part) to know it's reality, let me ask it this way:
IF it were the case that these programs ultimately save (rather than cost) the gov't money, would that change your opinion?
OR, is it your opinion that you don't care if NOT funding these programs ultimately cost the citizens more in a wide range of way including tax dollars, you just don't think gov't should be funding programs to help people recover?
Craig... " as always, feel free to make shit up and pretend that it's my position"
You should read for understanding: I'm ASKING QUESTIONS trying to get your answers to reasonable questions. That is not "making shit up," it's trying to get an ANSWER.
Hint: Watch for the question marks. They're a dead giveaway.
Craig... "How many addicts stop using as a result of these programs...?"
First of all: Remember that only 5-10% of people in 12 Step Programs "succeed." Addiction is a pernicious problem to deal with.
Here are some of the answers, again. I'm trying to find some more explicit data, but here's what I have in the time I have right now...
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-addiction/201904/how-harm-reduction-is-saving-lives
Also...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3928290/
As to your comment "You just end up with a bunch of 'healthy' addicts..."
Well, healthy and healthier is good. Right? And when one is healthier, one is in a better place to make better decisions about addictions.
More later.
I have links to support my position on this question, which is that abstaining is best. I'll provide later. Fir now, I'll only say that thus far I've seen nothing which supports Dan's position which isn't marketing for a particular treatment provider. My links refer to studies which show quality of life outcomes favor total abstinence. "Weening" one off any addictive substance, however, would possibly be effective in a controlled environment where the patient is administered the substance rather than being allowed to take it on his own volition, and as a means to mitigate suffering from the physical effects of breaking the habit. Referring to my own tobacco addiction, it would be like being given one cigarette every four hours rather than allowing me to have one when I can no longer handle not smoking. Fortunately, tobacco addiction is not so tortuous that total denial can't be endured for as long as it takes to break the habit. There's a saying: Quitting smoking is easy...I've done it a million times.
Here are the links to which I earlier referred:
https://www.recoveryanswers.org/research-post/quality-of-life-in-former-problem-drinkers-abstinence-versus-non-abstinence/
https://www.smartrecovery.org/smart-articles-draft/abstinence-vs-moderation/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4164587/
I think admitting one has a problem is indeed the first step to recovery. Then must come the commitment to abstaining. To reject total abstinence in order to agree to a treatment plan seems less than commitment and more like, "well, if it isn't too hard, I'll try it and see if I like it."
"I'm curious. Do you have any experience working with NA or AA and those involved involved?"
Yes.
"Do you have any experience and actually working with folks with addiction problems?"
Yes.
"Or are your gut feeling all just based on an outsider's idea of what you think may be best?"
No.
"Have you taken any classes on addiction or attended conferences or studied the data in any significant way?"
Not recently.
"Well, healthy and healthier is good. Right?"
Only Dan would consider addicted to crack, as healthy and good.
Dan's entire case boils down to AA/NA are only 5-10% effective, but "harm reduction" doesn't track those numbers.
Neither the article, nor the abstract indicated any data to show how many people actually kick their addiction. Further more, the abstract is quite clear that "harm reduction" would consider someone who went from 10 drinks a day, to 5 drinks a day, as a success. On the one hand, 5 is less than 10, but that seems like a pretty low bar. According to the NIAA/NIH, "For men, consuming more than 4 drinks on any day or more than 14 drinks per week. For women, consuming more than 3 drinks on any day or more than 7 drinks per week." is considered to be an alcoholic. So the "harm reduction folks are advocating that drinking 35 drinks a week (as opposed to the 14 from the NIH) is a success. That's great, you're simply supporting someone in alcoholism at a lower rate than before. Is this person able to drive safely after 5 drinks? To hold a job? To maintain a marriage? Raise children?
I get that it's possible to lower the standards in such a way as to make anything look good, but it's telling that Dan can't provide the actual "cure rate" of these programs.
https://rehabs.com/pro-talk/how-well-does-harm-reduction-work-over-time/
Just one quick summary of the research that suggests that "harm reduction" isn't a panacea.
How many people emerge from "harm reduction" programs and are not using 5 years later, 10, 15?
If "harm reduction" is such a wonderful tool in the fight against substance abuse, why not use it in other areas? Suicide prevention? Gun violence? Rape? Murder? From what I've read the principles should apply to all sorts of things. How about if y'all apply the principles of "harm reduction" to the crime generated by drugs? Maybe work with the cartels?
"You should read for understanding: I'm ASKING QUESTIONS trying to get your answers to reasonable questions."
Yet your "questions" are based on your misrepresentation of my position.
Dan,
I understand that you are making a utilitarian argument in favor of government facilitating the continued used of hard drugs. The problem is that I seriously doubt that there is indisputable evidence that shows any significant cost savings based on keeping addicts on drugs. I suspect that addicts aren't necessarily the best at record keeping, and that they're probably not always available 5 years down the road to see how they're doing.
Unfortunately, I don't necessarily find the utilitarian arguments to be persuasive, nor do I find that maintaining alcoholics in alcoholism or addicts in their addiction with government funding, regardless of the intentions of those doing it.
If y'all want to do this and it's so effective, then why is it so hard to get accurate success rates (hint, it's probably because these programs don't really define success in a measurable way, and because getting addicts completely clean isn't the goal).
I suspect that the problem with AA/NA is that any time someone has a relapse, it's counted against their success rate. While not taking into account that one night of drinking isn't the same as one year of drinking.
"just say no" legalistic/moralistic approach"
You see, I don't particularly care about this, because I've not advocated this approach. You just decided that this is what I propose, regardless of any actual evidence. Either that, or you just don't care what I believe, and want to argue against a straw man. Ether way, it's you framing a question based on bullshit.
Let me clarify a few points lest you misunderstand.
1. I'm not knocking 12 step programs. I have friends and colleagues who who have used those paths and and it works for some certain percent of people.
2. The fact that there is such a high rate of falling off the wagon/"failure" is not, in and of itself, a problem. As I've already said, addictions are complex and pernicious problems to deal with.
3. My point was just that 12 step programs are one solution to deal with addictions, but they're not the only one. And a one size fits all response is not rational, because it doesn't work for everyone. We should have both/and... I'm not saying that harm reduction is the only way to go. But it is one way.
Do you disagree?
4. I'm also not saying that the government paying for harm reduction solutions is the only way to go. I am always fine with the private sector and non-profits stepping up to try to help out.
5. What I AM saying is that we have a serious addiction problem in our nation, with tens of thousands of people dying every year from from their addictions and hundreds of thousands of lives beyond those being harmed. If the private sector and non profits are not stepping up and fixing it, I'm saying that government has an obligation to take steps to help the situation. And I'm saying that those solutions should be Research-driven best practices.
I'm further saying that reducing addiction deaths from 70000 a year to 30000 a year, for instance, is a good thing and if the private sector and non profits are not stepping up to to do that, I fully support government doing it and funding it. Because those addictions and those deaths have a cost that we're paying for as well. It's fiscally responsible and rationally called for.
Do you disagree?
6. What I hear you saying is that you don't think government should fund such programs, even if the the death rate is lessened by those programs and money is saved.
Is that what you're saying?
Note the question mark. I'm asking if this is what you're saying. I'm seeking clarity and that can come from you by answering the question directly.
Craig... "Ether way, it's you framing a question based on bullshit."
It's a reasonable question intended to find out what your position is. It is not telling you what your position is. That's the way questions work.
Instead of wasting words complaining about me asking reasonable questions and saying that I'm insinuating something, why not just answer the questions directly and be done with it?
For instance, do you have a preferred method of helping with addictions?
Do you think everybody should have just one approach to dealing with addictions? Or do you see the reason in having multiple different approaches because people handle their addictions differently?
Those questions are not insinuating anything. There are questions seeking your position position.
While I'm trying to find hard data - which is hard for addiction solutions In general... it's hard to find data for 12 step programs as well, as I've already noted - Let me ask another reasonable question.
Let's suppose that sobriety rates for Harm reduction solutions is low, as is true for 12 step programs. Let's say they're both about 10% sobriety rate. Then let's say that in addition to the 10% sobriety rate, harm reduction solutions also save 10,000 lives a year. If there were not sufficient private sector funding solutions for harm reduction methods, would you then support Government funding for them? ...to save those 10,000 lives and the negative economic impact that those deaths would result in?
Marshal... "My links refer to studies which show quality of life outcomes favor total abstinence."
Marshal, of course, if you're an addict, total abstinence is an ideal solution. No one disagrees.
The problem is that not everyone is in a place where they're ready for total abstinence. For THOSE people, what is the best solution, according to your "research..."?
Are you suggesting, "Well, regardless of what you think you're ready for, either choose abstinence models or you deserve whatever harm and death comes your way..."?
I think saving lives is a worthwhile option, even if people aren't prepared to totally abstain. And I think gov't investing money in saving lives is a worthwhile use of money, especially if it saves money in the long run.
You?
Here's a baby-step question: The police, hospitals, schools and mental health agencies - and others - have been buying Narcan with taxpayer dollars because of the problem of overdose deaths. That's using taxpayer dollars to save lives (and ultimately money) that's being spent on people with addictions.
Do you support this use of taxpayer dollars?
By saving lives, they aren't condoning the addiction or the overdose and they're not trying to enable the addiction. They're trying to (and succeeding at) saving lives. With taxpayer dollars.
If you support this extremely commonsense step, how is that different than Harm Reduction expenditures to save lives?
FYI: Narcan has saved thousands of lives which is at least a dent in the now-100,000 deaths a year from overdoses.
https://www.cadca.org/resources/cdc-report-narcan-kits-save-nearly-27000-lives
Another reasonable question:
What do you think the gov't SHOULD be doing in the face of 100,000 drug overdose deaths each year?
Nothing?
Encouraging - but not funding - people to get help?
More data...
"* [The research] revealed that more than 100,000 people died of drug overdoses in the 12 months to June 2021, an increase of 30% from a year earlier.
* The Commission estimated that drug overdoses are now costing the U.S. around $1 trillion every year."
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/08/drug-overdoses-cost-the-us-around-1-trillion-a-year-report-says.html
Craig... "I understand that you are making a utilitarian argument in favor of government facilitating the continued used [sic] of hard drugs."
1. Utilitarian: "designed to be useful or practical rather than attractive."
Yes, I DO support useful and practical solutions, even if they're not attractive to people like Craig (if that's the case, which appears to be, given all the guff you're pushing about the awful notion of Harm Reduction as it relates to addictions). You don't like useful and practical solutions? Or are you assigning some other definition to Utilitarian?
2. I'm literally factually NOT arguing that the government should facilitate the continued use of hard drugs. I'm arguing that the government has a rational obligation to reduce deaths and harm. Because of course it does, where it can. The point is literally and specifically NOT to "enable continued use..." the point is saving lives and improving health which, incidentally, leads to saving money.
3. Your false suggestion/misinterpretation of what I'm supporting and the gov't is trying to do is comparable to saying those who support using gas-powered ambulances are advocating for pollution. That's entirely not the point and is a false suggestion and a weak attempt at gaslighting.
4. Would you say those who supporting using Narcan to save lives are also facilitating continued drug use??
Also noting that your original post STILL contains the false claim about crack pipes. There is not "some confusion." That's just a false claim. I don't have a problem, as far as it goes, with the crack pipes, but it's just not factual.
If I were a conspiracy minded person, I might say you want to make idiots fearful of Biden, but I'm not a conspiracy minded person.
So, a running list of the demonstrably and stupidly false claims you've made in this post...
1. "The fact that various government folks think that drugs like crack or heroin are fine as long as they're used safely"
2. "There appears to be some confusion regarding the inclusion of actual crack pipes in these kits."
"the notion that
3. there is anything healthy or valuable in facilitating
4. or encouraging people to smoke crack, is simply ludicrous."
5. "the Biden administration has decided that the US taxpayers should also be picking up the tab so minorities...
6. can get free crack pipes.
7. "Only Dan would consider addicted to crack, as healthy and good."
also, multiple comments making variations of the same false claim...
8. "...as always, feel free to make shit up and pretend that it's my position"
Just by way of a reminder.
What you've got right:
A. That the 1994 Crime Bill was very problematic and part of a trend in laws supported by Republicans and Democrats in earlier decades that resulted in systemic racism and more black people in prison.
B. That 12 step programs are ONE way of trying to break addictions.
C. "total bans don't work."
D. That I support listening to experts and data-driven best practices and giving their expert opinion a good deal of weight.
E. That I think helping addicts get healthier (even if not totally off their addiction) is a good thing, because of course it is. Why would I or anyone argue against helping people get healthier?
I guess the whole demonstrably part of demonstrable eludes you. Simply claiming something is demonstrable, isn't enough. Of course you'd actually have to quote me in context, and assume that there is no figurative language in play.
I love how you blame the 1994 crime bill on the GOP when Biden himself claimed responsibility for it, and how you hide Harris' use of the crime bill to jail large numbers of blacks.
"Do you disagree?"
Not with how you've rephrased your position.
"Do you disagree?"
With everything you've said, no. The problem is that you're simply making up numbers for the "harm reduction" success rates and there's no reason to agree with your made up numbers.
"Is that what you're saying?"
What I'm saying this that governments should not fund things that facilitate breaking the law, and facilitate addicts continuing to use hard drug. Especially with such vague definitions of success, and a lack of the most important bit of data, success rates.
"Instead of wasting words complaining about me asking reasonable questions and saying that I'm insinuating something, why not just answer the questions directly and be done with it?"
Because, you're questions that as based on your bullshit, false, misrepresentations, are akin to the "When did you stop beating your wife?" type of questions. Why don't you simply ask questions without inserting your made up bullshit into the questions.
"For instance, do you have a preferred method of helping with addictions?"
No. Although, my personal experience with my addiction is that it's possible without continuing to ingest the substance one is addicted to.
"Do you think everybody should have just one approach to dealing with addictions? Or do you see the reason in having multiple different approaches because people handle their addictions differently?"
Yes, no.
If you can't find "the data", then I see no reason to speculate on your hunches about what might be in a perfect world.
It's interesting that you claim that you are following the data, and supporting "data driven" methods, yet you can't find the most important pieces of "data". 1. How is success defined. 2. What is the success rate. 3. What percentage of addicts actually quit using, and what is the long term rate of staying clean?
Until you find that "data", this whole conversation is simply arguing about your speculations.
"Would you say those who supporting using Narcan to save lives are also facilitating continued drug use??"
Who cares what I'd say. Especially to such a broad, vague hypothetical. Is worth using to "save" someone near death, sure. Is it worth using to facilitate continuing someone's addiction over a long period of time, probably not.
As I've seen conflicting reports as to what's included in these crack smoking kits, after it was reported that crack pipes weren't included, I'll leave it as it is. Until I see something justifying another edit.
Let me try it this way.
You appear to be suggesting that government money should not be spent on drug addiction programs or efforts that do not result in at least a very low expectation of getting clean. Or maybe you don't think government should have any role in drug addiction matters. Help me understand.
What DO you think government's role should be in dealing with addiction problems, if any?
Craig... " I love how you blame the GOP on the 1994 crime bill..."
I blame both the democrats and the GOP folks who supported it.. I don't know what else to tell you.
Here's some good information regarding that bill and the influence of conservatives on it...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/3753368001
Indeed. To compare the use of Narcan for cases where death is imminent without it to non-abstinence measures for addictions as both "saving lives with tax dollars" is deceitful, but typical. Also is the notion that Dan's suggestion saves money. Saves whose money? The taxpayers who are forced to pay for that which should be the burden of the persons addicted or their families...not a burden on total strangers.
Kicking addictions is always about the determination to never again use. There's no "being ready". There is only the intellectual acknowledgement of the harm addiction causes to both the addicted, to those with whom the addicted associates and to random others unfortunate enough to be in close proximity while an addicted person makes a drug/alcohol addled decision. I was not "ready" to quit smoking. Indeed, I enjoyed smoking. But intellectually, there was no upside beyond that momentary pleasure. All else was negative. So I chose to end my addiction and dedicated myself knowing the difficulty which would ensue. I chose to ignore the difficulty until I no longer was addicted to nicotine. That's really how it works and how it works best. I don't know all of the 12 steps in that program. I don't know the details of any program, but that one fact..."I don't care how badly it sucks, I'm just never going to use again" is essential to success. Without that, backsliding...falling off the wagon...is almost guaranteed. Then one must begin again, which means the process failed, whatever the process was.
Marshal... "Kicking addictions is always about the determination to never again use. There's no "being ready"."
I'm aware of people who are not in a place to quit their drug of choice for a variety of reasons, not all of which I may understand or agree with.
It's pretty easy as an outsider not in their shoes to blame them for "not being ready," but how is that helpful? How does that solve anything?
Marshal: What role do you think the gov't should play, if any, in dealing with the 100,000 deaths a year from overdoses?
Dan,
If I'm given the choice between accepting Biden at his word (regarding the 1994 crime bill), or believing you, I'll choose Biden on this one. He's been very clear that he's the one responsible for it passing. That probably entails negotiating and persuading Republicans to vote for it, but any troubling parts of the bill are there because Biden accepted them. It's unfortunate that you couldn't have been as clear the first time you addressed the bill as you were in correcting your mistake. It's a habit of yours to blame the GOP for pretty much everything bad that happens in DC while ignoring the role of the DFL.
Yes, I've been quite clear that I don't think that government money should be spent in facilitating continuing use of dangerous/addictive/illegal drugs by addicts. Personally, I'm not sure how much of a role the government should have in dealing with the results of people's lifestyle choices. People are free to make bad choices that primarily impact themselves, I'm not sure it's the governments role to save people from stupid choices.
FOR EXAMPLE. If I choose to eat 3 dozen donuts for breakfast every morning, washed down with 32 oz of Mountain Dew, there will be repercussions from that choice. Yet, I don't see why the government should intervene to keep supplying me with more donuts and mountain dew. If individuals want to use their free choice to make unhealthy decisions, shouldn't they bear at least the majority of the responsibility?
As far as any more if your hypotheticals, I see no reason to address them until you can provide the hard data on 1. How is success defined? 2. What is the success rate? 3. What percentage of addicts actually quit using, and what is the long term rate of staying clean?
Until you can, I see no reason to treat your hunches about what the "data" might say as anything worth addressing.
Art,
That's what I have a problem with. Defining success and anything but getting cleaned up. As I pointed out, defining success as consuming at least 20% more alcohol than the NIH classifies as being an alcoholic, doesn't seem very successful to me. Can someone who drinks 5 drinks per day really be a functioning member of society? Do we really want someone defined by NIH standards as an alcoholic doing any job where there is a safety risk to themselves and others? I agree that the desire to stop using is a critical component to any successful rehab.
Finally, I agree that relapsing is part of the process and any treatment that simply shrugs it off as "it could be worse" doesn't seem helpful.
Interestingly enough, the one area where the federal government actually does have some responsibility for the drug problem, is being ignored.
Craig... "the one area where the federal government actually does have some responsibility for the drug problem, is being ignored."
Instead of speaking in riddles, enlightn us. What is the one area where the federal government has responsibility for "the drug problem" that is being ignored that is being annoyed?
Also, what is "the drug problem," in your mind?
Craig... " I've been quite clear that I don't think that government money should be spent in facilitating continuing use of dangerous/addictive/illegal drugs by addicts."
So, you believe the gov't should do NOTHING in the face of 100,000 people dying from an overdose every year. Let them die.
That's your "pro-life" position??
So, IF that is your policy that you're advocating, then does that mean that you ALSO don't think that gov't money should be spent on Narcan, to save lives of drug overdose victims?
If that's your position, well, I just hope you never have loved ones addicted to drugs. I don't think reason, morality or the majority of the nation agrees with your pro-death, "let them die" position. Thank God.
It APPEARS you two are saying that you don't think gov't should be involved, even if addicts die in the tens of thousands. They should just die if they don't get help on their own.
It APPEARS you two think that the ONLY rehab program that is acceptable are 12 step style programs and in your heads, that's the only worthwhile approach. Almost certainly, most rational people disagree with your hunches.
It APPEARS you two think that the only criteria for a programs' success is if some 5-10% abandon their addictions fully... and that living a healthier life or simply not dying is not also a worthwhile way of measuring a program's success.
If all that is correct, then fortunately, you two are not in charge of imposing your grace-less and death-dealing measures on society. Thank God Almighty. Thank God for grace and basic human decency.
While I haven't found definitive numbers yet (for 12 step OR harm reduction programs) as to how many get sober/clean, I suspect that the numbers for HR processes are at least as successful (by your one random whimsical measure of success) as the 12 step programs rate of some 5-10...15?%.
If so, and it doesn't meet your harsh criteria invented by you alone, it would be a shame if people tried to implement your approach when it helps get people clean.
And even if not, and the only "success" was that they didn't kill themselves and were relatively healthier (NOTE: Health-IER... I'm not saying addiction lifestyles are healthy, but there are healthier and less healthy ways of being addicted, because facts and reality matter), I think that's worthwhile because life and health matter to reasonable, decent people.
Craig... "I see no reason to address them until you can provide the hard data on 1."
And if you can't even make the reasonable concession/admission that IF the data shows HR is at least as successful as 12 Step programs, then you'd support it... why would I knock myself out to verify that for you?
You appear to not give a damn about whether it saves people's lives or if it helps get them clean eventually, so what difference will it make if and when I verify the numbers?
Also, IF the one and only measure is, "Do people going through the program eventually give up drugs," then HOW in the name of all that is holy a "success" rate of 5-15% something worthy of praise?
Also, I guess you don't think gov't should spend any money to promote 12 step programs, because people should suffer for their mistakes and not expect any assistance from gov't... EVEN IF that suffering costs our economy and costs us tax dollars?
What an unhealthy view of how to run a society.
"This same apparent disadvantage for AA/TSF was true in regards to drinking intensity, to wit, “For drinking intensity, AA/TSF may perform as well as other clinical interventions at 12 months, as measured by drinks per drinking day and percentage days heavy drinking” (my emphasis) but for no longer period.
In other words,
AA/TSF programs struggled to keep participants from not drinking more intensively
than non-12-step groups..."
"Kelly et al. did consider overall functioning, which is a harm reduction way to think. The American Psychiatric Association, after all, diagnoses substance use disorders not according to how many days people are abstinent or not, but
by the real impacts on their lives..."
"In contrast, harm reduction, which focuses on empowering people with substance use issues to improve their lives and on reducing associated deaths and disease,
mitigates the problems that matter.
Safer use practices, and limiting the often deadly adulteration of drugs that is inherent to illicit markets, are two important facets of harm reduction."
https://filtermag.org/alcoholics-anonymous-cochrane/
"When discussing either abstinence treatment or the harm reduction approach to alcohol and drug use, finding a reliable and accurate success rate is nearly impossible. This is mainly because the collection of this data relies solely on patients self-reporting their alcohol or drug use. Due to ties between stigma and addiction, especially following often costly treatment, some recovering addicts may not be forthcoming or honest in admitting slips or relapses.
Alcoholics Anonymous has clearly saved countless lives and has unquestionably been successful in changing the lives of many alcohol abusers and their families. But their reported success rates range anywhere from 5 percent to 70 percent, depending on the source of the data.11 The same can be said for most abstinence-only programs’ statistics.
When it comes to moderation, since the definition of success and failure seems blurry at best, many of the statistics attached to the harm reduction method are also unreliable. How does one define success in this model? Going from six drinks per week to five? Reducing down to two drinks per month? This arbitrary nature makes it much easier to claim success in the harm reduction model vs abstinence model."
https://www.bhpalmbeach.com/addiction-blog/efficacy-abstinence-treatment-vs-harm-reduction/
About your questioning of how HR style efforts can save money, societally and taxpayer dollars...
I would think it is obvious, but here is some information about that. In short, people with out of control addictions...
* get involved in the legal system more often and that costs taxpayer dollars.
* get sicker and use expensive emergency room type solutions more often and that costs taxpayer dollars
* have a more difficult time maintaining employment, meaning they are not taxpaying citizens contributing to the system
* have more negative impacts upon their children which results in more educational remediation which costs taxpayer dollars
* these children are more likely to not live up to their potential and thus, not contribute as much to society
* may end up in foster care systems and need more health care, which costs taxpayer dollars
Is all of this not obvious to you? Have you not seen this information before?
Here's a source validating this line of reason...
"A broad body of research shows that supportive housing effectively helps people with disabilities maintain stable housing.
People in supportive housing use costly systems like emergency health services less frequently and are less likely to be incarcerated.
Supportive housing also can aid people with disabilities in getting better health care and help seniors trying to stay in the community as they age and families trying to keep their children out of foster care."
https://www.cbpp.org/research/housing/supportive-housing-helps-vulnerable-people-live-and-thrive-in-the-community
More...
"Many of the people I meet in court who have pending criminal charges lack the housing, health care, overdose prevention help, and recovery support they need to be stable and safe. As a judge, my job is to provide justice. To do that in a true, enduring way, we in the criminal justice field need to ensure that vulnerable people can access harm reduction and other key services in their communities so they can stay safe and out of the corrections system.
At the recent sentencing of a woman with significant convictions, I asked the prosecutor essentially this: How will the state connect this person to housing, counseling, and treatment in her area so she has a chance at stability when she leaves jail? He met my gaze, raised his hands, and shook his head. There were no good options..."
"Our current responses to drugs and addiction generate searing inequalities. Our country lost 100,000 people to drug overdose in the year ending April 2021.[7] People experiencing behavioral health conditions often languish in jails and prisons.[8] As many as 65 percent of people incarcerated have an active substance use disorder.[9] Between 33-60 percent of people in custody have both substance use and mental health disorders, compared to 14-25 percent of people who are not incarcerated.[10] People leaving custody face a risk of death over 12 times greater than others, and overdose is the leading cause of death.[11]
These inequities particularly affect communities of color and LGBTQ+ people. Many studies and statistical analyses confirm this fact. Despite roughly comparable levels of drug use,[12] Black people are arrested for drug offenses at a much higher rate than white people[13] and are disproportionately represented in correctional settings."
https://ylpr.yale.edu/inter_alia/harm-reduction-justice
SO many reasons to support HR efforts. Justice, health, life, basic moral decency... grace.
I get that for many people in any system - including in 12 Step Programs - there is a tendency to think that their way is the ONLY way.
That's just not factual or reasonable.
I agree that the government doesn't really have a mandate to spend tax dollars to deal with any individual's bad decisions. Dan thinks so, but it ain't his money, so what does he care? He could work to increase his personal wealth and give the excess he finds so troubling to causes like stupid people who get addicted to crap and leave the rest of us alone.
Now, if he's talking about a government loan, that might be doable. Whatever money is spent to put an addict through treatment, the recovered addict can pay back with low interest. But then, Dan doesn't think convicts should repay their second education to which their criminal activity made them entitled. But again, it's not for Dan to pay, so he's all for it.
I guess the record amounts of drugs coming across our borders doesn't strike you as either important or the responsibility of the government.
To be fair, it's obviously not being ignored by the LEO's on the ground. Clearly this administration isn't placing border security as a high priority.
Art,
The problem with talking about government spending on these sorts of things is that it doesn't seem to take into account that the government is massively in debt (thanks to politicians of both parties), and that any "cost savings" are minimized because of the fact that the money spent is borrowed. So when Dan talks about "saving" $X, the reality is that it's still spending $Y plus the interest on borrowing $Y. If we had a sane fiscal policy, and weren't facing inflation at historic levels, things might be different. But we're not, and the notion that spending borrowed money is "saving" is just not true.
Marshal... ", but it ain't his money, so what does he care?"
? I'm a taxpayer. I have money in the game. All citizens should care about how our tax dollars are spent.
And I don't think either of you all are getting it. Our gov't (federal and state and local) IS paying, using tax payer dollars. We're paying for prisons. We're paying for emergency medical services. We're paying in family courts and mental health and other related services. And we're paying indirectly when people become disabled by their addictions and cease being tax paying citizens and losing that source of shared income. We're losing when chidren are disabled or un- and under-educated due to struggles from addictions which lead to them being un- and under-employed (and underpaid) later in life.
We pay in all kinds of ways.
The question isn't "Do we want to spend taxpayer dollars in response to addiction problems?" We ARE spending tax dollars.
The question is: Do we want to spend tax dollars REACTING to expenses incurred by addictions OR do we want to spend tax dollars PROACTIVELY working to lessen problems associated with addictions. And keep in mind: The data shows in case after case, spending dollars proactively to prevent and lessen problems is cheaper than paying reacting to crises and expenses after the fact.
Which do you think is more rational and conservative/fiscally responsible?
"So, you believe the gov't should do NOTHING in the face of 100,000 people dying from an overdose every year. Let them die. That's your "pro-life" position??"
Where did I say that the government should do "nothing"?
I guess you have trouble making the distinction between a completely innocent, unborn human being and someone who's chosen to destroy themselves with hard drugs.
"So, IF that is your policy that you're advocating, then does that mean that you ALSO don't think that gov't money should be spent on Narcan, to save lives of drug overdose victims?"
Since I haven't advocated any specific government policy (I did give my personal thoughts about it, but I'm not advocating my opinions become government policy), and since I've addressed the Narcan question, I fail to see how enabling your fantasies helps the conversation move along.
1. Since your use of the term "APPEARS" happens so frequently, I'm left to conclude that you have no idea what you're talking about and are forced to hide behind "APPEARS" as a way to try to put words in my mouth.
2. Since you can't answer the most basic if questions about how successful HR programs are, I see no reason to continue to prate about how "data driven" these programs are. If you can't provide the "data" that drives these programs, then it's absurd to assert that they are "data driven".
3. Your further inability to provide a definition of what constitutes success in these programs, also doesn't help your credibility or persuasiveness.
So, how about you stop the bullshit and find the data? How about you stop commenting until you have some hard data? I suspect that your multiple comments are simply designed to provide a smokescreen for you inability to find the data.
So, find the data then comment. I'm done pretending that your hypothetical scenarios are actually representative of the data you claim drives these programs.
"And if you can't even make the reasonable concession/admission that IF the data shows HR is at least as successful as 12 Step programs, then you'd support it... why would I knock myself out to verify that for you?"
If you can't provide the "data" that drives these "data driven" programs, why should I agree to your hypothetical? It seems clear that you are setting yourself up with excuses to leave this thread if you can't find the data, and to do so while blaming me.
It look like you've made 6/7 comments since yesterday, and not one of them contains a single bit of hard data about success rates, nor a definition of what measurable metrics define success.
Your attempt to minimize the AA/NA methods seem interesting since I've never said anything that would indicate that I believe those programs to be perfect. I literally pointed out that (at least at some point) the AA/NA folks would have been considered as "experts" in this field. All you've done is point out that it's likely that the "experts" pushing HR, will not be considered "experts" in the future.
For now, I'm done following your rabbit trails and playing your games. You've claimed that HR programs are "data driven". Until you can provide the hard data, and a definition of success for HR programs, I'm not wasting my time with your suppositions.
One last thought before while I wait for your data. I'm not suggesting that HR shouldn't be practiced or implemented. I'm not even suggesting that it might not help some people. What I am suggesting is that the government subsidizing and facilitating the use of harmful, addictive, and illegal drugs is problematic.
What we have is the government facilitating and subsidizing the use of crack cocaine more "safely" by addicts. In the same way we have the government subsidizing and facilitating the use of IV drugs.
That's where I have a problem. If private organizations want to engage in this, that's on their conscience.
But without the alleged data, I'm done wasting my time.
Craig... "What I am suggesting is that the government subsidizing and facilitating the use of harmful, addictive, and illegal drugs is problematic."
I get that this is your position. But If the point of the programs is to save lives and reduce harm, WHY do you find it problematic?
And the question remains open, as do so many, in the face of hundreds of thousands of people dying and the government spending Billions of dollars in in addressing this drug crisis, what do you think the government should be doing? Nothing?
Look, I get that you're opposed to implementing these best practices that are data driven, that's on you. But if you're not advocating SOME solutions then I hope you can understand how we will just ask you to get out of the way while adults try to address these serious problems.
Craig... "The problem with talking about government spending on these sorts of things is that it doesn't seem to take into account that the government is massively in debt..."
And still, you two don't seem to get it.
Investing in narrative and other HR efforts ARE a way of reducing debt. They result in net SAVINGS in government spending. We can spend $1 billion on prisons and ER services and policing, family courts, etc OR we can spend $100 million on rational HR style efforts and cut that $1 billion in half, thereby SAVING $400 million. Like that.
Here's a report of a Standford study, which if true, may stand as a template for programs dealing with other substances:
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/03/alcoholics-anonymous-most-effective-path-to-alcohol-abstinence.html
It seems AA compares well or better than other options. This comparison doesn't speak to actual success rates as regards total abstinence, but that's not its point.
Dan continues to advocate for other people's money being spent to assist people he believes should be helped beyond their own desire to be helped. He continues to pretend it's reasonable and right to demand those who work hard to provide for their own lives must cough up bucks for the sake of others who haven't.
"Instead of speaking in riddles, enlightn us. What is the one area where the federal government has responsibility for "the drug problem" that is being ignored..."
I knew this would confuse Dan, and wish I had actually stated it. Given how fentanyl is not the number one cause of death among the 18-45 age group (or thereabouts), and how much is flooding across our unprotected southern border, it seems clear this problem should be an important focus of Dan's choice of a better president than Trump. No. Dan would rather keep taking other people's tax dollars to treat those who choose to use this and other opioids and then become addicted.
"So, you believe the gov't should do NOTHING in the face of 100,000 people dying from an overdose every year. Let them die."
As suggested, the government's main job is to secure the border from bad actors, not to spend our money treating people who abuse drugs and alcohol. Thus, what gov't should be doing by virtue of its Constitutional obligations, is ignored in favor of pandering.
"That's your "pro-life" position??"
How typical for a leftist to mock those who defend innocent lives as they continue to enable criminal and irresponsible lives, thereby putting the lives of the law-abiding at risk.
"So, IF that is your policy that you're advocating, then does that mean that you ALSO don't think that gov't money should be spent on Narcan, to save lives of drug overdose victims?"
To save someone about to die is totally different from spending money enabling those who have the greatest potential to be in that position. But to provide Narcan is easily justified by billing the drug user should it actually save the user's life. Indeed, all gov't programs established to do what abusers should be paying for should bill the abuser. It's not a "let them die" position at all. It's a "not the gov't's responsibility" position. You're free to support any treatment service at your own expense and the expense of others who feel as you do. The gov't's duty is to the law-abiding, responsible and productive members of society.
It's not a question of whether or not addicts should have help. It's a matter of what the source of that help should be. It is not within the purview of the government.
3 more comments. still no data. Without the data you allege exists, this is simply you offering your opinions.
"It APPEARS you two think that the ONLY rehab program that is acceptable are 12 step style programs and in your heads, that's the only worthwhile approach."
I never said that. Did you say that, Craig? I don't recall you saying that. I don't believe either of us even said anything which remotely hinted at such a thing. I'm pretty sure we criticized gov't providing drugs for drug abusers. Maybe I missed something.
"fortunately, you two are not in charge of imposing your grace-less and death-dealing measures on society."
Ironic to hear a lefty are say something like this, given their defense of so much which leads to death. And somehow, this butthead thinks preferring something other than his demands upon a non-consenting public means we support death.
"And if you can't even make the reasonable concession/admission that IF the data shows HR is at least as successful as 12 Step programs, then you'd support it... why would I knock myself out to verify that for you?"
I never said I couldn't support HR if the data shows it's successful in any way. Did you say that, Craig? I don't recall you saying that. Wouldn't we need to actually see actual data before making such a concession? Sounds like Dan is dodging and running away from supporting his opinion again.
"I guess you don't think gov't should spend any money to promote 12 step programs"
Uh...to my knowledge, AA isn't gov't funded. But mere promotion doesn't have to cost taxpayers a lot. Yet still, public service announcements aren't typically gov't promotions in the first place.
"What an unhealthy view of how to run a society."
Not as unhealthy as adding to an already out of control federal debt, not to mention the complete disregard for the rights of those whose incomes are impacted to pay down that debt. When do the addicted do their part to pay for their sins? At what point can we expect they step up and pay back what was provided to correct their stupid choices? And this only addresses those who acknowledge their mistake and seek to correct it. What about all those who must be forced? What makes you think that on the other end they'll be responsible in any way simply because their addiction is ended or lessened? You are among those who have led to our society being run in an unhealthy way. You are among those who have caused the decline of our culture.
What Marshal thinks... "As suggested, the government's main job is to secure the border from bad actors, not to spend our money treating people who abuse drugs and alcohol."
?
What the role of Government includes according to Encyclopedia:
Governments are responsible for providing services that individuals cannot effectively provide for themselves, such as
military defense,
fire and police departments,
roads,
education,
social services, and
environmental protection.
Some government entities also provide public utilities, such as
water, sewage treatment, or electricity.
Of course, different places provide different answers. But none of them, that I've seen, say that "government's main job is to secure the border from bad actors."
Wow. Even Dan's link don't compel agreement with his position!!
"But America’s drug problems are caused primarily by the lethal combination of our abstinence obsession, drug panics and inhumane capitalism."
This is from Dan's link from his post from February 15, 2022 at 6:33 PM, which is from a self-promoting psychologist. This guy opposes 12-step, AA-type programs, but doesn't really provide compelling evidence in favor of alternatives. He mostly cites and disparages a study and does so in the cheapest and most absurd manner. I can give details to support this view if necessary.
Then there's the next post from February 15, 2022 at 6:40 PM. This link is about as good an argument against "harm reduction" success rates as one could find! I can give details to support this view as well if necessary.
It seems Dan doesn't really peruse his own links any better than he does those provided by his opponents.
His next post from February 15, 2022 at 6:56 PM does no more than argue for spending other people's money with no expectation of success. It assumes successful outcomes while there is no data to prove outcomes are any better for "harm reduction" than abstinence.
Spend your own money, Dan. Earn more. Become wealth in the classic sense of the word rather than the pretentious crap about being wealth compared to the most destitute in the world and spend your own money. Then you can allow that no one treated at your expense must repay you.
More later...
Marshal... "It's not a question of whether or not addicts should have help. It's a matter of what the source of that help should be. It is not within the purview of the government."
Says you. Reality is different.
Look, I know there are those ultra-conservatives out there who want the federal gov't to be "so small that you can drown it in a bathtub," but such near-anarchists are not in charge and not the ones who get to make that call.
So, the question still remains open: What would YOU have gov't do in light of this serious, deadly, costly problem of drug addiction? It appears to be "The federal government should do precisely nothing."
I don't think the majority of the nation nor reasonable adults are okay with that.
If nothing else: "Doing nothing" is going to cost us a helluva lot more than doing something that works at least to some degree and is data-driven.
You all still aren't getting that "doing nothing" COSTS MONEY.
Consider all the ways this is true:
Rational people: "Our roadways and bridges are collapsing, what should we do?"
Anarchists/anti-gov't types: "Let's do nothing. Nothing doesn't cost us anything. Instead, let's just hope that private individuals will fix them..."
Rational people: "It costs us nothing? Are you insane? When bridges and building collapse and people die here is certainly a cost. When we wait to rebuild broken infrastructure, there is a cost to the economy and in gov't dollars.
DO NOTHING is not a solution."
Or
Rational people: "Our prisons are overflowing, and over represented by the poor and people of color and those with mental illnesses. What should we do?"
Anarchists/anti-gov't types: "Let's do nothing. Nothing doesn't cost us anything. Instead, let's just hope that private individuals will step up and do something. Maybe the Market will fix it...?"
Rational people: "Again, doing nothing is not an option. Get the hell out of the way and let the adults do the needed work."
Look, I GET that you all don't want gov't doing much, even in the face of deaths and serious problems. You've made that clear. And I'm FINE with the private sector stepping up to help out. But in the meantime, doing nothing is not an option.
Sit down and move out of the way.
"I never said that. Did you say that, Craig?"
No, I never said anything like that. This is what happens when one decides to threat something that "appears" (through their biases and prejudices) one way, and to attack the appearance rather than the substance.
" Did you say that, Craig?"
Once again, I did not say that. What I did say was that it's pointless to argue about Dan's perceptions (based on biases and prejudices), about the hypothetical success rate. But for some reason the "data" that these programs are "driven" by is very hard to find, so instead of finding and discussing the hard "data" that drives these programs, it's easier to try to pressure us into agreeing that these programs "should" be funded by the feds IF the "data" can be provided to prove effectiveness. This sort of hope driven discourse is simply a waste of time. For example, I would be shocked of Dan's position on this changed if the "data" showed a "success rate" of .5%. It seems like he's committed to these programs regardless of the actual "data", and doesn't need to see the "data" to assert that these programs are "data driven".
"Reality is different."
It's so awesome when Dan decides that he gets to define what reality is.
As I pointed out from one of Dan's links. The HR people think it's a "success" if they can get a drinker to drop their consumption of alcohol to 20% more than NIH uses to define what an alcoholic is. Essentially "success" is making simply making someone less of an alcoholic, than they were. I guess that's an "improvement", but I'd think that "success" would involve not being an alcoholic as defined by the NIH.
"Again, doing nothing is not an option. Get the hell out of the way and let the adults do the needed work."
It seems as though Dan is implying that we are advocating "doing nothing", which I don't think either of us have advocated. But beyond that, I think we'd both agree that staying out of the way of successful programs is absolutely fine. I think that we just have a problem with the government facilitating, enabling, and subsidizing the continued use of hard, addictive, illegal drugs by addicts.
Two more comments, still ZERO data.
"I'm a taxpayer. I have money in the game. All citizens should care about how our tax dollars are spent."
You don't have enough in the game to pretend you have standing to make such a self-destructive call. You pretend paying a few thousand in federal taxes each year entitles you to tap the wallets of every other working American...again demanding others pay for your bullshit beliefs.
"And I don't think either of you all are getting it. Our gov't (federal and state and local) IS paying, using tax payer dollars."
Oh, we get it just fine. We're quite aware of all the things for which federal and state governments lay out our tax dollars which are not in any way a duty of theirs. Lefties who think making other people pay vote for these things, as they did the policies which enable bad behaviors for which our tax dollars are then appropriated to correct.
"The question isn't "Do we want to spend taxpayer dollars in response to addiction problems?" We ARE spending tax dollars. "
We neither have to be nor should we be paying for the mistakes of others. Those who make the mistakes should, either immediately or as they go through life. So pull your head out of your ass and consider:
---If an addict successfully gets his act together, but required gov't assistance, then that addict should repay the gov't for all expenses rendered. Is that happening at all? Do you support this common sense and just consequence of addiction? Based on your views of providing a second FREE education for convicts, I would wager you don't.
---IF an addict successfully gets his act together, but required gov't assistance, yet had no obligation to repay the gov't for all expenses rendered, how is that fair to the law-abiding whose tax dollars went to his apparent recovery?
---If an addict is incapable of getting his act together, what are the chances that he'd live a long life and how much money do you expect should reasonably be spent to pretend you're improving his life? If he's incapable, how will he possibly be productive?
---If an addict refuses to get his act together, how can we know for sure if he exploits gov't drug handouts to appear willing? I've seen two interviews with addicts who moved to Frisco because of the free drugs or easier access to them thanks to the efforts of lefty morons. That's throwing good tax dollars after bad. Explicitly. And it goes to the argument against what you propose.
What you propose for our tax dollars ignores the choice that most addicts made, whether they were mental cases to begin with, or were upstanding people who fell prey to one substance or another. Some people have addictive natures. Others simply wanted to have a good time and eventually lost control because of the addictive quality of the substance in question. I recall doing coke and a friend and me expressing our realization of just how addictive coke is. Fortunately, we had no easy access and when the small amount we had ran out, we did not seek out more. Yet, the urge was there. Others not as responsible would have made the effort. We chose not to knowing the urge would dissipate. Choice, Dan. We made the choice to do it, and then to refuse to do it again. I've done it since, but under similar circumstances. It's always sad when it runs out. One always wants more. But still, I made the choice to not seek it out. I haven't done it in maybe twenty years. I never allowed it to get out of hand, but the availability would have made it orders of magnitude harder to resist. Having it around doesn't make one less an addict because the stuff is quality controlled or the implements for imbibing are cleaner. It's bullshit.
Craig... "This is what happens when one decides to threat something that "appears" (through their biases and prejudices) one way, and to attack the appearance rather than the substance. "
No. THIS is what happens when one person won't directly answer reasonable questions that he has no reason not to answer.
Again: WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE THE FEDERAL GOV'T DO IN RESPONSE TO DRUG ADDICTIONS, IF ANYTHING?
I GET that you are fine with individuals adopting either a TSP or HR approach, on their own. I'm asking about a federal response to the tens of thousands of overdose deaths (and even more near-deaths) and the huge costs to society and to taxpayers incurred by these addiction problems.
If you would answer directly, THEN I would know what your position is. Instead, you offer vague half answers and attacks on other approaches that are being paid for by the gov't without any support for what else to do in place of these efforts.
Craig... "The HR people think it's a "success" if they can get a drinker to drop their consumption of alcohol to 20% more than NIH uses to define what an alcoholic is."
They think it is a success when people live instead of dying. They think it's a success if they can hold stable employment instead of being unemployed. They think it's a success if families can stay together rather than be torn apart. They think it's a success when criminal behavior is avoided and when they stay out of jail.
Do you disagree that these are not reasonably considered a success?
If so, HOW? WHY? Be specific.
Yes, many times they may not move to abstinence (or quickly move to abstinence, in a manner that is quick enough for you), but there are other ways of measuring success.
SOCIETALLY, we are all better off when these folk don't die. We are better off when they are healthier. We are better off when they can work... etc. What is there to disagree with in that?
And with abstinence programs like TSP only have a "success" rate of 5-15 (20?)%, we need something in place for the other vast majority who are not well-served by TSP.
That's all I am saying. That, and if we can save lives and improve lives (and as a side effect, save money and improve society) by investing gov't dollars in these programs, why wouldn't we?
Answer questions directly IF you want to be directly understood.
And I've been providing data all along. Read the links.
As we both have noted, rehab programs/efforts are notoriously hard to document, but there IS data out there and I've been citing it.
Craig... "It seems as though Dan is implying that we are advocating "doing nothing", which I don't think either of us have advocated."
What I have clearly and directly noted is that it SOUNDS like you two are advocating federal gov't stay out of drug rehab matters. But YOU CAN ALWAYS ANSWER THE QUESTION directly if you want me to know for sure.
Because YOUR POST was about federal efforts to help the addiction problems we face, MY QUESTIONS have all been about Federal efforts to help the addiction problems we face. I'm funny that way.
Craig... "I think we'd both agree that staying out of the way of successful programs is absolutely fine."
Okay, so let me give you a real life example. I have social work colleagues who work here in Louisville with veterans. There is an effort - using, in part, federal dollars - to get these vets housing.
Now, in the past, to get in to these programs, you had to be sober a certain number of days. That decision was informed by the TS/Abstinence model. NOW, they are going a HR approach and saying, "Let's get you into housing... sober or not. Let's get you settled in and stable and then, we'll see about reducing how much you're using - as you decide works best for you - and take it one step at a time."
I'm told that they are having success with this approach. There are fewer overdose deaths and healthier veterans. I don't work for them, I just have heard about this, but the people involved are amazed at how much better it's going.
The TSP way just wasn't as effective, and this is their current best practices, because of improved outcomes. I don't have that data and don't know where to find it, but IF it's the case, then WHY would any reasonable person oppose interfering with what the experts in the field are saying is working better. These are people who are familiar with and who've used TSP and they're not ANTI-AA/NA, they just are seeing that this is having better results.
Are you okay with federal dollars being spent on such programs IF they are working as the experts are saying it is? EVEN IF total sobriety is not significantly different?
One thing you are correct about: It IS a problem that we have criminalized drugs. That interferes with rehab efforts. But as you have noted: Bans don't work, when it comes to drugs. So, what do we do, at the federal level to mitigate the problems associated with addiction?
Many experts are saying these are the best practices we have now.
More data:
About Syringe Services Programs:
The majority of SSPs offer referrals to medication-assisted treatment,6 and new users of SSPs are five times more likely to enter drug treatment and three times more likely to stop using drugs than those who don’t use the programs.
SSPs prevent overdose deaths by teaching people who inject drugs how to prevent overdose and how to recognize, respond to, and reverse a drug overdose by providing training on how to use naloxone, a medication used to reverse overdose. Many SSPs provide “overdose prevention kits” containing naloxone to people who inject drugs.
In 2015, CDC’s National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System found that the more syringes SSPs distributed per the number of people who inject drugs in a geographic region, the more likely the people who inject drugs in that region were to dispose of used syringes safely.
SSPs are associated with an estimated 50% reduction in HIV and HCV incidence.3 When combined with medications that treat opioid dependence (also known as medication-assisted treatment), HCV and HIV transmission is reduced by over two-thirds.
https://www.cdc.gov/ssp/syringe-services-programs-factsheet.html
"Of course, different places provide different answers. But none of them, that I've seen, say that "government's main job is to secure the border from bad actors."
That falls under the headings of "military defense,...and police departments". You truly aren't very bright. A bright person would try the US Constitution:
"Article 4 Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion..."
Again...not bright at all.
"Look, I know there are those ultra-conservatives out there who want the federal gov't to be "so small that you can drown it in a bathtub," but such near-anarchists are not in charge and not the ones who get to make that call."
No, dim one. We just acknowledge the wisdom of Amendment X, which clearly states, "Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
There is nothing in the Constitution which justifies gov't spending on drug/alcohol addiction. Now, you're more than free to increase your personal wealth to distribute to privately run drug rehab centers, and you're more than free to encourage other lefty fakes to pony up as well. You're also more than free to persuade intelligent people of your concerns regarding the harm done to us all by not saving addicts from themselves. I wish you good luck with that. But to steal tax dollars from those who don't agree is not a matter of anarchy, but of justice...something you pretend to care about, though only if it concerns enabling homosexuals.
"So, the question still remains open: What would YOU have gov't do in light of this serious, deadly, costly problem of drug addiction?"
Aside from arresting criminals who supply it, preventing the import of any by securing the border, putting the insane in secured mental institutions and reversing all lefty enacted policies which have exacerbated the problem...nothing. It's not the responsibility of gov't on any level to address personal problems.
"I don't think the majority of the nation nor reasonable adults are okay with that."
As a reasonable adult, I'm quite certain you have no idea what the majority of the nation believes and as my previous response above clearly indicates, "doing precisely nothing" is your lying lefty spin on my true position. Thus, the "majority of the nation" might believe gov't has a role, but I would hope it isn't anything near your nonsensical demand of making others pay to babysit the irresponsible.
You then go one to demonstrate once again your insipid and childish lack of understanding of conservatism, choosing now to regard us as anarchists. You further prove your falseness by trying to equate what is the duty of gov't with that which is not. Governments are responsible for infrastructure. They're not responsible for your addictions.
"Rational people: "Our prisons are overflowing, and over represented by the poor and people of color and those with mental illnesses. What should we do?""
Rational people don't talk like this. They don't concern themselves with how much room there is in prisons for all those who choose a criminal life. They don't concern themselves with the incomes, race or mental stability with those set apart from the law-abiding public due to their anti-social/asocial behavior. But what rational people might suggest would help is antithetical to the insanity of the leftists/progressives whose policies corrupted our culture.
You, Dan, have no idea what "rational" looks like. Stop using that word until you learn what it means. In the meantime, stop pretending you have rational, legit answers to that which you've created.
4 more comments and zero "data" that bears specifically on the three questions that have been asked regarding "data".
Simply announcing that X works better than Y without providing values for X or Y, and without actual measurable metrics means nothing.
Providing hard, specific "data" is what it's going to take for me to seriously engage.
Craig... "Providing hard, specific "data" is what it's going to take for me to seriously engage"
It IS hard data to note the number of lives saved by Narcan. That is one harm prevention measure and it saved 27,000 from 1996 through June 2014.
https://www.cadca.org/resources/cdc-report-narcan-kits-save-nearly-27000-lives
It IS hard data to note that
* A naloxone distribution program in Massachusetts reduced opioid overdose deaths, without increasing opioid use, by an estimated 11 percent in the nineteen communities that implemented the program.
* A large-scale national study showed that opioid overdose deaths decreased by 14 percent in states after they enacted naloxone access laws.
https://nida.nih.gov/publications/naloxone-opioid-overdose-life-saving-science
Those are thousands of lives that were extended thanks to HP measures. Not a single one of those people whose lives were saved could have a chance to get clean if they were dead.
But this begs the question: Are you going to whimsically assign only SOME measures as "legitimate successes" in your mind? What will you consider a success?
That's a question that remains open. To me, saved lives ARE one success. Why? Because they're NOT DEAD.
Is that or is it not a legitimate measure of success in your own mind?
MORE data:
* The majority of SSPs offer referrals to medication-assisted treatment, and
new users of SSPs are five times more likely to enter drug treatment and
three times more likely to stop using drugs
than those who don’t use the programs.
* SSPs prevent overdose deaths by teaching people who inject drugs
how to prevent overdose and how to
recognize, respond to, and reverse a drug overdose by
providing training on how to use naloxone,
a medication used to reverse overdose. Many SSPs provide “overdose prevention kits”
containing naloxone to people who inject drugs.
* In 2015, CDC’s National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System found that
the more syringes SSPs distributed per the number of people who
inject drugs in a geographic region,
the more likely the people who inject drugs in that region were to dispose of used syringes safely.
* SSPs are associated with an estimated
50% reduction in HIV and HCV incidence.
When combined with medications that treat opioid dependence,
HCV and HIV transmission is reduced by over two-thirds.
https://www.cdc.gov/ssp/syringe-services-programs-factsheet.html
This is data about how and why HR policies are having successes.
Now, the question remains, IF you personally don't count these as successes, why not? Why is your measure the only measure that counts? Or do you acknowledge that your measure is just your own and not something universally agreed upon by experts as the only reasonable measure of success?
Answering directly questions directly and clearly is the only way people can understand your position, so that ball is in your court.
Marshal... " They don't concern themselves with how much room there is in prisons for all those who choose a criminal life. They don't concern themselves with the incomes, race or mental stability with those set apart from the law-abiding public due to their anti-social/asocial behavior."
This is irrational and immoral as hell. I don't guess you are able to see how irrational it is to say, "I don't care how many people are in jail, let's just keep paying to put more and more people in jail. And I also don't care how large a percentage of the poor and oppressed and historically marginalized are in jails. I don't have to give a damn about the least of these. I am not my brother's keeper..." but trust me, it's insane.
Putting people in jail COSTS YOU MONEY. YOUR TAX DOLLARS are being used to put people in jail and keep them there, where they have no chance to contribute to the national good and be taxpaying citizens themselves.
This is smack-yourself-in-the-head-with-a-2x4 level of stupidity and privilege and fiscal irresponsibility.
Marshal... " But none of them, that I've seen, say that "government's main job is to secure the border from bad actors."
That falls under the headings of "military defense,...and police departments". "
Again, NONE of what you have said says that "THE GOV'T'S MAIN JOB is securing the border, OR having an armed services for protection. That's ONE of the tasks of gov't, NOT the "MAIN JOB." You are the one that's elevating it beyond just one of many areas gov't is responsible for.
And we are not a Federalist Society nation. Just fyi.
Also, Marshal, while I get that you appear to be saying that, as far as the federal gov't is concerned, all those beloved family and community members with addictions can drop dead in the street and you don't think the federal gov't should lift a finger, but what ARE you advocating be done about this real world problem with real world expenses?
Are you also saying that private citizens shouldn't give a damn about hundreds of thousands of deaths and billions of dollars in expenses and losses from our family and neighbors due to addictions?
Or do you think non-profits should be doing more? And if so, how are non-profits going to pay for it?
Or do you think that private businesses should take up the expenses?
Or just to hell with those loved ones with addictions?
What is YOUR response to real world suffering?
"If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it?"
"What you fail to do for the least of these my children, you fail to do to me."
"Providing hard, specific "data" is what it's going to take for me to seriously engage."
Seems reasonable...especially as this is what "reasonable" looks like...given Dan constantly demands "hard data" from opponents disagreeing with his positions at his blog. But then, Dan's a double-standard kind of boy, so he's not likely to live up to his demands when the situation is reversed.
"What I have clearly and directly noted is that it SOUNDS like you two are advocating federal gov't stay out of drug rehab matters."
Now you're being a bit more specific with your use of the term "drug rehab matters". With that in mind, my response is, absolutely! The federal gov't must stay out of drug rehab matters. It's a local issue, not a federal one. Where the feds have a role is in preventing drugs from being brought over the border made wide open by Biden/Dem policies, tracking down those who succeed in bring drugs over, working with the host nation of drug traffickers to destroying them and their drug businesses completely and stepping in when drug deals are taking place across state lines.
"About Syringe Services Programs"
Not a problem for the federal government to resolve with taxpayer dollars. But feel free to increase your income to donate to such programs. Feel free to solicit donations from others.
With regard to veterans, I have no problem with the federal government providing for those who volunteered to serve the nation. Military service is a federal occupation. Still, without "HARD DATA", the success rate of the service you describe is still in question. But I fail to see how success can be achieved when patients are toasted all the time, even if they're not as toasted as they might be outside the program.
Craig... "4 more comments and zero "data" that bears specifically on the three questions that have been asked regarding "data"."
As is often the case, I have no idea what "three questions" it is you're wanting answered. You've asked for data that shows positive results from HR. I've provided that.
In trying to find your legendary THREE QUESTIONS, I came across this...
"You've claimed that HR programs are "data driven". Until you can provide the hard data, and a definition of success for HR programs"
I define success as it's typically defined in the English language:
Success: the accomplishment of an aim or purpose.
favorable or desired outcome
Here are some various ways to measure success in regards to addiction that reasonable people should be able to agree to.
Success = Fewer deaths from addiction, more saved lives.
Do you disagree?
Success = More, rather than less employment, independence, housing and stability.
Do you disagree?
Success = fewer people in prison due, at least in part, to drug addictions rather than more.
Do you disagree?
Success = fewer family disruptions/more intact and relatively healthy families.
Do you disagree?
Success = healthier, rather than sicker people with addictions.
Do you disagree?
Success = more sober days rather than fewer.
Do you disagree?
There are multiple ways to measure success, including more fully un-addicted people. But sobriety is not the only way to measure success.
Frank, in the story below, says it well:
"“Success, for me, requires that I be clean and sober,” Frank told me. Sobriety allows him to be present in reality. Yet, sobriety is only a piece of Frank’s definition. Success depends on “the relationships I have and the kindness and compassion I share with others,” he remarked. Success is larger than any one goal and, likewise, one failure. Frank added that everyone owns his or her definition of success, and we must allow others the space to decide for themselves."
https://www.samhsa.gov/homelessness-programs-resources/hpr-resources/defining-success-people-recovery
Ah, maybe these three questions:
1. How is success defined.
I just defined Success (in the standard English definition) and provided specific real world examples of how to measure the success in meeting those good goals (saved lives, staying out of prison, keeping families together, etc)
Check.
2. What is the success rate?
Ah, here, YOU would have to explain how YOU define success. As I've shown, the data shows that more lives are saved, more money is saved, fewer people go to prison, more people can maintain jobs, etc ALL of which are reasonably considered success by a practical understanding of success in lives affected by addictions. And I've asked you if you disagree that saved lives, reduced crime, reduced prison, etc are successes and if not, why not?
3. What percentage of addicts actually quit using, and what is the long term rate of staying clean?
That is the one I have not found, either for TSP or for HR. Nor have you. Apparently it's tricky to find when it comes to addictions for multiple reasons already given. But I HAVE provided measurable successes as to why it is rational to fund these sorts of programs to save money and have the measurable successes I have produced, as well as many others.
Marshal... "Rational people don't talk like this. They don't concern themselves with how much room there is in prisons for all those who choose a criminal life."
Craig, tell me you don't agree with this? In fact, tell me you strongly disagree with it. I believe in you this far. Can you take a stand with me when I'm right...?
"I define success as it's typically defined in the English language:"
The issue isn't how you personally define success, it's how success is defined relative to these HR programs. What specific, measurable, metrics are used to define if a program is successful or not.
I have no interest in you providing hypothetical guesses about how success might be defined, I'm asking for specifics regarding how the people who want government funding for these HR programs define and measure success.
You are familiar with the concept of setting definable, measurable, goals and metrics then comparing actual results with those to measure success, aren't you?
I see that you found the three questions I've asked multiple times. I know it's hard for you to find things you've tried to avoid, but I', proud of your for trying and succeeding.
1. I've pointed out that I'm hoping for how those who operate these programs define success in their programs, instead you how you define it. Your definition (or your hunches) mean nothing in this context.
2. No, the question is how do those who operate these programs define success. If they can't point to specific, measurable, metrics that they use to define success, then they've lost me.
3. At least you can admit that at least some of the "data' doesn't exist. I guess long term success just isn't important enough to track, or it's so bad that they don't track it.
Once again, if you can't provide the specific hard data that drives these programs, and answer three simple direct questions, then I see no reason to indulge your bullshit with engagement.
"Again, NONE of what you have said says that "THE GOV'T'S MAIN JOB is securing the border, OR having an armed services for protection. That's ONE of the tasks of gov't, NOT the "MAIN JOB." You are the one that's elevating it beyond just one of many areas gov't is responsible for."
Ah...so you think splitting hairs and playing semantic games will win the day. Then let me be more clear: the "main" job of the federal government is that which falls within the limitations set by the US Constitution. It includes securing the border. It does NOT include spending my money to treat your addictions.
And speaking of semantic games, there's a clear distinction between "harm prevention" versus "life saving". Naloxone/Narcan refers to the latter. If someone is overdosing, clearly harm has already been done and thus more clearly has not been prevented. Certainly, there's no greater harm than killing one's self by overdosing, and thus harm is prevented when life saving methods are employed, but no, having to employ those methods is a sad and pathetic measure of "success" of an HP program.
Success is sobriety and overdosing doesn't occur when one abstains. The point if addiction treatment is to end the addiction, not save the addict from dying of an overdose. I know the distinction is difficult for your small mind to grasp, but the point concerns success of treatment programs (and who should pay for them). Clearly, if one ODs, the treatment program for that addict was not successful.
More later...
Look, I'm answering question after question for you. Even repeating myself when you miss the answers. I've provided handfuls of links to experts and organizations citing data (whereas you all have cited almost nothing in terms of expert opinion, best practices or data).
How about you take a turn and answer some questions:
What SPECIFICALLY do you think that the federal (or state) gov't's should do about the costly problems associated with addictions? Are you with Marshal in thinking that the federal gov't should say "to hell with them, we're not going to do anything because Marshal doesn't think it's our role..."? Do you think they should be doing something? What?
Once again, if you have NO IDEAS for helping deal with this real world problem and you're only wanting to complain about people who are actually in the field, saving and improving lives, I see no reason to indulge that sort of time-wasting do-nothing-ism.
If you say to them "Be at peace" and do nothing for them, what good are you or your faith?
Craig... "I'm asking for specifics regarding how the people who want government funding for these HR programs define and measure success."
I'm not at all sure what you're wanting beyond what I keep providing. They want FEWER deaths. They want HEALTHIER people and lives. They want users, IF they're going to use, to do so in a safe a way as possible so as to reduce harm and death instances. They want people using clean - not dirty - needles, IF they're going to use. They want people to have access to Narcan IF they're going to use, to prevent OD deaths.
And they're having success at that, as the data I've cited shows.
The Mission from the Kentucky Harm Reduction Coalition:
" To reduce substance addiction overdoses and deaths,
the stigma associated with substance use disorder, and
to offer harm reduction solutions"
https://kyhrc.org/about-us/
From Harm Reduction.org:
"Harm reduction incorporates a
spectrum of strategies that includes
safer use,
managed use,
abstinence,
meeting people who use drugs “where they’re at,” and
addressing conditions of use along with the use itself."
and...
"Establishes quality of individual and community life and well-being —
not necessarily cessation of all drug use —
as the criteria for successful interventions and policies"
https://harmreduction.org/about-us/principles-of-harm-reduction/
What is not clear to you? What questions do you have that have not been addressed?
Craig... " At least you can admit that at least some of the "data' doesn't exist. I guess long term success just isn't important enough to track, or it's so bad that they don't track it."
Bullshit. I've never said that. I've said, given the reality of confidentiality and secrecy around addictions and reliance upon those with addictions to accurately and honestly report - and that in the context where being honest can have negative, harmful consequences, given our punitive historic approach to drug use. Of course it's important to try to track data so that we can have best practices that are data-driven. And that's why I've been providing you some data.
That I - as someone who is not in this work professionally and where it's not my job and I'm a finite man with finite time - can't find ALL the data and present it to you doesn't mean there is not a significant amount of data out there.
You might begin by making clear what SPECIFIC data you want to see that isn't being provided.
You might also make clear why you're doubtful that ALL these experts whose job it is to help with this problem are not to be trusted when they're citing the data that drives their work. Are you suggesting you're in a better place than they are to know best practices?
Dan,
You're submitting two definitions of success and conflating the two as it serves you to do it.
1. the accomplishment of an aim or purpose.
2. favorable or desired outcome.
Craig and I are referring to definition 1 as the means by which the efficacy of an addiction program must be judged. The purpose is to end the addiction, which in reality is the only valid "favorable or desired outcome" given any good which follows flows from that purpose having been achieved. No "favorable or desired outcome" can be sustained if the addiction is enabled with clean needles and continued use of the drug to which one is addicted.
You apparently think ongoing addiction is favorable if the addicted can hold down a job. But for how long can a job be held down, how long can relationships continue if the cause for the loss of either continues?
"Once an addict, always an addict" isn't necessarily a fact, but it isn't always easy to determine if a given addict is prone to addiction. Some are, others become addicted to drugs while treating a situation with addictive drugs...like opioids. Once clean, such people can live life without fear of backsliding. But the addictive personality type must always beware. Giving such a person drugs in any environment, controlled and clean or otherwise, feeds the addiction and keeps it alive. Thus, job security and strength of relationships is always at risk.
Only drug free and abstinent equals success. So, let's look at your measures for success...
"Here are some various ways to measure success in regards to addiction that reasonable people should be able to agree to.
Success = Fewer deaths from addiction, more saved lives.
Do you disagree?"
Yes, unless the goal is simply to keep people from dying from drug abuse. If the addiction continues, the program has failed or at the very least, yet to have succeeded.
"Success = More, rather than less employment, independence, housing and stability.
Do you disagree?"
Yes, if addiction continues. None of those things will last if addiction continues.
"Success = fewer people in prison due, at least in part, to drug addictions rather than more.
Do you disagree?"
Yes. No one goes to prison for being addicted to drugs. They go to prison for the sale and/or possession of drugs. If someone is addicted, but can keep from going to prison, they're still dealing with illegal substances, or risking danger to others because of their state of addiction, in which they are often...freakin' obviously...inebriated.
"Success = fewer family disruptions/more intact and relatively healthy families.
Do you disagree?"
Yes. These things can only be achieved when one's addiction ends and full sobriety is maintained. Otherwise, families are always at risk while the addicted is using. This is true because using at all increases the likelihood of using to extreme degrees. Again, freakin' obvious.
"Success = healthier, rather than sicker people with addictions.
Do you disagree?"
Yes. This is illusion and delusion to pretend one who is still addicted is healthy at all. We can better pretend this is true with those whose addiction is still new and not solidly beyond their ability to resist. But those aren't the people who seek or are forced into programs. The grasp of cocaine was never strong in my case because I hadn't used to any great extent. I didn't need a program. Had I kept using, it would have been some time before I'd acknowledge it was beyond my control and like with all others, it would have been too late by that point to free myself easily. I thought you knew about this shit. Freakin' obvious.
"Success = more sober days rather than fewer.
Do you disagree?"
Yes, because success can only be defined as sobriety. Period. Your story about Frank is absurd, particularly this:
"Success depends on “the relationships I have and the kindness and compassion I share with others,” he remarked."
No. The relationships he has and "the kindness and compassion he shares with others" depends on his being clean and sober. Nothing is possible without it. That's why success for him requires it...in order to enjoy relationships, kindness, etc...
"Marshal... "Rational people don't talk like this. They don't concern themselves with how much room there is in prisons for all those who choose a criminal life."
Craig, tell me you don't agree with this?"
Rational people concern themselves with the law abiding, those upon whom the criminal preys and the irresponsible negatively impact. They don't care about the discomfort of those who had a choice to break the law or not, and by choosing to break the law now must be squeezed into a prison already overcrowded with others who chose to break the law or live irresponsibly.
Rational people don't agree that such people be given a second education, medical and psychological care, job training, meals, etc., at taxpayer expense. Rational people expect that those who incur costs be those who pay down those costs. Providing the incarcerated or the addicted with taxpayer funded remedies is injustice to the law-abiding and responsible citizens. All such remedies must carry a tab to be paid off upon returning to civil society...even if the tab is so great full payment can't be guaranteed before the debtor dies. You want to lower costs? Make those responsible pay...not those who aren't responsible. In the meantime, increase your wealth and give as much as you want without any expectation of repayment if that's what you think is the right thing to do, rather than expecting your fellow citizens to do so by force.
"Rational". You don't know the meaning of the word.
Dan,
Those vague, non specific measures of "success" aren't particularly helpful.
99 is fewer than 100 yet no one would say that something that failed 99/100ths of the time was a "success" would they?
I've asked for 3 specific, measurable metrics regarding the "data" that you claim drives these programs, yet you haven't provided anything specific.
"What is not clear to you? What questions do you have that have not been addressed?"
The specifics and the long term success rate for starters.
Look, I know you've pulled out the "finite man/finite time" excuse. But the reality is that you literally can't provide anything that says that X% of HR clients are clean and sober Y years after they start. All you have is a bunch of vague, subjective, non measurable "goals", with zero measure of how those goals are tracked, met, measured, and how that data measures success.
The word "reduce" is used multiple times. Based on those vague measures, if they can get one person to use one less time per week, they'd call that a success. As I pointed out with your alcoholic example, taking someone from a really bad level of alcoholism (5 drinks/day), to merely bad alcoholism (4 drinks) a day does "reduce" the number of drinks, but it's still beyond the NIH threshold for being an alcoholic. So if all you're hoping to do is maintain a lower level of alcoholism, then "success". If you're trying to get the alcoholic sober, then failure.
I'll simply note that in none of the examples you've offered is the goal to actually get people to stop using, and to stay sober long term. Therefore focusing on tertiary health issues, while minimizing the primary health risk.
"What SPECIFICALLY do you think that the federal (or state) gov't's should do about the costly problems associated with addictions?"
I'm not sure that the federal government should be required to infringe on the right of individuals to choose their behavior. I'm wary of the FG facilitating continued use of harmful, addictive, illegal drugs. If the FG is going to be involved, I'd think that some level of accountability to measurable success should be part of that process. That specific measurable goals should be laid out, and the outcomes should be accurately tracked to verify success of failure.
The reality is that I don't have a "SPECIFIC" definitive answer, but neither do you.
"Are you with Marshal in thinking that the federal gov't should say "to hell with them, we're not going to do anything because Marshal doesn't think it's our role..."?"
Not necessarily?
"Do you think they should be doing something? What?"
Because asking the same (reworded) question twice in one comment (before I can respond) is an excellent way to make yourself look like an asshole.
"Success = healthier, rather than sicker people with addictions."
So, if someone comes in with Hepatitis due to a prolonged addiction to crack or meth, are you suggesting that treating the Hepatitis and nothing else is a significant success?
Dan clearly continues to ignore links provided by others, otherwise he couldn't prance about as if he's done something we haven't. The links I provide actually deal with rates of success comparisons. Those he provides don't. Providing quotes from programs about what they hope to accomplish might suggest ways to mark success, but they set the bar really, really low.
I don't know how to help you. You all read words but fail to understand their meaning and just twist and twist and misunderstand and misrepresent.
Good luck.
I may or may not return to try to address this mishmash of non-responses and irrational responses.
I, for one, think that it's clear that helping people NOT DIE is a good thing. Disagree if you want.
I, for one, recognize the reality that not a single dead person is going to get clean from their addictions. Not one.
I, for one, think that healthier is better than less healthy.
I, for one, think that being able to stay employed is better than not employed... that more sober is better than more drunk, that less dependent is better than more dependent, that staying out of prison is better than being in prison.
Feel free to disagree. Just know how irrational you sound if you disagree that none of these are reasonably considered a success.
Marshal... "Dan clearly continues to ignore links provided by others, otherwise he couldn't prance about as if he's done something we haven't. The links I provide actually deal with rates of success comparisons."
Just for the record, I provided links to experts and data about addiction: ~27
Marshal provided: 4
Craig provided: 1
That, in itself, is telling.
Further, the first of your four links that I followed, Marshal, had ZERO citations to data that "actually deals with rates of success comparisons." What I DID see were words like this...
"Studies have shown that in some cultures there are a small percentage of people who can return to moderate drinking. Still, the chance of being successful is unclear."
So, this place SAYS that "studies show..." but there is no link to those studies.
The second one was a link to a study that DID show that those who choose an abstinence method are more likely to stay sober longer than those who chose a moderation method. Two points:
1. No one is disputing that striving for abstinence is one method of trying to get and stay sober.
Read that again:
NO ONE is disputing that striving for abstinence is one method of trying to get and stay sober.
2. Indeed, if this one bit of research is right, it might be a more productive/"successful" way of staying sober.
3. This particular study is about alcohol addiction specifically, it doesn't deal with other addictions.
4. The question remains: What about those people WHO DO NOT WANT to try abstinence and have no desire to get fully sober?
THAT LAST point is why HR programs are out there. IF every person suffering from addiction were seriously committed to getting completely sober, then we could deal with total abstinence programs.
But that is not the reality.
Do you understand that?
And so, for those who out of hand reject abstinence programs, what is going to be the best way of helping them? Or are you saying, "To hell with them! Let them die."?
Dan,
I'm not sure that pointing out your inability to provide the specific information and data requested has anything to do with my ability to read, but if blaming others for your failures helps, then go right ahead.
I understand that you hold those opinions, and hold them quite strongly. The problem is we don't spend money borrowed by the government based on your opinions. The fact that you assert those opinions, has no bearing on anything, and certainly isn't "data".
I'm quite sure that if you decide to address these issues, you'll do it from the safety of your blog, hiding behind your delete button. Because having a debate where one party has been banned, and anyone who crosses some arbitrary line is subject to deletion is the very best possible way to have an open conversation.
FYI, I haven't posted links because I'm not suggesting anything specific at this point, and it doesn't matter how many links your post if those links don't have the specifics and "data" to answer 3 simple direct questions.
"I don't know how to help you. You all read words but fail to understand their meaning and just twist and twist and misunderstand and misrepresent."
To which I counter: you have an incredibly poor way of explaining your position in the face of criticism, defaulting to blaming the critic of twisting, misunderstanding and misrepresenting. This inability to defend your position indicates the weakness of the position. Were your arguments sound, they'd illicit little criticism. They aren't, so they do and the result is your tap-dancing which further provokes more criticism.
"I may or may not return to try to address this mishmash of non-responses and irrational responses."
What you regard as a "mishmash of 'non-responses' and 'irrational responses'" are no more than the result of you jumping from one issue to another, with little connection between them which your mishmash of irrational arguments can't tie together. If you stick to one issue, you might have better luck. Of course that would depend on whether or not that one issue is soundly defended by you.
"I, for one, think that it's clear that helping people NOT DIE is a good thing. Disagree if you want."
Neither of us disagree with helping people NOT DIE. But if the goal is to end addiction, then that's not relevant. If the goal is to keep people from dying while remaining addicted, that's not sensible, given the fact that the risk of death from the addiction remains, even if it seems to be lessened by the methods you advocate.
"I, for one, recognize the reality that not a single dead person is going to get clean from their addictions. Not one."
This is an irrational point to make. It is irrelevant to the goal of any program, abstinence OR harm-reduction since the risk of death from the addiction remains for any who remain addicted. I would posit that harm-reduction only delays death from addiction if the addicted remain addicted. I recognize the reality that few who overcome their addictions die from their addictions, so ending the addiction is paramount and the only measure of success of any program.
"I, for one, think that healthier is better than less healthy."
Addiction is unhealthy. One is either addicted or not addicted. One is either using or not using. Not using leads to good health. Using is unhealthy.
"I, for one, think that being able to stay employed is better than not employed."
Staying employed is contingent on being clean. It's the duty of the employee to achieve sobriety, not the employer's obligation to subordinate his business to serve the addict indefinitely.
" that more sober is better than more drunk, that less dependent is better than more dependent"
There is only addicted or not addicted. There is no "less or more" addicted.
"that staying out of prison is better than being in prison."
Being clean lessens the potential for arrest on charges of possession or the need to steal to pay for one's drugs.
My responses are examples of rational thought with regard the issue of addiction. They're rational because the points are self-evident. Your statements which provoked my responses are not rational because they're no better than wishful thinking.
"Just for the record, I provided links to experts and data about addiction: ~27"
The number of links you've provided would be significant if they provided actual evidence for your position. None of them do so far as I could find. At least my Stanford study provides. I needed no more than that.
"The second one was a link to a study that DID show that those who choose an abstinence method are more likely to stay sober longer than those who chose a moderation method. Two points:
1. No one is disputing that striving for abstinence is one method of trying to get and stay sober."
But given the argument revolved around success rates between on method and another, this is a significant finding which supports the method I favor over that which you favor.
"Read that again:"
But given the argument revolved around success rates between on method and another, this is a significant finding which supports the method I favor over that which you favor.
"2. Indeed, if this one bit of research is right, it might be a more productive/"successful" way of staying sober."
Which is the point. But there is no "if" unless you can provide evidence the research is flawed in some way. Thus, it is a more productive/successful way of achieving sobriety. By the way, no program leads to staying sober. It is the will of the individual which matters to that. The program only aids in becoming sober. My "cold turkey" smoking cessation program only broke my addiction to nicotine. It's had absolutely nothing to do with my remaining tobacco free. That's been all on me. So it is with any other addiction.
"3. This particular study is about alcohol addiction specifically, it doesn't deal with other addictions."
You say that as if it makes a difference to the basic concepts of addiction and remaining abstinent after the addiction is broken. It does not.
"4. The question remains: What about those people WHO DO NOT WANT to try abstinence and have no desire to get fully sober?"
Then they remain addicts and are even more unworthy of my tax-dollars to keep them from killing themselves. And keep in mind: this discussion has to do with those who are substance addicted, not those who are occasional users of a substance.
"IF every person suffering from addiction were seriously committed to getting completely sober, then we could deal with total abstinence programs."
What an absolutely dumbshit position! If an addict isn't serious about getting clean, then they definitely aren't deserving of tax dollars to treat their addiction.
"But that is not the reality.
Do you understand that?"
Oh, absolutely. But rational people don't waste their time and money with those who aren't serious about getting clean and sober. As stupid and unjust as it is to force the taxpayer to pay for ANY addict's treatment, what kind of moron would insist we should do so for those not truly serious about healing? You gotta be kidding.
"And so, for those who out of hand reject abstinence programs, what is going to be the best way of helping them?"
See Dan Trabue. He'll pay for your half-assed intentions.
100! (That used to be a thing on the blogs, being the 100th comment)
Yes it did. Unfortunately Dan usually finds an excuse to leave discussions in a cloud of faux outrage before they get to 100.
Post a Comment