America's Most Dangerous Drug

[vern_humphrey]

Ani Ibi:

Are sociopaths made or born?

Born.

If babies were born 6 feet tall, and weighing 180 pounds of solid bone and muscle, they’d be killers. The infant is completely self-centered – and that’s basically what a sociopath is.

It’s up to us to socialize them. When we fail, we call the result a sociopath.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

BLB_Oregon:

life’s not fair. Like it or not, the cards you were dealt are what you have to play. What matters is that what can be done today is done, and that the patient is the one willing to be primarily responsible for his or her own life and health. There is no substitute for that. But for mercy’s sake, they deserve all the help and empathy that the rest of us can muster for them. Drug addiction is a bad, bad disease.

Thank you to the folks who responded to my question about sociopaths. Oregon: once an addict has made the decision to become a recovering addict and is acting purposefully and systematically on that decision then, yes, I agree pull out the empathy-stops.

However I do not think empathy is indicated for active users. What is there to empathize with?

 

[BLB_Oregon]

Ani Ibi:

Thank you to the folks who responded to my question about sociopaths. Oregon: once an addict has made the decision to become a recovering addict and is acting purposefully and systematically on that decision then, yes, I agree pull out the empathy-stops.

However I do not think empathy is indicated for active users. What is there to empathize with?

They are sinners, and you are a sinner. It is only the sin that is different. If you do not have gratitude for the graces you have received, the mercies that are extended to you, in what sense have you even received them? In what sense would you even be contrite for your own sins? You would only have traded your obvious vices for the sin of pride, comforting yourself with the thought that your sins aren’t the worst instead of using your knowledge of them to stir your own compassion for others.

“There, but for the Grace of God, go I.” Did Jesus not die for us while we were still sinners? Did He not reach out to Saul, who was persecuting His Church with zeal, and make him into St. Paul? Didn’t Stephen, martyred while that Saul looked on, pray in his last words, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them”? That was empathy. This is the mindset we are to imitate. Sometimes it is not in our power to knock them off of their path of destruction, but we are charged to do what we can.

Active users, and especially dealers, have proven to be Sauls waiting to be St. Pauls. Once in recovery, many do plunge in after other souls with great zeal, rescuing souls in a way that those of us who have not wrestled with that sin cannot.

Would you like the Church to ignore you in your sin until it dawns on you to reform yourself? Or would you like to be challenged out of your stupor? Would you like to be met with condemnation only, or with the recognition that you in your sin are like all of us, that it is your sin, and not you, that God hates? Would you come out of your prison for the sake of facing the judgement you deserve? Or would you rather be told the whole truth: that you, like all of us, are called out of death and into life? If we are to wait before someone comes to us before we extend mercy, in what sense are we making disciples of the world? We are not God, but we are their brothers and sisters. We have our part to do.

In this case, it is a delicate path we tread. Giving empathy to someone’s life without giving support to “the life” can be very hard, especially when that someone doesn’t even recognize the difference. But as I said, we do what we can. Empathy is the very least we can ask of ourselves.

Besides, addiction is a disease of the mind. We know these people are no longer totally in charge of their faculties. On this account, we know that some of them are currently less accountable for their sins than we are for our own. If that doesn’t make us empathetic, I don’t know what. Perhaps if we give them a hand up out of their sin today, tomorrow they will return the favor.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

BLB_Oregon:

They are sinners, and you are a sinner…

And so on. What you have written is in my opinion is not compassionate at all. It is about looking good.

Compassion for drug addicts is a reality check. That is the kindest thing you can do for them. Putting oneself at risk of losing property, savings, food, health, housing, for the purpose of enabling an addict to continue his or her ways is not compassionate. It demonstrates clearly to the addict that his or her ‘program’ is OK when it is in no way, shape, or form OK.

I have no problem framing myself as a sinner. And I really don’t have much of a problem with you framing me as a sinner. What I do have a problem with is someone using the reality that I am a sinner in an attempt to manipulate me into behaviour which serves to put myself at risk and which serves to keep addicts hooked. I would no sooner indulge in such behaviour than expose myself to the plague.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

Ani Ibi:

And so on. What you have written is in my opinion is not compassionate at all. It is about looking good.

Compassion for drug addicts is a reality check. That is the kindest thing you can do for them. Putting oneself at risk of losing property, savings, food, health, housing, for the purpose of enabling an addict to continue his or her ways is not compassionate. It demonstrates clearly to the addict that his or her ‘program’ is OK when it is in no way, shape, or form OK.

I have no problem framing myself as a sinner. And I really don’t have much of a problem with you framing me as a sinner. What I do have a problem with is someone using the reality that I am a sinner in an attempt to manipulate me into behaviour which serves to put myself at risk and which serves to keep addicts hooked. I would no sooner indulge in such behaviour than expose myself to the plague.

You misunderstand me, and I misunderstand you – what a relief! You asked how you could have empathy for them–that is, how could you project yourself as being in their position in order to better understand them or to make contact with their feelings-- and that is what I attempted to answer. I didn’t know you were asking how you could justify enabling them!

You are saying that love and empathy do not justify enabling the continuation of ruinous life choices. Absolutely. I am in total agreement with you. Were the tables turned, we would want them to treat us in a way that would get us out of that awful lifestyle, and not in a way that would allow us to stay in it longer and possibly get themselves seriously injured for their trouble. Absolutely. I think those in recovery would concur.

That is what I meant by all that busines about the “delicate path.” How do you avoid enabling the life without letting the poor person succeed in ruining or perhaps ending their life before they come to their senses? How do you extend kindness without extending false kindness? How do you preach the truth to someone who lives so entirely in a lie… who may not even be physically able to respond to the truth, even if they could see it?

That’s our challenge, and it doesn’t have easy answers. I suppose that the most simple answer is that “tough love” is tough on everybody. You are right, though: when it is the only love deserving of the name, the truly loving person is left with no other ethical choices. Except for victims of addiction who have been made insane by their choices–organically unable to choose otherwise for themselves–those choices are theirs, and only theirs, to make.

 

[vern_humphrey]

BLB_Oregon:

That is what I meant by all that busines about the “delicate path.” How do you avoid enabling the life without letting the poor person succeed in ruining or perhaps ending their life before they come to their senses? How do you extend kindness without extending false kindness? How do you preach the truth to someone who lives so entirely in a lie… who may not even be physically able to respond to the truth, even if they could see it?

Sometimes you can’t. As I recall, the former Surgeon General, Koop, was in an Ethics in America discussion where the question was, “A street person asks you for money for a meal. You know he’s going to spend it on alcohol. What do you do?”

Koop said, “Give it to him – that’s the only way he can escape from the life he’s made for himself.”

That sounds odd, but what he means is, you CAN’T help some people. You have to accept that.

On the other hand, some people who CAN be helped are actually hurt by too much “help.”

 

[BLB_Oregon]

vern humphrey:

Sometimes you can’t. As I recall, the former Surgeon General, Koop, was in an Ethics in America discussion where the question was, “A street person asks you for money for a meal. You know he’s going to spend it on alcohol. What do you do?”

I’ve been in that position. You have to either buy them a meal yourself, give them a meal voucher (which they might still trade away for drugs), or turn them down. While the personal contact is worth doing it sometimes, you can’t spend too much money buying food at restaurant prices for the person you meet in person at the expense of giving money to a food kitchen or food bank that can make the money go much so much farther for the people you don’t meet. And if they’re using, I think you have to turn them down, and tell them why. They won’t count it as a kindness, probably, but while they are still in control of their choices, that’s all you can do.

What I haven’t done is work the food kitchens or food banks that I give money to, in order to combine personal contact and prudent giving. I think that is the best way. I think the kitchens have the rule: you can’t come in if you’re using. An addict has to dry up for at least that long. Until you have to call the paramedics, you can’t in conscience make the bar any lower than that. “Here is the door, it’s always open… but you have to walk through it.” Otherwise, you’re just enabling.

By the way, I would never give money to someone out there on a street corner with a cardboard sign. The same goes for the guy in the grocery store parking lot asking for $1 for gas. It sounds harsh, but it is difficult to believe how much a con artist can make that way… I am talking about people who would rather pose as being poor or as suffering bad luck than work. You can’t let them steal from the truly poor, just to keep yourself from guilt. You have to insist they go through a channel that has some safeguards… assuming we also work to see that the channels are there. (I have offered to call a friend for the “gasoline hounds”… they always turn me down.)

 

[vern_humphrey]

BLB_Oregon:

I’ve been in that position. You have to either buy them a meal yourself, give them a meal voucher (which they might still trade away for drugs), or turn them down. While the personal contact is worth doing it sometimes, you can’t spend too much money buying food at restaurant prices for the person you meet in person at the expense of giving money to a food kitchen or food bank that can make the money go much so much farther for the people you don’t meet. And if they’re using, I think you have to turn them down, and tell them why. They won’t count it as a kindness, probably, but while they are still in control of their choices, that’s all you can do.

Sometimes, though, such a person will turn away from you in disgust when you offer to take them somewhere where YOU can buy the meal, rather than give them the money. They may become abusive or even violent.

I recall one person in Hampton, Virginia, who used to work cars at a stoplight with a sign that said, “Homeless veteran. Will work for food.”

He was driven away by the cruel strategy of offering him a job.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[Bobby_A.Greene]

Not sure of your logic. If heroin use is down and it was never made legal then how do you come to conclusion the legalization reduces demand?

Heroin use is down simply because it has been replaced by other ‘fad’ drugs, like ‘crack’ cocaine and crystal meth. My point is that by legalizing crystal meth, you will speed the process of lowering demand because drugs will lose a lot of their mystery and mystique. In my humble opinion and first hand observation ‘crack’, heroin, and meth, will no longer be a ‘fad’ if they’re legalized. But just like booze, you will always have that 10% who are going to hook themselves regardless of the legal status of the controlled substance.

Something I found with my children and other peoples children is that if you are involved with them and keep them active in appropriate activities they might get into minor trouble. But, if on the other hand, parents that let the public schools raise their children, don’t do things with them and in general let them raise themselves, these children seem to get into major trouble more often.

Yes, so true - just like what happened to me. My mother took me out of Catholic school after the 3rd grade and dumped me into the dungeons of the Boston Public Schools. That is how I accumulated all my first hand observations on drug use (and a lot of other dysfunctional behaviours).

 

[BLB_Oregon]

Bobby A. Greene:

Heroin use is down simply because it has been replaced by other ‘fad’ drugs, like ‘crack’ cocaine and crystal meth. My point is that by legalizing crystal meth, you will speed the process of lowering demand because drugs will lose a lot of their mystery and mystique. In my humble opinion and first hand observation ‘crack’, heroin, and meth, will no longer be a ‘fad’ if they’re legalized. But just like booze, you will always have that 10% who are going to hook themselves regardless of the legal status of the controlled substance.

Here is the problem with your argument in favor of legalization.
Let us say that my company made a drug to treat a real disease, a drug with real therapeutic use, but a drug that didn’t present a therapeutic option where none other existed.

Now let us say that in clinical trials, it became clear that my company’s drug led to psychosis in a large number of cases. Patients lost all interest in anything other than getting the drug. My trial would be discontinued long before any 20 or 30 year olds had their health ruined to the point that they looked 60, for obvious ethical reason.

You see what I’m getting at. You’re saying that my drug, which has real clinical use, should not ever be legally sold, but crystal meth, whose only “clinical use” is for recreation and self-medication against mental disorders that probably deserve professional treatment should be allowed? You have to be joking.

Alcohol, by contrast, while it can be abused (as any drug can) and may become addictive (as many drugs are), has a long history of appropriate use by the general population. Like aspirin, which could probably never pass clinical trials these days, alcohol is also a drug that has long-time popular acceptance. The public has said clearly that they will not allow it to be withdrawn from the market. These are two of the huge differences between alcohol and crystal meth and other psycho-active drugs.

So while I might have some openness to legalizing marijuana, forget the rest of them. They are dangerous drugs, and they need to be tightly controlled or made entirely illegal.

 

[Bobby_A.Greene]

BLB_Oregon:

Here is the problem with your argument in favor of legalization.
Let us say that my company made a drug to treat a real disease, a drug with real therapeutic use, but a drug that didn’t present a therapeutic option where none other existed.

Now let us say that in clinical trials, it became clear that my company’s drug led to psychosis in a large number of cases. Patients lost all interest in anything other than getting the drug. My trial would be discontinued long before any 20 or 30 year olds had their health ruined to the point that they looked 60, for obvious ethical reason.

You see what I’m getting at. You’re saying that my drug, which has real clinical use, should not ever be legally sold, but crystal meth, whose only “clinical use” is for recreation and self-medication against mental disorders that probably deserve professional treatment should be allowed? You have to be joking.

Alcohol, by contrast, while it can be abused (as any drug can) and may become addictive (as many drugs are), has a long history of appropriate use by the general population. Like aspirin, which could probably never pass clinical trials these days, alcohol is also a drug that has long-time popular acceptance. The public has said clearly that they will not allow it to be withdrawn from the market. These are two of the huge differences between alcohol and crystal meth and other psycho-active drugs.

So while I might have some openness to legalizing marijuana, forget the rest of them. They are dangerous drugs, and they need to be tightly controlled or made entirely illegal.

Thank you for this. But my very real point is that we are losing the war on drugs. Illegal drugs is a billion dollar, or more, a year criminal enterprise that also includes the murder of innocents, such as cops and victims of drug-lord warfare.

By legalizing drugs, and taxing it, America will substantially lower the crime rate in this country and give honest middle class tax payers a much needed break.

The war on drugs is a dismal fraud since law enforcement officials are known to deal drugs, so just do the ugly necessity and legalize them, and yank the monetary teeth out of some career criminals.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

Bobby A. Greene:

Thank you for this. But my very real point is that we are losing the war on drugs. Illegal drugs is a billion dollar, or more, a year criminal enterprise that also includes the murder of innocents, such as cops and victims of drug-lord warfare.

By legalizing drugs, and taxing it, America will substantially lower the crime rate in this country and give honest middle class tax payers a much needed break.

The war on drugs is a dismal fraud since law enforcement officials are known to deal drugs, so just do the ugly necessity and legalize them, and yank the monetary teeth out of some career criminals.

Maybe you’d lower the formal crime rate… but would you be satisfied with the tragedy rate? The problem is that as long as there are users, there will be users getting addicted and ruining lives. Lots of them. These users are a threat to society, not just themselves. Honest middle class tax payers don’t want their mentally unstable or merely wild family members or next door neighbors to be able to go out and buy crystal meth at the Liquor Barn. You could give out crystal meth free at the check-out counter, and the problem would not be solved. To the extent that we are able, we have to eliminate dangerous psychoactive drugs from common availability. We’re not talking pot or booze, here.

I think we have more options than to legalize or to continue as we have. The nature of the war on drugs should be changed, but abandoning the effort entirely is a mistake.

 

[Bobby_A.Greene]

BLB_Oregon:

Maybe you’d lower the formal crime rate… but would you be satisfied with the tragedy rate? The problem is that as long as there are users, there will be users getting addicted and ruining lives. Lots of them. These users are a threat to society, not just themselves. Honest middle class tax payers don’t want their mentally unstable or merely wild family members or next door neighbors to be able to go out and buy crystal meth at the Liquor Barn. You could give out crystal meth free at the check-out counter, and the problem would not be solved. To the extent that we are able, we have to eliminate dangerous psychoactive drugs from common availability. We’re not talking pot or booze, here.

I think we have more options than to legalize or to continue as we have. The nature of the war on drugs should be changed, but abandoning the effort entirely is a mistake.

How does one stop law enforcement from dealing drugs? How does one stop law students from dealing Coke to pay for law school? How does one stop Judges from accepting cash bribe money from their drug dealing defendants?
Simply by legalizing it!

 

[vern_humphrey]

Bobby A. Greene:

By legalizing drugs, and taxing it, America will substantially lower the crime rate in this country and give honest middle class tax payers a much needed break.

That hasn’t happened in other countries that have legalized drugs. Crime is on the increase in those countries.
Bobby A. Greene:

The war on drugs is a dismal fraud since law enforcement officials are known to deal drugs, so just do the ugly necessity and legalize them, and yank the monetary teeth out of some career criminals.

Except that there is no evidence that crime will be reduced – as I said, crime is up in those countries with legalized drugs. For law enforcement officials who deal in drugs, we need better controls and harsher penalties.

 

[Darrel]

The drug problem in this country/world can never be solved by things like education or awareness.

Even if we constructed 500 more huge prisons and made it a 15 year minimum sentence for users it would still happen. The only solution is a real war on drugs. We need to all agree on a government level to use police and military globally to remove the supply.

This could be done but the love of money overrides the love of humanity. So we allow the problem to continue and people continue to make big money from the fact the world is full of addicts. They could end this in a year if they hit this problem with more then a band aid. If we reduce the supply by 90 percent a heroin addict would need 100 bucks for a single bag let alone the 8 bags a day. This in combination with 15 year sentences for users would end it all. It just would not be worth it to deal drugs anymore or use them.

-D

 

[Bobby_A.Greene]

For law enforcement officials who deal in drugs, we need better controls and harsher penalties.

We don’t need better laws, we don’t need harsher penalties, and how much better control are we supposed to have if law enforcement officials break the law?

A mid-western chief of police once said that if every United States citizen were a cop there would still be crime.

Again, the rule of law has failed, so its best just to legalize drugs to reduce the crime rate.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Bobby A. Greene:

We don’t need better laws,

Then why propose any change at all in the existing laws?
Bobby A. Greene:

we don’t need harsher penalties, and how much better control are we supposed to have if law enforcement officials break the law?

We need the controls required to keep those law enforcement officials from breaking the laws, of course. That includes better internal affairs departments, better compartmentalization of operations, and regular checkups on officers who deal with drug enforcement.
Bobby A. Greene:

A mid-western chief of police once said that if every United States citizen were a cop there would still be crime.

Did he go on to say, “Therefore we should have no cops?”

I didn’t say more cops, I said better accountability and stricter enforcement – along with appropriate penalties. A sworn law offier who breaks the law should pay an appropriate penalty.
Bobby A. Greene:

Again, the rule of law has failed, so its best just to legalize drugs to reduce the crime rate.

But in every country where it’s been tried, legalization has been more of a failure.

 

[Bobby_A.Greene]

vern humphrey:

Then why propose any change at all in the existing laws?

Since the existing laws are obviously not working, they should be changed.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Bobby A. Greene:

Since the existing laws are obviously not working, they should be changed.

The question is, how should they be changed?

One way is to work to improve and tighten up what we have, and follow that up with organizational improvements (to ferret out rogue LEOs). The other way is to scrap everything.

I think the first way offers the best chance of success.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

BLB_Oregon:

You misunderstand me, and I misunderstand you – what a relief!

Fair enough. Point taken. My apologies.