Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One can argue, in fact I will, that liberalism can be like Opiods in that many programs meant to ease the pain of injustice or poverty, etc, not only produces side-effects, but also runs the risk of creating "addicts".
I often hear people bash welfare, liberalism and the like, for people being on such programs for generations. When these programs and policy came into existence, the pain of abject poverty and inequality was persistent and real. Hence, the policies were like a pain drug and like most pain drugs come with side effects and the possibility of addiction.
Currently there is an opiod epidemic. This opiod epidemic grew out of the legitimate and moral need to treat people who were experiencing chronic pain. This created opiod addicts as an indirect consequence of treating pain. Liberalism created "addicts" as an indirect consequence of treating socioeconomic pain. Conservatism, however, is anti-liberalism. Thus, is conservatism anti the treatment of pain? Do conservatives argue that because treatment can potentially have side effects and addiction as a trade off, that people should be left on their own to deal with chronic pain?
Last edited by Indentured Servant; 06-19-2017 at 12:00 PM..
Not all or even most who take pain medication for pain become addicts. People who have addictive personalities and/or a genetic predisposition to addiction become addicts.
Normal people take a pain med only while they need them and then discontinue the drug. Addicts never want to let go or can't let go of the high. Very different.
Ironic that it's usually conservative area that has opioid addiction problem eh?
Anyway, there is nothing wrong with social programs, we just need to make sure they are not abused. If the right-wing had champion reducing abuse of welfare program instead of just outright gutting/eliminating them, a lot of liberals would be on board with that.
Location: Born & Raised DC > Carolinas > Seattle > Denver
9,338 posts, read 7,113,345 times
Reputation: 9487
Quote:
Originally Posted by texan2yankee
Not all or even most who take pain medication for pain become addicts. People who have addictive personalities and/or a genetic disposition to addiction become addicts.
Normal people take a pain med only while they need them and then discontinue the drug. Addicts never want to let go or can't let go of the high. Very different.
Not all or even most who take pain medication for pain become addicts. People who have addictive personalities and/or a genetic disposition to addiction become addicts.
Normal people take a pain med only while they need them and then discontinue the drug. Addicts never want to let go or can't let go of the high. Very different.
What does it matter? If they never had the pain they would have never needed to take the drug and hence would not be addicted to the opiods. Are you arguing that people should not be given pain medication because SOME people might be predisposed to become addicted? Ergo....people in poverty, such as children, should not have their parents be aided because the kids might become conditionally dependent on public assistance.
What does it matter? If they never had the pain they would have never needed to take the drug and hence would not be addicted to the opiods. Are you arguing that people should not be given pain medication because SOME people might be predisposed to become addicted? Ergo....people in poverty, such as children, should not have their parents be aided because the kids might become conditionally dependent on public assistance.
On the contrary. Pain medication shouldn't be denied to the many who need them in order to protect the few who will become addicted and need to be protected from themselves. In a free society, people have the choice to make very bad decisions.
On the contrary. Pain medication shouldn't be denied to the many who need them in order to protect the few who will become addicted and need to be protected from themselves. In a free society, people have the choice to make very bad decisions.
Are you saying that it is a "bad decision" to be in pain and thus seek medication?
I reread your post and do not understand the need to inject "bad decision" in the conversation. It seemed rather out of context unless you were arguing that people who seek relief from chronic pain, via medication, are free to make the bad decision. Many decisions actually are GOOD decisions because you don't assume or know of the bad consequences. When or if a person becomes addicted....then hind site becomes 20/20.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
