Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > West Virginia
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 11-29-2018, 01:23 AM
 
194 posts, read 179,208 times
Reputation: 117

Advertisements

Similarly I read a many cases started as basically wear and tear arthritis and repetitive nerve damage causing back and hip pain in the mines, there is no treatment except not do a heavy job. So the doctors were prescribing pain meds for it

 
Old 11-29-2018, 07:41 AM
 
123 posts, read 277,838 times
Reputation: 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
They aren't going to pay. Many will be billed for E.R. services or for paramedics to show up but they won't pay. It's your solution so you have to describe how exactly it is that you are going to force them to pay.

What I "want" is irrelevant.
I have already explained this twice. I even shouted it from the cheap seats. I have a feeling you're toying with me, but here we go. I have no anticipation of forcing anyone to pay anything. I feel like it should be written on a t-shirt by now, "If an addict wants Narcan, they can purchase it." i mean, with cash. Dollars. Specie. US currency. (Hopefully I am describing it exactly enough). You don't have the cash? I don't have the medicine. So, nothing is forced in this transaction. I don't believe in forced transactions for the most part. The same principle applies in an ambulance, an ER, a doctor's office, a doctor's home, a camel ride, a performance art show...and the beat goes on. I don't think any of it should be supplied by government at a subsidized or no cost. If someone wants to donate the medicine, they can. What I strongly suspect would happen would be that private health care services would pop up. Maybe they can make some kind of credit arrangement with the "addict's" family, and agree to extend them credit if they can come up with the proper collateral, or if they are just worth the risk, the way any other private companirs operate.

In other words, no one would administer Narcan unless they were willing to waive the cost, or they were paid already, or were willing to risk extension of credit with the full knowledge that the person to whom one extended credit could declare bankruptcy ard you would not get paid. The creditor, of course, could adjust the interest rate according to his risk.

No public entity should issue Narcan and billl the "addict" later and expect payment. If I agree with you on one thing, it is that bill will never be paid.

So...no forcing. Just no administration of medicine without being paid in kind. Is there anything else about my solution that i can clear up?

And, what you "want" is relevant to me. You can continue to criticize, but it's not constructive in and of itself. It's much more constructive to come up with a solution so that we can bounce ideas off one another. But that's your call.

[
Quote:
Originally Posted by westsideboy View Post
Ok. Your theory is fine in principle, but leads to morgues full of dead young people. Narcan saves lives, and I have no problem allowing my tax dollars to go to its purchase by first responders, or even addicts to some extent.

I understand your argument, but being part of society is admitting we don't have an individual "opt out" for public spending we disagree with. You are well within your right to debate as to whether this individual expenditure is worth it, but I will argue it is. A dead addict has no chance to turn their life around and become a better father/mother/child/sister/brother/friend, etc. An addict that is saved with this medication has that chance.
Thank you for acknowledging my argument and advancing a coherent theory.

I think we live in a society that is unique to western civilization in that we fought a war against the biggest superpower in the world at the time in order to ensure our freedom. In order to enshrine that freedom, we have our founding documents. The Constitution grants powers to Congress, and the tenth amendment states that the powers that aren't laid out for Congress go to the states, and the people, respectively. There is nothing in Article I, Section 8 that grants Congress the right to levy taxes against one individual so as to pay for the medical care of another individual. So, contrary to the original New Yorker article's implication, the ACA, aka Obamacare, is bogus. The Constitution is the "opt out" of public spending that we citizens disagree with, in my opinion.

If you're talking about state or local spending, I agree with you that there are going to be taxes with which we do not agree, yet we are compelled to pay. I don't believe this expenditure is worth it, at least in part because it leads to unintended consequences. It leads to risk homeostasis, which is a phenomenon insurance companies take into account when they are calculating risk. The concept is that, when one does something to cause a risky behavior to become less risky, the behavior of the individual tends to become more reckless in because of a feeling that one is now "safe." An example is seatbelt and helmet laws actually will cause more reckless driving by motorists and motorcyclists.

I have no problem with people selling and purchasing Narcan to hedge against risk on an individual basis, but when it is offered free of charge by a government, I think it manifests as tacit approval and endorsement by the society of a behavior that ought to be discouraged. It reminds me of the debate about whether condoms should be passed out in the public schools that went on in the nineties. If I had a child in a school that was passing out condoms, they would be out of there so fast their head would spin. If my child were having sex behind my back, I would want them to use condoms, but I wouldn't want them in a school that doesn't take a moral stand against teenage fornication. Does that make sense? It's the same with needle exchanges. It's the same with birth control pills. Making it available at no cost to the user normalizes it. When something is normalized, I think it begins to become part of the culture and the mainstream, which leads to increased use.

Just anecdotal here, but I wasn't the perfect teenager/young adult. But I would be more inclined to use alcohol than illegal drugs, because I was always afraid of getting a "bad batch" and dying. If my teenaged self had been at a party or a social gathering where there was meth and heroin available, I would go for the heroin in a heartbeat if I was assured there was an antidote on the premises. In the absence of the antidote, I am not sure, but I would have probably eschewed both, "just to be safe." This is the risk homeostasis at work.

I acknowledge where you are coming from--you want to save lives, and it's noble--but i am more worried, as I posted earlier, about preventing people from getting into these things in the first place. The people who are already into them so badly that they need Narcan are not as high on my priority list. I think their lives still have worth, but I would go about helping them in a different way.

I was listening to Jordan Peterson on my way home from work, and he said that he had a patient who was so into cocaine that this patient was only safe when he was broke. Peterson said that as soon as the disability check came in, the guy was at the most risk. Peterson said that we can't help addicts by giving them money. I think the same principle applies to Narcan. We can help addicts by guiding them toward something that is bigger and more important than the drug. And even that fails often. I think someone needs to shake them and tell them, "you will die from this. Do you want help?" That's where it starts. Narcan is just a temporary measure. If we don't have a big-picture solution, the person is going to keep using, as the article pointed out. It said that a lot of these people that the EMTs "save" can become hostile that you are ruining their high, and they even have procedures in place to put a car in park before administering the antidote, so that the addict doesn't fight them off and drive away. Forcing aid on someone who doesn't want it is assault.

I reiterate: it's not my business what someone does with their body, as long as they keep it to themselves. When they start passing out in public places, as this one documentary out of Huntington showed, it is time to stop enabling them for the greater good of society.

People need something to believe in. They need something at stake in society. They need to feel connected. Until we have a plan in place for that, the Narcan is a band-aid on cancer. This is a societal and behavioral problem, thus the solution, if it exists, will only be found in society and behavioral modification. People need to be held more accountable. I think that Narcan makes them less accountable, thus perpetuating, not limiting, the harm.

If Narcan had the power to reverse addictive behavior, I would be all for it.
 
Old 11-29-2018, 10:10 AM
 
79,902 posts, read 43,880,406 times
Reputation: 17184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicole111 View Post
I have already explained this twice. I even shouted it from the cheap seats. I have a feeling you're toying with me, but here we go. I have no anticipation of forcing anyone to pay anything. I feel like it should be written on a t-shirt by now, "If an addict wants Narcan, they can purchase it." i mean, with cash. Dollars. Specie. US currency. (Hopefully I am describing it exactly enough). You don't have the cash? I don't have the medicine. So, nothing is forced in this transaction. I don't believe in forced transactions for the most part. The same principle applies in an ambulance, an ER, a doctor's office, a doctor's home, a camel ride, a performance art show...and the beat goes on. I don't think any of it should be supplied by government at a subsidized or no cost. If someone wants to donate the medicine, they can. What I strongly suspect would happen would be that private health care services would pop up. Maybe they can make some kind of credit arrangement with the "addict's" family, and agree to extend them credit if they can come up with the proper collateral, or if they are just worth the risk, the way any other private companirs operate.

In other words, no one would administer Narcan unless they were willing to waive the cost, or they were paid already, or were willing to risk extension of credit with the full knowledge that the person to whom one extended credit could declare bankruptcy ard you would not get paid. The creditor, of course, could adjust the interest rate according to his risk.

No public entity should issue Narcan and billl the "addict" later and expect payment. If I agree with you on one thing, it is that bill will never be paid.

So...no forcing. Just no administration of medicine without being paid in kind. Is there anything else about my solution that i can clear up?

And, what you "want" is relevant to me. You can continue to criticize, but it's not constructive in and of itself. It's much more constructive to come up with a solution so that we can bounce ideas off one another. But that's your call.
your argument is "let them die". We aren't going to do that. There is also no way to ask an overdosing patient whether or not their health insurance is paid up.

First thing I would do is pull the troops out of Afghanistan and allow the Taliban to start destroying the poppy fields again.
 
Old 11-29-2018, 10:41 AM
 
Location: Appalachian New York, Formerly Louisiana
4,409 posts, read 6,488,434 times
Reputation: 6253
As for all the talk about the New Yorker publication, I wanted to chime in real fast. Those folks don't really know what America is like outside of their bubble.

I was born and raised in NY state, in an area not so super removed from WV in actuality, and they basically pretend we don't exist at all. Like we're some kinda blight on NY's image.

Whatever you do, please don't think they accurately represent the people of this state.

Coincidentally, our own heroin problem seems to be at its worst around my home area. Go figure.

I truly wish I were capable of helping personally in some way. My friends in Ohio are in a similar boat with their epidemic, and it seems like nobody up top really cares. The media would rather belly-ache about Trump all day.

I mean, look at Flint, Michigan. They STILL don't have clean water. I think it's been around two years now since that problem got mass attention and the government has done nothing about it.

'Murrica. :/
 
Old 11-29-2018, 12:52 PM
 
123 posts, read 277,838 times
Reputation: 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
your argument is "let them die". We aren't going to do that. There is also no way to ask an overdosing patient whether or not their health insurance is paid up.

First thing I would do is pull the troops out of Afghanistan and allow the Taliban to start destroying the poppy fields again.
Oh, yes, well, of course I'm in favor of "letting" people die. I have been consistent on that since my first post. There is nothing more important to me than liberty. People have the liberty to make their own choices. All of my thought processes originate with the idea that I own my body and you own yours. If someone wants to die, they should be allowed to die. If someone engages in reckless behavior, they are probably more at risk of dying. As long as we are adults, we all should have that choice.

In the same exact vein, I responsible for my behavior, and nobody else's. It infringes on my liberty when the federal government commits theft against me by reaching into my pocket and taking my income and giving it to someone else, for any reason other than what is spelled out in our founding documents, which is extremely limited. It is theft--legal theft, but theft--to take my money and property by force and give it to someone else so that they can have Narcan. It is not only theft, but it is evil to compel me to do that. It is a form of slavery, which is defined as compelled labor.

I thought I made it abundantly clear that a huge compoent of my argument was "let them die" when I said that if you have a banana and I need the banana to live, but I have nothing that you value to exchange, that you would be under no obligation to give me the banana, thus letting me die. I have no right to your property. This isn't the USSR.

What happens when people are left alone and not victims of theft every single day is that their natural charitable impulses rise up. I think it would be wonderful if you gave me the banana to let me live, but it has to be voluntary. I have been consistent that people can donate Narcan to one another, which is a voluntary transaction.

Regarding your assertion there is no way to ask an overdosing patient if their insurance is paid up, people can carry insurance cards. At some point, people need to take responsibility. On an episode of Mad Men, the characters were planning on tripping on LSD, so they wrote their names and addresses on pieces of paper and put them into their pockets, just in case they wandered around and got lost. I don't think it's too much to ask of our fellow man to take the most elementary measures in order to facilitate medical staff to do their job on me because I am contemplating an overdose.

There are all kinds of private sector and charitable answers to this problem. I'll name three right off the top of my head: I think that there would be charity-based hospitals or clinics that agree to treat overdosing patients free of charge. If I'm an addict, I cut out the middle man and keep a couple of Narcans on hand in the event of an overdose. If public hospitals were taken out of the equation, private hospital and clinics would replace them, and treat people on the basis of contacts. Anyone, not just an addict, can go down to the hospital and join, like a gym, and pay a fee, and they agree they will treat you in the event of an emergency. If one engages in reckless behavior and has no forethought to hedge against it, then they should be prepared for the consequences. We all face consequences in life.

As far as Afghanistan, I agree that the foreign entanglement is getting excessive, and it's time to leave, but it really sounds like you think that allowing the Taliban to destroy poppy plants will deplete the supply. Ok, maybe, but what about all of the heroin that is coming in from Xalisco, Mexico? What are we supposed to do, bomb Mexico? For a product that people want and are willing to pay for? Let's say we can actually prevent all the heroin from coming into the country (since we're on the topic of fantasies). People will just take meth, which is manufactured in the US. They'll drink themselves to death. Wait, I know! Let's ban alcohol! We'll call it...Prohibition. That ought to work well.
 
Old 11-29-2018, 01:11 PM
 
79,902 posts, read 43,880,406 times
Reputation: 17184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicole111 View Post
Oh, yes, well, of course I'm in favor of "letting" people die. I have been consistent on that since my first post. There is nothing more important to me than liberty. People have the liberty to make their own choices. All of my thought processes originate with the idea that I own my body and you own yours. If someone wants to die, they should be allowed to die. If someone engages in reckless behavior, they are probably more at risk of dying. As long as we are adults, we all should have that choice.
We aren't going to simply allow people to die. You are certainly free to hold these beliefs but the idea is solutions and since we are not going to simply allow people to die, it's not a solution.

Quote:
Regarding your assertion there is no way to ask an overdosing patient if their insurance is paid up, people can carry insurance cards. At some point, people need to take responsibility. On an episode of Mad Men, the characters were planning on tripping on LSD, so they wrote their names and addresses on pieces of paper and put them into their pockets, just in case they wandered around and got lost. I don't think it's too much to ask of our fellow man to take the most elementary measures in order to facilitate medical staff to do their job on me because I am contemplating an overdose.
We aren't going to have emergency responders searching through pockets and purses before giving aid. It's not going to happen.

Quote:
There are all kinds of private sector and charitable answers to this problem. I'll name three right off the top of my head: I think that there would be charity-based hospitals or clinics that agree to treat overdosing patients free of charge. If I'm an addict, I cut out the middle man and keep a couple of Narcans on hand in the event of an overdose. If public hospitals were taken out of the equation, private hospital and clinics would replace them, and treat people on the basis of contacts. Anyone, not just an addict, can go down to the hospital and join, like a gym, and pay a fee, and they agree they will treat you in the event of an emergency. If one engages in reckless behavior and has no forethought to hedge against it, then they should be prepared for the consequences. We all face consequences in life.
Not going to happen.

Quote:
As far as Afghanistan, I agree that the foreign entanglement is getting excessive, and it's time to leave, but it really sounds like you think that allowing the Taliban to destroy poppy plants will deplete the supply.
I said it would be my first step.

Quote:
Ok, maybe, but what about all of the heroin that is coming in from Xalisco, Mexico? What are we supposed to do, bomb Mexico? For a product that people want and are willing to pay for? Let's say we can actually prevent all the heroin from coming into the country (since we're on the topic of fantasies). People will just take meth, which is manufactured in the US. They'll drink themselves to death. Wait, I know! Let's ban alcohol! We'll call it...Prohibition. That ought to work well.
That is all true and we aren't going to simply allow people to die. We aren't going to do it.
 
Old 11-29-2018, 03:12 PM
 
123 posts, read 277,838 times
Reputation: 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
We aren't going to simply allow people to die. You are certainly free to hold these beliefs but the idea is solutions and since we are not going to simply allow people to die, it's not a solution.



We aren't going to have emergency responders searching through pockets and purses before giving aid. It's not going to happen.



Not going to happen.



I said it would be my first step.



That is all true and we aren't going to simply allow people to die. We aren't going to do it.
I'm going to need you to define the "we" to which you keep referring in order to understand your argument.

Regardless of whom the "we" is that you are referring, "we" do let people die all day every day. God does not need our permission to take our lives, whether it is natural or through an accident, so of course we "let" people die. Given that death is inevitable, I assume you mean that "we" aren't going to let people die of deaths that can be prevented? Two hundred people in Mexico died in an earthquake last year. Did "we" "let" them die by not storming the country with aid, by not forcing it on people? Where does one draw the line?

If "we" don't let people die, certainly you are in favor of banning the sale of tobacco products in the US then? And fattening food? Are "we" less responsible for our emphysema and obesity-ridden brethren?

With regard to Afghanistan, how would burning the poppy fields be "a start"? A start to what end?

"Isn't going to happen" isn't an argument (even if I agree with you that we will likely not see some of these changes in our lifetime). It's a proferred solution to a problem that is very real. If you disagree with me, cool, but I would like to know why I'm wrong, not whether you believe it will happen.
 
Old 11-29-2018, 03:24 PM
 
79,902 posts, read 43,880,406 times
Reputation: 17184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicole111 View Post
I'm going to need you to define the "we" to which you keep referring in order to understand your argument.
Us. You may not like it but you aren't going to stop it either. The country, state, city, whatever. People are not going to be allowed to simply die.

Quote:
Regardless of whom the "we" is that you are referring, "we" do let people die all day every day. God does not need our permission to take our lives, whether it is natural or through an accident, so of course we "let" people die. Given that death is inevitable, I assume you mean that "we" aren't going to let people die of deaths that can be prevented? Two hundred people in Mexico died in an earthquake last year. Did "we" "let" them die by not storming the country with aid, by not forcing it on people? Where does one draw the line?
I have no desire to travel this rabbit hole. We are speaking about a specific thing here.

Quote:
If "we" don't let people die, certainly you are in favor of banning the sale of tobacco products in the US then? And fattening food? Are "we" less responsible for our emphysema and obesity-ridden brethren?

With regard to Afghanistan, how would burning the poppy fields be "a start"? A start to what end?

"Isn't going to happen" isn't an argument (even if I agree with you that we will likely not see some of these changes in our lifetime). It's a proferred solution to a problem that is very real. If you disagree with me, cool, but I would like to know why I'm wrong, not whether you believe it will happen.
It isn't going to happen is an argument for something that you have now agreed most likely is not going to happen.
 
Old 11-29-2018, 03:43 PM
 
Location: Cumberland
6,917 posts, read 11,168,006 times
Reputation: 6111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicole111 View Post
I have already explained this twice. I even shouted it from the cheap seats. I have a feeling you're toying with me, but here we go. I have no anticipation of forcing anyone to pay anything. I feel like it should be written on a t-shirt by now, "If an addict wants Narcan, they can purchase it." i mean, with cash. Dollars. Specie. US currency. (Hopefully I am describing it exactly enough). You don't have the cash? I don't have the medicine. So, nothing is forced in this transaction. I don't believe in forced transactions for the most part. The same principle applies in an ambulance, an ER, a doctor's office, a doctor's home, a camel ride, a performance art show...and the beat goes on. I don't think any of it should be supplied by government at a subsidized or no cost. If someone wants to donate the medicine, they can. What I strongly suspect would happen would be that private health care services would pop up. Maybe they can make some kind of credit arrangement with the "addict's" family, and agree to extend them credit if they can come up with the proper collateral, or if they are just worth the risk, the way any other private companirs operate.

In other words, no one would administer Narcan unless they were willing to waive the cost, or they were paid already, or were willing to risk extension of credit with the full knowledge that the person to whom one extended credit could declare bankruptcy ard you would not get paid. The creditor, of course, could adjust the interest rate according to his risk.

No public entity should issue Narcan and billl the "addict" later and expect payment. If I agree with you on one thing, it is that bill will never be paid.

So...no forcing. Just no administration of medicine without being paid in kind. Is there anything else about my solution that i can clear up?

And, what you "want" is relevant to me. You can continue to criticize, but it's not constructive in and of itself. It's much more constructive to come up with a solution so that we can bounce ideas off one another. But that's your call.

[

Thank you for acknowledging my argument and advancing a coherent theory.

I think we live in a society that is unique to western civilization in that we fought a war against the biggest superpower in the world at the time in order to ensure our freedom. In order to enshrine that freedom, we have our founding documents. The Constitution grants powers to Congress, and the tenth amendment states that the powers that aren't laid out for Congress go to the states, and the people, respectively. There is nothing in Article I, Section 8 that grants Congress the right to levy taxes against one individual so as to pay for the medical care of another individual. So, contrary to the original New Yorker article's implication, the ACA, aka Obamacare, is bogus. The Constitution is the "opt out" of public spending that we citizens disagree with, in my opinion.

If you're talking about state or local spending, I agree with you that there are going to be taxes with which we do not agree, yet we are compelled to pay. I don't believe this expenditure is worth it, at least in part because it leads to unintended consequences. It leads to risk homeostasis, which is a phenomenon insurance companies take into account when they are calculating risk. The concept is that, when one does something to cause a risky behavior to become less risky, the behavior of the individual tends to become more reckless in because of a feeling that one is now "safe." An example is seatbelt and helmet laws actually will cause more reckless driving by motorists and motorcyclists.

I have no problem with people selling and purchasing Narcan to hedge against risk on an individual basis, but when it is offered free of charge by a government, I think it manifests as tacit approval and endorsement by the society of a behavior that ought to be discouraged. It reminds me of the debate about whether condoms should be passed out in the public schools that went on in the nineties. If I had a child in a school that was passing out condoms, they would be out of there so fast their head would spin. If my child were having sex behind my back, I would want them to use condoms, but I wouldn't want them in a school that doesn't take a moral stand against teenage fornication. Does that make sense? It's the same with needle exchanges. It's the same with birth control pills. Making it available at no cost to the user normalizes it. When something is normalized, I think it begins to become part of the culture and the mainstream, which leads to increased use.

Just anecdotal here, but I wasn't the perfect teenager/young adult. But I would be more inclined to use alcohol than illegal drugs, because I was always afraid of getting a "bad batch" and dying. If my teenaged self had been at a party or a social gathering where there was meth and heroin available, I would go for the heroin in a heartbeat if I was assured there was an antidote on the premises. In the absence of the antidote, I am not sure, but I would have probably eschewed both, "just to be safe." This is the risk homeostasis at work.

I acknowledge where you are coming from--you want to save lives, and it's noble--but i am more worried, as I posted earlier, about preventing people from getting into these things in the first place. The people who are already into them so badly that they need Narcan are not as high on my priority list. I think their lives still have worth, but I would go about helping them in a different way.

I was listening to Jordan Peterson on my way home from work, and he said that he had a patient who was so into cocaine that this patient was only safe when he was broke. Peterson said that as soon as the disability check came in, the guy was at the most risk. Peterson said that we can't help addicts by giving them money. I think the same principle applies to Narcan. We can help addicts by guiding them toward something that is bigger and more important than the drug. And even that fails often. I think someone needs to shake them and tell them, "you will die from this. Do you want help?" That's where it starts. Narcan is just a temporary measure. If we don't have a big-picture solution, the person is going to keep using, as the article pointed out. It said that a lot of these people that the EMTs "save" can become hostile that you are ruining their high, and they even have procedures in place to put a car in park before administering the antidote, so that the addict doesn't fight them off and drive away. Forcing aid on someone who doesn't want it is assault.

I reiterate: it's not my business what someone does with their body, as long as they keep it to themselves. When they start passing out in public places, as this one documentary out of Huntington showed, it is time to stop enabling them for the greater good of society.

People need something to believe in. They need something at stake in society. They need to feel connected. Until we have a plan in place for that, the Narcan is a band-aid on cancer. This is a societal and behavioral problem, thus the solution, if it exists, will only be found in society and behavioral modification. People need to be held more accountable. I think that Narcan makes them less accountable, thus perpetuating, not limiting, the harm.

If Narcan had the power to reverse addictive behavior, I would be all for it.
Yes, this is true and does happen. In my county (just over the Potomac from WV) first responders have been giving out Narcan to addicts to have on hand. What they have found is that the addicts do take more risks and up their does when they have the antidote on hand. It is a sad function of human nature, and why I said I supported giving out Narcan to addicts to some extent. I do acknowledge there is a point at which the balance between helping people and enabling them at tax payer expense is hit.

That said, OD deaths dropped significantly over one year once this program was implemented, so one could argue that while imperfect, is having the desired affect of preventing accidental deaths.

One factor that needs to be considered is those the dead addicts leave behind. Even when someone has no hope for themselves, their friends and family have hope for them. Many addicts have kids, spouses, parents who do need them, even with their shortcomings and problems.

To be honest, once the addiction and deaths started to directly affect people I knew, I changed my tune. I saw how much worse life was for the survivors after the death of their loved one. You speak Libertarian fluently, but I see drug addiction as a community issue, not just an individual one. So all of us who signed the social contract have a say on the issue, at least once it reaches a point where others are affected by the actions of the drug user.

I wish I had a great long term solution. My only partial solutions is to decrease the regulations on pharms, to try and cut down on street drug use, maybe even prescribe/give them out to addicts who agree to be part of larger programs to improve the state of their lives overall.

A great many addicts are functional, sometimes very successful, individuals. For every addict that is "chasing the dragon" for that illusive high, there is an addict taking a daily dose just to stay right. A lot of the problem with ODs and deaths could be corrected if people who fell into these groups had access to pharms, not street smack.
 
Old 11-29-2018, 06:00 PM
 
Location: West Virginia
16,588 posts, read 15,512,798 times
Reputation: 10826
Recognizing that this topic is very difficult to contain to issues relating to West Virginia, I've tried to keep up with reading the posts. However, once the discussion turned to Article 1 of the US Constitution and the war in Afghanistan, it was obviously no longer a discussion for the West Virginia forum. I'm sorry, but, if we leave this open, it will inevitably turn into a political argument, and City-Data has a Politics forum for that.
__________________
Moderator posts are in RED.
City-Data Terms of Service: //www.city-data.com/terms.html
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.


Closed Thread




Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > West Virginia

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top