The Pharmacracy of Consent

[minuspace]

...

That's not even addressing the sickness itself of being an addict. We still have problems with alcoholism. Alcohol is legal.
...

That's the kind of thought that I'm talking about.  Sure, substance abuse may be indicative of a sickness, however, I think it is more systemic than addiction itself.  My reasoning is that this terminology designates the addict as a scapegoat.  Dominant authorities create the conditions that they condemn you for trying to escape, to capitalize on the persecution of vice by symbolic sacrifice.  It's twisted 

[navkat]

I think he was more addressing the stigma attached to wanting to alter one's consciousness for recreational purposes which is very much alive.

Are we getting better about recognizing addiction as illness? Yes. Is the idea of getting "fucked up" on drugs even remotely "okay" with a growing section of the mainstream? No so much, I think. Even the people who are cool with the idea (whether or not they partake) are sort of in the closet about it (subcultures aside) because it's just not okay to be out about those ideas around your boss, family and acquaintances. And if you are vocal about your stance on the liberty aspect, it's always necessary to say "not that I take them but those people should be able to do as they please." You have to distance yourself from the argument lest people think you are one of those people and start conjuring up images of you in a dirty bar, snorting blow off a hooker's ass in the men's room.

I'd even venture to say it's gotten worse. I remember a time when you could go to a pretty mixed-company barbeque and every once in awhile, someone would ask "do you party?" and invite you to smoke or whatever. Now, you just don't do that openly in mixed company. People don't break out their junk unless it's "that kind of gang." Between zero tolerance laws, years of "drugs are bad" propaganda, "three strikes and you're out" life sentences for possession, and Big Brother campaigns (Text the word "METH" to the local sheriff's meth line to report meth use or manufacture in your neighborhood), it's just not safe for people to be open about such things. You never know who's watching, you never know if one day you'll piss someone off and they'll have your kids taken away, or if something's going to end up on someone's facebook.

Society seems to have accepted the spoon-fed idea that it's just not okay to be high. It doesn't matter if it's safe, it doesn't matter if it doesn't affect your work or responsibilities, just you wanting to do it indicates that there's something unsavory about your character to them...like sleeping with a prostitute or being a promiscuous woman. It's gotten to the point where people's in bona fide chronic pain are facing major costs and obstacles to receiving care because as much as they're suffering, society's need to make sure they're not enjoying their meds too much is so much more important. It just doesn't even occur to people anymore to ask "Well, why did they outlaw 17 plants in the states of Louisiana and Tennesee?" if the answer is "because people can get high off them.". Say no more. We don't need to know if they're useful in other ways. We don't need to know if they're safe. People shouldn't have a way to get high and that must be stopped. Period.

Like I said: it's lazy and irresponsible. And you can't challenge it because to them, it boils down to "because it's just wrong."

[AFK]

And a serious public health issue that impacts more than just the user. 

Take the latest "bath salts" craze that has emerged in certain parts of the country.  Users under the influence of "bath salts" have been documented to be so aggressively gone that they have harmed others, destroyed property, and put the lives of first responders at considerable peril. 

So I think that is a legitimate part of attitudes towards substance use.  And you are right, a lot of the messaging and campaigning against drugs has been successful in shifting attitudes on drug use.  It's applied to tobacco as well.  Years and years of messaging has been pretty successful in making smoking cigarettes become less cool than it was even a decade ago.  However, I would submit this has been less so the case with marijuana, where we see perceptions going the other way.  That, I feel, can largely be attributed to medical marijuana laws. 

But, to be clear, messaging is always about substance use, generally not the substance user.  THAT message, at least from government-sanctioned sources, is always going to be about getting help. 

[minuspace]

"because it's just wrong"

Now, given the appeal to practical reason that, if I may say so myself, is taken to be founded on sound and consistent (pure) principles of rational thought... would it not suffice to indicate the incoherent logic thereof to dismantle the bias?  Do those who seek refuge in moralistic thought really take the time to think?  Is it hopeless to have them understand how hopeless they are?  The fucking hypocrisy...

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

I saw something on TV in the 90's about a program in the UK where addicts could get maintenance doses of their drug of choice, be it heroin, coke, whatever, on the condition that they stay crime free, i.e., no theft, no scoring extra drugs, etc.

Not sure about drugs other than heroin, but a slightly more recent example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8255418.stm.

They're always trials, and they always seem to be effective. Not just in the UK, either.

True.
The US has a toilet bowl rep to live up to, though. It'll ever happen here. 

[Doktor Howl]

If it were possible to legalize cocaine, heroin and marijuana, is there anyone here that would object?

Not me.

I think stupid people should be able to coke themselves to death at will.

[minuspace]

I figure there's actually a reason the stuff that people want/need has been around for so long...  If it's regulated it seems to work, however, that short-circuits the system of personal responsibility and autonomy that addicts seem to have a problem with in the first place...  The adjunct of manditory couciling can then also become problematic if we assume all supervising doctors maintain a form of non-malevolent neutrality.  Most interested parties are not so radically naive as to be beyond suspicion of willfully condemning the innocent.  An image of medical slavery comes to mind - Stockholm syndrome meets Munchsusen by proxy.

[navkat]

What? Could you expound on that bc I'm not sure I comprehend.

[minuspace]

What? Could you expound on that bc I'm not sure I comprehend.

navcat, I've gotten enough unwarranted "what's" today from doc that it would really be something else if people actually took thhe time to specify what it is that they don't understand?
Is the Stockholm thing getting in the way? 

[navkat]

What? Could you expound on that bc I'm not sure I comprehend.

navcat, I've gotten enough unwarranted "what's" today from doc that it would really be something else if people actually took thhe time to specify what it is that they don't understand?
Is the Stockholm thing getting in the way? 

Wow.

I know what Stockholm Syndrome and Munchausen by proxy are. I just don't see how a psychological adaptation to extreme fear by becoming loyal to one's captors or mothers who hoist illness on their suggestible children for attention have to do with the topic at hand.

I also don't appreciate your using me as a cheap segue to make a passive-aggressive statement aimed at Rog. It's blindingly obvious, childish and insulting. Bonus for you for attempting to "take me down a notch" and tell me what's what in the "wacky and wonderful world of medicine (lol!)." Your attempt at schooling people in matters related to human physiology to make yourself seem smarter than you are had a paradoxical effect. You know what that means, right?

It's all well and good to go on a wiki surf because you're intrigued with a subject and for that knowledge to come out in a forum convo...or even for you to surf to get your facts straight and then post. What you're doing--half-assed wiki searches just to throw some "medical lingo" out there and start shit with the non-threatening, nice girl on the forum--makes you look like a retard with something to prove to the other guys.

Word of advice: You don't gain clout around here by senseless arguing or throwing poo in someone else's backyard. You gain respect by knowing your own shit cold and contributing your own flavor to the board.

Sorry to house you, babycakes but you asked for it by trying to lift my skirt. Better luck next time!

[minuspace]

I think you really need to chill...  Was the squirrel with a bazooka not funny 

[AFK]

I figure there's actually a reason the stuff that people want/need has been around for so long...  If it's regulated it seems to work, however, that short-circuits the system of personal responsibility and autonomy that addicts seem to have a problem with in the first place...  The adjunct of manditory couciling can then also become problematic if we assume all supervising doctors maintain a form of non-malevolent neutrality.  Most interested parties are not so radically naive as to be beyond suspicion of willfully condemning the innocent.  An image of medical slavery comes to mind - Stockholm syndrome meets Munchsusen by proxy.

One of the issues, however, is that you are focusing on the issue purely from an adult mindset.  The other important piece of the issue is adolescents.  Adolescents who, by definition, don't have the same capacity for rational decision-making that, most, adults have.  Therefore, there is extra impetus for regulating controlled substances. 

I also don't think you understand how counciling works.  Counciling is never mandatory.  It can in some instances become a condition for avoiding jail time for certain offenses.  However, in all cases, a full, science-based, thoroughly researched screening and assessment protocol will be administered first.  These protocols will be based on DSM-IV (soon to be DSM-V) criterias and also utilize ASAM criteria for evaluating the recommended level of care. 

So if an individual screens out of this process as not needing further evaluation and treatment, they will not be recommended for counciling.  They may be recommended for some kind of educational program, but that's it.  It won't go any farther than that. 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I'm not gonna argue the legal/illegal but, that's been done to death...

But, I do think that saying counciling isn't mandatory, but in some cases is a condition of not going to prison seems a little disingenuous.

"Would you like to get help from a professional for your disease of drug addiction, or would you like to go live in a 10x0 cell with Bubba?"

That's the sort of option you expect from a shakedown.

"Would you like to pay us to protect your business, or would you like for your shop to 'accidentally' burn to the ground?"

[minuspace]

I'm not gonna argue the legal/illegal but, that's been done to death...

But, I do think that saying counciling isn't mandatory, but in some cases is a condition of not going to prison seems a little disingenuous.

"Would you like to get help from a professional for your disease of drug addiction, or would you like to go live in a 10x0 cell with Bubba?"

That's the sort of option you expect from a shakedown.

"Would you like to pay us to protect your business, or would you like for your shop to 'accidentally' burn to the ground?"

Thank you, Ratatosk, for seeing the dilemma.
I'm a liitle worn-out right now and need to sleep (before I lose another terminal)
Rev,.. (powering down....

[AFK]

I'm not gonna argue the legal/illegal but, that's been done to death...

But, I do think that saying counciling isn't mandatory, but in some cases is a condition of not going to prison seems a little disingenuous.

"Would you like to get help from a professional for your disease of drug addiction, or would you like to go live in a 10x0 cell with Bubba?"

That's the sort of option you expect from a shakedown.

"Would you like to pay us to protect your business, or would you like for your shop to 'accidentally' burn to the ground?"

But they only go to treatment if the assessment comes out positive.  If it comes out negative, which isn't very often the case in my experience, then the conditions will be different.  Either some kind of education along with community service, or maybe just community service....it's all going to depend on what the offense(s) was. 

I will just also add that also in my experience, it doesn't end up being much of a dilemma for some.  I've known of many who are quite comfortable just going ahead and doing their time and skipping the opportunity to be screened and, if appropriate, receive treatment.