I shouldn't have to compare the lesser of two evils. Do I want to spend a lifetime of public benefits or do I want to spend to house in prison? That is not fair. I should not have to pay my hard earned $$$ in the first place. If they have commited violent crimes against law abiding and good citizens to feed their addiction then I would have to choose jail.
DRUG ADDICTION- An illness or a crime ? Well we know stealing- burglery- murder child abuse- etc are crimes- unless now your referring to being addicted to crime- I think I see why it is easy to get confused- your confusing the topic.
Your view of" am I my brothers keeper" ? is, "Hell, no! Why should I waste time and money on my fellow citizens not directly related to me. Let all those other poor bastards accept individual responsibility. If they can't do that, screw 'em!"
I happen to hold the view that I am my brothers keeper- which is why I dont complain when someone needs a double bypass because they never exercised - ate poorlly and clogged up their arteries- so I have to pay a portion forfor their poor choices- no problem
A possible solution would be to legalize drugs and tax the hell out of it. Then use the tax money generated to pay for the programs to treat the addicts. It may increase the number of addicts, but at least the non addict wouldn't have to pay for those who CHOOSE a lifestyle of addiction. Much like alcohol and cigarette tax.
Are there people addicted to sobriety? And if so, did they choose it or was a neurological pathway establish due to a compulsive behavior of sobriety?
DRUG ADDICTION- An illness or a crime ? Well we know stealing- burglery- murder child abuse- etc are crimes- unless now your referring to being addicted to crime- I think I see why it is easy to get confused- your confusing the topic.
I'm not confusing the topic. I am referring to crime, violent crime being a result of addiction. Why should I have to choose between paying for someones lifelong therapy and all the trimmings or spending the funds to house them in prison. I'm just saying that for those who commit violent crimes against innocent people to feed their drug habit it is better to have them out of society. Better for them? probably not, better for innocent people who feel their wrath. I think so.
I am also in favor of helping my fellow man. Everyone falls on hard times, some fight addiction. I don't mind some type of temporary help for this segment of the population. It is when the "help" becomes clearly enabling someone in a lifelong career of living off the system that I have a problem. I'll ask you again, when, where, and how does it ever end? Do we support for two years? five years? for life? They say we work the first 3.5 months to pay income taxes. I don't know about you but our next couple months income goes pretty much to property and school taxes. That is almost six months income to taxes. How much of our income goes to fund social programs for those afflicted with addictions, work phobias? Regardless of how generous I would want to be to those less fortunate there will come a point when my few months of discretionary income will no longer pay for my own personal necessities let alone social programs.
As for the neurological pathways and their uses and trainings----pavlovs dog, sesame street, computers, cell phones, tone of conversations, American idol, playboy, steroids, etc etc.......
I'm so excited to see what comes of the next generation when they become adults----BTW do they have a label yet......
an addiction is not an illness it is a condition of an illness,,,,is heart disease an illness--IMHO it is a condition of an illness......
to me an illness would be viral,cancer and things of that nature that are foreign to our bodies.......JMHO
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
This is one of those subjects that is lose/lose. For the addict, for the families of addicts, for the crime victims of addicts, and for the citizen expected to pay the associated costs. If we go your way, Somebody, then it becomes acceptable behavior, not necessarily rewarded but definately enabling. Yet, if we subscribe to my thoughts what will we have as a society? These people can't be ignored, can they? What would happen? I don't mean if shunned by family, but shunned by society, financially as well as emotionally?
There would be no perpetrators if there were no victims. People make the choice to victimize themselves with drugs/alcohol. It IS all about choice! And I refuse to feel responsible for or guilty because other people 'choose' to make 'addictive choices'.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
ALBANY — Many drug addicts, problem gamblers and alcoholics will find it harder to kick their habits in New York than anywhere else in the country now that smoking will be banned in all public and private recovery centers. For some, taking away the tobacco crutch could be just enough to keep them from getting clean and sober, or from trying at all. New York’s 13 state-run addiction treatment centers have been tobacco free for more than 10 years. New regulations that take effect Thursday will apply to all treatment centers — which has some facilities worried that people who need help for drugs and alcohol won’t pursue it because they aren’t ready to quit smoking. Bryan Lapsker, a 21-year-old PCP addict from Brooklyn who has been getting help for his addiction at a treatment center in Queens for nearly nine months, has been dreading the change every day. “Nicotine helps [addicts] get through the day,” he said. “Now you take the nicotine away from us, it’s almost impossible to get through the day . . . addiction is addiction, I understand that, but nicotine is a legal substance.” Legal or not, state officials behind the new rules believe banning tobacco is critical to successful treatment programs. “Often times smoking was given as a reward in the day-to-day treatment programs, and we need to make sure that we’re changing the culture to really promote an overall recovery plan that involves health and wellness for the optimal chance for recovery,” said Karen Carpenter-Palumbo, the commissioner of the New York Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services. In New York, an average of 18.2 percent of the public smokes, but 92 percent of the chemically dependent population smokes, she said. Addicts are more likely to have long-term success if they quit smoking at the same time they enter treatment, Carpenter-Palumbo said. An $8 million grant from the state Department of Health will help train employees to deal with treating nicotine dependence and provide free nicotine replacements.
An $8 million grant from the state Department of Health will help train employees to deal with treating nicotine dependence and provide free nicotine replacements.
Geeez........I'm sorry, but I just can't believe this. Worry about the crack or heroin addiction then target the smoking if the state feels it needs to. $8 million of our taxpayer $$$$$$$. Unbelievable
An absolute waste of money- especially when you look at the study done by Phillip Morris in the Czech Republic which shows that smokers save the government money because smokers die-
The costs imposed on public finance by smokers are offset by tobacco-related tax contributions and external POSITIVE EFFECTS OF SMOKING ( early death )
The negative financial effects of smoking (such as increased health care costs) are more than offset by positive effects (such as excise tax and VAT collected on tobacco products).
If this is all true, than anyone with 'any' addiction, including food addictions, should be left to their vices. Then they can all die early and save the government a ton of money. Just think of the money they would save on all of those 'anti addiction' taxpaid programs. Not to mention the social security, huh?
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
If this is all true, than anyone with 'any' addiction, including food addictions, should be left to their vices. Then they can all die early and save the government a ton of money. Just think of the money they would save on all of those 'anti addiction' taxpaid programs. Not to mention the social security, huh?
Sadly and somewhat myopicly the first few responses to spending ( any additional )money for another program to treat another seemingly less important addiction - puts everyones hand on their "taxpayer wallet "-
Many drug addicts, problem gamblers and alcoholics will find it harder to kick their habits in New York than anywhere else in the country now that smoking will be banned in all public and private recovery centers.
While the commercials and ads play all over NYS.....FREE MONEY FOR THE GOVERNMENT.....we just switched one 'feel' for another......what the hell difference does it make----there is nothing new under the sun.......
anyone care to go out for drinks.....
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
President Bush has wisely dropped his opposition to the housing bailout bill, but apparently not another piece of worthy legislation: a bill that would empower the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco. If Congress passes the legislation soon, as expected, it may not survive a veto. Nicotine, the ingredient in cigarettes that keeps smokers coming back for more, is a heavily addictive drug by all accounts. Cigarette makers can adjust its content in cigarettes, and have done so in the wrong direction — upward — over the years to make their product even more addictive. This is reason enough for the government agency that regulates drugs and the companies that make them, to regulate cigarettes. The administration argues, weakly, that doing so would overburden the FDA. If that’s the case, then give the watchdog agency more money and let it do more hiring. The notion that the health of tens of millions of Americans is somehow not worth such an expense is absurd and, frankly, insulting. The administration also cites a flaw in the bill that would ban flavored cigarettes, but not menthol. Cigarette makers were also recently found to be manipulating the menthol content of their products, using less on brands marketed to young smokers and more on those marketed to adults. With menthol brands the overwhelming choice of African-American smokers, the bill’s exemption has been decried as racist. President Bush’s health secretary cited this issue as a reason for Congress to reject the bill, and while it would be better for legislators to amend the bill and include menthol in the ban, the FDA could accomplish the same thing were it given regulatory power over the industry. It should be, and Congress should override Bush’s expected veto — unless he changes his mind.
If this is all true, than anyone with 'any' addiction, including food addictions, should be left to their vices. Then they can all die early and save the government a ton of money. Just think of the money they would save on all of those 'anti addiction' taxpaid programs. Not to mention the social security, huh?
But on top of that- always using " no more taxpayer money to fund addiction programs " I feel is narrow minded thinking-
You can see the Czech Phillip Morris study is quite thourogh- I have a hard copy of a newspaper that reporteded it when it originally came out- and an apology by Phillip Morris a few day later - (Im still not sure what that was about - )
bottom line the study shows smokers SAVE THE GOVERNMENT $ 150 MILLION A YEAR-
Logged
