I've used opium before and certainly didn't feel addicted after limited use. I think the addiction after a single use thing is a myth created by war on drugs types.

---

(February 23, 2014 at 6:24 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: People do not simply wake up one morning and think "I'll become an addict today", or "I think I'll start eating myself to death today", or "I think I'll begin getting lung cancer".

They are human beings, with human weaknesses, who make human mistakes. The measure of a man is not how he treats his equal, but how he treats the less fortunate. I forget who said that, but it rings true.

We are beings of compassion and empathy - some of us, in any case.

That's true, but when some meth tweaker steals your shit to feed their addiction it's a lot harder to feel that compassion.

(February 23, 2014 at 7:41 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: I've used opium before and certainly didn't feel addicted after limited use. I think the addiction after a single use thing is a myth created by war on drugs types.

I totally agree. I've used opiates on and off for over 10 years and I'm still not addicted. I'll often go months without taking any at all without any problems whatsoever.

I don't know why people buy into the whole "Take this drug once and you'll evolve Pokemon-style into Pete Doherty!" shit, I really don't.

I've been shooting up coke every day for the past ten years and I'm still not hooked on the stuff.

(February 23, 2014 at 8:02 pm)NoraBrimstone Wrote:

(February 23, 2014 at 7:41 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: I've used opium before and certainly didn't feel addicted after limited use. I think the addiction after a single use thing is a myth created by war on drugs types.

I totally agree. I've used opiates on and off for over 10 years and I'm still not addicted. I'll often go months without taking any at all without any problems whatsoever.

I don't know why people buy into the whole "Take this drug once and you'll evolve Pokemon-style into Pete Doherty!" shit, I really don't.

Most drugs that I've used I've only used once or a very limited amount in one length of time. I just don't like the withdrawals of serious drugs.

(February 23, 2014 at 4:09 pm)EgoRaptor Wrote: "Those poor oppressed people! It isn't like they did this to themselves or anything!" Are you serious? Irrational to not want to needle exchange dedicated to helping these people extend their addictions? I am 16 & I haven't smoked a single cig. People do this to themselves, and if it gets them killed then good riddance! The last thing we need is needle exchanges that encourage this sort of behavior. The best thing to do is just let them kill themselves. Rid ourselves of this filth!

So I'm filth?

---

(February 23, 2014 at 5:13 pm)EgoRaptor Wrote: Nice way to dodge addressing the argument. Why should the good taxpayer have to pay for a bunch of degenerate addicts?

And a degenerate?

---

(February 23, 2014 at 6:07 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: Yeah. As my people say, "there, but for the grace of God, go I."

I imagine there is something analogous in Atheism.

Well not in atheism, nothing's really in atheism [literally], but amongst atheists, I imagine we do. I usually use whatever it was that kept me from not being in that situation.

---

(February 23, 2014 at 7:36 pm)EgoRaptor Wrote: I prefer Nietzschean individualism to petty compassion. What has altruism ever done but forced us to carry the weak?

Other than bring people out of desperate situations and elevate them so they may become working, functioning, productive members of society, thus benefiting the whole?

You use individualism, and then you use the plural "us."

Which is it? Forced YOU to carry the weak, personally? Or forced EVERYONE to carry the weak? If it's everyone, why do YOU care, Mister Individualism? Is the fraction of a penny your tax dollar, and everyone elses tax dollar, goes to towards providing medical assistance and rehabilitation facilities for people who overdose from a drug they could have taken for any number of reasons really something you're missing?

Wait, you're 16. You don't even pay any taxes. And you never smoked a cigarette, eh? Good for you, that'll go away in about five years when you're working, I imagine... Back to the topic at hand, though, when you've experienced the world for yourself, and not under the sheltered, pampered little existence your mommy and daddy provide for you, or IF you ever experience it, you'll begin to understand.

Until then, you'll have to forgive me for sneering in derisive contempt at your screen name and your posts when you say I am a lowlife and degenerate, because the hell, trials, and tribulations I've gone through and overcome make me far more of a man, far more worthy, far more powerful, far more respectable, far more resilient, and far more acutely aware of reality than you ever will be. Your warm, cozy little existence will leave you shivering in the howling cold that awaits you once you need to leave mommy and daddy's shelter, whereas I've not only gone past the part where I killed the wolf and wore its fur, I LOVE the biting, painful, bitter cold. It's my world, my home.

Who is truly the degenerate lowlife? The man who becomes addicted to a drug he took to numb the pain of a tortured life, survives a fatal dose of, overcomes, and eventually removes from his life in spite of the fact he is fighting against the tide? Or the child who passes judgment on others, an armchair moral authority, without having any insight or understanding to what his counterpart experiences?

I think we all know the answer. Don't we.

(February 23, 2014 at 7:41 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: I've used opium before and certainly didn't feel addicted after limited use. I think the addiction after a single use thing is a myth created by war on drugs types.

Not to downplay your experience, but opium is quite weak compared to other drugs like heroin, especially if you're mainlining it. The single use addiction is very possible under the right circumstances, like the person having a genetic predisposition to addiction.

And I think that only people that have never made mistakes in their lives should be allowed to use the "you did it to yourself, so you don't deserve any help" argument.

While I am not of the opinion that people who are addicted to drugs don't need any help, I'm definitely of the opinion that if I had the choice to save a baby from a car wreck or an opiate addict from himself, Mr. Addiction is going to die. Addiction sucks and is deserving of compassion for sure. Would I rather see an addict go lock himself in a cabin in the woods with a few trustworthy friends (assuming we're not at the VERY rare die from withdrawal stage) than see a cancer patient wait in line in the ER? Yes, I would. You're life is sucking, but it is not random death disease. It's addiction. Now, are there scenarios where cancer patients are passed up for an addict at the ER? I doubt it. So, am I concerned that addicts are getting treatment that could go to someone else? Nope. We're able to treat them, so fucking treat them. If we have to choose, let them go cold turkey the hard way. There is no cold turkey from cancer, so you have to make the tough decisions. Now, just so no one gets all pissy, I would say the same thing for mental illness. As long as you are in a safe place where you can't hurt yourself or anyone else, you're not going to die. You can wait. I would.

(February 24, 2014 at 12:48 am)Shell B Wrote: While I am not of the opinion that people who are addicted to drugs don't need any help, I'm definitely of the opinion that if I had the choice to save a baby from a car wreck or an opiate addict from himself, Mr. Addiction is going to die. Addiction sucks and is deserving of compassion for sure. Would I rather see an addict go lock himself in a cabin in the woods with a few trustworthy friends (assuming we're not at the VERY rare die from withdrawal stage) than see a cancer patient wait in line in the ER? Yes, I would. You're life is sucking, but it is not random death disease. It's addiction. Now, are there scenarios where cancer patients are passed up for an addict at the ER? I doubt it. So, am I concerned that addicts are getting treatment that could go to someone else? Nope. We're able to treat them, so fucking treat them. If we have to choose, let them go cold turkey the hard way. There is no cold turkey from cancer, so you have to make the tough decisions. Now, just so no one gets all pissy, I would say the same thing for mental illness. As long as you are in a safe place where you can't hurt yourself or anyone else, you're not going to die. You can wait. I would.

Good thing such choices aren't something that come up in reality. So I dunno why it's even being stated. These aren't decisions that have to be made or will have to be made, so...why are they being mentioned, except than to needlessly point out your stance on what your classification addiction has in regards to priority for treatment?

Should we shuffle all people who harm themselves due to controllable factors to the back of the line? Because, I don't ever want to be the person who makes that decision.

You and me both, man.