So you're saying that because I took heroin at the age of 13 through 14 in a blind, wild attempt to try to numb myself to the memories of being raped a couple dozen times, and became addicted to it, I should be denied treatment because people who have been affected through no fault of their own don't get any either, even though the cost of doing so is not even the tiniest fraction of what it takes to perform a cancer operation. Basically I should've just had to live up to my choice, eh? Tough cookies, I'm responsible for myself, believing I deserved treatment like any other person suffering and slowly dying because I made a decision that could have been because of a million factors, many of which are not particularly pleasant? Who are you to say whether or not someone is addicted by their choice alone? Do you factor in the contexts in which someone became addicted? How do you selectively identify the ones who were driven into it by circumstance from the ones who were just stupid? Or do you just reject them all, nevermind that life fucks someone over severely enough they fall to that low and that treating it is far less costly than treating a cancer patient? In fact, treating addicts is actually beneficial to society.
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/pr...h-its-cost
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/pr...h-its-cost
Quote:According to several conservative estimates, every dollar invested in addiction treatment programs yields a return of between $4 and $7 in reduced drug-related crime, criminal justice costs, and theft. When savings related to healthcare are included, total savings can exceed costs by a ratio of 12 to 1. Major savings to the individual and to society also stem from fewer interpersonal conflicts; greater workplace productivity; and fewer drug-related accidents, including overdoses and deaths.
