• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How Can We Help Drug Addicts & Users?

How Can We Help Drug Addicts & Users?

  • Put them in Jail, Bankrupt them, Slave them, and take there Educations away, like it is now.

    Votes: 1 4.0%
  • Leave Drug Addicts Alone & No More Drug Testing for Jobs

    Votes: 3 12.0%
  • Help Them Get Treatment & No More Drug Testing for Jobs

    Votes: 4 16.0%
  • Other Helpful Ideas

    Votes: 12 48.0%
  • None

    Votes: 5 20.0%

  • Total voters
    25
  • Poll closed .

jr602az

Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
162
Reaction score
21
Location
Phoenix,Az USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
How Can We Help Drug Addicts & Users?
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHo4NSmr6I0"]YouTube- Slavery Prisoners In The State Of Arizona!!![/ame]
 
Having a younger brother who has battled alcoholism and drug addiction on and off over the years - the only thing I can say, is that maybe instead of trying to help addicts, we try to PREVENT people from becoming addicts.

Addicts will only be helped when they choose to help themselves. You can set up government programs, private programs, public or privately paid... and none of it makes a damn bit of difference unless and until that addict decides that he/she has had enough; and is willing to do what it takes to become clean and sober.

Making/keeping some drugs illegal doesn't mean anything to people who are addicted - they can get it anyway. Putting addicts in prison doesn't do anything but take up valuable room for someone that really IS more of a danger to society than to themselves (child rapists, murderers, etc...).

Prevention IMHO, is more important at this point in the game, then trying to herd kittens.
 
Last edited:

Two completely different messages here.

1-I have no problem with the Maricopa Jail system. I think more ought to adopt it.

2-You cant help an addict...an addict has to help themselves. they have to reach a point where it is no longer profitable to contineu the destructive behavior...their 'rock bottom'.

3-Jail isnt the best option for drug users. I would rather see some form of investment in treatment, at least as a first option.
 
Decriminalize the drug supply so their junk doesn't cost anywhere near as much.

Drug addicts would then migrate into one of two categories:

Former addicts
Dead people.

That's all the help the government should give them.

Their body.

Their choice.
 
Couple of things

1. The Drug War is nothing but socialism for the Police

2. They can seek help themselves (through friends, family, etc) or Meet the Reaper
 
Last edited:
the way to solve the drug problem, is to give each addict two pounds of their drug of choice, every week. soon the problem would be over. Harsh, but hey---:shock:
 
1. It is not slavery.
2. Sheriff Joe doesn’t discriminate. They have chain gangs for men and women.
3. The inmates are providing a public service by cleaning up areas that normally would not be cleaned.
4. As VM said. You can’t help someone who doesn’t want help.
5. Jail time for dealers, help for the users.
6. Others could learn how Maricopa Country has kept cost down on their jails. tent city is great.
 
Prevention
Major changes in laws dealing with welfare moms and scumbag "dads".
Death to those who sell, or give drugs to children.
Find out why children take drugs, ask them...
Prevention
In school classes in health, this would be anti-drug.
Watch "Breaking Bad".
Expand existing programs that work.
Need money; take it from the prison budget.
Legalize some drugs, definitely legalize marajuana.
Vote out the old men who vote against legalizing, vote in those not afraid to think..
Not matter what we do, there will always be those who use drugs, this must be accepted.
 
Leave em alone as it is none of your biz what they do and I think drug test should only be issued based on if your job puts others at risk. Example of course test bus drivers but leave the factory worker who is simply packing a hat into a box alone.

Start having fair punishment for crimes. You get busted with some green? You should not have to do more time than some rapist or whatnot. Make the punishment fit the crime.

Make drugs legal and stay out of others biz. Harming your own body should not be a crime.

If there is a big time problem? I do support some form of intervention if you are hurting others that you are in care of-as in kids. If you have others you are suppose to be looking out for but are killing yourself with your addiction? I support intervention.

That is only thing would worry me about making drugs legal is the kid factor. But there are plenty of people that get drunk and ruin their childrens lives and it is totally legal. My Dad is a recovering alcoholic.
 
Leave em alone as it is none of your biz what they do and I think drug test should only be issued based on if your job puts others at risk. Example of course test bus drivers but leave the factory worker who is simply packing a hat into a box alone.

Employers should be able to drug-test their employers for whatever reason they want. Don't like it, don't take the job.
 
Employers should be able to drug-test their employers for whatever reason they want. Don't like it, don't take the job.

Private Employers? Maybe. Others? Not so much. I feel it is a tread on civil rights.
 
Employers should be able to drug-test their employers for whatever reason they want. Don't like it, don't take the job.

Sounds a little big brother/big government.

Why should an employer have any business knowing the private lives of an employee as long as it doesn't affect their job?

Base employment of job performance, not on big brother snooping into private lives.
 
Speaking As a drug addict myself, I can state to a certainty that the only one who can help a drug addict is the drug addict.

Why would I say that I am a drug addict, when I haven't used drugs in 25 years? Because I know what I am. I will be a drug addict until the day I die. I just choose not to take drugs. Until I realized this fact, any amount of "help" would have been wasted on me. It was up to me to quit using drugs, not others, and certainly not the government. I feel no pity for those who are still strung out. They made a choice, and are now facing the consequences for that choice. If they so choose, they can also make another choice, and that is to quit using drugs. I am not Superman, so I know for a fact that, if I can choose not to take drugs, so can anyone else.

Same goes with alcoholics. Ever hear of this expression?

Poor me, poor me, pour me another drink.

It is exactly the same with drug addicts. The first step in choosing not to take drugs is for the addict to rid himself or herself of self pity, and then, like the Nike commercial says, just do it. It isn't easy, but once the choice is made, it can be done. In my life, I have been addicted to heroin and cocaine. During that time, I have taken just about every drug there is to take. I also survived, and I did it out of choice, not for any other reason.

For those who say "Damn, Danarhea, you are a cold man in telling people they have to do something so hard". My response to that is "Who said that life is supposed to be easy"? You get out of life the effort you put into it. Effort is rewarding. No effort means that you are screwed, and there is nobody to blame but yourself, so either take the consequences or take the rewards. It is all up to you.

And with that said, I will now put on my flameproof suit and wait for the inevitable flames that will be coming my way.
 
Last edited:
Private Employers? Maybe. Others? Not so much. I feel it is a tread on civil rights.

Having a job is not a right, civil or otherwise.
 
Sounds a little big brother/big government.

Letting business owners run their company is big government...:roll:

Why should an employer have any business knowing the private lives of an employee as long as it doesn't affect their job?

It's called private property rights.

Base employment of job performance, not on big brother snooping into private lives.

If you don't like it, work somewhere else. More liberty means more personal responsibility, but I guess some people don't like that...
 
Letting business owners run their company is big government...:roll:



It's called private property rights.



If you don't like it, work somewhere else. More liberty means more personal responsibility, but I guess some people don't like that...


Yes....allowing businesses to essentially spy on the private lives of people is big brother and big government.
You want to couch it into an argument that a business should be able to do whatever they want.
Sorry....not as long as they want to do business in the United States. We have laws that say that employers cannot discriminate, have to comply with employment laws and we have something called the US Constitution that businesses have to comply with as well.

Let job performance dictate the companies decisions. They have no right to be involved in the personal lives of their workers. Maybe in China...but not in America.
 
Yes....allowing businesses to essentially spy on the private lives of people is big brother and big government.

Asking someone to pee in a cup is not the same thing as spying on their private lives. What's more, a private employer is not the government, which makes your reference to "big government" absurd and perplexing.

Either way, no one is forcing you to pee in the cup. If you don't want to pee in the cup, then you can just work somewhere else.

You want to couch it into an argument that a business should be able to do whatever they want.

I never said that. I said business owners should be able to exercise their basic property rights, i.e., dispensing with their money and property as they see fit.

Sorry....not as long as they want to do business in the United States. We have laws that say that employers cannot discriminate, have to comply with employment laws...

And the vast majority of those laws are infringements on private property rights.

...and we have something called the US Constitution that businesses have to comply with as well.

And you say you're a lawyer!? You know the US Constitution is a restriction on government, not individuals, right? Maybe you're the one who needs to take a Con Law class, DD...

Let job performance dictate the companies decisions. They have no right to be involved in the personal lives of their workers. Maybe in China...but not in America.

They have a right to impose preconditions on the dispensation of their money and the use of their property. If you do not find the preconditions of that dispensation favorable, then you can simply refuse the terms and find someone more inclined to dispense of their possessions in a manner consistent with your desires.

This is called individual liberty and personal responsibility. Nothing is guaranteed in this life except that it is entirely your's. Some people find this prospect frightening, so they require a nanny government to sooth and coddle them when reality does not conform to their infantile desires.
 
Last edited:
We can help them primarily by decriminalizing their activities, so that they don't have to do their drugs behind closed doors. Changing the legality will remove the stigma that society places on drug use. That stigma works against addicts because it them from the rest of society. For many, that is the reason they started in the first place. People with undiagnosed mental issues are also a big precursor to drug use.

The war on drug users is one of the biggest crimes of humanity I can think of. Law enforcement should, at the most, be attacking the suppliers if they are so adamently anti-drug. Busting and charging users is an inefficient use of the justice system. These people have real problems and the dealers are the ones supplying the solution.
 
If a private business wants to drug screen, that is their right. If you do not like it, apply at a different company.

As far as helping drug addicts and users, my position on this has been greatly modified by my time here at DP. I have worked as a drug counselor for many years, and my position on this is probably a bit different than most drug counselors.

End the "War on Drugs". It's a failure. Use all of the money wasted on the "War on Drugs" to set up either government run or government scholarshiped drug/alcohol rehabs. Decriminalize all drug usage. Decriminalize marijuana, but tax it heavily; add this money to the aforementioned money for drug rehabs. Possibly decriminalize the usage of other drugs, tax them, and add this money to the kitty. Any user/addict may check into a drug rehab free of charge. One of the biggest deterrents to getting treatment is cost... and insurance companies are of little use in this area. Minimum stay is 90 days. Post-stay, assistance is provided with housing and job for a static period of time. There would need to be a cap on how often one uses this service. Revolving door addicts would not be readily accepted.

Welfare recipients MUST submit to random drug screening or they get no welfare check.

Prevention, prevention, prevention, and at the school level in a major way, since most addicts start using as teens... or younger. And the way it is taught in the schools needs to change. Not EVERYONE who uses becomes an addict.

Random drug screenings at school with suspicion.

Any crime committed while intoxicated receives DOUBLE the consequences. With the program outlined above, there is no reason to NOT get help.

It is true that no addict will get help unless they want to. However, no addict goes into treatment of their own accord. It is always because of some impending consequence. Further, the addict's behavior affects others.

This is the bare bones of my "plan". There's more in the fine print.
 
Sounds a little big brother/big government.

Why should an employer have any business knowing the private lives of an employee as long as it doesn't affect their job?

Base employment of job performance, not on big brother snooping into private lives.

Think about it...if you are an employer and your business depends on having employees that are clean and can represent you in a clear and professional manner it isnt inappropriate for the employer to insist on drug tests...provided that they pay for it. And MOST companies that offer drug testing also offer some form of therapy....it saves the company money in the long term to keep a trained employee as opposed to firing and rehiring another.

Civil liberties has to be able to cut both ways. No one can FORCE you to take a drug test...but you dont HAVE to stay in a certain job either.
 
Yes....allowing businesses to essentially spy on the private lives of people is big brother and big government.
You want to couch it into an argument that a business should be able to do whatever they want.
Sorry....not as long as they want to do business in the United States. We have laws that say that employers cannot discriminate, have to comply with employment laws and we have something called the US Constitution that businesses have to comply with as well.

Let job performance dictate the companies decisions. They have no right to be involved in the personal lives of their workers. Maybe in China...but not in America.

I take it you are not and never have been nor likely ever WILL be an employer...

MOST (I never say all) employers care about their bottom line. They couldnt care less what their employees do off duty provided that while they are at work they are safe, respectful, and most importantly, professional. They invest a lot of money in hiring and training people (even places like call centers...it costs them a LOT of money to hire, train, prep employees).
 
Speaking As a drug addict myself, I can state to a certainty that the only one who can help a drug addict is the drug addict.

Why would I say that I am a drug addict, when I haven't used drugs in 25 years? Because I know what I am. I will be a drug addict until the day I die. I just choose not to take drugs. Until I realized this fact, any amount of "help" would have been wasted on me. It was up to me to quit using drugs, not others, and certainly not the government. I feel no pity for those who are still strung out. They made a choice, and are now facing the consequences for that choice. If they so choose, they can also make another choice, and that is to quit using drugs. I am not Superman, so I know for a fact that, if I can choose not to take drugs, so can anyone else.

Same goes with alcoholics. Ever hear of this expression?



It is exactly the same with drug addicts. The first step in choosing not to take drugs is for the addict to rid himself or herself of self pity, and then, like the Nike commercial says, just do it. It isn't easy, but once the choice is made, it can be done. In my life, I have been addicted to heroin and cocaine. During that time, I have taken just about every drug there is to take. I also survived, and I did it out of choice, not for any other reason.

For those who say "Damn, Danarhea, you are a cold man in telling people they have to do something so hard". My response to that is "Who said that life is supposed to be easy"? You get out of life the effort you put into it. Effort is rewarding. No effort means that you are screwed, and there is nobody to blame but yourself, so either take the consequences or take the rewards. It is all up to you.

And with that said, I will now put on my flameproof suit and wait for the inevitable flames that will be coming my way.

Amen. C and S since 1981.
 
I take it you are not and never have been nor likely ever WILL be an employer...

MOST (I never say all) employers care about their bottom line. They couldnt care less what their employees do off duty provided that while they are at work they are safe, respectful, and most importantly, professional. They invest a lot of money in hiring and training people (even places like call centers...it costs them a LOT of money to hire, train, prep employees).

That's EXACTLY why I say let job performance dictate employment. If it effects your job then the employer should be able to terminate the employee.
 
Asking someone to pee in a cup is not the same thing as spying on their private lives. What's more, a private employer is not the government, which makes your reference to "big government" absurd and perplexing.

Either way, no one is forcing you to pee in the cup. If you don't want to pee in the cup, then you can just work somewhere else.



I never said that. I said business owners should be able to exercise their basic property rights, i.e., dispensing with their money and property as they see fit.



And the vast majority of those laws are infringements on private property rights.



And you say you're a lawyer!? You know the US Constitution is a restriction on government, not individuals, right? Maybe you're the one who needs to take a Con Law class, DD...



They have a right to impose preconditions on the dispensation of their money and the use of their property. If you do not find the preconditions of that dispensation favorable, then you can simply refuse the terms and find someone more inclined to dispense of their possessions in a manner consistent with your desires.

This is called individual liberty and personal responsibility. Nothing is guaranteed in this life except that it is entirely your's. Some people find this prospect frightening, so they require a nanny government to sooth and coddle them when reality does not conform to their infantile desires.

Sorry...but you are wrong. The Constitution primarily involves restrictions on government. However, private companies/corporations have to comply with the same restrictions that the Constitution dictates.

Why do you think it is that a business cannot refuse to hire blacks or women?
Why do you think it is that a business cannot refuse patronage to latinos or asians?

It IS BIG Government because government allowing companies to be intimately involved in the lives of their citizens is akin to the government doing it themselves.
Why stop at a drug test. Why not allow businesses to require their employees to wear a GPS device to monitor where they go and when they are at home. Afterall, a company shouldn't have to hire someone that stays out til 2:00 in the morning every night, right?
As a company owner, don't I have the same right to require my employees come to work every day refreshed and ready to work? After all its my company....my rules....right?
 
That's EXACTLY why I say let job performance dictate employment. If it effects your job then the employer should be able to terminate the employee.

Usually the reason why employers drug test is that it gets them a better insurance rate. I am against the war on drugs. I think that you own you and thus you ought to be able to do whatever you want with your own body, but I am not sure how its fair to tell an employer that they have to pay higher insurance rates because they can no longer drug test their employees.
 
Back
Top Bottom