Not in this thread. All you've done is repeat "you have a choice," while ignoring that neurological changes dramatically alter that calculus.
I do. I used it deliberately, to reinforce that you did not refute a single point I made.
I don't think you know what "self-evident" means, because it certainly is
not axiomatic that individuals have
radical (i.e. total) control over every single facet of their lives. Heck, I disposed of that in just a few sentences.
By the way... Some medication for Parkinson's can cause compulsive behaviors, that were never present prior to taking the medication. Similar to opiates, the medications throw off the brain's reward mechanism, so you can have Parkinson's patients who become, for example, compulsive gamblers. Prior to taking the medication, they didn't have any such tendencies; while taking it, they can bankrupt their families because they can't stop. Is this behavior
exclusively and totally under their control? It should be obvious that's not the case, especially for the early patients, when no one realized that the drugs were causing the behavior. But hey, it's
wrong to attribute responsibility to anyone other than the individual, right? You have total control over yourself, even when you don't. Riiiiight.
sigh
No, this is not about "entitlement." It's about
effective treatment. The false idea that willpower alone is sufficient to fix someone who basically has brain damage is potentially harmful, as it can keep us from utilizing the most effective means possible to deal with drug addiction.
And guess what? Throwing everything on a drug addict, whose
brain is compromised, does not result in effective solutions. (It doesn't for most other problems too, but that's another story.) For example, the evidence is quite clear that the most effective treatment for drug addiction is methadone, which satisfies the cravings without inducing the high. Proclaiming that "you are responsible for your problems" does nothing to make methadone treatment more widely available, nor is it a replacement for research into better treatment methods.
Actually, I'd say it is the failure of government that has contributed to the current use of opiates.
They failed to properly regulate the use of opiates. In particular, the FDA was swayed by flawed research funded by Purdue. It neglected to track excessive prescriptions of opiates, it failed to take sufficient enforcement against pill mills, and so on.
They also haven't done much on the treatment side. Treatment is expensive, and there aren't enough facilities. Since keeping people clean is a common good, it makes sense for this to be covered. Treatment centers are also notoriously unregulated, which leaves a vulnerable population open to abuse.
They are slowly making some progress, e.g. EMTs are now regularly carrying Narcan, which improves survival rates for overdoses. However, EMTs will tell you that without subsequent treatment, it's barely a bandage on a gaping wound. Yes, the desire for opiates is so strong that it overrides events where the drug almost kills the user.
Plus, the "nanny state" has largely disappeared from the communities most heavily impacted by the opiate epidemic. Many of the states where the opiate crisis are hitting hardest are conservative -- e.g. Oklahoma, Tennessee, West Virginia, Alabama, and so on. The 80s welfare reforms resulted in weakening the safety net in many of those areas.
People aren't getting hooked on opiates because the Mayor of New York wants to tax sugary drinks. You're just using this as a way to push your own ideology.
Nice. Real nice.
