Anonymous wrote:Anyone who thinks people of color aren't disproportionately impacted by the damaging effects of heroin is smoking something real special themselves. Watch Lisa Ling on CNN addressing this issue on CNN right now -- #ThisIsLife show

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This doesn't concern me at all. Let the junkies off themselves

It will concern you when they knock you or your loved ones in the head to get money for drugs. When they rob your home to get money for drugs. Wake up fool. This is a societal problem not a "their" problem. WE are "they."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So when crack was killing black America we did what? Three strikes. Scorn. Derision. Jailed a generation of black men leaving, affecting a generation of black women who either couldn't find suitable mates because they weren't there OR who had babies with men who were then thrown in to prison to rot and make money for private prisons.

Now middle class white America is impacted and suddenly we feel compassion. OK.

White racism on full display.

Anonymous wrote:PP is drawing the wrong parallel for the crack epidemic. It's not the heroin epidemic, but the meth epidemic of the nineties.

Like crack, meth has no known medical use. Crack was mostly an urban AA underclass phenomenon, while meth was mostly a rural white underclass one. Meth manufacturers, dealers, and users were dealt with harshly by police and the legal system and no one has any sympathy for them.

The trade in both was accompanied by violence, and most deaths associated with the drugs were over turf battles for which police were the first responders. Because crack is more urban, the trade wars were more concentrated, while that accompanying meth was more scattered and diffuse across the vast heartland and, thus, less visible in the media.

For the most part no one dies from a crack or meth overdose. Rather, both can have devastating health effects as they are used over years.

In contrast, opiates have medical uses, and a very large percentage of heroin users started out with prescription opiates. The point of taking them was not, unlike crack or meth, to get high but to alleviate physical pain, at least as an initial matter. However, like meth, the population most affected is the rural white underclass.

The current heroin epidemic has not been accompanied by violent drug trade wars--the distributors probably having learned that's a bad policy based on the harsh legal responses to the crack and meth trades. So the vast majority of heroin associated deaths is among users, not distributors, unlike the case for the other two drugs. It is very easy to overdose on heroin or prescription opiates, so the first responders to a heroin-related death tend to be medical personnel, and not police.

There are medical treatments for both heroin overdoses and addictions, so it is not surprising that doctors who are dedicated to saving lives are vocal in making these more available. There are no direct actions doctors can take to stem deaths from drug turf battles.

For this reason, the ones leading the way on responding to heroin are public health officials and not law enforcement. The difference we are seeing in response to the heroin epidemic vs. the crack and meth epidemics is in large part owing to this difference.

Anonymous wrote:PP is drawing the wrong parallel for the crack epidemic. It's not the heroin epidemic, but the meth epidemic of the nineties.

Like crack, meth has no known medical use. Crack was mostly an urban AA underclass phenomenon, while meth was mostly a rural white underclass one. Meth manufacturers, dealers, and users were dealt with harshly by police and the legal system and no one has any sympathy for them.

The trade in both was accompanied by violence, and most deaths associated with the drugs were over turf battles for which police were the first responders. Because crack is more urban, the trade wars were more concentrated, while that accompanying meth was more scattered and diffuse across the vast heartland and, thus, less visible in the media.

For the most part no one dies from a crack or meth overdose. Rather, both can have devastating health effects as they are used over years.

In contrast, opiates have medical uses, and a very large percentage of heroin users started out with prescription opiates. The point of taking them was not, unlike crack or meth, to get high but to alleviate physical pain, at least as an initial matter. However, like meth, the population most affected is the rural white underclass.

The current heroin epidemic has not been accompanied by violent drug trade wars--the distributors probably having learned that's a bad policy based on the harsh legal responses to the crack and meth trades. So the vast majority of heroin associated deaths is among users, not distributors, unlike the case for the other two drugs. It is very easy to overdose on heroin or prescription opiates, so the first responders to a heroin-related death tend to be medical personnel, and not police.

There are medical treatments for both heroin overdoses and addictions, so it is not surprising that doctors who are dedicated to saving lives are vocal in making these more available. There are no direct actions doctors can take to stem deaths from drug turf battles.

For this reason, the ones leading the way on responding to heroin are public health officials and not law enforcement. The difference we are seeing in response to the heroin epidemic vs. the crack and meth epidemics is in large part owing to this difference.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have reported the post. Honestly, wishing to see others' children in body bags?

You're proof that college degrees mean nothing . The mere fact that you think this is about wishing to see others children in bags shows how much of an unsalvageable idiot you are . Go take remedial courses in reading comprehension and you might actually stand a chance , I don't feel sorry for you but for your parents who I assume had to foot in the bill for an education you appear not to have gotten any benefit .

You may not have seen the offensive post referred to. Jeff deleted it.

The pp wrote it, that's why she's saying you don't understand her point. Either way, the racist pp is a vile individual who is obviously extremely angry at all white people. She believes no one should care about the heroin epidemic and all of the people dying from it because no one cared about black people dying from crack 30 years ago. The crazy thing is, racist pp has a point. But the key here, pp, is you lose your argument when you start spouting hate. People stop listening. So while you may have a point, it's completely wasted with words of hatred.

If the allegedly "racist PP" you refer to is black, then her comment is not racist because it is not possible for black people to be racist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This doesn't concern me at all. Let the junkies off themselves

It will concern you when they knock you or your loved ones in the head to get money for drugs. When they rob your home to get money for drugs. Wake up fool. This is a societal problem not a "their" problem. WE are "they."

Let them knock on doors and receive a spray of bullets on their faces . All of a sudden it's a societal problem ? Cry me an ocean

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This doesn't concern me at all. Let the junkies off themselves

It will concern you when they knock you or your loved ones in the head to get money for drugs. When they rob your home to get money for drugs. Wake up fool. This is a societal problem not a "their" problem. WE are "they."

Anonymous wrote:So when crack was killing black America we did what? Three strikes. Scorn. Derision. Jailed a generation of black men leaving, affecting a generation of black women who either couldn't find suitable mates because they weren't there OR who had babies with men who were then thrown in to prison to rot and make money for private prisons.

Now middle class white America is impacted and suddenly we feel compassion. OK.

Anonymous wrote:So when crack was killing black America we did what? Three strikes. Scorn. Derision. Jailed a generation of black men leaving, affecting a generation of black women who either couldn't find suitable mates because they weren't there OR who had babies with men who were then thrown in to prison to rot and make money for private prisons.

Now middle class white America is impacted and suddenly we feel compassion. OK.

Anonymous wrote:Mother of former heroin user here.

I'll probably catch flack for this, but if there is one thing I would have done differently it would have been to re-arrange my work to be home after school every day when my child hit high school.

Another thing I would have done differently would have been to be much more aggressive when my child complained of pain constantly. After the pediatrician formed the opinion it was probably psychological I went after it half-heartedly. It turned out to be a real illness for which pain is a symptom. Untreated pain that doctors didn't believe was a major, although not the only, reason for my child turning to heroin. Getting a diagnosis was an important factor in diagnosis, which of course was all the harder to get because of the heroin.

Anonymous wrote:This doesn't concern me at all. Let the junkies off themselves