Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am a different PP, but one of the ones you questioned earlier. I think methadone / suboxone can be beneficial if used properly - it seems again like it comes down to whether the person WANTS to get better. I am wondering why you feel that that point isn't valid. I have a unique POV in that I know several former addicts - trust me, if they don't want to get and stay clean, they won't. Why do you think kids get shipped out to intensive rehabs and are cured of all physical dependence, then come back nd replaces 6 months later? Rinse and repeat. If the internal motivation and sense of personal responsibility isn't there, they will turn to it again, absolutely. My brother, who has been clean for 8 years, told me when he hears someone talking about it now he still feels a momentary internal urge to use...the high is just THAT good. When it came to finally getting clean, he had to make that conscious choice himself...and then he had to commit himself to the hard work of staying there. And he actually did use suboxone - he started under the care of a doctor. He said weed helped him get through the toughest initial days. But underlying everything was that he finally decided he wanted to do it

Argh. Once again, I never said there's no role for motivation and self-control. Obviously, there is. It's just not as simplistic as "the addict has to WANT to change." It's much more complicated than that. You also have to have the resources to change (medical support, social support, a place to live, maybe a job to look forward to). And sometimes the addict needs support even to be motivated to change in the first place. And the self-control needed to resist urges needs to be learned; it's not necessarily an intrinsic trait. Also, the whole point of methadone and suboxone is that they REDUCE the urge to use. Hence, these medications actually reduce the need for willpower and personal responsibility to recover. Which is a good thing, because drug addiction undermines the ability to use willpower.

PP insisting on "personal responsibility" is really just making an argument that there should be no taxpayer funded addiction treatment.

I'm one of those PP and that's not what I'm arguing. I repeat over and over that just because addicts bear personal responsibility doesn't mean they don't deserve help or that you shouldn't help them. Once again, it's just unbelievable that something as simple as "personal responsibility" for taking recreational drugs is as controversial as it is to people like you.

so what's your point? do you disagree that other extrinsic factors also contribute to addiction?

Go back and reread the thread. Your question is asinine as you have repeatedly purposefully missed my point in your pursuit to remove choice, responsibility from and to infantilize addicts. To what purpose, I don't know. I suspect it's something personal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can forbid doctors from prescribing opiates to young patients, but the kids will simply do what my child did when the doctors brush off their pain--go straight to the street for heroin, which is way cheaper than street pills.

There was a time in the past when doctors actually took teen complaints of pain seriously. Now most of the doctors have become amateur psychiatrists and decide with little basis that the complaints are psychogenic and not worth exploring.

How old was your kid?

Anonymous wrote:You can forbid doctors from prescribing opiates to young patients, but the kids will simply do what my child did when the doctors brush off their pain--go straight to the street for heroin, which is way cheaper than street pills.

There was a time in the past when doctors actually took teen complaints of pain seriously. Now most of the doctors have become amateur psychiatrists and decide with little basis that the complaints are psychogenic and not worth exploring.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am a different PP, but one of the ones you questioned earlier. I think methadone / suboxone can be beneficial if used properly - it seems again like it comes down to whether the person WANTS to get better. I am wondering why you feel that that point isn't valid. I have a unique POV in that I know several former addicts - trust me, if they don't want to get and stay clean, they won't. Why do you think kids get shipped out to intensive rehabs and are cured of all physical dependence, then come back nd replaces 6 months later? Rinse and repeat. If the internal motivation and sense of personal responsibility isn't there, they will turn to it again, absolutely. My brother, who has been clean for 8 years, told me when he hears someone talking about it now he still feels a momentary internal urge to use...the high is just THAT good. When it came to finally getting clean, he had to make that conscious choice himself...and then he had to commit himself to the hard work of staying there. And he actually did use suboxone - he started under the care of a doctor. He said weed helped him get through the toughest initial days. But underlying everything was that he finally decided he wanted to do it

Argh. Once again, I never said there's no role for motivation and self-control. Obviously, there is. It's just not as simplistic as "the addict has to WANT to change." It's much more complicated than that. You also have to have the resources to change (medical support, social support, a place to live, maybe a job to look forward to). And sometimes the addict needs support even to be motivated to change in the first place. And the self-control needed to resist urges needs to be learned; it's not necessarily an intrinsic trait. Also, the whole point of methadone and suboxone is that they REDUCE the urge to use. Hence, these medications actually reduce the need for willpower and personal responsibility to recover. Which is a good thing, because drug addiction undermines the ability to use willpower.

PP insisting on "personal responsibility" is really just making an argument that there should be no taxpayer funded addiction treatment.

I'm one of those PP and that's not what I'm arguing. I repeat over and over that just because addicts bear personal responsibility doesn't mean they don't deserve help or that you shouldn't help them. Once again, it's just unbelievable that something as simple as "personal responsibility" for taking recreational drugs is as controversial as it is to people like you.

so what's your point? do you disagree that other extrinsic factors also contribute to addiction?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am a different PP, but one of the ones you questioned earlier. I think methadone / suboxone can be beneficial if used properly - it seems again like it comes down to whether the person WANTS to get better. I am wondering why you feel that that point isn't valid. I have a unique POV in that I know several former addicts - trust me, if they don't want to get and stay clean, they won't. Why do you think kids get shipped out to intensive rehabs and are cured of all physical dependence, then come back nd replaces 6 months later? Rinse and repeat. If the internal motivation and sense of personal responsibility isn't there, they will turn to it again, absolutely. My brother, who has been clean for 8 years, told me when he hears someone talking about it now he still feels a momentary internal urge to use...the high is just THAT good. When it came to finally getting clean, he had to make that conscious choice himself...and then he had to commit himself to the hard work of staying there. And he actually did use suboxone - he started under the care of a doctor. He said weed helped him get through the toughest initial days. But underlying everything was that he finally decided he wanted to do it

Argh. Once again, I never said there's no role for motivation and self-control. Obviously, there is. It's just not as simplistic as "the addict has to WANT to change." It's much more complicated than that. You also have to have the resources to change (medical support, social support, a place to live, maybe a job to look forward to). And sometimes the addict needs support even to be motivated to change in the first place. And the self-control needed to resist urges needs to be learned; it's not necessarily an intrinsic trait. Also, the whole point of methadone and suboxone is that they REDUCE the urge to use. Hence, these medications actually reduce the need for willpower and personal responsibility to recover. Which is a good thing, because drug addiction undermines the ability to use willpower.

PP insisting on "personal responsibility" is really just making an argument that there should be no taxpayer funded addiction treatment.

I'm one of those PP and that's not what I'm arguing. I repeat over and over that just because addicts bear personal responsibility doesn't mean they don't deserve help or that you shouldn't help them. Once again, it's just unbelievable that something as simple as "personal responsibility" for taking recreational drugs is as controversial as it is to people like you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile the drug makers from China and Mexico are making a killing pushing this stuff all over the country. They know it is deadly, will get you hooked, and they make a ton of money. If someone makes a choice to get high from pot or alcohol heroin is no longer a big step and the drug makers are profiting while they are killing Americans.

I though heroin mostly came from Afghanistan? It's what funds terrorism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

People on methadone aren't recovered. They are just addicted to another opiate.

I am pretty sure that the PP wanted to know your opinion about methadone treatment. Unless that's your opinion -- that methadone treatment is bad, because addiction to methadone is still addiction?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile the drug makers from China and Mexico are making a killing pushing this stuff all over the country. They know it is deadly, will get you hooked, and they make a ton of money. If someone makes a choice to get high from pot or alcohol heroin is no longer a big step and the drug makers are profiting while they are killing Americans.

I though heroin mostly came from Afghanistan? It's what funds terrorism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am friends with parents whose children attend Burke, Field, GDS, Georgetown Prep, Gonzaga, Holton, Lab, Landon, Madeira, Maret, NCS, Potomac, Sidwell, St. John's, SS&SA, STA, Visitation, and WIS.. I have had discussions about the presence and extent of hard drug use among students in these school communities. Not one single parent I have asked about this issue believes that hard drugs like opiods, heroin, or meth are being used by the student's in these schools.

We absolutely do need to starting publicly outing these schools, thoigh not the individuals, so that the parents become aware of the issue and bring pressure upon the schools to do something about it. Please if you know something, say something, fresh air is a great sanitizer.

+1000

Thank you. It is also time we started to privately out the student dealers to school faculty and administrators.

As a parent with kids at one of these schools (Sidwell), but in the lower grades, I'm surprised and saddened to hear that this doesn't already happen. What are parents so afraid of? If I was absolutely certain - with proof - that a kid in my DC's school was dealing drugs, I would not think twice about alerting school officials.

That Sidwell isn't the be all end all that is always portrayed. When you are spending $41,000 a year for school no parent wants to feel that the place is perfect.

Me again. Yes I have kids at Sidwell and yes we are spending that much for their education. But I am under no illusions that the place is anywhere near perfect. I realize that I still have some years to go and may not fully know what I'm talking about when it comes to dealing with high schoolers and the US there, but I like to think that if I knew without a doubt that a kid at the school was a dealer, I would be informing school officials pronto. If my little Larla suffers socially from that, do be it. She'll live. Another kid may not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teach your child that getting high on anything is a bad choice and a slippery slope. Parents put down your booze and joints - you are part of the problem.

I drink half a beer, a few nights a week, when the weather is warm. Every once in a while, I go all out and have a whole beer. I don't think that I'm part of the problem.

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile the drug makers from China and Mexico are making a killing pushing this stuff all over the country. They know it is deadly, will get you hooked, and they make a ton of money. If someone makes a choice to get high from pot or alcohol heroin is no longer a big step and the drug makers are profiting while they are killing Americans.