You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Drug Use And Human Rights
Bullshit! Epidemic? Because people's choices are endemic. Then you go about "the news can't scare you shitless into how bad this epidemic really is" fear mongering. Shut the fuck up, if you cannot own your actions and use your "recovered" status to push fear mongering you're what's wrong with the world, not the "epidemic". Tying in your propaganda fear mongering into a post about basic human rights is despicable.
So are you saying that he shouldn't make the epidemic look worse than it is, because it was his fault he got addicted?? Maybe I'm retarded (definite possibility), but I really have no clue what you mean.
He claims unless you're an addict you have no way to assess the scale and reach of this "epidemic", that people cannot observe and draw the same conclusions from the sidelines, they need to have a troop of addicts that they hang out with to realize how large opiate dependence is, that is his premise, that to tru/really see how big this epidemic is you have to be a user, and then he implies certain responsibility over representing it to the media for not being able to articulate how big it really is, then he closes it by saying that the drug war isn't helping this epidemic.
If you read his comment and excuse the fact that people's choices aren't endemic, and say people's choices are comparable to a disease, then you are what's wrong with the world, even if it sounds like it's conveying a truth: "In my experience, the news and the drug war aren't helping the opiate epidemic."
First he is replying to a post about drug use and human rights that concludes that fucking with people for the choices they make that are not harming anyone is disgraceful, but 1420 here is saying that people's choices are a problem, that they are suffering from a disease, he articulates how the fear mongering machine that is the propaganda mouthpiece of the state, the MSM, has no chance at articulating what he is saying: EPIDEMIC. This is under a post pointing out the immorality of imposing your will onto others, and that is the sentiment he was spewing with his bullshit: the msm cannot do anything about it, as if the msm is responsible for people's choices. He went as far as to say that the drug war isn't helping, after he remarked that the news cannot scare you into the actual proportions of this epidemic. The drug war isn't helping, way to tie into the post. What are we to conclude from his statement? That he believes people's choices are an epidemic, that the media cannot scare you into how grand and big this life of glam is, and that the drug war cannot help..
This is how the post concludes if you somehow missed this crucial part:
Fear mongering about people's personal choices is disgraceful. Their choice isn't a disease, it's not an epidemic, it's not a "problem", it's their choice and it not harming anyone other than themselves.
Okay, I think I understand what you mean now, thanks for the reply.
But being addicted is basically a disease, and even if someone wants to quit, it can be insanely hard if not impossible. Once they become addicted they become a slave to that drug (or anything). Addiction is losing control.
We shouldn't be arresting people for doing drugs, but if there are a massive amount of people addicted, that is a problem. If people are using drugs in moderation, and don't need it to survive then that is okay. But if you are addicted it can negatively affect your own life, and if it is a major issue then we should take is seriously and try to help them if they want help. While I think the current system of jailing drug addicts is completely wrong, that doesn't mean drug addiction should be shrugged off as a non issue.
If addiction were just up to peoples choices, there would be no addiction, because people could just choose to stop once it starts negatively affecting them.
What's a massive amount of people?
Why is that, and how is that, a problem?
Who's we?
Why not? Do you attribute all habits as addictions? What about those addicted to news, tv, media, what about those addicted to reading books, to video games, what about those addicted to another person, what about those addicted to driving dangerously, what about those addicted to gambling, sex, what about those addicted to being healthy?
The addiction is not a problem, and nobody is saying "don't help the addicts", but "fuck your bullshit EPIDEMIC and nonsense that the media is responsible for presenting it or even acknowledging it, or that the drug war isn't helping, especially since that's how the last prohibition AND this one started, because of the scare of the epidemic and how it's transmitted like a fucking disease, so fuck you and your bullshit "i'm genetically predisposed to become a junky"."
There are different levels of addiction. You won't suffer physical withdrawals from watching too much news or TV. You can't overdose from CNN. And yeah, food addiction, gambling, all can have negative effects, and if people want help from it, there should be systems in place to help them. Plus I don't see addiction to heroin or meth on the same level as addiction to sex or gambling, the effects are very different and potentially worse.
This last paragraph I have no idea what you are talking about, the sentences aren't structured properly and you seem to be making me stuff I never said.
You don't seem to understand what addiction even is. Once you are addicted it makes drug use (or whatever else) not a choice, but something you have to do. That is why it's addiction. Do you think bipolar or depression are okay as well and shouldn't be treated or talked about by the media?
I've read your comments multiple times over and I'm really baffled as to what your point is.
So then it's ok to refer to people's choices as infectious, and epidemic, because you see the effects very differently and potentially worse from one addiction to the next? Yeah, habits and addictions are synonyms and the distinction isn't based or interpreted on evidence, physical dependence does form for many habits that release serotonin and depression follows from stopping and not "using".
You think that addiction means you're not responsible for your choices or that you cannot chose even, because drug use is not a choice when you're addicted, something you do involuntarily, like breathing, or sweating. You involuntarily procure the drugs and use them, correct? The fact is that whatever the addiction, it's always a choice, it always begins and it ends with a choice or there wouldn't be any need for support systems and addiction would be the end of control over that area, but it's not.
No, addiction isn't an epidemic, nor could choice be considered epidemic, as if people "just got addicted" when someone stranger bumped into them, and there was no choice, and the media shouldn't fall for the same tactics that were used to start the current and previous FAILED prohibitions. So fuck that fear mongering "THIS IS A REAL PROBLEM" bullshit, in other words, shove that where the sun don't shine and keep it there where such opinions evolve.