Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

The Wet-House ConceptFollow

#102 May 06 2011 at 3:34 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
if we cut them off from our free healthcare and don't put them in jail, how they cost me more? Or did you not read all of my post?


So, if they get violent because they are under the influence, you would bar the police from responding?
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#103 May 06 2011 at 3:36 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
Quote:
It's probably gonna be a financial drain, sure. But that's why you take the steps to massively lower the number of addicts in the first place. And the only ones that end up here are the worst cases.
You had me until here. So, how do we work around this? You don't like my idea, because it involves cutting people off and I don't like yours because it costs me more money, but more importantly, means I could still end up paying for one individual for my entire life.

How do we get around this?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#104 May 06 2011 at 3:38 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
Olorinus the Vile wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
if we cut them off from our free healthcare and don't put them in jail, how they cost me more? Or did you not read all of my post?


So, if they get violent because they are under the influence, you would bar the police from responding?
Lethal force. you knew you weren't going to like the answer though didn't you? Probably because I clearly stated that's my stance from the get go. You are clear though, that I'm talking about the ones that are lost causes though, right?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#105 May 06 2011 at 3:42 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Olorinus the Vile wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
if we cut them off from our free healthcare and don't put them in jail, how they cost me more? Or did you not read all of my post?


So, if they get violent because they are under the influence, you would bar the police from responding?
Lethal force. you knew you weren't going to like the answer though didn't you? Probably because I clearly stated that's my stance from the get go. You are clear though, that I'm talking about the ones that are lost causes though, right?


As stated numerous times above, that isn't feasible, unless you want to throw out your country's laws and human rights codes altogether.

Personally, I would much rather pay to support some people who have medical problems (including addiction) than live in a fascist state where people can be shot because someone like you decides their life isn't good enough.
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#106 May 06 2011 at 3:44 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
Olorinus the Vile wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Olorinus the Vile wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
if we cut them off from our free healthcare and don't put them in jail, how they cost me more? Or did you not read all of my post?


So, if they get violent because they are under the influence, you would bar the police from responding?
Lethal force. you knew you weren't going to like the answer though didn't you? Probably because I clearly stated that's my stance from the get go. You are clear though, that I'm talking about the ones that are lost causes though, right?


As stated numerous times above, that isn't feasible, unless you want to throw out your country's laws and human rights codes altogether.

Personally, I would much rather pay to support some people who have medical problems (including addiction) than live in a fascist state where people can be shot because someone like you decides their life isn't good enough.
I'll throw out the same to you, as I did to idiggory, present another solution. Because like it or not, I'm not alone in not wanting to pay for someone forever, nor is that group small. Nor are we going to go away until its resolved.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#107 May 06 2011 at 3:51 PM Rating: Good
******
41,289 posts
idiggory wrote:
It's probably gonna be a financial drain, sure. But that's why you take the steps to massively lower the number of addicts in the first place. And the only ones that end up here are the worst cases.
So the whole country should pay more for a solution that won't make a dent in the problem just so you can (Not them, so you can) feel good about yourself. Great plan.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#108 May 06 2011 at 3:52 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
How about this: We open up a second tax tier. If someone hasn't cleaned up in 15 years, these people are funded through this second tax tier. Those that are willing to pay for it, opt in. People like myself, opt out.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#109 May 06 2011 at 3:53 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
[/quote]I'll throw out the same to you, as I did to idiggory, present another solution. Because like it or not, I'm not alone in not wanting to pay for someone forever, nor is that group small. Nor are we going to go away until its resolved.


You don't have to go away. You'll just be ignored, as you are presently.

You have the right to disagree with people with medical problems {including addiction) getting compassion and treatment, but there is precious little you can do about it.

I don't know about America, but here in Canada we have the Canada Health Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms -so as long as this state follows the rule of law, addicts will have the right to compassion and medical treatment.

Whether people like you like it or not, is of no consequence.
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#110 May 06 2011 at 3:54 PM Rating: Good
******
41,289 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
How about this: We open up a second tax tier. If someone hasn't cleaned up in 15 years, these people are funded through this second tax tier. Those that are willing to pay for it, opt in. People like myself, opt out.
Five years. I'm not bleeding heart enough to fund a drug addict who doesn't care about himself for almost as long as my daughter.

Edited, May 6th 2011 5:55pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#111 May 06 2011 at 3:55 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
13,909 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
People that don't want to be helped shouldn't have other people force that help on them, especially when it costs other people a lot of money to do it. I also find it sick that an elderly cancer patient tends to get hooked to a machine and left in bed for God knows how long just because it makes someone else feel better about it. @#%^, just let them go with a little dignity. We show more respect for dogs than we do humans.


You're fucked in the head, son.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#112 May 06 2011 at 3:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,230 posts
This thread makes me want a drink. Or eight.
#113 May 06 2011 at 3:55 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
Olorinus the Vile wrote:
Whether people like you like it or not, is of no consequence.
Unless we get enough people in power to make changes to those laws. Scary thought isn't it? So, about another solution...
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#114 May 06 2011 at 3:57 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
13,909 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Olorinus the Vile wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
if we cut them off from our free healthcare and don't put them in jail, how they cost me more? Or did you not read all of my post?


So, if they get violent because they are under the influence, you would bar the police from responding?
Lethal force. you knew you weren't going to like the answer though didn't you? Probably because I clearly stated that's my stance from the get go. You are clear though, that I'm talking about the ones that are lost causes though, right?


BECAUSE DETERMINING WHO IS A LOST CAUSE IS HARD AND IT COSTS MONEY

It's (determ ining liability actually, thith ith an analogy) why the civil law system costs more than social security, even when it pays out to fewer people.

Edited, May 6th 2011 10:00pm by Kavekk
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#115 May 06 2011 at 3:57 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
idiggory wrote:
It's probably gonna be a financial drain, sure. But that's why you take the steps to massively lower the number of addicts in the first place. And the only ones that end up here are the worst cases.
So the whole country should pay more for a solution that won't make a dent in the problem just so you can (Not them, so you can) feel good about yourself. Great plan.


But this isn't true. It costs society more to treat addicts poorly... policing and emergency rooms are much more expensive than things like safe injection sites and wet houses

Like I stated above. I would rather pay less to treat people better (and not have to step over their bodies or deal with panhandling on the streets) than pay more to treat people poorly (and have them cluttering up the street and begging me for change.)
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#116 May 06 2011 at 3:59 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Olorinus the Vile wrote:
Whether people like you like it or not, is of no consequence.
Unless we get enough people in power to make changes to those laws. Scary thought isn't it? So, about another solution...


Yeah, good luck not only winning the federal government in Canada but the government of every province in the country so that you can change the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Oh and then good luck convincing the Supreme Court to roll back those rights.

Not likely. But have fun.

Maybe it is easy to implement fascism in the US but here in Canada people's rights are determined by the rule of law, not mob rule.
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#117 May 06 2011 at 3:59 PM Rating: Good
******
41,289 posts
Olorinus the Vile wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
idiggory wrote:
It's probably gonna be a financial drain, sure. But that's why you take the steps to massively lower the number of addicts in the first place. And the only ones that end up here are the worst cases.
So the whole country should pay more for a solution that won't make a dent in the problem just so you can (Not them, so you can) feel good about yourself. Great plan.


But this isn't true. It costs society more to treat addicts poorly... policing and emergency rooms are much more expensive than things like safe injection sites and wet houses

Like I stated above. I would rather pay less to treat people better (and not have to step over their bodies or deal with panhandling on the streets) than pay more to treat people poorly (and have them cluttering up the street and begging me for change.)
Fine, then let's go with Ugly's solution: Everyone gets x years. If they're not clean in that amount of time, they get bumped to a privately funded system.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#118 May 06 2011 at 4:00 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
Kavekk wrote:
BECAUSE DETERMINING WHO IS A LOST CAUSE IS HARD AND IT COSTS MONEY
So avoid the situation because its easier?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#119 May 06 2011 at 4:02 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,350 posts
Quote:
You had me until here. So, how do we work around this? You don't like my idea, because it involves cutting people off and I don't like yours because it costs me more money, but more importantly, means I could still end up paying for one individual for my entire life.

How do we get around this?


In my view, the ones that are left are the ones that should truly be considered disabled. They can't live and function in normal society and they recognize that. I don't mind them being a financial burden if that's truly the case, for the exact same reason I don't mind other disabilities being a burden.

That said, I'm not convinced they would actually have to be a financial burden. For one, we have the money made from the drug trade. That's at least a start. Plus, we are talking about a low number of people here. By their nature, they can't be around drugs our outside of a supportive environment. The fortunate thing is that supportive environments can be mobile. Addicts are capable of working, they just can't be responsible to manage their own affairs.

Let's say the average mental hospital would have 20 addicts (which sounds too high to me, but I'm going with it). I feel like it would be too hard for them to work community jobs in groups of 4 or 5 (plus a ward employee). Obviously, there would need to be restrictions on what they could do (as they couldn't work anywhere that would allow them to gain access to drugs). But they still have the chance to live a fulfilling life--maybe as cleaning/landscaping crews for public buildings, for example.

Would it still take public funds? I dunno. I have no way of predicting what this would cost and how much the drug taxes would bring in. But it doesn't seem like any public funds would be untoward.

Of course, there are still the people who are going to refuse to enter these facilities. Frankly, I wouldn't force them to (for my conception of the ward to work, people would need to be there by choice). Hopefully, in time, they'll recognize it's a good idea. If not, then they'll end up killing themselves.

And if the drug controls work, ODs wouldn't be a major issue for these people (especially since you could legislate such that an OD means the clinic won't provide you with drugs). So those people would be willingly choosing to live on the street and actively pushing help away. And those people exist even without drugs being a factor.

Imo, if the drug controls work (AKA, we can keep black market dealing from being profitable and available by creating public drug dispensaries), then the major part of the problem is gone. The number of ODs hospitals want to deal with drop significantly and addicts who can't control themselves have options such that they can still remain productive members of society.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#120 May 06 2011 at 4:03 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
Olorinus the Vile wrote:
Maybe it is easy to implement fascism in the US but here in Canada people's rights are determined by the rule of law, not mob rule.
I know how Canada works. I kinda live here. Which is why I know my views will be heard. The fact that I want to not have to pay for someone forever is a common concern. An issue that can't be and isn't ignored.



My trolling view on lethal force isn't, but then again, its just trolling.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#121 May 06 2011 at 4:04 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
13,909 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
BECAUSE DETERMINING WHO IS A LOST CAUSE IS HARD AND IT COSTS MONEY
So avoid the situation because its easier?


If you think that's what your solution does then you're incorrect. If that's you describing the alternative, yes, I suppose that's one way to justify slash explain it.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#122 May 06 2011 at 4:06 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,350 posts
Quote:
So the whole country should pay more for a solution that won't make a dent in the problem just so you can (Not them, so you can) feel good about yourself. Great plan.


I thought your problem was that rehab and medical costs for these people was a drain on the public. I don't see how the plan I offered was making a dent in the costs at all--it seems like it would be a pretty massive reduction in public costs.

You drastically decrease the number of OD cases, which equates to a huge decrease in health costs.

You DO have to treat more rehab patients for a time, but it eventually ends up much lower than originally because drug usage drops.

Plus, purchasing drugs provides public funds.

So no, I don't see how this is putting a dent in the situation. Nor do I see how this is just so that I feel good about myself--it's about creating a situation in which an addict isn't punished for being an addict, so that they can reasonably be expected to keep themselves clean.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#123 May 06 2011 at 4:06 PM Rating: Good
******
41,289 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
My trolling view on lethal force isn't, but then again, its just trolling.
Its not fun if you have to explain it. Smiley: motz
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#124 May 06 2011 at 4:07 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
idiggory wrote:
Would it still take public funds? I dunno. I have no way of predicting what this would cost and how much the drug taxes would bring in. But it doesn't seem like any public funds would be untoward.
I like my last suggestion of separate tax tiers better, but I could buy into this, to at least try it.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#125 May 06 2011 at 4:08 PM Rating: Good
******
41,289 posts
idiggory wrote:
it's about creating a situation in which an addict isn't punished for being an addict, so that they can reasonably be expected to keep themselves clean.
You should probably look up what the legal consequences of voluntary rehab are before assuming there is punishment.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#126 May 06 2011 at 4:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,916 posts
idiggory wrote:
The problem is that it comes down to whether or not you think their choice is free or not. I'm inclined to say it isn't--the coercive force of an addiction just seems like it would be something far too powerful for any choice made under it to be rationally considered free. And as long as their choice isn't free, I can't blame them for making it.

And you are making an assumption that addiction is only curable if someone wishes for it to be so. The problem is that no addiction is curable. This is important to note. We fight addictions by purging the drug from the patient's system, which causes the body excruciating pain (which is why it is done in rehab--they can't do it alone). Then we do the best we can to give them the tools to cope. The problem is that you are always an addict--there's no cure for that. There isn't a single addict in the world that isn't in danger of relapse. It's why many of them go to AA, etc., meetings their whole life.

Stop pretending like there's a cure for addiction. Once an addict, always an addict. I'm just not willing to vilify those that don't have a strong enough will to beat it. And I see no reason to assume that everyone is born with a will sufficient enough to avoid relapse.


First off, huzzah semantics? Sure, addictions cannot be "cured." The symptoms can be stopped - people can stay "on the wagon." That's obviously what I meant, and what the point of treatment is. Stop pretending like I meant anything else - you do yourself a disservice by looking petulant, and me a disservice by acting like an ass.

If someone willingly gives up their free will (ironic, no?) to addiction, then someone needs to make choices for them. If a person does not want to make the choice to live their own life but instead gives in to their addiction and trusts solely in the support of others, then when their life is endangered I feel it is their own fall. If the coercive force of addiction is too powerful for a choice to be made, and addictions can never be cured, then addicts are non-entities. In the case that their decisions cannot be made, it falls to their family, or barring that their guardian, or barring that, the state. Since the state is funded by tax payer dollars and these folks choose to put themselves on death's door, I would say my taxes are better spent elsewhere.


Eh, I changed my response. My gut feeling? If a person is an addict, and will always be an addict, they will never be able to make a "rational" or "free" decision, in your words. In which case, they are dependent on their family; or barring that a guardian; or barring that, the state. And the state should not spend money or effort on someone who abuses drugs unto death.

I say even an addict can have a rational mind, at least rational enough to know how much is too much. If someone shoots up enough heroin to kill a small elephant (and they know it), they should not be brought back. It does sound heartless and to an extent it is. But I also believe it is not the best use of limited resources to attempt to save someone knowingly trying to die if all other efforts have failed. I'm not talking about the newbie who didn't know how much they were using. I'm not talking about the guy who's attended counseling but had a terrible week and does too much. I'm talking about the person who would be in this kind of place only for drugs, never to get better, and in search of the ever-higher-high, takes way too much.

Again, it is heartless, but it's also more rational than you are being. And sometimes rationality needs to win over emotion.
____________________________
Volunteer News Writer for the ZAM Network.
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#127 May 06 2011 at 4:52 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,350 posts
I think an addict can regain an rational mind, and hold onto it, but not while in the thick of addiction. When you're high, or going through withdrawals, or sitting in rehab afterwards desperate for another fix, you are still not acting rationally. You need time for your body to let go of the drug enough for you to not be completely ruled by it. And for the rest of your life, you are going to have to actively suppress that desire.

Quote:
First off, huzzah semantics? Sure, addictions cannot be "cured." The symptoms can be stopped - people can stay "on the wagon." That's obviously what I meant, and what the point of treatment is. Stop pretending like I meant anything else - you do yourself a disservice by looking petulant, and me a disservice by acting like an ass.


My point was that your post sounded a lot like it was over and done with once they finally regain control of themselves. I just wanted to remind everyone in the thread (because it hadn't been vocalized) that it isn't like a relapse only happens because people don't want to be in control of their lives. It certainly gets easier to stay on the wagon as time goes on, but someone who legitimately wants to stay clean is going to relapse without the proper support available. And a society that vilifies addicts only makes it more likely that they won't get the support they need. That's not a reply to you, it's just a broad statement.

[EDIT]
Quote:
I say even an addict can have a rational mind, at least rational enough to know how much is too much. If someone shoots up enough heroin to kill a small elephant (and they know it), they should not be brought back.


The disagree with you here. I'd say that, while they do know it's dangerous to shoot up so much, their brain clearly isn't functioning properly in that case scenario. They're desperate for the high, and have developed a strong tolerance to the drug. Their desperation for the high is so large that everything else automatically becomes secondary. Even if they know they'd likely die from taking so much, they aren't rationally processing that fact. Because the desire to shoot up dominates everything else.

I read an interesting article about first and second order desires a few months back. It basically suggested that our first order desires are thins like life, sex, etc.--primal desires (life is still valued more than sex, of course). These are the values that our brains will always place above others. Second order desires are everything else we want, like cars and clothes.

The article suggested that addiction acted in two ways. One, the drug became a first-order desire (that rose up the list in time). Two, when you begin to enter withdrawals (and during them), it becomes so strong that all other first-order desires essentially become second-order desires. You still want them, but the desire just seems insignificant in comparison with the drug. And you want the high so badly that you don't think about anything but it until you have it.

On some level, you know that snorting 500 grams of cocaine is going to kill you. But you aren't processing it in terms of "Do I want to live?" It isn't even on your radar of consideration anymore.

Edited, May 6th 2011 6:59pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#128 May 06 2011 at 4:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,625 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
Belkira wrote:
The individual has to decide if they want a DNR on themselves. I don't see how forcing that on someone is any different than murder. But it doesn't sound like Ugly or logaxe have an issue with murder, per se. At least, not in these cases.

ETA: For clarification.]
Hmmm, I see it more as the individual put themselves in that position and should not expect to be saved from it. It's not forcing anything on them - it's saying "Look, if this happens, we won't save you. If you're not willing to be safe and stay alive, we won't be either." While I understand addiction is a disease, it's only an incurable disease if the patient wishes for it to be. If that's the case, they do not seek help despite it being offered, then I feel a DNR is allowable.

I don't see it as murder, because not helping is different than actively doing something. The only problem is if there's a responsibility. Answer? Have everyone who enters one of these places sign a DNR paper. They can get help, or they can get wasted, but if they get totally messed up, it is on their own heads.


A person who drives recklessly puts themselves in the situation of getting into a horrible car accident. Should they not be resuscitated? Or the kid who drinks and drives for the first time and slams into a tree? I know, bad analogies are bad, but I don't see a difference.

And I think it's horrible to force a person to sign a paper effectively saying, "I'm addicted to something but I want help. If I fuck up once and overdose, I deserve to die."



LockeColeMA wrote:
That's all just hypothetically speaking however.


Oh, of course. And I'm not terribly invested in an opinion on this, really, because like I said before, I have very, very little empathy for an addict. I am, however, against arbitrarily killing people because someone else deems them a waste of time and resources.
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#129 May 06 2011 at 5:06 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
Quote:
A person who drives recklessly puts themselves in the situation of getting into a horrible car accident. Should they not be resuscitated?
They should have their license revoked, as usually is the case.

Quote:
Or the kid who drinks and drives for the first time and slams into a tree?
For the first time? Nope. Habitual? Well, if habitual, they've had their licensed revoked and should be in prison.

You're right, those were bad analogies as no one here, even whilst trolling, has advocated doing anything to anyone but habitual users who refuse help.

____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#130 May 06 2011 at 5:27 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,350 posts
IDK if this is national or state law, but NJ is (averaged and only listing BAC above .1):

1st offense- 7 months-1 year w/o license, with $1k in various fines (many of which go to DUI prevention) and an additional 1k surcharge each year for 1 year. Plus up to 30 days in prison and up to 48 hours at an intoxicated driver resource center. If you are above .15%, you need to use an ignition interlock device for 6 months after you get your license back.

2nd offense within 10 years- 2 years w/o license, 1.5k fine with 1k per year, 48h-90d in prison, 30 days Com Service with up to 48 days at IDRC. You need to use an ignition interlock device for 1-3 years after getting license back.

3rd offense (if within 10 years of 2nd offense)- 10 years w/o license, 1.5k fine, 1k a year, mandatory 180 days in prison, up to 90 hours cs, up to 48 hours of com. service and an ign.interlock device for 1-3 years following license renewal.

Anyone else feel like these are WAY too relaxed? When I go out, I either make the decision that I'll drive home or I won't. If I'm going to drive, and it's sufficiently far in the future, I might have a drink but I'll actively pace myself and stop well before I'm supposed to drive (and won't even allow myself to get buzzed at all).

Frankly, I'd say these should be:

1st offense, 1 or 2 years. Plus fines and comm service.
2nd offense, 10 years or never, depending on the rest of your record (like if you have any points on your license). +comm service and fines.
3rd offense, never. Jail time, comm service, fines.

I mean, seriously. A drug addict kills themself, but they rarely hurt others. Drunk drivers take out innocent people all the time, and they are usually quite rational before they begin drinking. It's totally preventable, because you can plan to drink or drive well before you start drinking. When my friends and I drink, we always have a DD (even if we aren't traveling, someone always stays sober), and we never have access to keys and such while we are drunk.

Frankly, even with the rules I made, I still don't feel like they are harsh enough...

Just felt like it was an interesting new topic, because I don't think this one's going anywhere else, really. And it still relates to drugs/alcohol. :P
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#131 May 06 2011 at 6:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,916 posts
Belkira wrote:
A person who drives recklessly puts themselves in the situation of getting into a horrible car accident. Should they not be resuscitated? Or the kid who drinks and drives for the first time and slams into a tree? I know, bad analogies are bad, but I don't see a difference.

And I think it's horrible to force a person to sign a paper effectively saying, "I'm addicted to something but I want help. If I fuck up once and overdose, I deserve to die."

I didn't say it in the post you quoted, but in my response to iddigory:
Quote:
I'm not talking about the guy who's attended counseling but had a terrible week and does too much. I'm talking about the person who would be in this kind of place only for drugs, never to get better, and in search of the ever-higher-high, takes way too much.

In your example, no, someone who drove too fast once should be saved. Someone who has had their license revoked for driving too fast and causing several crashes should not. the kid who drinks for the first time should be saved. The lady who has been in several drunk driving accidents previously and killed several people should not.

In the same way, if someone wants help, they should get it - everyone has bad days. In reality, it would actually work out this way - if someone isn't trying to put their life back together, likely they're not getting as much attention, and are more likely to die alone before someone notices.
____________________________
Volunteer News Writer for the ZAM Network.
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#132 May 06 2011 at 8:43 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
I'm not going to go into the specifics, but if you want to better understand wet-houses, needle exchange programs, etc., you should study up on risk reduction. Normally these risk reduction programs are supported statistically by actuary tables, and often times their removal due to public demand actually creates worse outcomes for the public (e.g., one such program in Montreal was shut down, increasing crime, needle pollution and disturbances, while simultaneously reducing the level of preventive health services to the users, further taxing the health care system).

The key thing to understand about these programs is that they are designed to accept that they cannot successfully change the behavior, at least not unless the individual is prepared to change-- you meet them where they are, as a person, and attempt to minimize the damage through behavioral changes that are much easier to propagate.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#133 May 06 2011 at 8:50 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,350 posts
And to be frank, I find the idea of a society that just offs anyone that's guaranteed to be a drain on it... well...


Terrifying.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#134 May 06 2011 at 10:00 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,625 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
A person who drives recklessly puts themselves in the situation of getting into a horrible car accident. Should they not be resuscitated?
They should have their license revoked, as usually is the case.

Quote:
Or the kid who drinks and drives for the first time and slams into a tree?
For the first time? Nope. Habitual? Well, if habitual, they've had their licensed revoked and should be in prison.

You're right, those were bad analogies as no one here, even whilst trolling, has advocated doing anything to anyone but habitual users who refuse help.


I've only been half reading the thread (as evidenced by Locke's response) but I took "someone who purposefully risks his/her life in an action they know can result in death" at face value. I should've read more, because that was already explained earlier in context, so that was my mistake.


LockeColeMA wrote:
I didn't say it in the post you quoted, but in my response to iddigory:
Quote:
I'm not talking about the guy who's attended counseling but had a terrible week and does too much. I'm talking about the person who would be in this kind of place only for drugs, never to get better, and in search of the ever-higher-high, takes way too much.

In your example, no, someone who drove too fast once should be saved. Someone who has had their license revoked for driving too fast and causing several crashes should not. the kid who drinks for the first time should be saved. The lady who has been in several drunk driving accidents previously and killed several people should not.

In the same way, if someone wants help, they should get it - everyone has bad days. In reality, it would actually work out this way - if someone isn't trying to put their life back together, likely they're not getting as much attention, and are more likely to die alone before someone notices.


I gotcha. I apologize that I hadn't read more of the thread and misunderstood. The only problem with this, though, is that the first responders have absolutely no idea what the background of the individual is.
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#135 May 06 2011 at 10:08 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,350 posts
Quote:
I gotcha. I apologize that I hadn't read more of the thread and misunderstood. The only problem with this, though, is that the first responders have absolutely no idea what the background of the individual is.


I just kinda assumed that we'd be tattooing them with some kind of obvious mark. I mean, if we don't care about their right to live, I don't we'd care about their right not to be scarred by the gov't. Though many could argue that it's a violation of their religious rights (as many religions forbid the tattooing of the body).

I'm still going to firmly say that this violates the eighth amendment.

They'd also need to have an actual trial, per their fifth/sixth amendment rights, which drives up related cost anyway (kinda ironic, considering what we are trying to avoid).
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#136 May 06 2011 at 11:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,708 posts
idiggory wrote:
And to be frank, I find the idea of a society that just offs anyone that's guaranteed to be a drain on it... well...


Terrifying.


Death panels...Hisss...
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#137 May 07 2011 at 3:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
idiggory wrote:
I just kinda assumed that we'd be tattooing them with some kind of obvious mark.
That's an excellent idea. I hadn't even considered this potential issue.


Quote:
They'd also need to have an actual trial, per their fifth/sixth amendment rights, which drives up related cost anyway (kinda ironic, considering what we are trying to avoid).
Still not quite getting the base issue, I see. In some ways, I can understand why, because gaxe and I did alot of trolling along with being serious, so its hard to see where we were serious and where we weren't, but come on. We were pretty clear with what the actual issue for us is.

Edited, May 7th 2011 6:43am by Uglysasquatch
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#138 May 07 2011 at 7:48 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,708 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
idiggory wrote:
I just kinda assumed that we'd be tattooing them with some kind of obvious mark.
That's an excellent idea. I hadn't even considered this potential issue.


A is for alcoholic. Let's make it red.
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#139 May 07 2011 at 7:50 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,350 posts
Then they'll all kill themselves, and it'll turn out that the local priest first injected her with the heroin.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#140 May 07 2011 at 8:51 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
idiggory wrote:
I just kinda assumed that we'd be tattooing them with some kind of obvious mark.
That's an excellent idea. I hadn't even considered this potential issue.


A is for alcoholic. Let's make it red.
Across their entire face. In glow in the dark ink.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#141 May 07 2011 at 8:58 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,350 posts
Quote:
Across their entire face. In glow in the dark ink.


No way. Then we'll just ensure that glow-in-the-dark facial tattoos will always be socially unacceptable!

But Bioware games have shown me a world in which this isn't the case. I want that world.

(And I want a way to remove tattoos that isn't expensive, painful and scarring :P)
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#142 May 07 2011 at 9:43 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
13,909 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
idiggory wrote:
I just kinda assumed that we'd be tattooing them with some kind of obvious mark.
That's an excellent idea. I hadn't even considered this potential issue.


A is for alcoholic. Let's make it red.


Mindel been annoying you lately?
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#143 May 07 2011 at 11:23 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,708 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
idiggory wrote:
I just kinda assumed that we'd be tattooing them with some kind of obvious mark.
That's an excellent idea. I hadn't even considered this potential issue.


A is for alcoholic. Let's make it red.


Mindel been annoying you lately?


She gave up drinking.
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#144 May 07 2011 at 11:50 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
13,909 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
idiggory wrote:
I just kinda assumed that we'd be tattooing them with some kind of obvious mark.
That's an excellent idea. I hadn't even considered this potential issue.


A is for alcoholic. Let's make it red.


Mindel been annoying you lately?


She gave up drinking.


I'm not hearing a no.

I hear laser removal is pretty bad.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#145 May 09 2011 at 10:45 PM Rating: Default
1 post
Significant news wires recently began carrying a story about a “wet house” in St. Paul, Minn. A wet house is a center, where alcoholics, many of which are homeless, can go to live however continue to drink on the theory that it is better for them and society at large if they can at least stay safe. Regardless of some controversy over the idea, more towns are looking into it. More cities consider running wet house centers for addicts and I think this program is good because it gives these people a safe place until there health concedes to alcohol.
#146 May 09 2011 at 10:47 PM Rating: Good
******
41,289 posts
Did the thread just lap itself?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#147 May 09 2011 at 11:04 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,350 posts
That's... a sock, right?

I mean, who but a puppet has their first post in the ASYLUM?
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#148 May 10 2011 at 7:44 AM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
I pay taxes, where's my free booze?
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#149 May 10 2011 at 7:56 AM Rating: Excellent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
thereseB wrote:
Significant news wires recently began carrying a story about a “wet house” in St. Paul, Minn. A wet house is a center, where alcoholics, many of which are homeless, can go to live however continue to drink on the theory that it is better for them and society at large if they can at least stay safe. Regardless of some controversy over the idea, more towns are looking into it. More cities consider running wet house centers for addicts and I think this program is good because it gives these people a safe place until there health concedes to alcohol.

The Asylum recently began a thread regarding a "wet house" in St. Paul, Minn[sic]. The thread is a discussion where posters, many of which are f'uckwits, can go to add their comments about the concept and derail the conversation in to many other topics. Regardless of the desire for intelligent conversation Kachi continues to post. More posters are considering ignoring him until he concedes[sic] to common sense.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#150 May 10 2011 at 6:18 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
I understand it's hard for you to cope with your abundant mediocrity, but the insults don't help. Hell, I seem to be the only person in this thread with any intimate familiarity with these programs, but you value your ignorant swill of an opinion over my insight? Rarely do you have anything valuable to contribute to a thread, but because a couple of bobbleheads gobble up your formula for "basic observation" plus "smarmy condescension", you seem to actually think you have something interesting to say.

The problem with having an intelligent conversation with you, is that you can't hold up your end of the bargain.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#151 May 10 2011 at 6:33 PM Rating: Decent
Supreme Lionator
*****
13,909 posts
Kachi wrote:
I understand it's hard for you to cope with your abundant mediocrity, but the insults don't help. Hell, I seem to be the only person in this thread with any intimate familiarity with these programs, but you value your ignorant swill of an opinion over my insight? Rarely do you have anything valuable to contribute to a thread, but because a couple of bobbleheads gobble up your formula for "basic observation" plus "smarmy condescension", you seem to actually think you have something interesting to say.

The problem with having an intelligent conversation with you, is that you can't hold up your end of the bargain.


That's not how commas work.

C-
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 28 All times are in CDT
lolgaxe, Poldaran, Timelordwho, Anonymous Guests (25)