Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

The Wet-House ConceptFollow

#127 May 06 2011 at 4:52 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 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 ***.


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
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.
#129 May 06 2011 at 5:06 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 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.


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
******
20,024 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
*****
12,049 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.
#132 May 06 2011 at 8:43 PM Rating: Default
****
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.
#133 May 06 2011 at 8:50 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 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
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.
#135 May 06 2011 at 10:08 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 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
*****
13,240 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...
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#137 May 07 2011 at 3:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 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.


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
*****
13,240 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.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#139 May 07 2011 at 7:50 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 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
******
35,474 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.


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
******
20,024 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
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?
#143 May 07 2011 at 11:23 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 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.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#144 May 07 2011 at 11:50 AM Rating: Good
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.
#145 May 09 2011 at 10:45 PM Rating: Default
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
*******
50,767 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
******
20,024 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
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.
#150 May 10 2011 at 6:18 PM Rating: Default
****
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.
#151 May 10 2011 at 6:33 PM Rating: Decent
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-
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 361 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (361)