Intoxicants and Personal Responsibility

Quote from bonkman : no it's not at all. Unlike genetic predisposition for obesity, the neurological basis for addiction is present in essentially all addicts. Literally your brain changes in order to force you to have the drug even when you don't enjoy taking it.

Well, there are *potentials* for people to have a predisposition to addiction. Research is still pending.

Anyway...

Yes, so it's the 2nd part of what you quoted, a person "creates" the neurological basis. I agree with that, but that's part of c'est la vie (such is life). You make choices, you deal with the consequences.

Quote from bonkman : The difference is that in the drug case, the person IS continually using. However, this use isn't by choice but by necessity.

The necessity only exists because the person needs to be detoxed. That being said, some people regress after detox because he/she yearns for that state, for whatever reason. The same goes for cigarettes. Once a smoker is off for long enough, the *need* to smoke is on par with non smokers (there's a need for an outlet for stress).

It's not a necessity unless the addiction is to something such as alcohol and going cold turkey can kill you. The majority of other drugs don't have death as a side effect of withdrawal.

Quote from mohater : Well, there are *potentials* for people to have a predisposition to addiction. Research is still pending. Anyway... Yes, so it's the 2nd part of what you quoted, a person "creates" the neurological basis. I agree with that, but that's part of c'est la vie (such is life). You make choices, you deal with the consequences.

It's true but it's not the same thing. That more controls how many times they would need to use a drug to become addicted. There are also predispositions to risk-taking.

And while it can be ces't la vie, it's really harsh to give no forgiveness. In my mind.

Quote from bonkman : It's true but it's not the same thing. That more controls how many times they would need to use a drug to become addicted. There are also predispositions to risk-taking. And while it can be ces't la vie, it's really harsh to give no forgiveness. In my mind.

Don't misinterpret, I have a great deal of sympathy for people with chemical addictions, on bad times, etc. I just accept we are our own worst enemies and rationalize poor decision making. This is why I say c'est la vie.

Quote from bonkman : Not at all what I mean. That was one bad decision that led to immediate consequences. Here, it's a bad decision that led to the person losing control of themselves and -- while desiring to change their behavior because they've learned better -- can't.

So permanent consequences are fair when one bad choice one time leads to immediate results, but unfair when they require multiple bad decisions over a period of time?

The paralyzed guy probably knows better now, but that is a moot point as he will never dive into the water again.

They are fair when they cannot possibly be changed, but unfair if there are still options to recover?

So if you are in an at fault accident( you failed to see them stopping) and someone dies the punishment should be the same as if you are drunk and you are in an accident where someone dies?

The argument would be that you are less likely to be in that kind of accident sober than drunk...otherwise no one would care if you drove drunk. If this is a valid argument then it makes sense to punish you harder if you did two things wrong than just the one.

Quote from tightwad : So if you are in an at fault accident( you failed to see them stopping) and someone dies the punishment should be the same as if you are drunk and you are in an accident where someone dies? The argument would be that you are less likely to be in that kind of accident sober than drunk...otherwise no one would care if you drove drunk. If this is a valid argument then it makes sense to punish you harder if you did two things wrong than just the one.

Which in fact is done all the time.

For example reckless driving laws regarding two or three simultaneous infractions. Speeding AND changing lanes in an intersection WITHOUT using a blinker will garner a total punishment harsher than the sum of three separately cited infractions of speeding, changing lanes in an intersection, and failing to use a blinker.

Quote from mohater : The necessity only exists because the person needs to be detoxed. That being said, some people regress after detox because he/she yearns for that state, for whatever reason. The same goes for cigarettes. Once a smoker is off for long enough, the *need* to smoke is on par with non smokers (there's a need for an outlet for stress). It's not a necessity unless the addiction is to something such as alcohol and going cold turkey can kill you. The majority of other drugs don't have death as a side effect of withdrawal.

Nobody quits heroin or cocaine cold-turkey. It's too addictive. The reason the necessity exists is because the nervous system has changed to accommodate the drug and now requires it to function.

Quote from Xygonn : So permanent consequences are fair when one bad choice one time leads to immediate results, but unfair when they require multiple bad decisions over a period of time? The paralyzed guy probably knows better now, but that is a moot point as he will never dive into the water again. They are fair when they cannot possibly be changed, but unfair if there are still options to recover?

Not options -- desire, but impossibility.

Quote from bonkman : Nobody quits heroin or cocaine cold-turkey. It's too addictive. The reason the necessity exists is because the nervous system has changed to accommodate the drug and now requires it to function. Not options -- desire, but impossibility.

Weening off is sometimes possible.

Ibogaine is even more likely to work, though still in the experimental phase.

Quote from Xygonn : Weening off is sometimes possible. Ibogaine is even more likely to work, though still in the experimental phase.

sometimes possible.

I never said it's impossible to kick addiction. Millions of people have done it. But it's an extraordinarily difficult process and one that takes place over a long time. Hopefully ibogaine and other experimentals in the pipeline do increase the rate and ease of kicking addiction.

Quote from mohater : Note: triples = old stat was 1 in every 1000 births, new stat is 3 in every 1000 births The question becomes: where is the line drawn? I agree when a person becomes intoxicated, he/she doesn't have full awareness or comprehension. That being said, it seems it's become a cause and an excuse as opposed to just an excuse.

give the libs 5 minutes to remind us all why doctors and our health care system is to blame for high infant mortality. I mean, it couldn't possibly be from drug use.

Quote from Mixels : IMO if you choose to become intoxicated, you should be forced to accept personal responsibility for everything you do while intoxicated.

Quote from Xygonn : I agree. In fact, the penalties should be worse.

Yup.

Quote from bonkman : what about for the people who want to quit but physiologically can't (addiction)?

Quote from bonkman : A safe environment isn't always around when someone wants to get a fix. Addiction is a powerful thing. They could wean themselves off. That'd be ideal, of course, and is what they want. But it's not a sure thing by any means. Addiction is a powerful thing. I understand your logic, but it seems quite harsh to say "when you started taking this drug, you knew the risk. Therefore, you must pay super-drastic consequences even when you've been trying to stop for years." It's like punishing you for something you did when you were 16 even though you're 40 and know better now.

Being depressed about a divorce can be a powerful thing too, but it doesn't mean we excuse the guys that's set's fire to his house over it.

Once you involve others in your problem, society's right to be safe, trumps your problem.

Quote from Elmer : Being depressed about a divorce can be a powerful thing too, but it doesn't mean we excuse the guys that's set's fire to his house over it. Once you involve others in your problem, society's right to be safe, trumps your problem.

It's really not the same at all. But that's ok, I know most people don't know that much about addiction.

And it's funny you should mention that example. Because if you kill your spouse because you walk in on him/her cheating, it actually IS a lesser charge (voluntary manslaughter) than if you planned it for weeks (murder 1).

Also, you bringing up society's right to be safe is interesting, especially with all the threads about legalizing drugs that have sprung up. That we recognize that unsafe behaviors may occur and yet still want to legalize them -- and just extremely punish people. Sorta entrapment-like. But whatever.

Quote from bonkman : It's really not the same at all. But that's ok, I know most people don't know that much about addiction.

Actually, I know a bit about addiction, having both worked with them in another job, and in volunteer work. I didn't say it was exactly the same. What's similar, is socity's need for protection trumping an addict's problem.

Quote from bonkman : And it's funny you should mention that example. Because if you kill your spouse because you walk in on him/her cheating, it actually IS a lesser charge (voluntary manslaughter) than if you planned it for weeks (murder 1).

Actually, it's a very rare occurrence, where that would be charged as a manslaughter.

Quote from bonkman : Also, you bringing up society's right to be safe is interesting, especially with all the threads about legalizing drugs that have sprung up. That we recognize that unsafe behaviors may occur and yet still want to legalize them -- and just extremely punish people. Sorta entrapment-like. But whatever.

One should be responsible for their actions, and society should be protected, if you're not..