Paying Drug Abusers to be Sterilized

[Carlene 12]

I think it was George Carling, but I am not positive.

No, this guy was not as well known as Carlin, and he was more recent, too.

[Carlene 12]

Obviously not. That is why they had "the evidence" on the dress. She spit "the evidence" out.

And hung the dress back in her closet for MONTHS, instead of sending it to the dry cleaners! See.....your mother was right. Cleanliness is next to godliness.

[green 6]

And Monica didn't swallow, right?

:hungry: She didn't realise that it was band-friendly low-fat protein.:heh: Silly grrl.........:tired

[ReneBean 3]

Legalize all the drugs and put the addicts in rehab. It would be much easier to get straight and live a normal life if you weren't branded as a criminal in addition to being a recovering addict.

I consider the "War on Drugs" to have been lost years ago. Time to pack it up and go home.

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

Edited to add.....I used to have an elderly, arthritic dog whom I loved dearly. I hated to see her suffer, but I was so reluctant to have her put down. We fixed up a makeshift "oxygen tent" for her and blew in reefer fumes to ease her pain. They should do that for humans with terminal Cancer.

Heh... I have to fess up to something here.

I have a dog with glaucoma. She's had it since she was three months old. In humans glaucoma is highly treatable, in dogs it is not. The "eye juice" in their eyes builds up to the point that their eyes bug out and can literally fall out of their sockets because there isn't room and bone around the eye doesn't budge. This is an exceedingly painful condition.

A dog can be in such severe pain from this condition that they can go into shock and die from the pain of glaucoma.

Most dogs can go for about 2 years with meds and then they have to have a laser procedure that buys them about another year of pain free sight. After that they usually have to have their little eyes removed surgically.

NOT my baby! She is almost 8 years old, she has never had a laser procedure, she still has her vision, and she is totally pain free, and she isn't even close to having her eyes removed. She's my little pot-head. I saute it for her because she hates crunchy pot. I give it to her right before she goes to bed by mixing it in a treat because she doesn't like the effects. If I give it to her before she goes to bed she throws her ball up in the air, rolls over so her paws are sticking up in the air, and she watches it rollllllllllllllllllllllllll.

I am mega anti-drug but for medical reasons I would (and do) give it to my own dog and family members. Personally, I hate the stuff. I think it stinks, it's gross, it makes my throat hurt, I cough, and I feel stupid. But for medical issues, it's mega fantastic.

[kyethra 0]

why $300? That doesn't like much to me at all. And what do they define as abuse?

Where is the line between recreation and abuse? Does it depend on the person? Who determines it?

And what is the method of sterilization? From what I understand, those things can sometimes be reversed. Also, a tubal ligation or a visectomey does not stop one from being able to have a child. Sure it wouldn't be cheap in the future. You'd have to go to a fertility clinic and get the egg and/or sperm out and pay for IVF for a reversal didn't work. But tubal ligation doesn't get rid of a women's eggs and a vasectomy doesn't stop a man from producing sperm. These procedures just prevent the release of them.

I still think the $300 dollars is the most interesting part. Its not that much. How about $3000? I think that would be a lot more temping to me if I were a drug user. 300 is not an amount that inspires hope. A large amount does though. Money makes people think that they can turn things around- get a car, place to stay, move to a new place, get that fresh start. Even if it isn't true in the long run that hope sure can help, I would think. Fresh starts can be addictive.

Then down the road when/if the user does get clean and becomes model citizen X he or she shouldn't have much of a problem, over time, establishing a good credit history and all that. I'm sure good credit helps when it comes time to finance the IVF or adoption fees or whatever if that person does decide to have children in the future. Because no one said they couldn't have kids in the future. And it is easier to get ahead financially without an adorable little money drain (aka a kid).

I have no problem with the program or whatever. I just think the amount of money isn't enough.

I also think we should legalize drugs. We can fund treatment and healthcare costs and other related costs from the tax money. And I think it would be widely sucessfully and there might even be more money left over to help us work on funding universal health care. I'm a dreamer.

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

why $300? That doesn't like much to me at all. And what do they define as abuse?

I think those that are volunteering to pay the bills are the ones determining what they will pay. Either the abusers accept or decline. Either way, they accept the choice of the abuser.

Where is the line between recreation and abuse? Does it depend on the person? Who determines it?

I was using the standard medical definition. If someone needs to kill physical pain vs. if someone uses a drug for recreational purposes. I have had burn patients that need a drug, I have had drug abusers that want the drug.

Overall, I agree with your post.

[Wheetsin 714]

How about $3000? I think that would be a lot more temping to me if I were a drug user. 300 is not an amount that inspires hope.

When you're talking addicts, there isn't much recognition of $300 over $3000. Either will get them what they need right then. There's a part of the rational brain that shuts down during addiction. Think of children... and you put a piece of a candy bar on a plate in front of them, and then you put three candy bars on a plate behind the first plate. You tell them they can have the piece of a candy bar now, or if they wait 1 hour, they can have the plate with three candy bars on it. Not many wait for the three candy bars. Moral of the story being - the addict doesn't care. If you tell them they can have $300 now or $3000 in a week, they're probably going to take the $300 because, for the most part, it isn't about an amount of money, it's about what gets them their next fix right now. Sure, $3000 will keep them high for a lot longer, but they don't care. And if your goal is to get them sterilized, neither do you -- bring 'em in, move 'em out, and go cheap because then you can do more.

[Carlene 12]

Where is the line between recreation and abuse? Does it depend on the person? Who determines it?

So-called "recreational" drug use is nothing more than a nice way of saying, "I use drugs because I like getting high, but it's not yet interferring with my ability to lead a normal and productive life."

Some people never become addicts/abusers. Many do, however. And hard core drugs, like meth and crack, are so addictive, there really is no such thing as a "recreational" user.

And what is the method of sterilization? From what I understand, those things can sometimes be reversed.

The key word there being "sometimes". Tubal ligation is particularly hard to reverse successfully, by the way.

I also think we should legalize drugs.

ALL drugs? That's a terrible idea. Meth should not be legal - not to produce, not to distribute, and not to use/possess. There is absolutely NOTHING good about meth.

[kyethra 0]

There is a legal prescription verson of meth. Its called desoxyn. It does have one good thing about it: It can make a person stay awake.

GHB also happens to be a wonderful sleep aid. It too has a prescription version (interestingly it is the most tightly controlled prescription substance since it is only available from one central pharmacy).

There are already a ton of prescription amphetamines and narcotics out there and enough of those make it onto the streets. But they have great medical benefits-- they are good drugs if used correctly. So is pot. Since people are going to use it anyway, I think we should legalize them, all of them. They would be a lot safer if there were standards at least. That way at least people would know for sure what they were taking.

[Carlene 12]

There is a legal prescription verson of meth. Its called desoxyn. It does have one good thing about it: It can make a person stay awake.

GHB also happens to be a wonderful sleep aid. It too has a prescription version (interestingly it is the most tightly controlled prescription substance since it is only available from one central pharmacy).

There are already a ton of prescription amphetamines and narcotics out there and enough of those make it onto the streets. But they have great medical benefits-- they are good drugs if used correctly. So is pot. Since people are going to use it anyway, I think we should legalize them, all of them. They would be a lot safer if there were standards at least. That way at least people would know for sure what they were taking.

The pharmaceuticals ARE legal. Or did you mean to say that they should be unregulated?

Crystal meth is made from Acetone (paint thinner), Muratic Acid, Lye, Iodine, and Sudafed (cold meds). No way can this be a good thing!

[kyethra 0]

I think we should have the same sort of regulations on drugs (such as meth and pot) that we have on alchohol and tobacco. That way people wouldn't be consuming stuff made from paint thinner or of unknown strengths and toxicity at least and I think it would be a big improvement in the distributation of where drug money goes. The illegality of the substances obviously hasn't prevented their use.

[Carlene 12]

I think we should have the same sort of regulations on drugs (such as meth and pot) that we have on alchohol and tobacco. That way people wouldn't be consuming stuff made from paint thinner or of unknown strengths and toxicity at least and I think it would be a big improvement in the distributation of where drug money goes. The illegality of the substances obviously hasn't prevented their use.

You think drugs - both pharmaceutical and street drugs - should be sold over the counter, in unlimited quantities? Somehow that doesn't sound like a very good idea to me.

[kyethra 0]

No, not pharmeceuticals. And perhaps limiting the quantities would be a good idea. I didn't think of that.

[Carlene 12]

No, not pharmeceuticals. And perhaps limiting the quantities would be a good idea. I didn't think of that.

The problem with this idea is that a safe dosage for one person would be a lethal dosage for another, so without a doctor to monitor usage, I think we'd end up killing a lot of people. And the addicts would never be satisfied with limited quantities. They would either go back to illegal sources, or just get someone else to buy the drugs for them, from the pharmacy.

The pharmacies have to keep the Sudafed under lock and key now, and limit the number of packages you can buy at one time. The hardware store has to lock up spray paint and even model glue/paint. Kids are sniffing everything from octane booster to household cleaners. How sad is that?