Should junkies get free travel?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

nc19 wrote: »

As it stands, i have plenty of knowledge of such a lifestyle through having to deal with said lifestyle around my place of work.

I never said anything was caused by crimes against humanity???

Maybe you were typing whilst injecting and got muddled up!!! >awaits imminent infraction<

Youre making my point for me.

You dont have any understanding of the problem - you just have an understanding of how it inconveniences you. Standing at the far end of a luas does not give ypu anunderstanding of the problem in the same way it does not give you an insight into lightrain mechanics.

Forced sterilization, besides achieving nothing, is defined as a crime against humanity by the international criminal court.

And then we have the aforementioned personal attack.

So yeah. Thanks for helping out.

sbsquarepants

Seedy Arling wrote: »

And what about Grannies on meth?

Great name for a band:D

sbsquarepants

melted_face wrote: »

nobody chooses to become addicted. how is this not obvious ?

If you become addicted to anything be that, drugs, drink, gambling, sex - whatever, you are very much the one to blame. It has to be somebodies fault - and I don't see how it could be anyone elses, so that leaves only 1 person. The truth being unpleasant doesn't make it any less true.

So it's not obvious for 2 reasons -
1 - People have a tendency to externalise blame, the bigger the mess, the bigger the urge to externalise. I can't be this much of a waster or an asshole to be shunned, I'm a victim who needs pity and support........and free travel apparently.
2 - It's basically bullshít

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

So it's not obvious for 2 reasons -
1 - People have a tendency to externalise blame, the bigger the mess, the bigger the urge to externalise. I can't be this much of a waster or an asshole to be shunned, I'm a victim who needs pity and support........and free travel apparently.
2 - It's basically bullshít

Sounds like the opening argument to be honest.

AngryHippie

But why is everyone getting so hung up on the blame game and whose fault it is ?
Drug addiction is a serious social problem.
Attacking the supply chain has been proven not to work, as it is too lucrative, due to the addictive nature of the product.
Attacking the end users has a similar non-effect, particularly in the case of heroin, as evidenced by intravenous spread of infections, localized crime waves, and subsequent death by OD when they do eventually manage to get their hands on some.

How much would it actually cost to run a clinic, where heroin addicts can be admitted, free supplied heroin for administration under supervision, with the ultimate aim of withdrawal and discharge ?

Would it be less than having drug related gang crime, the constant menace of cash strapped addicts trying to AdamandPaul the price of a fix, the cost of alternatively hospitalizing and treating addicts when their own habit lands them in A&E, and the social havoc that it creates having people with this problem engaged in society, both spreading access to their addiction, and the source of their misery ?

Why the hell is this bitter discussion even taking place when the most obvious step towards a solution has never been taken ?

Treat it as an illness and you may find a cure.
Treat it as a crime, and you will only find punishment, there is no justice in it.

How long will it take for a politician to muster up the cojones to smash through the wall of ignorance we face on this topic ?

Hello Ming ?;)
Is this thing even on ?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

AngryHippie wrote: »

But why is everyone getting so hung up on the blame game and whose fault it is ?
Drug addiction is a serious social problem.
Attacking the supply chain has been proven not to work, as it is too lucrative, due to the addictive nature of the product.
Attacking the end users has a similar non-effect, particularly in the case of heroin, as evidenced by intravenous spread of infections, localized crime waves, and subsequent death by OD when they do eventually manage to get their hands on some.

How much would it actually cost to run a clinic, where heroin addicts can be admitted, free supplied heroin for administration under supervision, with the ultimate aim of withdrawal and discharge ?

Would it be less than having drug related gang crime, the constant menace of cash strapped addicts trying to AdamandPaul the price of a fix, the cost of alternatively hospitalizing and treating addicts when their own habit lands them in A&E, and the social havoc that it creates having people with this problem engaged in society, both spreading access to their addiction, and the source of their misery ?

Why the hell is this bitter discussion even taking place when the most obvious step towards a solution has never been taken ?

Treat it as an illness and you may find a cure.
Treat it as a crime, and you will only find punishment, there is no justice in it.

How long will it take for a politician to muster up the cojones to smash through the wall of ignorance we face on this topic ?

Hello Ming ?;)
Is this thing even on ?

Because these 'hard working' taxes payers ate too lazy to read, research and vote for solutions that could work, basically.

Tony EH

Set up clinics and supply addicts with their fix?

That'll do fuck all, but supplement their fixes elsewhere. It's an idiotic idea destined to fail, just like the methadone clinic "solution" has failed.

Set up medically supervised cold turkey clinics and help them clean out their system, once and for all, over a number of weeks.

Addiction is NOT an illness. It's a addiction. Calling it an illness is just another way of reducing the addicts responsibility for their choices.

Dick phelan

They certainly should not get free travel, let the scum walk, They got themselves into their mess totally self inflicted i don't see why any law abiding decent citizen should have to pay to get them out of it, We already have to put up with them, robbing, violence ect they cause nothing but problems of everyone. All this "think of the poor junkies" from some on here is amazing what about all the victims of their crimes. Junkies are not sick a young child in hospital is sick and should be taken care of Junkies are idiots dumb enough to take heroin which everyone knows it's repercussions. I'd happily see every Junkie sterilized round up and sent off to a remote desert island nothing but problems for society through their own stupid choices.

conorhal

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Youre making my point for me.

You dont have any understanding of the problem - you just have an understanding of how it inconveniences you. Standing at the far end of a luas does not give ypu anunderstanding of the problem in the same way it does not give you an insight into lightrain mechanics.

Forced sterilization, besides achieving nothing, is defined as a crime against humanity by the international criminal court.

And then we have the aforementioned personal attack.

So yeah. Thanks for helping out.

I'd offer them voluntary sterilization for a few wraps of heroin.

I find it ironic that forced sterilization is defined as a crime against humanity by the international criminal court, but this crap is a mere suspended sentence:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/mum-at-centre-of-the-worst-case-of-child-neglect-walks-free-from-court-30297703.html

I put it to you that it would be no bad thing if the court had mandated that her suspended sentence was condtional on having her tubes tied. It's a crime against humanity that sombody like that was ever allowed raise children.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

conorhal wrote: »

I'd offer them voluntary sterilization for a few wraps of heroin.

I find it ironic that forced sterilization is defined as a crime against humanity by the international criminal court, but this crap is a mere suspended sentence:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/mum-at-centre-of-the-worst-case-of-child-neglect-walks-free-from-court-30297703.html

I put it to you that it would be no bad thing if the court had mandated that her suspended sentence was condtional on having her tubes tied. It's a crime against humanity that sombody like that was ever allowed raise children.

You do realise that this isn't a thread about sterilisation - forced or otherwise - or chlid neglect?

The_Captain

Let the bears pay the bear tax, I pay the Homer tax!

conorhal

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You do realise that this isn't a thread about sterilisation - forced or otherwise - or chlid neglect?

Well, you're response is no more valid then mine so, but nice dodge!

Back on topic:

I've no issue with junkies or any social welfare recipient being in possession of a travel pass, but there should absolutely be a facility to remove it from those guilty of antisocial behavior like shooting up on the LUAS, theft from other passengers or begging on public transport and being a general nuisance. Too often those involved in antisocial behavior are merely kicked off, and are forced to wait another 5 minutes to get on the next tram. It would be some disincentive towards antisocial behavior if their pass could be seized by Dublin bus or luas staff if people were acting the maggot. If you can't behave with respect towards you fellow passengers then you're off permanently.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

conorhal wrote: »

Well, you're response is no more valid then mine so, but nice dodge!

Back on topic:

I've no issue with junkies or any social welfare recipient being in possession of a travel pass, but there should absolutely be a facility to remove it from those guilty of antisocial behavior like shooting up on the LUAS, theft from other passengers or begging on public transport and being a general nuisance. Too often those involved in antisocial behavior are merely kicked off, and are forced to wait another 5 minutes to get on the next tram. It would be some disincentive towards antisocial behavior if their pass could be seized by Dublin bus or luas staff if people were acting the maggot's. If you can't behave with respect towards you fellow passengers then you're off permanently.

You're the one who trued to shoehorn the irrelevant Indo story into it, not me.

No disaggrement with the rest of your post.

AngryHippie

Tony EH wrote: »

Set up clinics and supply addicts with their fix?

Yes. Residential unit, you check yourself in, you've stay there, and are supplied your Heroin free of charge from the state, until the lightbulb moment where you want to return to your family and friends and close that chapter of your life.

Tony EH wrote: »

That'll do fuck all, but supplement their fixes elsewhere. It's an idiotic idea destined to fail, just like the methadone clinic "solution" has failed.

It would immediately accomplish the following:

1. Get the addicts of the street
2. reduce heroin related homelessness and free up resources
3. Immediatley remove cash from the pockets of organised crime gangs
4. Reduce the number of deaths from overdose & contamination
5. Immediately reduce the number of cross-infections
6. Immediately reduce the number of Heroin related street crime

If thats fuck all in your book, then I would like you to have a closer look at http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drugsandalcohol.ie%2F12388%2F1%2FDCRGA_Strategy_2009-2016.pdf&ei=HqyBU4_KMIaFlAXS_oGoCQ&usg=AFQjCNFSW8_arnLUPFMC_fyM0TyWrBYOpQ&bvm=bv.67720277,d.dGI and acknowledge the fact that a single action, co-ordinated by a single agency, could achieve at least two of the goals from every category given in this report, and could do it in a measurable way.
That is aside from the usual current inter-agency bollocksology where numerous departments have to fight for funding for their own little KPI in an overall strategy.
This would be more efficient, more effective and faster, it would also have knock on effects that would release reosurces already committed to tackling the problem from other departments (Justice, Health, etc.)

But thats fcuk all eh ?
I get the feeling that you don't even know what the current government strategy to tackle the problem is, let alone know how complex a ball of snakes it is to administer it, fund it, and track its performance ?
(feel free to correct me if you weren't just shooting from the hip on it though)

Tony EH wrote: »

Set up medically supervised cold turkey clinics and help them clean out their system, once and for all, over a number of weeks.

That is the ultimate endgame for the clinic program. But there has to be an incentive for people to participate. "Come in here so we can put you through the 7 levels of withdrawal hell" probably won't cut it.
"Come in here, we will feed, clothe, house and fix you" might just get them to walk in of their own volition, rather than tie up court time committing them, police time rounding them up, and front-line medical staff time assessing them.
Do you even know how our systems work ?

Tony EH wrote: »

Addiction is NOT an illness. It's a addiction. Calling it an illness is just another way of reducing the addicts responsibility for their choices.

False. Ignorant. Idiotic.
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/comorbidity-addiction-other-mental-illnesses/drug-addiction-mental-illness
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-heart-addiction/201112/is-addiction-really-disease
http://clinicaldepartments.musc.edu/cdap/psyaddiction.htm
http://www.medical-online.com/addict.htm
http://www.bettyfordcenter.org/recovery/addiction/the-disease-of-addiction.php
That is the tip of a 42,000 strong list of articles by people who treat Illnesses every day. But if you and the daily mail know better, then we'd all better take you seriously eh ?

AngryHippie

conorhal wrote: »

I'd offer them voluntary sterilization for a few wraps of heroin.

I find it ironic that forced sterilization is defined as a crime against humanity by the international criminal court, but this crap is a mere suspended sentence:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/mum-at-centre-of-the-worst-case-of-child-neglect-walks-free-from-court-30297703.html

I put it to you that it would be no bad thing if the court had mandated that her suspended sentence was condtional on having her tubes tied. It's a crime against humanity that sombody like that was ever allowed raise children.

And she wasn't a Heroin addict. :eek:
Common or garden Alcoholic.:(
But thats not an illness either :rolleyes:

jank

Junkies should be shipped off to an island and let them fend for themselves, Battle Royale style. A junkie tried to rob my bike on Friday when I popped into a shop. I was gone only for 10 minutes! Where I live the place is crawling with them. Nothing worse then being a junkie imo. What a waste of a life.

Choppersticks

What a clown it's easy for you to call them junkies. I hope your life is all fine and Rosie.You do know that not all junkies in your words are not the scum of the earth. And there are some really productive people on methadone doing well for them selfs.But when the likes of you with your rose tinted glasses keep putting them down what do you expect. I would say you were bullied as a child and slapped around the school yard and your sandwiches were taken off you. Now the world owes you big time ye you know I know. Hide behind

Choppersticks

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I work hard, pay my taxes and abide by the law.

They don't work, they don't pay taxes and they break the law.

I have a car I have to pay for and provide with petrol and if it breaks down I have to pay for the bus.

They get free public transport.



A question. Am I the eejit here?

Poor you. I bet you shop in lidl and hide the bags . Mr car tax payer. Look at me I am not wasting my life . I bet you have a sneaky snort

Tony EH

AngryHippie wrote: »

But if you and the daily mail know better...

:pac:

Weak.

Tony EH

AngryHippie wrote: »

But thats not an illness either :rolleyes:

No, it isn't.

UserNo1

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I work hard, pay my taxes and abide by the law.

They don't work, they don't pay taxes and they break the law.

I have a car I have to pay for and provide with petrol and if it breaks down I have to pay for the bus.

They get free public transport.



A question. Am I the eejit here?

Terrible attitude there are people sleeping rough tonight in the city.If free travel allows them to find better shelter or medication they need Im all for it.Your just ignorant to their life and situation.

Higher class allows people to looking down on others.Well guess what there are people looking down on you right now.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Tony EH wrote: »

:pac:

Weak.

Well? DO you know better? Are you going to comment on the ret of the post, or try for moral highground?

gctest50

A good few supervised injection sites might be a good start

http://lloydbelcher.org/resources/video/insite_documentary_supervised_injection_site

- be hard to see how they could make a mess of setting them up, would provide a good few jobs etc

corner of hells

gctest50 wrote: »

A good few supervised injection sites might be a good start

http://lloydbelcher.org/resources/video/insite_documentary_supervised_injection_site

- be hard to see how they could make a mess of setting them up, would provide a good few jobs etc

Quite a bit of work involved in setting them up , including legal issues.There was talking of one of our drug services setting one up this year , doesn't seem to have happened as of yet.

2Mad2BeMad

The only junkies I hate are the ones who rob, shoot up ****e into their arms on the buses or even worse, smoke the bloody ****e on the buses

I was on the bus last year, coming home from work through finglas, a junkie got on at the four courts, I was upstairs at the back as the bus was jammed, junkie sits next to me, takes something out of his pocket and says "Sorry bud you don't mind if I smoke this, I just thought I'd ask to be nice", I replied "Are you ****ing serious? Theirs children 2 seats in front of you", He got off at the next stop no doubt getting ready for his fix.
Also I am not the kinda person who would start an argument but for the sake of kids being on the bus, and him sitting next to me , I nearly lost it, he even had the bloody cheak to say he would ask to be "NICE"


I can't stand this people, I agree not all junkies are scum, some are homeless and some a very very nice people with just a bad addiction.
But at junkie by definition is someone who shoots up heroine, which most of these people do,
their are some who are ****ing anti social w*nkers who I'd love to punch around just for ruining the bloody city centre with the way they carry on, and then theirs others who are probably some of the nicest people I have ever had a conversation with who are just addicted to the drugs.

As far as I am concerned, any junkie with a criminal record for robbing,fighting or even smoking that ****e on a bus should be locked up and throw away the key for good, their the ones who are lost, they won't be found because they don't want to be found, they just want their fix and don't care about anything else. How can you help someone who won't help themselves? the first steps to beating addiction are admitting you have one and want it gone, other wise your a lost cause
I mean look at smokers (this includes myself) I tried to give up smoking not long ago, I was not fully committed and I went straight back on them.

I would say I can relate to junkies who have an addiction, obviously not as serious as them, but I find smoking horrible and hard to overcome but it IS POSSIBLE to over come and I have no doubt in my mind that I will someday.

Everyone in Ireland is born with a right to live their life how they want (within the law obviously) this includes junkies, their needs to be harsher penalties for robbing, something like the Americans do with the 3strikes rule, I believe that would solve the problem quite fast, at least then we can clear up all the junkies who rob for their fix, and the ones left would actually be the ones who want the help against their addiction.

Regarding the topic, why do they need a pass at all? most of them are homeless and live in town anyway so what's the point? I am not generalising all junkies as the same, but most live in town outside shop doors, that's just a fact, you'd see it any Friday or Saturday night in town.

Tony EH

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Well? DO you know better? Are you going to comment on the ret of the post, or try for moral highground?

I'm not going to try for anything and I don't believe in "moral highgrounds".

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Tony EH wrote: »

I'm not going to try for anything and I don't believe in "moral highgrounds".

I'll take that as a "no, I don't" then.

There's a disturbing trend here. Not only are people ignorant about the issue, but, when the information is put right smack bang in front of them, they're atually choosing to be ignorant about the issue.

corner of hells

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I'll take that as a "no, I don't" then.

There's a disturbing trend here. Not only are people ignorant about the issue, but, when the information is put right smack bang in front of them, they're atually choosing to be ignorant about the issue.

Fine post ' Princess ' ,

I work in homeless/drug services and I can tell you not every addict gets disability/free pass or bus passes or whatever form of travel people are suggesting they get.
How domI know this , because I ask them .Plain and simple .

Tony EH

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I'll take that as a "no, I don't" then.

There's a disturbing trend here. Not only are people ignorant about the issue, but, when the information is put right smack bang in front of them, they're atually choosing to be ignorant about the issue.

You can take it any way you wish.

Addiction is not a disease and using that analogy just absolves the user of their responsibility for their situation.

Likewise, government sponsored shooting galleries would do nothing but allow addicts to supplement their fixes elsewhere, just like they do with methadone clinics.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Tony EH wrote: »

You can take it any way you wish.

Addiction is not a disease and using that analogy just absolves the user of their responsibility for their situation.

Likewise, government sponsored shooting galleries would do nothing but allow addicts to supplement their fixes elsewhere, just like they do with methadone clinics.

This is what I mean by choosing to be ignorant: if you read the links proffered and still came to that conclusion, we'd have basis for a debate.

But dismissing them is ignorance.

AngryHippie

Tony EH wrote: »

Addiction is not a disease and using that analogy just absolves the user of their responsibility for their situation.
.

Did you read any of the links that I posted ?
If pretty well every medical organization agrees that it is an illness, does that not make it an illness ?
Or should we just take your word for it ?
You've got nothing on this one, and every time you post the same nonsense above, you just further erode your credibility.
As your obviously incapable of engaging the facts on this one, and seem committed to denying some of the most fundamental aspects of the discussion, I'm putting you on my ignore list. First time in 7 years on boards that I've gone there.
I suppose that an achievement in itself.;)
Have fun discussing it with yourself.

Tony EH

You're assuming I haven't heard the argument before. I have.

Addiction is not a disease. It's a self acquired condition resulting from a bad application of choice, brought about by external situations and the general inability to cope with them.

Calling it a disease absolves the user of any responsibility and IMO is actually dangerous in the long run.

Tony EH

AngryHippie wrote: »

'm putting you on my ignore list. First time in 7 years on boards that I've gone there.

Wow.

Now that really is weak.

corner of hells

Tony EH wrote: »

You can take it any way you wish.

Addiction is not a disease and using that analogy just absolves the user of their responsibility for their situation.

Likewise, government sponsored shooting galleries would do nothing but allow addicts to supplement their fixes elsewhere, just like they do with methadone clinics.

The idea behind consumption rooms is provide addicts with safe environment to use , the theory behind it is Harm Reduction , very simply all your doing is reducing risk without judgement about their behaviour , same principal governs needle exchanges , wet hostels low threshold support.
Irelands methadone service while not great is the only way to move an addict from his addiction to recovery .There is no facility here that will accept an addict administering heroin IV.You have to be on methadone , around about 35 or 40 mls .
I agree that some addicts are doing anything and everything while on methadone. But for some methadone is a step towards detox and recovery.

No Pants

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

mindless liberals

That's an unusual insult.

Tony EH

corner of hells wrote: »

The idea behind consumption rooms is provide addicts with safe environment to use , the theory behind it is Harm Reduction , very simply all your doing is reducing risk without judgement about their behaviour , same principal governs needle exchanges , wet hostels low threshold support.
Irelands methadone service while not great is the only way to move an addict from his addiction to recovery .There is no facility here that will accept an addict administering heroin IV.You have to be on methadone , around about 35 or 40 mls .
I agree that some addicts are doing anything and everything while on methadone. But for some methadone is a step towards detox and recovery.

Provide cold turkey rooms instead, closely monitored for the weeks that the addict has to be detained there.

Frankly, if a user is caught by the police breaking whatever law and is shown to be a user, there should be a mandatory period of cold turkey applied to his/her sentence.

That would go a long way to cleaning up the amount of addicts in this country.

BTW, the above was actually a suggestion by an ex-addict I know, who is thankfully clean for a number of years.

corner of hells

Tony EH wrote: »

Provide cold turkey rooms instead, closely monitored for the weeks that the addict has to be detained there.

Frankly, if a user is caught by the police breaking whatever law and is shown to be a user, there should be a mandatory period of cold turkey applied to his/her sentence.

That would go a long way to cleaning up the amount of addicts in this country.

BTW, the above was actually a suggestion by an ex-addict I know, who is thankfully clean for a number of years.

Using a cold turkey as form of punishment , extra to the individuals sentence ?.
With a poly drug addiction you could kill the individual .A benzo or alcohol detox needs medical supervision.

Recovery is choice , forcing cold turkey on an individual just might not work.

How did the individual you know get clean ?

Tony EH

No. Using cold turkey, under supervision, to clear an addict of his/her addiction as part of their rehabilitation.

There's is a difference.

As for the chap I know, I am not going into that here. I don't think he would be too happy about that.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Tony EH wrote: »

You're assuming I haven't heard the argument before. I have.

Addiction is not a disease. It's a self acquired condition resulting from a bad application of choice, brought about by external situations and the general inability to cope with them.

Calling it an addiction absolves the user of any responsibility and IMO is actually dangerous in the long run.

When your one word responce to a comprehensive post containing links you are unwillign to read is "weak" then it's natural to assume you don't understand the argument. Otherwise you would have debated it, this being a debate forum.

I'd argue that the addiction is not the act of aquiring. It's the state of mind which follows. Or even already present but unknown at the time of aquiring. Your defintion does not exclude something from being a disease. It would easlily be both. A lot of people catch diseases through wreckless behaviour and then can't cope. I'd need to know how you define a "disease" to understand your viewpoint more.

Calling it an addiction does not absolve the user of anything, nor should it. Addicts may pretend it does, and you may pretend it does, but at the end of the da they are responsible for the actions of either giving up or continuing to be addicted.

Tony EH

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

When your one word responce to a comprehensive post containing links you are unwillign to read is "weak" then it's natural to assume you don't understand the argument.

My response was to this line...

"But if you and the daily mail know better"

Someone spouting that kind of nonsense isn't interested in debate.

Tony EH

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Calling it an addiction does not absolve the user of anything, nor should it. Addicts may pretend it does, and you may pretend it does, but at the end of the da they are responsible for the actions of either giving up or continuing to be addicted.

I meant say disease, not addiction.

Calling addiction a "disease" takes the responsibility out of the users hands and places it in a external sphere. A disease or illness makes it sound like it's not the users fault.

corner of hells

Tony EH wrote: »

No. Using cold turkey, under supervision, to clear an addict of his/her addiction as part of their rehabilitation.

There's is a difference.

As for the chap I know, I am not going into that here. I don't think he would be too happy about that.

You would be doing well to find anywhere that would support an opiate addict wanting to go cold turkey to get off heroin.In fact finding a treatment centre to do that is almost impossible.
I can't think of anywhere that will touch you unless you're on methadone.And then its a tapered detox.

Tony EH

It's not about them wanting to go. They should be made go. I'm talking detention -> cold turkey -> rehabilitation.

Flippyfloppy

Tony EH wrote: »

It's not about them wanting to go. They should be made go. I'm talking detention -> cold turkey -> rehabilitation.

Made go?? Do you know anything about rehabilitation, and the importance of the user wanting to stop?? Doesn't sound like it. By the sounds of it you're utterly fixated on the difference between addiction and disease.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Tony EH wrote: »

My response was to this line...



Someone spouting that kind of nonsense isn't interested in debate.

What about your resoonce to the rest of the post?

Tony EH wrote: »

I meant say disease, not addiction.

Calling addiction a "disease" takes the responsibility out of the users hands and places it in a external sphere. A disease or illness makes it sound like it's not the users fault.

It's already in an external sphere. Diseases are in an external sphere.

corner of hells

Tony EH wrote: »

I meant say disease, not addiction.

Calling addiction a "disease" takes the responsibility out of the users hands and places it in a external sphere. A disease or illness makes it sound like it's not the users fault.

I think when people use the term disease , they might mean a disease model around treatment rather than calling it a disease as such , different models are often mentioned around addiction including genetic , moral , environmental etc .

An argument is often presented that when the addiction becomes chronic then can it be called a disease.

I see your point about calling it a disease making it seem like its not the addicts fault , but if you try look at the addiction as being a manifestation of something .... trauma ,abuse , institutionalised background none of which could be the addicts fault either, can it not be disease if heroin is used in order to cope with trauma , in the sense the individual has non other way of coping.

corner of hells

Tony EH wrote: »

It's not about them wanting to go. They should be made go. I'm talking detention -> cold turkey -> rehabilitation.

Never works.

Tony EH

Current methods aren't doing to well either though.

professore

No Pants wrote: »

I think it's more to do with the fact that your average pensioner has been working and paying money to the state for forty to fifty years. It's a benefit that comes with the pension, probably a vote buying exercise from years ago.

There is a contributory pension and a non-contributory pension. I think the former should get the travel pass, not the latter.

What about all the women forced to stop working by the state after they got married?

bumper234

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Made go?? Do you know anything about rehabilitation, and the importance of the user wanting to stop?? Doesn't sound like it. By the sounds of it you're utterly fixated on the difference between addiction and disease.

So as long as these junkies CHOOSE to continue taking drugs we (society) should just suck it up and look the other way? Taxpayers should just continue to pay taxes and fund these junkies? Fare paying passengers should just accept that these junkies are not ready or willing to give up their habit and not make a fuss when they waltz onto the bus waving a tattered piece of cardboard while they have to pay their €3.05 fare each way?