On 2/15/23 12:22 PM, ScottW wrote:
leads to this level of insanity.I don't see evidence Schabusiness received harm reduction intervention.
Maybe change to "Lack of harm prevention for meth users"?
leads to this level of insanity.
On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 11:20:42 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/15/23 12:22 PM, ScottW wrote:
leads to this level of insanity.I don't see evidence Schabusiness received harm reduction intervention.
Maybe change to "Lack of harm prevention for meth users"?
Your version of harm prevention condones continued drug use.
This is what meth use can lead to. How can you condone that?
On 2/15/23 1:24 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 11:20:42 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/15/23 12:22 PM, ScottW wrote:
leads to this level of insanity.I don't see evidence Schabusiness received harm reduction intervention. >>
Maybe change to "Lack of harm prevention for meth users"?
Your version of harm prevention condones continued drug use.No, it doesn't.
This is what meth use can lead to. How can you condone that?Considering how much use of meth there is, you'd think this would be common-place.
By your logic, you condone overdose, needle-borne disease and this
murder that timely intervention could have prevented.
On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 1:17:46 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:It turned out the mother had videotaped herself smoking meth hours before the shooting.
On 2/15/23 1:24 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 11:20:42 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/15/23 12:22 PM, ScottW wrote:
leads to this level of insanity.I don't see evidence Schabusiness received harm reduction intervention. >>
Maybe change to "Lack of harm prevention for meth users"?
Common enough to become worthy of study.Your version of harm prevention condones continued drug use.No, it doesn't.
This is what meth use can lead to. How can you condone that?Considering how much use of meth there is, you'd think this would be common-place.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6197090/
and common enough to become an expert witness in
meth murderers not guilty be reason of insanity.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/009318530703500403?journalCode=plxa
Even the local news of afflicted cities know it.
https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/local/meth-the-miami-valley-users-are-violent-paranoid-psychotic/mbOC82zj2KNDk4WluYTKfM/
http://www.buttecounty.net/sheriffcoroner/methfacts
Here's another case murder while in meth induced psychosis.
https://www.news4jax.com/news/local/2022/10/22/forensic-psychologist-says-man-convicted-of-murdering-2-putnam-county-boys-could-have-experienced-meth-induced-psychosis/
and this just a couple weeks ago...
When a 23-year-old Fresno woman fatally shot her two toddlers and a cousin, critically wounded her husband, then turned the gun on herself last Sunday, investigators immediately suspected methamphetamine abuse in what otherwise was inexplicable carnage.
In family photos, the children are adorable, the mother pretty. They lived in a large apartment complex near a freeway with neatly clipped lawns and mature trees. The father was recently laid off from a packing-house job.
“When you get this type of tragedy, it’s not a surprise that drugs were involved,” said Lt. Mark Salazar, the Fresno Police Department’s homicide commander. “Meth has been a factor in other violent crimes.”
https://www.denverpost.com/2012/01/21/horrific-murders-tied-to-meth-abuse-plague/
Is that common enough for you? My feeling of disgust at the level of ignorance and disregard for human suffering you show is difficult to describe.
By your logic, you condone overdose, needle-borne disease and thisI'm all for intervention. Intervention that really prevents crime by dragging the f'ing meth addicts
murder that timely intervention could have prevented.
off the streets and locking 'em up in detox until a real psychological analysis can determine
if there still enough there to function while off this dangerous drug.
But if you're looking for sympathy for meth addicts here....I have none.
BTW....if you trust CDC data....I ask you. Where are the fentanyl ODs in their cause of death data?
They f'in bury it. Why?
ScottW
On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 1:17:46 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/15/23 1:24 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 11:20:42 AM UTC-8, mINE109No, it doesn't.
wrote:
On 2/15/23 12:22 PM, ScottW wrote:
leads to this level of insanity.I don't see evidence Schabusiness received harm reduction
intervention.
Maybe change to "Lack of harm prevention for meth users"?
Your version of harm prevention condones continued drug use.
This is what meth use can lead to. How can you condone that?Considering how much use of meth there is, you'd think this would
be common-place.
Common enough to become worthy of study.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6197090/
Is that common enough for you? My feeling of disgust at the level
of ignorance and disregard for human suffering you show is difficult
to describe.
By your logic, you condone overdose, needle-borne disease and this
murder that timely intervention could have prevented.
I'm all for intervention. Intervention that really prevents crime by
dragging the f'ing meth addicts off the streets and locking 'em up
in detox until a real psychological analysis can determine if there
still enough there to function while off this dangerous drug. But if
you're looking for sympathy for meth addicts here....I have none.
BTW....if you trust CDC data....I ask you. Where are the fentanyl
ODs in their cause of death data? They f'in bury it. Why?
the life expectancy of a meth addict is about 5 to 10 years, without harm reduction
https://www.drugrehab.ca/what-is-the-life-expectancy-of-a-methamphetamine-addict.html
I don't think harm reduction will extend that all that much.
Rehab and sober living is a much better alternative.
Harm reduction, by reducing the bottom lines for intervention, makes rehab efforts more difficult.
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 7:46:36 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
You've made your views clear. We disagree, so that's that for me on this
subject.
Yes, you condone continued use of meth.
I don't.
It's not the same as other addictions.
Meth users are a clear and present danger to society.
On 2/15/23 11:13 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
the life expectancy of a meth addict is about 5 to 10 years, without harm reduction
https://www.drugrehab.ca/what-is-the-life-expectancy-of-a-methamphetamine-addict.html
I don't think harm reduction will extend that all that much.Rehab and sober living are harm reduction.
Rehab and sober living is a much better alternative.
Harm reduction, by reducing the bottom lines for intervention, makes rehab efforts more difficult.
https://www.samhsa.gov/find-help/harm-reduction
Harm reduction is an approach that emphasizes engaging directly with
people who use drugs to prevent overdose and infectious disease transmission, improve the physical, mental, and social wellbeing of
those served, and offer low-threshold options for accessing substance
use disorder treatment and other health care services...
Harm reduction organizations incorporate a spectrum of strategies that
meet people “where they are” on their own terms, and may serve as a pathway to additional prevention, treatment, and recovery services. Harm reduction works by addressing broader health and social issues through improved policies, programs, and practices.
End quote.
None of this makes rehab more difficult.
You've made your views clear. We disagree, so that's that for me on this subject.
On 2/16/23 11:22 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 7:46:36 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
You've made your views clear. We disagree, so that's that for me on this >> subject.
Yes, you condone continued use of meth.No, I do not.
I don't.
It's not the same as other addictions.https://americanaddictioncenters.org/co-occurring-disorders/drug-psychosis-comorbidity
Medications known to include possible psychotic side effects include:
Muscle relaxants
Antihistamines
Antidepressants
Cardiovascular medications
Antihypertensive medications
Analgesics
Anticonvulsants
Antiparkinson medications
Chemotherapy agents
Corticosteroids
Stimulants
End quote.
Meth users are a clear and present danger to society.Not uniquely so and demonizing addicts will make it harder to ameliorate
the societal problem.
On 2/16/23 11:22 AM, ScottW wrote:
It's not the same as other addictions.https://americanaddictioncenters.org/co-occurring-disorders/drug-psychosis-comorbidity
Medications known to include possible psychotic side effects include:
Muscle relaxants
Antihistamines
Antidepressants
Cardiovascular medications
Antihypertensive medications
Analgesics
Anticonvulsants
Antiparkinson medications
Chemotherapy agents
Corticosteroids
Stimulants
End quote.
Meth users are a clear and present danger to society.Not uniquely so and demonizing addicts will make it harder to ameliorate
the societal problem.
Rehab and sober living are harm reduction.
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 10:46:36 AM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
Rehab and sober living are harm reduction.No No No No NO
a thousand times no
Rehab and sober living, i.e., kicking the habit, are harm eliminations
harm reduction is keeping the addiction and making it slightly less lethal from dealing with only the side issues, like other diseases.
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 9:41:18 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/16/23 11:22 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 7:46:36 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:No, I do not.
You've made your views clear. We disagree, so that's that for me on this >>>> subject.
Yes, you condone continued use of meth.
I don't.https://americanaddictioncenters.org/co-occurring-disorders/drug-psychosis-comorbidity
It's not the same as other addictions.
Medications known to include possible psychotic side effects include:
Muscle relaxants
Antihistamines
Antidepressants
Cardiovascular medications
Antihypertensive medications
Analgesics
Anticonvulsants
Antiparkinson medications
Chemotherapy agents
Corticosteroids
Stimulants
and it's SPP time.
Water is known to include the possibility of drowning.....
You're trying to compare 1 in millions to 30% of all users
and virtually 100% of long term heavy users.
End quote.
Meth users are a clear and present danger to society.Not uniquely so and demonizing addicts will make it harder to ameliorate
the societal problem.
BS. Normalizing addiction has only made the problem explode in magnitude.
On 2/16/23 12:55 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 9:41:18 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/16/23 11:22 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 7:46:36 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:No, I do not.
You've made your views clear. We disagree, so that's that for me on this >>>> subject.
Yes, you condone continued use of meth.
I don't.https://americanaddictioncenters.org/co-occurring-disorders/drug-psychosis-comorbidity
It's not the same as other addictions.
Medications known to include possible psychotic side effects include:
Muscle relaxants
Antihistamines
Antidepressants
Cardiovascular medications
Antihypertensive medications
Analgesics
Anticonvulsants
Antiparkinson medications
Chemotherapy agents
Corticosteroids
Stimulants
and it's SPP time.No, it's evidence. You say meth is special because of psychosis but it
isn't.
Water is known to include the possibility of drowning.....And poisoning.
You're trying to compare 1 in millions to 30% of all usersNo, I'm showing your argument of meth being uniquely bad is wrong.
and virtually 100% of long term heavy users.
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 12:41:18 PM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/16/23 11:22 AM, ScottW wrote:
https://americanaddictioncenters.org/co-occurring-disorders/drug-psychosis-comorbidity
It's not the same as other addictions.
Medications known to include possible psychotic side effects include:
Muscle relaxants
Antihistamines
Antidepressants
Cardiovascular medications
Antihypertensive medications
Analgesics
Anticonvulsants
Antiparkinson medications
Chemotherapy agents
Corticosteroids
Stimulants
End quote.
You equate antihistamines and these other relatively benign meds with meth.
You are a complete fucking idiot
a complete moron who can't even demonstrate a single digit IQ
You have NO PLACE and NO STANDING to discuss addiction issues
on this or any other platform
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 1:33:10 PM UTC-8, Art Sackman wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 10:46:36 AM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
Rehab and sober living are harm reduction.No No No No NO
a thousand times no
Rehab and sober living, i.e., kicking the habit, are harm eliminations
harm reduction is keeping the addiction and making it slightly less lethal >> from dealing with only the side issues, like other diseases.
He's back to redefinition again. It's his escape of last resort.
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 10:46:36 AM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
Rehab and sober living are harm reduction.
No No No No NO
a thousand times no
Rehab and sober living, i.e., kicking the habit, are harm eliminations
harm reduction is keeping the addiction and making it slightly less lethal from dealing with only the side issues, like other diseases.
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 2:13:59 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/16/23 12:55 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 9:41:18 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:No, it's evidence. You say meth is special because of psychosis but it
On 2/16/23 11:22 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 7:46:36 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:No, I do not.
You've made your views clear. We disagree, so that's that for me on this >>>>>> subject.
Yes, you condone continued use of meth.
I don't.https://americanaddictioncenters.org/co-occurring-disorders/drug-psychosis-comorbidity
It's not the same as other addictions.
Medications known to include possible psychotic side effects include:
Muscle relaxants
Antihistamines
Antidepressants
Cardiovascular medications
Antihypertensive medications
Analgesics
Anticonvulsants
Antiparkinson medications
Chemotherapy agents
Corticosteroids
Stimulants
and it's SPP time.
isn't.
I can't argue with that level of ignorance and stupidity.
I'd have more luck arguing with a meth user.
Water is known to include the possibility of drowning.....And poisoning.
You're trying to compare 1 in millions to 30% of all usersNo, I'm showing your argument of meth being uniquely bad is wrong.
and virtually 100% of long term heavy users.
So you agree with the numbers and still try to argue some insane equivalence.
On 2/16/23 4:09 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 1:33:10 PM UTC-8, Art Sackman wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 10:46:36 AM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
Rehab and sober living are harm reduction.No No No No NO
a thousand times no
Rehab and sober living, i.e., kicking the habit, are harm eliminations
harm reduction is keeping the addiction and making it slightly less lethal >> from dealing with only the side issues, like other diseases.
He's back to redefinition again. It's his escape of last resort.First resort. It's Art arguing by definition.
On 2/16/23 4:30 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 2:13:59 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/16/23 12:55 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 9:41:18 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:No, it's evidence. You say meth is special because of psychosis but it
On 2/16/23 11:22 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 7:46:36 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:No, I do not.
You've made your views clear. We disagree, so that's that for me on this
subject.
Yes, you condone continued use of meth.
I don't.https://americanaddictioncenters.org/co-occurring-disorders/drug-psychosis-comorbidity
It's not the same as other addictions.
Medications known to include possible psychotic side effects include: >>>>
Muscle relaxants
Antihistamines
Antidepressants
Cardiovascular medications
Antihypertensive medications
Analgesics
Anticonvulsants
Antiparkinson medications
Chemotherapy agents
Corticosteroids
Stimulants
and it's SPP time.
isn't.
I can't argue with that level of ignorance and stupidity.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31656440/
I'd have more luck arguing with a meth user.
and so on...
Water is known to include the possibility of drowning.....And poisoning.
You're trying to compare 1 in millions to 30% of all usersNo, I'm showing your argument of meth being uniquely bad is wrong.
and virtually 100% of long term heavy users.
So you agree with the numbers and still try to argue some insane equivalence.No, "virtually 100%" isn't a serious number with which to agree or not.
On 2/16/23 4:09 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 1:33:10 PM UTC-8, Art Sackman wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 10:46:36 AM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
Rehab and sober living are harm reduction.No No No No NO
a thousand times no
Rehab and sober living, i.e., kicking the habit, are harm eliminations
harm reduction is keeping the addiction and making it slightly less lethal >> from dealing with only the side issues, like other diseases.
He's back to redefinition again. It's his escape of last resort.First resort. It's Art arguing by definition.
On 2/16/23 4:09 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 1:33:10 PM UTC-8, Art Sackman wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 10:46:36 AM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
Rehab and sober living are harm reduction.No No No No NO
a thousand times no
Rehab and sober living, i.e., kicking the habit, are harm eliminations
harm reduction is keeping the addiction and making it slightly less lethal >> from dealing with only the side issues, like other diseases.
He's back to redefinition again. It's his escape of last resort.First resort. It's Art arguing by definition.
On 2/16/23 3:33 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 10:46:36 AM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
Rehab and sober living are harm reduction.
No No No No NO
a thousand times no
Rehab and sober living, i.e., kicking the habit, are harm eliminations
harm reduction is keeping the addiction and making it slightly less lethal from dealing with only the side issues, like other diseases.I've posted a definition. You're welcome to yours.
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 2:45:46 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/16/23 4:09 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 1:33:10 PM UTC-8, Art Sackman wrote:First resort. It's Art arguing by definition.
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 10:46:36 AM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
Rehab and sober living are harm reduction.No No No No NO
a thousand times no
Rehab and sober living, i.e., kicking the habit, are harm eliminations >>>>
harm reduction is keeping the addiction and making it slightly less lethal >>>> from dealing with only the side issues, like other diseases.
He's back to redefinition again. It's his escape of last resort.
You don't even know the difference between definition and redefinition.
I would consider that disqualifying in this landscape of debate.
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 3:41:22 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/16/23 4:30 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 2:13:59 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31656440/
On 2/16/23 12:55 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 9:41:18 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:No, it's evidence. You say meth is special because of psychosis but it >>>> isn't.
On 2/16/23 11:22 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 7:46:36 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>>No, I do not.
You've made your views clear. We disagree, so that's that for me on this
subject.
Yes, you condone continued use of meth.
I don't.https://americanaddictioncenters.org/co-occurring-disorders/drug-psychosis-comorbidity
It's not the same as other addictions.
Medications known to include possible psychotic side effects include: >>>>>>
Muscle relaxants
Antihistamines
Antidepressants
Cardiovascular medications
Antihypertensive medications
Analgesics
Anticonvulsants
Antiparkinson medications
Chemotherapy agents
Corticosteroids
Stimulants
and it's SPP time.
I can't argue with that level of ignorance and stupidity.
I'd have more luck arguing with a meth user.
and so on...
No, "virtually 100%" isn't a serious number with which to agree or not.Water is known to include the possibility of drowning.....And poisoning.
You're trying to compare 1 in millions to 30% of all usersNo, I'm showing your argument of meth being uniquely bad is wrong.
and virtually 100% of long term heavy users.
So you agree with the numbers and still try to argue some insane equivalence.
Now you're just nitpicking.
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 5:45:46 PM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/16/23 4:09 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 1:33:10 PM UTC-8, Art Sackman wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 10:46:36 AM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
First resort. It's Art arguing by definition.Rehab and sober living are harm reduction.No No No No NO
a thousand times no
Rehab and sober living, i.e., kicking the habit, are harm eliminations >>>>
harm reduction is keeping the addiction and making it slightly less lethal >>>> from dealing with only the side issues, like other diseases.
He's back to redefinition again. It's his escape of last resort.
it's Steve changing the definition after getting totally demolished and losing the argument
On 2/17/23 12:16 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 5:45:46 PM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/16/23 4:09 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 1:33:10 PM UTC-8, Art Sackman wrote: >>>> On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 10:46:36 AM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
First resort. It's Art arguing by definition.Rehab and sober living are harm reduction.No No No No NO
a thousand times no
Rehab and sober living, i.e., kicking the habit, are harm eliminations >>>>
harm reduction is keeping the addiction and making it slightly less lethal
from dealing with only the side issues, like other diseases.
He's back to redefinition again. It's his escape of last resort.
it's Steve changing the definition after getting totally demolished and losing the argumentI'm wrong when I said "rehab and sober living are harm reduction" in the sense of the specific definition of "harm reduction." I should have
said, "rehab and sober living reduce harm" in a general sense.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7907587/
"Decades of evidence have revealed that many harm reduction strategies
are highly effective in decreasing the transmission of infectious
diseases, preventing overdose, and reducing other sources of morbidity
and mortality among people who use substances, including young people
who use illicit drugs. Harm reduction programs can also serve as a
critical access points for additional resources, health care, and
treatment."
These programs can lead to rehab or other interventions.
On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 3:38:16 PM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/17/23 12:16 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 5:45:46 PM UTC-5, mINE109I'm wrong when I said "rehab and sober living are harm reduction"
wrote:
On 2/16/23 4:09 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 1:33:10 PM UTC-8, Art
Sackman wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 10:46:36 AM UTC-5,
mINE109 wrote:
First resort. It's Art arguing by definition.Rehab and sober living are harm reduction.No No No No NO a thousand times no
Rehab and sober living, i.e., kicking the habit, are harm
eliminations
harm reduction is keeping the addiction and making it
slightly less lethal from dealing with only the side
issues, like other diseases.
He's back to redefinition again. It's his escape of last
resort.
it's Steve changing the definition after getting totally
demolished and losing the argument
in the sense of the specific definition of "harm reduction." I
should have said, "rehab and sober living reduce harm" in a general
sense.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7907587/
"Decades of evidence have revealed that many harm reduction
strategies are highly effective in decreasing the transmission of
infectious diseases, preventing overdose, and reducing other
sources of morbidity and mortality among people who use substances,
including young people who use illicit drugs. Harm reduction
programs can also serve as a critical access points for additional
resources, health care, and treatment."
These programs can lead to rehab or other interventions.
Drug addiction in itself has excessively high morbidity. Life spans
are greatly reduced. Worrying about infectous diseases does not
address that problem. Harm reduction makes the addiction liestyle
easier to bear, and thus reduces the lifestyle pressures and
discomforts that would help drive the addict to seek rehab. It puts
a nice soft comfy pillow under the addict's rock bottom.
Getting someone into rehab is greatly enhanced by the love and
compassion (specifically EXCLUDING enabling behavior) of those
closest to the addict, along with solid and unified commitment not to tolerate refusal of treatment and further addiction
On 2/17/23 6:04 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 3:38:16 PM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/17/23 12:16 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 5:45:46 PM UTC-5, mINE109I'm wrong when I said "rehab and sober living are harm reduction"
wrote:
On 2/16/23 4:09 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 1:33:10 PM UTC-8, Art
Sackman wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 10:46:36 AM UTC-5,
mINE109 wrote:
First resort. It's Art arguing by definition.Rehab and sober living are harm reduction.No No No No NO a thousand times no
Rehab and sober living, i.e., kicking the habit, are harm
eliminations
harm reduction is keeping the addiction and making it
slightly less lethal from dealing with only the side
issues, like other diseases.
He's back to redefinition again. It's his escape of last
resort.
it's Steve changing the definition after getting totally
demolished and losing the argument
in the sense of the specific definition of "harm reduction." I
should have said, "rehab and sober living reduce harm" in a general
sense.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7907587/
"Decades of evidence have revealed that many harm reduction
strategies are highly effective in decreasing the transmission of
infectious diseases, preventing overdose, and reducing other
sources of morbidity and mortality among people who use substances,
including young people who use illicit drugs. Harm reduction
programs can also serve as a critical access points for additional
resources, health care, and treatment."
These programs can lead to rehab or other interventions.
Drug addiction in itself has excessively high morbidity. Life spansYes, that's what you believe. I simply think that dealing with addiction isn't made any easier with needle-borne disease, etc added to the problem.
are greatly reduced. Worrying about infectous diseases does not
address that problem. Harm reduction makes the addiction liestyle
easier to bear, and thus reduces the lifestyle pressures and
discomforts that would help drive the addict to seek rehab. It puts
a nice soft comfy pillow under the addict's rock bottom.
Getting someone into rehab is greatly enhanced by the love andYes, that's how many view it. Someone as knowledgeable as you must
compassion (specifically EXCLUDING enabling behavior) of those
closest to the addict, along with solid and unified commitment not to tolerate refusal of treatment and further addiction
surely be aware that equally compassionate addiction specialists believe there are other ways and there is scientific evidence that it can be effective.
On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 7:32:40 PM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/17/23 6:04 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 3:38:16 PM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
Yes, that's how many view it. Someone as knowledgeable as you must
surely be aware that equally compassionate addiction specialists
believe there are other ways and there is scientific evidence that
it can be effective.
What other ways gets the addict into treatment? Continued addiction
or acceptance of treatment is a choice.
The prospect of treatment is very scary for the addict. A worse scare
may be necessary.
Compassion and love from close friends and family is also motivating,
but often with bottom lines to be enforced if treatment is resisted.
On 2/17/23 11:15 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 3:41:22 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/16/23 4:30 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 2:13:59 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31656440/
On 2/16/23 12:55 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 9:41:18 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>> On 2/16/23 11:22 AM, ScottW wrote:No, it's evidence. You say meth is special because of psychosis but it >>>> isn't.
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 7:46:36 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>>No, I do not.
You've made your views clear. We disagree, so that's that for me on this
subject.
Yes, you condone continued use of meth.
I don't.https://americanaddictioncenters.org/co-occurring-disorders/drug-psychosis-comorbidity
It's not the same as other addictions.
Medications known to include possible psychotic side effects include: >>>>>>
Muscle relaxants
Antihistamines
Antidepressants
Cardiovascular medications
Antihypertensive medications
Analgesics
Anticonvulsants
Antiparkinson medications
Chemotherapy agents
Corticosteroids
Stimulants
and it's SPP time.
I can't argue with that level of ignorance and stupidity.
I'd have more luck arguing with a meth user.
and so on...
No, "virtually 100%" isn't a serious number with which to agree or not.Water is known to include the possibility of drowning.....And poisoning.
You're trying to compare 1 in millions to 30% of all usersNo, I'm showing your argument of meth being uniquely bad is wrong.
and virtually 100% of long term heavy users.
So you agree with the numbers and still try to argue some insane equivalence.
Now you're just nitpicking.That it's not true that "virtually 100% of long term heavy users" end in psychosis-fueled decapitations?
On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 11:58:30 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/17/23 11:15 AM, ScottW wrote:
Now you're just nitpicking.That it's not true that "virtually 100% of long term heavy users" end in
psychosis-fueled decapitations?
Nobody said that...but they do end up psychotic and high percentage becoming violently psychotic.
On 2/18/23 10:04 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 11:58:30 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/17/23 11:15 AM, ScottW wrote:
Now you're just nitpicking.That it's not true that "virtually 100% of long term heavy users" end in >> psychosis-fueled decapitations?
Nobody said that...but they do end up psychotic and high percentage becoming violently psychotic.100% psychotic? More like 36.5%, which is plenty.
On 2/18/23 10:04 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 11:58:30 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/17/23 11:15 AM, ScottW wrote:
Now you're just nitpicking.That it's not true that "virtually 100% of long term heavy users" end in >> psychosis-fueled decapitations?
Nobody said that...but they do end up psychotic and high percentage becoming violently psychotic.100% psychotic? More like 36.5%, which is plenty.
https://www.webmd.com/connect-to-care/addiction-treatment-recovery/methamphetamine/why-meth-psychosis-happens-and-how-to-get-help
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcJXT5lc1Bg
"That's why there ain't a repo man I know that don't take speed."
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 8:46:05 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/18/23 10:04 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 11:58:30 AM UTC-8, mINE109100% psychotic? More like 36.5%, which is plenty.
wrote:
On 2/17/23 11:15 AM, ScottW wrote:
Now you're just nitpicking.That it's not true that "virtually 100% of long term heavy
users" end in psychosis-fueled decapitations?
Nobody said that...but they do end up psychotic and high
percentage becoming violently psychotic.
That's all users. I said long term heavy users are nearly 100%
assured of developing psychosis and their brain damage may be
unrecoverable.
On 2/18/23 12:22 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 8:46:05 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/18/23 10:04 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 11:58:30 AM UTC-8, mINE109100% psychotic? More like 36.5%, which is plenty.
wrote:
On 2/17/23 11:15 AM, ScottW wrote:
Now you're just nitpicking.That it's not true that "virtually 100% of long term heavy
users" end in psychosis-fueled decapitations?
Nobody said that...but they do end up psychotic and high
percentage becoming violently psychotic.
That's all users. I said long term heavy users are nearly 100%I'm sorry I mistook your reference to "virtually 100%" to mean "all
assured of developing psychosis and their brain damage may be unrecoverable.
users." I'm not sorry to point out that you're begging the question.
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 4:51:01 PM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/18/23 12:22 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 8:46:05 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:I'm sorry I mistook your reference to "virtually 100%" to mean "all
On 2/18/23 10:04 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 11:58:30 AM UTC-8, mINE109100% psychotic? More like 36.5%, which is plenty.
wrote:
On 2/17/23 11:15 AM, ScottW wrote:
Now you're just nitpicking.That it's not true that "virtually 100% of long term heavy
users" end in psychosis-fueled decapitations?
Nobody said that...but they do end up psychotic and high
percentage becoming violently psychotic.
That's all users. I said long term heavy users are nearly 100%
assured of developing psychosis and their brain damage may be
unrecoverable.
users." I'm not sorry to point out that you're begging the question.
My demolishing you in this argument has reduced you to emulating a Kamala Harris-like word salad.
There's more than one philosophy for treating
addiction whether you agree or not.
On 2/18/23 12:22 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 8:46:05 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/18/23 10:04 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 11:58:30 AM UTC-8, mINE109100% psychotic? More like 36.5%, which is plenty.
wrote:
On 2/17/23 11:15 AM, ScottW wrote:
Now you're just nitpicking.That it's not true that "virtually 100% of long term heavy
users" end in psychosis-fueled decapitations?
Nobody said that...but they do end up psychotic and high
percentage becoming violently psychotic.
That's all users. I said long term heavy users are nearly 100%I'm sorry I mistook your reference to "virtually 100%" to mean "all
assured of developing psychosis and their brain damage may be unrecoverable.
users." I'm not sorry to point out that you're begging the question.
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 1:51:01 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/18/23 12:22 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 8:46:05 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:I'm sorry I mistook your reference to "virtually 100%" to mean "all
On 2/18/23 10:04 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 11:58:30 AM UTC-8, mINE109100% psychotic? More like 36.5%, which is plenty.
wrote:
On 2/17/23 11:15 AM, ScottW wrote:
Now you're just nitpicking.That it's not true that "virtually 100% of long term heavy
users" end in psychosis-fueled decapitations?
Nobody said that...but they do end up psychotic and high
percentage becoming violently psychotic.
That's all users. I said long term heavy users are nearly 100%
assured of developing psychosis and their brain damage may be
unrecoverable.
users." I'm not sorry to point out that you're begging the question.
Which part did you miss? The "virtually 100%" or the "of long term heavy users"?
I gave you two opportunities to see I never said "all users" and you still blew it.
On 2/19/23 7:08 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 1:51:01 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/18/23 12:22 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 8:46:05 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:I'm sorry I mistook your reference to "virtually 100%" to mean "all
On 2/18/23 10:04 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 11:58:30 AM UTC-8, mINE109100% psychotic? More like 36.5%, which is plenty.
wrote:
On 2/17/23 11:15 AM, ScottW wrote:
Now you're just nitpicking.That it's not true that "virtually 100% of long term heavy
users" end in psychosis-fueled decapitations?
Nobody said that...but they do end up psychotic and high
percentage becoming violently psychotic.
That's all users. I said long term heavy users are nearly 100%
assured of developing psychosis and their brain damage may be
unrecoverable.
users." I'm not sorry to point out that you're begging the question.
Which part did you miss? The "virtually 100%" or the "of long term heavy users"?Can't take the win, can you? If it gives you joy to make secret traps, I can't stop you from doing so.
I gave you two opportunities to see I never said "all users" and you still blew it.
On 2/19/23 11:18 AM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 4:51:01 PM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/18/23 12:22 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 8:46:05 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:I'm sorry I mistook your reference to "virtually 100%" to mean "all
On 2/18/23 10:04 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 11:58:30 AM UTC-8, mINE109100% psychotic? More like 36.5%, which is plenty.
wrote:
On 2/17/23 11:15 AM, ScottW wrote:
Now you're just nitpicking.That it's not true that "virtually 100% of long term heavy
users" end in psychosis-fueled decapitations?
Nobody said that...but they do end up psychotic and high
percentage becoming violently psychotic.
That's all users. I said long term heavy users are nearly 100%
assured of developing psychosis and their brain damage may be
unrecoverable.
users." I'm not sorry to point out that you're begging the question.
My demolishing you in this argument has reduced you to emulating a Kamala Harris-like word salad.Premise not accepted. There's more than one philosophy for treating
addiction whether you agree or not.
I gave you two opportunities to see I never said "all users" and you still >>> blew it.Can't take the win, can you? If it gives you joy to make secret traps, I
can't stop you from doing so.
Making you read is a "secret trap"?
On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 12:54:31 PM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/19/23 11:18 AM, Art Sackman wrote:
My demolishing you in this argument has reduced you to emulating a Kamala Harris-like word salad.Premise not accepted. There's more than one philosophy for treating
addiction whether you agree or not.
Other than rehab what would that be?
Clean needles?
How do clean needles cure a drug addict?
On 2/20/23 6:49 PM, ScottW wrote:
I gave you two opportunities to see I never said "all users" and you stillCan't take the win, can you? If it gives you joy to make secret traps, I >> can't stop you from doing so.
blew it.
Making you read is a "secret trap"?No, the "gave you two opportunities" is the game in action.
On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 7:59:45 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/20/23 6:49 PM, ScottW wrote:
No, the "gave you two opportunities" is the game in action.I gave you two opportunities to see I never said "all users" and you stillCan't take the win, can you? If it gives you joy to make secret traps, I >>>> can't stop you from doing so.
blew it.
Making you read is a "secret trap"?
Trust me, it was inadvertent.
On 2/21/23 11:21 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 7:59:45 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/20/23 6:49 PM, ScottW wrote:
No, the "gave you two opportunities" is the game in action.I gave you two opportunities to see I never said "all users" and you stillCan't take the win, can you? If it gives you joy to make secret traps, I >>>> can't stop you from doing so.
blew it.
Making you read is a "secret trap"?
Trust me, it was inadvertent.So you sidelined the point you were trying to make in order to
inadvertently catch me in a slight misreading? Remember you massively overstated the prevalence of psychosis in the context of your original
post describing a case of decapitation as symptom when the criteria
include much more benign conditions such as paranoia, hallucinations,
etc. Not great, but not "100% of the 36.7% who are heavy users will decapitate someone."
Note: that's a paraphrase.
On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 1:56:55 PM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/21/23 11:21 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 7:59:45 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:So you sidelined the point you were trying to make in order to
On 2/20/23 6:49 PM, ScottW wrote:
No, the "gave you two opportunities" is the game in action.I gave you two opportunities to see I never said "all users" and you stillCan't take the win, can you? If it gives you joy to make secret traps, I >>>>>> can't stop you from doing so.
blew it.
Making you read is a "secret trap"?
Trust me, it was inadvertent.
inadvertently catch me in a slight misreading? Remember you massively
overstated the prevalence of psychosis in the context of your original
post describing a case of decapitation as symptom when the criteria
include much more benign conditions such as paranoia, hallucinations,
etc. Not great, but not "100% of the 36.7% who are heavy users will
decapitate someone."
Note: that's a paraphrase.
36.7% of meth addicted doctors will remove genitalia from children.
Opps! my mistake. that should read 36.7% of woke addicted doctors.
On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 10:56:55 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/21/23 11:21 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 7:59:45 AM UTC-8, mINE109So you sidelined the point you were trying to make in order to
wrote:
On 2/20/23 6:49 PM, ScottW wrote:
No, the "gave you two opportunities" is the game in action.I gave you two opportunities to see I never said "allCan't take the win, can you? If it gives you joy to make
users" and you still blew it.
secret traps, I can't stop you from doing so.
Making you read is a "secret trap"?
Trust me, it was inadvertent.
inadvertently catch me in a slight misreading?
Slight? GMAFB. You skipped down that fictitious path with glee
until you got faceplanted. Stop crying, get up, dust yourself off.
Remember you massively overstated the prevalence of psychosis
How many meth induced psychosis murders does it take before you'll
care? Just asking. Because it's so common now the national news
media rarely covers them.
in the context of your original post describing a case of
decapitation as symptom when the criteria include much more benign
conditions such as paranoia, hallucinations, etc. Not great, but
not "100% of the 36.7% who are heavy users will decapitate
someone."
How many times are you going to repeat what I've already twice told
you was never said, meant, or implied? Now I think you're just intentionally deflecting because your stand on harm reduction for
meth users is indefensible and inhumane.
Here's another piece on mentally disordered violent crime.
https://www.opb.org/article/2022/08/04/oregon-mental-health-system-meth-use-portland-methamphetamine/
They also cover how meth itself has changed and become more
dangerous due to the current methods of manufacture by cartels.
Note: that's a paraphrase.
No...it's your desperate attempt to distract with disinformation.
On 2/21/23 11:21 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 7:59:45 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/20/23 6:49 PM, ScottW wrote:
No, the "gave you two opportunities" is the game in action.I gave you two opportunities to see I never said "all users" and you stillCan't take the win, can you? If it gives you joy to make secret traps, I
blew it.
can't stop you from doing so.
Making you read is a "secret trap"?
Trust me, it was inadvertent.So you sidelined the point you were trying to make in order to
inadvertently catch me in a slight misreading?
overstated the prevalence of psychosis
post describing a case of decapitation as symptom when the criteria
include much more benign conditions such as paranoia, hallucinations,
etc. Not great, but not "100% of the 36.7% who are heavy users will decapitate someone."
Note: that's a paraphrase.
Meth abuse is bad. There are different ways to deal with it but you're
not proposing any. At least Art thinks they should 12-step it, despite
the poor rate of recovery.
You started this with a "desperate attempt" to use a gruesome case to characterize all meth users.
Meth abuse is bad. There are different ways to deal with it but you're
not proposing any. At least Art thinks they should 12-step it, despite
the poor rate of recovery.
I NEVER said any such thing .
You are a lying scumbag worthless pile of shit.
I said that drug addiction, in general, should be dealt with via professional rehabilitation centers.
I haven't gone into this before, but meth addiction in particular is tough
to beat. Rehab is the best option, though its success rate isn't too great. But any other strategy is absolutely dismal
Blind links to cherry-picked meth-induced crimes? No thank you.You started this with a "desperate attempt" to use a gruesome case to
characterize all meth users.
I'll help you out with other cases.
On 2/22/23 4:05 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
Meth abuse is bad. There are different ways to deal with it but you're
not proposing any. At least Art thinks they should 12-step it, despite
the poor rate of recovery.
I NEVER said any such thing .You're 12-step adjacent with all that talk of hitting rock bottom.
You are a lying scumbag worthless pile of shit.And you are addicted to rage.
I said that drug addiction, in general, should be dealt with via professionalWhich do not require "rock bottom" for entry to their programs.
rehabilitation centers.
I haven't gone into this before, but meth addiction in particular is tough to beat. Rehab is the best option, though its success rate isn't too great. But any other strategy is absolutely dismalhttps://nida.nih.gov/publications/research-reports/methamphetamine/what-treatments-are-effective-people-who-misuse-methamphetamine
"The most effective treatments for methamphetamine addiction at this
point are behavioral therapies, such as cognitive-behavioral and
contingency management interventions."
These are compatible with rehab and do not exclude 12-step programs.
You started this with a "desperate attempt" to use a gruesome case to
characterize all meth users.
I'll help you out with other cases.Blind links to cherry-picked meth-induced crimes? No thank you.
On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 5:53:57 PM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/22/23 4:05 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
You're 12-step adjacent with all that talk of hitting rock bottom.
Meth abuse is bad. There are different ways to deal with it but
you're not proposing any. At least Art thinks they should
12-step it, despite the poor rate of recovery.
I NEVER said any such thing .
You are a lying scumbag worthless pile of shit.And you are addicted to rage.
I said that drug addiction, in general, should be dealt with viaWhich do not require "rock bottom" for entry to their programs.
professional rehabilitation centers.
Another LIE from Steve.. I never said they did.
Rock bottom is NOT a requirement of the treatment center.
It is the state of mind of the addict, that propels him wto the
acceptance to enter the treatment center.
Either you are playing silly semantic obfuscation games, or else you
are completely ignorant of addiction and treatment issues.
I haven't gone into this before, but meth addiction in particularhttps://nida.nih.gov/publications/research-reports/methamphetamine/what-treatments-are-effective-people-who-misuse-methamphetamine
is tough to beat. Rehab is the best option, though its success
rate isn't too great. But any other strategy is absolutely
dismal
"The most effective treatments for methamphetamine addiction at
this point are behavioral therapies, such as cognitive-behavioral
and contingency management interventions."
And you will find these in some treatment centers.
These are compatible with rehab and do not exclude 12-step
programs.
Blind links to cherry-picked meth-induced crimes? No thank you.You started this with a "desperate attempt" to use a gruesome
case to characterize all meth users.
I'll help you out with other cases.
Take a look at all of the links, Some include street scenes of groups
of zonked out addicts. This is not cherrypicked.
This is real, and this is typical of what you see on the streets.The presenter in the final link gives a talk about this. He is a
recovering addict. Get real. Get out of your talking point papers.
On 2/22/23 11:06 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 5:53:57 PM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/22/23 4:05 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
You're 12-step adjacent with all that talk of hitting rock bottom.
Meth abuse is bad. There are different ways to deal with it but
you're not proposing any. At least Art thinks they should
12-step it, despite the poor rate of recovery.
I NEVER said any such thing .
You are a lying scumbag worthless pile of shit.And you are addicted to rage.
I said that drug addiction, in general, should be dealt with viaWhich do not require "rock bottom" for entry to their programs.
professional rehabilitation centers.
Another LIE from Steve.. I never said they did.You did however reject harm reduction for depriving addicts of hitting
rock bottom.
Rock bottom is NOT a requirement of the treatment center.Didn't I just say that?
It is the state of mind of the addict, that propels him wto the
acceptance to enter the treatment center.
Either you are playing silly semantic obfuscation games, or else youThe games are yours, equating the decision to seek treatment with
are completely ignorant of addiction and treatment issues.
"hitting rock bottom." That is begging the question.
I haven't gone into this before, but meth addiction in particularhttps://nida.nih.gov/publications/research-reports/methamphetamine/what-treatments-are-effective-people-who-misuse-methamphetamine
is tough to beat. Rehab is the best option, though its success
rate isn't too great. But any other strategy is absolutely
dismal
"The most effective treatments for methamphetamine addiction at
this point are behavioral therapies, such as cognitive-behavioral
and contingency management interventions."
And you will find these in some treatment centers.Indeed.
These are compatible with rehab and do not exclude 12-step
programs.
Blind links to cherry-picked meth-induced crimes? No thank you.You started this with a "desperate attempt" to use a gruesome
case to characterize all meth users.
I'll help you out with other cases.
Take a look at all of the links, Some include street scenes of groupsThat's the very definition of cherry-picked!
of zonked out addicts. This is not cherrypicked.
This is real, and this is typical of what you see on the streets.The presenter in the final link gives a talk about this. He is a
recovering addict. Get real. Get out of your talking point papers.
My "talking point papers" have the advantage of agreeing that there's a problem and there is a shortage of effective treatments available.
On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 10:35:03 AM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/22/23 11:06 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 5:53:57 PM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:You did however reject harm reduction for depriving addicts of hitting
On 2/22/23 4:05 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
You're 12-step adjacent with all that talk of hitting rock bottom.
Meth abuse is bad. There are different ways to deal with it but
you're not proposing any. At least Art thinks they should
12-step it, despite the poor rate of recovery.
I NEVER said any such thing .
You are a lying scumbag worthless pile of shit.And you are addicted to rage.
I said that drug addiction, in general, should be dealt with viaWhich do not require "rock bottom" for entry to their programs.
professional rehabilitation centers.
Another LIE from Steve.. I never said they did.
rock bottom.
Yes I did. But You are talking about two different issues.
Rock bottom is NOT a requirement of the treatment center.Didn't I just say that?
But you strongly implied that I was saying otherwise.
Take a look at all of the links, Some include street scenes of groupsThat's the very definition of cherry-picked!
of zonked out addicts. This is not cherrypicked.
No It's REALITY. It's filming what actually exists. Its large grouos
of people. Its the whole street community its NOT cherry picking one person over another person.
This is real, and this is typical of what you see on the streets.The
presenter in the final link gives a talk about this. He is a
recovering addict. Get real. Get out of your talking point papers.
My "talking point papers" have the advantage of agreeing that there's a
problem and there is a shortage of effective treatments available.
I don't quite know what shortage you are referring to
1) shortage of good options in treatment methodology
or 2) shortage of available space in treatment centers.
Either way, both are true,
On 2/23/23 5:52 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 10:35:03 AM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/22/23 11:06 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 5:53:57 PM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:You did however reject harm reduction for depriving addicts of hitting
On 2/22/23 4:05 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
You're 12-step adjacent with all that talk of hitting rock bottom. >>>>> You are a lying scumbag worthless pile of shit.
Meth abuse is bad. There are different ways to deal with it but >>>>>> you're not proposing any. At least Art thinks they should
12-step it, despite the poor rate of recovery.
I NEVER said any such thing .
And you are addicted to rage.
I said that drug addiction, in general, should be dealt with viaWhich do not require "rock bottom" for entry to their programs.
professional rehabilitation centers.
Another LIE from Steve.. I never said they did.
rock bottom.
Yes I did. But You are talking about two different issues.Harm reduction, and addiction treatment. There's considerable overlap.
Rock bottom is NOT a requirement of the treatment center.Didn't I just say that?
But you strongly implied that I was saying otherwise.Then why aren't you against rehab for taking in people who haven't hit
"rock bottom"?
<snip>
Take a look at all of the links, Some include street scenes of groups >>> of zonked out addicts. This is not cherrypicked.That's the very definition of cherry-picked!
No It's REALITY. It's filming what actually exists. Its large grouosYou've chosen that street instead of another, selecting a population
of people. Its the whole street community its NOT cherry picking one person over another person.
that has already suffered consequences leading to homelessness over the larger, more widespread population of casual users, partiers and high-functioning addicts.
Your expert may be entirely correct concerning his chosen audience, but that's not the whole story.
This is real, and this is typical of what you see on the streets.The
presenter in the final link gives a talk about this. He is a
recovering addict. Get real. Get out of your talking point papers.
My "talking point papers" have the advantage of agreeing that there's a >> problem and there is a shortage of effective treatments available.
I don't quite know what shortage you are referring toRoundabout, but you got there.
1) shortage of good options in treatment methodology
or 2) shortage of available space in treatment centers.
Either way, both are true,
On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 10:27:24 AM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/23/23 5:52 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 10:35:03 AM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/22/23 11:06 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
Roundabout, but you got there.This is real, and this is typical of what you see on the streets.The >>>>> presenter in the final link gives a talk about this. He is a
recovering addict. Get real. Get out of your talking point papers.
My "talking point papers" have the advantage of agreeing that there's a >>>> problem and there is a shortage of effective treatments available.
I don't quite know what shortage you are referring to
1) shortage of good options in treatment methodology
or 2) shortage of available space in treatment centers.
Either way, both are true,
I was always there, on this side issue. This discussion was not
about rehab treatment.
But the point of contention is harm reduction policies, and if
are they enabling to addiction and an impediment to
getting the addict into treatment. You are still wrong on this issue.
On 2/24/23 2:49 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 10:27:24 AM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/23/23 5:52 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 10:35:03 AM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/22/23 11:06 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
Roundabout, but you got there.This is real, and this is typical of what you see on the streets.The >>>>> presenter in the final link gives a talk about this. He is a
recovering addict. Get real. Get out of your talking point papers.
My "talking point papers" have the advantage of agreeing that there's a >>>> problem and there is a shortage of effective treatments available.
I don't quite know what shortage you are referring to
1) shortage of good options in treatment methodology
or 2) shortage of available space in treatment centers.
Either way, both are true,
I was always there, on this side issue. This discussion was notThat's an opinion you get to have and I've already acknowledged we
about rehab treatment.
But the point of contention is harm reduction policies, and if
are they enabling to addiction and an impediment to
getting the addict into treatment. You are still wrong on this issue.
disagree on harm reduction. However, it exists, people other than me advocate it, and they are not motivated by a desire to impede entry into treatment.
Sometimes the alternative to harm reduction is death.
On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 4:23:56 PM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/24/23 2:49 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 10:27:24 AM UTC-5, mINE109That's an opinion you get to have and I've already acknowledged we
wrote:
On 2/23/23 5:52 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 10:35:03 AM UTC-5, mINE109
wrote:
On 2/22/23 11:06 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
Roundabout, but you got there.This is real, and this is typical of what you see on the
streets.The presenter in the final link gives a talk
about this. He is a recovering addict. Get real. Get out
of your talking point papers.
My "talking point papers" have the advantage of agreeing
that there's a problem and there is a shortage of effective
treatments available.
I don't quite know what shortage you are referring to 1)
shortage of good options in treatment methodology or 2)
shortage of available space in treatment centers. Either way,
both are true,
I was always there, on this side issue. This discussion was not
about rehab treatment. But the point of contention is harm
reduction policies, and if are they enabling to addiction and an
impediment to getting the addict into treatment. You are still
wrong on this issue.
disagree on harm reduction. However, it exists, people other than
me advocate it, and they are not motivated by a desire to impede
entry into treatment.
Sometimes the alternative to harm reduction is death.
More often the result of harm reduction is death.
Its referred to nursing the addict to death The best cure is
treatment, not harm reduction which impedes the inclination of the
addict to seek treatment.
On 2/24/23 2:49 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 10:27:24 AM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/23/23 5:52 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 10:35:03 AM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/22/23 11:06 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
Roundabout, but you got there.This is real, and this is typical of what you see on the streets.The >>>>> presenter in the final link gives a talk about this. He is a
recovering addict. Get real. Get out of your talking point papers.
My "talking point papers" have the advantage of agreeing that there's a >>>> problem and there is a shortage of effective treatments available.
I don't quite know what shortage you are referring to
1) shortage of good options in treatment methodology
or 2) shortage of available space in treatment centers.
Either way, both are true,
I was always there, on this side issue. This discussion was notThat's an opinion you get to have and I've already acknowledged we
about rehab treatment.
But the point of contention is harm reduction policies, and if
are they enabling to addiction and an impediment to
getting the addict into treatment. You are still wrong on this issue.
disagree on harm reduction. However, it exists, people other than me advocate it, and they are not motivated by a desire to impede entry into treatment.
On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 1:23:56 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/24/23 2:49 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
But the point of contention is harm reduction policies, and ifThat's an opinion you get to have and I've already acknowledged we
are they enabling to addiction and an impediment to
getting the addict into treatment. You are still wrong on this issue.
disagree on harm reduction. However, it exists, people other than me
advocate it, and they are not motivated by a desire to impede entry into
treatment.
Now that's debatable. In LA the most successful group getting addicts into treatment
and unfunded NGO alleged exactly that.
Their case was made the by the funded groups who accomplished nothing
for years and after millions of $ in funding lobbied against their funding request.
Don't ever assume money doesn't motivate people to do bad things.
On 2/25/23 11:33 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 1:23:56 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/24/23 2:49 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
But the point of contention is harm reduction policies, and ifThat's an opinion you get to have and I've already acknowledged we
are they enabling to addiction and an impediment to
getting the addict into treatment. You are still wrong on this issue.
disagree on harm reduction. However, it exists, people other than me
advocate it, and they are not motivated by a desire to impede entry into >> treatment.
Now that's debatable. In LA the most successful group getting addicts into treatmentSure, that sounds awful, but I wonder about the framing and lack of specifics.
and unfunded NGO alleged exactly that.
Their case was made the by the funded groups who accomplished nothing
for years and after millions of $ in funding lobbied against their funding request.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-10-23/harm-reduction-california-could-allow-drug-use-at-supervised-sites
I see the bill mentioned was vetoed, the reason given that programs shouldn't be forced on places without local support.
Administering naxalone to an unconscious overdose sufferer does notimpede any inclinations.
At least saying "best" implies there are other ways to treat. Since your thinking on this is binary and you won't accept common ground or my acknowledgement of our respective positions, let's just agree that you
think my way impedes treatment and I think your way finds disease and
death preferable.
On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 10:48:06 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/25/23 11:33 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 1:23:56 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:Sure, that sounds awful, but I wonder about the framing and lack of
On 2/24/23 2:49 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
But the point of contention is harm reduction policies, and ifdisagree on harm reduction. However, it exists, people other than me
are they enabling to addiction and an impediment to
getting the addict into treatment. You are still wrong on this issue. >>>> That's an opinion you get to have and I've already acknowledged we
advocate it, and they are not motivated by a desire to impede entry into >>>> treatment.
Now that's debatable. In LA the most successful group getting addicts into treatment
and unfunded NGO alleged exactly that.
Their case was made the by the funded groups who accomplished nothing
for years and after millions of $ in funding lobbied against their funding request.
specifics.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-10-23/harm-reduction-california-could-allow-drug-use-at-supervised-sites
I see the bill mentioned was vetoed, the reason given that programs
shouldn't be forced on places without local support.
What it doesn't mention is how it got passed. These NGO's are using their gov't money
to buy council members, county supers, and state reps.
They couldn't buy gavin cuz he didn't want this BS on presidential run record.
But talk about their perfect program. Perpetuate drug use and keep the $$ flowing forever.
Look what decriminalizing personal possession did to Portland as part of their harm reduction.
Use, ODs, and petty crime all up.
(snip the moronic whataboutism)
Administering naxalone to an unconscious overdose sufferer doesimpede any inclinations.
not
oH BOY! Another recruit joins your growing army of straw men.
We were not talking about naxalone. I have always supported
naxalone. We were talking about needle exchanges and medically
staffed safe injection sites.
At least saying "best" implies there are other ways to treat. Since
your thinking on this is binary and you won't accept common ground
or my acknowledgement of our respective positions, let's just agree
that you think my way impedes treatment and I think your way finds
disease and death preferable.
Well, there is death from infection and hepatitis, which concerns
you, and then there is death from liver failure, heart failure,
failure of other organs, suicide, and overdose, which concerns me.
(BTW, there are still plenty of OD's where Narcan is not immediately available, or even when Narcan is administered - I'll explain in a
little bit.)
Then there is the primary interest of facilitating getting addicts to
choose rehab, which concerns me, and the primary interest of keeping
addicts alive as continuing to be addicts, which concerns you.
And that I am interested in avoiding deaths by the direct and
prolonged effect of drugs themselves on the body, and you are
interested in avoiding deaths caused by using needles.
Now, a note on Narcan. I read just yesterday that many addicts
don't want to use Narcan, as shortly after it being administered, it
puts the addict into withdrawal. Additionally, the effect of Narcan
is short lived, about 15 minutes, and the overdosed addict can still
die from the original od, right after the Narcan effect wears off.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/crisis-kensington-addicts-fear-thing-save-lives
I expect you will be burying your head in the sand after reading
another thing on Fox that you don't want to hear.
I hope you mean it's the addicts who wish to continue while alive.
Yes, I'm aware that Narcan induces withdrawal. I hope the vending
machine Narcan has instructions help cope with the situation you describe.
Fortunately for you, Fox is afraid to tell you anything you don't want
to hear.
I hope you mean it's the addicts who wish to continue while alive.
no, i mean your efforts to keep addicts alive as perpetual addicts.
Yes, I'm aware that Narcan induces withdrawal. I hope the vending
machine Narcan has instructions help cope with the situation you describe. >>
oh yeah!!!! good news!!!! Unconscious and dying od'ed addicts can get pertinent
information from instruction sheets!
Fortunately for you, Fox is afraid to tell you anything you don't want
to hear.
if it's the usual lies from MSNBC and CNN, I can get them straight from those sources.
On 2/25/23 11:19 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
I hope you mean it's the addicts who wish to continue while alive.
no, i mean your efforts to keep addicts alive as perpetual addicts.That's an odd statement from someone who hates strawman arguments.
Yes, I'm aware that Narcan induces withdrawal. I hope the vending
machine Narcan has instructions help cope with the situation you describe.
oh yeah!!!! good news!!!! Unconscious and dying od'ed addicts can get pertinentHow else is something dispensed from a vending machine going to work? Instructional video?
information from instruction sheets!
Of course, I assume the Narcan will be administered by conscious, still-living people.
Fortunately for you, Fox is afraid to tell you anything you don't want
to hear.
if it's the usual lies from MSNBC and CNN, I can get them straight from those sources.I've found it acceptable to not watch any of them and I'm happy I found
a way to get a cable package without supporting them or useless to me
sports channels.
On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 2:11:00 PM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/25/23 11:19 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
That's an odd statement from someone who hates strawman arguments.
I hope you mean it's the addicts who wish to continue while
alive.
no, i mean your efforts to keep addicts alive as perpetual
addicts.
How else is something dispensed from a vending machine going toYes, I'm aware that Narcan induces withdrawal. I hope the
vending machine Narcan has instructions help cope with the
situation you describe.
oh yeah!!!! good news!!!! Unconscious and dying od'ed addicts can
get pertinent information from instruction sheets!
work? Instructional video?
The word on the street for addicts is that Narcan induces withdrawal.
Many addicts have had multiple applications, so they know, and they
talk. They are not prone to reading instruction booklets.
Of course, I assume the Narcan will be administered by conscious,
still-living people.
I've found it acceptable to not watch any of them and I'm happy IFortunately for you, Fox is afraid to tell you anything you
don't want to hear.
if it's the usual lies from MSNBC and CNN, I can get them
straight from those sources.
found a way to get a cable package without supporting them or
useless to me sports channels.
GO twxas!!
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 24:37:48 |
| Calls: | 9,828 |
| Calls today: | 7 |
| Files: | 13,761 |
| Messages: | 6,192,008 |
