Should time and resources be wasted on treating drug addicts?
No, they're knew the risks.
Side Score: 2
|
 |
For addictions after 1980, NO.
Side Score: 1
|
|
|
|
|
If you are warned of the extreme dangers of sticking your penis into an activated food mixer but proceeded to do so anyway then ended up with no dick, whose fault would that be? Even though you know full well the hazards of drug taking you continue down the road to hell, whose fault is that? Why should tax dollars be directed towards treating the weak minded low-life scumbags who are the architects of their own plight? Side: No, they're knew the risks.
So, the only logical conclusion we can arrive is that latter day drug addicts knew the risks they were taking and as such should be thrown onto the rubbish heap. Hello A: Nahhh... You've heard of Purdue Pharmaceutical?? No, huh? Get yourself edumacated.. In 2007, it paid out one of the largest fines ever levied against a pharmaceutical firm for mislabeling of its product OxyContin, and three executives were found guilty of criminal charges. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PurduePharma excon Side: No, they're knew the risks.
I was aware of the Purdue outrage but that is a different issue and not comparing like-with-like. Anyone becoming addicted to opioids under those circumstances were victims of a sophisticated crime which involved a major corporation and a number of unscrupulous medical professionals. There are other cases where drug pushing hoods gave school children free illustrated skin transfers infused with drugs. Anyone transferring the images onto their skin on a regular basis would become addicted to whatever drug was used in their making and then would have to pay the drug-pushers to get their fix. Again, just like the victims of the Purdue scandal these children were victims of ruthless gangsters and deserved every support available. I'm referring to the lowlifes who ignore all the warnings and take up drug use for so called recreational purposes, become addicted then go crying to the State for taxpayer's dollars to help them escape the inevitable horrors of of drug addiction. Side: No, they're knew the risks.
I was aware of the Purdue outrage but that is a different issue and not comparing like-with-like Hello A: An addict is an addict, and a pusher is a pusher. Yes, some pushers lurk down dark alleys, and some wear 3 piece suits to their board meetings. Who's worse? I dunno. The question is should we administer to them. If addiction is an illness, then of course, we should treat them.. Do we turn away smokers when they get the dreaded C? Do we turn away obese people who suffer heart disease? Do we turn away drinkers whose livers are shot?? No, we don't, nor should we. What guilty pleasures do you enjoy, and should you be punished for it? excon Side: No, they're knew the risks.
|
The best treatment drug addicts should receive is to be corralled into secured shelters where they could be deloused with high-pressure water hoses each day and fed on a diet of bread, COLD TURKEY and water. Such an institution would have to be well fitted out with acoustic control materials to stop the sounds of screaming and yelling from the inmates experiencing withdrawal symptoms annoying the general public. The added advantage of such an approach to the junkie problem would be that many loonies from the Wok brigade would suffer nervous breakdowns and have to be incarcerated in The Loony Wok Bin. Side: For addictions after 1980, NO.
|
