Almost 1 in 3 Americans die from drug use or drug-related causes, and I really don't find that silly at all.
500,000 from tobacco and second-hand smoke. 106,000 from adverse reactions to prescription drugs in hospitals. 85,000 from alcohol and alcohol-related fatalities. 17,000 from illicit drugs. 7,500 from NSAIDs. 4,000 from HIV acquired from needle sharing, etc.
That means if we keep doing what we're doing now, if we don't change our policy on drugs, then of the 310 million Americans currently alive, at least 93 million will die from drug use.
Given the average US lifespan of 77, that's a full holocaust every 7.5 years. Obviously not every last death is avoidable, but the overwhelming majority of them are.
The ONLY solution is real education based on science, not propaganda. The drug war makes this completely impossible by A) banning science B) banning education C) banning treatment.
The fact is that drug addiction has nothing to do with the molecule, and so the way we are treating 'addiction' actually makes the problem vastly worse:
You just said there was a government campaign to poison the elderly. Your words. Instead of trying to back up this ridiculous assertion--which you can't--you trot out all these statistics about drugs that are not Vicodin, as if you think that's relevant. Then you equate this with the Holocaust!
The Holocaust, man! The fact that people die from tobacco smoke every year is comparable to the Holocaust! This doesn't even have anything to do with the original post! Tobacco has nothing to do with controlled substances in the first place! Are you out of your mind?
I won't even address the assertion that "addiction has nothing to do with the molecule". Since a drug consists entirely of molecules, your claim doesn't make semantic sense.
I find you ignorant, irrelevant, and offensive. Disgusting, even.
It's unpleasant for me to watch you willfully misunderstand Alex3917 with such vitriol.
It was clear to me from the beginning that he didn't mean the government literally had a campaign to poison the elderly, but rather, that that is the effect of poorly thought out, vindictive policies that the government has instituted. It's hard for me to understand how you could have misunderstood this.
You make such a big deal about his comparison of the death toll to that of the Holocaust, even though it was YOU, not he, who first brought the Holocaust up via your invocation of Godwin's Law.
Your refusal to address the assertion that addiction has nothing to do with the molecule is well advised, since you clearly didn't take the time to understand it. You may agree or disagree with his point, but it would be better to at least look at the links he provided before commenting; the second in particular, a study from Kaiser Permanente that discusses the origins of addiction, should make clear what he was talking about.
It's your final paragraph, though, that motivated me to write this reply. You find Alex3917 "offensive" and "disgusting"? What I find offensive and disgusting is dragging a controversial but interesting line of discussion down to the level of ad hominem attacks, strawman arguments, and deliberate misrepresentation of others' positions. That's not the kind of thing I come to this site hoping to read.
"It was clear to me from the beginning that he didn't mean the government literally had a campaign to poison the elderly,"
Well if that was his intent, then why did he write the literal opposite? It's quite easy to see why: it was to evoke an emotional response, to use grandiose sensationalist claims to either get people to read his comments or to back up or reaffirm his radical ideological standpoints. That's not the sort of thing I come to this site hoping to read. The point is that some policy decision have adverse effect; that fine, and exposing the exact mechanics is often enlightening. Phrasing it as 'oh we're being oppressed! We're living in the Maxtrix/1984!' is plain stupid.
a government campaign to poison the elderly and chronic pain patients
the war on drugs is responsible for vastly more deaths than the holocaust
drug addiction has nothing to do with the molecule
The above are things I do not come to this site hoping to read. These statements are not only false, but false in a particularly childish, self-righteous way. To affirm them demands an incredible misreading, or misinterpretation of the facts.
I find your interpretation of Alex3917's posts remarkably generous. It's not a "strawman" if the argument is actually being stated. I do not have the psychic powers to try and make sense of someone's scientific beliefs--if he has any that are scientific--based on a link and a semantically invalid sentence. I do not have the patience to scientifically debate someone who cannot make himself understood, who has no sense of what facts are relevant. And I do not have the generosity to take such infantile writing and divine from it some hints of reason, as you have.
I understand your distaste for insult, but I think there is a place for calling out nonsense for what it is. This discussion which you so dislike would have not gotten so far were it not for upvotes and support directed at this garbage. You cannot, if you value thought, defend such noise pollution on a website that is ostensibly for discussion.
Tobacco has nothing to do with controlled substances in the first place! Are you out of your mind?
Tobacco is regulated by the federal government. The only reason tobacco and alcohol aren't scheduled is because they are -explicitly designated in the Controlled Substances Act- to be regulated by existing commerce laws. To say tobacco has nothing to do with controlled substances is objectively false.
I won't even address the assertion that "addiction has nothing to do with the molecule". Since a drug consists entirely of molecules, your claim doesn't make semantic sense.
I'll address this for you. When people refer to something as addictive, they either mean a psychologically habit forming activity (psychological addiction) or a substance that causes withdrawal symptoms when the body abruptly stops receiving it (physical addiction).
Most of US drug policy, in particular the Controlled Substances Act, is designed to curb the abuse of recreational drugs. Does this sound like its addressing psychological addiction or physical addiction? Keep in mind that not only tobacco, but also alcohol, the only recreational drug those withdrawal symptoms are lethal, are deferred to other policies in the Controlled Substances Act.
So clearly, the statement "addiction has nothing to do with the molecule" is referring to psychological addiction. You assert this statement is false. You are saying that psychological addiction is directly related to the composition of the elements used in the addictive activity. To be consistent with this logic, you must also reject the following claims:
"gambling addiction has nothing to do with decks of playing cards"
"video game addiction has nothing to do with executable code"
"sex addiction has nothing to do with penises or vaginas"
Surely you must realize that the majority of people who try physically addictive substances do not end up addicted. It does not make sense to say the chemicals involved cause the addiction.
You want me to link to the obituaries?
Almost 1 in 3 Americans die from drug use or drug-related causes, and I really don't find that silly at all.
500,000 from tobacco and second-hand smoke. 106,000 from adverse reactions to prescription drugs in hospitals. 85,000 from alcohol and alcohol-related fatalities. 17,000 from illicit drugs. 7,500 from NSAIDs. 4,000 from HIV acquired from needle sharing, etc.
That means if we keep doing what we're doing now, if we don't change our policy on drugs, then of the 310 million Americans currently alive, at least 93 million will die from drug use.
Given the average US lifespan of 77, that's a full holocaust every 7.5 years. Obviously not every last death is avoidable, but the overwhelming majority of them are.
The ONLY solution is real education based on science, not propaganda. The drug war makes this completely impossible by A) banning science B) banning education C) banning treatment.
The fact is that drug addiction has nothing to do with the molecule, and so the way we are treating 'addiction' actually makes the problem vastly worse:
http://www.wpr.org/book/100307a.cfm
http://www.nijc.org/pdfs/Subject%20Matter%20Articles/Drugs%2...
So if this sounds like a Godwin argument, that's probably because the war on drugs is responsible for vastly more deaths than the holocaust.