Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Depressing (A comment)

isaac; You think there's something patently hypocritic about one addict wishing the death of another. I think as long as Mr Tubbs is in the state of mind he's in, he's very qualified to make decisions on the matter...he's BTDT. He knows how wrong he was, and how wrong others are that are busily destroying innocents they come in contact with. My guess is that some actively abusing addicts like I'm talking about would feel the same way---at times. Mr Tubbs deserves all the support we can give him, because he's gone through something awesomely horrible, and he walked away from it on his own because he's got more guts than most of us, and the love of a good woman. My hat is off to him.
I too have the love of a good woman, and would consider life not worthwhile if I lost her because of drugs or drinking on my part (if I was sane enough to realize it). She ended one 20-year marriage because of an alcoholic husband, and losing her makes him the stupidest sob in the world, as far as I'm concerned. He lost an absolute angel because he's that type of addict. He still drinks, and is therefore still stupid, and putting others at risk of harm. Don't need him.
My question to you as an attorney, is how can you question that there are addicts out there that always deserve another chance, when (I assume) you've seen their damage firsthand? Do I misunderstand something in what you say, or do you think there's always enough hope for treatment and recovery in anyone to warrant keeping them "in the system"? I disagree.
The death penalty was more prevalent in the past than it is now, right? Well then, wasn't that due to the popular notion that it eliminated societal burdens? The acceptance of that idea may not be as popular as it once was, but I don't think anyone will argue that if you execute someone, they won't commit any more crimes. It seems to me that alot of hardcore drug users, manufacturers and sellers are repeat offenders, so it's logical to me that the system we use to punish them isn't working well.
So, back to my original premise, with qualifications; Don't need them.

Actually Ruger is correct. An addict is an addict the rest of his life, he's just not using.
If you go into an AA meeting during the discussion, if a fellow wants to talk, he will introduce himself by saying "My name is Bill, I'm a drunk or alcoholic, or junky."
By the way there's a good film out there about AA, " My name is Bill. It's about AA got founded. It's got James Wood and James Garner and yours truely in it.
Jim

Arky,

You and I may agree afterall! That doesn't sound quite like what you said in the other thread. You MUST leave an addict to their own devices so long as thats what they want. When they ask for "help" you must endeavor to help and not enable. And many codependants/enablers don't know the difference, but thats not their fault. They're often as misguided in thier thinking at the soft end of the spectrum as Alonzo and Bulletbutt are at the hard end of the spectrum. Not understanding addiction is not understanding it...no matter which end you fall on.

I think Alonzo is right so let's just take his word for it. I can help you start the list. Fortunately most hard core addicts off themselves at an early age so they we can just stand back and watch them self destruct. The fact that we are providing SO MANY safety nets only interfers with their own total destruction and encourages them to live longer so they can screw up more lives. It's a revolving door. Only those who truly wish to change do it when they are ready and not a moment before. My apologize to those who feel offended but that's the way I see it. kwg

I don't give a hoot what happens to the addict, what I care about is the second and third parties. The addict is destroying his life all by his lonesome, why have some else's life get messed up as collateral damage.
If some one were to help the addict out into a blizzard in Alaska while the addict is blown away, well the addict most likely needed some air.
But to actively do in the addict, NO! That would be wasting another life. Now if there were some reasonable DAs and judges who would look at the situation and say he's a worthless excuse of a father, husband and there's no sense in ruining another life, etc. I might could be convinced. But I'd still think it was a waste of a perfectly good bullet.
Jim

We have a recent case here in Richmond. A dumdum of a wife tried to ship heroin to her husband in the local hoosgow. Now she's in jail.
You would know the numbers better then I ever would, but how many women are in prison because her helping husband/boyfriend sell, carry, distribute drugs. How many are in prison because they killed the worthless lump?
I'm sure that you have heard some real horror stories relating to drugs. In my men's meeting I get to hear the other side of the tale. I currently a half dozen guns in my safe so the fellas won't use them on themselve's or the addict.
An addict will suck the soul out of every one they are close to, then throw the dried husk away.
Jim

I think where you and I part ways is thinking that because an addict does you wrong, they're different from other equally sorry people that do you wrong along the way. That, and I have met plenty of addicts that had little ill-effect on anybody but themselves. And I can't see not trying to help someone in need as long as they accept the help for what it is, and not ask or me to sacrifice mine to enable them. If an addict says "get me off this stuff" I see a benefit to everyone in getting them clean. I see no benefit to turning away. Beyond basic human compassion, I don't care about anyone other than who I know and love. But in my book, basic human compassion says I owe what helping hand I can offer to someone sincerely asking for help. That doesn't mean buying a junkie his fix, or a drunk a bottle. But if he needs a ride to a meeting, and if I'm going that way or even near that way, I can see helping him. If its my blood or loved one, I will go out of my way to help, but wont raise a hand to enable! BUT, I've lived it first hand with some close people and I know the difference. Not to mention all the professional experience I've had with addicts. The bottom line is, addiction afflicts good people and bad...the bad ones are the ones to fear. Many of the good ones are never known as addicts to most.

What drives addiction is a lack of appropriate coping mechanisms. There is no magic that goes on in treatment except withholding the substance until it's physical grasp is loosened. The rest is counseling and teaching new ways to cope.

Addicts aren't evil nor are the substances they use to medicate themselves. It's hard to get a person to the point where they're ready mentally to fight the dragon but you sure don't do it by pooh poohing them or being soft on them. Tough love is the best description of what I think works the best.

I don't buy that addiction is a disease either. I think that was a great PR campaign to get people to allow themselves into rehab. If they think of it like cancer or diabetes they're more likely to accept help.

I have no quarrel with helping. Taking them to a AA meeting, dropping them off at detox and picking them up. You call it compassion, I call it enlightened self interest.
In the majority of cases, there's a family history of addiction, so there's child of an addict underneath the addiction, waiting to be helped. That's my passion.

Let me add. The only way the addict can harm me is if I allow him to harm me. It's never a one way street, I have to be an active member of the transaction to get hurt. With this mind set I can and do defuse any anger and resentment on my part. I've got large and dedicated network of guys who can help me work my way through any stupidity on my part.
Jim

I don't think the terminology is important!
Let me ask, do you think depression is a disease? Is any of the dozens of mental/emotional problems qualify as a disease?
For some reason the old joke about the Italian fellow, when asked about the Vatican outlawing birth control, comes to mind here.
He no playa the game, he no makea the rules.
Jim

arky,

I think you and I are closer to agreement than once thought. The difference between you and I is that the addicts I've known were either clients whom I had no emotional investment in and thus couldn't hurt me, and friends/family who really took nothing from me due to their addiction. And I have seen the benefit of offering a little help, though often it has to come with the threat of some consequences to get compliance.

I think that's right...we just disagree on what consequences should be used as the threat to get compliance.