For some reason, the thread shows me as not logged in so I can't reply there. I just felt I had to say something about the subject.

First- the child. Child protective services can only do so much and usually it's not enough. They'll threaten to remove the child, the mother will go insane and Dear Old Dad will promise to clean up. When that fails, they'll threaten to remove the child, Mom will go insane and he'll go to rehab. When he relapses, and he will, the whole scenario will be repeated. Mean while, Dear Old Dad, who like all addicts considers himself not to be the problem but a victim of the oppressors who would deny him of his right to destroy all around him, will still be in the house with the child. Mom will rally to his defense and the daughter will suffer. I don't know the solution.

I came off heroin in 1971 and crawled out of a bottle of whiskey in 1975. I understand well the process of blaming every one and everything for my failures and know well how violent the addict can become when his life style is threatened. Damn everyone else.

Damn the addict, damn the supplier and damn the enablers. Those who have called for execution have the right attitude. Legalise the stuff,sell it pure and roll a garbage truck down the street every morning while the Herald cries "Bring out the dead!"

Sorry if I get emotional about this but I've seen, seen it and seen it again. Unless they want to kick (and most don't) they'll just destroy every one and everything in their path. Oh, and don't forget, they'll also invite anyone they can recuit to share their joy.

Kill 'em. Kill every last one of them.

'Lonzo

WTF?? I'm sure your position may have been somewhat different in the 70's.

Why wouldn't the addict in the 21st century be entitled to the same oppurtunities as you seemed to benfit from.

The puritanical approach of some recovering addicts is disengenuous and remarkably pathetic.

Also Mr. Tubbs, I am happy for your success in overcoming your addiction. Now get to the killing friend!!

congrats on your recovery
and altho the truths that you have spoken are harse it is the sentiment of many AND the addict will take you down with them.
Thank you for the brutal honesty
and it is the cycle that is depressing over and over and over it will play.
Stay tough and know that I am keeping you in my prayers.

My sister in law was married to an addict and life was not easy for her or her kids, that is for sure. I have heard that maturity ends at the time the addiction first begins. From what I have seen, I believe it.

I cleaned up both times with out help because I wanted to. I realised the heroin was a killer and went cold turkey by myself. The whiskey- I was either going to dump it or watch my wonderful wife suffer until I lost her. Powerful motivater.

You're right. I'm down right cold on the subject. If I wanted to destroy my life, that was my business but I had no right to destroy her's. One day, instead of stopping to buy the quart I consummed daily, I drove past the liquer store. Never felt a need since.

Cold? Yeah. Those who poison and destroy all around should be destroyed. And yes, I include myself during that period.

'Lonzo

Alonzo,

Your logic is illogical. Kill them all, but not you? You are an addict. You see, your story, its not at all non typical. Your rock bottom was the fear of loss. There are more addicts like you than most realize. Everybody's perception of the addict is the street walking crack-whore or the local homeless wine-o. As I have related here, I have a close friend and a close family memeber who have suffered addiction. Both professionals with families and good jobs. Neither of them had to hit the "rock bottom" of complete loss before they considered themselves at rock bottom. The fear of the loss was motivation enough. I have sat in professional groups with them...professionals such as doctors, lawyers, nurses, pharmacist, etc...more of them than not had only to have a close call at work or a brush with the law to WANT to quit. Some just like you merely feared work or legal problems. Its a broad brush some of you paint with about addicts. VERY broad!

I'm trying to understand the position here, so let me know which of these is a correct summation.

1. I quit successfully, but no one else can or at least damn few of them can or will, so kill all of them before they have a chance to quit or not quit.

2. I quit and my life since 1975 has been ____ (good, bad, indifferent?) so I wish someone had killed me back in the early 70's; or, someone should have killed me in the early 70's so I never would have had the chance to quit or not quit. Also, kill all the current addicts.

3. Other?

Next question and this borders on .280Rem's post: How is an addict defined?

- Down and out, lost everything and living on the street stealing to survive.

- Working day jobs but not quite enough to support the meth habit, dealing meth to make up the rest.

- 40ish female holding down her job as a pharmacist but taking two oxycontins every night.

- Army sergeant, E6 or E7, performing his duties as supply sergeant or working in S3 and doing a good job of it, but every night knocking back the drinks at the the service club to try to erase certain memories and staggering back to the barracks. (I knew this guy.)

Which ones do we kill?

Jim,

You hit the nail on the head buddy.

Also, the definition of "Addict" is very clear cut. What is not clear cut, or true across the board is how it affects them or the people around them. And each drug is different. There are scads of addicts out there, especially those addicted to pain meds, that lead perfectly normal lives with little or no ill effects and they even get their drugs "legally" through prescriptions.

Moreover, I honestly believe almost every person has some type of addiction to something, not always drugs or alcahol, but something...its just that some addictions are less dangerous or upsetting, and some are just plain acceptable, or more acceptable. Most people don't call smokers addicts, but thats exactly what they are.

Mr Tubbs; Thank you for an interesting perspective that includes firsthand experience. Those who disagree with you show that there is a middle ground to be reached, and that everyone has some details to contribute to a solution. Myself, I'm with you to a great degree because I think that those who commit such grievous crimes--morally, socially or legally---against others should be eliminated. Don't need them. As in my statement in the original thread, I stand unconvinced that the best cure for the problem is to let it try to improve itself, or to feed it money and sympathy. Congratulations on escaping your addictions and continued best wishes to you, but if I had known you then, I'd feel differently about how you should have been treated...which is what I think you are saying, too.

Bulletbutt,

This line of thinking like yours and Alonzo's is not logical. Kill all addicts! Unless their addicts in recovery. "I like you now that your not in active addiction and I support killing all that are in active addiction before they get to be addicts in recovery." By definition Alonzo is still and addict. Seeing that he came out of it without the ruin of himself and all around him, and the fact that I have seen the same thing too...is that not evidence that your theory is flawed? "Eliminate" theives? Or just addicts? Death penalty for addiction? But what if they commit no crime? YES its not uncommon! What about the addict addicted to pain meds prescribed by a doctor for real pain? You don't care how they got there, they're addicts now so eliminate them?

The above statements are a good indication of how badly drugs can affect your thinking and judgement!

I didn't say kill ALL addicts. You added that word, and it changes what I'm trying to say by including anyone that you may technically classify as an addict, as opposed to those I would classify as an addict, (and that I think we'd be better off without). I don't care about Webster's dictionary definition, and I don't care about what Dear Abby would say; I am talking about the type of people that I think this thread is about. Sorry if I am vague; I'm just trying to stay within the lines of what I think is the premise of this.

Eliminating addicts is no answer. Mr Tubbs,, you are still an addict, you just haven't allowed yourself to go back. Good for you and I am glad you pulled out. But, if you are still addicted, even though not using, do we kill you,, just in case?

With that kind of logic should we just kill everyone, because they MIGHT become an addict?
What I'M saying that works for MY sense of values, is that people who are on drugs so devotedly (new word)that they impose excessively (in my opinion)on other people, had better watch out when I'M put in charge (joke). So, if you don't like my ideas, don't vote for me when I run for the office of God (joke); but I'm neither going to change my opinion on this (nor do I expect you to change yours) based on what I've learned about people being held responsible for their actions.
I realize I would be harder on these people than alot of others would.

Ok, I'll bite. We're living in your world now. Whats an addict in your world, and which ones do we eliminate?

There's just something patently hypocritical about one addict wishing the death of another. Oh,that's right; Mr Tubb's overcame his addiction so he's now qualified address the plight of those suffering and how to correct it!! Does 24 years of recovery make you any better than the man with 24 hours? If you're in the rooms Mr Tubb's, isn't there something about a 12th step that you seem to have forgotten? Or, in your life, is that step only applicable to those already in the rooms? Or, worse yet, are you what they consider the "dry-drunk"?

See, sometimes in the world of addiction you can't win for losing. Your automatically a liar until you walk the walk. F**k that noise. Your winning Mr Tubbs and you have my sincere pat on the back. Don't turn your back on the sufferers. Only the addict seems capable of talking down on someone while his own face was in the gutter!

Where and when is the pain, heartache and suffering caused by the addict addressed? Lots of, "Let's save all the poor addicts, because everyone is an addict," never takes into account the often horrific consequences because of the addicts actions.

Lots of support for the abusers, yet not a single voice for the abused.

Actually, there's a pretty good indication that there are (Webster's definition of)addicts, and there are some within that definition that are worse than others...just read the public records. My thought is; as a society with as many people in it as we have, that are causing serious problems for others that don't cause problems, we can legalize the elimination of the worst offenders...using the standards we allready have to define "worst"...and I will feel that we haven't lost anything worth saving. Don't need them.
As I understand it, other countries have the death penalty for drug dealers. As I understand it, that is a deterent which keeps alot of people from ever dealing drugs for the first time and isn't that what we want?
I apologize, but I have to leave for a while and go to an appointment. I am looking forward to continuing my education in this matter by association with those that I disagre with, when I return. Thank you for the opportunity to show you where you are wrong, and I am right...

First let me say that when I read the initial post here, I was lost? Didn't understand at all and felt like I joined in about halfway through an ongoing discussion.

For background let me say, I am 62 years old. I have never been drunk and I have never taken any illegal drugs. So I know it can be done.

Many times when asked to have compassion on drunken drivers or those who prefer to spend their time whacked out on drugs, my first thoughts are for the VICTIMS of such people. I often wonder how many worthwhile lives we must allow to be destroyed in the effort to save the damaged and disorderly?

How many have to be maimed or die at the hands of drunk drivers while we worry ourselves over the poor drunk who has killed and maimed others? How many people must endure the violence associated with forceably taking money or possessions to pay for
illegal drugs?

I find our american culture has somehow become askew and lacking in justice in these cases. The reason for this, I believe, is that too many friends and relatives of the GUILTY want another chance for their loved ones which tends to bend justice inappropriately.

Be drunk or whacked out on crap and maim or kill one of mine,
rest assured that no matter what a [bleep] up PC society decides,
I'll spend every nickle I have to make you pay in a like manner!
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth!

And I do have compassion. I will pray for you and forgive you, and then I'll see to it that you die quickly!

Mr. Tubbs
I'm the resident Mr. Harshness when it comes to drunks and addicts. I don't think it's advisable to kill the addicts as it would be wasting a clear eyed, clean living individual's life. However I would not stand in thier way to prevent them from destroying themselves with their addiction.
You are to be congratulated for your strength of character in kicking two of the most addictive chemicals loose in our society.
Hopefully you can and will share your experience with others to give them an example of what is possible.
Jim

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.