Posted on 06/11/2012 12:36:15 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
Gil Kerlikowske, the director of the National Drug Control Policy, has announced a new focus on treating drug addiction as a disease, not a moral failing, and emphasizes removing the stigma placed on drug abusers.
Speaking at the Betty Ford Center in Palm Springs, Calif., on Monday, Kerlikowske declared “this country hasn’t looked at recovery in a way that makes sense,” and that he intended to “use the bully pulpit of the White House in a way that brings it out into the open.”
Previous federal drug policies were a three-legged stool, Kerlikowske said, with criminalization, prevention and treatment serving as the foundation for national policies. Now, there will be a fourth leg – recovery.
Forming the administration’s new attitude toward drug problems “meant moving beyond talking in the beltway … it meant talking to real people dealing with addiction,” Kerlikowske said.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
It is a failure of our morals in this society.
Really? I know of no other disease that can be controlled by strength of character. I think that calling addiction a disease has some very scary implications.
They have been saying drug and alcohol addiction was an illness back in the early 80s when I worked as a drug rehab tech. Probably earlier then that too.
So they are arresting people for getting sick?
Now, the states have a right to promote Virtue
They are not constrained by the United States Constitution from doing so, agreed.
Government always is evil—always produces “evil”—that is understood by all freedom loving people-—that is why the Leviathan HAS to be LIMITED. [...] Being sinful, men do need some government-—but it should always be promoting Christian Ethics
That promotion, if taken far enough, can become the opposite of limited. So the question is whether properly limited government promotion of Christian ethics encompasses prohibition of drugs by any level of government.
That was my first thought also..might we soon hear some news about obama. He already used when he was younger, per himself. He has never mentioned getting clean.
The reality is that addiction is not a disease. Its a condition that all of us are susceptible to, just at varying levels. Some of us can take one legal mothers little helper and become addicted. Others will not. Or it will take longer for addiction to take hold. But you never know until you try, which drug will turn you into an addict. And when you find out, life will suck after that no matter how strong you are.
The reality is that addiction is not a disease. Its a condition that all of us are susceptible to, just at varying levels. Some of us can take one legal mothers little helper and become addicted. Others will not. Or it will take longer for addiction to take hold. But you never know until you try, which drug will turn you into an addict. And when you find out, life will suck after that no matter how strong you are.
Well, I look at sorta like a Venn diagram. Legal and moral outlooks overlap, as does culpability, or individual fault. Suppose a doc prescribes benzos, like xanax, which is highly addictive, to a patient for anxiety. Then, the patient becomes addicted; big surprise. I don’t believe that patient shares, in any way, the moral culpability of a crack or meth addict.
I never liked talking about alcoholism as a disease because it altered the way I looked at it. For me, it was a subtle way to take the power out of my hands. A disease for me was/is something you get medical care for and then hope for the best.
At some point I started envisioning myself sitting across the table from the liar that used to run around in my head and I’d say, “You wanna kill me? No, I’m gonna kill you!” It sounds quite weird but putting things in those terms worked for me. The fight went from me hanging in there to a saw-off to me getting the upper hand to me rag-dolling that evil b*astard.
Keep fightin’ RacerX! :)
Yeah, you have to hand it to masturbaters...
Ummm... That didn’t sound right! ;-P
True. Now we get into “Just Law”. (See tagline).
Laws should never promote evil—they are “unjust” if they do or if they promote that which is against God’s Laws and the Laws of Nature.
For Radical Liberty—as John Stuart Mill would condone—you can not control any substance even alcohol consumption in children. Also, any government involvement in schools would be evil, because the nature of government is always to make slaves of the state.
The Founders knew that Virtue was essential for any freedom and civil society. That is why the “general welfare” clause and the idea that Just Law (Rule of Law) depends on Virtue and the idea of “Higher Laws” than arbitrary man-made up law (like Hitlers).
So, Moderation, being one of the Cardinal Virtues, along with Justice, Wisdom, and Courage—it would be a duty of government to allow laws which would create laws which would discourage drug-using-—like driving laws under the influence which could kill innocent human beings.
Laws which safeguard children are also necessary, but as I say, government is not in a position—and can never be-—able to be in every house and monitor every action and save every child. With such intrusion—there is no liberty.
This utopian society of Marxism—is a fraud-—Safety at the expense of liberty is slavery. Virtue is necessary for freedom. We have to create a society which is moral—and who choose to do “good” as defined by Christian Ethics (not Ancient Greek ethics where slavery and pederasty and homosexuality and child sacrifice and women were 2nd class citizens was “Good” and ethical.
Education with parental control is the only course to responsibilty-—but government should have the ability to punish actions which destroy other people and their freedoms.
Common Sense and Moderation and the promotion of Justice, Wisdom, Courage, and Temperance were the foundation of Western Civilization.
With Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (John Austin) we took reason and logic out of Law and inserted irrational (feelings determine Right and Wrong) Marxism/paganism into our jurisprudence-—which is unconstitutional because it destroys the intent and meaning of our Constitutional Rights. it destroys Logic and Reason—private property rights and inserts irrational thinking as a “good” which promotes evil through laws—arbitrary laws which conflict with God’s Laws (homosexual “marriage”, abortion, welfare (forced charity which destroys charity) etc.
Should drug dealers be prosecuted when selling to minors. Absolutely. Should cocaine be outlawed—and meth-—yes. The destruction of society and family and the severe costs to civil society was noted in China during the Opium Wars. There is a destruction of the family unit with rampant drug use and promotion-—it should be illegal to promote drugs to children since it is destructive and never a “good” and creates addiction and slavery and destroys free will.
Evil can never be promoted in a civil society. (Abortion, drug use, fornication, adultery-—the obscenity laws were important in America until the 60’s when the Communist ACLU and other organizations under the guidance of Cultural Marxists targeted schools and laws to destroy Virtue. Should we have laws which prevent the promotion of Evil. Yes, I think so because it destroys Civil society. There should be obscenity laws-—our Founders did not agree with the radical John Stuart Mill-—it was Christianity which made the difference.
,
It’s more of a neural receptor defect than a disease.
Adult Diabetes can be controlled without drugs by changes in life style
First of all, I do agree that some are more prone to addictions than others. I have a friend who can get a strong habit out of just about anything. But I strongly object to calling it a disease.
For instance there is billboards promoting stomach surgery saying “Overeating is a disease, not a choice!” The implication is that it is not your fault for you addiction.
A habit can be very strong, but that still has an element of will in it.
What you clearly fail to understand is that the natural inclination of an alcoholic's will is to drink. It's a common misunderstanding that an alcoholic "has little or no will." The fact of the matter is, if you lock up an alcoholic in prison, he'll find a way to ferment fruit in a commode. An alcoholic will risk family, career, freedom and life itself in order to drink, and in fact, many fall into despair because they can not overcome their will to do so.
The drinking itself is a symptom, not the dysfunction. Many alcoholics do become "dry drunks," and while they "resist" indulging their "habit" (as you call it) they still suffer from many other unsettled aspects of alcoholism.
Or look at it another way. I know women who are addicted to shopping. They go to the mall, buy things they don't need, just for that little high they get. One has hit rock bottom, and is in danger of losing everything. It is an addiction, and she is arguing that "I have no choice but to shop! IT IS A DISEASE!" to her creditors. Is she a victim or an active participant?
Or how about my previous example of those who over eat massive amounts. We have had two gastric bypass surgeries at the plant in the last few years, both by people who say "I have a disease! I have no choice but to over eat! I am addicted to food!" One would smuggle in soft drinks and chips to the control. Should they be excused for all responsibility because they have a disease that they can't control? Or do they have a habit that can be controlled, or changed?
Did you read what you wrote, because this line contradicts pretty much everything else in your post. If somebody is "driven" to do something, they're not really acting out of choice, are they?
"Should they be excused for all responsibility because they have a disease that they can't control?"
Nobody's excusing anybody, nor saying that the disease is something that can't be controlled. An infection can be controlled. Bipolar disorder can be controlled. That does not mean they aren't maladies or that the sufferers of those maladies can't choose to seek treatment for them.
Similarly, a diabetic can indulge his sweet tooth which aggravates his symptoms, but the sugar intake is not the disease. Alcoholism or addiction can be controlled but never really go away, and certainly the alcoholic or addict can do things to avoid the aggravating factors, which the responsible ones find ways of doing.
It's readily evident that you have never personally suffered or dealt with the pain of alcoholism or addiction. Be grateful you don't have the intimate understanding of it that many do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.