Read a post from before about addiction. Honestly a lot of really bad comments about it and I was surprised. Most of you honestly don't care about those with addictions at least from the comments made. Dancers and club goers are more prevalent then most to develop an addiction. Taking an addictive substance is done so on the terms of the here and now. No one smokes and says I want to smoke for 40 years. Same with drugs and alcohol. I never wanted to be addicted to anything but it happens. Once that happens your in the disease mode. People use drugs and alcohol to escape. Could be a single parent working a shit ton of jobs or lost their job. Could be a divorce could be anything really that gets them started. The point is to make rehab facilities accessible to treat these people. You cant sit on the high road and say your not paying for it or shouldn't pay for it. I can assure you that if you have been to a club you have bought some girls drugs or booze.
I honestly have trouble viewing addiction as a disease because of the element of personal choice in most addictions. I accept that most addicts don't start out thinking that they'll be doing this for decades and ruin their lives. But that is what they should be thinking. The inevitability of what a drug like heroin or meth will do to you is extraordinarily well documented, and you have to purposefully turn a blind eye to that evidence to start doing hard drugs. Plus if somebody wants to get high, weed is widely available and it is rarely addictive. So there are options to get high without addiction.
But I am sympathetic to people who get hooked on narcotics from a legitimate medical need and prescription. This was DS IiI's situation. She got addicted to pain meds after recovery from major surgery, and had to go to the clinic every day for methadone. She very much wanted to get off those drugs but it was slow going.
I have always wondered why the origin of the problem makes people feel differently? Who cares if you got hooked by pills or heroin or booze and who cares about the situation? Bottom line is they are hooked all the same. I just never got that
The origins of the addiction greatly influence ultimate blame for the consequences of the addiction. Generally speaking I'm not sympathetic to people who make foolish choices and then suffer the natural, inevitable consequences of those foolish choices. I'm much more sympathetic to people who suffer bad consequences through no fault of their own.
So many dancers get hooked and for a whole host of reasons but the end game is the same they are hooked. Taxes cover medical care for disabled people and often times they are disabled because they couldn't put a cheeseburger down long enough to work out or live a healthy lifestyle. No one cares to pay for them but to pay for a rehab center or something like that and everyone looses their minds.
Addicts certainly bear responsibility for their addiction, but that is beside the point. No matter how they became afflicted, they are.
Is skin cancer any less of a disease because someone gets it from not adequately protecting themselves from the sun? Are those who suffer from it any less deserving of insurance covering their treatment?
I was amazed and disappointed, at the lack of empathy on the other post and I refrained from commenting, but this is a medical issue, not a political one, I have known people over the years that have suffered terribly, the last one just recently a good friend just lost his daughter to a heroin overdose she was 36 years and had been in rehabs at least 14 different occasions, left behind a 7 year old daughter for my friend to raise, it is a terrible disease and until you have seen what happens to families, you should refrain from your judgmental statements. Tell me all of you that say shit, how should you explain what happened to this little girl who just lost her mother. I'm heartbroken over this, I watched this girl grow up I have been friends with her parents for over thirty years how can you not feel sorry for this little girl and her grandparents.
I hold addicts responsible for becoming addicted. My ATF is currently in rehab for heroin. She began using only a year or so ago, and she knew better. She had always said she would never use heroin or cocaine. I'm angry at her for being stupid.
However, once addicted a person needs medication and therapy to beat the addiction. As for the cost to taxpayers, you have to weigh the cost of treatment against the costs of no treatment--including other health costs stemming from addiction, costs of children whose parents can't care for them, costs of incarceration, etc
This idea of taking care of those with addictions would lead us and the addicts down a VERY slippery slope. Nobody is stating addicts should be cast aside as societal misfits. Yet if you start excusing their problems as solely a disease, anyone with half a brain is going to figure out how to abuse that system. It already happens with addicts who go through rehab just to get a free paid vacation from their employer. They go on fmla because they can't get fired. Then they end up getting fired eventually because of poor performance after rehab because those treatments have high recitivism rates. They cycle continues with their next job, and the addicts will claim other illnesses at their next employer going to the doctors to have a host of other prescriptions filled.
So unless you have some sort of element for holding yourself accountable, this notion of addiction to be held as a disease only works when the individual with the problem takes responsibility for their disease. It is why the only way some addicts can truly turn their lives around is because they've reached a low point in their lives or they hit rock bottom.
If you build a safety net for addicts that doesn't let them hit rock bottom, then an addict will always find a way to abuse the situation. It's why addicts lie and steal and cheat so much, in order to maintain their addictions without changing for their own betterment.
There are options, and there are plenty, for those that seriously want to get help.
I liked this bitch a lot more when she was just posting nudie pics of herself. Sweety, how bout a new picture of your vagina! I need a new one to whack off to.
Addiction can be a terrible thing. What bothers me are stupid people giving giving others something illegally and then causing their addiction. I remember when I heard of a sister in law giving one of my nephews a large box or case of cigarettes. He was only 16 or something and supposedly had not been smoking or wasn't addicted at the time. Way to go for the mother, not. I suppose some people may have lifetime issues of stupidity which there may not be a cure for. Addiction is terrible but so are people being stupid to start with.
I became a bit addicted to the caffeine or sugar in a bottle of coke. I didn't realize it could be addictive until I didn't drink any for 2 days. I had headaches, etc. untill I drank a little bit.
Drugs can be terrible. At least in High School we had someone teach us about the terrible side effects from drugs. It sounds like they don't teach as much nowadays. I made sure not to ever use drugs. I knew some people in college who did and they stared at my wall for like 30 to 60 minutes one night and told me not to move very fast. That was messed up.
Germany has declared drug addiction a disease you therefore cannot be discharge from your job for it.
However if the addict shows up to work stoned or gets stoned on the job and causes injury to another worked he/she is allowed to hide behind his or her addiction making the employer civilly and criminally responsible for allowing the addict onto the employers property to cause the injury. Catch 22! if you are a small business you likely cannot afford to pay that addict to stay home where they can't harm anyone at your facility which in turn causes you to hire someone to take their place. Your other choice is to allow them to continue working risking getting someone hurt of killed? The third choice is to shrink your business to the point of no employees other than yourself, sell out. or close.
Do you out their that want addiction treated like a disease want the guy running the forklift running around place you work, the electrician that wired your home, or the person the put your car together stoned,"they are just have a disease" so it is discrimination to fire them for safety reasons??
If you do not start you won't be an addict.
Your behavior has consequences, if a male and female have unprotected intercourse the result could be pregnancy or disease. That is a consequence of that action. I am not saying treatment should be denied anyone but putting others at risk should not be condoned. Do you condone an HIV positive person having unprotected sex without disclosing their condition? In some places it is considered attempted murder. Why then is forcing an employer to retain a person that is a danger to himself or others different.
Only mega businesses have the resources to have rehab programs but they are also the ones that have armies of lawyers that write conditions of employment contracts that you sign before you employ there so they will fire the addict after the first test failure based on that contract. There is an employer that an acquaintance worked for that has a no smoking policy for all employees and their families. During a routine drug screening they detected nicotine in his system, he did not personally smoke but his wife had started again and because he had signed the bullet proof contract he was discharged for cause(no unemployment) that day.
12 comments
Latest
But I am sympathetic to people who get hooked on narcotics from a legitimate medical need and prescription. This was DS IiI's situation. She got addicted to pain meds after recovery from major surgery, and had to go to the clinic every day for methadone. She very much wanted to get off those drugs but it was slow going.
Is skin cancer any less of a disease because someone gets it from not adequately protecting themselves from the sun? Are those who suffer from it any less deserving of insurance covering their treatment?
However, once addicted a person needs medication and therapy to beat the addiction. As for the cost to taxpayers, you have to weigh the cost of treatment against the costs of no treatment--including other health costs stemming from addiction, costs of children whose parents can't care for them, costs of incarceration, etc
So unless you have some sort of element for holding yourself accountable, this notion of addiction to be held as a disease only works when the individual with the problem takes responsibility for their disease. It is why the only way some addicts can truly turn their lives around is because they've reached a low point in their lives or they hit rock bottom.
If you build a safety net for addicts that doesn't let them hit rock bottom, then an addict will always find a way to abuse the situation. It's why addicts lie and steal and cheat so much, in order to maintain their addictions without changing for their own betterment.
There are options, and there are plenty, for those that seriously want to get help.
I became a bit addicted to the caffeine or sugar in a bottle of coke. I didn't realize it could be addictive until I didn't drink any for 2 days. I had headaches, etc. untill I drank a little bit.
Drugs can be terrible. At least in High School we had someone teach us about the terrible side effects from drugs. It sounds like they don't teach as much nowadays. I made sure not to ever use drugs. I knew some people in college who did and they stared at my wall for like 30 to 60 minutes one night and told me not to move very fast. That was messed up.
However if the addict shows up to work stoned or gets stoned on the job and causes injury to another worked he/she is allowed to hide behind his or her addiction making the employer civilly and criminally responsible for allowing the addict onto the employers property to cause the injury. Catch 22! if you are a small business you likely cannot afford to pay that addict to stay home where they can't harm anyone at your facility which in turn causes you to hire someone to take their place. Your other choice is to allow them to continue working risking getting someone hurt of killed? The third choice is to shrink your business to the point of no employees other than yourself, sell out. or close.
Do you out their that want addiction treated like a disease want the guy running the forklift running around place you work, the electrician that wired your home, or the person the put your car together stoned,"they are just have a disease" so it is discrimination to fire them for safety reasons??
If you do not start you won't be an addict.
Your behavior has consequences, if a male and female have unprotected intercourse the result could be pregnancy or disease. That is a consequence of that action. I am not saying treatment should be denied anyone but putting others at risk should not be condoned. Do you condone an HIV positive person having unprotected sex without disclosing their condition? In some places it is considered attempted murder. Why then is forcing an employer to retain a person that is a danger to himself or others different.
Only mega businesses have the resources to have rehab programs but they are also the ones that have armies of lawyers that write conditions of employment contracts that you sign before you employ there so they will fire the addict after the first test failure based on that contract. There is an employer that an acquaintance worked for that has a no smoking policy for all employees and their families. During a routine drug screening they detected nicotine in his system, he did not personally smoke but his wife had started again and because he had signed the bullet proof contract he was discharged for cause(no unemployment) that day.