How do you know that? One might go on to discover a cure for cancer. You don’t know.
I didnt start the car analogy, I just followed it. At some point enough has to be enogh. The resources of our medical system are finite. Using them to save criminals isn’t the best way of doing it.
Unfortunately, I don’t qualify for social services and free government programs.
You mean you wouldn’t just abandon it at the side of the road? Wouldn’t the gas used to return it to the dealer be better used to take children to school?
Bullshit. The car didn’t break it’s own engine. We are talking about a self inflicted injury.
If someone gets sick, they deserve help. If someone deliberately makes themselves sick, they do not.
The meth user deliberately bought it and put it in their body, knowing what the consequences would be. It’s not like it was some kind of unforseeable misfortune that befell them for no reason.
They can also keep someone else from discovering a cure from cancer because the government moved funding from a research program to a needle exchange and naloxone program.
Thanks for conveniently ignoring my post folks.
Its damned hard to keep these folk alive, no mention from any of you about the practical aspect of that, nor really much comment about the alternative actually being worse.
Leave them to die is just so simplistic, instant solutions to instant problems - its almost the same attitude that drug users have, get an instant hit and forget about the consequences.
Yes there are many calls on resources, but anyone imagining that the money saved would be spent on some more worthy cause is deluding themselves about the nature of the public and of politicians, they would just find other ways to waste it. Lets cut the spending for some other marginal cause eh? Race to the bottom, much?
Soon it will be your turn, you didn’t exercise enough, you ate too much junk food, you didn’t pay enough attention in school, your parents were not rich enough so you can’t get medical treatment - we can keep going on this road, its not hard to do.
Some things are hard to do, we do them because we must, we do it because we protect ourselves and our values. Of course if you want a real no government state, you can always go live in Somalia.
Exactly. Quit trying to predict the future, because you suck at it.
Wow, personal attacks. Really mature. Thanks.
Actually your example supports my point. Law abiding tax payers are put in real danger due to the self inflicted emergency caused by an incarcerated person.
LOL, it’s SDMB. Cogent analyses by people with actual experience in the topic being discussed will be ignored in favor of bombast, recreational outrage, and hijacks of the topic.
I give what appropriate help I can to people who desire it because in my system of ethics, it’s the right thing to do. And while at times it seems futile, it often pays off big when people actually do make changes, get better, and go on to make a positive difference.
You are welcome.
The fact that it is damned hard to keep these folk alive is precisely why we should just let them die and get it over with. You have yet to make an argument for why the alternative is worse except to say that it is bad.
Why is a simple answer bad? Because we’ve spent decades and untold billions of dollars trying the hard solution, with little to show for it.
A person who deliberately injures themselves and creates a burden for the rest of us doesn’t deserve our help. Whether those resources would be put to better use or not is an entirely separate question, and your claim that politicians would inevitably just squander the savings is purely speculative.
Your argument here is that we* should *waste money on one stupid thing because politicians would surely waste it on some other stupid thing. That’s… not much of an argument.
Slippery slope argument. Yawn.
So, again… Your argument is “do it because it is good.” You have not explained why “we must” and you have not explained how this is protecting ourselves and our values. I do not agree at all that protecting people from their own idiocy and criminal misbehavior is something we “must” do.
So if we stop protecting drug users from the consequences of their own choices, that is the same as living in a Hobbesian state of anarchy? That is complete nonsense.
The entire point of having government and a society is that we refrain from certain behaviors (for example, putting poison into your body) for the sake of peaceful cohabitation with the rest of the group. If a person cannot handle that responsibility (ie drug-addled criminals) then they do not get to enjoy the benefits of living in civilized society.
By and large, humans have taken care of other humans who can’t take care of themselves, self-imposed causes or not. And it’s not just humans–other animals do too, so I’d say as a species, we’re hardwired to do it. That’s “why” we do it.
Of course, individual results will vary.
Why do people keep talking about drug ODs like it’s some kind of accident? Some of the analogies going on here are just pure nonsense. A drug user isn’t the victim of circumstance. They took the time to find a dealer, spent the money to buy the drugs, prepared the , and administered them knowing damn well that they are getting a toxic, impure, and untested substance… And somehow STILL thinking the best place for this is inside their body.
And yet people keep talking about it like it is some kind of accident… Like a person was just out for a walk and they fell down on a dirty drug needle or whatever, and it was just a cruel and unpredictable circumstance or a bit of bad luck. Among all the injuries or illnesses a person could suffer, drug abuse is almost unique because it is a willfull and deliberate choice that takes a conscious effort on the user’s part. And yet people here talk like it is just an unfortunate accident that could happen to anybody. This is the biggest load of bullshit I’ve ever heard.
"Shayna, they bought their tickets; they knew what they were getting into!
I say…let 'em crash!"
Every one of us has finite time and finite resources, so why are we wasting them engaging in a “debate” with the OP? Better to just let his thread die, since it chose of its own free will to be stupid.
Assuming the OP was trying to say “indigent”, it’s the best mangling of the word I’ve encountered since the early '80s, when a fellow late night radio reporter/newscaster made 5 unsuccessful tries at pronouncing indigent* (he went through “indingent”, “indignant” and other interesting variations before giving up and going on). I still have the newscast on tape in case I need blackmail fodder for retirement income.
Oh yeah, and it’s risky to make moral judgments about providing emergency or other medical care for people on the grounds that they did it to themselves. Though we could save a bundle by not treating accident victims who went through red lights, were speeding or texting or not wearing seat belts. Overweight folks - tough luck when you develop endometrial or other cancers. Bad diet, smoking or drinking made you severely ill? Sorry, we can’t jack up health care costs for the more deserving. And you people with bad genes - what were you thinking by not getting those defective organs removed ahead of time?
By comparison, my worst flub was when it took me 3 tries on-air to utter the word “Namibia”.
The thread is one that gets debated by our governments and medical communities. It isn’t a “stupid” thread. The wording of my original post may be blunt for some, but it doesn’t negate a serious issue that society faces.
Good catch. Indigent
Because unless it’s a deliberate attempt at suicide, it is an accident. “Accident” just means “unintended.” It doesn’t mean “faultless.” If you’re driving your car the wrong way on the freeway while blindfolded, when you hit someone, that’s an accident - even though it’s 100% your fault for behaving like a dumbass.
I don’t really see any posts in this thread that could reasonably be interpreted in that light. Can you point out which ones specifically you feel are treating drug use that way?
Anyway, it’s also not nearly as unique as your describing. Type II diabetes is also generally 100% the result of willful and deliberate decisions made by the patient. So is a lot of heart disease, and many cancers. Do these people also get the “fuck 'em, let 'em die” approach? If not, why not?
And then there’s the question of mental illness. A lot of substance abusers fall into it because of pre-exisiting mental issues. Do we have the same lack of care about the fate of the guy who started using heroin because growing up in the suburbs is really boring, as we do the guy who started using heroin because it was the only way he could figure out to make the voices in his head shut up? And if the latter case maybe does deserve some sympathy and medical care, how do we determine which level of compassion to apply when the guy’s non-responsive on a gurney in ER?
Governments and medical communities debate stupid stuff all the time.