CA Manifests Assisted-Suicide Of Drug Addicts Via Enabling Policy-Blunders

[Silhouette]

California
"DPA is working to reduce the harms associated with drug use in California. Our priorities include expanding sterile syringe access, preventing overdose, increasing access to effective treatment and establishing supervised injection facilities."

You know who else works to reduce the harms associated with drug use? The addict's wife, parents, kids and friends who they manipulate to keep using so they can... *drum roll* .....escape or reduce the harms associated with their drug use! Why not just rename CA's DPA "The Giant Enabling Fuck Up Association"?

The one thing addicts fear more than death is jail time. The reason for this is because addicts seek escape. Death is just another escape. It’s why preaching to them about death doesn’t sink in. They subconsciously WANT death: which is why they started using in the first place. At some point they said to themselves “who cares? Who wants to live anyway?”

Jail however is like their arch nemeses. It is the unthinkable torture. It is having to be alive & deal with reality without a numbing buffer or escape. Addicts fear jail more than anything. So when you remove jail from the equation, you remove the most powerful incentive for addicts to get clean. Jail has to be part of our nation’s plan for the addiction epidemic. Some form of incarceration away from substance access.

I envision a minimum security work camp with the drug dog making daily rounds. One on one counseling time blocs for every inmate at least once a week. Group sessions too, but one on one stuff is necessary & hopefully the family of origin/ important contacts come in for special sessions to confront enabling/relapse.

Removing jail from addiction is like society committing the biggest enabling fuck up ever. They say and it’s true, drugs don’t kill addicts, enablers do.

California is killing addicts with their policy. California, let's face it, is cash-strapped. The last thing they want to do is pour more money into addict-camps. However, if managed properly, the situation can more than offset the cost to CA citizens and clogged courts by reducing the number of active addicts over time, which will save the State $billions of dollars. I don't think there is one politician in CA who passed basic elementary school math.

Discuss.

 

[Silhouette]

Next up:

At facility, addicts must be treated comprehensively for why they wanted to slowly kill themselves in the first place. There is NO SUBSTITUTE for one-on-one qualified regressive therapy for a successful rehabilitation.

While at facility, addicts will actually work just as hard as they did getting the drugs, but channeling that intense energy and drive towards producing things that taxpayers can use to offset the cost of the addict's treatment at said facility. Some can farm or ranch to produce food for the prison. Some can work in industrial arts, etc. etc. Sort of like the old CA ROP (regional occupation program). This contributes to costs AND at the same time prepares the addict for reintroduction back into society with a new tool in their toolbelt: self esteem and knowledge that they have something of value to contribute: a talent!

New laws must be put into place that charge higher penalties for those approaching a newly recovering addict (NRA) just released from program. If you're caught with the goods or on the goods in the presence of a NRA, you go to jail for a length of time to be punitive. No early release. This is the disincentive needed for the #1 cause of treatment-relapse: Drug family peers attempting to get their old contacts back into activity to assure the maintenance of their old supply chain/user dens.

Just last month I know of a very young woman newly sober who died because her friend was prematurely bounced out of jail. The friend came to her place to "party like old times". The sobering girl is now dead. The active addict just as active as ever. Zero consequences. Not even an investigation. Just a preventable death. That has to change, fast.

 

[Toronado3800]

California
"DPA is working to reduce the harms associated with drug use in California. Our priorities include expanding sterile syringe access, preventing overdose, increasing access to effective treatment and establishing supervised injection facilities."

You know who else works to reduce the harms associated with drug use? The addict's wife, parents, kids and friends who they manipulate to keep using so they can... *drum roll* .....escape or reduce the harms associated with their drug use! Why not just rename CA's DPA "The Giant Enabling Fuck Up Association"?

The one thing addicts fear more than death is jail time. The reason for this is because addicts seek escape. Death is just another escape. It’s why preaching to them about death doesn’t sink in. They subconsciously WANT death: which is why they started using in the first place. At some point they said to themselves “who cares? Who wants to live anyway?”

Jail however is like their arch nemeses. It is the unthinkable torture. It is having to be alive & deal with reality without a numbing buffer or escape. Addicts fear jail more than anything. So when you remove jail from the equation, you remove the most powerful incentive for addicts to get clean. Jail has to be part of our nation’s plan for the addiction epidemic. Some form of incarceration away from substance access.

I envision a minimum security work camp with the drug dog making daily rounds. One on one counseling time blocs for every inmate at least once a week. Group sessions too, but one on one stuff is necessary & hopefully the family of origin/ important contacts come in for special sessions to confront enabling/relapse.

Removing jail from addiction is like society committing the biggest enabling fuck up ever. They say and it’s true, drugs don’t kill addicts, enablers do.

California is killing addicts with their policy. California, let's face it, is cash-strapped. The last thing they want to do is pour more money into addict-camps. However, if managed properly, the situation can more than offset the cost to CA citizens and clogged courts by reducing the number of active addicts over time, which will save the State $billions of dollars. I don't think there is one politician in CA who passed basic elementary school math.

Discuss.

I think once folks are in prison for drugs you've gone too far. maybe this legal pot thing will save us some money. Maybe it will just open up the gateway to better drugs, we'll see. Getting drunk/stoned has been part of the human condition for a very long time and its relatively cheap now.

IMO People need to not become addicts in the first place. Once you are down that path it is very difficult to get off it. Drugs feel good, are addictive and are the laziest way to pass an evening enjoyably.

Before they are addicts: Teach them its ok to dance, shoot darts pool at a club/bar not just get drunk (gateway drug). Get them hobbies. Get them aspirations. Get them jobs. Get them kids they are genetically pre-dispositioned to love earlier in life.

Love of lazy entertainment is built into us.

 

[Silhouette]

More from the OP link: (numbers mine)

1. Drug arrests have led to unprecedented levels of incarceration in California, 2. ..especially for people of color. 3. DPA advocates for broad sentencing reform, alternatives to incarceration, 4. ...protecting immigrants from deportation for drug offenses, 5. ...reversing the negative impact of past drug-related criminalization and 6. ..ending civil asset forfeiture.

1. Yes, but the costs of releasing indigent addicts back to steal, spread disease and drive up insurance rates supersede the costs of a properly managed low security drug-treatment work camp, rehabilitation and release back to society with skills and self-esteem (no longer suicidal and prone to relapse). If the friends of these rehabilitated addicts face stiffer penalties, they soon come to see themselves as isolated and odd, and that rehabilitation is possible, manifested by the recovery of someone they know. The State saves further money this way. Simply put, the IDIOTS in Sacramento can't do basic math.

2. Oh, here we go again. What is being said here is "our policy is asinine and we don't really have the numbers $ to defend it, so we're threatening those opposed to "racism". And, it's offensive. It's them saying "people of color are more prone to addiction". This is bullshit. I know more white housewives smacked out of their brains on prescription opioids than people of color on heroin.

3. Alternatives to incarceration. Read: "Alternatives to consequences". Read the OP again.

4. So, CA complains of fiscal woes associated with addiction incarceration, yet it wants to encourage the retention of more derelict (expensive) imports from south of the border. Smart! Again, CA legislators have apparently failed basic math in elementary school.

5. They want to remove the stigma of getting involved in drugs. Cool. Did you hear that kids of CA?

6. This is the only part that makes sense. All the rest is simply enabling touchy-feely bullshit without an ounce of common sense or fiscal intelligence.

 

[Silhouette]

I think once folks are in prison for drugs you've gone too far. maybe this legal pot thing will save us some money. Maybe it will just open up the gateway to better drugs, we'll see. Getting drunk/stoned has been part of the human condition for a very long time and its relatively cheap now.

IMO People need to not become addicts in the first place. Once you are down that path it is very difficult to get off it. Drugs feel good, are addictive and are the laziest way to pass an evening enjoyably.

There is so much ignorance in your post it's hard to know where to begin. Going too far by putting addicts of HARD DRUGS (meth/heroin epidemic, you may have heard we have this?) in prison is PRECISELY THE POINT. You want consequences. You need a crash course on enabling.

People become addicts not by wanting to, but by wanting escape. If someone is out to kill themselves from psychological pain, you're past the "choice" part of the equation.

Drugs feel good and are a way to "pass an evening enjoyably"? So is playing with your kids, reading a book, taking a long relaxing walk or feeling proud about something tangible you accomplished during the day. The two "feel goods" are mutually exclusive. ie; once you become an addict, the second type is not possible. Hence the problem of addiction. When someone else has to support your kids or pick up for your indigence and lolling about in a haze, your addiction becomes everyone's problem. You are allowed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness but not to the point where it fucks up everyone else's happiness and liberty. You are not allowed to enslave society with your willful indigence and sloth. This is the expensive hidden costs that CA idiots in Sacramento have not penned the simple math on.

 

[Toronado3800]

More from the OP link: (numbers mine)

1. Drug arrests have led to unprecedented levels of incarceration in California, 2. ..especially for people of color. 3. DPA advocates for broad sentencing reform, alternatives to incarceration, 4. ...protecting immigrants from deportation for drug offenses, 5. ...reversing the negative impact of past drug-related criminalization and 6. ..ending civil asset forfeiture.

1. Yes, but the costs of releasing indigent addicts back to steal, spread disease and drive up insurance rates supersede the costs of a properly managed low security drug-treatment work camp, rehabilitation and release back to society with skills and self-esteem (no longer suicidal and prone to relapse). If the friends of these rehabilitated addicts face stiffer penalties, they soon come to see themselves as isolated and odd, and that rehabilitation is possible, manifested by the recovery of someone they know. The State saves further money this way. Simply put, the IDIOTS in Sacramento can't do basic math.

2. Oh, here we go again. What is being said here is "our policy is asinine and we don't really have the numbers $ to defend it, so we're threatening those opposed to "racism". And, it's offensive. It's them saying "people of color are more prone to addiction". This is bullshit. I know more white housewives smacked out of their brains on prescription opioids than people of color on heroin.

3. Alternatives to incarceration. Read: "Alternatives to consequences". Read the OP again.

4. So, CA complains of fiscal woes associated with addiction incarceration, yet it wants to encourage the retention of more derelict (expensive) imports from south of the border. Smart! Again, CA legislators have apparently failed basic math in elementary school.

5. They want to remove the stigma of getting involved in drugs. Cool. Did you hear that kids of CA?

6. This is the only part that makes sense. All the rest is simply enabling touchy-feely bullshit without an ounce of common sense or fiscal intelligence.

I think your situation isn't going to improve once addicts are well, addicts. Some GREAT psychological investigations determining who prison will and won't help would be nice. Some folks need tough love, some folks your camps. Can't be screwing that one up though.

We also can't be creating a bigger layer of state government here. I know the 100 years of having more Republican governors than not in CA have helped lead us to some pretty crazy things, like catalytic converters and all them pesky "you shouldn't make this out of lead you lazy folks" stickers on everything.

Legalizing pot will keep some non violent drug users out of prison. Meth and crack heads.....its a tough road to get off of.

 

[Silhouette]

Oh for fuck's sake ^^

Your rambling and disassociative "logic" probably sounds quite a bit like floor-debate in Sacramento on Bills tailored to keep enabling addicts and escalating hidden costs to the State. Thanks for that illuminating insight.

Enabling: It's what kills addicts. CA is actually helping kill addicts with policy. It is a classic manifestation of the limitations of a soft and illogical liberal mind. Guess what snowflakes? You're actually killing your friends. How does that feel?

 

[Toronado3800]

Oh for fuck's sake ^^

Your rambling and disassociative "logic" probably sounds quite a bit like floor-debate in Sacramento on Bills tailored to keep enabling addicts and escalating hidden costs to the State. Thanks for that illuminating insight.

You are a very nice person who should be in charge of helping people I see.

 

[Silhouette]

Oh for fuck's sake ^^

Your rambling and disassociative "logic" probably sounds quite a bit like floor-debate in Sacramento on Bills tailored to keep enabling addicts and escalating hidden costs to the State. Thanks for that illuminating insight.

You are a very nice person who should be in charge of helping people I see.

Wanting people to live by not enabling drug addiction is "not nice"? Yep, more Sacramento "logic" there. Once again, thanks for the illumination on the problem.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Naah...Silly is a delusional nut.

 

[Toronado3800]

Oh for fuck's sake ^^

Your rambling and disassociative "logic" probably sounds quite a bit like floor-debate in Sacramento on Bills tailored to keep enabling addicts and escalating hidden costs to the State. Thanks for that illuminating insight.

You are a very nice person who should be in charge of helping people I see.

Wanting people to live by not enabling drug addiction is "not nice"? Yep, more Sacramento "logic" there. Once again, thanks for the illumination on the problem.

ok. Well your profanity and frustration had me thinking you were off the deep end angry.

The gist of our different opinions is I think you are fighting an uphill battle fixing folks who are addicted and our money is better spent preventing addiction and changing some social norms. Things like, "If watching tv is soo boring you have to sit there and drink to enjoy it go start a model railroad."

You, in my wording, want a government program to get folks unhooked and out of the cycle. I'm not faulting you for that. I'm saying its an uphill battle and I'm not optimistic. Heck, I'll put you in charge of the state prison system and say, "don't spend anymore than we're already spending and go for it. I'm yanking your funding if we see an uptick in repeat offenders".

 

[Silhouette]

ok. Well your profanity and frustration had me thinking you were off the deep end angry....The gist of our different opinions is I think you are fighting an uphill battle fixing folks who are addicted and our money is better spent preventing addiction and changing some social norms. Things like, "If watching tv is soo boring you have to sit there and drink to enjoy it go start a model railroad."....You, in my wording, want a government program to get folks unhooked and out of the cycle. I'm not faulting you for that. I'm saying its an uphill battle and I'm not optimistic. Heck, I'll put you in charge of the state prison system and say, "don't spend anymore than we're already spending and go for it. I'm yanking your funding if we see an uptick in repeat offenders".

I know many people who have died from overdose. So, pardon my "off the deep end angry".

You talk of the situation acknowledging that it is a problem that needs solving. So your solution is to encourage more of it and to discourage any "fight" (hard thought gritty-effective solutions) against it.

When you put me in charge of the State prison system to save money re: this problem, be sure that the accounting on the tally includes the HIDDEN COSTS OF ADDICTION to CA as a whole: ie: the costs of indigency, spreading disease, spiraling depression of even those not addicted who lose loved ones to overdose, thefts on escalating rise and insurance costs covering the thefts of each addict who, once indigent, must steal or commit crime to the tune of over $100 day. Multiply that by the number of active indigent addicts enabled and escalating numbers to keep using by removing the stigma and consequences of choosing addiction (suicide) and you'll have an accurate tally of how much money the State saved. You know, vs just not getting tough about the problem.

 

[Toronado3800]

ok. Well your profanity and frustration had me thinking you were off the deep end angry....The gist of our different opinions is I think you are fighting an uphill battle fixing folks who are addicted and our money is better spent preventing addiction and changing some social norms. Things like, "If watching tv is soo boring you have to sit there and drink to enjoy it go start a model railroad."....You, in my wording, want a government program to get folks unhooked and out of the cycle. I'm not faulting you for that. I'm saying its an uphill battle and I'm not optimistic. Heck, I'll put you in charge of the state prison system and say, "don't spend anymore than we're already spending and go for it. I'm yanking your funding if we see an uptick in repeat offenders".

I know many people who have died from overdose. So, pardon my "off the deep end angry".

You talk of the situation acknowledging that it is a problem that needs solving. So your solution is to encourage more of it and to discourage any "fight" (hard thought gritty-effective solutions) against it.

When you put me in charge of the State prison system to save money re: this problem, be sure that the accounting on the tally includes the HIDDEN COSTS OF ADDICTION to CA as a whole: ie: the costs of indigency, spreading disease, spiraling depression of even those not addicted who lose loved ones to overdose, thefts on escalating rise and insurance costs covering the thefts of each addict who, once indigent, must steal or commit crime to the tune of over $100 day. Multiply that by the number of active indigent addicts enabled and escalating numbers to keep using by removing the stigma and consequences of choosing addiction (suicide) and you'll have an accurate tally of how much money the State saved. You know, vs just not getting tough about the problem.

No worries. Online its tough to tell who is angry from passion and who is just angry.

I say nip the problem before it happens is all. Like you say, its gonna take a gritty hard thought solution to help addicts. I'll ridicule everyone who has to get high or drunk to enjoy an office christmas party!

Good luck with your solution though. Like I said, we're gonna have ppl in prison for drugs so I'll ad we may as well try it. Has anyone tried anything similar?

 

[BookShaka]

It’s a bad idea all around. It’s society saying, “Well we’ve given up on you but even though you’re worthless and a danger to yourself and others, we can’t just let you die! That’d be inhumane! So here, shoot up whenever you’d like and we’ll take care of you. We want to keep you sick. Being sick means being happy, right?”

The facilities are just prolonging the nightmare of addiction not just for the addict but for their loved ones. Without incentive to get better the addict will never get better. Although “safe” places to shoot up will keep them alive for now, pumping all that garbage into your body is (SURPRISE!) bad for you! Your body can only take so much.

I just cannot believe any part of our society has decided to implement such extreme measures. Might as well start closing rehab centers. No need for them without incentive to get better.

 

[Silhouette]

I just cannot believe any part of our society has decided to implement such extreme measures. Might as well start closing rehab centers. No need for them without incentive to get better.

Will you please run for CA State Legislature in the next election? You've got my vote.

 

[BookShaka]

I just cannot believe any part of our society has decided to implement such extreme measures. Might as well start closing rehab centers. No need for them without incentive to get better.

Will you please run for CA State Legislature in the next election? You've got my vote.

Willingly live in CA? Sorry that’s a HELL NO!

 

[Silhouette]

I just cannot believe any part of our society has decided to implement such extreme measures. Might as well start closing rehab centers. No need for them without incentive to get better.

Will you please run for CA State Legislature in the next election? You've got my vote.

Willingly live in CA? Sorry that’s a HELL NO!

Touche'!

 

[Silhouette]

Removing consequence from drug addicts is the same as assisted suicide.

 

[Silhouette]

Oh for fuck's sake ^^

Your rambling and disassociative "logic" probably sounds quite a bit like floor-debate in Sacramento on Bills tailored to keep enabling addicts and escalating hidden costs to the State. Thanks for that illuminating insight.

You are a very nice person who should be in charge of helping people I see.

Actually I think the state should be in charge of not enabling addicts. .