The Wet-House ConceptFollow

I think an addict can regain an rational mind, and hold onto it, but not while in the thick of addiction. When you're high, or going through withdrawals, or sitting in rehab afterwards desperate for another fix, you are still not acting rationally. You need time for your body to let go of the drug enough for you to not be completely ruled by it. And for the rest of your life, you are going to have to actively suppress that desire.



My point was that your post sounded a lot like it was over and done with once they finally regain control of themselves. I just wanted to remind everyone in the thread (because it hadn't been vocalized) that it isn't like a relapse only happens because people don't want to be in control of their lives. It certainly gets easier to stay on the wagon as time goes on, but someone who legitimately wants to stay clean is going to relapse without the proper support available. And a society that vilifies addicts only makes it more likely that they won't get the support they need. That's not a reply to you, it's just a broad statement.

[EDIT]


The disagree with you here. I'd say that, while they do know it's dangerous to shoot up so much, their brain clearly isn't functioning properly in that case scenario. They're desperate for the high, and have developed a strong tolerance to the drug. Their desperation for the high is so large that everything else automatically becomes secondary. Even if they know they'd likely die from taking so much, they aren't rationally processing that fact. Because the desire to shoot up dominates everything else.

I read an interesting article about first and second order desires a few months back. It basically suggested that our first order desires are thins like life, sex, etc.--primal desires (life is still valued more than sex, of course). These are the values that our brains will always place above others. Second order desires are everything else we want, like cars and clothes.

The article suggested that addiction acted in two ways. One, the drug became a first-order desire (that rose up the list in time). Two, when you begin to enter withdrawals (and during them), it becomes so strong that all other first-order desires essentially become second-order desires. You still want them, but the desire just seems insignificant in comparison with the drug. And you want the high so badly that you don't think about anything but it until you have it.

On some level, you know that snorting 500 grams of cocaine is going to kill you. But you aren't processing it in terms of "Do I want to live?" It isn't even on your radar of consideration anymore.

Edited, May 6th 2011 6:59pm by idiggory

They should have their license revoked, as usually is the case.

For the first time? Nope. Habitual? Well, if habitual, they've had their licensed revoked and should be in prison.

You're right, those were bad analogies as no one here, even whilst trolling, has advocated doing anything to anyone but habitual users who refuse help.

I didn't say it in the post you quoted, but in my response to iddigory:

In your example, no, someone who drove too fast once should be saved. Someone who has had their license revoked for driving too fast and causing several crashes should not. the kid who drinks for the first time should be saved. The lady who has been in several drunk driving accidents previously and killed several people should not.

In the same way, if someone wants help, they should get it - everyone has bad days. In reality, it would actually work out this way - if someone isn't trying to put their life back together, likely they're not getting as much attention, and are more likely to die alone before someone notices.

And to be frank, I find the idea of a society that just offs anyone that's guaranteed to be a drain on it... well...


Terrifying.

I just kinda assumed that we'd be tattooing them with some kind of obvious mark. I mean, if we don't care about their right to live, I don't we'd care about their right not to be scarred by the gov't. Though many could argue that it's a violation of their religious rights (as many religions forbid the tattooing of the body).

I'm still going to firmly say that this violates the eighth amendment.

They'd also need to have an actual trial, per their fifth/sixth amendment rights, which drives up related cost anyway (kinda ironic, considering what we are trying to avoid).

That's an excellent idea. I hadn't even considered this potential issue.


Still not quite getting the base issue, I see. In some ways, I can understand why, because gaxe and I did alot of trolling along with being serious, so its hard to see where we were serious and where we weren't, but come on. We were pretty clear with what the actual issue for us is.

Edited, May 7th 2011 6:43am by Uglysasquatch

Then they'll all kill themselves, and it'll turn out that the local priest first injected her with the heroin.

No way. Then we'll just ensure that glow-in-the-dark facial tattoos will always be socially unacceptable!

But Bioware games have shown me a world in which this isn't the case. I want that world.

(And I want a way to remove tattoos that isn't expensive, painful and scarring :P)

She gave up drinking.

Significant news wires recently began carrying a story about a “wet house” in St. Paul, Minn. A wet house is a center, where alcoholics, many of which are homeless, can go to live however continue to drink on the theory that it is better for them and society at large if they can at least stay safe. Regardless of some controversy over the idea, more towns are looking into it. More cities consider running wet house centers for addicts and I think this program is good because it gives these people a safe place until there health concedes to alcohol.

That's... a sock, right?

I mean, who but a puppet has their first post in the ASYLUM?

The Asylum recently began a thread regarding a "wet house" in St. Paul, Minn[sic]. The thread is a discussion where posters, many of which are f'uckwits, can go to add their comments about the concept and derail the conversation in to many other topics. Regardless of the desire for intelligent conversation Kachi continues to post. More posters are considering ignoring him until he concedes[sic] to common sense.

That's not how commas work.

C-