"opioid crisis" vs. "war on drugs"

malakos

Superior Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Posts
8,358
Media
30
Likes
6,518
Points
223
Location
Cumming, GA, USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
This is my attempt to redirect a conversation about addiction and drugs that started in the vaccinations thread (Vaccinations.).

I expect government and people in general to have an EQUAL understanding/empathy re. ADDICTION, regardless of the particulars of the victims, the substance, OR the "dealer."

Is THAT clear enough for you?

What you're saying is clear. It strikes me as a bit naïve though to expect people to treat different people in different circumstances as equal to each other. It's not realistic or practical. Really, being discerning and treating different circumstances differently seems to me more useful and productive.

The government isn't here really to be an empathic entity. So long as it has a solid understanding of circumstances it is dealing with, and addresses problems effectively and to the overall benefit of the polity, and all citizens in so far as is possible, then it is serving its function.

I think you want to make a distinction between the way the government treats the addicted in one situation ("the opioid crisis") versus another ("the war on drugs"). That may be. I don't want to touch that at the moment. It's a big can of worms.
 

malakos

Superior Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Posts
8,358
Media
30
Likes
6,518
Points
223
Location
Cumming, GA, USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Heroin is an opiod, it gets "smuggled" into the country, it then gets sold by "drug dealers"

That sounds like "criminal activity" to me.

"Doctors who run "pill mills" or otherwise prescribe Oxy at the drop of hat yes I expect the government to "wage war" on them.

Do you really think it's that easy? Much of what we're dealing with respect to opioid addiction derives from using opioids to treat severe pain from various neurologic maladies. The government cannot take on doctors for trying to mitigate severe pain in their patients. It can make moves towards promoting preferable alternatives to opioids for pain-mitigation. But it cannot wage war on a sanctioned institution of society without very clear demonstration of widespread abuse and exploitation. If doctors can hide behind using approved substances to help their patients mitigate pain, there just is no way that approach can be taken. The problem has to be addressed in a rather different way.
 

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,779
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
This is my attempt to redirect a conversation about addiction and drugs that started in the vaccinations thread (Vaccinations.).

What you're saying is clear. It strikes me as a bit naïve though to expect people to treat different people in different circumstances as equal to each other. It's not realistic or practical. Really, being discerning and treating different circumstances differently seems to me more useful and productive.

The government isn't here really to be an empathic entity. So long as it has a solid understanding of circumstances it is dealing with, and addresses problems effectively and to the overall benefit of the polity, and all citizens in so far as is possible, then it is serving its function.

I think you want to make a distinction between the way the government treats the addicted in one situation ("the opioid crisis") versus another ("the war on drugs"). That may be. I don't want to touch that at the moment. It's a big can of worms.

You brought a discussion from another thread, to create a NEW which you titled "Opiod Crisis vs. War on Drugs," but YOU "don't want to touch that at the moment"? "It's a big can of worms"??

Doesn't make a BIT of sense.
 

malakos

Superior Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Posts
8,358
Media
30
Likes
6,518
Points
223
Location
Cumming, GA, USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
You brought a discussion from another thread, to create a NEW which you titled "Opiod Crisis vs. War on Drugs," but YOU "don't want to touch that at the moment"? "It's a big can of worms"??

Doesn't make a BIT of sense.

We could discuss it eventually, maybe. What I'm saying is, I'm guessing you want to discuss the discrepancy between the way addicts associated with one phenomenon and the other are treated, and the divergent way the government frames the fundamental characteristics of the two, since you tend to laser in on topics having some relation to different treatment of different racial groups. All I'm saying, for now, is that is not the topic I was addressing. The point I'm making is that the difference in approach is actually largely because of the difference in the sources of the problems. Certified doctors conducting their practices in mostly lawful fashions (I'm sure there are exceptions) cannot be approached in the same way that illicit dealers of recreational substances are.
 

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,779
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
We could discuss it eventually, maybe. What I'm saying is, I'm guessing you want to discuss the discrepancy between the way addicts associated with one phenomenon and the other are treated, and the divergent way the government frames the fundamental characteristics of the two, since you tend to laser in on topics having some relation to different treatment of different racial groups. All I'm saying, for now, is that is not the topic I was addressing. The point I'm making is that the difference in approach is actually largely because of the difference in the sources of the problems. Certified doctors conducting their practices in mostly lawful fashions (I'm sure there are exceptions) cannot be approached in the same way that illicit dealers of recreational substances are.
In other words you want to set the parameters of the discussion (as in, CONTROL THE NARRATIVE) by attempting to limit the discussion to those aspects YOU want to address while PREEMPTING that which YOU don't want to address.

Gotcha.

 

malakos

Superior Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Posts
8,358
Media
30
Likes
6,518
Points
223
Location
Cumming, GA, USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
In other words you want to set the parameters of the discussion (as in, CONTROL THE NARRATIVE) by attempting to limit the discussion to those aspects YOU want to address while PREEMPTING that which you don't want to address.

Gotcha.

I want to keep to one point, the one I was addressing in responding to you, and see it to some sort of conclusion, before moving to others.
 

malakos

Superior Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Posts
8,358
Media
30
Likes
6,518
Points
223
Location
Cumming, GA, USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
And all I said in the OP is that I don't want to touch it yet. I want to finish the point I was making about the framing being more about the different sources of the two crises, than about the groups of addicts associated with the two.

If you want to counter the point with some arguments about the different groups affected, then feel free. As I said, I was merely stating that I wanted to finish one line of thinking of my own. I didn't mention any restrictions on what ideas you're allowed to use in countering in this apparent disagreement.
 

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,779
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
And all I said in the OP is that I don't want to touch it yet. I want to finish the point I was making about the framing being more about the different sources of the two crises, than about the groups of addicts associated with the two.

If you want to counter the point with some arguments about the different groups affected, then feel free. As I said, I was merely stating that I wanted to finish one line of thinking of my own. I didn't mention any restrictions on what ideas you're allowed to use in countering in this apparent disagreement.
Well, what you DID do was ASSume that I must be "laser[ing] in on topics having some relation to different treatment of different racial groups" when the disparities may ALSO include socio-economic factors, and even political demographics.

Furthermore, you fail to consider that I just MIGHT already have knowledge of various studies on these disparities, differences that exist even when the substance abuse and treatment is limited to that of opioids alone.

But hey, don't mind me, go ahead and continue to argue how the difference in the way these two CRISES were/are VIEWED and ADDRESSED is solely based upon the substance being abused and the legitimacy of the source.
 

malakos

Superior Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Posts
8,358
Media
30
Likes
6,518
Points
223
Location
Cumming, GA, USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Well, what you DID do was ASSume that I must be "laser[ing] in on topics having some relation to different treatment of different racial groups"

"I'm guessing" ... "you tend to"

Doesn't reflect an assumption that's what you're doing. More like I bet that is one of your main concerns about the discrepancy, based on tendencies I've seen in your posts. Please, don't even try to pretend like racial issues aren't something you bring up frequently on this board. It is one of your main concerns. I hope you don't respond with indignation at my pointing that out. There shouldn't be any reason to if you think you're right to be focusing on said issues.

when the disparities may ALSO include socio-economic factors, and even political demographics.

Certainly! I'm glad we're on the same page about that. Poor people are more likely to degenerate into seeking heroin or other similar illicit substances to feed their addiction, since they can only afford the pharmaceuticals for so long.

Furthermore, you fail to consider that I just MIGHT already have knowledge of various studies on these disparities, differences that exist even when the substance abuse and treatment is limited to that of opioids alone.

But hey, don't mind me, go ahead and continue to argue how the difference in the way these two CRISES were/are VIEWED and ADDRESSED is solely based upon the substance being abused and the legitimacy of the source.

No, actually, that wasn't my argument. I wasn't arguing the difference concerns the substance category (opioid is a pretty broad substance class, and includes both common medically licit substances, and substances that are more often used illicitly). I was arguing that the difference in the way the two are treated politically has largely to do with the different actors who are behind each. One is the pharmaceutical industry and medicine. The other is smugglers and drug dealers.
 

phonehome

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Posts
3,895
Media
0
Likes
4,275
Points
343
Gender
Male
Do you really think it's that easy? Much of what we're dealing with respect to opioid addiction derives from using opioids to treat severe pain from various neurologic maladies. The government cannot take on doctors for trying to mitigate severe pain in their patients. It can make moves towards promoting preferable alternatives to opioids for pain-mitigation. But it cannot wage war on a sanctioned institution of society without very clear demonstration of widespread abuse and exploitation. If doctors can hide behind using approved substances to help their patients mitigate pain, there just is no way that approach can be taken. The problem has to be addressed in a rather different way.

None of that changes the FACT that herion IS "an opiod" that is DOS get "smuggled into the country" and sold by "drug dealers" and that that IS "criminal activity"

All things you said the "opoid crisies" is NOT

Yes almost all of them start out getting their drugs via a pharmacy but when at long last these drug addicts can get it that way they turn in heroin and now fentanayl another ILLEGAL drug that is smuggled into the country and sold by drug dealers

you know, MORE criminal activity

Do you really believe that some probably MOST of those Dr.s opening all those "pain management clinics" especially the ones that had a pharmacy co-located right on site did not know GD well what they were doing?

That they were NOTHING more than DRUG DEALERS with a medical license ?

You sit there and act like the government should not even TRY to do anything against them "because it is legal"

Well you know what else is legal in all 50 states? Abortion that 's what but people of your persuasion think it is just fine, actually expect the government to do anything and everything to run them out of business.

How many of those "pain management MD's" do you imagine are "board certified" in anything ? How many of them do you imagine have "admitting privileges" in some local hospital ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tight_N_Juicy

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,779
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
"I'm guessing" ... "you tend to"

Doesn't reflect an assumption that's what you're doing. More like I bet that is one of your main concerns about the discrepancy, based on tendencies I've seen in your posts. Please, don't even try to pretend like racial issues aren't something you bring up frequently on this board. It is one of your main concerns. I hope you don't respond with indignation at my pointing that out. There shouldn't be any reason to if you think you're right to be focusing on said issues.

Certainly! I'm glad we're on the same page about that. Poor people are more likely to degenerate into seeking heroin or other similar illicit substances to feed their addiction, since they can only afford the pharmaceuticals for so long.

No, actually, that wasn't my argument. I wasn't arguing the difference concerns the substance category (opioid is a pretty broad substance class, and includes both common medically licit substances, and substances that are more often used illicitly). I was arguing that the difference in the way the two are treated politically has largely to do with the different actors who are behind each. One is the pharmaceutical industry and medicine. The other is smugglers and drug dealers.

You are correct, I would be ABSOLUTELY justified in alluding to the racial aspects of government, law enforcement, AND society's framing of the opioid "crisis" as opposed to their framing of the "war" on drugs.

And yes the difference has not only to do with race, but demographics, influence, and socio-economic status as well, not just because (as YOU suggest) of the "different actors ["pharmaceutical industry" vs. "drug dealers"] who are behind each."

But don't take MY word. Seeing as how you chose to open this particular 'CAN", perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the findings of OTHERS:

The War on Drugs That Wasn't: Wasted Whiteness, “Dirty Doctors,” and Race in Media Coverage of Prescription Opioid Misuse

In Heroin Crisis, White Families Seek Gentler War on Drugs - The New York Times

https://www.commercialappeal.com/st...ghlights-black-frustration-drug-war/97694296/
Largely white opioid epidemic highlights black frustration with drug war
http://www.nupoliticalreview.com/20...d-racial-complexities-of-the-opioid-epidemic/
The Overlooked Racial Complexities of the Opioid Epidemic | NUPR


When a drug epidemic’s victims are white - Vox


 
Last edited: