Rikki said: <<You, on the other hand, refuse to recognize the problem, speak vaguely of some "nightmare" you have not shown will come to pass, and advocate policies with a track record of expensive failure stretching back decades. Your position is so incoherent you can only defend it by changing the subject to the TYP.>>
Rikki, Hon, the nightmare would be the truncated lives of sons, and daughters, brothers and sisters whose inability to fend off the relentless call of addiction takes them away from their families many of whom have beat their brains out and wrung their hands raw trying to get the addict clean.
The policies have not changed for several reasons not the least of which is lack of political will. I argue it is not necessary to change the drug laws first, enforcement is the issue.
As far as I'm concerned you don't have a leg to stand on in this disagreement because you are behaving too arrogantly to hear the dismay expressed as a result of your writing. I'd say that everyone posting here may have a fresh wound where Henry is involved. Henry is every child. He is the icon for serious drug addiction. We're not talking jonesing for a bowl here Rikki...
You devolve quickly to calling names and hurling accusations. It shows neither professionalism or journalistic integrity. Remember, when you point a finger there are three pointing back at you.
Harm reduction is a theory that goes way back it's not a new idea. The basic ideals are fine but largely unsupportable without lots of money to support the drug addict. The reason Number 9 brought up the TYP I bet is because of their lame ideas to house the drug addicted and alcoholic without demanding they attend drug treatment and addiction counseling. Emancipated addicts = Henry.
We could go round and round and around. You probably shouldn't have tried to build your harm reduction theories on the back of a beloved child so soon after his death.
Share your thoughts
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
penguins writes:
Rikki said: <<You, on the other hand, refuse to recognize the problem, speak vaguely of some "nightmare" you have not shown will come to pass, and advocate policies with a track record of expensive failure stretching back decades. Your position is so incoherent you can only defend it by changing the subject to the TYP.>>
Rikki, Hon, the nightmare would be the truncated lives of sons, and daughters, brothers and sisters whose inability to fend off the relentless call of addiction takes them away from their families many of whom have beat their brains out and wrung their hands raw trying to get the addict clean.
The policies have not changed for several reasons not the least of which is lack of political will. I argue it is not necessary to change the drug laws first, enforcement is the issue.
As far as I'm concerned you don't have a leg to stand on in this disagreement because you are behaving too arrogantly to hear the dismay expressed as a result of your writing. I'd say that everyone posting here may have a fresh wound where Henry is involved. Henry is every child. He is the icon for serious drug addiction. We're not talking jonesing for a bowl here Rikki...
You devolve quickly to calling names and hurling accusations. It shows neither professionalism or journalistic integrity. Remember, when you point a finger there are three pointing back at you.
Harm reduction is a theory that goes way back it's not a new idea. The basic ideals are fine but largely unsupportable without lots of money to support the drug addict. The reason Number 9 brought up the TYP I bet is because of their lame ideas to house the drug addicted and alcoholic without demanding they attend drug treatment and addiction counseling. Emancipated addicts = Henry.
We could go round and round and around. You probably shouldn't have tried to build your harm reduction theories on the back of a beloved child so soon after his death.
Share your thoughts
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.