Web Search powered by Yahoo! SEARCH
Let me start by saying I was the victim of violence at the hands of my cousin who was at the time a practicing drug addict. He has been clean for almost 6 years. So I have seen first hand the effects of drug addiction. He once said something to me that was very telling: "You'll never get that first high back."
Now, let me say this:
1. The level 1 trauma unit at Vanderbilt was in danger of having to close not too long ago. Why? That is where most victims of the exploding trailer meth labs end up. The plastic used to seal off the windows of the trailer is embedded in the skin of the victims. Cost? $1 million per case. Do these people have insurance? Nope. Cost to TennCare (aka YOU, the tax paying citizen)? Oh....$1 million dollars. Something to think about. Number 9, Tanin, Google it to find the links.
2. Speaking of meth, do you have any idea what is mixed up in the backwoods meth lab. Oven cleaner, draino, and other toxic things. Now, I'm not saying it should be legalized, but I also don't think I should have to pay for a blown up trailer full of toothless meth cookers. And I also don't think they should be allowed to die. So what do you propose?
3. Ken Irvine, Ken Irvine, Ken Irvine. Don't know the name? Of course not, he was Democrat running for (re) election as judge. He was appointed to the bench to finish out some other judges term who had a bad habit of falling asleep during trials. Anyway, Ken lost his bid because well, he wasn't a Republican. Had anybody bothered to read what he was in favor of, you would have realized he was in favor of starting a drug court for first time, non-violent offenders. He understood rehabilitation, not incarceration. Which while it would have cost money up front, the long term savings to the tax payer and society would have been greater than the upfront cost.
4. Warehousing drug addicts does nothing but tax our system, clog up the courts (because we don't have a drug court to handle all of those cases) and often leaves behind other victims; the children of drug addicts who are either thrown into the system (drain on our tax dollars) or go to live with relatives, have unstable home lives which only serves to continue the cycle or pregnant teens that we end up paying for.
I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that what we are doing doesn't work. Hasn't worked. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. I think this qualifies as insane.
"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."
Penguin, you just did what you accused Rikki of; you used Henry "Emancipated Addict = Henry, comments about him being every child and talking about fresh wounds" by people who never knew Henry (for the record I never met the kid and I don't really know his mother) is trying to further YOUR point on a dead young man's back.
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.
Username * Don't have an account? Sign up for a new account
Password * Can't remember? Reset your password
Comments can be shared on
Add both options by connecting your profiles.