Drug milkshake still no match for abstinence

[rmcrobertson]

Again: political correctness is no substitute for rational social policy based upon reality. Here, it's led you to completely skip the point in favor of the usual accusations about some liberal or another who doesn't care about the victims of crime.

The topic of this thread has to do with "abstinence," vs. what I would consider reasonable policy. What I wrote was that countries in Europe with decent drug education, needle exchanges, support for addicts (including maintenance meds) have far lower HIV and hepatitis infection rates, far lower IV drug user rates, far lower drug-related crime rates.

If you think that's wrong, document your claim. If you think we STILL shouldn't do these things, make your argument. But if all you can do is to write that them "liberals," just don't care bout no victims, then all you have to offer is right-wing political correctness.

 

[Tgace]

Hmmm...Ive read and re-read Modarnis' post and cant find a reference to either "liberal" or "conservaive". Why does any dissenting opinion have to be pidgeonholed into those terms? Or associated with Rush, Hannity (SP?) or some other media show?

 

[MisterMike]

You can't see the words because it's their "Reality," remember? Not ours.

 

[rmcrobertson]

When a writer quotes you, then proceeds to avoid the point and go off about the victims of crime as though you did not care about them, it is reasonable to make some guesses about why that might be.

I see, too, that two of the more-outspokenly rightist/conservative posters immediately responded. Are you arguing that the post was not motivated as I suggested? After all, you have as little evidence against such a claim as you claim I have for making it.

I say again: if you have better facts, present them. If you have a moral argument to make, make it. If you must keep avoiding the topic and making the usual Savage/Limbaugh/Hannity et all comments, then I will continue to identify that as mere p.c.

Incidentally, I'm still waiting for a further explanation of why, when we live in a sociaty as we do, we have no responsibility to others in that society. Or if not that, please explain how the buzzword, "abstinence," made part of current legislation at the specific insistence of the right wing, has nothing to do with the right wing.

 

[Tgace]

IMO, I have no poblem with my tax money going to programs that the government approves of. However it is MY tax money too and I should have my say on what I think it should be spent on. If Im "outvoted" thats fine. If Im with the majority than the rest of you just have to "suck it up". (Note I have made no statement of what exactly I believe my money should be spent on. Any assumptions will be your own.)

 

[Tgace]

So its logical and acceptable to make assumptions about a persons intent as long as you dont agree with or like what is stated...I get it now.

I admittedly do make assumptions too, I just always thought they were my own personality flaws.......

 

[heretic888]

Then again, it could have more to do with modarnis' reliance on anecdotal "evidence" and "personal experience" in the face of publicly-verifiable statistics than anything else.

*shrugs* Of course, it could be a bit of both. Who knows?? :idunno:

 

[Tgace]

"statistics" and "studies" are just as open to interpretation and question as "anecdotal" evidence. I wouldnt dismiss the hard numbers any more (or less) than I would dismiss the observations of the people who are out there where the rubber meets the road. Otherwise we have a bunch of cloistered egg heads who mistake their books for "reality".

Other than that Im amused at the people who pop up and complain about thread drift (talk about the proverbial pot calling the kettle...). Sometimes its interesting and even necessary to see how one thought leads to another as long as they can be tied together in a logical progression.

 

[dubljay]

Other than that Im amused at the people who pop up and complain about thread drift (talk about the proverbial pot calling the kettle...). Sometimes its interesting and even necessary to see how one thought leads to another as long as they can be tied together in a logical progression.

Here and I thought thats what the point of a forum (aka threaded discussion) was for. Silly me thats what I get for trying to use that erratic misfiring hunk of junk I refer to as a brain.


Ahem on the topic, super viruses and bacteria are nothing new. Over prescription of antibiotics have led to many strains of super viruses and bacteria. Should we find it all that shocking that HIV is that different?

 

[heretic888]

"statistics" and "studies" are just as open to interpretation and question as "anecdotal" evidence. I wouldnt dismiss the hard numbers any more (or less) than I would dismiss the observations of the people who are out there where the rubber meets the road. Otherwise we have a bunch of cloistered egg heads who mistake their books for "reality".

Actually, there are correct ways and incorrect ways of interpreting statistics --- looking for things like biases, non-random sampling, limited samples, confounding variables, and so on.

The only way to interpret "anecdotal" evidence is "something some guy says that we have no way of verifying". You may not question such claims. I do. I expect proof, especially when the claim runs contrary to existing evidence.

The main reason why the hard numbers are preferable in cases like this is because the "observations of people who are out there" can be horridly skewed with bias, selective memory, motivated forgetting, or just plain lies. This is why it helps to have the data available, ready for all to verify themselves.

In fact, available studies that have gotten into these sorts of things have indicated that even "eyewitness" accounts are not as accurate as many people would like them to be.

"Anecdotal" evidence can be useful if acquired from multiple sources all studying the same phenomena. However, as in statistics, they are horridly useless when acquired from a single source (akin to making generalizations about the population from a non-random sample segment).

Laterz.

 

[davidg553]

Welcome to the world of conservative doublespeak, shesulsa.

Hmm, I seemed to miss the part of the thread where I used doublespeak.

Government money isn't our money when it's used as a cudgel in some poorly-backed point about how much more "generous" conservatives are than liberals.

Cudgel? I didn't realize that my comments were so antagonistic as to deserve such a harsh characterization. I'll try to tone it down in the future.

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. At the risk of totally agreeing with the "Heretic's," last post, I totally agree with the Heretic's last post.

2. I repeat: when someone uses a term--"abstinence," that is specifically, avowedly linked to the Bush government's adoption of right-wing Christian policies about sex and drug education, and proceeds to cite their experience with "real," crime as opposed to ivory-tower types, and is supported by people who make remarks about "cloistered eggheads," it is reasonable to assume that they are at least Republicans. Similarly, when posters recite the same old tired accusations that can be heard any night on Savage and Limbaugh about people they do not know being eggheads, or unaware of reality, it is reasonable to assume that they are recycling the same old tired rightist politically-correct ideas and words that have been thrown around since the early twentieth century. Looks like duck; walks like duck; quacks like duck--is duck, comrade.

3. If it's incorrect to identify certain posters and certain claims as Republican, conservative and rightist, or as being inspired by conservative Christianity, just say so. I do note, however, that other folks' repeated explanations of their politics seem to get met with the dreaded, "YOU'RE A LIBERAL!" claim over and over and over. But personally, I must say that I find the sheer inaccuracy of calling me an ivory-tower liberal truly, monumentally funny.

4. I also see that once again, requests for either a) better facts about drug policy, or b) explanations of one's moral position against rational, pragmatic policies that work elsewhere, are met with accusations and complaints.

As, I dare say, this post will be. So can we go back to the topic now?

 

[Tgace]

Science is a useful tool, however I wont bow down at its alter just yet...

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~taflinge/evistats.html
http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/users/rice/Stat2/AdairLair.htm
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19981112120006data_trunc_sys.shtml

 

[davidg553]

It also advocates paying one's taxes ("give unto Caesar what is his") without question or resentment.

Just sayin'.

Unlike the average joe on the street back in the day, we have the privilege of having a say in what is or isn't Caesars. In my opinion, one of the modern equivalents to giving without resentment is not cheating on ones taxes and only taking the deductions that one is ethically, legally, and morally entitled to.

 

[heretic888]

Science is a useful tool, however I wont bow down at its alter just yet...

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~taflinge/evistats.html
http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/users/rice/Stat2/AdairLair.htm
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19981112120006data_trunc_sys.shtml

And just think, Tgace, of how much you'd actually learn if you'd actually take a statistics class or two.

Seriously, this isn't news to anyone that's studied the subject. Things like designer biases, non-random samples, selective experimental treatments, confounding variables, inexact wording, and so forth are among the first things you learn in applied statistics.

And, I should mention, by no means is statistics (whether theoretical or applied) anything resembling a subject that is my forte. At best, I have a rudimentary knowledge of the field. Its just that, very simply, these sorts of issues are intrinsically so basic, so elementary, so learn-on-your-first-day that its not much to hoo-hah about.

The point being, that these complaints are not a problem with "statistics" or with "science". Good statisticians are taught to spot these sorts of things. Rather, they're a problem with certain individuals that either don't know what they're doing or are consciously warping the facts to fit a political agenda (gee, sound familiar?).

One remembers the saying: "Statistics don't lie, but liars can do statistics."

'Nuff said.

 

[heretic888]

Unlike the average joe on the street back in the day, we have the privilege of having a say in what is or isn't Caesars. In my opinion, one of the modern equivalents to giving without resentment is not cheating on ones taxes and only taking the deductions that one is ethically, legally, and morally entitled to.

Well, that's all well and good and groovy and all, but its not very Christian...

 

[rmcrobertson]

Funnily enough, these concerns about biased studies and the inadequacy of statistics never seemed to come up when the posters were discussing the NRA's claims about having "scientific," studies to prove that lots and lots of guns make us all safer. Huh. I wonder why that is?

The question, here, is why people who claim to be pragmatists are cheerfully willing to throw pragmatism right out the window the instant their politically-correct theories are at stake.

Needle exchange works. If anybody takes at least a cursory glance at the histories of such programs, they will discover that the reason we don't do them has everything to do with ideology and dogmatism rather than what's good, practical social policy.

But then, if guys like Savage and Hannity would get out of the mass media, self-congratulating world they inhabit, and quit preaching to a choir copmposed entirely of their ivory-tower political, academic and think-tank buddies, they'd know that. And so would their acolytes.

 

[modarnis]

>> Needle exchange works. If anybody takes at least a cursory glance at the histories of such programs, they will discover that the reason we don't do them has everything to do with ideology and dogmatism rather than what's good, practical social policy.>>

And I addressed several reasons why, other than the marginal benefit to reducing disease transmission why they don't, and you attacked my politics. You put the quote out there, don't get pissy when someone counters

While needle exchange programs may reduce shared needle transmission of a variety of diseases, they facilitate criminal conduct to wit: possession and use of narcotics, which are illegal. These programs certainly don't address other modalities of disease transmission like high risk unprotected sexual behavior which is often exchanged for the drugs shot though the needle.

You indicated that one of the realities of treatment was a cost savings. I pointed out that there are numerous externalities (those are costs outside the primary variable) that arise when treatment fails. I used victims of crime as one example, since it is one I deal with directly on a daily basis. Non addiction-reduction related health care costs are another obvious one since things like cellulitis,abcesses, endocarditis, overdose, and violence based injuries impact drug users even with clean needles

One of the most conservative voices in America, Bill Buckley has argued since the 1980's that legalization is the answer that minimizes externalities. By making drugs regulated, safe, cheap and easily available, market forces will take over. While that would cut down on some of the external costs I mentioned, it still doesn't address the root causes of drug use

As for the more broad social issues that impact HIV transmission. Regardless of the number of programs, educational opportunities or amount of dollars you throw at a problem, if individuals to not avail themselves of ways to reduce risk, no amount of policy will help. Why did rates of HIV infection plummet in the gay community with education and outreach about condom use? Why despite significant mainstream media attention to these issues are those rates on the rise in inner cities, some of which have active needle exchange and condom distribution programs?

There are cultural issues here in the states that aren't defined by political sides that distinguish us from northern european countries.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Beyond heaving a sigh about the inability to argue without these hallucinations about other people's emotions, the issue's this:

Exchange programs, rational support for addicts, and decriminalization have been proven to cut disease, crime, and social cost. That's the reality. Arguing that these steps do nothing to address, "root causes," of drug abuse simply identifies where the ideology kicks in.

Buckley and a few other conservatives have been pretty much kicked to the side of the road by the current crop of neo-cons. That's because despite what I consider to be their repressive ideas about people and politics, they at least read books, think about ideas, and try to look at reality as often as possible. The current neo-cons do not.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

"statistics" and "studies" are just as open to interpretation and question as "anecdotal" evidence. I wouldnt dismiss the hard numbers any more (or less) than I would dismiss the observations of the people who are out there where the rubber meets the road. Otherwise we have a bunch of cloistered egg heads who mistake their books for "reality".

Statistics and studies are intended to be challenged by peer review. Anecdotal evidence at best leads to an hypothesis, which can then lead to proper evaluation.

An example: If a police officer offers his expertise concerning crimes and a specific minority he might well give his biased view that the minority in question is corrupt and immoral. If for twenty years he works that particular neighborhood and arrests mostly minority suspects, his bias is understandable. He's shaped his view of the minority on his extensive experience with one minority sub-group. We should not accept his evaluation of that minority as accurate, however, as it has been tainted by his limited experience with that one sub-group. Elsewhere that minority might set a standard of excellence and responsibility. An individual's world view is not subject to measured evaluation. A much larger test sample is required involving many sub-groups of that minority.

If I say my experience with vitamin intake clearly indicates that vitamins cure a specific ailment, one shouldn't trust that to be true. The aspirin I take with that vitamin regimen might be easing the symptoms of that ailment, and I'm incorrectly assuming that the vitamins are responsible for my relief. Time and the body's natural healing processes might also be skewing my perception.

Folk remedies involving willow bark lead to anecdotal reports of relief of pain. Studies of the isolated salicylates in willow bark lead to solid evidence of its efficacy and voila!...we have aspirin. The hypothesis is born out through proper testing and evaluation. The anecdotal reports of the healing power of crystals and pyramids haven't enjoyed that measure of success, however.

I'd take anecdotal evidence with a measure of skepticism. It's perhaps interesting, and might lead to eventual illumination, but most likely not without reasoned examination and trial.

Regards,


Steve