A significant amount of addicts report significant levels of child abuse. Therefore, childhood abuse becomes a predictor for addictive behavior.
When recreational drugs are legal...
- Thread starter Bill Mattocks
- Start date
A significant amount of addicts report significant levels of child abuse. Therefore, childhood abuse becomes a predictor for addictive behavior.
Tgace
Grandmaster
OK....but that doesn't prove that the majority of current addicts were abused children. Or that if you solved the abuse issue (good luck) that it would significantly change the number of addicts. It may be a factor in addiction but it hasn't been proven to be THE factor.
I still scratch my head over how exactly we are going to solve one difficult problem (addiction) through attacking an even MORE difficult problem (child abuse). What sort of magic do you have to solve that?
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
zDom
Senior Master
To answer a question posed regarding driving under the influence, keeping in mind I am speaking about
a past tense that was very far in the past,
I have driven under the influence of alcohol and driven intoxicated.
I have driven under the influence of pot and driven very, very stoned on pot.
I realize today the error of my ways and that these were bad decisions that could have
had very serious consequences and am grateful I did not harm myself or others through those actions.
That said, my experiences indicated:
A drunk tends to be overconfident about their ability to drive and when driving generally go too fast.
A pot-blasted person tends to be terrified to drive and when driving generally go too slow.
As a passenger coming home from a concert, I would much rather ride with a driver that smoked pot two hours ago
as opposed to a person who has consumed any alcohol.
I would not dispute the need to keep illegal driving under the influence of marijuana. I would expect to see better compliance among marijuana users than with those who regularly consume alcohol.
That said, I have ridden with drivers under the influence of either or both of those drugs (THC and/or alcohol) who drive better
under the influence that most of the morons on the road are able to completely straight... not to mention how much worse
they drive when they have a phone held up to their ear. But that is a completely different topic for discussion
a past tense that was very far in the past,
I have driven under the influence of alcohol and driven intoxicated.
I have driven under the influence of pot and driven very, very stoned on pot.
I realize today the error of my ways and that these were bad decisions that could have
had very serious consequences and am grateful I did not harm myself or others through those actions.
That said, my experiences indicated:
A drunk tends to be overconfident about their ability to drive and when driving generally go too fast.
A pot-blasted person tends to be terrified to drive and when driving generally go too slow.
As a passenger coming home from a concert, I would much rather ride with a driver that smoked pot two hours ago
as opposed to a person who has consumed any alcohol.
I would not dispute the need to keep illegal driving under the influence of marijuana. I would expect to see better compliance among marijuana users than with those who regularly consume alcohol.
That said, I have ridden with drivers under the influence of either or both of those drugs (THC and/or alcohol) who drive better
under the influence that most of the morons on the road are able to completely straight... not to mention how much worse
they drive when they have a phone held up to their ear. But that is a completely different topic for discussion
Last edited:
Agreed, but I still hold that if we could reduce the level of child abuse in society, we could reduce the amounts of addicts...and a whole bunch of other problems.
Tgace
Grandmaster
Well....yeah. And that problem as about as easy to solve as the drug problem.
Which is....well....a problem.
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
Looking through to find something that will either agree or disagree with the premise that child abuse leads to drug abuse what I've found is that drug and alcohol abusers are more likely to also abuse their children. There seems to be several indicators for children who are likely to take drugs with child abuse being only one of many.
http://www.acde.org/health/riskfact.htm
http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/parentalsubabuse.cfm
http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/abuse/a/aa990331.htm
Going through the sites it seems that the substance use of parents is more likely to affect children. Of course this is child abuse but it does seem that we should be looking at the substance abuse of adults to find a solution to both the child abuse and the use of substances by those children. Very chicken and egg of course but it does come back always to the substance abuse ie drugs and alcohol.
http://www.acde.org/health/riskfact.htm
http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/parentalsubabuse.cfm
http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/abuse/a/aa990331.htm
Going through the sites it seems that the substance use of parents is more likely to affect children. Of course this is child abuse but it does seem that we should be looking at the substance abuse of adults to find a solution to both the child abuse and the use of substances by those children. Very chicken and egg of course but it does come back always to the substance abuse ie drugs and alcohol.
WC_lun
Senior Master
I think that child abuse and drug/alcohol abuse are sometimes connected, but I do not believe they are caused by one another. Perhaps they are symptoms of the same root problem(s). Or maybe people who are prone to having issues will exhibit those issues in any number of ways.
That's a good point as well. It is a very complicated chicken or egg scenario.
For the first six years of my career, I worked at a school for teenagers who had some very troubled pasts. Most were adjudicated in some way, the majority abused chemicals and most were abused by their parents in some way. The physical abuse of children that I've seen and reported on was unreal. I remember one of our teen mothers telling me a story about how she would put vodka in her child's bottle in order to get her child to sleep through the night because that's what her mother did to her! Stories like that make me cringe and I think even a little parent education could go a long way.
I remember a child coming to school with cigarette burns on her track marks. Dad found out that daughter was mainlining heroin and decided to hold her down put a pack a cigarettes out on her.
You don't have to be a cop if you don't want to. If you think that the laws of society are unjust, you don't have to be a person that enforces them. There is a choice involved here. A LEO may not be able to determine policy, but they can choose whether or not they want to become part of the machinery of enforcement.
Tgace
Grandmaster
Talk about chicken/egg.
What about the segment of society that does want us to enforce the law? What about their expectations of us LEO's? Sorry Sir....Maka doesnt like this law? LoL!
Do you honestly think there will ever be a society that is in 100% agreement over every law?
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
Talk about chicken/egg.
What about the segment of society that does want us to enforce the law? What about their expectations of us LEO's? Sorry Sir....Maka doesnt like this law? LoL!
Do you honestly think there will ever be a society that is in 100% agreement over every law?
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
We'll never have universal agreements on laws. That's why, as a general rule, I try to do what the people with guns and uniforms say I should do. :rules:
Make no mistake about it, being a cop - is a job. Period. And like every other job, there's some that do it better/different than others. While some young folk might originally aspire to the job as some sort of moral compass, that all goes out the window with varying amounts of time on duty.
As for drugs, there's different levels of use. It's not really a moral question, it's a legal one. But in the same vein, cops can/will deal with a drug incident in varying ways depending on the people and the particulars. Putting a good kid into the system because he had (maybe) an error in judgement and I happened onto the scene - is a very big deal. (at least it was to me)
Tough judgement calls sometimes.
As for drugs, there's different levels of use. It's not really a moral question, it's a legal one. But in the same vein, cops can/will deal with a drug incident in varying ways depending on the people and the particulars. Putting a good kid into the system because he had (maybe) an error in judgement and I happened onto the scene - is a very big deal. (at least it was to me)
Tough judgement calls sometimes.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
To answer a question posed regarding driving under the influence, keeping in mind I am speaking about
a past tense that was very far in the past,
I have driven under the influence of alcohol and driven intoxicated.
I have driven under the influence of pot and driven very, very stoned on pot.
I realize today the error of my ways and that these were bad decisions that could have
had very serious consequences and am grateful I did not harm myself or others through those actions.
That said, my experiences indicated:
A drunk tends to be overconfident about their ability to drive and when driving generally go too fast.
A pot-blasted person tends to be terrified to drive and when driving generally go too slow.
As a passenger coming home from a concert, I would much rather ride with a driver that smoked pot two hours ago
as opposed to a person who has consumed any alcohol.
I would not dispute the need to keep illegal driving under the influence of marijuana. I would expect to see better compliance among marijuana users than with those who regularly consume alcohol.
That said, I have ridden with drivers under the influence of either or both of those drugs (THC and/or alcohol) who drive better
under the influence that most of the morons on the road are able to completely straight... not to mention how much worse
they drive when they have a phone held up to their ear. But that is a completely different topic for discussion
LONDON (AP) – People who use marijuana before driving are nearly twice as likely to cause a car crash as those not under the influence of alcohol or drugs, according to a Canadian analysis of previous studies.
Marijuana is the most widely used illegal drug worldwide and rates of its use in drivers are increasing. A 2007 study in Scotland found 15 percent of 537 drivers aged 17 to 39 had used marijuana within 12 hours.
Some experts said education campaigns about the dangers of doing drugs before driving wouldn't work.
People "will also need to be persuaded that they are at risk of their cannabis use being detected," wrote Wayne Hall of the University of Queensland in an accompanying editorial.
Hall said more research was needed to prove whether roadside drug testing, as introduced in parts of Australia and the U.S., actually prevents more drug-related car accidents.
The study was published Friday in the journal, BMJ.
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Something close to home for the MMA people here. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ed-drug-dealer-blamed-sons-ecstasy-death.html
celtic_crippler
Senior Master
“If the U.S. allowed adults the right to put into their bodies what they wanted, violence would plummet.” ~ Dr. Ivan Eland.
Dr. Eland has an MBA in Economics and a PhD in Public Policy. Dr. Eland spent 15 years working for Congress on national security issues, including stints as an investigator for the House Foreign Affairs Committee. He was Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office and served as Evaluator-in-Charge for the Government Accountability Office. He’s testified on military and financial aspects of NATO expansion, on CIA oversight, and on the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. He is the author of 45 in-depth studies on national security issues and contributor to numerous other volumes on the subject.
The Council on Foreign Relations has studies proving that the War on Drugs has only resulted in escalated violence. This violence impacts the lives of people who don’t use drugs or have anything to do with illicit drug use what-so-ever.
FACT: 60% of those incarcerated in federal prisons are there for non-violent drug offenses.
But you still support this failed policy, and the violence on innocents, because you feel it’s necessary to lock up a few addicts? Is that right?
Again, these are not MY facts… but the results of study after study after study conducted by and funded by your own government and universities.
Everyone says they ultimately want the violence and drug use to be diminished, but some continue to support a failed policy that has shown both of these areas to have increased since the inception of said failed policy. And when confronted with facts showing other methods to be more effective, ignore those facts in favor of continuing said failed policy.
Dr. Eland has an MBA in Economics and a PhD in Public Policy. Dr. Eland spent 15 years working for Congress on national security issues, including stints as an investigator for the House Foreign Affairs Committee. He was Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office and served as Evaluator-in-Charge for the Government Accountability Office. He’s testified on military and financial aspects of NATO expansion, on CIA oversight, and on the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. He is the author of 45 in-depth studies on national security issues and contributor to numerous other volumes on the subject.
The Council on Foreign Relations has studies proving that the War on Drugs has only resulted in escalated violence. This violence impacts the lives of people who don’t use drugs or have anything to do with illicit drug use what-so-ever.
FACT: 60% of those incarcerated in federal prisons are there for non-violent drug offenses.
But you still support this failed policy, and the violence on innocents, because you feel it’s necessary to lock up a few addicts? Is that right?
Again, these are not MY facts… but the results of study after study after study conducted by and funded by your own government and universities.
Everyone says they ultimately want the violence and drug use to be diminished, but some continue to support a failed policy that has shown both of these areas to have increased since the inception of said failed policy. And when confronted with facts showing other methods to be more effective, ignore those facts in favor of continuing said failed policy.
I'm thinking whether I can be bothered pointing out that alcohol is legal and the drinking of it to the point of intoxication is causing horrendous problems here. Not just the violence it's the rapes, the medical costs, the drunk driving, the anti social behaviour etc.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-documents-years-drunken-revelry-Cardiff.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPFuPbm8Akk&feature=related
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-documents-years-drunken-revelry-Cardiff.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPFuPbm8Akk&feature=related
Steve
Mostly Harmless
The question then is whether the British people and government are entertaining any thoughts of prohibition and banning alcohol. Are they? I'm guessing not.
If not, why not? What are the approaches you are considering as a country to address the issue? Why not prohibition? Surely, if it's "working" for other addictive drugs that impair judgement, then it would work for alcohol, too. Right? Just ban it and everything will be right as rain. Of course, if it's illegal, then only criminals would drink...
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Tgace
Grandmaster
There is a difference between taking a popular and legal substance (Alcohol) and illegalizing it and taking a substance that has been illegal for as long as most of us remember and legalizing it.
There is a drinking culture in the UK especially in Scotland and Ireland that I don't think there is anywhere else. The idea of going out to get absolutely bladdered has been around for a very long time, Scotland has the highest rate of alcoholism in the UK and possibly the world. Hard drinking has long been the 'sign of being a man', in the military the Sgts' mess is known as a place of hard drinkers, weekend long drinking sessions are common even now. Women over the past few years are catching up with the men especially with the introduction of alcopops.
There will never be prohibition of alcohol here, the government makes far too much money out of it. Tax on alcohol is huge, it contributed nearly £15 billion to the govenment revenue. In fact the government allowed 24 hour licensing to enable more sales of alcohol and the binge drinking got worse, the streets are now full of drinkers vomiting, having sex and peeing as well as defecating, there's fights and the police end up having to sort it all out. Far from banning alcohol it's in the government's interest to encourage people to drink hence their inaction and only paying lipservice to any attempts to educate people on sensible drinking.
So you have the opposite of prohibition, it's in a government's interests to legalise harmful substances if there's money to be made from taxing them and bugger the consequences, as you can see.
zDom
Senior Master
I don't doubt it. But I would like to see the statistics as compared with alcohol's. Especially the fatalities.
But what was the point that you were trying to reinforce? That THC use impairs the ability to drive?
"I would not dispute the need to keep illegal driving under the influence of marijuana." - Me in the post you quoted and responded to.
