PDA

View Full Version : My Cousin Wrote This: As A Police Captain, I see the opioid epidemic every day




angelatc
03-31-2017, 09:27 AM
My cousin is a police captain in small town America. He's a good guy, and I think this is a good article.

http://www.vox.com/first-person/2017/3/30/15115066/opioid-epidemic-heroin-crisis-ohio-police

In particular I thought this paragraph might strike a chord with us:


In a lot of ways, this shift toward social services has been a shift back to how I remember the old days of policing. A couple decades ago when I first entered the force, the emphasis was all about community policing. We were problem solvers first and foremost, and part of that involved some degree of social work.

As time went on, I saw a shift in priorities. Policing became less about getting people help. The focus became more on reactive, call-to-call arrests and jail time and less on problem solving. That social work element wasn’t as important, and I think a lot of our officers have sort of forgotten how to do that side of the job.

If you ask me, and nobody does, the problem isn't that there is not enough money in Social Services. It's that there are not enough jobs. People, men especially need to feel some sense of value. Collecting a government stipend does not provide that.

tod evans
03-31-2017, 11:23 AM
Tell your cuz that more government isn't going to fix too much government..

timosman
03-31-2017, 11:31 AM
Tell your cuz that more government isn't going to fix too much government..

Having the government own everything would result in a state of nirvana. Join the collective before it is too late!

angelatc
03-31-2017, 12:29 PM
Tell your cuz that more government isn't going to fix too much government..

He would tend to agree. His wife would not.

Lamp
03-31-2017, 01:04 PM
His wife would not.

That is to be expected

angelatc
03-31-2017, 01:12 PM
That is to be expected

She's a social worker.

Lamp
03-31-2017, 01:26 PM
She's a social worker.

I was gonna say because she's a woman and women tend to lean towards center left political opinions but alright I guess.............

http://ijr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/silver-electionupdate-womenvoted.png

Brian4Liberty
03-31-2017, 01:27 PM
Sometimes a bad batch of heroin, something laced with fentanyl or some other poison, will come into town and we’ll be fielding nine or 10 overdose calls in one day.

In addition to laced heroin, Chinese counterfeiters have been producing pills that duplicate the look of regular prescription pills, but contain far more powerful and sometimes untested drugs. It's part of the reason for overdoses. It's what killed Prince.

RJB
03-31-2017, 01:28 PM
I was a volunteer fire fighter in a town with under 1000 people and the county had less than 10,000. You pretty much knew or at least recognized everyone. I actually trusted all the police in that area. If they caught some kids drinking, they'd simply take them home. I loved that area, my wife didn't.

I moved to a more populated area and volunteered for a while. I met some cops who were good and wanted to help, but a lot were just sociopaths.

Brian4Liberty
03-31-2017, 01:30 PM
After that was the pill boom. Prescription drugs were everywhere, sold out of “pill mills” where get-rich-quick doctors or pharmacies sell large quantities of Oxycontin or Xanax for no legitimate medical reason. The pill boom was much harder to combat because many abusers had actual prescriptions for painkillers. There was nothing to stop them, legally, from walking around with bottles of powerful opioid pills in their pockets.

Hmmm. A bit of big brother mentality there.

Ender
03-31-2017, 01:35 PM
In addition to laced heroin, Chinese counterfeiters have been producing pills that duplicate the look of regular prescription pills, but contain far more powerful and sometimes untested drugs. It's part of the reason for overdoses. It's what killed Prince.

The answer is to get rid of the WoD, but no "official" never talks about that.

Athan
03-31-2017, 03:40 PM
If you ask me, and nobody does, the problem isn't that there is not enough money in Social Services. It's that there are not enough jobs. People, men especially need to feel some sense of value. Collecting a government stipend does not provide that.

I agree. The way it feels, the government and society is intentionally trying to give us guys the shaft and work against us.

Anti Federalist
03-31-2017, 06:59 PM
If you ask me, and nobody does, the problem isn't that there is not enough money in Social Services. It's that there are not enough jobs. People, men especially need to feel some sense of value. Collecting a government stipend does not provide that.

And it will only get worse as we hurtle headlong into the hellish haut monde that the futurists have planned for us.

In the west anyways, men, having long been locked out of and, to steal a "liberal's" word, disenfranchised, from government and society, the decisions will then fall to the matriarchy.

And with no jobs for anybody, any human endeavor supplanted by much more efficient and precise robotics and AI, it will be "stipends for all".

Since women, as a rule, favor these handouts and stipends: because health care, and baby food, and tampons, and abortions are "human rights".

fedupinmo
03-31-2017, 08:23 PM
I have heard murmurings of this fantastical new prescription database being proposed because of the attention recently paid to opiod addiction and I just know that Uncle Sugar would NEVER use that database to deny gun purchases, right? We all know how secure that database would be, too.
Reefer Madness is striking again, right in front of our eyes.

UWDude
03-31-2017, 10:51 PM
And it will only get worse as we hurtle headlong into the hellish haut monde that the futurists have planned for us.

In the west anyways, men, having long been locked out of and, to steal a "liberal's" word, disenfranchised, from government and society, the decisions will then fall to the matriarchy.

And with no jobs for anybody, any human endeavor supplanted by much more efficient and precise robotics and AI, it will be "stipends for all".

Since women, as a rule, favor these handouts and stipends: because health care, and baby food, and tampons, and abortions are "human rights".

That's Marx's predictions as well. ;)

Working Poor
04-01-2017, 06:21 AM
Tell your cousin that maybe if the CIA wasn't the biggest drug dealer in the world this problem might not be quite as sever.

Wooden Indian
04-01-2017, 07:45 AM
Wants to "legally" stop me from walking around with pills. Shocking.

Considers himself and his cronies as my caregivers. Shocking.

Wants the government to tell my doctor what he or she can prescribe to me. Shocking.

Can we rename this thread to "Why my cousin is a dick"?

Sorry, been awake 15 minutes so maybe I'm misreading something.

Origanalist
04-01-2017, 08:09 AM
Wants to "legally" stop me from walking around with pills. Shocking.

Considers himself and his cronies as my caregivers. Shocking.

Wants the government to tell my doctor what he or she can prescribe to me. Shocking.

Can we rename this thread to "Why my cousin is a dick"?

Sorry, been awake 15 minutes so maybe I'm misreading something.

Protected and served, whether you like it or not.

invisible
04-01-2017, 08:39 AM
In addition to laced heroin, Chinese counterfeiters have been producing pills that duplicate the look of regular prescription pills, but contain far more powerful and sometimes untested drugs. It's part of the reason for overdoses. It's what killed Prince.

Interesting. I've never heard this before, do you have a source for this with more detailed information? Not saying that I doubt your statement, I'm actually interested in reading about this.

merkelstan
04-01-2017, 08:42 AM
As a libertarian I am in favor of freedom of choice. But an addict has limited ability to choose. It does seem like a conundrum!

tod evans
04-01-2017, 08:44 AM
As a libertarian I am in favor of freedom of choice. But an addict has limited ability to choose. It does seem like a conundrum!

You seem to be obsessed with addiction........

Are you by chance a product of the DARE program?

Wooden Indian
04-01-2017, 08:48 AM
There is no "but", my friend.
A free man should be left alone to do as he sees fit as long as he isn't harming another.

If the family or personal friends are concerned they should intervene. If social clubs and church groups want to reach out and offer assistance, that's swell... but there is no "but" and I see no conundrum.

Brian4Liberty
04-01-2017, 09:53 AM
Interesting. I've never heard this before, do you have a source for this with more detailed information? Not saying that I doubt your statement, I'm actually interested in reading about this.

With regard to Prince:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?494278-Rockstar-Prince-dies-Edit-Cause-of-death

Up until now, the counterfeit and tainted drugs from China seem to be a dirty secret. Perhaps it doesn't serve the war on drugs to acknowledge poisoning from China. And the international trade/relations ramifications might be tricky. First they kill our pets with tainted food, now they kill people with tainted drugs.

But Fox did run a segment on this just last night, so perhaps it will get some attention.

Valli6
04-01-2017, 12:17 PM
A police captain is nothing but a politician in uniform. They don't see much up close because their role requires them to sit at a desk and talk most of the day. They're the ones who get in front of cameras and talk to the press.

Ask the cops who answer the 911 calls, and they'll tell you the increase in overdoses is due to the fentynal, not the heroin itself. And more people are using heroin/synthetic opiods since Obama's been in office because it's so much easier to keep moving it across the border - along with the nation-wide sales force that's been set up.

Think about it - it's much simpler and therefore, more profitable to sell a synthetic drug mixed up in a lab, than something that has to be processed from a plant grown in a field over a period of months.

Ender
04-01-2017, 12:29 PM
Tell your cousin that maybe if the CIA wasn't the biggest drug dealer in the world this problem might not be quite as sever.

'Zactly.

tod evans
04-01-2017, 12:30 PM
A police captain is nothing but a politician in uniform. They don't see much up close because their role requires them to sit at a desk and talk most of the day. They're the ones who get in front of cameras and talk to the press.

Ask the cops who answer the 911 calls, and they'll tell you the increase in overdoses is due to the fentynal, not the heroin itself. And more people are using heroin/synthetic opiods since Obama's been in office because it's so much easier to keep moving it across the border - along with the nation-wide sales force that's been set up.

Think about it - it's much simpler and therefore, more profitable to sell a synthetic drug mixed up in a lab, than something that has to be processed from a plant grown in a field over a period of months.

You left out how government is reducing the legal means for pain sufferers to obtain relief forcing an unprecedented number to explore the black market.

The more involved government gets the more fucked up the whole situation will become.

pcosmar
04-01-2017, 01:18 PM
She's a social worker.

What would they do without taxes?

phill4paul
04-01-2017, 01:27 PM
You left out how government is reducing the legal means for pain sufferers to obtain relief forcing an unprecedented number to explore the black market.

The more involved government gets the more fucked up the whole situation will become.

Definitely. When I threw my back out there was no way I could have made it to go see a doctor for 3 days. First time in my adult life I had to piss into a urine bag while prostrate. My hernia operation didn't even keep me from doing that. Docs don't make house calls anymore. I'd hate to think what it would have cost to call for a gurney and ambulance crew. Thankfully I had some opioids on hand. The truth of the matter is that the ole lady should have been able to go down to the corner store and picked me some up.

Occam's Banana
04-01-2017, 01:52 PM
As a libertarian I am in favor of freedom of choice. But an addict has limited ability to choose. It does seem like a conundrum!

:confused: How so? I don't see any conundrum here.

Even granting that "an addict has limited ability to choose" (whatever that might mean), how can forcing punishments or treatments upon addicts do anything but further constrict the range of choices available to them?

(And this is not to mention the restrictions upon the range of choices available to non-addicts, which will inevitably accompany any such forcible interventionism ...)

angelatc
04-01-2017, 02:20 PM
What would they do without taxes?

Volunteer? :D (Probably not.)

merkelstan
04-02-2017, 04:07 AM
:confused: How so? I don't see any conundrum here.

Even granting that "an addict has limited ability to choose" (whatever that might mean), how can forcing punishments or treatments upon addicts do anything but further constrict the range of choices available to them?

(And this is not to mention the restrictions upon the range of choices available to non-addicts, which will inevitably accompany any such forcible interventionism ...)

The prohibitionist argument is that 'we' (the state) must forbid enslavement to addictive substances: to promote individual freedom we must restrict certain freedoms. There is a net gain in individual freedom when people are not enslaved to drugs.

How would you refute that?

Wooden Indian
04-02-2017, 07:07 AM
So I'll say it again, cops that feel they are my caretakers and want to control me and my doctors, they are ASSHOLES.
Neg rep me again you boot licker- I got plenty.

Occam's Banana
04-02-2017, 07:31 AM
The prohibitionist argument is that 'we' (the state) must forbid enslavement to addictive substances: to promote individual freedom we must restrict certain freedoms. There is a net gain in individual freedom when people are not enslaved to drugs.

How would you refute that?

There is no need for me to refute it. It refutes itself.

... "to promote individual freedom we must restrict certain freedoms" ...


... "In order to save the village, it was necessary to destroy it" ...

... "I've abandoned free market principles to save the free market system" ...

... "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength." ...

... "X is not X" ...

The only way for the prohibitionist to worm out of this is to equivocate on the concept of "freedom."

And in any case, there is still no conundrum to be found in your original statement, since libertarianism and prohibitionism are mutually exclusive. You can frame the issue in terms of one or the other, but not both. When you try to apply both, what you get is not a conundrum (https://www.google.com/search?q=define+conundrum) but a contradiction (https://www.google.com/search?q=define+contradiction) (such as "to promote freedom we must restrict freedom").

merkelstan
04-02-2017, 07:35 AM
There is no need for me to refute it. It refutes itself.

... "to promote individual freedom we must restrict certain freedoms" ...
... "In order to save the village, it was necessary to destroy it" ...

... "I've abandoned free market principles to save the free market system" ...

... "X is not X" ...


The only way for the prohibitionist to worm out of this is to equivocate on the concept of "freedom."

And in any case, there is still no conundrum to be found in your original statement, since libertarianism and prohibitionism are mutually exclusive. You can frame the issue in terms of one or the other, but not both simultaneously. When you try to apply both simultaneously, what you get is not a conundrum (https://www.google.com/search?q=define+conundrum) but a contradiction (https://www.google.com/search?q=define+contradiction) (such as "to promote freedom we must restrict freedom").

That does not necessarily follow. If the theory is true, limiting the freedom to do one thing, grants people who would otherwise be addicts the freedom to do everything they want to have a fulfilling life. Thus granting them more freedom in net

It's analogous to the phenomenon of the laffer curve - raising tax rates beyond a certain point reduces government revenue.

Ender
04-02-2017, 07:40 AM
That does not necessarily follow. If the theory is true, limiting the freedom to do one thing, grants people who would otherwise be addicts the freedom to do everything they want to have a fulfilling life. Thus granting them more freedom in net

NO.

You are either free or you are not.

And, getting rid of the WoD would eliminate street drug profits, which would drive addiction problems down immensely.

Wooden Indian
04-02-2017, 07:50 AM
That does not necessarily follow. If the theory is true, limiting the freedom to do one thing, grants people who would otherwise be addicts the freedom to do everything they want to have a fulfilling life. Thus granting them more freedom in net

It's analogous to the phenomenon of the laffer curve - raising tax rates beyond a certain point reduces government revenue.

Yeah dude. It's not big brother's job to give them a fulfilling life. Liberty is not something that is granted or dispensed by a politician or a copper.
The guy down the road that does blow or shoots heroin does nothing to harm me and he is at liberty to do with himself as he wishes.

If he robs me NOW he has committed a crime against me and should be held accountable for the theft, not for the drug use. If he shoots someone down, hold him accountable for the murder, not the drug use, if he runs over a school bus, hold him accountable for that... you get the idea.

Criminalizing the drug doesn't empower the user and offer them a better life, it enslaves them to not only the drug but to the gubmit, so now they have 2 masters.

It just doesn't make sense, friend

Ender
04-02-2017, 07:57 AM
Yeah dude. It's not big brother's job to give them a fulfilling life. Liberty is not something that is granted or dispensed by a politician or a copper.
The guy down the road that does blow or shoots heroin does nothing to harm me and he is at liberty to do with himself as he wishes.

If he robs me NOW he has committed a crime against me and should be held accountable for the theft, not for the drug use. If he shoots someone down, hold him accountable for the murder, not the drug use, if he runs over a school bus, hold him accountable for that... you get the idea.

Criminalizing the drug doesn't empower the user and offer them a better life, it enslaves them to not only the drug but to the gubmit, so now they have 2 masters.

It just doesn't make sense, friend

Well said! I'd rep ya again, if I could.

merkelstan
04-02-2017, 08:22 AM
There are all kinds of arguments against it. I just wanted to see what you'd come-up with.

tod evans
04-02-2017, 08:37 AM
The prohibitionist argument is that 'we' (the state) must forbid enslavement to addictive substances: to promote individual freedom we must restrict certain freedoms. There is a net gain in individual freedom when people are not enslaved to drugs.

How would you refute that?

Why limit your thought pattern to 'substances'?

The term 'addiction' has already been co-opted by horny people, gamblers and overeaters....

Think what a wonderful society we could have if government could regulate all behavior.....

tod evans
04-02-2017, 08:43 AM
There was nothing to stop them, legally, from walking around with bottles of powerful opioid pills in their pockets.



Hmmm. A bit of big brother mentality there.

'There was nothing to stop them, legally, from walking around with guns, badges and qualified immunity while they shot children, killed dogs and assaulted women.'

Give me utter lawlessness over what we currently suffer under every time!

pcosmar
04-02-2017, 09:26 AM
Why limit your thought pattern to 'substances'?

The term 'addiction' has already been co-opted by horny people, gamblers and overeaters....

Think what a wonderful society we could have if government could regulate all behavior.....

I seem to be addicted to air, water and food.

Occam's Banana
04-02-2017, 10:36 AM
That does not necessarily follow.

Yes, it does.

It is merely a simple and obvious application of the Law of Noncontradiction.


If the theory is true, limiting the freedom to do one thing, grants people who would otherwise be addicts the freedom to do everything they want to have a fulfilling life.

This is exactly the sort of equivocation I said would have to be used in order for the prohibitionist to worm out of the contradiction.

Specifically, you are equivocating between freedom as "do one thing" [e.g., using drugs] (on the one hand) and freedom as "doing everything [...] to have a fulfilling life" (on the other hand). This is a "bait and switch." The former does not entail or correlate (positively or negatively) with the latter - except contingently, at most - and that you might wish to restrict the former in order to expand the latter does not eliminate the equivocation. (See below, where I say "'Freedom' means to be permitted ..." for more on this point.)

And in any case, the notion of what is or is not "a fulfilling life" is utterly subjective and arbitrary. Who are you or I (or anyone else) to dictate what does or does not constitute or contribute to "having a fulfilling life" (whatever that might mean) and then to forcibly impose that dictum upon everyone else "for their own good" (whatever [I]that might mean)?

Furthermore, if we are to limit "the freedom to do one thing" (as you phrased it) with respect to the use of drugs, then why should we not also do it with respect to ... well ... everything else? Alcohol ... watching TV ... playing video games ... lack of exercise ... eating the "wrong" foods ... not reading enough ... reading too much ... being too lazy ... working too hard ... dysfunctional personal relationships ... etc., etc., ad infinitum et nauseam. After all, those things (and many, many others) have a far, far greater impact on a far, far greater number of people (and their ability to have "a fulfilling life," however defined) than mere cocaine/heroin/meth/etc. ever will have or ever could have ...


Thus granting them more freedom in net

"Freedom" means to be permitted to do as one wishes and to not do as one does not wish, (Libertarians will add the proviso, "so long as one affords the same to others.")

That is all. Frredom is not further divisible into quanta that can be totted ups as "gains" or "losses" ("gross" or "net" or otherwise) - and especially not on a collective basis.

Concerns regarding the having of "a fulfilling life" are entirely orthogonal to this - "having a fulfilling life" does not mean "being free," and "being free" does not mean "having a fulfilling life."


It's analogous to the phenomenon of the laffer curve - raising tax rates beyond a certain point reduces government revenue.

No, it's not analogous. The Laffer Curve involves clearly definable, objectively measurable and highly precise (if not accurate) quantities. "Freedom" does not.

And the same goes for all the other abstractions you have invoked, such as "addiction," "enslavement," "ability to choose," "fulfilling life," etc. Even the concept of a "drug" is highly problematic. What, for example, is to be defined as a "drug" and what is not? Which "drugs" are to be defined as "good" (and thus permitted) and which as "bad" (and thus prohibited) - and by what standard? Why is it to be permitted that, say, caffeine and Prozac may be used to muck around with one's brain chemistry, but not THC or LSD? And that's just for the "drug" concept. The others ("addiction," "enslavement," "ability to choose," "fulfilling life," etc.) are even more intractable under any kind of "Laffer analysis" analogy, by orders of magnitude.

Superfluous Man
04-02-2017, 12:36 PM
My cousin is a police captain in small town America. He's a good guy, and I think this is a good article.

As time went on, I saw a shift in priorities. Policing became less about getting people help. The focus became more on reactive, call-to-call arrests and jail time and less on problem solving. That social work element wasn’t as important, and I think a lot of our officers have sort of forgotten how to do that side of the job.

What did he say when you told him that wanting to help people instead of imprison them was a liberal tell?

merkelstan
04-05-2017, 07:44 AM
. Even the concept of a "drug" is highly problematic. What, for example, is to be defined as a "drug" and what is not? Which "drugs" are to be defined as "good" (and thus permitted) and which as "bad" (and thus prohibited) - and by what standard? Why is it to be permitted that, say, caffeine and Prozac may be used to muck around with one's brain chemistry, but not THC or LSD? And that's just for the "drug" concept. The others ("addiction," "enslavement," "ability to choose," "fulfilling life," etc.) are even more intractable under any kind of "Laffer analysis" analogy, by orders of magnitude.

This is a bit better.

pcosmar
04-05-2017, 10:44 AM
How would you refute that?

I would not refute it.

I would oppose it.
And would consider those that support it enemies of liberty and a clear threat to my life.

is it worth your life to push the issue?

Occam's Banana
04-06-2017, 02:21 AM
This is a bit better.

A bit better than what? :confused:

otherone
04-06-2017, 06:09 AM
Think what a wonderful society we could have if government could regulate all behavior.....

All human behavior is already within the jurisdiction of the state, in that it decides what you can and can not do.

merkelstan
04-06-2017, 05:31 PM
A bit better than what? :confused:

better arguments

Occam's Banana
04-06-2017, 05:36 PM
better arguments

A bit better than better arguments? I still don't understand ...:confused::confused:

merkelstan
04-07-2017, 07:01 AM
better than bad ones posted earlier...

unknown
04-07-2017, 07:12 AM
We need more counselor types and people who can empathize with the citizen.

If the role of a cop is simply to act as a Jack Booted Thug or to shake down the citizen for revenue, then we're better off dealing with police robots and eliminating the humanity aspect altogether.

People need to embrace the 2A.

Cops are not required to protect you.

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html?_r=0).


WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

osan
04-07-2017, 08:37 AM
If you ask me, and nobody does, the problem isn't that there is not enough money in Social Services. It's that there are not enough jobs. People, men especially need to feel some sense of value. Collecting a government stipend does not provide that.

And why is that?

A large part of it is governmental interference, though that doesn't cover all of it.

As vociferously as some will disagree with this, it is also very possibly a function of population size and densities. Those who claim there is no carry limit to the planet or that we are nowhere near it are, IMO, fooling themselves. As it stands, half the planet would starve within six months if synthetic fertilizers disappeared this morning. We are significantly over the current "natural" carrying capacity in terms of food production, taken in the current "social context".

Technology accounts for part of it. A CNC machining center can turn out parts literally hundreds of times faster than a man running conventional machinery. The overhead for production runs is a tiny fraction of what it was at one time. The numbers of machines needed to get job X accomplished is vastly smaller, on average. The numbers and sorts of jigs and fixtures for the same jobs have gone from sometimes dozens or even hundreds, to one.

It seems to me there is a broad band of "pain" between living the lives of our far ancestors (simple life) and those of Star Trek, where energy is essentially free and all one needs do to obtain a La Ferrari for some afternoon fun, to be disposed at the end of it all, is to run their mouths at a box, the desired object appearing out of thin air as if by magic.

We currently reside between those two extremes, the technologies advanced enough to obviate much of the human factor in terms of production, but still too primitive to provide at least the basics of living without human labor. We are in that band of pain; cannot or will not go back, and do not have the smarts yet to be in the future.

Add to all of that the sea changes in world-view in the average man who now expects service without paying for it, and you end up with what is clearly a problem.

Further compound that with a reactionary "state", police and their current world views being perhaps the most conspicuous example, and you have the makings of hell on earth.

Welcome to hell, folks. Have a nice stay.

Occam's Banana
04-07-2017, 12:05 PM
better than bad ones posted earlier...

What "bad" ones posted earlier? The other ones in my post? All the ones in the thread so far? :confused:

And what qualifies them as "bad?" For that matter, why is the "better" one better?

It seems furtive and condescending to to imply, in such a roundabout fashion, that some arguments are somehow "bad" or otherwise inadequate without even bothering to identify what those arguments are (let alone what is supposed to be wrong with them) ...