Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Proud Deplorable who wrote (59983)	10/13/2004 2:39:01 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

"SOLON, posting that article by Meehan was simply a waste of your time and misleading. The author made some statements that clearly do NOT refer to benzodiazepines as opposed to street drugs." SO? The article was about taking a thoughtful and perhaps stimulating approach to the rather convoluted and wishy washy ideas which are provoked in the minds of many by the word, "addiction". If you failed to learn anything from it or even to peruse it intelligently, then it may indeed have been a waste of your time. But I assure you that your accusation that it was a waste of my time is ill-considered and misplaced. "so where is the CHOICE" You are confusing options with choice. People have the choice to live with anxiety and suffering or to find relief in medicine. If other real and attainable options are present then these may be chosen too, or instead. It is no value to point out the obvious to me where choice is concerned. Much of the time our options are not agreeable, but the choice between them remains. Hell, I can step in front of a car if I don't want to take pills, too. "a person who is ill and, in cases of anxiety or insomnia, unable to or not seeing the need to investigate what is being prescribed to them are vulnerable," No disagreement there. In life we are all vulnerable in various ways. "Are patients supposed to follow their doctors advice or try to second guess them" Did you say, "SUPPOSED"? I would think they can do whatever they damn well please with their doctor's advice. "it is not unreasonable that I be protected from harm" I can agree with that. So be reasonable. "When you quote Heather Ashton "Recreational use of diazepam, alprazolam, lorazepam, temazepam, triazolam, flunitrazepam and others has been reported in various countries" out of context like you did, you are again twisting the intent of her works which am well familar with." I certainly did not quote anybody out of context. I supplied the entire article and I repeated some of the important points she felt it was valuable to make. "Are you saying that the roughly 20 to 25% of older folks who are given these drugs to control them in nursing homes have some kind of choice?" I have no idea if your numbers are correct, but they certainly are irrelevant to anything I have said. It is clear that my emphasis was on the rights of people to make choices as to whether or not to use and/or abuse drugs or other options in life. If competent people are being prevented from taking drugs or if they are being forced to take drugs...then their rights are being violated in my opinion. I get the feeling that you would simply like to impose your personal value against people using certain drugs even though you admit that qualified professionals and competent patients may entirely disagree with your opinions. Personally, I think most prescriptions do more harm than good and that there are safer paths to health than worshipping a doctor. But the context and content of my posts to you have been consistently about defending the rights of people to choose their own values. I do many harmful things to my body and I am not in a nursing home and I don't need any preaching. "are these huge numbers of nursing home residents addicts or physically dependant?" I've tried to make it clear that I find the question irrelevant and unimportant. I suspect that most of them prefer taking the drugs they are taking to not taking them. Indeed, they will remind the doctor if their supply is running low. But the question is irrelevent. People have a right to choose what is in their own best interest. You can call it by any name you wish. If a person's choices are impacting their life in such a way that the rewards or benefits of a certain habit no longer surpass negatives, then they have a human choice to make. If it was NOT a CHOICE then NOBODY would EVER quit smoking, drinking, benzodiazepines, or reading the paper. My point has not been to insist on right or wrong behaviour. I do prefer that people not attempt to impose their values on other free and independent creatures. If you feel the need to judge and to label people who use benzodiazepines...please feel free to do so. But those of us who believe in freedom will still see to it that they are allowed to do as they please within the law. And spending your life worrying about whether to call something dependency or addiction is a waste of time unless you are going for your Doctorate in Nonsense...and it sure doesn't feed the cows.