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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: redfish who wrote (30475)	5/1/2005 3:23:48 PM
From: Jill	Respond to of 306849

I basically agree. A woman I know said she once did cocaine in her 20's and it made her feel like God so she never did it again. Repeat: never did it again. In other words she knew it would be dangerous and ruin her life. More power to her. Yes we have biology but we also have choice. These are decisions of personal responsibility we all must make. A man who lives in my building, down the hall, I have never seen him not puffing on his cigar. I literally never have seen it out of his mouth. He has a very nice girlfriend, somewhat younger (she seems 50's, he seems about 70 now). He had two strokes recently. All kinds of rehab, he is slowly coming back, he shuffles, walking with a nurse's aide etc. The cigar is back in his mouth.

To: redfish who wrote (30475)	5/1/2005 3:37:53 PM
From: GraceZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

One time I asked a friend of mine what he would do if he had a friend with an addiction, would he attempt to confront the person or ignore it. He said, "Well it depends on whether or not their addiction effected me, if they were doing things that I found unacceptable, that interfered with my life." His answer is kind of like your reasoning about the crime. Then he asked me the same question and I said, "It would depend on whether or not I thought my confronting them would help them deal with their addiction sooner." My reasoning was that so often what keeps a person an addict longer is that everyone around them adjusts to their problem and pretends it doesn't exist and this enables them to function on a high level. Being a functioning addict or alcoholic just means you stay in the addiction longer. And it's not like there are no victims even if there isn't criminal activity. Just ask anyone who grew up with a functional alcoholic as a parent. Generally speaking, therapy for the loved one of an addict takes years longer. I think the crime aspect is very troubling and it is a good argument for decriminalization. Look what happened after prohibition was repealed to organized crime, they had to find other avenues for profit (which they found in drugs, gambling, hijacking, prostitution, etc). But it you can't just look at it in one stage. You have to ask, what happens after that, and what happens after that, etc. The results of decriminalizing drugs might be great in the first stage, but I'm not so sure they are that great in stage two, three, four or five. Like it seemed like a great idea to give support to unwed mothers, to destigmatize out of wedlock births but in stage four or five you realize that the universe of unwed mothers has exploded and a large population of men no longer feel any obligation to their children. A lot of those children are the same ones you see in central booking on a Friday night.