Indiana Shut Down Its Rural Planned Parenthood Clinics And Got An HIV Outbreak

a reply to: Martin75

Yes, I'm serious but I could probably have written it in a less inflammatory way.

We're all part of the same system and are largely interchangeable. Every single one of us has the exact same potential, but only one of us can fill any given slot. This means that if one person were to simply disappear such as having been aborted another would have taken the spot instead and the system would have continued unchanged from a macro level.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Everything you state is enabling the bad behaviors...all on the falsehood of "caring" and "empathy".

Giving people condoms enables them to have sex.
Giving people needles enables them to inject heroin.
These are very simple things.

You want to give the drunk a nice place to drink at, while providing them decent booze because the cheap stuff makes them sick.
Very humane of you.

a reply to: Aazadan

That is very very cute...the way you tried to twist this one way, like me saying to kill them and now trying to twist it another way.


Just because I don't want to hand over money and free stuff to them means..................I don't want to hand over money and free stuff to them.

The free crap doesn't stop anyone from doing drugs. Free needles don't stop this.

But...continue on trying to twist what I say to drive your fake point.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Everything you state is enabling the bad behaviors...all on the falsehood of "caring" and "empathy".

Giving people condoms enables them to have sex.
Giving people needles enables them to inject heroin.
These are very simple things.

You want to give the drunk a nice place to drink at, while providing them decent booze because the cheap stuff makes them sick.
Very humane of you.

More like I want to give the drunk a place to drink at because if I don't the drunk will seek out questionable stuff like bathtub gin and drink that and get dead. By the way, what I just said was what happened during Prohibition.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Except what you stated, in the format in regards to PPh, the Govy would have been running the speakeasies.


Either way, it is still enabling the person. If there was actually a shameful outlook on that action, instead of embracing and enabling, people wouldn't be doing it as often....of just by themselves.

a reply to: macman

'This Is Working': Portugal, 12 Years after Decriminalizing Drugs

From this office, where the air conditioning stopped working this morning, Goulão keeps watch over one of the world's largest experiments in drug policy.

One gram of heroin, two grams of coc aine, 25 grams of marijuana leaves or five grams of hashish: These are the drug quantities one can legally purchase and possess in Portugal, carrying them through the streets of Lisbon in a pants pocket, say, without fear of repercussion. MDMA -- the active ingredient in ecstasy -- and amphetamines -- including speed and meth -- can also be possessed in amounts up to one gram. That's roughly enough of each of these drugs to last 10 days.

But it was a freedom that soon overwhelmed the country. When Goulão established his doctor's practice in Faro, he soon found himself approached by parents whose children were no longer just smoking joints, but had moved on to heroin. Sometimes the children came to him as well, and Goulão had no idea how to treat them. When the first state-run rehab clinic opened in Lisbon, Goulão attended a training course there.

At that point, he says, the heroin epidemic was just beginning.

In the 1980s, cheap heroin from Afghanistan and Pakistan began flooding Europe. Portugal was not the only country affected, but Goulão says his nation was hit particularly hard, because people here had little idea how to handle drugs. "We were naïve," he says.

The number of people taking illegal drugs in Portugal was low compared with other countries, but of those who did consume drugs, an unusually high number of them fell into the category that specialists in this field refer to as "problem drug users."

page 2

"Drug users aren't criminals, they're sick," Goulão says. Not everyone agrees -- Pinto Coelho, for example. But the anti-drug commission quickly agreed on this position, which formed the basis for Portugal's experiment in dealing with drug users without dealing in deterrents. Goulão repeats that statement often, as do members of his staff within the anti-drug program, as well as doctors at state-run drug clinics. More surprising is that a Lisbon police commissioner, whose officers spend their days searching for drugs, says it too.

The data show, among other things, that the number of adults in Portugal who have at some point taken illegal drugs is rising. At the same time, though, the number of teenagers who have at some point taken illegal drugs is falling. The number of drug addicts who have undergone rehab has also increased dramatically, while the number of drug addicts who have become infected with HIV has fallen significantly. What, though, do these numbers mean? With what exactly can they be compared? There isn't a great deal of data from before the experiment began. And, for example, the number of adults who have tried illegal drugs at some point in their lives is increasing in most other countries throughout Europe as well.

Imagine that. Treating these people like people actually HELPS them and even goes towards decreasing HIV transmission and increasing rehab participation.

More sources that say the same thing:
14 Years After Decriminalizing All Drugs, Here's What Portugal Looks Like
What The U.S. Can Learn From Portugal About Decriminalizing Drugs

Here is a quote from that final source from HuffPro that I just LOVE and wish more politicians would do:

The political leaders of the country decided to leave it up to a panel of scientists on what to do, and they agreed to their findings in advance.

Listening to scientists for scientific opinions WHAT? Blasphemy!

a reply to: Krazysh0t

First....outlawing drugs is moronic.
Second...tax money going to offset people's poor choices is theft from me to those that chose to take the bad path.
Third...this whole notion rewards people with bad decision making skills.
Fourth...it also punishes those that abide by the laws.
Fifth...we are not Portugal.
Sixth...this is all based off the practice of the few people that do drugs holding the rest of the population hostage in some threat of "You better give me free stuff and take care of me, otherwise I will just steal/rape/kill".
Seventh...I say bring it. If people want to threaten these things, lets see them follow through with their actions. Maybe a few of their fellow drug users being shot by the law abiding citizen would be the kick in the ass they need to either go away and/or stop their illegal actions.

a reply to: macman

But your first point contradicts all your other points. You admit having illegal drugs is moronic, but the fact is it's the reality of the situation. With illegal drugs comes a whole lot of negative social impacts on the community, something has to be done to counter act these negative impacts that are caused by making certain drugs illegal.

Its easy to just sit back and say its there own fault for getting addicted to illegal drugs, rather than alcohol or prescription drugs. But that's not going to fix the problem is it?

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Aazadan

That is very very cute...the way you tried to twist this one way, like me saying to kill them and now trying to twist it another way.


Just because I don't want to hand over money and free stuff to them means..................I don't want to hand over money and free stuff to them.

The free crap doesn't stop anyone from doing drugs. Free needles don't stop this.

But...continue on trying to twist what I say to drive your fake point.

Bold mine

It isn't meant to stop people from doing drugs ( but hey if they can greaat!), it's to prevent the spread of HIV and other needle transmitted disease. And thus SAVE much more money down the road accrued in treating these people for the disease.

Same for condoms.....unwanted kids cost the tax payers alot ya know.

You said it above, it's not going to stop these people, but fiscally it makes much more sense, to spend alittle now, then alot later. And providing people with education about these things never hurts...there's alot of idiots out there. That reminds me, haven't watched Idiocracy in awhile. Think I pull it out......

You'll note that the governor instated an emergency needle exchange program at the urging of the CDC despite his personal disagreement with it.

In other words, he refused to allow a needle exchange program before- something that really costs very little and saves lives and he knows it saves lives otherwise he wouldn't have done it now - all because he had his own personal objections to it. He was not concerned with saving lives of those unfortunate enough to get hooked on heroin. Those people are your brothers and sisters and children. They are your parents. They're not some horrible criminals. Many of them got hooked on the pain killer oxycontin and switched to heroin when oxycontin became difficult to get. Its not difficult to stop- its near impossible without help. The governor of this state has condemned many of them to death and they're not the criminal element you think they are. they are people you know.

Its one thing to disagree with a behavior, its quite another to condemn many to death because you've deemed them unworthy of 50$ of free needles a year. Before you judge, go out and learn about what heroin addiction can do to normal people and how it destroys their lives. It does not discriminate, young, old, religious, liberal, conservative- it doesn't care. Its amazing that someone could be so cynical as to only allow such a program when the CDC demands it to keep more people from dying of AIDS.

Haven't gone through the whole thread and didn't see it on the first 3 pages, I was curious as to actual number of people for this outbreak:

The state declared an emergency after health officials reported a total of 81 HIV positive tests last week, including 74 confirmed and seven preliminary cases related to the outbreak in southeastern Indiana. Almost all of the confirmed HIV cases have been from Austin, Cooke said. That number is expected to rise.

LA Times article

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

It is not a contradiction.
I don't agree with US drug policies. If people want to shoot up gasoline, I don't care. It is there body, their problem.
But, since there is laws regarding such, they have consequences if not followed.
Personally, I don't use drugs. Don't even drink.

Now, regardless if say heroine was legal, the use of needles would not go away.
What you and others want to to have other people's poor choices funded by tax payers, all on this notion that since it is going to happen, and since they are a drain on society anyways, we should take care of them.
Bull$hit!!!
If an area is ravaged by HIV, because people choose to share dirty needles, I guess that area will have a short life span.
Tax payers are not the Sugar Daddy to those that make poor life choices.

a reply to: Connector

So...drug users and people that have unprotected sex hold the tax payer hostage. Either pay for free stuff now, or free stuff later. Fantastic.

a reply to: macman

Yes, you hate people that shoot up drugs, we all get that, you've well and truly established that point. I think most of us have a hard time understanding why a person would go down that road in the first place, but it's hardly the point.

You just keep on bypassing past the fact that you live in a first world country that has an obligation not to let the streets turn into a 3rd world slum. So basically the tax payer will pay either way, whether you disagree or not, you can't get past that simple fact. Either a little now or a lot later.

It just seems ridiculous that you would prefer tax payers to pay out far more in the long run, simply because you don't understand why people would go down that road. It seriously makes no sense!

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

When did I state I hate people? Please, be specific.

And since when does being a "1st world country" constitute handing over money to those that use drugs?

And....when did I state tax dollars should go towards them during any time of their life?

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Krazysh0t

First....outlawing drugs is moronic.

Glad you agree with that.

Second...tax money going to offset people's poor choices is theft from me to those that chose to take the bad path.

Would you rather that same tax money (plus MUCH more) go to treating rampant cases of HIV that may have been prevented if the smaller amount of taxes were used at first?

Third...this whole notion rewards people with bad decision making skills.

This is kind of a rewording of the previous point, but it doesn't reward them really. It is done to prevent the spread of HIV.

Fourth...it also punishes those that abide by the laws.

So you more or less just took your second point and split it up into points 3 and 4. Though I don't see how spending tax money on this (or anything really) is punishing law abiding citizens outside of collecting the taxes to begin with. The tax money at this point is the government's. It can do whatever it wants with the money. The injustice occurred originally when the government made its citizens pay taxes to begin with, but that is the case for all taxes collected, so it is irrelevant to the discussion.

Fifth...we are not Portugal.

Yeah, I've heard this weak copout before. For one, we also have Prohibition to look at and we can see pretty much the same problems with the same solutions there too. For two, what we are doing currently isn't working. To dismiss something that is working while promoting the system that is utterly broken just shows political bias.

Sixth...this is all based off the practice of the few people that do drugs holding the rest of the population hostage in some threat of "You better give me free stuff and take care of me, otherwise I will just steal/rape/kill".

No it isn't. This is about trying to minimize the spread of HIV. It's not like we are giving these people free drugs or anything.

Seventh...I say bring it. If people want to threaten these things, lets see them follow through with their actions. Maybe a few of their fellow drug users being shot by the law abiding citizen would be the kick in the ass they need to either go away and/or stop their illegal actions.

Yes... The threat of death is what is going to motivate people to stop using... You do realize that these people live their lives knowing they are eventually going to die? Have you heard this song before?



That song is about Bradley Nowell's battle with heroin addiction and how he has already determined his fate. "One day I'm going to lose the war." That song came out in 1994. Bradley died of a heroin overdose in 1996.

Though I also think it is atrocious that you would recommend shooting drug users. These are people you are talking about. The may have made some bad choices in life, but that doesn't mean they deserve our contempt. They DESERVE to be treated like humans and possibly to give them help to overcome their addiction. Even if, at the minimim, they never quit but just use clean needles, that would be MUCH better. At least that way, HIV rates aren't going up.

What would you do if your daughter slept with someone and that someone was a heroin user but never told her? He ends up giving her HIV that he contracted from sharing a needle. All of this could have been prevented with a needle sharing program and your daughter could get away with just having made a dumb decision for one night.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

When did I state I hate people? Please, be specific.

You at the very least (without going though the thread) have proudly pronounced that you have a burning disregard for basic human life. In my book that can simply be translated to 'hate'.

And since when does being a "1st world country" constitute handing over money to those that use drugs?

The very definition of a first world country, is one that provides basic welfare to people in need. The concept should have nothing to do with "drugs", one way or the other. Assistance with drug abuse is just one of many things people who are in need may need help with.

And....when did I state tax dollars should go towards them during any time of their life?

I never once claimed you stated that. In fact, I clearly stated you said it shouldn't. But the fact is it will, whether you like it or not. So would you prefer to pay a little now or a lot later? Remembering the established fact that not paying anything is simply not a option in a 1st world country.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t


Would you rather that same tax money (plus MUCH more) go to treating rampant cases of HIV that may have been prevented if the smaller amount of taxes were used at first?

The Govt shouldn't be treating it in either case.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

This is kind of a rewording of the previous point, but it doesn't reward them really. It is done to prevent the spread of HIV.

No. Clean needles provides the drug user with more needles to continue their addiction.
Condoms provides people the means to continue having sex.
Neither are the tax payers responsibility.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

So you more or less just took your second point and split it up into points 3 and 4. Though I don't see how spending tax money on this (or anything really) is punishing law abiding citizens outside of collecting the taxes to begin with. The tax money at this point is the government's. It can do whatever it wants with the money. The injustice occurred originally when the government made its citizens pay taxes to begin with, but that is the case for all taxes collected, so it is irrelevant to the discussion.

It is not the Government's money. Last I checked, the people are still somewhat in charge of what is being spent on.
The Govt has no right to our money.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Yeah, I've heard this weak copout before. For one, we also have Prohibition to look at and we can see pretty much the same problems with the same solutions there too. For two, what we are doing currently isn't working. To dismiss something that is working while promoting the system that is utterly broken just shows political bias.

Prohibition has nothing to do with not paying for clean needles and condoms.
The Govt has not outlawed needles or condoms.
Your comparison is basically a football bat.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

No it isn't. This is about trying to minimize the spread of HIV. It's not like we are giving these people free drugs or anything.

It is still the means for them to continue...just "safely".

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Yes... The threat of death is what is going to motivate people to stop using... You do realize that these people live their lives knowing they are eventually going to die? Have you heard this song before?

And when they die, I shall shed no tear as they chose this path in life.



Threat of death towards someone, anyone, pushing hostilities towards others involving criminal activities is a cause and effect situation.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
That song is about Bradley Nowell's battle with heroin addiction and how he has already determined his fate. "One day I'm going to lose the war." That song came out in 1994. Bradley died of a heroin overdose in 1996.

Oh...another musician making millions of dollars with a drug habit that dies due to said habit.
Even worse, he foresaw his own demise yet continued using. Sad....but not a surprise.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Though I also think it is atrocious that you would recommend shooting drug users. These are people you are talking about. The may have made some bad choices in life, but that doesn't mean they deserve our contempt. They DESERVE to be treated like humans and possibly to give them help to overcome their addiction. Even if, at the minimim, they never quit but just use clean needles, that would be MUCH better. At least that way, HIV rates aren't going up.

Threat of death towards someone, anyone, pushing hostilities towards others involving criminal activities is a cause and effect situation.
So the dregs of society require my attention financially. Again, nothing like stealing money away from myself and my family in the fake name of Govt based Empathy.
BS!!!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
What would you do if your daughter slept with someone and that someone was a heroin user but never told her? He ends up giving her HIV that he contracted from sharing a needle. All of this could have been prevented with a needle sharing program and your daughter could get away with just having made a dumb decision for one night.

Oh, so these programs will 100% assure me of such a thing not happening?

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa


You at the very least (without going though the thread) have proudly pronounced that you have a burning disregard for basic human life. In my book that can simply be translated to 'hate'.

And there is the Progressive redefining of terms and words.
You really need to stop telling me what I feel and think about people.
I never stated Hate.

I hate a Govt that steals from me to give to others.

I have no respect for those that cheat the systems and take from these programs.

I have no respect for those that choose and chose to partake in drugs and continue on with drugs.

I have even less respect for those that give excuse upon excuse as to why they can't do something.

I don't hate drug users. I have no respect for them. Way big difference.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

The very definition of a first world country, is one that provides basic welfare to people in need. The concept should have nothing to do with "drugs", one way or the other. Assistance with drug abuse is just one of many things people who are in need may need help with.

Ummm no...First World is not defined as such.
Running water.
Sewage treatment.
Garbage collection.
Non-dictator driven Govt.
Schools.
Basic freedoms.

That is 1st world.

I can't help that you and other Progressives not only try to redefine this, along with Christian beliefs and such, but just because you have decided to try to use these terms as some form of base doesn't make it true.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

I never once claimed you stated that. In fact, I clearly stated you said it shouldn't. But the fact is it will, whether you like it or not. So would you prefer to pay a little now or a lot later? Remembering the established fact that not paying anything is simply not a option in a 1st world country.

Well, it seems that the wishes of many are being listened to...you know the tax payers and funding has been pulled.

originally posted by: macman
The Govt shouldn't be treating it in either case.

How does that work? Hospitals aren't allowed to turn away any patients that walk in off the street even if they have no insurance.

No. Clean needles provides the drug user with more needles to continue their addiction.
Condoms provides people the means to continue having sex.
Neither are the tax payers responsibility.

You know what isn't my responsibility? Waging wars in far away countries that pose 0 threat to me and my family's wellbeing, but our government does it anyways. Until the government stops waging unnecessary wars on the taxpayers dime, I have a hard time believing the inconsequential amount of tax money spent on needles and condoms is even worth comparing.

It is not the Government's money. Last I checked, the people are still somewhat in charge of what is being spent on.
The Govt has no right to our money.

What world do you live in? The government spends the money on whatever it damn well pleases. You are certainly free to offer some suggestions on its usage, but the government isn't obliged to listen to you.

Prohibition has nothing to do with not paying for clean needles and condoms.
The Govt has not outlawed needles or condoms.
Your comparison is basically a football bat.

My comparison is to show that if things like heroin weren't illegal then this wouldn't be a problem.

It is still the means for them to continue...just "safely".

Why does it matter anyways? If they want to destroy their lives. Fine. I just don't want their carelessness to go on and infect healthy people when they have sex with others.

And when they die, I shall shed no tear as they chose this path in life.

Yes, I already know you have zero empathy for drug users. Sad, but you are entitled to your opinion.

Oh...another musician making millions of dollars with a drug habit that dies due to said habit.
Even worse, he foresaw his own demise yet continued using. Sad....but not a surprise.

By you saying this, it makes me think that you have a serious misunderstanding of how addiction works. The impression I get from you is that one can just stop cold turkey and never have to worry about it again with just a small bit of willpower. You should read this article:
Addiction as a 'Brain Disease'

Under the disease model of addiction, the brain's motivational center becomes reorganized. The priorities are shuffled so that finding and using the substance (or another substance that will produce similar effects) becomes top priority as far as the brain is concerned. In this sense, the drug has essentially taken over the brain, and the addict is no longer in control of his behavior. An alcoholic won't, for example, have trouble deciding whether or not to get in his car and drive to the store to get more alcohol -- the urge will be irresistible.

Threat of death towards someone, anyone, pushing hostilities towards others involving criminal activities is a cause and effect situation.
So the dregs of society require my attention financially. Again, nothing like stealing money away from myself and my family in the fake name of Govt based Empathy.
BS!!!

The money is already done stolen from you and you are pitching a fit on how it is being spent rather than it being stolen in the first place.

Oh, so these programs will 100% assure me of such a thing not happening?

Of course not. Don't create a strawman here. Nothing works 100% well. The idea is to minimize the problem. There is very rarely ever a solution that takes care of the problem 100%. In this case, you choose the idea that causes the least harm to the whole for the least amount of money. It is a simple economics/ethics issue and you are dragging your feet because you are opposed to the simple idea of treating drug users like humans.