mayoraasei (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
mayoraasei) wrote2006-08-20 10:25 pm
mayoraasei) wrote2006-08-20 10:25 pm
Entry tags:
uggggh
Of all the narrow-minded, paranoid, ill-informed proclamations to make in public.
I don't think there was ever any suggestion that stem cell research would be panacea to all our current medical problems, but it's always been an essential step for understanding a lot of genetic and developmental problems, as well as becoming potential solutions to organ transplants, healing of superficial wounds, better population-targeted drugs.......etc.
Can we please vote this government out?!?! Participation in Iraq, rising petrol prices, rising interests, getting rid of student unions (and other unions), selling of uranium to China, AWA, the abortion drug debate, stem cell research debate....
And these are just the most recent controversial decisions of the last decade of Liberal reign, and leaves out ongoing debate on euthanasia, non-traditional marriage, and plenty of funding problems (while the PM smartly gives himself a payrise).
It just sucks that the alternative isn't even an alternative. If there's light at the end of the tunnel it's far far away.
No wonder Australians so damn apathetic about everything.
Edit: On the other hand, I'm highly amused that they would translate photophobia as "dislike of bright lights". HAHAHAHA. I guess light sensitivity just doesn't sound cool enough. The rash is supposedly indicative of meningococcal, by the way (and usually indicative of "you're just about too late to be saved", which sucks).
God, I'm not sure why they even had to dumb down the symptoms. Don't you guys all watch House? =P They even changed fatigue to tiredness =_______=;;;;;;; I suppose I should be glad they kept the "nausea" instead of changing it to "feeling dizzy".
I don't think there was ever any suggestion that stem cell research would be panacea to all our current medical problems, but it's always been an essential step for understanding a lot of genetic and developmental problems, as well as becoming potential solutions to organ transplants, healing of superficial wounds, better population-targeted drugs.......etc.
Can we please vote this government out?!?! Participation in Iraq, rising petrol prices, rising interests, getting rid of student unions (and other unions), selling of uranium to China, AWA, the abortion drug debate, stem cell research debate....
And these are just the most recent controversial decisions of the last decade of Liberal reign, and leaves out ongoing debate on euthanasia, non-traditional marriage, and plenty of funding problems (while the PM smartly gives himself a payrise).
It just sucks that the alternative isn't even an alternative. If there's light at the end of the tunnel it's far far away.
No wonder Australians so damn apathetic about everything.
Edit: On the other hand, I'm highly amused that they would translate photophobia as "dislike of bright lights". HAHAHAHA. I guess light sensitivity just doesn't sound cool enough. The rash is supposedly indicative of meningococcal, by the way (and usually indicative of "you're just about too late to be saved", which sucks).
God, I'm not sure why they even had to dumb down the symptoms. Don't you guys all watch House? =P They even changed fatigue to tiredness =_______=;;;;;;; I suppose I should be glad they kept the "nausea" instead of changing it to "feeling dizzy".
no subject
no subject
The Greens certainly support legalising of drugs, but only for existing addicts. If a druggo's cravings are satisfied at legal injection rooms (rehab where possible), it would help lower drug-related crimes. Also, addicts are more likely to die from swapping needles with other diseased addicts, or injecting fakes and dangerous impurities they bought off the black market. Whereas proper injection rooms would help prevent that, while buying the addicts some time and giving them ready-access to rehab options.
no subject
How would you distinguish between existing addicts from new ones? Ok I am not a medical genius but it should involve some sort of tests right? Whos going to manage the expenses? The federal of state government? Good luck sorting that out. Besides, having free drugs available reduces the financial burdens of drug addicts, and this means they can sustain their drug intake for a longer period. Think half government funded drug addiction.
They are addicted to a reason, if they can risk being imprisoned by commiting drug-related offenses, (correct me if I am wrong, but it should be robbery of some sort right?) whats stopping them from commiting such crimes after government funded drug centres stop giving them supplies? (Its GOT to step down/stop free drug supplies as a means for rehabilitation right?)
In addition most drug addicts would be pretty much jobless and endure all sorts of social problems. Sometimes one need more than just the will to quit something for good.
IMO a better alternative is to focus on forced rehabilitation, imprisoned them in some remote place, flush out the toxins and assign them jobs after rehab so they can get their life going again. But I imagine that wouldbe a VERY VERY expensive maneuver =(
The most effective way to eradicate any problem is always prevention, although I aint exactly sure how to carry that out. Is it possible to medically induce the effects of extreme drug addiction without actually being addicted? Then force everyone through that! mwahahaha!
no subject
They've actually got a drug like this for alcoholics. It pretty much blocks the enzyme they have for getting rid of alcohol in their system, so people get really sick (hungover) really quickly (after like one glass or something).
The problem with illegal drugs is that people get addicted to that period of euphoria. Maybe the prevention has to involve actually having a drug that causes euphoria without causing the horrible side effects...but then the world would turn out like Brave New World, wouldn't it?
I don't know, I think I have to agree with you on this one. Rehab's got to be better in the long term than actually subconsciously endorsing drug usage.
On the other hand, there are good sides to this argument: as you said, what will determine whether one is a drug addict or not? I think sometimes it doesn't matter. A lot of people who die from overdose (or become very badly ill) are often not addicts but just one-timers. If there is a government-funded place run by accredited people, these overdoses can be eliminated, and you'll also be in a safe place if you have a bad trip. The point being, a lot of people take drugs once or twice in their lives just for the experience, and don't get addicted at all, but these people are equally at danger of dying/being permanently debilitated if they take "bad quality street products".
Just a thought. Hmm. I think there are both sides to this argument, because legalising it does cut down on street peddling, which eliminates a lot of health danger, but it also sends a message across to users that "it's okay to be an addict", which defeats the purpose.
no subject
Greens policy is more like a regulation of drugs than a legalisation of drugs actually. If you turn yourself in, they'll give you alternatives, placebos and rehab and only give you the real thing as a last resort. whats stopping them from commiting such crimes after government funded drug centres stop giving them supplies? Well, why rob Seven Eleven or attack a 20 randoms on the street to collect $1000 so that I can buy dodgy drugs off the black market or share a needle with God-knows-who, when I can just go back to the free clinic if my addiction comes back? The drug market would decline if addicts have free clinics, making drugs less available outside of clinics.
Imagine if your angelic son had his drink spiked. Would you prefer to see him receive the humane support and medical attention he needs, or see him condemned and imprisoned for an addiction that's not his fault? Drug addiction is an illness and should be treated as such. At least he could still go to school and look after his future with his addiction looked after by a clinic, instead of quitting school to spend his whole life robbing people, running away from cops, or rotting away in a prison. As for prisons, drugs are smuggled into prisons anyway so any funding spend on prison rehab is pretty much wasted. At least with free clinics, addicts can continue to go to school or work, instead of eating free food, watching free DVDs and sucking on drugs from the back door of the prison. A comfortable but very expensive prison lifestyle funded by taxpayers like you and me.
no subject
Ok...that actually sounds very reasonable, and I will have to agree. As a response to this I would have to say, maybe enforce a non-incriminating approach to first time drug users, that way they are more inclined to turn themselves in after they are spiked/involuntarily drugged. However, there is still a distinction between recognizing the innocence of certain drug users and seeing the legalization of drugs as a whole.
In addition,
I beg to differ. There will be immense costs associated with providing free clinics. The first couple things that comes to mind are:
Administration;
Social, How would people feel about drug facilities around their neighbourhood? If they are placed in non-populated areas they are not easily-accessible, therefore it might take too long to reach when "it" kicks in. Property price declines in drug-related area are all costs to society, imagine suburbs labelled as drug towns because there are an inflood of drug users in their clinic.
Legal(there will have to be new law/regulations introduced, because well, if people can smuggle drugs into a prison, surely they can bribe the free clinic workers to give them a bigger dose;
Pharmaceutical, there will be new contracts to drug companies that produce free drugs. I am not sure how smoothly new drug production would commence as I am not aware of the nature of the drugs (Ie, whether production process could be easily modified to cater for these drugs);
Security/Personnel for the facility;
It might seem as if I am taking words out of their context but quoting the whole sentence would have been too long, anyway consider.
That is like....um....yeah. Seriously that has to sound wrong =(
But yeah, after having to think of arguments to retort I see how the Greens proposal makes sense and can work. However sometimes such policies are very difficult to implement, and people can misinterpret the goodwill of providing free drugs to addicts as an endorsement of a major social-problem.
And yeah...sometimes I argue for the sake of arguing =P
no subject
"why rob.....when I can just go back to the free clinic if my addiction comes back?"
That is like....um....yeah. Seriously that has to sound wrong =(
LOL I know... and it will continue to sound wrong until you get mugged one day or come home to find that your flat screen TV and computer got stolen. I'd prefer to see addicts in clinics injecting saline though, without being told that it's saline of course XD.
I think the Greens ought to at least receive credit for sticking to their ideas even if they are unpopular ideas, instead of playing the blame game or lying through their teeth (e.g. AWB wheat scam, blaming the reserve bank, blaming the banana and petrol prices for interest rates).
no subject
Oh, surely from House you've gotten a good understanding of the mindset of pharmaceutical companies? =P It's an enormous business, and a lot of companies are extremely exploitative of their customers. If they are offered the business, I think they would be more than happy to take it.
Personally I don't think current illegal drugs would be hard or all that expensive to synthesise, and since most of these are injection or oral drugs, I think the risks to personnel are minimal.
And security...? Hmm. Why would you steal or rob when you can get it free? =P
But like any policy, the administrative side has to be planned out meticulously for it to work to any realistically beneficial degree.