But I think getting high should be a crime. All drug addicts should be incarcerated and forced to go cold turkey, followed by some period of back breaking labod in the hot desert.

Making an addict quit cold turkey is potentially dangerous. They won’t do it in a hospital because it’s a really bad idea. I don’t think it should be heroine, but a substitute to bring them down should be offered.

I don’t like the idea of prisons being cushy or fun…but they have a responsibility to not endanger someone’s life. Follow it up with back breaking labor…ok fine. But cold turkey is still potentially deadly and should be avoided.

Lettem choke.
What part of ILLEGAL is hard to understand?
THe junkie put themselves in the position.
Doping up is not a Right.

I think Obama should have to pay for my gin.

You give them Naltroxone.

Why should the taxpayers have to pay for that? If it’s only used for junkies, it’s the same as paying for their dope; it insulates them from the consequences of their actions.

I don’t know where you got your law degree Robert…

Non-responsive. You didn’t address my point, choosing instead to make some snotty remark.

They are simply prevented from dying, and then they serve their time.

If their choice ends in death, we are being forced to bail them out from the consequences of that choice.

Other than calling me a leftist, you have provided no logic, legality or basic common sense. You have failed to make any factual or logical counter arguments to my logical argument that the good citizens shouldn’t be charged for bailing out junkies from the consequences of their actions. Whether or not you’re a leftie is immaterial to that argument, and I haven’t used it on this thread. You deny and distract, and fling false accusations, but you have yet to justify bailing out junkies on the public dime. “Screw them” is not a defense, or a realistic argument. You just made that up; it’s not my position. It does seem to be your argument against anyone who questions your position, though. The junkies have screwed themselves, and will continue to do so until they either die or decide to change. No matter how much the public is soaked to give them special treatment, only their own change of choice will save them. An inconvenient truth for you, I guess.

I know our economy sucks, but 11,400 pounds is not $168,000. It is more like $16,800.

When detoxing somebody from heroin the medically approved treatment is not cold turkey. I imagine there is a policy on how to handle heroin addicts and this prison likely didn’t follow it.

And being a rather rotund person yourself, why do you make fun of Michael Moore’s weight?

This is the logical outcome of leftiethink. If they knew “cold turkey” was their eventual destination, maybe they wouldn’t be so eager to get hooked in the first place. I have know junkies who periodically went into rehab to reduce their addiction expense and allow them to “get high” again, since long term addiction leaves them needing a fix just to “get well” without being able to get high. It’s nice to know how our tax dollars are being used to make life easier for people who voluntarily make bad choices.

I do have a problem with medical attention which removes or decreases the unpleasant sensations that a addict would experience when denied their drug.

Giving someone a mild dose of heroine or a substitute to prevent them from crashing is not “denying unpleasant sensations”. It’s dangerous to go off cold turkey. Even catholic hospitals won’t do that…they give drugs to bring the person down.

I don’t like the idea of prisons being cushy or fun…but they have a responsibility to not endanger someone’s life. Follow it up with back breaking labor…ok fine. But cold turkey is still potentially deadly and should be avoided.

Because while they’re in prison, they’re the state’s responsibility. If the state doesn’t take basic measures to ensure their safety it’s called criminal negligence, or negligent homicide.

Sounds like the inmates run the asylum, according to you. When they break the law, their drug supply gets cut off. Forcing the taxpayers to buy their dope is criminal. Why do you care so much about the criminals, and care nothing for the law abiding citizens?

Or it might kill or seriously injure them.

Consequences of choices in action. No one forced them to become addicts, so why should we bail them out, so that they can just go back to their addiction?
Please persuade us with facts and logic, not bleeding heart bullshit. Drug addiction is suicide on the installment plan, anyway.

If you want to play, you have to pay. Cold turkey for everyone; it might make them think twice about getting back into it.

Or it might kill or seriously injure them. There’s a reason hospitals don’t do it that way, and it’s not to make life easy on the addict.

Lettem choke.
What part of ILLEGAL is hard to understand?
THe junkie put themselves in the position.
Doping up is not a Right.

They’re in PRISON, so I think we have illegal down.

This is not about doping being a right. It’s about the prison failing to take basic steps to make sure the junkie comes down safely. Non-controlled withdrawl from the drug can be FATAL, and the risk of this gets higher if the drug addiction is high or the health of the junkie is poor.

Most hospitals use Methadone, Buprenorphine, or Naltrexone (which is also used for people who are becoming dependant on morphine). This keeps the junkie from dying, without any of the pleasure of the drug (Naltrexone can be rather unpleasant).

What they really want is government supplied drugs. Just wait and see how big the settlement is when one of them overdoses on jailhouse dope.

Wait and see how many new inmates manage to get themselves arrested because they ‘entitled’ to free drugs for life.

To be honest, part of me would like to give them a vial of cyanide and a bag of needles, but Kenny is right. I have gone “cold turkey” and ended up in the ER three times. It is very dangerous and hellious, and I wasn’t even doing anything like street drugs. Kenny is exactly right, give them the methadone, or naltroxone, or whatever, so the state is not responsible in the very likely event they will get worse than a little “dope sick.” That way they’re not getting the heroin, nobody dies, then they can go to the hard labor camps. Until you’ve done “dope sick” you don’t know true hell. This coming from a woman that was abused and tortured for 14 yrs. So, trust me they won’t be wanting to come back just to get taken care of, and get free drugs. Hell, make them pay for the drugs they get instead of the Heroin. Add it to whatever fines, or such.

Move Zig,

I think you misunderstand me sir.

The “right” to drugs here is simply to keep someone from crashing and dying. When someone arrives at a hospital, and is under the influence, the hospital is legally required to keep them alive. The easiest way to do this is to give them a non-heroin drug to ease the symptoms.

If the drug user dies due to neglegence, the hospital, prison, etc, is on the hook.

From my time in medical testing, I can tell you Nalproxin is a pretty nasty drug. It kept us from getting hooked to the morphine and other drugs they were testing on us, but it often made people violently ill. They puked, they had the runs, they ran a fever and had to have ice packs applied. It’s not a fun substitute. I heard more than one person (between bouts of vomiting) crying that they’d never do a study again. It’s not a totally humanitarian way of dealing with the problem. It sucks. It might have even nastier side effects than heroine. But it keeps the person alive.

Just because England is wrong 350% of the time doesn’t mean we can’t give them the nod the one time they get it right. It doesn’t mean we have to approve their idiotic gun bans, or the like.