If you can find a quote in this thread where anyone in any way advocated denying a clean needle to anyone, I’ll give you a thousand dollars. Equating use of force with being against using force to make other people provide druggies clean needles is the typical illogical backwards positive right nonsense people like you should be too intelligent to fall for. You didn’t provide my grandfather with healthy foods and he died of a heart attack. I’m going to request that you explain to my daughter why she’ll never meet her great grandfather.
Would you like me to tell you who does some bear personal responsibility for deformed, dead, drug addled babies? People who directly deprived drug needles to their mothers. What exactly would you like to tell those kids?
This is idiotic. Denying someone something is a positive action. You wouldn’t ever give a rich kid a Ferrari there fore you are denying rich kids Ferraris, yes?
Not sure if you’re being sarcastic here, but if not, the answer is obviously no–by not giving a rich kid a Ferrari, I am in no way denying him one. He remains free to pay for it himself, or to get someone else to buy it for him.
Providing needle exchanges for addicts and birth control for teens is simply known as cutting your losses. An addict with no needle WILL share or use a dirty needle. Believe it. Of course anyone would encourage an addict to get clean first and foremost, but in the meantime a simple deterrent to stop the spread of HIV and like diseases is basically common sense.
Teens who have no access to birth control or contraceptive WILL HAVE SEX ANYWAY. Believe it. It is in all of our DNA to do so.
Providing clean needles or birth control does not ENCOURAGE this behavior it just mitigates the potential damage.
An active addict is not some hatchling blown from the nest by the winds of fate. Even considering cases of people who became addicts from therapeutic use, there is a leap that has to be taken to go from there to illicit use. Some people make that leap and some people don’t. The difference is that the people who do have convinced themselves that it is necessary. Once again, there is a choice involved, which some people make and some people don’t.
Ah, I see where you’re coming from now. Fair enough. But if someone with the power to impact local health-care spending–say, a city councilman–voted against a needle-exchange program, I would argue that, as a practical matter, doing so amounted to ‘advocating for the denial of clean needles.’
I said that ‘blaming the mom is a cop-out’ because the point of the discussion was whether someone who impedes a needle-exchange program is in part responsible for the ‘collateral damage’ that follows. I did not mean to imply that mom does not bear some responsibility herself.
You can argue anything, you are aloud to be wrong. If a councilman voted against using state funds to buy a rich kid a Ferrari, the government didn’t deny rich kids Ferraris. No one is being prevented from anything as evidenced by the fact that rich kids still can get Ferraris and many do, and junkies can get clean needles and many do.
But at least you are admitting you made up the denial charge against posters here, since they aren’t council members voting on a government action.
However, to reiterate AGAIN, if a councilman votes to give a junky a needle he is now taking responsibility for what that needle does. A vote for needle exchanges is a vote for drug addicted, deformed, and/or dead babies. I’m still waiting to here what you want to tell those kids.
One cannot draw a straight line between consumption of the cake and the woman’s morbidity/mortality, much less one between her cake consumption and the M/M of a different individual. OTOH, a very straight line can be drawn between needle-sharing and the M/M of individuals other than the user him/herself.
Now, am I suggesting that you are therefore obligated to seek out IVDUs and give them clean needles? No. What I am saying is that if you were in a position where you had to make a decision that directly impacted the existence of a needle-exchange program (eg, like the hypothetical city council member I referred to above), then a failure to do so obligates you to face the music, so to speak–that is, to explain your decision to the innocents who are affected by it.
This is absolutely dumb. Dumb beyond worth in responding to, particularly because you go here:
Get the fuck out of here. LMAO.
I can’t believe you just tried to pin a shitty mother’s life choices that result in the suffering of her child on me, someone who had nothing to do with the situation because I won’t give people needles.
That, my friend, is moronic. Please tell me you’re trolling and your brain doesn’t actually work like this. You literally can’t be serious. I have way too much respect for you to believe this was a serious post.
I don’t have to have an excuse, lmao. Because Protip: I’m neither the child’s parent, nor the junkie.
No. I’m pointing out the fact that without personal responsibility these people will be junkies forever with no hope of recovery.
So yes, irrelevant of the difficulty of the issue, they still need to have it to recover. No one, no drug and no hippy feel good rationalizations will keep someone clean, only their own choices will.
So… The gateway drug argument is back in style now?
So your argument is that personal responsibility is ultimately the thing that is going to determine whether someone gets high again or not?
I already did, and you didn’t argue the point. You endorse government needle exchange programs at no cost to junkies. That is the use of force to procure needles to give free of all cost to junkies. I’m fine with any denominations.
This thread took a weird turn and is a great example of why left leaning and right leaning folks will never see eye to eye on anything.
It’s “indirectly” your fault if you aren’t willing to spend the money that you earned to pay for clean needles for drug addicts and said drug addict contracts HIV and transmits it to her unborn crack baby.
It’s totally cool to just abort said crack baby, though. In fact, you’re also supposed to pay for said abortion.
