The use of 'shocking' may sound like hype until you hear there's been a five-hundred percent increase in babies born addicted to opiates in rural America. (RT: 500% growth in infants in rural areas showing up addicted to heroin, opioids)
In this one, there's a straight-up apology from the top since we have flogged this topic previously and it's so serious it warrants flogging but doing it repeatedly serves no purpose unless we see something new and this one guts me, mates. All those little babies.
Lotho has said many times there needs to be much more effective and compassionate management of detox outfits which go beyond flushing the narcotic and help get the people back to a road they can manage. He's aware it's going to cost some money but we'll give him a Hear, Hear when we strongly believe the cost of doing nothing is so much higher.
- Insert a lengthy editorial regarding the blazing failure of the War on Drugs since all of us can readily see that and we already know that's not the answer -
There's the question of continuing interdiction when the War on Drugs has failed so egregiously. We don't know if it has value if handled by people who are competent and are not cynical about what they do.
The general thinking here is interdiction doesn't do much since we need to get to the point at which people wouldn't use the heroin even if it were in front of them. That's probably not possible for ex-addicts but this audience is people who have never used it before.
Ed: go after the why?
Yep. If we find out why then we can talk about it and, more than likely, fix it.
I'm sincerely sorry about presenting this one but it can't be ignored. I've thought of the Millennials as babies when they have had trouble with opiates but these are the tiniest ones.
It's pointless to go on with a white hats and black hats view of this since we have seen that approach from both parties for decades. We know it doesn't work so the only good guys are the ones who can bring substantive ways to fix it.
- Insert the editorial about there's no need for new bomber programs, etc, etc -
We know the use of the destroyer drugs (i.e. narcotics and anything with that kind of power) will probably come out of a sense of rebellion, hopelessness, or both.
So what is that rebellion? Is it against parents, the state, everything? Please tell me what's busting your ass, kid, because we can probably get cracking on making it better and not just with Band-Aids.
Since we're not trying to Grinch Christmas, Trump's talk of reducing military spending is not accompanied by anything overt toward this program but we see optimism in that potentially he could do something about the problem when all the dollars aren't getting jacked elsewhere by questionable interests.
Ed: that's fantasy!
Possibly but it's what we've got for now.
In this one, there's a straight-up apology from the top since we have flogged this topic previously and it's so serious it warrants flogging but doing it repeatedly serves no purpose unless we see something new and this one guts me, mates. All those little babies.
Lotho has said many times there needs to be much more effective and compassionate management of detox outfits which go beyond flushing the narcotic and help get the people back to a road they can manage. He's aware it's going to cost some money but we'll give him a Hear, Hear when we strongly believe the cost of doing nothing is so much higher.
- Insert a lengthy editorial regarding the blazing failure of the War on Drugs since all of us can readily see that and we already know that's not the answer -
There's the question of continuing interdiction when the War on Drugs has failed so egregiously. We don't know if it has value if handled by people who are competent and are not cynical about what they do.
The general thinking here is interdiction doesn't do much since we need to get to the point at which people wouldn't use the heroin even if it were in front of them. That's probably not possible for ex-addicts but this audience is people who have never used it before.
Ed: go after the why?
Yep. If we find out why then we can talk about it and, more than likely, fix it.
I'm sincerely sorry about presenting this one but it can't be ignored. I've thought of the Millennials as babies when they have had trouble with opiates but these are the tiniest ones.
It's pointless to go on with a white hats and black hats view of this since we have seen that approach from both parties for decades. We know it doesn't work so the only good guys are the ones who can bring substantive ways to fix it.
- Insert the editorial about there's no need for new bomber programs, etc, etc -
We know the use of the destroyer drugs (i.e. narcotics and anything with that kind of power) will probably come out of a sense of rebellion, hopelessness, or both.
So what is that rebellion? Is it against parents, the state, everything? Please tell me what's busting your ass, kid, because we can probably get cracking on making it better and not just with Band-Aids.
Since we're not trying to Grinch Christmas, Trump's talk of reducing military spending is not accompanied by anything overt toward this program but we see optimism in that potentially he could do something about the problem when all the dollars aren't getting jacked elsewhere by questionable interests.
Ed: that's fantasy!
Possibly but it's what we've got for now.
2 comments:
Those numbers are very very skewed.
From all the statistics that I have seen it is about 20% and urban neonatal addiction rate is about 5 per 1000.
If this new bill allows the low cost loans to build more facilities is real that is a hope. But it will fund more of what we have. Not what we need. Unless the programs include work and life skill training by people who have been there. It will be more of the same ckean them up and send them back to what got them there in the first place.
Your statements of the cause could not be further from the truth. Every addict has,a story they are all different but the lifestyle is the only part that they have in common. So your sweeping brush of the cause is why most treatments miss the mark.
They are run by the healthcare industry that already knows the answers without actually listening to the patients they are trying to assist.
Fair enough on all of it and the unusual bit is the different observations on the prevalence but the problem is still clear. This is why it's important to me to keep the link tight to the original source so it's also clear nothing is distorted for effect.
They've got to run these studies to some extent to know where resources are needed the most but the risk is the resources shift somewhere else when they do the practice you say above with clean them up and turn them out.
I want to see more long-term with the skills training you mentioned as that could likely play well in preventing the problem in the first place. At least one Brit MP is recommending heroin by prescription to cut out the dealers. I know that doesn't knock out dealers altogether but it's got to hurt them.
Post a Comment