- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: CA law aims to force people with mental illness or addiction to get help
Posted on 10/13/23 at 4:20 pm to EarlyCuyler3
Posted on 10/13/23 at 4:20 pm to EarlyCuyler3
quote:
Must feel pretty emasculating to lose arguments to me all the time then.
Even after been graphically proven wrong, youre still arguing like a woman.
0
Posted on 10/13/23 at 4:21 pm to Keltic Tiger
quote:
The term "slippery slope" as applied here is very very dangerous.
The use of the slippery slope argument is akin to a logical fallacy. The argument can be made about any rule, regulation, or law.
Speeding is a criminal offense in many states. What stops the legislature from sliding down the slippery slope and making the penalty for 10 miles or more over mandatory life without? We all live on multiple slippery slopes every day, a big part of my job is pushing the rock up or down that slope. There is always a hypothetical slope with an unusually low coefficient of friction.
It is one thing to read the legislation as signed and point out where ambiguity could make it easy for some unintended or nefarious result to occur. It is another just to use the idea of "slippery slope" which can be used in any argument about a law no matter how much merit the argument has. Simply saying slippery slope is akin to a toddler stomping their feet and saying "no".
Posted on 10/13/23 at 4:22 pm to stout
quote:
You said that most start off mentally ill, though. That is what we are saying you are wrong about
I think you're severely underestimating the amount of undiagnosed mental illness.
Posted on 10/13/23 at 4:23 pm to EarlyCuyler3
quote:
I think you're severely underestimating the amount of undiagnosed mental illness.
shite, those goalposts are at a full gallop
Posted on 10/13/23 at 4:24 pm to EarlyCuyler3
quote:
I think you're severely underestimating the amount of undiagnosed mental illness.
How broad of a brush do you want to paint with here?
Posted on 10/13/23 at 4:25 pm to stout
quote:
You said that most start off mentally ill, though. That is what we are saying you are wrong about.
That would mean people are born gay and trans, which is wrong.
People are born with birth defects
Being gay or trans isn’t a birth defect.
Posted on 10/13/23 at 4:27 pm to stout
It's a fair statement.
The point is that lazy thinkers like Roger want to paint it as a laziness problem and it's simply not accurate. This stems from a general ignorance of addiction, which is ironic since Roger has his own history there. But then Roger is what you'd call a classic white knuckle drunk.
And of course I've yet to hear a proposed solution other than the magical theory of privitization which has already been shot down.
The point is that lazy thinkers like Roger want to paint it as a laziness problem and it's simply not accurate. This stems from a general ignorance of addiction, which is ironic since Roger has his own history there. But then Roger is what you'd call a classic white knuckle drunk.
And of course I've yet to hear a proposed solution other than the magical theory of privitization which has already been shot down.
Posted on 10/13/23 at 4:33 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:isn't that what always ends up happening after the door is opened at the starting gate
shite, those goalposts are at a full gallop
Posted on 10/13/23 at 4:34 pm to EarlyCuyler3
quote:
And of course I've yet to hear a proposed solution other than the magical theory of privitization which has already been shot down.
One old theory that has been proposed over the years is to make drugs so potent they kill off current users and scare away new users but the rise of fentanyl proves you can't scare people off
Posted on 10/13/23 at 4:36 pm to stout
quote:
One old theory that has been proposed over the years is to make drugs so potent they kill off current users and scare away new users but the rise of fentanyl proves you can't scare people off
Nope.
And how would you do it anyway? You really want the government implementing that? People would just cut it anyway.
The solution IMO is legalization, which should be something supposed conservatives should be behind, because people are capable of being responsible for themselves, right?
Posted on 10/13/23 at 4:38 pm to stout
quote:
You are ignoring the whole Oxy era and pretending that still doesn't happen
You are wrapped up with a chicken and an egg.
Substance abuse is a mental disorder. When someone is clean they are actively and effectively treating the disorder.
It doesn't matter what caused the adiction (ie prescribed opioids) it is still then a mental disorder.
Besides the fowl or ovum issue it really doesn't matter in the case of addiction. The legislation covers both specifically. If you are an addict and can feed and shelter yourself the law doesn't apply to you (ie a comic that gets high dollar gigs). If you have some other mental health issue and can feed and shelter yourself it doesn't apply to you (ie in Rog's estimation a prog with a six-figure job). It does apply to people who have mental health disorders and/or substance abuse problems and can not feed and shelter themselves (ie the crazy and/or addicted homeless).
I am interested in hearing better viable alternatives.
Posted on 10/13/23 at 4:42 pm to Obtuse1
quote:
fowl or ovum
Why? Lol
Posted on 10/13/23 at 4:42 pm to EarlyCuyler3
quote:
The solution IMO is legalization,
San Fran proves this doesn't work. It is basically legal there complete with buses that help you shoot up and it has not solved anything.
Posted on 10/13/23 at 4:43 pm to Obtuse1
quote:
it is still then a mental disorde
"Then"
Thanks for agreeing with my point
Posted on 10/13/23 at 4:45 pm to stout
quote:
San Fran proves this doesn't work. It is basically legal there complete with buses that help you shoot up and it has not solved anything.
I vote for a drug buffet zone. Everything provided. Everything free. You can't leave unless you leave sober or in a coffin.
Posted on 10/13/23 at 4:46 pm to stout
quote:
San Fran proves this doesn't work. It is basically legal there complete with buses that help you shoot up and it has not solved anything.
It works better than wasting billions fighting a failed war. Imagine using that money instead to try to help people that want help. "Basically legal" is still not legal at any rate.
I'm not sure how I feel about the state forcing people to get help.
Posted on 10/13/23 at 4:46 pm to SlimTigerSlap
quote:
I vote for a drug buffet zone. Everything provided. Everything free. You can't leave unless you leave sober or in a coffin.
With no necessitations.
Posted on 10/13/23 at 4:47 pm to RogerTheShrubber
Not needed. Addiction is organic.
Posted on 10/13/23 at 4:49 pm to stout
They should do this in Austin as a trial run.
Posted on 10/13/23 at 4:53 pm to EarlyCuyler3
quote:
t works better than wasting billions fighting a failed war
Oregon disagrees with you
LINK
quote:
But three years later, with rising overdoses and delays in treatment funding, even some of the measure’s supporters now believe that the policy needs to be changed. In a nonpartisan statewide poll earlier this year, more than 60 percent of respondents blamed Measure 110 for making drug addiction, homelessness, and crime worse. A majority, including a majority of Democrats, said they supported bringing back criminal penalties for drug possession. This year’s legislative session, which ended in late June, saw at least a dozen Measure 110–related proposals from Democrats and Republicans alike, ranging from technical fixes to full restoration of criminal penalties for drug possession. Two significant changes—tighter restrictions on fentanyl and more state oversight of how Measure 110 funding is distributed—passed with bipartisan support.
Decriminalizing has done nothing to improve anything.
They are the strongest case study we have.
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News