I am not hating anyone. I am saying if you give drug addicts money, you don't do it because you think they're actually gonna go clean or whatever, and it's not what you should expect because chances are it's not gonna happen. You do it BECAUSE IT STILL HELPS. Regardless of whether or not you send money, they will still be addicted, that won't change unless something drastic happens. I don't care if they lie about wanting to go clean or whatever. It's what they're gonna do, it's what they know they "have" to do if they're gonna get money. And it is to be expected. I'm not at all sure Rachel or whomever else is actually going to seriously try. But none of us can probably affect that. I hope she gets better but I don't think it is within my control.
Gotta take issue with the "addicts don't recover unless something drastic happens" - that's the 'rock bottom' type myth that prevents addicts from getting the support they need and incentivizes further alienating them from society.
I was a heroin addict and then a hard-core alcoholic and I'm two years sober. The 'drastic thing' that happened was that in the misery of addiction I would try to get clean and fail and then try... and fail... and try another way... and fail... until one day I tried...and succeeded. The silver bullet was actually just that I had enough support and the bare bones resources so that my attempts had a fighting chance of working.
By drastic I also mean support, or some kind of big event or lifestyle shift. I definitely don't mean some guy locking you up somewhere. I'm sure there is people who just did it with no external support and nothing big happening just by deciding they're gonna stop, I just don't think it is very common. I don't think users have to hit rock bottom, on the contrary, it is much more difficult if that happens. Which is why I said in my other post it is much better if you are battling addiction and you have a home, as opposed to battling addiction while being homeless. That would be an example of the drastic change that could happen for example, finding a home after being homeless. I guess just saying "drastic" and leaving it at that wasn't a very good way to phrase that.
Gotcha, yeah I was too quick to assume you meant "drastic" in terms of negative consequences, but you're right something drastic that increases their hope for a potential future does precipitate a lot of recoveries!
Right, my reply wasn't really targeted to you, but mostly to the people who are doing the surprised pikachu face and complaining. I can also understand people not wanting to give money in this circumstance. I didn't give money either. It's not like I have money but if I did, I'm not sure I would. Part of it is because I know that if I start giving money to people on the Internet, well, I know that will get out of hand pretty soon. What I don't really understand is the people who did give money and they're now complaining as if they didn't get return on their investment. People should expect the addiction of the person they sent money to isn't just gonna end magically. I can of course understand the people genuinely being concerned.
I am not hating anyone. I am saying if you give drug addicts money, you don't do it because you think they're actually gonna go clean or whatever, and it's not what you should expect because chances are it's not gonna happen. You do it BECAUSE IT STILL HELPS. Regardless of whether or not you send money, they will still be addicted, that won't change unless something drastic happens. I don't care if they lie about wanting to go clean or whatever. It's what they're gonna do, it's what they know they "have" to do if they're gonna get money. And it is to be expected. I'm not at all sure Rachel or whomever else is actually going to seriously try. But none of us can probably affect that. I hope she gets better but I don't think it is within my control.
Gotta take issue with the "addicts don't recover unless something drastic happens" - that's the 'rock bottom' type myth that prevents addicts from getting the support they need and incentivizes further alienating them from society.
I was a heroin addict and then a hard-core alcoholic and I'm two years sober. The 'drastic thing' that happened was that in the misery of addiction I would try to get clean and fail and then try... and fail... and try another way... and fail... until one day I tried...and succeeded. The silver bullet was actually just that I had enough support and the bare bones resources so that my attempts had a fighting chance of working.
There's a Citations Needed episode that gets into this if anyone wants to listen.
The "rock bottom" concept is basically just asking drug users to die.
By drastic I also mean support, or some kind of big event or lifestyle shift. I definitely don't mean some guy locking you up somewhere. I'm sure there is people who just did it with no external support and nothing big happening just by deciding they're gonna stop, I just don't think it is very common. I don't think users have to hit rock bottom, on the contrary, it is much more difficult if that happens. Which is why I said in my other post it is much better if you are battling addiction and you have a home, as opposed to battling addiction while being homeless. That would be an example of the drastic change that could happen for example, finding a home after being homeless. I guess just saying "drastic" and leaving it at that wasn't a very good way to phrase that.
Gotcha, yeah I was too quick to assume you meant "drastic" in terms of negative consequences, but you're right something drastic that increases their hope for a potential future does precipitate a lot of recoveries!
Yeah I get why you would interpret it that way. Jesus it really sucks how shit the way society has dealt with drugs is...
deleted by creator
Right, my reply wasn't really targeted to you, but mostly to the people who are doing the surprised pikachu face and complaining. I can also understand people not wanting to give money in this circumstance. I didn't give money either. It's not like I have money but if I did, I'm not sure I would. Part of it is because I know that if I start giving money to people on the Internet, well, I know that will get out of hand pretty soon. What I don't really understand is the people who did give money and they're now complaining as if they didn't get return on their investment. People should expect the addiction of the person they sent money to isn't just gonna end magically. I can of course understand the people genuinely being concerned.