About 20% of soldiers returning from vietnam said they were addicted to heroin. Their rates of recovery was the mirror image of what we see when an addict in the US recovers.
www.npr.org
yeah, it's only going to destroy the lives of one out of five...
It underlines that most addictions are responses to the need to escape an oppressive reality. Remove the externality, and most stop using the drug.About 20% of soldiers returning from vietnam said they were addicted to heroin. Their rates of recovery was the mirror image of what we see when an addict in the US recovers.
What Vietnam Taught Us About Breaking Bad Habits
In the 1970s, a sizable number of U.S. servicemen in Vietnam self-identified as heroin addicts. But when they returned stateside, the number of these soldiers who continued their addiction was surprisingly low. Why? Turns out a massive disruption in their environment and routine played a big...
Soon a comprehensive system was set up so that every enlisted man was tested for heroin addiction before he was allowed to return home. And in this population, Robins did find high rates of addiction: Around 20 percent of the soldiers self-identified as addicts.
Those who were addicted were kept in Vietnam until they dried out. When these soldiers finally did return to their lives back in the U.S., Robins tracked them, collecting data at regular intervals. And this is where the story takes a curious turn: According to her research, the number of soldiers who continued their heroin addiction once they returned to the U.S. was shockingly low.
"I believe the number of people who actually relapsed to heroin use in the first year was about 5 percent," Jaffe said recently from his suburban Maryland home. In other words, 95 percent of the people who were addicted in Vietnam did not become re-addicted when they returned to the United States.
This flew in the face of everything everyone knew both about heroin and drug addiction generally. When addicts were treated in the U.S. and returned to their homes, relapse rates hovered around 90 percent. It didn't make sense.
Myself, I never tried it. Just saying that addiction is complicated and pretty much each addict is a different thing.
That describes the antiregistration sentiment I’ve encountered. I have sympathy for it. Should, say, the recent election have turned out differently, I have no doubt that while still sloganizing freedom, the ones now solidly in power would have begun sharply clamping down on first gun sales, then transfers, finally possession …
no, only to the inevitable and compensating misery of one in five...
no, around 20% are...they're also destined to steal from their friends, shoplift, possible rob people, and to eventually require physical and psychological care, that will probably be ineffective, and then they'll go back to the same shit they were doing, before they used societal resources that could have been used to ....pay for daycare, pay for healthcare for people who are genuinely ill, pay for any number of things that would be better than pissing it away wasting it on someone who's just going to self destruct anyway
WTF
! How did you read that into what I said?
Nobody is seriously talking about taking guns away. A database tying each gun to an owner would take us leagues in the right direction. That and penalties if anybody's gun goes missing unreported and then used in a crime. We can talk about gun lockers too but I'd be satisfied if we started tracking gun sales and making it harder to sell one illegally.
WTF
The registry here was not sustainable in its initial form, in Canada, and was cancelled. Costs ballooned, and it was deemed ineffective by some. Although every legal gun owner is still registered with a background check and has passed a compulsory training course. This registry allows for the purchase of ammunition as well.
I’m being a bit reactive.
That is the sort of big question for which I do not have the answer. But the big questions, they do glisten.