I do not get your aversion to blanket statements when they apply.
Fire is hot...blanket statement, and true, BTW.
Your comparison to alcohol is weak. Plenty of people can drink responsibly without ever having a problem. Others can, abuse the hell out of alcohol, yet never become alcoholics. An alcoholic can be on a downward spiral after his first drink. That's a genetic predisposition...a trigger waiting to be pulled, if you will.
Drugs, especially what has we are discussing here(not Tylenol or chemotherapy) are a different ball game. Unlike alcohol, anyone using hard drugs can become addicted, easily.
For the same reason your comparison to eating ice cream is lame, and is just a rehash of the dying by drinking too much water argument made earlier.
How you want to live your life is your responsibility, as is mine, but I think what we are seeing here is that the excuses don't work anymore, and when someone dies of an OD, the responsibility is placed where it belongs...on the addict. And that scares the hell out of drug users because most of them work quiet hard at avoiding personal responsibility...the idea of possibly dying and accurately being blamed for it must be frightening to them. Yet, I, like other don't feel sorry in the least for them, just for the others that were unfortunate enough to care about them and have their lives turned upside down.
How was that? Did I follow your rules for posting correctly, oh leader?
Nope. You did, however successfully miss the point - again. But go with your strengths.
To be clear - I was responding to your twisting of my words and the implication that I was saying people can learn to use heroine in a positive way. I was not saying that, you did in your re-spin of what I said.
The reason I have an aversion to blanket statements is, as is being clearly demonstrated here, that blanket statements presuppose universal conclusions and thus give those stating them permission to stop thinking beyond that point.
Seeing the world as you do and stating things based on how you see them as absolutes is foolish and ego-centric. Not allowing for the idea that people may be different and be able to do things differently than you is equally so.
And to address a couple of your statements directly:
First off, I'm not sure if it was my comment about alcohol that you are referring to - but to address the quoted statement and to put it in context of what I was talking about - whether you are an alcoholic or not, abuse of alcohol is just that, abuse. Just because someone may not "become an alcoholic" isn't the point at all. Anyone who abuses anything can suffer negative, even fatal consequences. That was my point.
If you think simply not becoming an alcoholic is the goal, you're very misguided. Sure, you may not be clinically labeled "alcoholic" (yet, if you cannot control your use and consistently abuse alcohol, genetically predisposed or not, I cannot see how you are NOT an alcoholic - but again, not even the point) - The point is - alcoholic or not, you are responsible for yourself, not the alcohol or the fact that it exists and is available.
This statement is wrong on so many levels it's hard to believe that so few words were used.
"Unlike alcohol..."? Seriously? You don't think people can become addicted to alcohol? Please explain to me how that statement makes any sense at all. I may be slow, but saying, "Unlike alcohol, hard drugs are addictive" is so amazingly wrong on every imaginable level it's astounding you even made such a statement. If that's how you see things, it clear nothing I or anyone else says will matter or make sense to you.
But the fact remains that some people can use hard drugs and not become addicted. Sorry man. It's just true. Like fire is hot - which, by the way, is not a blanket statement in the context of this discussion. "Fire kills everyone who uses it" is a blanket statement.
Look - I am not really interested in fighting with you (anymore). I didn't appreciate your re-purposing of my words and said so. I clearly see that you don't get my point in spite of the fact that I've stated it clearly and in a way that should be understandable. I do believe it to be correct. If you want to intelligently discuss these points rather than try to paint me as an idiot, I am more than willing.
My sympathies to Paul Gray's family and friends.
Thanks!?
awesome stuff 
