Posts by Edward Green

What on earth are you constantly whining about? ☕

Hannah Scott69 said:Who's yelling?

Seriously, it's wild that you don't realize typing in all caps means you're screaming in the digital world. ☕

wanderingmarlin352 🙂
Haven't seen you around in ages. 🙂

My first instinct was to just say no.
But honestly, if that’s how people actually thought about surgical procedures, surgeons would be dropping like flies from AIDS.

He can't work because he’s sick with a deadly disease, and if he keeps doing his job, he’s putting his patients' lives at risk.

He isn't sick. He's infected.
Do you even know the difference between being HIV-positive and having AIDS? 🙄
And "doctors"? Please. We're talking about GPs, ophthalmologists, psychiatrists, pediatricians, oncologists, dermatologists, ENT specialists, orthopedists, pulmonologists, and... 🙄

How exactly does being HIV-positive make a doctor incapable of doing their job?

1) Should these doctors even be allowed to see patients?

Yes.

2) Are HIV-positive doctors required to disclose this to their patients?

No.

3) Should they tell their bosses?

Yes.

4) Would you personally get treated by an HIV-positive doctor?

Yes.

Would you let them "rearrange" your organs with a scalpel? (Get real, please.)

*

5) Do you think there should be different rules for surgeons or orthopedic specialists?

*

*What’s the actual infection risk during a surgeon-patient interaction?
It doesn't look like surgeons are getting infected en masse while operating on HIV-positive people.

I've been planning on doing this for years, but Barack Obama always manages to shut me down right when I finally get around to it. 😁

Man, I remember back in sixth grade, the girls were totally split into two camps: the "good girls" and the "smokers." Those smokers would hang out with the eighth graders, and we sixth graders would just give them side-eye and stay far away. Back then, smoking was seen as the ultimate sin. Fast forward two years, and those same girls were smoking EVERYTHING. Ask 😬
about it.
And don't even get me started—it’s not like nobody knew smoking was bad for you.

Yeah, sure, let's go after dealers when it comes to kids. I went to elementary school where people were supposedly hanging around in hoodies, hitting up kids and selling drugs and all that crap. As for the drugs themselves, I saw some weed. But nobody ever cornered me and said, "Hey, take this, it'll make you feel great."

William White2 said:they're installing heated pavement in downtown Indianapolis

Yeah, right... just so nobody catches a chill. It's all about damage control... trying to stop everyone from getting pneumonia instead.

Leonard Nimoy said:maybe it's not direct, but I find reading all this counter-moralizing stupid.
So you think it's fine that Olivia Martinez20 basically gave a lecture to "fake moralists" about how they're at the bottom of the social ladder just because they said, "who cares about junkies, we have bigger problems in society."

They were more like, "who cares if junkies drop dead, I'd probably help them along." Where exactly would you put people like that on a social ladder?

but I don't see why elementary school kids need to learn the difference between the effects of pills versus cocaine or heroin.

Because that difference exists. Not providing info on how different drugs affect you is dangerous in my book. Someone might plow through one thing for six months, not realize how bad it is, and then move on to something way more lethal because they think it's all the same stuff.

Would you show your kid drugs as some "forbidden fruit" or educate them all the way up to Uber levels of knowing the chemical makeup of every single piece of crap? I don't get it.

I used to know things—not the exact chemical formulas, but how things work, what the consequences are, blah blah blah. To me, that’s a much better approach than just saying, "don't do it, it's bad." If you don't explain *why* it's bad, there's a huge chance someone will just reject that along with everything else during a phase of mindless rebellion against anything they're told is "wrong." At least that's how it looks to me.

I also think equating drugs to cigarettes or fast food is wrong because "it all kills you anyway."

The only parallel I was drawing is that these are all things that cause harm, people know they cause harm, and they do them anyway, so they need medical care that's mostly covered by Medicaid. But here, some people are getting really worked up about the idea that money is coming out of their pockets for a group of people who consciously start something with health consequences—junkies. They don't care that it covers everyone else too. And let's be real, it's a hell of a lot easier to start eating healthy than it is to kick a heroin habit.

So that's all I meant.

In my neighborhood, there's a golden rule—ever since I moved in, there hasn't been a single dealer on the next block over!

That’s just what happens when big-box retailers move in and wipe out all the local shops...😁

crimson petal said:I don't get it. If we're supposedly all about "prevention," why aren't we doing actual prevention?
I mean, why not focus on reducing the number of people who even start getting hooked in the first place, instead of "preventing" things by trying to lower the death toll from overdoses or whatever else?
This isn't prevention; it's just damage control.

Exactly. Like you said, this isn't prevention—it's harm reduction.
Prevention actually works before you start using. It keeps you from starting.
Once you're an addict, "prevention" doesn't mean a damn thing anymore.

crimson petal said:Why are you obsessing so much over drunk drivers?

They're blowing money on high-grade weed because they're stupid. Look, addiction is a disease, but stupidity isn't treated like one. And I don't see you complaining about tax dollars going to them. Or any other group doing stuff that directly hurts themselves. Except for those damn junkies you'd rather fund just so they can kill themselves.

Brandon Castillo4 said:What I'm trying to say, regardless of my stance on THIS THREAD, is that if you aren't ultra-liberal today, you're basically a piece of trash. Bottom of the barrel.

The opinion some people have expressed here is that the ideal state for an addict isn't "harm reduction"—it's death. Because even if they get clean, they'll be totally fried, so why bother? Or that the government should just fund a "golden silence."

You don't have to be ultra-liberal to not want someone dead. Especially not quickly.
I don't think the issue is how liberal you are; it's how much hate you carry.

Brandon Castillo4 said:Everyone is guilty, except for the guy who HIDES SOMETHING. He's innocent.

I don't remember anyone saying that.

drito said:Treating these people like subhuman beings just because they, damn it, got hooked on something hard to quit is sick. It's way more twisted than some junkie shaking through withdrawal.

🙏

kemik said:The main argument is always that it’s too expensive. So, who exactly is picking up the tab?
Look, I consider myself a liberal, open-minded person. I try to be understanding of everyone's issues, really. But even I have to step up and admit—this is a damn good argument.

Yeah, if they didn't forget that their own tax dollars are basically funding junkies, they might actually realize how much less money would be left over for everything else. 😁
(Like you mentioned in your P.S., too.)

Great white. said:Maybe that’s because we’re talking about HEALING here, not helping people die!

People are getting clean from heroin. If you manage to dodge a fatal infection or get pulled back from the brink after an overdose, you’re looking at a much better life than someone stuck dealing with AIDS or liver cirrhosis. Or, you know, you'll just be dead. Simple as that.

Dennis said:Have you ever actually looked at an opioid mortality chart? Seriously.
First off, it’s cigarettes. Second, alcohol. Heroin doesn't even make the top three.

The numbers for cigarette smokers, alcoholics, and heroin users aren't even in the same ballpark. Not even close.
Yeah, more people are dying from smoking than ever. It's a fact.
The death toll among nicotine addicts is way lower than it is for heroin users. Period.

Legion. said:I’d just throw them all into one big pile and lock the door... let them learn their lesson the hard way.

I don't get why everyone isn't doing this. It’s so damn effective. Honestly, people just need to quit their old habits already. 🙏 🙏 🙏

Atlantis? Give me a break. It’s nothing but a fairy tale people use to feel special about lost history. Total myth. kaže:
I don't get why any of you people pushing for more rehab centers haven't realized how stupid this plan is. Why aren't we talking about actually fixing the root cause? If we put that money into education, prevention, early intervention, and better policing in high-risk areas, we wouldn't even have the problem in the first place. Invest in stopping the addiction before it starts, and then maybe—just maybe—we won't need all those beds and treatment facilities. Think about it.

Well, that actually crossed my mind. But SSI? No way.
I don't see how one rules out the other.
Look, this isn't about some massive national initiative to tackle drug addiction and all its fallout. We're talking specifically about suicide here. Period.

Atlantis. Just a myth. Total nonsense. Everyone loves talking about it like it’s some lost reality, but let's be real—it's just a fairy tale people use to feel special about history. Get over it. kaže:
Prevention is always better than trying to fix the damage after you've already caused it. Stop encouraging the mess just so you can play hero later.

This isn't incitement.
And look, it’s obviously better to prevent HIV and/or hepatitis than to try and fix the damage later.
If stopping drug addiction were actually an easy win, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

stormywolf39 said:Oh, and one more little thing. 😬

What exactly is it supposed to be relevant to?

stormywolf39 said:dying from hepatitis C or kidney failure or whatever at age 40 is all the same thing

..so dying at 20 is basically the same deal?

And I'm not even preaching here, but it drives me absolutely insane when people who barely finished middle school can't tell the difference between HIV and AIDS.

Megan Reed said:I had an addict in my extended family who picked up HIV during their wild younger years.
And what's my point?
Yeah, that person died years later. From AIDS. Yeah.

I didn't say AIDS, I said HIV. In response to stormywolf39's post. Which mentioned... guess what... yeah, you're right... 😉HIV.

Megan Reed said:but in that scenario, medical staff could actually perform resuscitation.

Exactly. THAT is the whole point. 🙂

Megan Reed said:Why on earth are you mixing up pears and apples?

Look, I’m not trying to mix apples and oranges here. I’m reacting to that claim that people who get high are just brain-fried. If that isn't the case, then they're absolutely wrecking their livers, kidneys, and cardiovascular systems. Period.

Honestly, you might as well be dead rather than deal with a trashed liver.

I don't even know where to start with this one. Absolute nonsense. Total waste of time. kaže:
So you end up looking like an idiot. Whatever. What’s going to break him first? HIV and hepatitis, or just his entire body completely falling apart?

Look, people need to stop freaking out about HIV. It’s not a death sentence anymore. And for the record, over 90% of Hepatitis B cases are actually curable. As for Hepatitis C? You could go 20 years without even knowing you have it because there are zero symptoms. Get the facts straight.

What exactly are you trying to say? 🤔

Megan Reed said::nail_biter: I’ve gotta add something here. What about the people who’ve already caught some virus? Those quarantine rooms aren't going to do a damn thing for them.

And what about the ones who haven't caught it yet? Who gives a shit about them?
A condom won't help someone who's already infected, but it stops the spread. That's how it works.

Look, the only way I can help is by resuscitating them if things go south.

"The only way." Seriously? When you're talking about the line between life and death, "the only way" is a hell of an understatement. Sorry if I misunderstood, but aren't you a med student? Why wouldn't you try when saving a life is the absolute best you can do?