Serious charges for a hit-and-run cyclist killer

[bikingshearer]

A horrible tragedy in the Cincinnati area, as a fellow cyclist was hit from behind by a drugged and distracted driver who drove away. The prosecutor's office is going after the driver for vehicular homicide. Note that, for a change, the cops and the prosecutor are saying that the cyclist was doing "everything right" instead of blaming the dead guy who can't defend himself.

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2016/02/09/woman-indicted-cyclists-death/80073034/

The fact that the killer is an addict who appears to have been high at the time, had drugs and paraphernalia on her, and drove away even after bouncing the victim off her windshield and doing "heavy damage" to her SUV probably has a lot to do with the charges she is facing. Oh, and the suspended drivers license doesn't help.

But I can only hope that the serious charges plus the total absence of blaming the victim by law enforcement shows that we are making some progress in trying to get the powers that be to take killing cyclists with the level of seriousness it deserves.

[Dead Man]

I heard about this when it happened... and checked out her Facebook page... disturbing ····, man.

Throw the book. As far as I can tell, she's not doing any good in the world, and now she's graduated to really ····ing it up.

[Dead Man]

I see her page has since been privatized.

Well, it was full of wacky dyfunctional crap about her crazy complicated out of control life, before.

[bikingshearer]

Her life has now become a lot more crazy and dysfunctional. Why do such idiots have to take others with them when their silly-straw gene goes off?

[BobO]

But I can only hope that the serious charges plus the total absence of blaming the victim by law enforcement shows that we are making some progress in trying to get the powers that be to take killing cyclists with the level of seriousness it deserves.

Unfortunately, I seriously doubt this one incident is indicative of any greater changes in how cyclist fatality cases are handled. It is, however, good to see this loser go down for her crime.

[dcama5]

A horrible tragedy in the Cincinnati area, as a fellow cyclist was hit from behind by a drugged and distracted driver who drove away. The prosecutor's office is going after the driver for vehicular homicide. Note that, for a change, the cops and the prosecutor are saying that the cyclist was doing "everything right" instead of blaming the dead guy who can't defend himself.

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2016/02/09/woman-indicted-cyclists-death/80073034/

The fact that the killer is an addict who appears to have been high at the time, had drugs and paraphernalia on her, and drove away even after bouncing the victim off her windshield and doing "heavy damage" to her SUV probably has a lot to do with the charges she is facing. Oh, and the suspended drivers license doesn't help.

But I can only hope that the serious charges plus the total absence of blaming the victim by law enforcement shows that we are making some progress in trying to get the powers that be to take killing cyclists with the level of seriousness it deserves.

Sad story on many levels. As a cyclist, I hate that we are victims to drivers that are under the influence. Families are destroyed and lives are shattered. Also, as a person with addiction in his (close) family, I have made a point to study addiction intensely. Most people do not understand addiction and settle for their own particular biases about it. As pointed out in their long definition of addiction, ASAM, the experts in addiction, make clear that addiction is not primarily about choice because addiction is not a desired condition - no one wants to be an addict. Also, it is genetically mediated - addicts without training in genetics, in NA meetings I have attended, just say: "it's a family disease." That's 100% true.

http://www.asam.org/for-the-public/definition-of-addiction

[BobO]

While that is mostly correct, (There are some who want to be addicts,) let's be clear that the individual is still responsible for their actions, regardless of the reason for the addiction.

[Dead Man]

While that is mostly correct, (There are some who want to be addicts,) let's be clear that the individual is still responsible for their actions, regardless of the reason for the addiction.

For sure.

I'm also the product of alcoholics. My father in particular was a raging substance abuser - not just alcohol, and I watched it tear our family apart. In spite of it all, I have compassion for what he was struggling with, and compassion for others suffering from addiction.

But you're still 100% responsible for the harm you do. Help is available... and though seeking it out might be the hardest thing you ever do, you HAVE to.

[BobO]

Both of my parents were also addicts, one booze, one prescription pain meds. One of them made a choice to be a parent. There is no question that personal choices can be involved. I also have empathy for both, but I have more respect for the one who chose the right path.

[oldpotatoe]

Unfortunately, I seriously doubt this one incident is indicative of any greater changes in how cyclist fatality cases are handled. It is, however, good to see this loser go down for her crime.

BUT, going into the slammer will not see a 'reformed and clean' person come out the other side. Maybe she will find rehab behind bars, statistics says she won't and she will use and drive, again. I don't know the answer...

[malcolm]

Sad story on many levels. As a cyclist, I hate that we are victims to drivers that are under the influence. Families are destroyed and lives are shattered. Also, as a person with addiction in his (close) family, I have made a point to study addiction intensely. Most people do not understand addiction and settle for their own particular biases about it. As pointed out in their long definition of addiction, ASAM, the experts in addiction, make clear that addiction is not primarily about choice because addiction is not a desired condition - no one wants to be an addict. Also, it is genetically mediated - addicts without training in genetics, in NA meetings I have attended, just say: "it's a family disease." That's 100% true.

http://www.asam.org/for-the-public/definition-of-addiction

All very true and all to prevalent in our society. Leaving those directly effected by it out of the equation the worst part of it is it's generally a population of people that won't accept help until something devastating has happened . Denial is the norm.
After having said that as tragic as it may be it does not absolve us of the outcomes of our actions/behaviors. Hopefully somewhere in the process she'll get the help she needs so she doesn't continue destroying lives including her own and her families.

[Gummee]

BUT, going into the slammer will not see a 'reformed and clean' person come out the other side. Maybe she will find rehab behind bars, statistics says she won't and she will use and drive, again. I don't know the answer...

If she was THAT high, would it even register that she'd hit someone? I dunno 'cause I've never been that high.

IDK the answer either, but something needs to be done about the problem

M

[redir]

No one is a winner here but the real loosers are the family that lost their husband and father. My hear goes out to this mother and wife as I have so many times seen it in my wife's eyes when I go out for a ride.

[BobO]

BUT, going into the slammer will not see a 'reformed and clean' person come out the other side.

Prison really isn't about reform, it's punishment, retribution if you will.

Maybe she will find rehab behind bars, statistics says she won't and she will use and drive, again.

Agreed, it is sad and scary.

I don't know the answer...

The hard part is that there isn't an answer today. No amount of laws, enforcement, regulation, prohibitions, technology, etc., is going to eliminate addiction and crimes perpetrated by addicts. That said, from the sense of road safety, an automated car system may save lives. If said addict can get into a car, say home, and the car does the work, then this cyclist is possibly alive. Like anything else though, there are going to be trade offs, we just don't know what that will be yet.

[Alan]

I live in Cincinnati. 600 people were at the ghost ride for Michael Prater. You can read/hear the story at the link below.

http://www.wlwt.com/news/Nearly-600-cyclists-attend-ghost-ride-for-Michael-Prater/37860344

Having live in Cincinnati for a very long time this is one of the most unifying events that has occurred in the cycling community. Very sad that a death was involved.

I wasn't at the ride but was proud at the turnout and several friends were there.

Alan

[dcama5]

While that is mostly correct, (There are some who want to be addicts,) let's be clear that the individual is still responsible for their actions, regardless of the reason for the addiction.

No one wants to be an addict. ASAM is the equivalent of the American Heart Assoc. except they deal with addiction rather than heart disease. Take a look at their definition of addiction. Since they are the experts in the field, to the extent that you agree with them, you are right. To the extent that you disagree with them, you are wrong. I have known many addicts and have seen many die of Heroin overdoses (I have personally seen them dead on a ventilator in ICU). None of them want to be the miserable, failure that they are. Look at the 12-step program which started in the 1930s. Read the first (that's the first) step! Does that sound like they have a choice? Yes they are responsible for their legal infractions and must pay the price, however, the countries that make addiction a public health crisis are more successful than the countries that think they can arrest their way to a solution because that does not work.

[Dead Man]

The only response to this is: you are wrong. No one wants to be an addict. ASAM is the equivalent of the American Heart Assoc. except they deal with addiction rather than heart disease. Take a look at their definition of addiction. Since they are the experts in the field, to the extent that you agree with them, you are right. To the extent that you disagree with them, you are wrong. Period. I have known many addicts and have seen many die of Heroin overdoses (I have personally seen them dead on a ventilator in ICU). None of them want to be the miserable, failure that they are. Look at the 12-step program which started in the 1930s. Read the first (that's the first) step! Does that sound like they have a choice? Yes they are responsible for their legal infractions and must pay the price, however, the countries that make addiction a public health crisis are more successful than the countries that think they can arrest their way to a solution because that does not work.

So... what exactly was he "wrong" about, then?

[dcama5]

Both of my parents were also addicts, one booze, one prescription pain meds. One of them made a choice to be a parent. There is no question that personal choices can be involved. I also have empathy for both, but I have more respect for the one who chose the right path.

Yes, I agree. choice does come into the equation with any addict. Although no one chooses to be an addict (like you choose to be a pilot or an architect) choices weigh heavily on getting and staying clean. I think that the most successful do it as recommended by rehabs, "one day at a time". They cannot just choose to stay clean for 20 years, but they can choose to go to a NA or AA meeting today, then they can choose to call their sponsor tomorrow and by taking it one day at a time, they can stay clean.

[dcama5]

So... what exactly was he "wrong" about, then?

He said that some addicts want to be addicts. I have known and still know many addicts and none of them want to be addicts.

[Dead Man]

He said that some addicts want to be addicts. I have known and still know many addicts and none of them want to be addicts.

EVERYONE knows addicts. I also have known plenty of addicts. And yea... some DO want to be addicts. They like being high, don't want to give up being high, can't picture a life not being intoxicated.... they probably would prefer their lives not be the pile of ···· that they are, but DO definitely still love to be high.

And I can even speak from some first-hand experience.

Gonna have to totally disagree with you.

[Dead Man]

Commend your empathy; disagree with your conclusions.

[dcama5]

BUT, going into the slammer will not see a 'reformed and clean' person come out the other side. Maybe she will find rehab behind bars, statistics says she won't and she will use and drive, again. I don't know the answer...

Peter, you have always struck me as a bright person and, judging by the number of forum members that ask you questions, I am not alone. The statistics would agree with you 100% and I have seen this personally. My close family member is an opiate addict. He is in prison right now. The last time he was incarcerated, I thought he would be able to be clean when he got out because he had been forced to be clean for over a year in jail. I was wrong! Physically he was clean but psychologically he was every bit the addict he was when he entered jail. It was because he was depressed about his miserable failure in life and he only really knew one solution. So Peter, as you say so well, the statistics are not on her side.

[dcama5]

Commend your empathy; disagree with your conclusions.

Thanks. I have studied addiction more than anything else. I have presented to the board of the medical center I work for along with some physicians seeing the carnage of a Heroin epidemic in this country. I have met with rehab counselors in two states. Thanks for your compliment, but I do not think that you understand addiction. If you want to, the first thing you need to do is dump all of your conclusions and start from scratch (that's what I did). Read the definition of addiction in the ASAM website. Start there.

[dcama5]

EVERYONE knows addicts. I also have known plenty of addicts. And yea... some DO want to be addicts. They like being high, don't want to give up being high, can't picture a life not being intoxicated.... they probably would prefer their lives not be the pile of ���� that they are, but DO definitely still love to be high.

And I can even speak from some first-hand experience.

Gonna have to totally disagree with you.

As addiction progresses, the highs come down, so do the lows. When a person is fully an addict and exhibiting all the sociopathic and psychopathic behaviors of an addict they are no longer getting "high". They are using in order to escape withdrawal. Addicts are running away from withdrawal, not toward a high (which is the way it was when they started). I just saw a documentary on heroin addiction in Virginia. The addictionologist in the documentary made a good point. For some people, opiates create a sense of elation without any side effects. These people have a biological vulnerability to opiates and will very often get hooked. My addicted family member, through tears, when I said to him "You are destroying your life, you have to stop!" said, "I can't!" That is not someone that wants to be an addict.

[dcama5]

By the way,what gets lost in this conversation is the family that lost a loved one to the addict that killed this cyclist. There can be no justification for this. The legal system must react and place this addict behind bars for a long time (maybe for life) regardless of the facts of what addiction is.

I apologize for being so strong-willed with this. It's been a very emotional and destructive thing in my life for about 10 years now. Addiction destroys lives and families and has come close in my case. It may yet succeed.

[BobO]

I lost my childhood to addiction, so, I do have a little personal experience. Like The B, I currently know a handful of addicts who do not want to get clean. They truly enjoy being high and won't give it up. It's not much different than some asking one of us to give up cycling, except there's also a physical addiction.

You've gotta keep in mind addicts are like everyone else, they are all different and unique. One person's path to freedom may or may not work on others. The only thing that we can do, as a community, is hold them accountable when they scrrw up.

[ultraman6970]

"hold them accountable when they scrrw up. "... this is the main point IMO, not because they are sick (drugs or alcohol) they cant be accountable, after all they were big enough to choose the bad path from the good one.

I went to univ with a few drug and drinks addicts, and is amazing but some dont want to get off the thing and use the disease as a excuse for their behavoir, that's wrong. Honestly happy this case will set precedent for the future.

Probablly this woman will get even worse in jail, because you never know what will happen, but at least will give her time to think about it.

[BobO]

I don't relieve addicts from their decisions due to disease or genetics. I empathize with where they are, but, addiction and how to avoid it are well known. Choices were made that led to the path. The exception being those who were over meditated by doctors. They my be victims, partially.

[dcama5]

I lost my childhood to addiction, so, I do have a little personal experience. Like The B, I currently know a handful of addicts who do not want to get clean. They truly enjoy being high and won't give it up. It's not much different than some asking one of us to give up cycling, except there's also a physical addiction.

You've gotta keep in mind addicts are like everyone else, they are all different and unique. One person's path to freedom may or may not work on others. The only thing that we can do, as a community, is hold them accountable when they scrrw up.

Bob, I reread some of my posts and maybe I was a little too emotional. You are right, addiction is very complex and what works to get one clean does not work for another. You misunderstand addiction though when you say "They truly enjoy being high and won't give it up." An addictionologist once told me that "opiate withdrawal is not life threatening, but you wish you were dead." If the people you knew were really addicts, they faced extreme sickness if they stayed away from the drug for any length of time. You and I do not experience withdrawal symptoms when we stay clean. They do. It's the withdrawal that keeps them going back, not some casual desire to continue getting high.

[BobO]

That fails to explain the millions who go through withdrawal and go back. It's far too complex of a dynamic to analyze in an internet thread.

The main thing here is that you used an absolute, nobody, that is factually incorrect. Absolutes like this are a logical lightning rod. A statement that says, "most people who are addicts do not want to be addicted," I can whole heartedly embrace. But, I do actually know people who do not want to be clean, they live for getting high and do not wish to live another way. Their addiction is their identity.

Interesting side note, apparently Scott Weiland had quite a love affair with heroin. I heard an interview he gave where he had a difficult time deciding whether or not it was the love of his life.

[dcama5]

I don't relieve addicts from their decisions due to disease or genetics. I empathize with where they are, but, addiction and how to avoid it are well known. Choices were made that led to the path. The exception being those who were over meditated by doctors. They my be victims, partially.

As ASAM states, "Genetic factors account for about half of the likelihood that an individual will develop addiction." I would like to play the lottery with those odds.

How to avoid addiction is not well known any more than the disease itself. What works for some does not for others and even rehabs have lousy statistics for keeping addicts clean (it is a disease and coded medically as such). An addictionologist that presented in our hospital pointed out how very, very complex addiction is. Simple ideas of choice do not apply in reality.

No, again, over medication with opiates does not produce an addict (by itself). It can create a physical dependence, but it will not create the sociopathic behaviors of a full-blown addict unless the biological vulnerability to the drug exists.

[dcama5]

That fails to explain the millions who go through withdrawal and go back. It's far too complex of a dynamic to analyze in an internet thread.

The main thing here is that you used an absolute, nobody, that is factually incorrect. Absolutes like this are a logical lightning rod. A statement that says, "most people who are addicts do not want to be addicted," I can whole heartedly embrace. But, I do actually know people who do not want to be clean, they live for getting high and do not wish to live another way. Their addiction is their identity.

Interesting side note, apparently Scott Weiland had quite a love affair with heroin. I heard an interview he gave where he had a difficult time deciding whether or not it was the love of his life.

"Millions"?? where did you get that number? Post the study so I can see where these "millions" came from. Rehab success rate is abysmal by their own admission. I think you picked the word millions out of the air. You are right though when you say "it's far too complex too analyze on an internet thread"

[Tony]

I know several folks who truly enjoy smoking and don't ever want to give it up.
In bondage to cigarettes, and loving it!

Like this guy ;)
https://www.facebook.com/victoryvelobikeshop/photos/a.417232727229.194916.56583202229/10153852230687230/?type=3&theater

[BobO]

Why does genetic predisposition relieve the addict from responsibility?

Millions, source=NA.

There is no need to be emotional here.

[dcama5]

I know several folks who truly enjoy smoking and don't ever want to give it up.
In bondage to cigarettes, and loving it!

Like this guy ;)
https://www.facebook.com/victoryvelobikeshop/photos/a.417232727229.194916.56583202229/10153852230687230/?type=3&theater

Yes, you are right. Cigarettes challenge our understanding of addiction because you do not seem to need a biological vulnerability to them to get addicted unless we all have that. I have had smokers tell me that quitting smoking was the toughest thing they ever did (or tried). Again, it shows how complex and poorly understood addiction is.

[dcama5]

Why does genetic predisposition relieve the addict from responsibility?

Millions, source=NA.

There is no need to be emotional here.

Bob, we agree 100%. Addiction and genetic predisposition should not and cannot relieve someone of responsibility. You are right and I agree with you completely. What I react to is the tendency to think that addiction is free choice and those people should be able to quit as easily as we switch road bikes.

By the way, although we disagree, I am sure we would get along just fine out on a ride. I apologize again for being emotional, it's just the way I am.

[BobO]

OK, I understand you. I understand what the monkey is and that its a tough nut. For clarity, I'm saying two things.

1. An addict can make a choice to work towards being clean. It's important to support and encourage these people.
2. Everybody who becomes an addict (except legitimate pain meds) made a choice to start taking drugs, drinking or smoking at some point in their life. It's a stretch to say that anyone in this country hasn't heard the risk.

Again, I empathize with where they are. Right up to the point where their choices take away the choices of an innocent.

[malcolm]

Bob, I reread some of my posts and maybe I was a little too emotional. You are right, addiction is very complex and what works to get one clean does not work for another. You misunderstand addiction though when you say "They truly enjoy being high and won't give it up." An addictionologist once told me that "opiate withdrawal is not life threatening, but you wish you were dead." If the people you knew were really addicts, they faced extreme sickness if they stayed away from the drug for any length of time. You and I do not experience withdrawal symptoms when we stay clean. They do. It's the withdrawal that keeps them going back, not some casual desire to continue getting high.

I agree with a lot of what you say, being high and being an addict are not the same thing. I don't however think it's as simple as avoiding withdrawal. The high or whatever the substance does has a strong appeal, be it high be it making you feel normal or whatever need it fulfills is powerful and may can't resist on will power alone, the mark of addictive behavior, you'll do it when you know it will ultimately cause negative outcomes, because you can't not do it. Many ETOH/opiate addicts relapse long after any withdrawal symptoms have passed. It's a compulsion, much like other compulsions. The drive to do it is complex and most folks that have true addictive behavior can't will it away and remain at risk long after withdrawal symptoms are a distant memory.

Only 2 substances I know of produce withdrawal syndromes that will kill you, alcohol and benzos.

[bikingshearer]

Fascinating and enlightening exchanges in this thread. Thanks to all.

Some thoughts come to mind after reading all the posts.

1) I absolutely agree with the poster who suggested that we need to stop treating addiction and drug use as a criminal matter and start treating it as a public health matter. (Drunk/stoned driving is and should remain a criminal matter, as opposed to substance abuse or addiction by itself.) The so-called War on Drugs has utterly failed in it's claimed purpose - addiction rates now are pretty much exactly what they were when we started down the War on Drugs path more than 40 years ago. And look at the side-effects: huge prison populations; creating and perpetuating violent gangs in virtually every city in the country; building an enforcement structure - the DEA, etc. - that has a built-in institutional incentive to not solve the problem; the near-destruction of more than one country in this hemisphere (Colombia and Mexico leap immediately to mind). And that is not all. One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. The War on Drugs is the very acme of that kind of insanity.

2) In treating substance abuse as a public health issue, I whole-heartedly agree that more research and field study is essential, and the goal should be to give everyone caught in the web the means to escape, even while we know that that goal can never be achieved. For those who can't be salvaged, I whole-heartedly agree that we need to devise a way of dealing with them that minimizes the risk they pose to themselves and to society, giving serious consideration to anything and everything up to and including having government dispensaries.

3) Based on personal experience dealing with a dear friend I loved very much who succeeded in drinking himself to death at age 50, there comes a point when you can no longer allow someone to drag others down with them. Regardless of the reasons for the addiction, regardless of the person they can be when clean, regardless of the fate that awaits them, it is a tragic fact of life that some people simply have to be cut loose to face their demons alone, lest they ruin the lives of those who would otherwise be around them.

I really hated having to find out about #3.

[dcama5]

I agree with a lot of what you say, being high and being an addict are not the same thing. I don't however think it's as simple as avoiding withdrawal. The high or whatever the substance does has a strong appeal, be it high be it making you feel normal or whatever need it fulfills is powerful and may can't resist on will power alone, the mark of addictive behavior, you'll do it when you know it will ultimately cause negative outcomes, because you can't not do it. Many ETOH/opiate addicts relapse long after any withdrawal symptoms have passed. It's a compulsion, much like other compulsions. The drive to do it is complex and most folks that have true addictive behavior can't will it away and remain at risk long after withdrawal symptoms are a distant memory.

Only 2 substances I know of produce withdrawal syndromes that will kill you, alcohol and benzos.

Yes, I agree 100%. Well said. Actually, benzos are used by medical centers like ours to ease the drop in alcohol withdrawal.

[dcama5]

[QUOTE=bikingshearer;1916257]Fascinating and enlightening exchanges in this thread. Thanks to all.

Some thoughts come to mind after reading all the posts.

1) I absolutely agree with the poster who suggested that we need to stop treating addiction and drug use as a criminal matter and start treating it as a public health matter. (Drunk/stoned driving is and should remain a criminal matter, as opposed to substance abuse or addiction by itself.) The so-called War on Drugs has utterly failed in it's claimed purpose - addiction rates now are pretty much exactly what they were when we started down the War on Drugs path more than 40 years ago. And look at the side-effects: huge prison populations; creating and perpetuating violent gangs in virtually every city in the country; building an enforcement structure - the DEA, etc. - that has a built-in institutional incentive to not solve the problem; the near-destruction of more than one country in this hemisphere (Colombia and Mexico leap immediately to mind). And that is not all. One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. The War on Drugs is the very acme of that kind of insanity.

2) In treating substance abuse as a public health issue, I whole-heartedly agree that more research and field study is essential, and the goal should be to give everyone caught in the web the means to escape, even while we know that that goal can never be achieved. For those who can't be salvaged, I whole-heartedly agree that we need to devise a way of dealing with them that minimizes the risk they pose to themselves and to society, giving serious consideration to anything and everything up to and including having government dispensaries.

3) Based on personal experience dealing with a dear friend I loved very much who succeeded in drinking himself to death at age 50, there comes a point when you can no longer allow someone to drag others down with them. Regardless of the reasons for the addiction, regardless of the person they can be when clean, regardless of the fate that awaits them, it is a tragic fact of life that some people simply have to be cut loose to face their demons alone, lest they ruin the lives of those who would otherwise be around them.

I really hated having to find out about #3.[/QUOTE

Thanks for #3. That is a hard lesson to learn, but clearly true. I am just learning about addiction but your explanation in #3 has helped me to gain a little more understanding.

[dcama5]

OK, I understand you. I understand what the monkey is and that its a tough nut. For clarity, I'm saying two things.

1. An addict can make a choice to work towards being clean. It's important to support and encourage these people.
2. Everybody who becomes an addict (except legitimate pain meds) made a choice to start taking drugs, drinking or smoking at some point in their life. It's a stretch to say that anyone in this country hasn't heard the risk.

Again, I empathize with where they are. Right up to the point where their choices take away the choices of an innocent.

Bob, that's a very good point. You're right (of course) when an addict hurts someone it does not matter what addiction is, they must be held legally responsible and pay the price.

[dcama5]

Coincidentally, in our ICU today we had a heroin addict that has overdosed for the 3rd time in less than 2 weeks. He was intubated and on a ventilator. We weaned off the sedation and extubated him. He will be discharged but almost certainly will die of an accidental overdose which he has already done 3 times. Any normal, logical person would stop, but he cannot. That's the hallmark of addiction. They just cannot stop on their own.

An addictionologist presented at our hospital in 2015. He explained the physiology of how addiction hijacks the brain's priority rating system and places itself as priority #1. It's about neurotransmitters; and he said that although we know that addiction is a disease of the brain, more precisely it's a disease of neurotransmitters, especially Dopamine and Serotonin. Every pleasurable human experience is accompanied by a dopamine release - drugs like Heroin and Cocaine are extremely so. The "normal" baseline for addicts goes up so that the things we normal folks enjoy, mean nothing to them. Sex, a good steak dinner, enjoyable company, a party, etc mean nothing to them because the Dopamine release with these events does not get anywhere near their heroin experience. Therefore, they have to keep going back to the drug to have anything like an enjoyable experience because nothing else works for them. Interestingly, the addiction places itself as priority #1 over all that stuff but also over survival and freedom as well. Addiction is a sickness without a doubt.

[ultraman6970]

IMO the biggest problem in general is that deterrents are not working at all.

If here we do like in asia where if they catch you or if you are a drug addict there is pretty much nothing your lawyer can do, or you are sentenced to death or you spend so much time behind bars that at the time of being released probably we are going to have flying cars.

And if somebody gets a sentence too harsh control groups state that is not fair or against human rights or even because of color. IMO if the deterrents dont work just make the punishment worse but is not something is going to happen anyways.

[dcama5]

IMO the biggest problem in general is that deterrents are not working at all.

If here we do like in asia where if they catch you or if you are a drug addict there is pretty much nothing your lawyer can do, or you are sentenced to death or you spend so much time behind bars that at the time of being released probably we are going to have flying cars.

And if somebody gets a sentence too harsh control groups state that is not fair or against human rights or even because of color. IMO if the deterrents dont work just make the punishment worse but is not something is going to happen anyways.

Hitler thought that if he killed everyone with an obvious deficiency, he would wipe all that stuff out of the gene pool. He was wrong (not just inhuman, but completely wrong) He was focused on the phenotype and not the genotype. Neither of the parents of a cystic fibrosis patient have cystic fibrosis (their phenotypes do not but their genotypes do). With addiction, arrests do not wipe out the problem (our local police chief has stated that he understands that now). Although Bob O is 100% correct that if an addict hurts someone they must pay the legal price, arrests will not wipe out the problem of addiction because they do not act on the problem, which is the human brain. ASAM points out that addiction is a "primary" disease, meaning that all the sociopathic behaviors we see in an addict are secondary to the addiction. Countries that treat addiction as a public health problem seem to have better results than countries that try to arrest their way to a solution.

[cachagua]

The biggest problem in general is that deterrents are not working at all...

"Deterrents".

The entire criminal justice system rests on the notion that when someone's about to commit a crime, they weigh the consequences of their actions in a rational, strategic cost-benefit analysis.

WHAT!? We don't any other time, why should we then?

[ultraman6970]

Well the point of the deterrent is to make the other rest of the population to think about it too. Oh... peter was sent to jail for life for drinking and killing 3 guys in an accident... so jon will think... looks like drinking is a bad idea... thats the point of the deterrents.

If at some point we have for example public shame (chinese does this) is used as a deterrent, do you think college kids are not going to think it twice before getting stoned or drunk every weekend? I know this is sometihng it wont happen here (control groups and civil rights groups would say it is inhumane to do do it) but thats the thing, the deterrents dont work too much with the rest of the population, like for example kids that are starting in drugs, because if they knew what is coming was so terrible that they would think it 10 time before screwing up.

Right now pretty much is like this... you got drunk you kill somebody while driving, the lawyer will get you out and sure you will get your driver license again.. oh you got stoned... ok pay what ever... slap in the wrist and good to go. The deterrent effect of the law or even the effect of what could happen to you is gone, because if something terrible could happen I assure you "idiots" would think it 50 times before doing something harmfull. Well this is between standards because some part of the population really wont get it and dont care.

[dcama5]

Well the point of the deterrent is to make the other rest of the population to think about it too. Oh... peter was sent to jail for life for drinking and killing 3 guys in an accident... so jon will think... looks like drinking is a bad idea... thats the point of the deterrents.

If at some point we have for example public shame (chinese does this) is used as a deterrent, do you think college kids are not going to think it twice before getting stoned or drunk every weekend? I know this is sometihng it wont happen here (control groups and civil rights groups would say it is inhumane to do do it) but thats the thing, the deterrents dont work too much with the rest of the population, like for example kids that are starting in drugs, because if they knew what is coming was so terrible that they would think it 10 time before screwing up.

Right now pretty much is like this... you got drunk you kill somebody while driving, the lawyer will get you out and sure you will get your driver license again.. oh you got stoned... ok pay what ever... slap in the wrist and good to go. The deterrent effect of the law or even the effect of what could happen to you is gone, because if something terrible could happen I assure you "idiots" would think it 50 times before doing something harmfull. Well this is between standards because some part of the population really wont get it and dont care.

There are parts of your argument that are correct. We all agree that if an addict breaks the law and injures someone then that addict must face the legal consequences. You're right there, but most of the rest of what you say has already been proven wrong. For instance, the bold statement above is meaningless to a true addict. This may deter the occasional user from using something at a party (this person we call the poor decision maker) but the addict will never be affected by these deterrents. The most severe (and common) consequence of heroin addiction is an accidental, fatal overdose. It's actually in epidemic proportions right now. Addicts know this but it does not stop their behaviors. Read the ASAM long definition of addiction. As they say, one of the hallmarks of addiction is "the pathologic inability to abstain" in other words, they just cannot stop on their own regardless of consequences - that's what addiction means.

http://www.asam.org/for-the-public/definition-of-addiction

[oldpotatoe]

Peter, you have always struck me as a bright person and, judging by the number of forum members that ask you questions, I am not alone. The statistics would agree with you 100% and I have seen this personally. My close family member is an opiate addict. He is in prison right now. The last time he was incarcerated, I thought he would be able to be clean when he got out because he had been forced to be clean for over a year in jail. I was wrong! Physically he was clean but psychologically he was every bit the addict he was when he entered jail. It was because he was depressed about his miserable failure in life and he only really knew one solution. So Peter, as you say so well, the statistics are not on her side.

I think my point is if a person impaired because of a legal or illegal substance hurts or injures somebody, Jail is the appropriate place. BUT if a person is an addict, and gets busted for buying heroin or something, that person doesn't need to end up in prison. Rehab, a better form and way to keep them clean, is needed. This idea that somebody spends lots of time in jail for buying marijuana is misplaced. You want to learn to be a real criminal? Send them to jail.

[dcama5]

Here's a documentary that I saw a couple weeks ago about the Heroin epidemic in Virginia. By the way, Virginia is not the worst state for this and it is a huge problem for the entire country right now. If you have about 43 minutes, this is very informative. The second video down on the page is the one, the top is just a trailer.

If you are an addict in recovery it may not be a good idea to watch this because there are powerful cues that could act as a relapse trigger.

Heroin - The Hardest Hit

http://www.ag.virginia.gov/index.php/hardesthit?highlight=WyJoZXJvaW4iLCJoYXJkZXN0Iiwia Gl0IiwiaGFyZGVzdCBoaXQiXQ==