Court: Child can sue because of dead dad.

[Templar 331]

Once again I've never stated it as an excuse,

No one said you did, but it is an excuse. There is "no looking at what brought him to drugs."

I understand where you are coming from. To solve a problem you need to understand it. But this problem won't be solved by understanding what brought him to do drugs. There is no clear path to shooting up heroine. Was it peer pressure? Was it depression? Was he just curious? Doesn't matter. The fact is he chose to do it.

It's the same as if someone stole a pair of Jordan's. It doesn't matter if the person was poor or not, the fact is that person stole them. They didn't need them to survive so there's no point in figuring out why. It was wrong no matter how you look at it.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree, a lot of people suffer from addiction. You wouldn't make fun of people for having cancer (at least I hope you wouldn't), why would you make fun of people for having an addiction problem?

Because they are not the same. People don't choose to shoot themselves up with cancer cells....

[darkwarrior42]

I agree, a lot of people suffer from addiction. You wouldn't make fun of people for having cancer (at least I hope you wouldn't), why would you make fun of people for having an addiction problem?

At some point, choices were made. yes, once you're addicted it can be very hard to break away. Yes, many addicitions can start off relatively innocuous and strengthen over time.

But when you're talking about a drug addiction, you're talking about substances that everyone knows are addictive, that everyone knows can have serious health side-effects... and there is a choice there.

That doesn't make it acceptable to make fun of them, especially if they're actually serious about getting help... but trying to imply that addicts and cancer patients have similar levels of responsibility and culpability for their conditions is at best foolish, and at worst outright offensive.

- - - Updated - - -

And yet you say being an addict is a choice. You don't choose to be an addict, and you don't know what was going on with Paul. Please try to refrain from speaking on things you don't know about just because you think your little alcohol problem makes you an expert.

People don't choose to be addicts, typically, but surely you realize that people do make the initial choices that lead to that path, and often do so despite knowing the potential consequences.

Again, I'm not saying you make fun of them or that they're worthless scum, but your position very much seems to be "Addicts are innocent victims who bear no responsibility for their condition", which is typically not the case.

[Stop Pretending]

And yet you say being an addict is a choice. You don't choose to be an addict, and you don't know what was going on with Paul. Please try to refrain from speaking on things you don't know about just because you think your little alcohol problem makes you an expert.

So someone forces addicts to drink, shoot heroin, or snort coke? No? So it is a choice. Try being less of a condescending douche next time, k?

[Templar 331]

And yet you say being an addict is a choice. You don't choose to be an addict, and you don't know what was going on with Paul. Please try to refrain from speaking on things you don't know about just because you think your little alcohol problem makes you an expert.

It doesn't matter what was going on, what matters is what he chose to do. People go through hell all the time, but it's how they handle it that makes them who they are. Woman are raped, children are beaten, minorities falsely arrested, etc. None of these give a person the right to do something stupid like drugs.

[Piglord]

And yet you say being an addict is a choice. You don't choose to be an addict, and you don't know what was going on with Paul. Please try to refrain from speaking on things you don't know about just because you think your little alcohol problem makes you an expert.

What Paul was going through? I've opened a deployment bag after getting back to the states that absolutely wreaked of putrid matter because they had my best friends grey matter festering in the pockets. I lost my unborn child to some dipshit texter and my wife divorced me not long afterwards. Paul was a junky that chose to deal with a privileged life with heroin. It cost him his life, mine will cost me mine. It's a choice.

[Stop Pretending]

No, but they also don't choose to be addicted to the substance they're addicted to. Hence, being an addict isn't a choice. Try learning how life works asshole instead of insulting me when I'm defending a friend.

Yes, they chose to use them. The being addicted part is out of your control though. That's all brain chemistry. Many people can use many things and never be addicted to them. Other's get hooked extremely quickly. Go read up on addiction.

You should try reading up on personal responsibilty, it's obvious it's a foreign concept to you.

Being a douche isn't required when defending someone, just an FYI.

[Espe]

No, but they also don't choose to be addicted to the substance they're addicted to.

Some of the people you're responding to here choose to beat their children when they step out of line and find that perfectly acceptable, then turn around and take shots at this guy for self-medicating. You're never going to get through to them.

I'm sorry for your loss.

[TITAN308]

Ah, I see he is enjoying his freedom while he can.

[Stop Pretending]

Brady's balls need inflating, why don't you go help him with that as he takes a month off.

I'm sure in your head you thought your well thought out reply was witty, and hurtful, and supposed to make me feel bad. I'm sorry to disappoint you, it doesn't, just like your druggie friend.

[Espe]

Ah, I see he is enjoying his freedom while he can.

Freedom? The guy is dead man, show a little compassion for once.

[Cricket22]

Spoken like someone who has zero understanding of addiction.

No, Pigman is right. However I'm not so sure whether you're aware of the fact that many, if not most addicts eventually not only stop using, but the majority do it on their own, without any treatment or professional assistance.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-of-addiction/

"The truth is, the vast majority of people quit addictions on their own. Every population study (that is, research with people not in treatment) tells us this. There is no ambiguity, no doubt, no scientific questioning of this truth. Only the neuroscientific, “chronic brain disease” crowd—represented by the new official medical subspecialty, the American Board of Addiction Medicine (ABAM)—strives to convince us of the opposite, even as a never-ending flood of data tells us otherwise."

That’s not all. "About 75 percent of persons who recover from alcohol dependence do so without seeking any kind of help, including specialty alcohol (rehab) programs and Alcoholics Anonymous. Only 13 percent of people with alcohol dependence ever receive specialty alcohol treatment.” Wow. As the director of the research project at NIAAA, Mark Willenbring, notes, “These and other recent findings turn on its head much of what we thought we knew about alcoholism. As is so often true in medicine, researchers have studied the patients seen in hospitals and clinics most intensively. This can greatly skew understanding of a disorder,” especially in the case of alcoholism and addiction."
http://reason.com/archives/2014/02/0...o-know-you-can


In fact, as hard as this may be to fathom, there are professionals now who believe addiction is not a desease, but rather nothing more than a nasty habit, substantiated by the fact that:

"If addiction is a disease, though, why do most addictions end spontaneously, without treatment? Why did some 75% of heroin-addicted Vietnam vets kick the drug when they returned home?"

http://nypost.com/2015/07/12/addicti...addicts-wrong/

More than a few of my friends and relatives have suffered from substance abuse/addiction, and with few exceptions, almost every one them no longer uses. Couple went to treatment, a few attended AA/NA, and some still do, but most just stopped using.

Whether they're actually cured, were never truly addicted, or simply remaining in recovery as long as they don't relapse and use, I can't say. What I do know is that it is a known fact that many/most addicts do recover--on their own.

However, I also haven't seen any studies specific to such extremely addictive substances such as meth or crack.

[Deleted]

Such a weird argument for ruling.

That a kid might have longer time to sue than an adult i could understand (if the reason why was given). 2 years is also really short.

But because of the damage of missing a father now is a really weird argument. Because that would mean the goverment and mothers could be sued for certain things that contribute to the high single parent thats happening.
(And they are guilty to some sexist shit towards that but feels weird to sue)

[Tasttey]

But because of the damage of missing a father now is a really weird argument. Because that would mean the goverment and mothers could be sued for certain things that contribute to the high single parent thats happening.

This is the part that worries me, how far can it be taken? Can someone sue the state because Dad is doing life in prison and isn't there to support and comfort them? Dad/mom died in a war, can you sue the federal government? Parent suffers from mental illness and offs themselves, can you sue the doctors that were treating them?

[Cricket22]

This is the part that worries me, how far can it be taken? Can someone sue the state because Dad is doing life in prison and isn't there to support and comfort them? Dad/mom died in a war, can you sue the federal government? Parent suffers from mental illness and offs themselves, can you sue the doctors that were treating them?

I would normally agree with you, as for the most part, I consider most of these types of lawsuits nothing more than money grabs.

But in the case of a lot of these so called addiction treatment programs, I have seen desperate family members who have paid tens of thousands of dollars, on programs that massively inflate their success rates. I have known people who have gone to addiction treatment centers more than half dozen times, bankrupting their families in the process, only to relapse and go back to using within months. The real truth is, addicts do not stop using unless and until, they come to the realization that their addiction is getting in the way of something they desire even more.

There are addiction treatment programs that actually claim success rates of 80-90% -- which is absolute and total BS. In my personal opinion, they're scam artists, and should be sued. Not all are scams, there are some which are upfront and truthful, but an awful lot aren't.

[Stacyrect]

Mushroomhead is and will always be shit. Guess they should have been a better band, then maybe they could have had 1/100th success Slipknot had. Oh and I'm not a Slipknot fan, you just seem really butthurt.

Butthurt? Not at all. Sure Mushroomhead hasn't had the prime time media exposure Slip had but as far as fandom Mush is far wealthier. What band do you know that peruses the crowds of their show and challenges people to mario cart on their tour bus? Still friends with Gravy (Dave) to this day even though he's not with the band anymore. I haven't seen a better on-stage performance by any band. Still, it doesn't change that Slip coped mush and tried to rebrand it as their own lol.

[TITAN308]

I would normally agree with you, as for the most part, I consider most of these types of lawsuits nothing more than money grabs.

But in the case of a lot of these so called addiction treatment programs, I have seen desperate family members who have paid tens of thousands of dollars, on programs that massively inflate their success rates. I have known people who have gone to addiction treatment centers more than half dozen times, bankrupting their families in the process, only to relapse and go back to using within months. The real truth is, addicts do not stop using unless and until, they come to the realization that their addiction is getting in the way of something they desire even more.

There are addiction treatment programs that actually claim success rates of 80-90% -- which is absolute and total BS. In my personal opinion, they're scam artists, and should be sued. Not all are scams, there are some which are upfront and truthful, but an awful lot aren't.

So what is your argument, that families should be able to sue them because the family are a bunch of idiots?

[Phookah]

ITT: People who don't understand what addiction is but think they do because they thought about it long and hard for 20 seconds
OT: It's a frivolous lawsuit, surprise!

[Cricket22]

Y

So what is your argument, that families should be able to sue them because the family are a bunch of idiots?

It's not that the families are idiots, but rather that they are desperate, and desperate people will grasp at any straw.

If addiction centers actually were able to achieve the 80-90% success rates they claim, then the tens of thousands of dollars they charge for treatment would be money well spent.

But it's completely false. The real truth is about the best results most these treatment centers realistically manage to achieve, is maybe 10% max., which is not substantially higher than the percentage of addicts on an annual basis who just stop using on their own.

If the desperate family members who pay for these treatments had been told the truth upfront, how many do you think would have been willing to go into debt to pay the tens of thousands of dollars these treatment centers cost?

In my opinion, far too many of these treatment centers are getting rich, preying on the pain of families, desperate to save their loved one, by dangling unrealistic success rates, they know perfectly well are impossible to achieve.

How do they get away with it? Well, first they count as a "success" everyone sent by a judge for a drunk driving ticket or who was found with a joint of marijuana. Second, and far more insidious, they count "successes" as those who went to a halfway house for a few months following treatment, where they are subjected to drug testing on a regular basis -- and don't keep track of them after their mandatory drug testing period is over.

What I think families should be able to sue for is the thousands of dollars they were basically conned out of through the use of misleading, if not completely false, promises.

To explain a little better, here's a link, showing that the average cost of a rehab center ranges from a low of $10,000-20,000 per month, while the more expensive ones can run as high as $80,000 per month.

http://www.rehabs.com/about/how-much-does-rehab-cost/

Many of these also pressure families into paying for a 3 to 6 month program, telling them it will improve their loved one's chances for long lasting success. So the cost of treatment can easily run several hundreds of thousands of dollars, and even that wouldn't be so bad--if it worked, but it rarely does.

The real truth is the average success rate of treatment centers is only about 3%!

http://www.soberforever.net/currenttreatdoesnt.cfm

Treatment Doesn't Work Like Alcoholics Anonymous, treatment professionals claim success in the face of contradicting evidence. AA groupers boast "Rarely have we seen a person fail who has thoroughly followed our path." The truth is people rarely succeed when following the path of those in AA. As stated previously, 95% of the existing treatment centers in the United States adhere to the 12 Step philosophies. Not surprising, the success rate of treatment is no different from the success rate of AA: 3%.

[Deleted]

This is the part that worries me, how far can it be taken? Can someone sue the state because Dad is doing life in prison and isn't there to support and comfort them? Dad/mom died in a war, can you sue the federal government? Parent suffers from mental illness and offs themselves, can you sue the doctors that were treating them?

Yup. Atleast from what i understand based of american movies :P

[Cricket22]

Yup. Atleast from what i understand based of american movies :P

Yeah well, there's an army captain right now that just filed a lawsuit against Obama for sending troops in to fight the Islamic state war illegally. -- meaning, without the required approval from congress.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-se...bama-war-isis/

Ah, America, where you can sue just about anyone, at any time, for just about any reason.