正文
2018年3月5日美國的時代雜誌就講一件事：美國正經曆一場其有史以來的最嚴重的鴉片災難，美國必須打一場鴉片戰爭。據統計，美國2016年有六萬四千人死於毒品過量，由於死於毒品的人多為青壯年，這直接導致了美國人均年齡連續兩年下降。僅僅2016這一年美國死於毒品過量的人，就超過了美國近代戰爭犧牲人數的總和---包括越南戰爭、伊拉克戰爭和阿富汗戰爭。
很多人鴉片成癮，起始於藥用止痛片。從1990起，到2011年止，漫長的二十一年間，有一個奇怪的理論風行於美國醫藥界：疼痛是每個人的經驗，醫護人員不能根據病人的診斷來確定病人的疼痛程度，而應由病人來確定他們自己的疼痛程度。這個理論在邏輯上有嚴重缺陷。一般的邏輯應該是，每個人的個人疼痛經驗是不一樣，但是絕大多數的人在斷骨接髓後經曆的疼痛，應該比大多數手上紮了一根刺的人，疼痛程度要高，疼痛時間要長。但是九十年代，風行全美的疼痛理論，故意無視了這個事實，完全以病人主觀意誌來指導醫務工作人員的治療方向，誰不以病人的意誌為主導，來“治療”疼痛，輕者被投訴，重者失去工作。可以不誇張地說，這個理論，為美國現在無法控製的鴉片災難，打開了大門。有的人最初始時，有開刀史，有骨折史，他們有理由用止痛藥。但是延長使用止痛藥，給鴉片類止痛藥成癮開了方便之門。時代雜誌講了許多具體人的故事。有人一開始是處方藥成癮，漸漸地，他癮越來越大，買藥的費用越來越高，相對而言，違禁的黑市可卡因反而比處方藥便宜，他轉而用可卡因，從此進入萬劫不複的深淵。
“時代雜誌”說有一種違禁的“範特腦”，其成癮性和致死性都極高，是從中國和墨西哥偷運進來的。所以說，來回於中國和美國之間的朋友們，千萬別給陌生人帶東西。據說在機場等公共場合，現在都要把自己隨身的背包拉鏈拉好，以防毒品販子臨時起意，轉移臧物，讓你禍從天降。
在2018年第一期埃默裏大學校刊上，埃默裏大學的第二十位校長可來而瑞。斯特克博士寫了一篇短文，題目是“我們有個問題”。斯特克博士在她的文中指出，鴉片類藥物成癮在美國已經急劇上升到了致死的危機關頭，這個危機遠遠沒有得到控製，它對青少年危害極大。斯特克博士指出要對鴉片類止痛藥成癮的人進行教育和幫助，而不是指責。她認為，隻有人們認識到鴉片類止痛藥成癮的問題是“我們”的問題，而不是“他們”的問題時，這個疫病才可以得到控製。斯特克博士是公共衛生專家，所以她的觀點在美國應該具有權威性。
可能禁毒和禁酒不是一個層次的問題。如果說，要禁毒的話，就應該禁止所有的不是飯菜的食用品。既然你無法禁酒，那你也不要禁毒。這在邏輯上，就好像說，人生下來終歸是要死的，那麽，殺人犯奪人性命也沒什麽了不起，反正這個人早晚都是要死的嗎。
美國禁槍總不得其效，邏輯上也是有問題。因為禁槍的目的是不讓有亂殺人傾向的人，拿到武器。可是，造武器的利潤太大，所以，雙方一在這個問題上開口，馬上就有人出來熱罵、攪局，最後，大家夥冷靜的頭腦，被熱血沸騰的情緒代替，鬧了半天，大家吵累了，造槍的繼續造槍發財，什麽有力的法律也沒形成，老百姓繼續惶惶恐恐地受著莫名槍手的驚嚇。再好的日子，幸福感也不會有了。
美國的政治家總是以保護弱者為己任，我們知道，很多弱者是由於自己的不得已，比如說天生的殘疾弱者，後天由禍而致的弱者，這些人值得同情。但遺憾的是，還有一些弱者是自作而致，比如吸毒者最終變成社會的廢人。這時，一些別有用心的政治家，不去深究這些人變成廢人的原因，去花力氣改變這些原因，而是廉價地鼓吹保護弱者，亂用納稅人的錢，比如說給用毒的人提供免費的消毒注射器，等等。在美國文化裏，如果誰想鎖緊自己的錢袋， 坐視弱者不問，那一定不得人心。如果哪個民族想不管社會問題，隻管自家發財，那這個民族就不太容易在美國社會登上領袖地位。
謝謝你的實事求是的留言。是的，我們的周圍，我們孩子的周圍，可能就會有癮君子。他們可能很可愛，很能幹，很和氣。但在他們毒癮上來時，就可能由人變成鬼。我們不可能生活在真空中，不可能永遠躲在象牙塔中。。。
濫用這個丟命的是把三片碾碎直接用鼻子吸，可能導致心髒猝死。
簡單講、美國高中裏不吸毒的孩子據說不多，尤其是富裕家庭的孩子，因為有錢買毒品。我們一個朋友的孩子曾經與小家夥是同學，在高中時進來三次rehab戒毒。據說一般一個在高中吸毒的孩子一個月的花銷在一千刀，而這個年齡段的孩子很多有這個錢。小家夥同年級的一個老中女孩，是學生會主席，屬於那種學校和老師都寵著的人物，但孩子之間都知道她毒癮很大，從眼睛上能看出幾乎天天吸毒。小家夥大概因為是運動員，不敢這樣。再有就是我們給她信用卡，但不給現款，而老中的孩子幾乎沒見過高中打工掙零花錢的。一般說來，似乎從小就參加集體運動的孩子不容易進入吸毒的圈子。
davidhu1999 發表評論
我想不出什麽原因，我們這些與癮君子基本沒有交集的人，需要去把這當做自己的問題。我們也沒有任何急迫的願望要去“控製”這個問題。
誰想控製這個問題，誰當然可以去努力。我們一般人不妨礙您等，但也別義正辭嚴的說的好像一般人有義務去管這種閑事似的。
Look, every single one of your arguments has collapsed under its own weight. "a society in which people do things out of their free will. That would not work... as long as [the] majority of people still have common sense." Now you have divulged your true intention. You are one typical leftist dreaming of a nanny state where the Big Brother dictates every decision, every action of yours, who is more comfortable in his skin being a slave of someone else, and consider that more commonsensical than being a man of his own free will. You should definitely feel much more at home in Nazi Germany or Soviet Union, or in Mao's Communist China.
Now, what is the point mentioning Trump? Is that supposed to be an argument? How? Do you consider him to be omnipotent or omniscient? Is his opinion more persuasive than my own or your own? Again, this exposes your leftist's habit of lack of capacity for independent and critical thinking.
There is no drug problem any more than any problem stemming from any other substance like alcohol, other than that caused by the Drug War itself. You could make the exact same argument for banning alcohol. Why dare you not raise that issue?
Oh, I forgot about the mandy, more than fifty, shades of absurdity of your statement "there is a news piece today, saying the opioid painkiller is not more effective than conventional pain killer. The logic should be simple - due to its addictive nature, even if they are more effective, the damage outweighs the benefits - then make all of them illegal!" First of all, the over sweeping nature of the claim is almost immediately and always wrong. The very fact you believe in the news headline completely reveals either your lack of critical thinking or naivety. Second, have you read the actual scientific report? Do you know how the study is conducted, how big a sample, what specific painkillers are used, what specific diseases/pains at what stage are under study, what is the profile of the patients population under study, what is the criterion for assessing effectiveness? Most importantly, "no more effective" is a pretty weak statement and means just that, no better. How does one ever leap to the conclusion that something needs to be banned? If you ever have any skill of dealing with probabilistic problems you could easily come up with absurd counterexamples to your assertion. I will just leave it as a homework exercise for you to figure one out.
此外，對孩子的影響 - 周圍吸毒的人，可能會影響孩子，所以可能需要管。但我不覺得這些因為醫用止痛藥成癮的人會影響到我的孩子。能少管點就少管點。
If you know anything about Chinese history, particularly the Opium War, with more than skin deep superficiality fed by the Chinese authority, you would know opium is but one excuse and scapegoating of the government for hundred years of the corruption, incompetence, oppression of the people prior to the war.
A country and a people do not lose the competitive edge because of what people voluntarily take into their body. On the very contrary, competitive edge and creativity STEM from individuals having the freedom to decide for themselves how to live their own lives so long as he does not infringe upon others' property rights without someone else coercing them into any action, regardless the motivation or morality judgement of that someone else. Hitler never considered he had done anything morally unrighteous for the German people when he imposed his own will on the German people. If anything, the (Chinese) Opium War is a case in point how a nation of oppressed people with no free will of their own would perish.
We are already in a Drug War. It is exactly this war itself is draining taxpayers' money and the wealth of the nation in the service of nothing but the moral crusade of some special interest groups. It is a replay of the Prohibition (of alcohol). Drug use is not a problem. It is the right of an individual and no one else to decide what he put inside of his own body.
You said "政策的製定，會直接影響到納稅人的錢放到哪裏去了。" I can not agree more. If you are really concerned with your tax money, you should try to stop the politician from waging this socially destructive, wasteful and moreover losing war. If you read up on the history of the Prohibition, you will conclude that this war will lose eventually precisely like the Prohibition. The sad thing is, it won't end before it has done enough damage.
If you know anything about Chinese history after opium war, you know that is how a Country goes to the drain, if the drugs are legalized.
More and more people are getting stoned after the pot legalization, and that is also how a country loses competitive edge.
You are one of those dumbass leftists who think the panacea to all problem is prohibition. You can present more detrimental statistics for alcohol than drugs. Maybe you should reinstitute and replay Prohibition-era policies first. The leftists never learn. The only solution is to legalize drugs.
謝謝來訪並留言。政策的製定，會直接影響到納稅人的錢放到哪裏去了。另外，如果您有孩子，就更應該關注這個問題。
不好意思，這個題目很沉重。
是的，說一些空話，解決不了問題。
謝謝來訪。是的，這個問題嚴重到超出工薪階層人士的想象。
你我交的稅被這樣浪費很不值得。
Like guns, they don't look at the root of the problem, beating around the bushes, trying to have non-stop talking topics.
Honestly, I have found this country, and people in this country to be very dumb and funny, they make simple problems more complicated, and they see trees not the forest, they shake their heads in sand and pretending to be smart, with eyes blindfolded trying to see solutions.
As for the politicians in this country, they are all corrupted by special interest money. Really don't want to solve problems for this country. You split all the top CCP leaders' brains in half, they would be still smarter than the elected officials.
Opioid addition, gun violence, healthcare reform ---- they will talk about those issues in the next 30 to 50 years. What a joke!
誰想控製這個問題，誰當然可以去努力。我們一般人不妨礙您等，但也別義正辭嚴的說的好像一般人有義務去管這種閑事似的。