-Well since we're 'waiting for the facts' to come out, you can say the same thing about yourself. Oh, and it was a question, not an answer.
Since, to the best of my knowledge, I didn't claim to know facts that I didn't, or even imply some, and didn't pass any judgments, you can't say the same about me, actually.
-If he didn't, but sought it out... he is a junkie.
-If he had one, it stopped, and he sought it out from a third party supplier... he is a junkie.
He may be an addict, although neither of us know the full story yet. "Junkie" is a term generally used to describe heroin addicts, although it does get occasional broader use similar to the way you're using it. I don't tend to like the PC notion of word change, but "junkie" is usually a specialized term and doesn't really fit this situation.
-You are aware that cops can find out whether or not you are perscribed without having the perscription on you right? He wasn't perscribed, they verified it and it arrested him.
My family is in the medical field and my stepfather was once the director of an addiction facility. I know how this stuff works all too well, and I'm not going to argue the nuts and bolts of prescriptions when the facts will be out soon enough.
-I knew two addicts who would disagree with you on that one. Kids today take it because it gets you high. If you're taking it because it gets you high, you're doing it for kicks. Now if you want to make an argument on the difference of the effects, I'm with ya.
The plural of anecdote is not data, sorry. For the purposes of this discussion, I really don't care that you knew two addicts, just as I don't care that I've known a lot more than two addicts. I never claimed that nobody takes it to get high. I said you don't partake of it for kicks,
at least in theory. I also realize that some people sniff glue. However, again, IN THEORY (or in general, if you prefer), sniffing the fumes is not why people by glue.
-This is the same recycled argument used against me 1,000 times in this thread. If he took it for pain, he would need to make the conscious choice to actively seek it out after the perscription ended. I'm not saying he did it for kicks, just that he made his choice and now has to live with it.
He may have been addicted while still on a valid, legal prescription. Acting as if his actions at that point would be "the conscious choice" just shows a complete ignorance on your part regarding how addiction works. I'm not recycling any argument, I'm merely pointing out some things you don't seem to know. Feel free to look up the information on this subject.
-BINGO!!! This is why this argument started. People in this thread seem content to let Kaczur off the hook for any wrongdoing while putting 100% of the blame on the dealer. My argument is that Kaczur is just as much, if not more at fault for seeking out the drugs in the first place. As I said earlier: advertisement can only do so much without an error in human judgement. Kaczur made that error yet is still being looked upon as an angel by many in this thread. By the way, I never once said in this thread or any other that the dealer wasn't at fault either. I actually called the dealer a scumbag too. But I'm not so much of a blind homer to let Kaczur off the hook for this.
Your argument is ignorant because you don't know the facts. You're being every bit as ridiculous as the people you claim are letting him "off the hook". Addicts who follow doctors' instructions in good faith aren't generally going to be to blame for their resultant addictions to a known addictive drug, and it's just moronic to claim they are.
