What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Dead!!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Dead!!!!

For me it comes down to the fact that he made the decision, at some point, to start taking heroin. No matter what the situation was, that was a decision he made. After that, everything les is saying, I'm on board with, but I'm not giving him a pass for deciding to try heroin that first time. Hell, 95% of us posting here have been messed up drunk or whatever, how many of us have made the decision to shoot heroin or smoke crack, or meth. I'm guessing a very small amount. Just because you have peer pressure, or societal pressures, or you're drunk doesn't give you a free pass to do anything, you still have to have some self-responsibility. To use a cliche, gravity caused the snowball to roll down the hill, and get too huge to control, but PSH pushed that snowball off the ledge the moment he injected heroin into his veins that first time.
 
Re: Dead!!!!

bigblue_dl said:
For me it comes down to the fact that he made the decision, at some point, to start taking heroin. No matter what the situation was, that was a decision he made. After that, everything les is saying, I'm on board with, but I'm not giving him a pass for deciding to try heroin that first time. Hell, 95% of us posting here have been messed up drunk or whatever, how many of us have made the decision to shoot heroin or smoke crack, or meth. I'm guessing a very small amount. Just because you have peer pressure, or societal pressures, or you're drunk doesn't give you a free pass to do anything, you still have to have some self-responsibility. To use a cliche, gravity caused the snowball to roll down the hill, and get too huge to control, but PSH pushed that snowball off the ledge the moment he injected heroin into his veins that first time.
Click to expand...

I agree he made the decision. If you have a genetic disposition, trying stuff is **** dangerous. If you don't, not so much.Try to tell that to someone who is young and feels indestructible. I have seen people who chipped around with heroin and never missed it when they stopped. Alcohol the same thing. All their friends do X and don't have an issue. Why should they. In college how many people drink to excess and then stop when they have to grow up? Lots. They stop and never miss it. Some drink go on to drink 'wisely' only on weekends, etc. Some chemically feel like shi7 if they stop, they are depressed, feel sick, not right mentally. They drink and then that goes away. That is not the same as recreationally drinking. No test to tell you which one you will be.

Main points- there is a physical component to this. Hindsight is 20/20. Not everyone is exposed to the same level of fear and knowledge about substance use. TO avoid usage you need to buy into it being a risk. I happen to be a risk adverse person so the thought of experimenting would scare me away. After dealing with people and informing them of risk for years in my job I truly believe there are some people who do not seem capable of seeing the risk or not thinking ahead to anticipate risk. It is not that they see it and then ignore it. They truly cannot grasp the risk exists. They make really dumb decisions and poof! Bob's your uncle.
 
Re: Dead!!!!

leswp1 said:
I agree he made the decision. If you have a genetic disposition, trying stuff is **** dangerous. If you don't, not so much.Try to tell that to someone who is young and feels indestructible. I have seen people who chipped around with heroin and never missed it when they stopped. Alcohol the same thing. All their friends do X and don't have an issue. Why should they. In college how many people drink to excess and then stop when they have to grow up? Lots. They stop and never miss it. Some drink go on to drink 'wisely' only on weekends, etc. Some chemically feel like shi7 if they stop, they are depressed, feel sick, not right mentally. They drink and then that goes away. That is not the same as recreationally drinking. No test to tell you which one you will be.

Main points- there is a physical component to this. Hindsight is 20/20. Not everyone is exposed to the same level of fear and knowledge about substance use. TO avoid usage you need to buy into it being a risk. I happen to be a risk adverse person so the thought of experimenting would scare me away. After dealing with people and informing them of risk for years in my job I truly believe there are some people who do not seem capable of seeing the risk or not thinking ahead to anticipate risk. It is not that they see it and then ignore it. They truly cannot grasp the risk exists. They make really dumb decisions and poof! Bob's your uncle.
Click to expand...

Check your PM. (I wish I wasn't limited to only 250 chars)

I feel bad, but I really can't feel bad for PSH. More his family and friends.
 
Re: Dead!!!!

I cannot disagree with anything said at all here-Les in particular makes incredibly valid points. But part of the big picture is do you believe that we(society) owes it to take care of everyone for everything. If someone wants to be self destructive, is it society's job to stop them? And of course do we pay for doing this? Switching gears-there is an incredibly forceful movement now to restrict the prescribing of narcotic drugs for pain. Doctors are being limited and controlled in ways that allow non physicians, non medical people, to determine if they are"prescribing correctly." Read that as-"prescribing as the government has decided they should even though the government has no medical expertise." The major reason given is abuse of these drugs by youngsters who gain access to them-either totally illegally(stolen, etc) or legally from others who have valid prescriptions for them(parents, etc) but in most cases either stolen as before or simply diverted.

Not many are coming forward to say-gee, maybe we should just keep the kids away from the drugs. Restrict their access by keeping them in a place that they cannot get the drugs. More are saying, gee, let's control the source of the drugs and if in the process we make these drugs less available to those who really need them (cancer patients, chronic pain sufferers, etc), well, that's just too bad since we have to protect these kids from themselves.

There is no simple answer for this and obviously this issue is far more complicated than I portrayed. But, put simply, do we penalize everyone for the actions of the few who decide to be self destructiive? Do we call these abuses a disease? Do we call every issue someone comes up with a disability? Do we then pay for every claim someone makes? is insomnia, depression, anxiety a disability? If PSH decided to flush himsel fdown the toilet with drugs-do we have an obligation to stop him, pay for him? If he did it with a legal drug, say Xanax, do we restrict everyone from taking the drug just so he could not abuse it? Tough calls for sure. As an old time conservative physician, I have my own thoughts about all of this.
 
Re: Dead!!!!

DrDemento said:
I cannot disagree with anything said at all here-Les in particular makes incredibly valid points. But part of the big picture is do you believe that we(society) owes it to take care of everyone for everything. If someone wants to be self destructive, is it society's job to stop them? And of course do we pay for doing this? Switching gears-there is an incredibly forceful movement now to restrict the prescribing of narcotic drugs for pain. Doctors are being limited and controlled in ways that allow non physicians, non medical people, to determine if they are"prescribing correctly." Read that as-"prescribing as the government has decided they should even though the government has no medical expertise." The major reason given is abuse of these drugs by youngsters who gain access to them-either totally illegally(stolen, etc) or legally from others who have valid prescriptions for them(parents, etc) but in most cases either stolen as before or simply diverted.
Click to expand...

Just remember the twelve worst words in the English language are "I am from the government and I am here to help you." :mad:
 
Re: Dead!!!!

DrDemento said:
I cannot disagree with anything said at all here-Les in particular makes incredibly valid points. But part of the big picture is do you believe that we(society) owes it to take care of everyone for everything. If someone wants to be self destructive, is it society's job to stop them? And of course do we pay for doing this? Switching gears-there is an incredibly forceful movement now to restrict the prescribing of narcotic drugs for pain. Doctors are being limited and controlled in ways that allow non physicians, non medical people, to determine if they are"prescribing correctly." Read that as-"prescribing as the government has decided they should even though the government has no medical expertise." The major reason given is abuse of these drugs by youngsters who gain access to them-either totally illegally(stolen, etc) or legally from others who have valid prescriptions for them(parents, etc) but in most cases either stolen as before or simply diverted.

Not many are coming forward to say-gee, maybe we should just keep the kids away from the drugs. Restrict their access by keeping them in a place that they cannot get the drugs. More are saying, gee, let's control the source of the drugs and if in the process we make these drugs less available to those who really need them (cancer patients, chronic pain sufferers, etc), well, that's just too bad since we have to protect these kids from themselves.

There is no simple answer for this and obviously this issue is far more complicated than I portrayed. But, put simply, do we penalize everyone for the actions of the few who decide to be self destructiive? Do we call these abuses a disease? Do we call every issue someone comes up with a disability? Do we then pay for every claim someone makes? is insomnia, depression, anxiety a disability? If PSH decided to flush himsel fdown the toilet with drugs-do we have an obligation to stop him, pay for him? If he did it with a legal drug, say Xanax, do we restrict everyone from taking the drug just so he could not abuse it? Tough calls for sure. As an old time conservative physician, I have my own thoughts about all of this.
Click to expand...

It's not as if we have insufficient data about the dangers of heroin. An Oscar winning actor killed himself with the stuff this weekend. How many other people, far less known, OD'ed in New York this weekend?
 
Re: Dead!!!!

DrDemento said:
I cannot disagree with anything said at all here-Les in particular makes incredibly valid points. But part of the big picture is do you believe that we(society) owes it to take care of everyone for everything. If someone wants to be self destructive, is it society's job to stop them? And of course do we pay for doing this? Switching gears-there is an incredibly forceful movement now to restrict the prescribing of narcotic drugs for pain. Doctors are being limited and controlled in ways that allow non physicians, non medical people, to determine if they are"prescribing correctly." Read that as-"prescribing as the government has decided they should even though the government has no medical expertise." The major reason given is abuse of these drugs by youngsters who gain access to them-either totally illegally(stolen, etc) or legally from others who have valid prescriptions for them(parents, etc) but in most cases either stolen as before or simply diverted.

Not many are coming forward to say-gee, maybe we should just keep the kids away from the drugs. Restrict their access by keeping them in a place that they cannot get the drugs. More are saying, gee, let's control the source of the drugs and if in the process we make these drugs less available to those who really need them (cancer patients, chronic pain sufferers, etc), well, that's just too bad since we have to protect these kids from themselves.

There is no simple answer for this and obviously this issue is far more complicated than I portrayed. But, put simply, do we penalize everyone for the actions of the few who decide to be self destructiive? Do we call these abuses a disease? Do we call every issue someone comes up with a disability? Do we then pay for every claim someone makes? is insomnia, depression, anxiety a disability? If PSH decided to flush himsel fdown the toilet with drugs-do we have an obligation to stop him, pay for him? If he did it with a legal drug, say Xanax, do we restrict everyone from taking the drug just so he could not abuse it? Tough calls for sure. As an old time conservative physician, I have my own thoughts about all of this.
Click to expand...
Dr D I wasn't thinking of who is responsible for taking care of it or how to fix it. That is something that would take up a whole thread. It just bothers me when people simplify a very complex issue by saying they just shouldn't do it because it is a dumb choice. It is a dumb choice. The sequelae aren't pretty but the why is very complicated.

Ironically I just read obits tonight. Lost another kid who used to be a patient to OD. They posted on FB a couple of days ago she was missing. Was in the obits tonight. Heartbroken. Thought she had made it to sober. she tried so hard and had wonderful supportive family. Drugs suck!
 
Last edited:
Re: Dead!!!!

Keith Allen, first coach of the Flyers

Keith Allen, the first head coach of the Flyers who became the general manager that built the organization’s Stanley Cup championship teams of 1974 and 1975, passed away Tuesday. He was 90.

"Keith was the first coach in the history of the Philadelphia Flyers and a man for whom I have tremendous respect," said Philadelphia Flyers Chairman Ed Snider. "In my mind, he was and always will be one of the greatest General Managers in the history of hockey. He was known as 'Keith the Thief,' I never knew of a bad deal he made. This team would never have reached the level of success we have had over the past 48 years if it were not for Keith.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Dead!!!!

Zsa Zsa celebrated another birthday today. Not that she knows it, but.....................
 
Re: Dead!!!!

Dude Love said:
Just looked at his Wiki...why did he only play for 10 years?
Click to expand...

But a powerhouse 10 years leading the league in home runs 7 times and hitting over 360 of them playing for some abyssmal teams. Made a fistful of mistakes as an announcer in almost every game, but his old stories of his time as a Pirate were fabulous. RIP RK
 
Re: Dead!!!!

joecct said:
Shirley Temple Black, 85.
Click to expand...

My mother chose my name from the Heidi movie she was in. It is one of my favorites, too. When we first got cable TV, there were quite a few stations that would show Shirley Temple movies. I remember that The Little Princess was on a lot at Christmas time. She was eternally cute and seven years old for many people. I also liked her as a teenager in Fort Apache and I still need to see The Bachelor and the Bobby Soxer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top