Reply #135: Most of them (expl. below). Meth is hard on the user's physical body. [View All]

[Trillo]

Are we responsible for what we put in our bodies? We are told we are. Yet, genetic engineering has reached past the cell wall into our DNA itself, breaking our Fourth Amendment rights, suggesting we don’t own our own bodies by explicitly stating we don't own our DNA. However, if we don’t own our DNA, thus we cannot own our bodies, so how can we humans reasonably be held financially or even physically responsible for what our bodies do? Yet, that is certainly one hypocrisy of our civilization's current evolution, that we are held responsible not only for what we do, but also what we haven't done, or what someone else's shadow projects we might do, while removing ownership rights from us the moment some powerful group smells money.

Anyway, on to your questions. "... have you ever actually met anyone on meth?"

One of my best high-school friends got severely addicted to it some few years later. None of us knew until after she went into treatment, so evidently the only people who knew of her addiction were her meth suppliers, though we had been noticing the typical skin splotches. She told me the meth allowed her to work 16-hour days and more without tiring.

She developed some more severe heath issues than the skin issues, and was apparently told by doctors that she had the body of an 80-year old, and she was only in her 20s at the time. She decided that she needed to get off meth, and went into some kind of treatment program. So, that should have answered your last question.


Now, to your other questions regarding money addiction: "What percentage of people with money break into homes and steal property because of their addiction?"

That appears as possibly a poorly phrased question, though it may be precisely phrased. Do you mean: What percentage of people with money withdrawal symptoms break into homes and steal property because of their money addiction?

If that's what you meant, then my guess is all of them who break and enter. That's part of what I called "individual withdrawal" symptoms.

However, if you meant it precisely as phrased, then: In a wider sense, some have claimed that warrantless wiretapping, first entering mass consciousness during the * years, was conducted against nearly all citizens. That was breaking and entering under the U.S. constitution as far as I’m concerned, (unless it occurred with a warrant). Nobody questions that warrantless wiretapping occurred, a more pertinent question is how widespread it was, and perhaps still is. This "breaking and entering" by sovereigns could be construed as moneyed folks, acting in concert with each other, to protect their money at the expense of their victims. The number would seem a very small percentage of the total number of folks, but their money and sovereign status gives them the power of millions, perhaps billions of non-sovereigns, particularly in a money-addicted world that considers money equivalent to speech. Additionally, as governments, their assertion is usually that they represent the people and thus act for all of us (thus explaining "most of them" in the title), but we seem to mostly see evidence that they act much more strongly for private corporations benefit. Was theft of property involved? Who knows? If intellectual property that hadn't yet been revealed publicly was compromised, theft of first opportunity could easily have occurred, and thus one possibility is deliberate espionage for existing industry's immediate benefit (undermining competition).

"How many children where mistreated or ignored their parents main concern was getting their fix for money?"

Some years ago, maybe the 80s or the 90s, there was a promotion (that didn't appear as advertising), for some longish time, perhaps several years, in the newspapers which was framed as Latch-Key Kids; it was a huge problem judging from what the many articles I read at the time asserted. According to wikipedia, the term was coined during WWII. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latchkey_kid They were latch-key kids because after school the kids went home and both their parents were working, and needed a key to open the locked door.

Their parents were both absent because of their needed money fix.

When their parents did come home, they were likely tired, and my guess is cranky because they suffered under employers who took the best hours of their days. After the parents returned home, perhaps they all went to FastFoodInc and got dinner, or whipped up some 3-minute InstantInc flesh-flavored noodles for themselves and the kids, and planted themselves in front of the TV for the remaining hours of the evening, where their brains were almost instantaneously lulled to alpha-wave status, a welcome relief from the parents' earlier brain-wave state of stress, before later going to sleep. Gee, I wonder if anyone does this today.

Anyway, in answer to your question, how many children were 'mistreated or ignored' due to their parents money addiction, my answer is with respect particularly toward your latter term, most all of the U.S. kids; and in a global corporate world, probably other nation's kids as well.

There is certainly a question surrounding precisely whose addiction it is, what mechanism is the root cause of the masses' apparent money addiction. The answer today seems found in the realm of hierarchy and the sovereigns at the top, and which entities they have empowered to create money, which appears to be a small, elite few at best. Maybe there's only one behind it all. Thus fully auditing these "institutions" is not allowed. In any case, this system of the few use the power of their money, their system, to control the actions, even the goals, of the rest of us. Even in schools, the "best minds" have been employed to suppress the individual child's natural talents, even if that talent happens to be math or reading -- nevermind creative, dreamy pursuits -- and implant others' goals for the kids to possess as their own, without the kids even necessarily realizing these goals they've been given aren't their own, perhaps until many years later, if ever.

What is perhaps most revealing to me is that in the animal kingdom here on earth, we humans seem to be the only ones that use money for survival purposes. None of the other animals that I'm aware of, with the possible exception of humans' pets, seem to need it to survive, even thrive, in earth's healthy biosphere, an environment quickly passing into memory.

Several of those books look quite interesting, one is titled, http://books.google.com/books?id=F7LW1a6XpvAC&pg=PA12&dq=%22money+addiction%22&hl=en#v=onepage&q=%22money%20addiction%22&f=false">How corporations hurt us all: saving our rights, democracy, institutions by Dan Butts.