Josh and Anna 55: Settling in at Seagoville

[Coconut Flan]

13 minutes ago, Giraffe said:

I think she can only visit him twice a month anyway so I doubt she'd find the drive a hardship. 

The last 50 miles shouldn't be such a big deal on a weekend morning especially if she has to drive from NWA first every time.  I remember driving across Dallas and that's why I wouldn't describe it as an "easy" drive.  It's no match for Los Angeles, but to me easy is open road.  That's pretty much where my mind was.  I wonder if JB will volunteer a pilot and plane for her or if she'll be on her own.  It will interesting to see if we hear about any of this or if she eventually moves to be closer.

I hope there aren't too many times she makes the drive from Arkansas only to have visitation cancelled last minute.

Edited July 6, 2022 by Coconut Flan

[Anne Of Gray Gables]

21 minutes ago, Giraffe said:

I think she can only visit him twice a month anyway so I doubt she'd find the drive a hardship. 

I don't know if they are still doing any Covid restrictions at his prison, but pre-pandemic Federal prison visits averaged around 4 - 6 visits a month and could last for several hours. 

[Father Son Holy Goat]

7 hours ago, GracieLou Free Duggar said:

If Cil was a true sister, she'd say 'But you should just go take out the trash, because at least you have a husband.'

LOL jk

 

What is this in reference to?

 

[Giraffe]

13 minutes ago, Anne Of Gray Gables said:

I don't know if they are still doing any Covid restrictions at his prison, but pre-pandemic Federal prison visits averaged around 4 - 6 visits a month and could last for several hours. 

Oh wow!! I thought it was only twice a month for an hour. Maybe I was reading old guidelines. 

[Coconut Flan]

Their website is still showing the COVID protocol of two visitors, twice a month, for two hours.  Do they keep website updated?  

[AussieKrissy]

On 7/4/2022 at 11:49 PM, Zebedee said:

I've been binging the greatest Aussie soap on earth - Prisoner: Cell Block H. Set in the late 70s/early 80s, where babies could stay until their first birthday. Is it still one year? Not that I take PCBH as being terribly representative of Australian prisons, so maybe it was never one year.

Until they start school was the criteria I last knew off. 

I honestly hope because he is a sex offender he is banned from having anyone under 18 visit him.  No exceptions. 

[Dandruff]

4 hours ago, socalrules said:

I think Anna loved the idea of being the wife of someone who worked at the hate group but was also probably intimidated by the people working there. You had well-dressed, educated women, single and married, working with her husband and on the same level or higher. They probably looked right through her. Anna was used to being the smug one who thought she was better than everyone else because she married a TV star and was now on TV herself. It was likely unnerving to go to DC and find out no one cared. 

Also, wasn't Josh going on business trips when he worked for FRC?  I imagine Anna didn't appreciate being left, overnight, with only the kids and her imagination.  I'd be surprised if she wasn't getting some worrisome vibes from Josh given the $$s and effort he put into meeting other women.

[GracieLou Free Duggar]

4 hours ago, Father Son Holy Goat said:

What is this in reference to?

 

On an episode Anna was being all 'I don't mind if I have to take out the trash, because at least I have a husband.' It was a whole thing and just really gross.

[Jackie3]

On 7/3/2022 at 10:26 AM, Antimony said:

It's called a "dual arrest" where both parties are arrested on a DV call and the rates of it vary heavily by state and local jurisdiction, but it's a real thing. It isn't made up

It's also not a huge problem. 92% of the time, it doesnt happen at all. 

Quote

The best U.S. national estimate is that domestic-violence dual arrests amount to about 8% of arrests for domestic violence.

Quote

Arrests made in dual-arrest domestic-violence incidents accounted for an estimated 7.4% and 7.5% of all arrests for domestic violence according to the U.S. National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) in 2000 and 2010, respectively. 

 

Edited July 6, 2022 by Jackie3

[Bastet]

23 hours ago, Four is Enough said:

 

You can't just "up" your Xanax dose if you want more. You can't just up your dose of blood pressure medicine without a consultation from your physician. It goes without saying that you couldn't just up your dose of narcotics whenever you wanted more. You'd have to go elsewhere to get the dose you crave.

I believe there will always be a street market for illicit drugs.

You pretty much could. If drugs were legal he could write you a prescription for a higher dose.  There might be a street market in some places for you to buy more to top off a dose from a doc, but they wouldn’t make much money from you if you then went to a doctor and told him you needed a higher dose. 

[Coconut Flan]

29 minutes ago, Bastet said:

You pretty much could. If drugs were legal he could write you a prescription for a higher dose.  There might be a street market in some places for you to buy more to top off a dose from a doc, but they wouldn’t make much money from you if you then went to a doctor and told him you needed a higher dose. 

It doesn't work that way for drugs that are legal now.  You can't just request and get all the pain killers you want, no one is funding marijuana,  I think people are seeing that as a pie in the sky type thing that insurance simply will not fund.  There will be caps and limits in the US just like there are for almost all drugs.  I hate it sometimes that I was born practical, but so it is.  

I'm not saying we need to put people in prison, but that legalizing would not mean just trot in the doctor's office and get all the whatever you want.  There would be limits and conditions in the US just based on our healthcare structure.  

[Bastet]

22 hours ago, Mama Mia said:

So you’re suggesting that the drugs are not only legal, but provided free of charge at whatever dosage people want? For every drug? How would that not just increase the number of people who die? And even if you get your drug of choice for free - you still need money for basic necessities - where does that come from if you’re so high you can’t function? Or what about the many drugs that can make people aggressive and paranoid and violent? 
 

I live in an area with extremely minimal drug enforcement, with free needle exchange and with a large variety of social supports. 
 

I worked directly in drug treatment, I worked in social service programs with a large percentage of people struggling with addiction, and I have a lot of personal life experience with the impacts of addiction on my family. Respectfully, There seems to be kind of an idealization of what social services, treatment, and decriminalization can do. 

The goal is not a perfect world. The goal is a better situation than we have now. Yes, people will still become addicted. We have tried making drugs illegal and the result is a disaster for the addicts and for the rest of us. Most addicts who die do so because drugs are illegal. They have no idea what the drugs were cut with and how pure they might be.  Can you die with a bottle of accurately labeled morphine tablets? Sure. It’s a common  form of suicide. But it isn’t the crap shoot illegal drugs are. 
  The model is alcohol. Once alcohol was legalized we still had alcoholics. Banning alcohol was a disaster. It didn’t even reduce alcoholism.
 (Organized crime grew exponentially while alcohol was illegal; organized crime later turned their attention to illegal gambling and drugs. Now it’s just drugs. Illegal markets where there is money to be made will get served. Always. It’s a shame we that we let the war on drugs take up so much money and manpower when there is incontrovertible evidence that it doesn’t work.)   
  So yes, we will still have problems with the effects of drugs that you see  all the time in your work. But we can’t put the genie back in the bottle. Drugs exist. They always will.  If you assume that and acknowledge that the war on crime has made things worse, where do you go from there? Wherever you go, it isn’t to paradise, but we can get to a place that is better.  I actually am a realist. I think we can mitigate the harm of drug addiction through legalization. Alcoholism causes untold suffering, but we don’t waste time talking about banning it.  We need to do that with all drugs.

 

[Bastet]

43 minutes ago, Coconut Flan said:

It doesn't work that way for drugs that are legal now.  You can't just request and get all the pain killers you want, no one is funding marijuana,  I think people are seeing that as a pie in the sky type thing that insurance simply will not fund.  There will be caps and limits in the US just like there are for almost all drugs.  I hate it sometimes that I was born practical, but so it is.  

I'm not saying we need to put people in prison, but that legalizing would not mean just trot in the doctor's office and get all the whatever you want.  There would be limits and conditions in the US just based on our healthcare structure.  

Pain killers are now badly handled and many people can’t get what they need. I am one. However, the current situation is an overreaction to the OxyContin scandal and will eventually get righted. Maybe the back and forthing will go on forever. In any case, the more a drug is restricted, the larger the resulting illegal market.  The restricting of pain killers expanded the market for heroin. 
   The legalization of marijuana is not where it needs to be. It must be cheaper to cut more into the illegal market. 
  If you are in favor of “not putting people in prison” then you are in favor of at least some legalization. Good! 
  You are right that there will be problems with health insurance. But we probably can’t start to address that in this country until we legalize. (There are always problems with health insurance. . . .  )

Edited July 6, 2022 by Bastet

[Antimony]

11 hours ago, Coconut Flan said:

Their website is still showing the COVID protocol of two visitors, twice a month, for two hours.  Do they keep website updated?  

I'm more familiar with state, so who knows what the BOP does, but in general, I have not known prisons to be particularly timely in updating their websites. In general, there's kind of a sense that they will tell the inmates, the inmates will tell their visitors/pen-pals/lawyers about any big changes, and maybe the website might get updated when whoever is in charge of that gets around to it. Very frequently, updates and rule changes seem sudden and sometimes they don't even last. Pennsylvania prisons banned books being mailed in for like...a month?...before the outrage got them to walk it back. 

Re: Drugs - [1950's Car Salesman Voice *Slaps the Top of the Chart*: This Baby Can Fit So Much Information]

There she is! My favorite chart! We have Dependence Potential plotted against "General Risk You Might Accidentally Overdose". I like this chart because it really says, "It's wild that Alcohol is treated so normally and accepted when it's generally more risky than MDMA and ketamine." and it also says, "Hey, nitrous oxide? What is this? The oldy times? Shall we also go to an ether party?*"

*I once knew a guy who would have ether parties. Which is a weird thing to do outside of the 1800s and my problem with Ether isn't really the drug or the use of it, but the fact that it's so goddamn flammable.

Tragically, this chart is 2D but we can kind of imaginatively overlay it with this other chart;

And in my opinion, when you do that (also what the hell is khat?), you can kind of whip yourself up a 3D chart that informs what sort of support and services and risk-management we might want to have around each drug.

Obviously, I'm on the legalization and decriminalization side (and I think many Harm Reductionists would agree that any meaningful move to this would require an overhaul of our shite healthcare system) but I like this chart system because it highlights way we accept some drug use when it may actually be not nearly as harmful as other drugs that we stigmatize more. It's just really dense, useful information.

I love a chart.

[Coconut Flan]

30 minutes ago, Bastet said:

You are right that there will be problems with health insurance. But we probably can’t start to address that in this country until we legalize. (There are always problems with health insurance. . . .  )

I live in the land of trying to get the medication I need while not requiring my doctors to have to be constantly filling out prior approvals.  I would be on an entirely different sleep medication if we didn't have drug limits on even legal medications.   That probably drives my pessimism of this working out as well as many would hope.  When nausea medication is fairly strictly limited, what hope is there for others?  

[Cam]

11 hours ago, socalrules said:

I think Anna loved the idea of being the wife of someone who worked at the hate group but was also probably intimidated by the people working there. You had well-dressed, educated women, single and married, working with her husband and on the same level or higher. They probably looked right through her. Anna was used to being the smug one who thought she was better than everyone else because she married a TV star and was now on TV herself. It was likely unnerving to go to DC and find out no one cared. 

I agree. In theory, Anna loved the *idea* of DC. The reality of it was similar to Dorothy landing in Oz and realizing she wasn’t in Kansas anymore. Anna was out of her element. In DC, she didn’t have the camaraderie of the Duggar clan rationalizing all of Josh’s faults, no one was fawning over all her kids, she had no one to visit or hang out with. Her community was in AR with the Duggars and other fundies; she felt safe there. Living far away from JB & the cult removed certain checks and balances that Anna relied on to make her feel secure. Moving to DC took away the clout and cache she had in AR being married to  #1 first born son in a reality tv series.
 

 

[Bastet]

6 minutes ago, Coconut Flan said:

I live in the land of trying to get the medication I need while not requiring my doctors to have to be constantly filling out prior approvals.  I would be on an entirely different sleep medication if we didn't have drug limits on even legal medications.   That probably drives my pessimism of this working out as well as many would hope.  When nausea medication is fairly strictly limited, what hope is there for others?  

 Yes, the issue of legalizing drugs bumps up against many other problems, especially in the medical/insurance realm. However, we have to start somewhere.  From a purely selfish point of view I’d like it to be able to get painkillers I need, but for the biggest benefit legalizing drugs would be the way to go. (I feel sorry for doctors who have seen their jobs taken over by paperwork.)

[Cam]

14 hours ago, ToriAmos said:

I think maybe we underestimate the extent to which Josh manipulates Anna. 

Sorry, no. I think most or all FJ members are fully aware of the extensive manipulation Josh wields over Anna, seeing it continuously grow and blossom from the very beginning starting with their arranged courtship deal between JB and Pa Keller.

It may sound odd, but it was a relief to me to come across this forum where people saw Josh and the fundie cult for what it is. For many years during the show’s heyday, I only knew people who enjoyed watching 19KAC and did not bother looking beyond the superficial TLC smokescreen set up to block the insidiousness of the cult. I was always alarmed thinking, why am I the only one who has problems with the Duggar lifestyle? 

So, phew! Glad there are those who see the light!

 

13 hours ago, Dominionatrix said:

We know that at least one Duggar living at the TTH acknowledges Josh’s guilt (Jason), and other married Duggars in the area have acknowledged it. I wonder if Anna is trying to get her kids away from people who are telling the truth about him. 

^ This sounds very plausible.

 

On 7/4/2022 at 11:15 PM, SamanthasMom said:

I am sure Anna has a very romanticized view that she is supporting her wrongly incarcerated husband.

^ Yep. It’s probably one of her coping mechanisms.

 

Edited July 6, 2022 by Cam

[Antipatriarch]

1 hour ago, Bastet said:

The goal is not a perfect world. The goal is a better situation than we have now.

YES! I wish more people understood the difference. Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Similar idea (in the other direction) w/gun regulations. We need evidence-based approaches to figure out what incremental changes actually work, and the will to start implementing them.

My analogy in these situations is: Look what happened when we got serious about DUI (not just legal regulation, but a cultural change--MADD, SADD, telling the stories, etc.). Did we prevent all DUI-related deaths? Of course not. Did we save many, many lives? Yes we did, and the statistics prove it. See "Historical drunk driving statistics" chart (blue line)

[Cam]

22 hours ago, JermajestyDuggar said:

Yes, she can leave the children with David and Cil while she visits Josh. And then she can go back and cry on Cil’s shoulder, “oh Priscilla! Who will sweep the crackers now?”

At the risk of getting yelled at, I want to say I sort of feel badly for Pricilla. She has to be joyfully available to her husband, raise all her own kids and now accept that her sister, with her brood and all her problems, no doubt will be moving in/moving close and maintaining a much larger presence in her life for many years. I think it’s asking a lot of Pricilla. But who am I kidding? No one actually asked Pricilla if it was okay; she was probably told that this is just the way it’s gonna be. 

Edited July 6, 2022 by Cam

[feministxtian]

43 minutes ago, Coconut Flan said:

I live in the land of trying to get the medication I need while not requiring my doctors to have to be constantly filling out prior approvals.  I would be on an entirely different sleep medication if we didn't have drug limits on even legal medications.   That probably drives my pessimism of this working out as well as many would hope.  When nausea medication is fairly strictly limited, what hope is there for others?  

It is hell trying to get my Adderall filled. Why? Its not like it gives me any sort of high...hell, I've been known to take a nap after taking it. BUT...the big bad world says I'll end up some sort of "speed freak". I don't want to get high, I just want to be able to pay attention while I'm doing my thing. 

[Cam]

9 minutes ago, Antipatriarch said:

Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. 

Exactly.

9 minutes ago, Antipatriarch said:

My analogy in these situations is: Look what happened when we got serious about DUI (not just legal regulation, but a cultural change--MADD, SADD, telling the stories, etc.). Did we prevent all DUI-related deaths? Of course not. Did we save many, many lives? Yes we did, and the statistics prove it. 

👍🏻

Edited July 6, 2022 by Cam

[Melissa1977]

I agree that the use of drugs shouldn't be illegal and that some could or even should be legalized. But I don't think ALL drugs can be legalized.  Some are extremely addictive. No Goverment can allow heroin to be sold as a recreative drug, for example, because it means producing a lot of addicts that cannot have a normal life.  Some drugs need to increase the dose again and again, arriving to not-safe doses level. I think oxycontyn is a good example of that.

Drugs like opium or cocaine were legal back in the day, when it was just a "exotic vice" for rich people or for artists. The consequences were fatal, but it was a tiny minority, so nobody cared. I agree that war on drugs had dark political goals not related to public health, but the oposite has problems, too.

[SorenaJ]

1 hour ago, Antimony said:

 

(also what the hell is khat?)

Khat are leaves that people chew. It is a stimulant, similar to amphetamine. It is commonly used in the Middle East and Somalia. 

[Antimony]

20 minutes ago, SorenaJ said:

Khat are leaves that people chew. It is a stimulant, similar to amphetamine. It is commonly used in the Middle East and Somalia. 

Thanks! I looked this up after posting but it was one that was super new to me. The Wiki likened it to coca leaves, but less widespread in use and purification.

Kava is also a new drug about town that I learned of last week. The FDA has largely decided to ignore it because it's pretty safe. People are comparing to OTC Xanax. I've never had a Xanax but I have now tried Kava. Very mellow, body high, some physical feelings the same as novacaine and weirdest of all...Yogi tea sells  it.