It is surprising to learn how dangerous methadone and subutex are, as sanctioned alternatives to heroin I was expecting otherwise. Then again, I think by now people should be starting to see the difference between legal and illegal drugs becoming less distinct. When the metrics of quantity and quality also star to blur, I think the stigma against "illegal" drugs will become less prominent. The question is then what to do when the opportunity presents itself. If it were possible to legalize cocaine, heroin and marijuana, is there anyone here that would object?
Low doses of pharmaceutical uppers (the methyphenidate family) aid the mind in quickly determining what is a "useless distraction" in order to quickly ignore it for the task at hand. Doses above a personal threshold apply an influence towards repetitive hyperfocus on a task, even if consistently returning bad results.
Study Pinpoints Effects of Different Doses of an ADHD Drug; Finds Higher Doses May Harm Learninghttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120308153537.htm
QuoteStrikingly, dosage had a major and unexpected impact. "At a low dose, the performance scores improved because the monkeys could control their impulses and wait long enough to focus their eyes on the target. All three were calmer and could complete a significantly larger number of trials," says Populin, who collaborated with Jeffrey Henriques and graduate student Abigail Rajala on the study.
At the higher dose, "performance on the task is impaired," Populin says, "but the subjects don't seem to care, all three monkeys continued making the same errors over and over." The monkeys stayed on task more than twice as long at the higher dose, even though they had much more trouble performing the task.
...
The study results had another parallel with daily life, Populin says. Drug dosages may be set high enough to reduce the characteristic hyperactivity of ADHD, "but some children say that makes them feel less creative and spontaneous; more like a robot. If learning drops off as it did in our study, that dose may not be best for them. Our monkeys actually did act like robots at the higher doses, keeping at it for up to seven hours even though their performance was so low."
The logical way forward would involve a similar study with people diagnosed with ADHD, Populin says. With millions of children, and an increasing number of adults, taking medicines for the condition, "We have to be very careful about finding the right spot on the dose curve, or we may get changes in behavior that we don't want. People think these drugs help improve memory, but our data say, 'No, your memory is not getting better.' At the higher dose, you get a behavioral improvement at a price, and that price is cognitive ability."
Doctors routinely overprescribe ADHD Meds. More effective remedies are overlooked in favor of promoting novel delivery methods. See vyvanse?
Ha ha. Not anymore. It's getting damned-near impossible to refill my ADD-PI meds at even the VA bc there's some political shit about a shortage of the precursors going down.
Methadone is horrible but it's not anywhere near a heroin addiction. Do I believe heroin should be legal decriminalized? I'm going to say a thought-out, hesitant, reserved, "yes." Why? because motherfuckers are going to take it anyway. Mise well take danger and arrest and fear of getting help out of the equation.
Do I agree that methadone is essentially more harmful than a heroin (or in many modern cases now, Oxycontin/Lortab) addiction? Fuck no. FUCK NO. I've watched someone kick, dude. You have no idea. If taking methadone as a tool to "step down" from that shit is working for some people, let them be.
I think there's a definite bias against methadone because it's what The State provides as a solution. Just because it's allowed, doesn't mean it's the worst.
FUN FACT:
On some people who are in methadone Tx for opiate addiction, other pharms have an "opiate-like" effect on them. Because the methadone is competing for the opiate receptors, the effect of benzodiazepines, and dissociatives like MXE and Ketamine have different pharmakokinetics and altered mechanisms of action. This is being researched more but there is a fuckton of anecdotal evidence from methadone Tx patients who swear that Moxie (MXE, Methoxetamine) gives them an opite-like high during Tx.
I saw something on TV in the 90's about a program in the UK where addicts could get maintenance doses of their drug of choice, be it heroin, coke, whatever, on the condition that they stay crime free, i.e., no theft, no scoring extra drugs, etc. From what they said, it seemed to be helping. Of course I never heard any more about it and I imagine it's defunct, for all the usual stupid reasons.
Methadone addicts take a train into the city to get their juice, heroin addicts land in prison for robbing banks and stuff, but I couldn't tell you how much of this is because heroin is worse and how much is because of the way things are set up. I tend to shy away from heroin junkies since I kind of like having electronics and stuff.
What about the children?
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on March 15, 2012, 06:18:56 AM
I saw something on TV in the 90's about a program in the UK where addicts could get maintenance doses of their drug of choice, be it heroin, coke, whatever, on the condition that they stay crime free, i.e., no theft, no scoring extra drugs, etc.
Not sure about drugs other than heroin, but a slightly more recent example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8255418.stm.
They're always trials, and they always seem to be effective. Not just in the UK, either.
Quote from: LuciferX on March 14, 2012, 10:18:29 PM
It is surprising to learn how dangerous methadone and subutex are, as sanctioned alternatives to heroin I was expecting otherwise. Then again, I think by now people should be starting to see the difference between legal and illegal drugs becoming less distinct. When the metrics of quantity and quality also star to blur, I think the stigma against "illegal" drugs will become less prominent. The question is then what to do when the opportunity presents itself. If it were possible to legalize cocaine, heroin and marijuana, is there anyone here that would object?
In a lot of cases MAT (medication assisted treatment) is more or less a last ditch effort. Some people are able to do okay with it and be functional, they can repair relationships with families, they can get a job, and so on. But for sure, for others it just becomes another drug to get addicted to.
An interesting tangent, here in Maine our Mainecare program has provided coverage to those in need for MAT. The rate was $70/week but recent legislation that has gone through is going to cut that back to $60. That covers the actual medicines as well as the counseling that may or may not be happening alongside the MAT.
Quote from: LuciferX on March 15, 2012, 12:16:02 AM
Doctors routinely overprescribe ADHD Meds. More effective remedies are overlooked in favor of promoting novel delivery methods. See vyvanse?
Quote from: navkat on March 15, 2012, 06:03:25 AM
Ha ha. Not anymore. It's getting damned-near impossible to refill my ADD-PI meds at even the VA bc there's some political shit about a shortage of the precursors going down.
(i'm a technician at a local retail pharm on nights and weekends)
'import limits' and bureaucratic stuff aside, I find that a majority of the people getting the stuff are over the age of 40, didn't start until a few years beforehand.
they take 40mg+ of Adder daily and bitch SUPERFUCKING hard when they're told its 'too early' or 'we're out of stock'. I blame shortages on them.
the people with children using the ADHD's? They all use the extended release stuffs (which was not on back order) and hardly complain when something goes wrong
Perhaps the old folks do indeed have ADHD and a legit need for meds, but how did they deal with it for 20+ years before?
Most appear to have a job/pill coverage, so they had to have been able to get some shit done without medificating
Quote from: navkat on March 15, 2012, 06:03:25 AM
Do I agree that methadone is essentially more harmful than a heroin (or in many modern cases now, Oxycontin/Lortab) addiction? Fuck no. FUCK NO. I've watched someone kick, dude. You have no idea. If taking methadone as a tool to "step down" from that shit is working for some people, let them be.
I think there's a definite bias against methadone because it's what The State provides as a solution. Just because it's allowed, doesn't mean it's the worst.
...Then there's that damned unpredictable Instant-Kill-Quick potential Heroin has. Be hard to compare any real or imagined side-effects of Methadone to "whoopsy, I dead." Haven't read research knocking Methadone (cause I don't care), but even if it's more lethal than Heroin there's no way it's as unpredictable.
But on the other hand...FUCK THE MAN, MAAAAAN!
I think there is a lot of merit to the debate on both sides, the government being involved or not. But we have to do something for those addicts for whom outpatient/inpatient/residential, etc. is just not going to do the trick. I think you're right though, I think methadone, while not being a warm/fuzzy approach, is certainly going to provide a better outcome for the individual compared to a runaway train of unfettered heroin abuse.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 15, 2012, 05:32:06 PM
Quote from: navkat on March 15, 2012, 06:03:25 AM
Do I agree that methadone is essentially more harmful than a heroin (or in many modern cases now, Oxycontin/Lortab) addiction? Fuck no. FUCK NO. I've watched someone kick, dude. You have no idea. If taking methadone as a tool to "step down" from that shit is working for some people, let them be.
I think there's a definite bias against methadone because it's what The State provides as a solution. Just because it's allowed, doesn't mean it's the worst.
...Then there's that damned unpredictable Instant-Kill-Quick potential Heroin has. Be hard to compare any real or imagined side-effects of Methadone to "whoopsy, I dead." Haven't read research knocking Methadone (cause I don't care), but even if it's more lethal than Heroin there's no way it's as unpredictable.
But on the other hand...FUCK THE MAN, MAAAAAN!
That's mostly because heroin is illegal, so the dosage and purity isn't known. Heroin of known dosage and purity isn't any more likely to kill someone than morphine is.
From what I've read methadone is more toxic than heroin, but it is also less addictive so it makes sense as a way to step off heroin.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on March 15, 2012, 05:46:59 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 15, 2012, 05:32:06 PM
Quote from: navkat on March 15, 2012, 06:03:25 AM
Do I agree that methadone is essentially more harmful than a heroin (or in many modern cases now, Oxycontin/Lortab) addiction? Fuck no. FUCK NO. I've watched someone kick, dude. You have no idea. If taking methadone as a tool to "step down" from that shit is working for some people, let them be.
I think there's a definite bias against methadone because it's what The State provides as a solution. Just because it's allowed, doesn't mean it's the worst.
...Then there's that damned unpredictable Instant-Kill-Quick potential Heroin has. Be hard to compare any real or imagined side-effects of Methadone to "whoopsy, I dead." Haven't read research knocking Methadone (cause I don't care), but even if it's more lethal than Heroin there's no way it's as unpredictable.
But on the other hand...FUCK THE MAN, MAAAAAN!
That's mostly because heroin is illegal, so the dosage and purity isn't known. Heroin of known dosage and purity isn't any more likely to kill someone than morphine is.
From what I've read methadone is more toxic than heroin, but it is also less addictive so it makes sense as a way to step off heroin.
What are you talking about? People fuck with their Oxy all the time and die. Opiates are CNS depressants, you take too much, your body forgets to do shit like uh, breathe and uh, pump blood, bruh.
Oxy and lortabs are of known dose and predictable pharmacokinetics to these patients. The problem is, they don't care and/or they aren't careful. They take too much, wrong route, take with alcohol, etc. Then they wind up on the back of a truck with someone like me pushing narcan into their ass.
That.
Quote from: navkat on March 15, 2012, 06:23:13 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on March 15, 2012, 05:46:59 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 15, 2012, 05:32:06 PM
Quote from: navkat on March 15, 2012, 06:03:25 AM
Do I agree that methadone is essentially more harmful than a heroin (or in many modern cases now, Oxycontin/Lortab) addiction? Fuck no. FUCK NO. I've watched someone kick, dude. You have no idea. If taking methadone as a tool to "step down" from that shit is working for some people, let them be.
I think there's a definite bias against methadone because it's what The State provides as a solution. Just because it's allowed, doesn't mean it's the worst.
...Then there's that damned unpredictable Instant-Kill-Quick potential Heroin has. Be hard to compare any real or imagined side-effects of Methadone to "whoopsy, I dead." Haven't read research knocking Methadone (cause I don't care), but even if it's more lethal than Heroin there's no way it's as unpredictable.
But on the other hand...FUCK THE MAN, MAAAAAN!
That's mostly because heroin is illegal, so the dosage and purity isn't known. Heroin of known dosage and purity isn't any more likely to kill someone than morphine is.
From what I've read methadone is more toxic than heroin, but it is also less addictive so it makes sense as a way to step off heroin.
What are you talking about? People fuck with their Oxy all the time and die. Opiates are CNS depressants, you take too much, your body forgets to do shit like uh, breathe and uh, pump blood, bruh.
Oxy and lortabs are of known dose and predictable pharmacokinetics to these patients. The problem is, they don't care and/or they aren't careful. They take too much, wrong route, take with alcohol, etc. Then they wind up on the back of a truck with someone like me pushing narcan into their ass.
You know your shit. I'm curious--if Heroin were legal and uniform and yada-yada, ya think the slower pharmacokinetics of something like oral Lortab might actually increase risk of accidental OD versus IV Junk? The hypothetical being, you kind of feel it kicking in, so you pop another one, feeling better, pop another one, kind of oblivious, pop another one...instead of slamming, where it's push the plunger and maybe get the needle out before you nod?
Likely but it doesn't account for the fact that there are plenty of people who "cook" their oxy and get themselves in the shit too.
People who abuse opiates are always chasing and aren't in a frame of mind to use flawless judgement so accidents happen.
That's a very important point. Usually, once someone is in the dependent stage of addiction, rational decision making goes out the window. So even if someone addicted to opiates knows very clearly the purity of the dosage, the chances that proper caution will be exercised are fairly slim.
This is why, at least in terms of prescription opiates, there are attempts to formulate new versions of pills that become inert when crushed. Unfortunately, I think the funding for that research is inadequate and so it isn't moving along as it should.
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on March 15, 2012, 07:15:06 PM
That's a very important point. Usually, once someone is in the dependent stage of addiction, rational decision making goes out the window. So even if someone addicted to opiates knows very clearly the purity of the dosage, the chances that proper caution will be exercised are fairly slim.
This is why, at least in terms of prescription opiates, there are attempts to formulate new versions of pills that become inert when crushed. Unfortunately, I think the funding for that research is inadequate and so it isn't moving along as it should.
That sounds incredibly dangerous, expensive and suspicious, opening a whole new precedent for drug companies to manipulate use of their product, pass favorable legislation for themselves and take yet more control out of the doctor's hands.
And dangerous because if you're putting something in the pill that makes it inert when crushed, how can you possibly ensure stability in a mass-production scenario? Pn management meds are prescribed on a "take as-needed" basis so now you've got only the pt who really needs them receiving a unpredictable product and the abusers will find a hack.
That is definitely a valid concern, and thus why any kind of alternative whether it is this, or something else, needs to have adqueate funding and research behind it so it works. But the way this prescription drug abuse issue is getting out of hand, there are calls from everywhere for something to be done.
Quote from: navkat on March 15, 2012, 07:10:07 PM
Likely but it doesn't account for the fact that there are plenty of people who "cook" their oxy and get themselves in the shit too.
People who abuse opiates are always chasing and aren't in a frame of mind to use flawless judgement so accidents happen.
Well yeah, slammers slam...opiates or otherwise. If it's water soluble people will jab it in. I was just thinking that if you could wave some magic wand and completely negate the possibility of a hot shot, slow release may actually be more dangerous than spiking.
...but then it just occurred to me that you can't vomit up a shot.
The more I realize how much I don't understand about lethality, the more thankful I am that I don't have a taste for downers.
Quote from: navkat on March 15, 2012, 06:23:13 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on March 15, 2012, 05:46:59 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 15, 2012, 05:32:06 PM
Quote from: navkat on March 15, 2012, 06:03:25 AM
Do I agree that methadone is essentially more harmful than a heroin (or in many modern cases now, Oxycontin/Lortab) addiction? Fuck no. FUCK NO. I've watched someone kick, dude. You have no idea. If taking methadone as a tool to "step down" from that shit is working for some people, let them be.
I think there's a definite bias against methadone because it's what The State provides as a solution. Just because it's allowed, doesn't mean it's the worst.
...Then there's that damned unpredictable Instant-Kill-Quick potential Heroin has. Be hard to compare any real or imagined side-effects of Methadone to "whoopsy, I dead." Haven't read research knocking Methadone (cause I don't care), but even if it's more lethal than Heroin there's no way it's as unpredictable.
But on the other hand...FUCK THE MAN, MAAAAAN!
That's mostly because heroin is illegal, so the dosage and purity isn't known. Heroin of known dosage and purity isn't any more likely to kill someone than morphine is.
From what I've read methadone is more toxic than heroin, but it is also less addictive so it makes sense as a way to step off heroin.
What are you talking about? People fuck with their Oxy all the time and die. Opiates are CNS depressants, you take too much, your body forgets to do shit like uh, breathe and uh, pump blood, bruh.
Oxy and lortabs are of known dose and predictable pharmacokinetics to these patients. The problem is, they don't care and/or they aren't careful. They take too much, wrong route, take with alcohol, etc. Then they wind up on the back of a truck with someone like me pushing narcan into their ass.
Oxycontin is Oxycodone, Lortabs are Hydrocodone, neither of those is heroin. Yeah, they are in the same family of drugs, so is Methadone. They also have fun stuff in them to slow down the period of time over which the dosage is released, which, again, leads to unknown potency. Largely because of the way people try to circumvent the time delay mechanisms.
Excuse my curt interjections, I'm really busy at the moment (maybe should not have started a thread). Still, the distinction I was thinking about is between consensual and violent crimes... I know there's different kinds of people and that some drugs may not be suitable for all, however, what is happening in Mexico at the moment is unacceptable, on all levels.
I don't understand what you're saying that hasn't been said or what point you're trying to make. Your original point was that the main reason for heroin deaths has to do with unpredictable fluctuations in dosage and purity in the supply.
I rebutted with the fact that purity and dosage is predictable in other opioid meds and there are still behaviors on the part of users that lead to death.
The point was made that perhaps users are "chasing the dragon" in a fashion that increases risk of OD due to the slow pharmacokinetics of the enteral (GI tract) route of administration and (implied) slow-release additives.
I made the point that many users are using other routes of administration and circumventing the additives by crushing and "cooking" pills. There are plenty of methods to do this but the quick-and-dirty methods used most often are crushing the pills for insufflation and dissolution in water for IV use.
How do these significantly change the predictability of the purity, pharmacokinetics and bioavailability of the drugs?
What does the fact that I'm talking about other opioid-receptor medications (and not specifically herion) do to negate my point that introducing a predictable, unadulterated supply of heroin into readily-available circulation won't eliminate irresponsible, careless or altered mental status-related life-threatening behaviour?
Quote from: LuciferX on March 15, 2012, 10:59:07 PM
Excuse my curt interjections, I'm really busy at the moment (maybe should not have started a thread). Still, the distinction I was thinking about is between consensual and violent crimes... I know there's different kinds of people and that some drugs may not be suitable for all, however, what is happening in Mexico at the moment is unacceptable, on all levels.
I don't understand what that has to do with the OP. You were bringing up the dangers of methadone as opposed to decriminalization, no?
I didn't see anything in the OP about crimes. This thread seems to be meandering in a couple of different directions at once. What is your central question that you want to ask? What is your thesis if you can boil it down to one sentence/question?
Quote from: navkat on March 15, 2012, 11:18:46 PM
I don't understand what you're saying that hasn't been said or what point you're trying to make. Your original point was that the main reason for heroin deaths has to do with unpredictable fluctuations in dosage and purity in the supply.
I rebutted with the fact that purity and dosage is predictable in other opioid meds and there are still behaviors on the part of users that lead to death.
The point was made that perhaps users are "chasing the dragon" in a fashion that increases risk of OD due to the slow pharmacokinetics of the enteral (GI tract) route of administration and (implied) slow-release additives.
I made the point that many users are using other routes of administration and circumventing the additives by crushing and "cooking" pills. There are plenty of methods to do this but the quick-and-dirty methods used most often are crushing the pills for insufflation and dissolution in water for IV use.
How do these significantly change the predictability of the purity, pharmacokinetics and bioavailability of the drugs?
What does the fact that I'm talking about other opioid-receptor medications (and not specifically herion) do to negate my point that introducing a predictable, unadulterated supply of heroin into readily-available circulation won't eliminate irresponsible, careless or altered mental status-related life-threatening behaviour?
it won't eliminate irresponsible behavior, but it will significantly reduce the incidence of overdose. Time release medication is, essentially, of unknown purity because the speed at which the opiates will release, when altered to allow for rapid release for recreational use, is not consistent enough to be predictable to a junkie.
Morphine is the closest legal equivalent to Heroin, it is not usually adulterated with time release chemicals and the incidence of overdose is much lower than with either illegal heroin or doctored up time release meds. It's not as easily available as oxys or lortabs, which undoubtedly contributes to the fact that there are less OD's, but that it is of truly known potency also plays a role.
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on March 15, 2012, 11:28:08 PM
I didn't see anything in the OP about crimes. This thread seems to be meandering in a couple of different directions at once. What is your central question that you want to ask? What is your thesis if you can boil it down to one sentence/question?
I am trying to develop the idea of America's focus on "mental hygiene" as a form of crusade or inquisition. The ritual persecution of drug addicts in the US, the ceremonial homicides in Mexico... It's not a new thought, just a way of framing the issue so that people do not automatically assume that "drugs are bad"... Off the cuff, I was thinking about those posters on pd that forwarded an idea regarding the end of war by illustrating how people are really just at war with the past...
Quote from: LuciferX on March 16, 2012, 09:36:26 PM
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on March 15, 2012, 11:28:08 PM
I didn't see anything in the OP about crimes. This thread seems to be meandering in a couple of different directions at once. What is your central question that you want to ask? What is your thesis if you can boil it down to one sentence/question?
I am trying to develop the idea of America's focus on "mental hygiene" as a form of crusade or inquisition. The ritual persecution of drug addicts in the US, the ceremonial homicides in Mexico... It's not a new thought, just a way of framing the issue so that people do not automatically assume that "drugs are bad"... Off the cuff, I was thinking about those posters on pd that forwarded an idea regarding the end of war by illustrating how people are really just at war with the past...
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. I'm a big proponent of both Harm Reduction and Cognitive liberty. I think it's preposterous to outlaw the very concept of altering one's mental status for pleasure. Unfortunately, the way our scheduling laws are written, they circumvent the anti-prohibition constitutional amendment and use a standard of legal nomenclature that defines "use for anything other than therapeutic purposes" as "abuse" and determines level of control by weighing
recognized therapeutic use against "potential for abuse" (ie: how
fun they are). That's why most of our decriminalization campaigns are focused around proving legitimate therapeutic purposes instead of outright challenging constitutionality of the legal "grey area" that is Nixon's FDA/DEA scheduling act.
I have a somewhat libertarian approach when it comes to drug use but I don't kid myself into buying that decriminalization will fix everything by creating a fair market environment. We still have corporations putting lead paint in the kid's toys...failing to check their work, cutting corners, recalling baby formula...until you can guarantee me the
corporate requeteers have suddenly grown a conscience, I'm never going to believe Joe Schmo on the corner of 10th and Lex isn't going to step on his blow with something nasty when he runs out of baby laxitive.
That's not even addressing the sickness itself of being an addict. We still have problems with alcoholism. Alcohol is legal.
It's not a black and white issue at all. At
all. And I think people trying to simplify it on either side of the argument is both naive and irresponsible
aside from being just lazy/self indulgent.
Quote from: LuciferX on March 16, 2012, 09:36:26 PM
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on March 15, 2012, 11:28:08 PM
I didn't see anything in the OP about crimes. This thread seems to be meandering in a couple of different directions at once. What is your central question that you want to ask? What is your thesis if you can boil it down to one sentence/question?
I am trying to develop the idea of America's focus on "mental hygiene" as a form of crusade or inquisition. The ritual persecution of drug addicts in the US, the ceremonial homicides in Mexico... It's not a new thought, just a way of framing the issue so that people do not automatically assume that "drugs are bad"... Off the cuff, I was thinking about those posters on pd that forwarded an idea regarding the end of war by illustrating how people are really just at war with the past...
Meh, I think American's view on substance use and abuse has shifted quite a bit over the past few decades. To be sure, there is definitely still stigma attached to being a drug addict, but I don't think it is as bad as it was. I think more and more are coming to understand substance abuse in the disease model and as an important public safety issue to address.
Unfortunately, we are still in a position that is very consequence-oriented when we need to be shifting to more of a prevention-led model. (My bias as a substance abuse prevention practitioner, to be sure) This tends to be the favored model of Republicans, they lean more in that direction where Democrats, usually, will be more about prevention and increasing access to treatment.
My views on the question of legality are known and noted so I won't touch that part of the discussion. But if you really want to know you can do some thread archaeology in this sub-forum. ;)
Quote from: navkat on March 16, 2012, 10:32:08 PM
...
That's not even addressing the sickness itself of being an addict. We still have problems with alcoholism. Alcohol is legal.
...
That's the kind of thought that I'm talking about. Sure, substance abuse may be indicative of a sickness, however, I think it is more systemic than addiction itself. My reasoning is that this terminology designates the addict as a scapegoat. Dominant authorities create the conditions that they condemn you for trying to escape, to capitalize on the persecution of vice by symbolic sacrifice. It's twisted :horrormirth:
I think he was more addressing the stigma attached to wanting to alter one's consciousness for recreational purposes which is very much alive.
Are we getting better about recognizing addiction as illness? Yes. Is the idea of getting "fucked up" on drugs even remotely "okay" with a growing section of the mainstream? No so much, I think. Even the people who are cool with the idea (whether or not they partake) are sort of in the closet about it (subcultures aside) because it's just not okay to be out about those ideas around your boss, family and acquaintances. And if you are vocal about your stance on the liberty aspect, it's always necessary to say "not that I take them but those people should be able to do as they please." You have to distance yourself from the argument lest people think you are one of those people and start conjuring up images of you in a dirty bar, snorting blow off a hooker's ass in the men's room.
I'd even venture to say it's gotten worse. I remember a time when you could go to a pretty mixed-company barbeque and every once in awhile, someone would ask "do you party?" and invite you to smoke or whatever. Now, you just don't do that openly in mixed company. People don't break out their junk unless it's "that kind of gang." Between zero tolerance laws, years of "drugs are bad" propaganda, "three strikes and you're out" life sentences for possession, and Big Brother campaigns (Text the word "METH" to the local sheriff's meth line to report meth use or manufacture in your neighborhood) (http://www.methtextmobile.com/), it's just not safe for people to be open about such things. You never know who's watching, you never know if one day you'll piss someone off and they'll have your kids taken away, or if something's going to end up on someone's facebook.
Society seems to have accepted the spoon-fed idea that it's just not okay to be high. It doesn't matter if it's safe, it doesn't matter if it doesn't affect your work or responsibilities, just you wanting to do it indicates that there's something unsavory about your character to them...like sleeping with a prostitute or being a promiscuous woman. It's gotten to the point where people's in bona fide chronic pain are facing major costs and obstacles to receiving care because as much as they're suffering, society's need to make sure they're not enjoying their meds too much is so much more important. It just doesn't even occur to people anymore to ask "Well, why did they outlaw 17 plants in the states of Louisiana and Tennesee? (http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/law/states/states_info1.shtml)" if the answer is "because people can get high off them.". Say no more. We don't need to know if they're useful in other ways. We don't need to know if they're safe. People shouldn't have a way to get high and that must be stopped. Period.
Like I said: it's lazy and irresponsible. And you can't challenge it because to them, it boils down to "because it's just wrong."
And a serious public health issue that impacts more than just the user.
Take the latest "bath salts" craze that has emerged in certain parts of the country. Users under the influence of "bath salts" have been documented to be so aggressively gone that they have harmed others, destroyed property, and put the lives of first responders at considerable peril.
So I think that is a legitimate part of attitudes towards substance use. And you are right, a lot of the messaging and campaigning against drugs has been successful in shifting attitudes on drug use. It's applied to tobacco as well. Years and years of messaging has been pretty successful in making smoking cigarettes become less cool than it was even a decade ago. However, I would submit this has been less so the case with marijuana, where we see perceptions going the other way. That, I feel, can largely be attributed to medical marijuana laws.
But, to be clear, messaging is always about substance use, generally not the substance user. THAT message, at least from government-sanctioned sources, is always going to be about getting help.
"because it's just wrong"
Now, given the appeal to practical reason that, if I may say so myself, is taken to be founded on sound and consistent (pure) principles of rational thought... would it not suffice to indicate the incoherent logic thereof to dismantle the bias? Do those who seek refuge in moralistic thought really take the time to think? Is it hopeless to have them understand how hopeless they are? The fucking hypocrisy...
Quote from: Xooxe on March 15, 2012, 11:45:52 AM
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on March 15, 2012, 06:18:56 AM
I saw something on TV in the 90's about a program in the UK where addicts could get maintenance doses of their drug of choice, be it heroin, coke, whatever, on the condition that they stay crime free, i.e., no theft, no scoring extra drugs, etc.
Not sure about drugs other than heroin, but a slightly more recent example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8255418.stm.
They're always trials, and they always seem to be effective. Not just in the UK, either.
True.
The US has a toilet bowl rep to live up to, though. It'll ever happen here. :horrormirth:
Quote from: LuciferX on March 14, 2012, 10:18:29 PM
If it were possible to legalize cocaine, heroin and marijuana, is there anyone here that would object?
Not me.
I think stupid people should be able to coke themselves to death at will.
I figure there's actually a reason the stuff that people want/need has been around for so long... If it's regulated it seems to work, however, that short-circuits the system of personal responsibility and autonomy that addicts seem to have a problem with in the first place... The adjunct of manditory couciling can then also become problematic if we assume all supervising doctors maintain a form of non-malevolent neutrality. Most interested parties are not so radically naive as to be beyond suspicion of willfully condemning the innocent. An image of medical slavery comes to mind - Stockholm syndrome meets Munchsusen by proxy.
What? Could you expound on that bc I'm not sure I comprehend.
Quote from: navkat on March 20, 2012, 06:28:15 AM
What? Could you expound on that bc I'm not sure I comprehend.
navcat, I've gotten enough unwarranted "what's" today from doc that it would really be something else if people actually took thhe time to specify what it is that they don't understand?
Is the Stockholm thing getting in the way? :lulz:
Quote from: LuciferX on March 20, 2012, 07:15:01 AM
Quote from: navkat on March 20, 2012, 06:28:15 AM
What? Could you expound on that bc I'm not sure I comprehend.
navcat, I've gotten enough unwarranted "what's" today from doc that it would really be something else if people actually took thhe time to specify what it is that they don't understand?
Is the Stockholm thing getting in the way? :lulz:
Wow.
I know what Stockholm Syndrome and Munchausen by proxy are. I just don't see how a psychological adaptation to extreme fear by becoming loyal to one's captors or mothers who hoist illness on their suggestible children for attention have to do with the topic at hand.
I
also don't appreciate your using me as a cheap segue to make a passive-aggressive statement aimed at Rog. It's blindingly obvious, childish and insulting. Bonus for you for attempting to "take me down a notch" and tell me what's what in the "wacky and wonderful world of medicine (lol!)." Your attempt at schooling people in matters related to human physiology to make yourself seem smarter than you are had a
paradoxical effect. You know what
that means, right?
It's all well and good to go on a wiki surf because you're intrigued with a subject and for that knowledge to come out in a forum convo...or even for you to surf to get your facts straight and then post. What you're doing--half-assed wiki searches just to throw some "medical lingo" out there and start shit with the non-threatening,
nice girl on the forum--makes you look like a retard with something to prove to the other guys.
Word of advice: You don't gain clout around here by senseless arguing or throwing poo in someone else's backyard. You gain respect by knowing your
own shit cold and contributing your own flavor to the board.
Sorry to house you, babycakes but you asked for it by trying to lift my skirt. Better luck next time!
I think you really need to chill... Was the squirrel with a bazooka not funny :?
Quote from: LuciferX on March 20, 2012, 12:16:48 AM
I figure there's actually a reason the stuff that people want/need has been around for so long... If it's regulated it seems to work, however, that short-circuits the system of personal responsibility and autonomy that addicts seem to have a problem with in the first place... The adjunct of manditory couciling can then also become problematic if we assume all supervising doctors maintain a form of non-malevolent neutrality. Most interested parties are not so radically naive as to be beyond suspicion of willfully condemning the innocent. An image of medical slavery comes to mind - Stockholm syndrome meets Munchsusen by proxy.
One of the issues, however, is that you are focusing on the issue purely from an adult mindset. The other important piece of the issue is adolescents. Adolescents who, by definition, don't have the same capacity for rational decision-making that, most, adults have. Therefore, there is extra impetus for regulating controlled substances.
I also don't think you understand how counciling works. Counciling is never mandatory. It can in some instances become a condition for avoiding jail time for certain offenses. However, in all cases, a full, science-based, thoroughly researched screening and assessment protocol will be administered first. These protocols will be based on DSM-IV (soon to be DSM-V) criterias and also utilize ASAM criteria for evaluating the recommended level of care.
So if an individual screens out of this process as not needing further evaluation and treatment, they will not be recommended for counciling. They may be recommended for some kind of educational program, but that's it. It won't go any farther than that.
I'm not gonna argue the legal/illegal but, that's been done to death...
But, I do think that saying counciling isn't mandatory, but in some cases is a condition of not going to prison seems a little disingenuous.
"Would you like to get help from a professional for your disease of drug addiction, or would you like to go live in a 10x0 cell with Bubba?"
That's the sort of option you expect from a shakedown.
"Would you like to pay us to protect your business, or would you like for your shop to 'accidentally' burn to the ground?"
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 20, 2012, 10:12:15 AM
I'm not gonna argue the legal/illegal but, that's been done to death...
But, I do think that saying counciling isn't mandatory, but in some cases is a condition of not going to prison seems a little disingenuous.
"Would you like to get help from a professional for your disease of drug addiction, or would you like to go live in a 10x0 cell with Bubba?"
That's the sort of option you expect from a shakedown.
"Would you like to pay us to protect your business, or would you like for your shop to 'accidentally' burn to the ground?"
Thank you, Ratatosk, for seeing the dilemma.
I'm a liitle worn-out right now and need to sleep (before I lose another terminal)
Rev,.. (powering down....
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 20, 2012, 10:12:15 AM
I'm not gonna argue the legal/illegal but, that's been done to death...
But, I do think that saying counciling isn't mandatory, but in some cases is a condition of not going to prison seems a little disingenuous.
"Would you like to get help from a professional for your disease of drug addiction, or would you like to go live in a 10x0 cell with Bubba?"
That's the sort of option you expect from a shakedown.
"Would you like to pay us to protect your business, or would you like for your shop to 'accidentally' burn to the ground?"
But they only go to treatment if the assessment comes out positive. If it comes out negative, which isn't very often the case in my experience, then the conditions will be different. Either some kind of education along with community service, or maybe just community service....it's all going to depend on what the offense(s) was.
I will just also add that also in my experience, it doesn't end up being much of a dilemma for some. I've known of many who are quite comfortable just going ahead and doing their time and skipping the opportunity to be screened and, if appropriate, receive treatment.
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on March 20, 2012, 12:10:51 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 20, 2012, 10:12:15 AM
I'm not gonna argue the legal/illegal but, that's been done to death...
But, I do think that saying counciling isn't mandatory, but in some cases is a condition of not going to prison seems a little disingenuous.
"Would you like to get help from a professional for your disease of drug addiction, or would you like to go live in a 10x0 cell with Bubba?"
That's the sort of option you expect from a shakedown.
"Would you like to pay us to protect your business, or would you like for your shop to 'accidentally' burn to the ground?"
But they only go to treatment if the assessment comes out positive. If it comes out negative, which isn't very often the case in my experience, then the conditions will be different. Either some kind of education along with community service, or maybe just community service....it's all going to depend on what the offense(s) was.
I will just also add that also in my experience, it doesn't end up being much of a dilemma for some. I've known of many who are quite comfortable just going ahead and doing their time and skipping the opportunity to be screened and, if appropriate, receive treatment.
That, about it not being a dilemma for some, is refreshing, and afforded me another chance to try and complete some thoughts :). Education.... Education. (c-mon sparky...). Okay, last retort: the cost rehabilitation varies... The pushers are supplied at times by the same hand that is then extended for rehabilitation... Over/out (topic requires more firing neurons than I can front)
Quote from: LuciferX on March 20, 2012, 07:15:01 AM
Quote from: navkat on March 20, 2012, 06:28:15 AM
What? Could you expound on that bc I'm not sure I comprehend.
navcat, I've gotten enough unwarranted "what's" today from doc that it would really be something else if people actually took thhe time to specify what it is that they don't understand?
Is the Stockholm thing getting in the way? :lulz:
Perhaps if you made any fucking sense?
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 20, 2012, 10:12:15 AM
I'm not gonna argue the legal/illegal but, that's been done to death...
But, I do think that saying counciling isn't mandatory, but in some cases is a condition of not going to prison seems a little disingenuous.
"Would you like to get help from a professional for your disease of drug addiction, or would you like to go live in a 10x0 cell with Bubba?"
That's the sort of option you expect from a shakedown.
"Would you like to pay us to protect your business, or would you like for your shop to 'accidentally' burn to the ground?"
The "justice" system is entirely punitive and profit-driven when it comes to drugs. Monetizing the drug war was one of the most corrosive-to-human-rights processes since slavery, and the privatization of the prison system (and profit-driven criminalization of undocumented immigration) is the cherry on the corruption sundae.
That entire system is irredeemably evil, and I don't use the word lightly. It is anti-American, anti-democracy, and anti-human.
Quote from: Nigel on March 20, 2012, 02:40:54 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 20, 2012, 10:12:15 AM
I'm not gonna argue the legal/illegal but, that's been done to death...
But, I do think that saying counciling isn't mandatory, but in some cases is a condition of not going to prison seems a little disingenuous.
"Would you like to get help from a professional for your disease of drug addiction, or would you like to go live in a 10x0 cell with Bubba?"
That's the sort of option you expect from a shakedown.
"Would you like to pay us to protect your business, or would you like for your shop to 'accidentally' burn to the ground?"
The "justice" system is entirely punitive and profit-driven when it comes to drugs. Monetizing the drug war was one of the most corrosive-to-human-rights processes since slavery, and the privatization of the prison system (and profit-driven criminalization of undocumented immigration) is the cherry on the corruption sundae.
That entire system is irredeemably evil, and I don't use the word lightly. It is anti-American, anti-democracy, and anti-human.
damn, thats the second time today I'm agreeing with you ;-)
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 20, 2012, 02:44:30 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 20, 2012, 02:40:54 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 20, 2012, 10:12:15 AM
I'm not gonna argue the legal/illegal but, that's been done to death...
But, I do think that saying counciling isn't mandatory, but in some cases is a condition of not going to prison seems a little disingenuous.
"Would you like to get help from a professional for your disease of drug addiction, or would you like to go live in a 10x0 cell with Bubba?"
That's the sort of option you expect from a shakedown.
"Would you like to pay us to protect your business, or would you like for your shop to 'accidentally' burn to the ground?"
The "justice" system is entirely punitive and profit-driven when it comes to drugs. Monetizing the drug war was one of the most corrosive-to-human-rights processes since slavery, and the privatization of the prison system (and profit-driven criminalization of undocumented immigration) is the cherry on the corruption sundae.
That entire system is irredeemably evil, and I don't use the word lightly. It is anti-American, anti-democracy, and anti-human.
damn, thats the second time today I'm agreeing with you ;-)
It won't last. :lol:
Why does anyone bother to reply to Lucifer X? His rambling has improved over time, but that doesn't actually mean it is good, or worth paying attention to. 33% coherency is not acceptable, people.
Quote from: Cain on March 20, 2012, 05:21:20 PM
Why does anyone bother to reply to Lucifer X? His rambling has improved over time, but that doesn't actually mean it is good, or worth paying attention to. 33% coherency is not acceptable, people.
I can't help myself. It's like listening to Rush Limbaugh and NOT screaming at the radio.
you're not well, Dok.
:lol:
Quote from: Iptuous on March 20, 2012, 05:34:36 PM
you're not well, Dok.
:lol:
Exposure to too much raw SCIENCE does that to you.
I mean, alongside the extra toes and such.
you're still getting those? jesus....
you must have a box full of them under your bathroom sink by now.
Quote from: Iptuous on March 20, 2012, 05:44:24 PM
you're still getting those? jesus....
you must have a box full of them under your bathroom sink by now.
Apparently, the original owners didn't need them very much.
Quote from: navkat on March 20, 2012, 08:04:56 AM
Quote from: LuciferX on March 20, 2012, 07:15:01 AM
Quote from: navkat on March 20, 2012, 06:28:15 AM
What? Could you expound on that bc I'm not sure I comprehend.
navcat, I've gotten enough unwarranted "what's" today from doc that it would really be something else if people actually took thhe time to specify what it is that they don't understand?
Is the Stockholm thing getting in the way? :lulz:
Wow.
I know what Stockholm Syndrome and Munchausen by proxy are. I just don't see how a psychological adaptation to extreme fear by becoming loyal to one's captors or mothers who hoist illness on their suggestible children for attention have to do with the topic at hand.
I also don't appreciate your using me as a cheap segue to make a passive-aggressive statement aimed at Rog. It's blindingly obvious, childish and insulting. Bonus for you for attempting to "take me down a notch" and tell me what's what in the "wacky and wonderful world of medicine (lol!)." Your attempt at schooling people in matters related to human physiology to make yourself seem smarter than you are had a paradoxical effect. You know what that means, right?
It's all well and good to go on a wiki surf because you're intrigued with a subject and for that knowledge to come out in a forum convo...or even for you to surf to get your facts straight and then post. What you're doing--half-assed wiki searches just to throw some "medical lingo" out there and start shit with the non-threatening, nice girl on the forum--makes you look like a retard with something to prove to the other guys.
Word of advice: You don't gain clout around here by senseless arguing or throwing poo in someone else's backyard. You gain respect by knowing your own shit cold and contributing your own flavor to the board.
Sorry to house you, babycakes but you asked for it by trying to lift my skirt. Better luck next time!
Great post, but I wouldn't have wasted that much effort.
Sometimes a simple "fuck off" is all you need. :lol:
Cain's right, though. Posting in threads like this is basically just Slack Abuse.
Awesome, then I'll just take my toys (the ones I still have left), and pander them to serious jokers instead. Has anyone seen the check-out isle?
Quote from: Nigel on March 20, 2012, 02:40:54 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 20, 2012, 10:12:15 AM
I'm not gonna argue the legal/illegal but, that's been done to death...
But, I do think that saying counciling isn't mandatory, but in some cases is a condition of not going to prison seems a little disingenuous.
"Would you like to get help from a professional for your disease of drug addiction, or would you like to go live in a 10x0 cell with Bubba?"
That's the sort of option you expect from a shakedown.
"Would you like to pay us to protect your business, or would you like for your shop to 'accidentally' burn to the ground?"
The "justice" system is entirely punitive and profit-driven when it comes to drugs. Monetizing the drug war was one of the most corrosive-to-human-rights processes since slavery, and the privatization of the prison system (and profit-driven criminalization of undocumented immigration) is the cherry on the corruption sundae.
That entire system is irredeemably evil, and I don't use the word lightly. It is anti-American, anti-democracy, and anti-human.
When you hit hard, you hit proper. Very well put.
Quote from: Cain on March 20, 2012, 05:21:20 PM
Why does anyone bother to reply to Lucifer X? His rambling has improved over time, but that doesn't actually mean it is good, or worth paying attention to. 33% coherency is not acceptable, people.
What's it to you?
Discussing this with an interested party, I was reminded of
QuoteProhibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperence within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition Law strikes a blow at the very princi-ples upon which our government was founded.
—Abraham Lincoln
And then also, drug nazis and space nazis must die.