Hey Shane, the war on drugs video was excellent... But one, and only one thing kind of bothered me about this video. There was one point where you said, If you don't want to take drugs "...you just stop taking the drug!"
Even though that is the solution to most drug related problems, that seems like an odd thing to say. Most people who take drugs are usually addicted to them and can't just "stop taking the drug." The rest of the video was fine, and this one statement really doesn't matter... but I found it an odd choice of words to use.
I've never used drugs before, but I bet if any heavy drug users saw your video that statement would've made them go, "lol, wut?"
Edit: This isn't a major topic of discussion, just trying to get the ball rolling on some of these episode forums.
If you talk to the ones who've actually quit, that's what they say.
That's why I have a hard tine buying this alcoholism-is-a-disease thing. How many diseases can you cure yourself from just by changing your behavior? Now, if you want to say that there's an underlying condition that compels this--chemical depression, or some other kind of psychological or neurological condition--and that is what the disease is, I'm with you. But the drug abuse is a symptom, not the disease.
True. The "alcoholism is a disease" thing is Bogosity in itself.
However, there ARE addictive drugs. Some people have a hard time with "not taking the drug."
Although, you're correct... that is the solution, but for some people it's not that easy. Someone hooked on meth isn't going to just wake up and go, "You know what. I'm not gonna do this anymore." Usually to "Stop taking the drug" they need some sort of help.
Although, with a lot of drugs that the "government thinks is evil" I know a lot of people who have tried those drugs several times, then just decided, "Nah, this is stupid" and have stopped.
Another thing I'm curious about. If the dangerous drugs are legalized... what does that mean exactly? Would people be able to go to the store and buy some pot? How about the drugs that are claimed to be more addictive? Could they just stroll down to the store and pick a bunch up? Would there be regulations that the store or pharmacy or whatever, would have to put in place in order to prevent people from buying too much or unsafe amounts? Then what? They'd have to go to someone else to get the drug that the stores won't sell to them.
Of course, it's much safer than buying the drugs from Pablo in some back alley, or live in fear that the cops are going to bust down your door cause you had some weed. However, there are some things I don't get about how it would be regulated if legal.
Legalizing drugs alone wouldn't change the other laws on prescriptions etc. But it would take the drugs out of the hands of criminal drug dealers.
I'm with you on the Pot part. I mean pot is one of the safest drugs ever (about as bad as caffeine). Now I'm not saying that you should take dope, all drugs affect your body in some way, but pot is way safer then alcohol or cigarettes.
In Germany the police in Leipzig actually pushed for legislature that would make it legal for citizens to grow 3 plants of weed, because the dealers cut the drug with lead.
But I see a problem with meth. You can make it yourself, so why buy it in a store? I mean, of course some people will buy the stuff if it's legal, but when you look at the software pirates, if you can get it for free, people will jump on it.
And then we got the addiction problem. As far as I know, meth is extremely addictive. Even one shot is enough with certain preconditions.
Quote from: chrisch on October 24, 2008, 12:39:47 PM
But I see a problem with meth. You can make it yourself, so why buy it in a store?
Why aren't there a ton of people brewing alcohol or growing tobacco? It is much easier and safer to but it from someone who knows what they are doing and the quality would likely be much better. The only reason people make Meth in their home or garage is because of the tremendous profits they get from it.
As for addiction, nicotine is one of the most addictive drugs out there.
Quote from: MrBogosity on October 24, 2008, 09:03:27 AM
If you talk to the ones who've actually quit, that's what they say.
Now your forgetting something, those people that can quit will say that, as the complete group that has the mental strengt or mental imunity (not the right word, but you get my point) will belong to that group. But on some people, the drugs just have a bigger effect, they will still be addicted, and will be to far away in the gutter or already dead to talk to you about it. Even with the less adictive siggarets, there are people who havent smoked for 20-30 years and still feel the urge for a sigaret at stressfull times.
How else do you quit fags then?
My father smoked for a long time and he set a date to stop and hasn't smoked in 28 years. He said exactly what shane's said.
Quote from: Sinlingual on November 07, 2008, 06:43:46 PM
How else do you quit fags then?
My father smoked for a long time and he set a date to stop and hasn't smoked in 28 years. He said exactly what shane's said.
Some drugs are even MORE addictive, to the fact where they don't want to use it anymore, but they NEED it.
It's not like your father was broke and going, "I GOTTA KILL A GUY FOR SOME CIGARETTES! I JUST NEED THEM!"
Quote from: IceSage on November 07, 2008, 08:20:05 PM
Some drugs are even MORE addictive,
Nicotine is the most addictive drug we know of.
Quote from: MrBogosity on November 07, 2008, 09:39:51 PM
Nicotine is the most addictive drug we know of.
Yes, but addiction can be psychological. I could want eating candy much more than I could want to smoke a cigarette.
It's about the sensations and feelings, and wanting them back... rather than the simple fact that it's chemical components are considered addictive.
Otherwise, going by that logic... people would want to smoke cigarettes more than they'd want to do crack, LSD, etc etc.
Quote from: IceSage on November 08, 2008, 01:35:59 AMOtherwise, going by that logic... people would want to smoke cigarettes more than they'd want to do crack, LSD, etc etc.
I'd argue that they do. Many more people smoke that use crack, LSD, etc
How many people do you know who smoke versus smoking crack? The worst addiction I ever had to fight, psychological or otherwise, was cigarettes by far. I'm been off them for 11 years now, but I still get cravings from time to time.
Also, check out any drug and alcohol rehab clinic. You'll find chain smokers a plenty. People get clean of alcohol and drugs, but never seem to be able to kick smoking.
(http://copland.udel.edu/~rmarcus/drug%20chart.gif)
and another one
(http://www.cannabisfacts.ca/images/henningfieldbenowitz_sm2.gif)
Um, your first graph rated heroin higher for dependence, and your second rated tobacco higher.
Quote from: MrBogosity on December 27, 2008, 08:22:55 AM
Um, your first graph rated heroin higher for dependence, and your second rated tobacco higher.
i know
different charts will tell you different things
but i think heroin is more addictive than nicotine
For me those charts are way too non descriptive, there is more to each drug than simple graphs can portray.
Heroin (and other opiates) while having and extremely high physical dependance, has a rather low psychological dependance, and as far as physical harm, heroin itself (diacetylmorphine) does not have much of a negative effect on the body. It is quite potent (elevated risk for new IV users to overdose), while having a relatively low toxicity on the body. As far as withdrawal, heroin has very high acute withdrawal effects (5-9 days), but very minor to nil long term withdrawal effects(3-6 months). Babies born addicted to heroin must go through the acute withdrawal period, but after that is over they appear to grow up with no ill effects. Intoxication and inebriation is quite low (until you get into very high doses)
Cocaine (benzoylmethyl ecgonine) is almost the exact opposite, Low physical dependance, extreme psychological dependance. Cocaine has no real acute withdrawal, But has some profound long term mental withdrawal effects that can stick around for upwards of 2 years. effects on the body depend on method of administration, Repeated snorting can cause severe damage to the nose. Smoking freebase cocaine (crack) can cause breathing difficulties. Babies born to cocaine using mothers suffer symptoms that closely mirror FAS (Fetal Alcohol Syndrome) and can suffer from disabilities that can hinder them severely there entire life. Cocaine can also be passed through the mothers breast milk. Intoxication and inebriation is quite low
If you want any more info on any other Drugs, or Addiction feel free to ask. I just didn't feel like typing about every abused drug there is.
(P.S. - These are not meant to be complete descriptions of all of the ills, or effects associated with their usage. I just wrote them quickly covering the major points. The above information is related only to repeated use of the drugs listed, The occasional use of (almost) any drug poses no primary health risk whatsoever)
Quote from: MrBogosity on October 24, 2008, 09:03:27 AM
If you talk to the ones who've actually quit, that's what they say.
That's why I have a hard tine buying this alcoholism-is-a-disease thing. How many diseases can you cure yourself from just by changing your behavior? Now, if you want to say that there's an underlying condition that compels this--chemical depression, or some other kind of psychological or neurological condition--and that is what the disease is, I'm with you. But the drug abuse is a symptom, not the disease.
Addiction is a disease. All of your behavior is regulated by chemical and electrical reactions in the brain and when you subject the brain repeatedly with addicting chemicals it causes a characteristic loss of control. The craving drug users speak of is not the same as the normal "urges" people experience. It is a result of chemical changes in the brain. Something that many people without experience in the areas don't seem to be aware of is the progression of the disease and the stickiness of the disease. By stickiness I mean that after a prolonged period of abstinence, when use resumes it immediately goes back to the level it was when the addict last used. In other words, if you are drinking a fifth of vodka a day and then you are clean for 10 years, within a very short time of picking up you will be right back to the fifth a vodka a day. It may have taken YEARS to get to that point the first time and week 20 years later. One thing you can look up is called T.H.I.Q., which is an opiate like substance found in the brain of chronic alcoholics and IV heroin users. Also it's worth noting that the AMA and the APA both recognize addiction as a disease.
Addiction can be treated, but it can't be cured. Believe it or not, most users want to stop using but are unable to. They promise themselves over and over that they will stop their use and then go and use anyway.
Because addiction is a behavioral disease, it can be treated by removing the user from their drug of choice and that is what makes it so difficult for a lay person to understand. I think of it as your lizard brain is like a marketing department for your brain and gets you to do stuff that it likes like eating and sex and "fight or flight", breathing and so on. This marketing dept start marketing your addictive behavior to you morning noon and night as well as a physical sensation. When the brain isn't working right, people don't behave right. It's hard for people to accept this but it's true.
Chris
Quote from: 11mc22 on December 27, 2008, 04:31:03 AM
(http://www.cannabisfacts.ca/images/henningfieldbenowitz_sm2.gif)
Dependence and tolerance for alcohol should be much higher.
Chris
Quote from: Textra1 on November 21, 2008, 05:05:14 PM
I'd argue that they do. Many more people smoke that use crack, LSD, etc
How many people do you know who smoke versus smoking crack? The worst addiction I ever had to fight, psychological or otherwise, was cigarettes by far. I'm been off them for 11 years now, but I still get cravings from time to time.
Also, check out any drug and alcohol rehab clinic. You'll find chain smokers a plenty. People get clean of alcohol and drugs, but never seem to be able to kick smoking.
Getting off of opiates is a lot more difficult than getting off of cigarettes. People tend to not get off cigarettes because the problems they cause are not as immediate as the damage done by other drugs. When you loose everything you have, your spouse, kids, house, car... You can't put if off any longer, as to where cigarettes can always wait another day.
I quit smoking 3 times. first for 6 months, about 10 years ago for 1 year. and...
almost 3 weeks ago. I had a lot of urges today, but I got through them. Wish me luck...
Chris
Quote from: christo930 on May 19, 2009, 09:31:45 PM
Addiction is a disease.
BO-GUS!!!
Cancer is a disease. AIDS is a disease. Heart disease is a disease. Diseases you don't get rid of just by changing your behavior.
This is just a part of the bogus, whiny "Don't blame me it's not my fault" when it is mentality.
QuoteBelieve it or not, most users want to stop using but are unable to.
The ones I've talked to who have stopped disagree.
The really problematic addicts have an alternative diagnosis, such as depression, which IS a disease, and when the underlying disease is treated the addiction is no longer a problem.
Quote from: MrBogosity on May 20, 2009, 06:23:04 AM
BO-GUS!!!
Cancer is a disease. AIDS is a disease. Heart disease is a disease. Diseases you don't get rid of just by changing your behavior.
This is just a part of the bogus, whiny "Don't blame me it's not my fault" when it is mentality.
The ones I've talked to who have stopped disagree.
The really problematic addicts have an alternative diagnosis, such as depression, which IS a disease, and when the underlying disease is treated the addiction is no longer a problem.
So I guess brain chemistry doesn't affect behavior? Why does giving methadone to opioid dependent persons stop the behavior? Why does giving Naltrexone to alcoholics stop alcohol seeking behavior? Why do the best educated professionals in the medical and psychiatric fields recognize addiction as a disease?
This is just like when a Christian can't understand why evolution is true and therefor rejects it. You are doing the same thing that the Christians do.
See, everyone has something they are not rational about!
Chris
Quote from: christo930 on May 20, 2009, 01:37:09 PMThis is just like when a Christian can't understand why evolution is true and therefor rejects it. You are doing the same thing that the Christians do.
I ABSOLUTELY AM NOT!!! I am trying to explain to you that the reason for this is because THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE WRONG!!! And that something else is what the methodone is treating. There's been a TON of GOOD science done on this.
Quote from: MrBogosity on May 20, 2009, 01:46:49 PM
I ABSOLUTELY AM NOT!!! I am trying to explain to you that the reason for this is because THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE WRONG!!! And that something else is what the methodone is treating. There's been a TON of GOOD science done on this.
Then why isn't methadone used to treat any other problem other than chronic pain? If you want to argue that it's not a disease in the sense of cancer, I am fully with you, maybe disorder should be used instead? But to insist that an addicted person is perfectly normal and is simply choosing to destroy their lives, I think is absurd.
Maybe you could point me to some of that good science that argues against the disease model.
Chris
Quote from: christo930 on May 20, 2009, 07:06:42 PMThen why isn't methadone used to treat any other problem other than chronic pain?
It's used to treat severe coughs, leukemia, depression, bi-polar disorder, and others.
Quote from: MrBogosity on May 20, 2009, 10:08:03 PM
It's used to treat severe coughs, leukemia, depression, bi-polar disorder, and others.
The only things that Methadone has been proven to work for is the treatment of chronic pain, the treatment of heroin addicts and the treatment of general opiate addiction. Nothing else.
Why would a depressant be used to treat depression? While Methadone does suppress the cough reflex there are much safer alternatives, most notably Codeine. Why use something 30x stronger than morphine when codeine or even oxycondone would work with substantially less risk.
Can you point out any doctor that recommends treating any of these things with methadone? If someone has Leukemia, they might treat the chronic pain with Methadone, but not the Leukemia it self. Methadone isn't an effective treatment for any cancer.
Shane, I have a lot of respect for your financial and political ideas, but your medical knowledge needs work.
Chris
Quote from: christo930 on May 22, 2009, 02:42:09 PMThe only things that Methadone has been proven to work for is the treatment of chronic pain, the treatment of heroin addicts and the treatment of general opiate addiction. Nothing else.
If by "the only things that Methadone has been proven to work for" you mean "the only things that pharmaceutical companies have decided it's worth upwards of a billion dollars getting official government approval for," then you're correct. But that is NOT the only metric for deciding if it works--nor is it even a GOOD one!
QuoteWhy would a depressant be used to treat depression?
Depends on the kind of depression.
QuoteWhile Methadone does suppress the cough reflex there are much safer alternatives, most notably Codeine. Why use something 30x stronger than morphine when codeine or even oxycondone would work with substantially less risk.
Unless it's too strong for the others to work, or the patient is allergic to the others, or...
Drugs/Addictions are most of the time a symptom of an underlying problem.... NOT a disease!
I am so sick of AA/NA Cultists pushing the whole "Addiction is a disease" bullshit.
If it is is a disease, then why would we not be treating it as such. Go to an AA meeting they don't tell you to go see a doctor and look into some proper doctor approved medication (Methadone, etc...) or treatments.
No, they tell you you need to accept a GOD into your life and get "it" to start making decisions for you (how an immaterial thing is supposed to make a decision for you I could never understand) AA is a cult, and they work in exactly the same ways as a cult. They convince you that there is something deeply wrong with your soul, and then offer you a way out (and a way out that doesn't even work very well... 5% approx.)
If I went to a doctor and he/she told I had cancer, and his course of treatment was for me to go accept Jesus, and start apologizing to old girlfriends, I would run for the hills. Cancer is a proper disease, Addiction is not. It is a behavior.
I was reading Maclean's just today and it just so happens that....
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/05/26/addiction-new-research-suggests-its-a-choice/
Quote from: MrBogosity on November 07, 2008, 09:39:51 PM
Nicotine is the most addictive drug we know of.
i thought heroin was more addictive then nicotine
Quote from: thelastgrungekid on August 11, 2009, 10:58:52 PM
i thought heroin was more addictive then nicotine
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/29/magazine/nicotine-harder-to-kickthan-heroin.html
Have fun reading like 6 pages
I'm not too way sure myself though
Quote from: 11mc22 on August 12, 2009, 04:13:35 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/29/magazine/nicotine-harder-to-kickthan-heroin.html
Have fun reading like 6 pages
I'm not too way sure myself though
my bad, also would the nicotine be as strong as it is if there were no extra additives?