|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
posted November 07, 2022 02:22 PM |
|
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 07, 2022 04:42 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 17:36, 07 Nov 2022.
|
Ok, let's get something clear, no matter how long you take the time explain things, as long as you say something like "there is no such thing as more addictive," it all becomes a house built on sand because there obviously is, unlike pregnancy addiction can be quantified, not just qualified and this should be plainly clear to anyone by now. It should also be clear by personal experience and observation, you dont even need the links but I also gave them. Even your own links conclude that substances have various addiction levels.
And once again in a binary way, you caricaturize my position by turning it into something such as "soft drugs are cool and heavy drugs are the devil." What I said was, I can understand if people dont want heroin on market shelves and how it shouldnt be as easily available as weed, because some addictions are more severe and dangerous than others, they also happen to hook you faster and the withdrawal effects are not comparable. Then, I also elaborated that if by legalizing heroin, what you mean is controlled environments like Gnomes suggested, I got no problem with that either. But your basic claim, that there is simply no difference between any subtance, be it sugar, alcohol, heroin or acid, and the only difference between addicts is caused by human psychology is so unproportional and so one-dimensional, about a subject with so many parameters, to say you are oversimplifying wouldnt cut it. (And I refuse to repeat my many examples about how, just because you ignore them.) The human brain is a chemical machine and the type of subtance you put in the mix, is not just a mere detail. It is one of the determining factors of the very psychology that you speak of.
On the very paragraph you claim how "the thing doesn't matter," you also say "heroin is a hard drug and everyone knows it, so there is no pretending." Why is it called a hard drug though, why that and not beer? Because one is consumed differently? How about acid then, you suck it like candy, or mushrooms you eat? Because one happens to be illegal coincidentally? But it wasnt in the beginning, so why did some hard drugs become illegal or very hard to obtain legally within 50 years of their invention and why are some soft drugs free almost everywhere? Do all these societies have similar prejudices or does it have something to do with certain collective, social experiences, like addictions turning into an epidemic scale menace and causing trouble on a social scale like others dont. Alcohol and sugar related deaths are also documented btw, when they are direct, like drunk driving or diabetes. And indirect hard drug related deaths can not be documanted with precision either.
Btw, I think at this point you are not even oversimplifying but rather improvising. So if I skipped one of the questions along the way, be my guest and ask again, I tried to address all of them.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 07, 2022 06:07 PM |
|
|
You seem to mistake effect with "addictiveness" which is a totally artificial construct, that has no absolute value. Instead you have to consider, HOW people become addicted. Whether a person becomes addicted or not doesn't depend on the substance. It depends completely on the person, their situation, their genetics and so on and culminates in the question whether a person likes what the drug in question does or not. If the drug is used in a social environment, it may just be used to be part of a group or feel like part of a group - but that obviously depends on the person as well.
And, again, addictiveness as a measure of how addicted people are, makes no sense because you are either addicted or not. You are not more addicted to heroin than to, say, smoking. You are simply addicted. And how hard it is to get rid of an addiction depends on how big the hole is the drug is filling, not on the drug.
Heroin, as I said, may start with a flash, but it's still a pain killer, first and foremost, and a very good one as well. As should be obvious, it's not the flash alone, that you get, but also the effect afterwards (which makes this the ideal drug for forced prostitutes, for example, who will be addicted VERY fast, because of the "Don't-care" effect - you can suffer these things a lot better when you don't care, when you are somewhat detached from it).
On the other hand, many musicians (at least Keith Richards names this as a reason) seem to take it to come down from the stimulants taken to either endure 2 or 3 days of studio work without sleep or from performing and the needed high energy levels a more powerful valium.
But as an amusement drug? To feel good? For the average more or less happy person who wants to have fun? Nope. It's a non-starter.
So addictiveness doesn't say anything about the drug. When someone tries heroin and keeps doing it, you can bet that they will keep doing it, but not because of the drug, but because of the fact the drug hit home.
And that's the case with everything. If people do something and keep doing it, addiction looms round the corner, because to keep at it, people must like it for whatever reason, otherwise they won't keep at it.
And in the end it doesn't matter whether it's heroin or burger, because if you eat Big Mac or two each day this will have consequences on you and it will subjectively just as hard to shed than a heroin addiction - if it was easy there wouldn't be so many obese people running around and McD's were broke. And before you come up with different health consequences - if burger were illegal and heroin was legal, then what? Do you really think the burgers would contain beef? Or any meat that wasn't maybe spoiled?
So a comparison is difficult.
And drunk driving is just one alcohol related fatality reason. Drunk working is another. I read that South Africa has te highest drunk driving fatality rate with 25 per 100.000. In 2020 the rate of Heroin-related deaths in the US was a bit more than 4 per 100.000.
The reason for both is obviously wrong handling. Why is one allowed and the other forbidden?
Quote:
How about acid then, you suck it like candy, or mushrooms you eat? Because one happens to be illegal coincidentally? But it wasnt in the beginning, so why did some hard drugs became illegal or very hard to obtain legally within 50 years of their invention and why are some soft drugs free almost everywhere? Do all these societies have similar prejudices or does it have something to do with certain collective, social experiences, like addictions turning into an epidemic scale menace and causing trouble on a social scale like others dont.
Acid isn't illegal coincidentally, since mind-altering drugs are extremely dangerous, and not only for the user - but not addictive in any meaningful sense for the simple reason that it has an extremely high tolerance. You have to wait some time between trips.
And you are asking the wrong questions. Alcohol was banned in the US for a reason. Shouldn't they have learned, then, that banning drugs just opens new business opportunities for criminals?
The bottom line is, you just repeat mindlessly, what the illogical and incoherent existing situation is excused with.
EDIT: Simple question. Is an alcoholic better off than a junkie? Would they be better off if both were legal? If both were illegal? If alcohol was legal and heroin wasn't?
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 07, 2022 09:16 PM |
|
|
this isn't 'nam, jj. heroin is bad for you. it's a shame sgt stadanko didn't teach you that.
but seriously. two words for you, jj: opiod crisis. apparently, you want what already exists, to spread. herp derp. being a self-professed globalist who only wants drugs legalized so he can use them himself(by your own words), i mean, it's no stretch to say that you CLEARLY don't have society's best interest in mind.
you and the others have this absurd notion, that "progressivism" is setting the bar higher, when in fact, it's plainly and obviously doing the opposite.
it's like none of you ever figured out, that labels could ever be attributed to a thing soley as misdirection, to give you the notion that it is designed with good intent; when actually, it acts as a direct opposite of what that label claims. for example, the "patriot" act. there's a reason why they do this, that should be readily apparent to any free-thinking human with even half a brain, but i've already beat that horse into the ground trying to climb over the wall of idiocy here at hc.
|
|
purerogue
Known Hero
|
|
posted November 07, 2022 10:36 PM |
|
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 07, 2022 10:38 PM |
|
|
As usual you have no clue what you are talking about. The opioid crisis is the result of a massive increase in PRESCRIPTIONS for opioids.
PRESCRIPTIONS.
That means, you go to a doctor with a pain-related problem and the doctor basically ORDERS you to take an opioid. Not only with STRONG pain (which is what opioids are for, with lesser pain you take ibuprofen or paracetamol or something like that, if anything). Add to that the fact that pain therapy is based on taking stuff for a time REGULARLY, not when you actually have pain, and you have a disastrous situation, forcing people into taking needlessly hard stuff.
Imagine what happened if a doctor would prescribe you to drink half a bottle of Vodka every eight hours for a month.
Again: those people didn't do the stuff WILLINGLY. They took it in good faith from, in this case, their local witch doctor.
It's pretty much a joke that something like Oxycontin was prescribed in copious quantities while heroin (as a pill) is illegal. And behind this are the pharma corps and their lobbyists. In the 6 years from 2006 and 2012 they supplied the market with 75 BILLION pills.
Nice profit. Add to that the money reha centers make with detox programs.
You can bet that these prescribing doctors got part of the profits.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 08, 2022 05:30 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 05:32, 08 Nov 2022.
|
House built on sand again, I am not mistaking the effect for the level of addictiveness and in fact they are also interlinked (as already explained in the link I gave, the part about potency. What was that link called... What was it, oh yes, "why are some drugs more addictive than others.") Again, this is not a binary situation like being pregnant or not. It is more like being obese or not. Now, if you are overeating you will get fat. But there are obeses who are 120 kilos, then there are ones who are 180 kilos, and then you have ones who are 300 kilos and these are very different situations. Both in terms of health and in terms of managing daily life. As the old saying goes, quantity is quality.
And while at it, the effects alone are also relevant when it comes to a drug's legal status, just like in acid. So that also is problematic for your "all should be treated the same" position.
So to answer your question about an alcoholic or junkie being better off in which kind of situation, the answer again has variables. Which kind of alcoholic, there are 5 to 7 type of alcoholics. You have your homeless whino on one hand, then you have the functional type. Then you have dipsomaniacs who are not exactly alcoholics but people who go all the way once they start, they dont constantly crave a drink but when they do drink, they usually drink till they drop. (I usually drink like that, too. It's easy for me to manage because when I drink, I listen to music till I pass out anyway, it would have been problematic if I was a social drinker though.)
Now, the important part is this, most people who drink dont turn into alcoholics and the ones who do, dont turn into the homeless whino type. For the homeless whino, hard access to alcohol could have been better, but since it is a small portion of even alcohohics, put aside drinkers, the scales keep easy acces feasible from a social perspective. Where as in heroin, too many people do get addicted and most addicts become severe addicts. Think of teenagers illegaly drinking beer at parties, now imagine they could have that kind of easy access to heroin. The "injection is very different" argument doesnt hold much water here, because pills would have also resulted in a different story than beer in many many many cases. So naturally, just like you have different laws about having a domestic dog and having a domestic lion, you have different laws about beer and heroin.
When it comes to heroin, addicts would be better in a controlled environment decriminalization type of legality. When it comes to alcohol, too many people drink in a non-problematic fashion to pass laws just considering the addicts anyway.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 08, 2022 08:12 AM |
|
|
That's what I say. If the same drug has different effects on people then it's the people and their situation and biology, not the drug. Simple logic. And you acknowledged it yourself now. Do you really think you can turn that point against me?
And your lion and dog argument holds no water. If everyone gets a dog, there will be a lot of "accidents" with dogs through sheer mass. Not many would have lions. Or have big or venomous snakes. Or gators.
A percentage of heroin addicts would be functional the same way than alcoholics if heroin was legal. There are many examples with morphine addicts. Lots of doctors were in earlier times.
And that's the whole crux. You have no chance to be a functional addict if a drug is illegal, because the user has no control at all about any aspect of the drug. You can be a functional addict only with no supply problems, managable prices and a stable social environment, including a job.
I'm sure there are many functional addicts out there. I personally know a couple of them. I'm probably one myself. Lots of people are functional addicts without ever admitting they are.
If suicide isn't a crime, how can taking a drug be one?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 08, 2022 12:09 PM |
|
|
Except, I never said there is no psychological or genetic difference that matters, so I dont have to turn anything against you. You said the subtance didnt matter at all though, hence the dog/lion metaphor, you can have a harmless lion but in practicality, a lion is much harder to tame, and if he snaps at some point, the results are much more likely to be deadly compared to a dog. It's a matter of ratio.
As I said earlier, I dont rule out the functional junkie as a probability, but it is harder and more seldom. So what happens is, it is sorted out unofficially. If you are a rock star or a doctor etc, if you are functional and old enough to have a level of certain status, you can still get heroin without much risk and as long as you keep your head low, they wont bother with the user. But at the same time, they wont make it as easily accessable as legal drinks or drugs.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 08, 2022 12:52 PM |
|
|
That's just a claim. Heroin is a very specific stuff for a very specific cientel that satisfies a very specific need. You wouldn't buy and take sleeping pills either, if freely available, just to take them, if you had no sleeping problems.
Stuff like heroin won't ever be freely available the way drinks are, because it's a medical drug with a couple of indications and therefore needs a prescription.
As I said a couple of times, already, heroin, if injected, is neither an amusement drug, nor a social drug. It will never be consumed "lightly" or casually or in small doses, like a beer or two.
If you'd open a café today, where people could buy a one-time syringe with heroin and inject it right there and then - what do you think how many people (without heroin/morphine injecting experience) would try it? And how many would keep doing it after the first try?
My guess is, it would mostly be people with opioid prescriptions (and reason to take that stuff) wanting to check on whether there was a difference, if they have to do the crap anyway to have a life (and seriously, what is wrong with giving these people access to the good stuff?), people with severe problems and so workable solution so far and very brave, very experimental people.
The majority would give that café a wide berth.
And DANGEROUS? Dangerous is first and foremost the fact that the quality of the stuff varies so much and that it contains so much really unhealthy crap, as long as it's illegal. That is the main reason of people dying from it, at least half of the victims.
Anyway, no, as it is a medical drug it wouldn't be freely available, but that's not what we are debating. I still say that the drug doesn't matter, once you are addicted, because you are addicted not because of the drug (if it is one), but because of the fact that the drug caters to a specific need which is what hooks you. It gives you something. The seriousness of the addiction and the side effects is just a measure of the size of the hole the drug fills. Or the amount of need it caters to. It IS actually that simple.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 08, 2022 01:38 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 13:40, 08 Nov 2022.
|
Well, I don't know what you mean by "amusement" and I never tried it myself but heroin addicts claim its high is better than sex, so I guess it kind of amuses in some way or the other. And back when it was popular among musicians, beatniks etc, people used to take it together, there were heroin houses. Not just as a party but also to watch each others back, since an overdose is a serious risk.
If such cafes existed, most people would have cold feet at first, sure. But you cant guess how it would play out, once it gradually turns into a norm. People get used to all kinds of things, a medieval person would be shocked at so many things we consider casual today.
And no, the substance cant be reduced into just a substitute for the hole in your life and not all addictions play out the same. People who have a meaningful life can become addicts too, in many ways, including prescription after surgery etc, which you said it so yourself. And even if it was like you claimed, the potency and the content of the addiction, hence the substance that causes it would still matter because still, it is more probable that you lose control of your life, become dysfunctional, alianate loved ones and cause afformentioned holes in your life because of the substance. The chance of that happening to a coffee addict and a heroin addict isnt the same either.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted November 08, 2022 02:06 PM |
|
|
Ok why you don't speak about Subutex any.. Hmm heroin is ex-medicine, thus very strong enjoyment. I never tried sex with heroin but smoked and took a needle once. I got a "addiction", hard to say any, maybe thought, when I wanted or missed more heroin and stung my behind body, I must to smoke Cannabis hard, and it helped me, not easy, when I fought smoking Cannabis. You know nicotine medicine isn't enough but also fight. Thanks for Holland, it Cannabis material which researched about medicine purpose, what Cannabis gave benefits, it said Cannabis can get off heroin, etc An old material in 1990's, what I printed from www.. But doctor gives Subutex, and they addicted to Subutex or abuse..
So I think I ban heroin, but medicine ok. I ban also LSD, but not magic mushrooms and mescalines. I add on Cannabis and Khat legally. Amphetamine to medicine. I'm sorry, if you aren't agreed with all.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 08, 2022 03:30 PM |
|
|
That you have a meaningful life doesn't mean you haven't got holes to fill. Prescription after a surgery means also there is a hole to fill, a hole called pain, but then there is this thing called PIL or Patient Information Leaflet which will tell you about side effects and dangers, and people should act accordingly.
Besides, if doctors are prescribing addictive stuff all the time, knowing about the dangers, obviously - where is the problem? People also get dangerous stuff prescribed all the time. Take anti-depressants. (And people who take those could be described as people with a hole to fill.)
This shows the amount of deaths due to anti-depressant overdoeses in the US from 1999 to 2020, a continously rising curve. And a very recent study - the information about with all the links is here concludes that taking anti-depressants leads to a premature death (is bad for your life expectancy).
So that's all just hogwash. It's shadow-boxing at best. The line drawn is VERY arbitrary.
|
|
purerogue
Known Hero
|
|
posted November 08, 2022 04:24 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
That you have a meaningful life doesn't mean you haven't got holes to fill.
Men should fill holes, don't be a Hunter Biden.
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted November 08, 2022 07:15 PM |
|
|
purerogue said:
Men should fill holes for the first time
Ok purerogue! When you smoke Cannabis, you get a high. You can feel snake.. and I feel spiral.. Not everyone likes style.. Forbidden..
|
|
purerogue
Known Hero
|
|
posted November 08, 2022 07:29 PM |
|
|
Ghost - I understood you easily this time
Oh nevermind
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 09, 2022 09:06 PM |
|
|
What about gambling addiction? No substance abuse involved, but still destructive as hell, since teh addicts piss away the economic foundation of their life.
Is there any difference for the addicts?
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted November 13, 2022 10:56 AM |
|
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 13, 2022 05:04 PM |
|
|
Yeah, that's interesting.
Personally, I've been wondering for quite some time, whether psychedelic drugs, taken under supervision and and with psychotherapeutical accompaniment might support "curing" of psychological problems, and for me drug dependencies are usually based on those (as I said a couple of times already).
So, yeah, I hope that works out.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 21, 2022 10:49 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 23:43, 21 Nov 2022.
|
Lol, I am watching a comedy called Walk Hard - The Dewey Cox Story, it's a parody of musician biopics such as The Doors, Ray, Walk The Line etc. Anyway, this is obviosly a parody of the scene in Ray, when Ray Charles walks in on his sax player (David Newman) and catches him doing heroin, he wants to join in and Newman tries to shoo him away by saying things like "you don' want this, it will consume you" etc. etc. Made me think of the debate in this thread. 
Reefer
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
