Are Drug Users Persecuted?

What was one of the ingredients of Coca-Cola? There's no documented record of psychical withdrawal from Coca-Cola when one of it's ingredients were made illegal.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm.... - COCA - Cola.... Coke... hmmm..... what would that be????? ........


surely not cocaine????


I think anyone who looks into Coca Cola famous history knows that one.

Fuzzy
 
Audiofuzzy said:
I think it was also you who pointed out how long H.Pylori was around, too???

The advances are sometimes made way way later, Jillio, thus making the staunch, established generalized opinions all the harder to abolish.

For example, for migraine being not psychosomatic but neurological disorder in origin took the invention of MRI to prove it once and for all merely over a two decades ago. And migraine was here already a thousands years ago, Jillio.

You never know what may come in the next decade in the field of science of addiction.


But it sure would reduce it vastly.

Fuzzy
Click to expand...

The difference between a human made drug which is illegal now, a bacteria, and a specific list of symptoms connected with specific areas of pain allude me.

Migraines are not illegal, Bacteria can be illegal if you intend to commit terrorism with them... or are culturing superbugs or something...

Not sure why this came up, if one thing or another is or isn't physically or psychologically addicting... does it matter?

This thing is legal (caffeine) that thing isn't (Marijuana) ... don't like it vote...

I may have missed where someone was offering to legalize all non-physically addicting drugs or something...
 
my mind is never muddled on morphine or vicodin. I have sucessfully completed job interviews while on them. Opiates are nothing like alcohol which makes you sloppy and stupid.

If opiates were legal without hassle, the fat fuzzball would not have had to commit any crime to obtain them.

While on them, he held down his job and stayed out of trouble, other than prescription fraud. He was on the radio every day and no one seemed to notice any change in his behavior. Again, why is it so important that the fat fuck doesnt take opiates? He apparently doesnt seem to care about his health since he smokes while being obese. Should we criminalize soda and junk food along with tobacco so we can protect him from his self? Should the courts give him a monthly weight test to make sure he is not getting fatter? And if he fails, should we put him some kind of fat camp treatment center with diet counseling?

I dont consider Limbaugh taking excessive amounts opiates to be a crime. At a different time, consuming alcohol was a crime. It is all arbitrary. His body his choice

Also, most civil rights activists oppose the war on drugs and support legalization.
 
jillio said:
Who is talking about prohibition? I'm talking about a harm reduction model.:dunno2:

By your logic, you could also say that some people will always want to have sex with little kids, so let's just legalize it.
Click to expand...

wtf does having sex with kids have to do with injesting drugs?

Are you capable of any rational thought?
 
Audiofuzzy said:
I think it was also you who pointed out how long H.Pylori was around, too???

The advances are sometimes made way way later, Jillio,
thus making the staunch, established generalized opinions all the harder to
abolish.

For example, for migraine being not psychosomatic but neurological disorder in origin
took the invention of MRI to prove it once and for all merely over a two decades ago.
And migraine was here already a thousands years ago, Jillio.


You never know what may come in the next decade in the field of science of addiction.



But it sure would reduce it vastly.

Fuzzy
Click to expand...

It has been known that migraines had a neurological basis long before the first fMRI was ever done.:laugh2: You seem to be confusing new discovery with confirmation of something that is already known.
 
Doug5 said:
wtf does having sex with kids have to do with injesting drugs?

Are you capable of any rational thought?
Click to expand...

Do you really need me to explain that one to you? If so, it is obvious that you are not thinking your position all the way through.
 
Doug5 said:
my mind is never muddled on morphine or vicodin. I have sucessfully completed job interviews while on them. Opiates are nothing like alcohol which makes you sloppy and stupid.

If opiates were legal without hassle, the fat fuzzball would not have had to commit any crime to obtain them.

While on them, he held down his job and stayed out of trouble, other than prescription fraud. He was on the radio every day and no one seemed to notice any change in his behavior. Again, why is it so important that the fat fuck doesnt take opiates? He apparently doesnt seem to care about his health since he smokes while being obese. Should we criminalize soda and junk food along with tobacco so we can protect him from his self? Should the courts give him a monthly weight test to make sure he is not getting fatter? And if he fails, should we put him some kind of fat camp treatment center with diet counseling?

I dont consider Limbaugh taking excessive amounts opiates to be a crime. At a different time, consuming alcohol was a crime. It is all arbitrary. His body his choice

Also, most civil rights activists oppose the war on drugs and support legalization.
Click to expand...

Taking excessive amounts isn't a crime. Doctor shopping and purchasing on the street is the crime. You don't seem to be able to grasp that.
 
FireTiger said:
The difference between a human made drug which is illegal now, a bacteria, and a specific list of symptoms connected with specific areas of pain allude me.

Migraines are not illegal, Bacteria can be illegal if you intend to commit terrorism with them... or are culturing superbugs or something...

Not sure why this came up, if one thing or another is or isn't physically or psychologically addicting... does it matter?

This thing is legal (caffeine) that thing isn't (Marijuana) ... don't like it vote...

I may have missed where someone was offering to legalize all non-physically addicting drugs or something...
Click to expand...

It is known as bring in strawmen in an attempt to support their position because it can't be supported on its own merits. Happens frequently in debates around here. Just indicates a lack of clear thought and knowlege on the subject on which they think they are so expert.
 
Doug5 said:
my mind is never muddled on morphine or vicodin. I have sucessfully completed job interviews while on them. Opiates are nothing like alcohol which makes you sloppy and stupid.

If opiates were legal without hassle, the fat fuzzball would not have had to commit any crime to obtain them.

While on them, he held down his job and stayed out of trouble, other than prescription fraud. He was on the radio every day and no one seemed to notice any change in his behavior. Again, why is it so important that the fat fuck doesnt take opiates? He apparently doesnt seem to care about his health since he smokes while being obese. Should we criminalize soda and junk food along with tobacco so we can protect him from his self? Should the courts give him a monthly weight test to make sure he is not getting fatter? And if he fails, should we put him some kind of fat camp treatment center with diet counseling?

I dont consider Limbaugh taking excessive amounts opiates to be a crime. At a different time, consuming alcohol was a crime. It is all arbitrary. His body his choice

Also, most civil rights activists oppose the war on drugs and support legalization.
Click to expand...



Bold print.. Reminds me of an over confident drunk getting ready to drive a vehicle. You think your head is not muddled, which indeed your judgement clearly is!
 
I'd be happy to talk about lions in a zebra thread if it made since to do so- we aren't the most -on topic- bunch... ;)

If we are saying 'save the zebra' and someone says 'what about the lions' and then the 'lions eat zebras' point is made and there is something to discuss. Either save both, one, the other one, or neither...

But here's something novel (bacteria), and there's something novel (headaches)- and that has to do with what isn't yet discovered in (particular) drugs...because science advances...

but there is not further point here...

it's not lets only legalize some types of drugs, or lets legalize all drugs...
or treatment centers are not doing the proper research on withdraw....
or anything.

HERE'S the OP


Doug5 said:
Supposedly, addicts have a genetic predisposition. Isn't that similar how being gay is genetic or born that way? People don't choose to have urges or cravings.

It wasn't long ago that homosexuality was considered a mental illness. Currently illegal drug use is considered the mental illness of addiction. Yet costly treatment programs have limited success if any. Even with long term sobriety, the drug cravings never completely go away. For many, relapse is only a matter of time.

The drug user deals with jail, disease risks, discrimination, violence, artificially costly adulterated drugs. Things that are exaggerated by war on drugs. :hmm:
Click to expand...

It seems the question is do we pick on people that choose to use drugs the same way we pick on people that choose to be open about their sexuality (if it's a minority view, GLB)...

My thought is- Yes and no.

It is illegal, one or more illegal activities are done to become a drug user.

It is possibly both genetic and environmental,

people who live with guardians/parents who are addicted to some substance are likely to become addicted if they try that addictive agent.

people who are direct blood relations to highly addicted people also are likely to become addicted if they try that addictive agent.

People who are both in the environment of addiction, (possibly born addicted) and are from addictive 'genes' often become addicts of some addictive agents.

---

But the difference to me is that they are not automatically attracted to the body type, scent/pheromones, sex organs - of a drug...

to become addicted to a drug (using drug in it's broadest sense) you must use it...

you are not born attracted to caffeine, but your environment may make caffeine readily available and moral neutral-favorable.

Everyday you get up and see mom with her soda (caffeine) and dad with coffee (caffeine), sister uses energy drinks (caffeine), brother uses no-doz (caffeine), grandma drinks strong tea (caffeine) and grandpa abstains but is grumpy...

The lesson is caffeine makes you happy and is good to use, easy to get. And has very noticeable withdraw... (but is legal at all ages in almost any dose)

One can replace (caffeine) with any other drug... legal or not, legally used or not.

Now are caffeine users criminals, just for using caffeine? - No because caffeine is legal...

Are illegal drug users criminals because of their choice to use drugs the first time and the subsequent addiction... - Yes, except in extreme cases a teen or adult chose to put poison in their body enough times that they became addicted...
 
FireTiger said:
I'd be happy to talk about lions in a zebra thread if it made since to do so- we aren't the most -on topic- bunch... ;)

If we are saying 'save the zebra' and someone says 'what about the lions' and then the 'lions eat zebras' point is made and there is something to discuss. Either save both, one, the other one, or neither...

But here's something novel (bacteria), and there's something novel (headaches)- and that has to do with what isn't yet discovered in (particular) drugs...because science advances...

but there is not further point here...

it's not lets only legalize some types of drugs, or lets legalize all drugs...
or treatment centers are not doing the proper research on withdraw....
or anything.

HERE'S the OP




It seems the question is do we pick on people that choose to use drugs the same way we pick on people that choose to be open about their sexuality (if it's a minority view, GLB)...

My thought is- Yes and no.

It is illegal, one or more illegal activities are done to become a drug user.

It is possibly both genetic and environmental,

people who live with guardians/parents who are addicted to some substance are likely to become addicted if they try that addictive agent.

people who are direct blood relations to highly addicted people also are likely to become addicted if they try that addictive agent.

People who are both in the environment of addiction, (possibly born addicted) and are from addictive 'genes' often become addicts of some addictive agents.

---

But the difference to me is that they are not automatically attracted to the body type, scent/pheromones, sex organs - of a drug...

to become addicted to a drug (using drug in it's broadest sense) you must use it...

you are not born attracted to caffeine, but your environment may make caffeine readily available and moral neutral-favorable.

Everyday you get up and see mom with her soda (caffeine) and dad with coffee (caffeine), sister uses energy drinks (caffeine), brother uses no-doz (caffeine), grandma drinks strong tea (caffeine) and grandpa abstains but is grumpy...

The lesson is caffeine makes you happy and is good to use, easy to get. And has very noticeable withdraw... (but is legal at all ages in almost any dose)

One can replace (caffeine) with any other drug... legal or not, legally used or not.

Now are caffeine users criminals, just for using caffeine? - No because caffeine is legal...

Are illegal drug users criminals because of their choice to use drugs the first time and the subsequent addiction... - Yes, except in extreme cases a teen or adult chose to put poison in their body enough times that they became addicted...
Click to expand...

:confused:
 
I seem to be long winded

I don't think drug users are 'picked on' the same way GLB are because you choose once to take a drug, and you either are or are not an addictive personality...

if they have an addictive personality, either by genes or exposure or both... they are hooked... but they chose the first time.

'You' (anyone) do not choose who 'you' (they) are attracted to physically...

EX> I can't decide not to love bald heads... or broad shoulders...
I can control my behavior (not drool in front of hubbie [who has these traits too]...but hey that's what helps -do- it for me...)
 
I'd be happy to talk about lions in a zebra thread if it made since to do so- we aren't the most -on topic- bunch...
Click to expand...

Ain't that the truth. lol I prefer to consider it "divergent thinking."

The difference with drug use is that it hurts addicts by definintion. If drug use were not hurting a person, he would not be addicted.
 
sallylou said:
Ain't that the truth. lol I prefer to consider it "divergent thinking."

The difference with drug use is that it hurts addicts by definition. If drug use were not hurting a person, he would not be addicted.
Click to expand...

True, but if that person never took the first hit- they never would have gotten addicted... the first hit was criminal, the others unfortunate and also criminal

(I think caffeine addiction hurts too- ;) ever talked to a non-caffeinated person that's used to a heavy dose :shutter )
 
The difference between a human made drug which is illegal now, a bacteria, and a specific list of symptoms connected with specific areas of pain allude me.
Click to expand...

Oh, boy- you've missed my whole point....
the comparison I've made was not about this but about how one day science says one thing and tomorrow the other.

That's why I am convinced I saw a physical withdrawal from marijuana use.
I know what I saw.

Just because science says otherwise today, doesn't mean years from now
my opinion can not actually be supported.
You understand now?


It has been known that migraines had a neurological basis long before the first fMRI was ever done
Click to expand...


You are forgetting I have migraine, and I researched the subject extensively for years, starting 30 years ago.

Some doctors believed migraine was neurological and only neurological in origin,
but before the invention of MRI the majority insisted it is psychosomatic.

I was told by many doctors to my face it's psychosomatic, sweetie.

The famous "it's all in your head" was patronizingly delivered to many patients like me, and many were blamed for the disease they suffered from.

Even today you can find an occasional quack who will say "you stress too much".
Yeah, sure. I stay home doing nothing and I have almost daily migraines,
while my friend's a VIP with tons of daily pressure and no single headache
ever, but it's me who "stresses too much". :roll:

Something to educate yourself better with, Jillio:

MYTH: MIGRAINE IS CAUSED BY PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS, SUCH AS STRESS AND DEPRESSION.

REALITY: MIGRAINE IS A NEUROLOGICAL DISEASE, NOT A PSYCHOLOGICAL DISORDER.

Migraine is a true organic neurological disease. A Migraine is caused when a physiological (not psychological) trigger or triggers cause vasodilatation in the cranial blood vessels, which triggers nerve endings to release chemical substances called neurotransmitters, of which the neurotransmitter serotonin (5-HTT) is an important factor in the development of Migraine.
Click to expand...

Migraines: Myth Vs. Reality

Fuzzy
 
Back
Top