Are Drug Users Persecuted?

Babyblue

That is quite a judgemental assumption.....or I shall say you are stereotyping... not all rich people go to cocktail parties and snort cocaine.
Click to expand...

No, of course they don't. I did say "fallen celebs" and "rich and BORED".



It worked awesome for me. They gave it to me while I was in the hospital, in the IV dosage form.
Click to expand...


Yes, of course.
I am just saying Dilaudid while it works for many,
does not work as wonderful for absolutely everyone.
I know many migraineurs who love what Dilaudid does for their migraine episodes, just saying I am not the lucky one among them :(

cmdrwhitewolf
Fuzzy, I have a problem with using biographies and statements from the media as a source of evidence for anything.
1) You or other individuals can't easily verify their veracity or truthfulness.
2) Most often, those sources are adulterated with more falsities intended to raise their popularity.
Click to expand...


fair enough, however you also can not be totally paranoid and insist everything what they say is totally untrue or altered.

while certain thing indeed might be dramatized, exagerrated or sensationalized,
there is always a seed of truth to them if not a whole truth.
it also depends who writes it, and if biography is authorized or not.
And if the articles you read are not in the Star or Enquirer but serious legitimate magazine or newspaper, there is more probability
the article tries to be objective not sensational or even a pure fantasy.

otherwise, going down this alley we shouldn't believe a word what we read or hear or see in the media about anything - or everything is suspicious,
manipulated, artificially constructed the 'Wag the Dog' way...
indeed, one can go totally paranoid in such world.

Now in the case of autobiography - hands down, you have the thing told as seen thru the eyes of the person itself.

Please don't tell me now for a change that this person can have a "twisted"
view of how the things has happened,
because now you now flat out denying someone who is telling his/her version of what happened their feelings.
It's like saying to a child who is telling you "daddy is hurting me" - "no he is not!".



Plus, most psychologists can't claim they have complete histories, b/c the individual may withhold information. Instead, they have to develop an hypothesis based on their observed evidence, then formulate a treatment plan to try correct the situation.
Click to expand...

So? I am not denying that.

Fuzzy
 
Fuzzy, your forgetting the key thing here. Their viewing it through their lens of bias. Hence, what their saying most likely already has some kind of a slant on the truth. In order to get the "whole truth" as you put it, you'd have to get more individuals view and try to eliminate their individual slants. And believe me, that's pretty difficult, even Socrates had fun with it!

So arguing with me that all children tell nothing but the truth - well that isn't necessarily correct from my point of view. Some children may misinterpret what's happening, as well as the individual who is hearing what their saying. So why don't you say it's more of a gray area rather than a black or white one, and leave it at that?
 
cmdrwhitewolf said:
Fuzzy, your forgetting the key thing here. Their viewing it through their lens of bias. Hence, what their saying most likely already has some kind of a slant on the truth. In order to get the "whole truth" as you put it, you'd have to get more individuals view and try to eliminate their individual slants. And believe me, that's pretty difficult, even Socrates had fun with it!

So arguing with me that all children tell nothing but the truth - well that isn't necessarily correct from my point of view. Some children may misinterpret what's happening, as well as the individual who is hearing what their saying. So why don't you say it's more of a gray area rather than a black or white one, and leave it at that?
Click to expand...

Arguing that all children tell the truth is a concept that is easily disproven. I will cite the McMarten Preschool case as one example. Memory is constructed. It is not a photgraphic image.
 
Fuzzy, your forgetting the key thing here. Their viewing it through their lens of bias. Hence, what their saying most likely already has some kind of a slant on the truth. In order to get the "whole truth" as you put it, you'd have to get more individuals view and try to eliminate their individual slants. And believe me, that's pretty difficult, even Socrates had fun with it!
Click to expand...

fair enough, so to sum it up let me tell you this.

As my own child was growing up, I had a chance observing her friends growing also, their families
and I could pretty well predict which potentially could end up drinking, smoking and partying and probably end up using recreational drugs
and which does not.

Now from here on, who would end up as a drug addict, I don't know but also I had my own private pretty good ideas.

And you know what? fast forward 10 years, they are all in their very early
20 - ties.

The children of the woman who was divorced and seemingly 'put together' but who was in fact an alcoholic always away from home, leaving her children alone, who was neglecting her children -and neglect IS abuse,
have a son who is heroine user. her other child is not an addict but NO THANKS TO HER.

A lot of parents who were into "social drinking" and in my book at least one of them into flat out alcoholism, have now at least one of the children already at 20 following into their footsteps.
Mind you, the parents weren't into dope smoking but the kids already are.
It's only a matter of time before they get interested in something more, if already aren't..

Two of the girls I know got pregnant at 18.

I think if these will tell their story 20 years from now, their "slant" will still have a ring of truth to it.

Now, please don't tell me these were "loving and balanced homes" which only looked not so cozy to the outside viewer...

Fuzzy
 
Doug5 said:
Supposedly, addicts have a genetic predispostion. Isnt that similar how being gay is genetic or born that way? People dont choose to have urges or cravings.

It wasnt 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 sucess if any. Even with longterm 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, artifically costly adulturated drugs. Things that are exaggerated by war on drugs. :hmm:
Click to expand...

lol heroin/cocaine/meth/whatever else, those are the drugs that need to be controlled.
 
Starfied said:
lol heroin/cocaine/meth/whatever else, those are the drugs that need to be controlled.
Click to expand...

legalization doesnt mean no control or regulation. There would be a minimum age like alcohol. You could also enact very strict penalities for those who distribute drugs to children. etc
 
I had this discussion few years ago,

It led to really interesting topic, selective breeding for better world. Laws are getting in way, saving stupid people's life which cause them to mix with the sane folks and offspring some of their attribution. That conservation was starting to sound like it was coming from Nazis, we had to stop.


Personally I believe that theres some recreational drugs that can be regulated just like alcohol and tobacco. However I wish for most drugs to stay illegal, and even harsher penalty for dealers that sells drugs in public places.

Myself, I am not marijuana user but few of my friends are. I think that the war with marijuana is ridiculous. I look at it just like war with tobacco, BIG waste of government's money.
 
Eighty said:
I had this discussion few years ago,



Personally I believe that theres some recreational drugs that can be regulated just like alcohol and tobacco. However I wish for most drugs to stay illegal, and even harsher penalty for dealers that sells drugs in public places.

Myself, I am not marijuana user but few of my friends are. I think that the war with marijuana is ridiculous. I look at it just like war with tobacco, BIG waste of government's money.
Click to expand...

AMEN! Just effing LEGALIZE IT!!!!!! Although 20 bucks says that in 10 or 20 years we'll have medical problems cropping up due to marjunia use. They thought that tobacco was safe and harmless back in the day.... I DO think that hard drugs need to be kept illegal..We should have mandatory treatment programs for addicts instead of jail yes.......but keep drugs illegal.
 
Eighty said:
I had this discussion few years ago,

It led to really interesting topic, selective breeding for better world. Laws are getting in way, saving stupid people's life which cause them to mix with the sane folks and offspring some of their attribution. That conservation was starting to sound like it was coming from Nazis, we had to stop.


Personally I believe that theres some recreational drugs that can be regulated just like alcohol and tobacco. However I wish for most drugs to stay illegal, and even harsher penalty for dealers that sells drugs in public places.

Myself, I am not marijuana user but few of my friends are. I think that the war with marijuana is ridiculous. I look at it just like war with tobacco, BIG waste of government's money.
Click to expand...

Yes, but, currently we are doing selective breeding for a worse world.

While intelligent, working people are saying, "Well, One kid, maybe two, is all we can handle and maybe we should wait a couple of years,"

Most of the druggers I see are street people popping them out like rabbits. If CPS takes one or two away it doesn't matter cuz we'll have a couple of more and keep the welfare checks coming. And why get married, we'd only get divorced. Who the baby daddy? I give you a list of all the guys I was with that month and you can run paternity tests on them -- At taxpayers expense.

When an intelligent drugger is caught holding down a job supporting the family they are persecuted worse than the street person.

Conclusion: Society discourages productive intelligent people from procreating and encourages unproductive unintelligent people to produce, produce, produce. Society will pay for it.
 
It strikes me as the pinnacle of absurdity in modern society that marijuana - a plant radically less harmful than alcohol - will land you in jail for simple possession while any adult can drink himself to death in literally one day.

If a bottle of aspirin and the equivalent weight of pot buds fell on the floor in reach of a baby, you better hope the baby reaches for the pot buds, because the aspirin could kill the baby but the pot simply will not.

You cannot overdose on pot.

Pot heads will get mad if you take their pot, but you never see POT HEADS ROB BANK, KILL 20 in the news.

There are many plants that can intoxicate you, harm you and even kill you that the law does not address. Marijuana is among the least harmful of such plants, yet the law addresses it like it's the bubonic plague.

Our society is completely bonkers. We should get a clue from Holland.
 
My response is that it is complicated. I don't think addiction is A disease, so much as a CLUSTER of illnesses. I see both anxiety and OCD in the drug addicts/alcoholics I've known. I am also a recovering codependent, and I have the anxiety.

I believe there is also not only a genetic component, but a environmental one as well. It runs in families. It may manifest in different ways, but it does run in families.

It does not help that our society's view (US) toward mental health/illness is screwed up to begin with.

Addiction is horrible, horrible, horrible! I put it up there with Alzheimer's and cancer as one of THE worst illnesses ever.

I have a very sad story I could tell from my own life, but I won't.

While I don't feel addictive behavior and the destructive behaviors and outcomes that come with it should be enabled, I DO feel that we could do a much better job with our addicts and alcoholics. Putting them in prison is a massive waste of money and lives.

As for legalizing, legalize pot and regulate it like alcohol. It is not addictive like alcohol is, but it DOES impair judgement. I used to be a stoner, but I stopped when I bought my first home, because I did not want to take a chance on LOSING my home. I also just have not had the opportunity in several years, but I don't miss it that much, either, much like I don't miss booze when I don't drink for a while.

This is a topic that is very close to my heart.

Jen M.
 
Jens_Cats said:
My response is that it is complicated. I don't think addiction is A disease, so much as a CLUSTER of illnesses. I see both anxiety and OCD in the drug addicts/alcoholics I've known. I am also a recovering codependent, and I have the anxiety.

I believe there is also not only a genetic component, but a environmental one as well. It runs in families. It may manifest in different ways, but it does run in families.

It does not help that our society's view (US) toward mental health/illness is screwed up to begin with.

Addiction is horrible, horrible, horrible! I put it up there with Alzheimer's and cancer as one of THE worst illnesses ever.

I have a very sad story I could tell from my own life, but I won't.

While I don't feel addictive behavior and the destructive behaviors and outcomes that come with it should be enabled, I DO feel that we could do a much better job with our addicts and alcoholics. Putting them in prison is a massive waste of money and lives.

As for legalizing, legalize pot and regulate it like alcohol. It is not addictive like alcohol is, but it DOES impair judgement. I used to be a stoner, but I stopped when I bought my first home, because I did not want to take a chance on LOSING my home. I also just have not had the opportunity in several years, but I don't miss it that much, either, much like I don't miss booze when I don't drink for a while.

This is a topic that is very close to my heart.

Jen M.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree -- But NOT because I think you are wrong about what you are talking about. You are talking about "addiction" in its most negative form: In its destructive form. You are also talking about addiction in its most powerful form: Where the "addict" loses control of their life.

Addiction is a part of life. I am addicted to coffee. It is a very mild addiction. If I don't have my coffee I don't like it, but I don't have the symptoms a smoker does when they do not have their cigarette.

I used to jog marathons. Was I addicted to running? Yes. I would call it a positive addiction. It benefitted my life tremendously. When I retire and I have the time I am sure I shall return to it.

One of my daughters is a recovering drug addict. We compared the symptoms she underwent during withdrawals with what I went through when my late wife died -- They were exactly the same.

Mark Twain was addicted to writing. Einstein was addicted to math.

I do not believe we can avoid addiction. I do believe we can choose our addictions. I do believe we can replace an unhealthy, destructive, addiction with healthy, constructive, addiction.
 
Yes. I was talking about it in the clinical/morbidity/mental health sense.

We all have things we like and like a lot and "have to have," but most of the time, those don't end up where drug addictions, sex addictions, etc. do.

I guess I think of them as "little a" addictions and "big a" addictions, for lack of a better way to put it.

Jen M.
 
Jens_Cats said:
Yes. I was talking about it in the clinical/morbidity/mental health sense.

We all have things we like and like a lot and "have to have," but most of the time, those don't end up where drug addictions, sex addictions, etc. do.

I guess I think of them as "little a" addictions and "big a" addictions, for lack of a better way to put it.

Jen M.
Click to expand...

I decided to never restrict my definition to this because it so easily allows someone in my position, who has never had "negative" or "destructive" addiction in their lives, who, for whatever reason, has never had a "socially unacceptable" addiction to feel superior to those who do have them.

I used to wonder why so many people felt so morally superior to others over this. Non smokers feel superior to smokers. Smokers feel superior to tokers. I would wonder how a man who chain smokes cigarettes can talk about "scum bag addicts" with such contempt.

Drug addicts, particularly recovering drug addicts, are not above such pretensions. They will tell me, "You've never been addicted. You can't have a clue what I have been through." This, they seem to feel, puts them in a special, elite club.

Yet when my recovering daughter (I have several daughters, another one terps, they are not the same person) describes her withdrawals it sounds exactly like what I went through when my first wife died.

So while those who have never suffered socially unacceptable, extremely negative addictions, cannot access everything a recovering drug addict has lived and done, there is an overlap, there is a basis for communication and understanding -- If two people are willing to work at it and find common ground.

But first they both have to recognize -- It is not whether you are addicted -- It is what you are addicted too and how strongly, and possibly how long. Look how many people have spent two or three years of their life bar hopping and then dropped out of it. Some people do not like the idea that "Going through a phase" can be thought of as "Going through a period of addiction."
 
I don't disagree with you. Well said.

That distinction I described is one I only make in my mind. My step dad is a recovering alcoholic, and I was in a relationship with an alcoholic for ten years. I'm also an ex-smoker.

I wish your daughter continued success with her recovery!

Jen M.
 
Back
Top