Originally Posted by jillio

As the laws are, people are not prosecuted for being addicts. They are prosecuted for the possession and use of illegal drugs. Plenty of addicts out there that are using legal drugs prescribed by their doctors. They aren't arrested for drug possession and use.

Originally Posted by Banjo

Rush Limbaugh.

Originally Posted by jillio

As the laws are, people are not prosecuted for being addicts. They are prosecuted for the possession and use of illegal drugs. Plenty of addicts out there that are using legal drugs prescribed by their doctors. They aren't arrested for drug possession and use.

Originally Posted by Banjo

Rush Limbaugh.

Originally Posted by Babyblue

The chick you are responding to is a spammer. Simple answer and links under her post. It is her first post. It all adds up to a spammer. Oh, and I reported it.

Originally Posted by jillio

Good example. And he had several doctors prescribing his stuff.

Originally Posted by jillio

Thanks. Didn't notice!

Originally Posted by Banjo

... and to think that people defended him. Good grief.

Originally Posted by jillio

Well, don't you know that poor Rush was just a victim, and that guy down the street using herion is just a dirty, nasty junkie that wants to be a dirty,nasty junkie?

Originally Posted by Babyblue

Only if he would have gotten caught today.. with the new laws.....He would have not been able to get them legally.

Originally Posted by jillio

Yep. Word has it that he not only doctor shopped, he bought on the street, too.

Originally Posted by Babyblue

Only if he would have gotten caught today.. with the new laws.....He would have not been able to get them legally.

Originally Posted by Banjo

Don't worry, he'll get himself into trouble with the law again someday.

Originally Posted by jillio

Good example. And he had several doctors prescribing his stuff.

Originally Posted by Doug5

and what exactly was the problem with him taking all the drugs? No one knew until he got busted.

Dont say because it is against the law. It used to be against the law for Rosa Parks to sit in the front of the bus.

I know youre gonna say drug laws have nothing to do with intitutionalized racism, but ironically the drug laws seem to affect/hurt the minorities disproportionatly more compared to whites

Originally Posted by jillio

He lied and scammed and manipulated to get them, he committed illegal acts to obtain them and was in possession of amounts that were illegal, he suffered medical consequences by abusing and using in amounts that were far, far greater than recommended doses, and he behaved in erratic ways that were harmful for others.

I am greatly offended that you would compare a brave historical figure like Rosa Parks to Rush Limbaugh, or for that fact, even mention their names in the same post. How insulting to Rosa Parks.

Your comparison of a woman standing up for her rights not to be treated as a second class citizen just because of the color of her skin has virtually nothing to do with the topic of this thread. How dare you even thing of minimizing the fight to obtain Civil Rights for an entire population of deserving citizens with someone like Rush Limbaugh.

Yes, the drug does hurt the minorities disproportionately. It seems that Rosa Parks and the people who admire her still have things to accomplish in the social inequities based on race in this country.

I am beginning to wonder if you are as drug free as you claim to be. Your thinking is terribly muddled for someone who claims to have stopped using opiates.

Originally Posted by Audiofuzzy

I don't believe that.
While cocaine and meth are perhaps not physically addictive the way heroin is, you most certainly still can get physical withdrawal symptoms from them.
Just because is rarer (cocaine) it doesn't mean it never happen.
But withdrawing from cocaine one can have sniffles, nosebleeds, insomnia, muscle twitches.

More common it's with meth where physical symptoms can be:
nausea, tremors, sweating.
Methamphetamine Effects - The Short-Term and Long-Term Effects of Methamphetamine

Most certainly can do that marijuana. I have seen person withdrawing from it
so I can say what was happening- the shakes, the cold sweats.
It was there. Plain in sight.

Fuzzy

Originally Posted by Audiofuzzy

may I point out physical evidence changes, sometimes quite fast?
Today it says one thing tomorrow the other.
yesterday we were being cured with lead, today we are being told it's toxic.
I would warn against blindly bowing to everything what "scientific evidence" says.

I wouldn't be surprised if in a few weeks, few months, few years from today
a JAMA or other medical journal published that other drugs can, and do in fact,
cause physical dependence, too and physical withdrawal.

I think we have plenty of proof how the medical profession recanted their stance on things in the past up to date.


Doesn't change the facts regarding which substances are physically addicting and which aren't.

JAMA may discover that a new medication on the market has the potential for the user to develop tolerance, and thus physical dependence from extended use, but as for cocaine and meth. Those studies have already been done. They have found many negative effects. True physiological dependance is not one of them.

I know what I saw.
I saw a person who is a chronic marijuana user going thru w withdrawal which manifested by hands shaking, slight body tremors,
sweating profusely while feeling cold at the same time.
All the symptoms disappeared as soon as he got his hit.

What more proof do you need?


Fuzzy

Originally Posted by Audiofuzzy

And .... ??

Since when this mean the end of the subject?
Studies were done, and then re-done.
And often after re-doing, previous statements were recanted.

For example, ever heard of H.Pylori and its correlation to stomach ulcers?

First it was said it has nothing to do with stomach ulcers,
now that it has everything to do with it.

Studies done, redone, done, redone...

And I am not so clueless when it comes to narcotics as you think.

Also, if it walk like a duck, quack like a duck, looks like a duck...
what it possibly could be???



Fuzzy

Originally Posted by Audiofuzzy

And .... ??

Since when this mean the end of the subject?
Studies were done, and then re-done.
And often after re-doing, previous statements were recanted.

For example, ever heard of H.Pylori and its correlation to stomach ulcers?

First it was said it has nothing to do with stomach ulcers,
now that it has everything to do with it.

Studies done, redone, done, redone...

And I am not so clueless when it comes to narcotics as you think.

Also, if it walk like a duck, quack like a duck, looks like a duck...
what it possibly could be???



Fuzzy

Originally Posted by Audiofuzzy

Yes, of course, that's the whole point of my point.

This fact about H. Pylori was known for at least half a century, but only recently it was accepted that the actual cause of ulcers are most commonly these bacterial infection and only then started to treat ulcers with antibiotic.

I am giving you this as an example how science changes even with having some fact long at hands.

More over, in the mid 90-ties when I told my dr I noticed stopped having stomach pain after being treated with prolonged course of tetracycline for
stubborn throat infection, she laughed at me saying one had nothing to do!
what do you know, a two or so years later they trumpeted in the news
about H.Pylori - ulcers connection being more important than it was previously thought




You seem to be knowing about them way more than I do....

Fuzzy

Originally Posted by Audiofuzzy

lololol

of course it does. I merely pointed out that today's stance on only heroine and opiates and not other drugs giving physical dependence is only today's stance in medicine.

and by using H.Pylori and its connection to ulcer comparison,
I gave you an example how these
"set in stone" authoritative scientific statements of today may change at a drop of hat tomorrow.




of course not,
I am surprised you can not tell when I am giving you merely an example for comparison while still discussing the subject of drugs, addiction, and withdrawal symptoms

Fuzzy

Originally Posted by jillio

Do you know how long cocaine and speed have been around, Fuzzy? If there was going to be evidence of the criteria needed to classify them as a physically addictive substance, we would have seen that evidence long before now!

Originally Posted by jillio

And again, you are not looking at this situation logically. Legalizing drugs does not remove the illegal behavior associated with drug use.