Are Drug Users Persecuted? - Page 7

Audiofuzzy · 11-06-2011, 06:03 PM

Quote:

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.

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

FireTiger · 11-06-2011, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Audiofuzzy

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

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...

Doug5 · 11-07-2011, 01:11 AM

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 **** 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.

Doug5 · 11-07-2011, 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Who is talking about prohibition? I'm talking about a harm reduction model.

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.

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

Are you capable of any rational thought?

jillio · 11-07-2011, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Audiofuzzy

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

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

You seem to be confusing new discovery with confirmation of something that is already known.

jillio · 11-07-2011, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug5

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

Are you capable of any rational thought?

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.

jillio · 11-07-2011, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug5

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 **** 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.

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.

jillio · 11-07-2011, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FireTiger

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...

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.

Babyblue · 11-07-2011, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug5

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 **** 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.

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!

**Beowulf** · 11-07-2011, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babyblue

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!

Truth!

FireTiger · 11-07-2011, 10:14 AM

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug5

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.

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...

**Beowulf** · 11-07-2011, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FireTiger

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...

Babyblue · 11-07-2011, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Audiofuzzy

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

snopes.com: Cocaine in Coca-Cola

Oh did you know that 7-up used to contained Lithium?

**deafskeptic** · 11-07-2011, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babyblue

snopes.com: Cocaine in Coca-Cola

Oh did you know that 7-up used to contained Lithium?

I hadn't known that.

jillio · 11-07-2011, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babyblue

snopes.com: Cocaine in Coca-Cola

Oh did you know that 7-up used to contained Lithium?

Yes, but keep in mind that lithium is also a substance that naturally occurs in our physiology. Cocaine isn't.

**deafskeptic** · 11-07-2011, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Yes, but keep in mind that lithium is also a substance that naturally occurs in our physiology. Cocaine isn't.

Point taken.

FireTiger · 11-07-2011, 03:28 PM

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...)

**sallylou** · 11-07-2011, 06:17 PM

Quote:

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...

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.

FireTiger · 11-07-2011, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sallylou

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.

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 )

Audiofuzzy · 11-07-2011, 10:05 PM

Quote:

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.

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?

Quote:

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

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".

Something to educate yourself better with, Jillio:

Quote:

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.

Migraines: Myth Vs. Reality

Fuzzy

Doug5 · 11-08-2011, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

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.

If opiates were legal, he wouldnt have to doctor shop or by them off the street. Buying injesting opiates is no more of a crime than buying alcohol and drinking it

Doug5 · 11-08-2011, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babyblue

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!

no one could ever tell I was taking them. I took testing for job interests. Interviewer said I was friendly and pleasant. The results were similar identical to test I took years ago.

Again, youre comparing alcohol to opiates. They are 2 very different things. If you want to compare alcohol to a prescription drug, xanax, valium, or ativan would be a better match

FireTiger · 11-08-2011, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Audiofuzzy

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?

(SNIP)

Fuzzy

I specifically said I understand science progresses... (said so in the post you snipped) what isn't clear is why you choose those 'examples' it would have been far easier to take a drug that is now pulled off the market for side-effects or causing dependency... or harming fetus... or -whatever-.

The topic would have still been 'drugs' and we could talk about the FDA's 'fast track' program that kills people...

I have seen (experienced) caffeine withdraw, I used -that- as an example as it is a legal substance... for all ages and in almost any dose...

I have seen (experienced) caffeine OD, it's not fun either.

In case it matters I have what are called "Migraines" also, but along with my "Asthma" mine have specific triggers that I avoid like the plague.

(the 'asthma' is any solid particle inhalant, specific visual stimulus for the 'migraines' also some foods)

[in quotes as the doctors say its not really 'X' unless 'Y' is true, so I have no treatment beside OTC for this...not even the rescue inhaler- it's a lot of fun

]

Again, they recently thought all morbidly obese people overeat... this isn't true either...

But the examples seemed poorly chosen, a stretch if you will as you could have used Copernicus and his study of the planets and their motion, or Newton, or any broad and understood topic that 'science changes'.

You chose to use examples that are personal to you and that's why the defensiveness now- (IMHO)

FireTiger · 11-08-2011, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug5

If opiates were legal, he wouldnt have to doctor shop or by them off the street. Buying injesting opiates is no more of a crime than buying alcohol and drinking it

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug5

no one could ever tell I was taking them. I took testing for job interests. Interviewer said I was friendly and pleasant. The results were similar identical to test I took years ago.

Again, you're comparing alcohol to opiates. They are 2 very different things. If you want to compare alcohol to a prescription drug, xanax, valium, or ativan would be a better match

I might be a great thief, and nobody can tell- it's still illegal...

I might be great at (any illegal activity that does not cause direct harm to another person) and it's STILL illegal.

I might choose to drive at 5 MPH over the speed limit, and otherwise follow all traffic laws... it's still breaking the law...

People that disagree with laws should get organized and change the laws, not just break them willy-nilly.

Audiofuzzy · 11-08-2011, 06:04 PM

Quote:

you could have used Copernicus and his study of the planets and their motion, or Newton, or any broad and understood topic that 'science changes'.

Exactly! and I just chose a different example, so what's the problem?
Because my point was not about drugs - my point was about science and how any thesis that seem to be presently very solid "oh, but cocaine and other narcotics addiction was studied for years!" - might be easily turned on it's head after more research
- tomorrow.

My point was there is no such thing as "sure thing" in science,

and just because general opinion TODAY says there is no physical withdrawal from drugs such as meth, marijuana, cocaine, does not necessarily mean it is 100% true.

Further discoveries into human brain and drug addictions may say something exactly opposite down the road years from now.

And how the science is so sure on one thing only to discover
it wasn't so -was my point,
not the drugs itself, and thus above examples are perfect for comparison - sorry you guys missed such a simple thing.

when you say:

Quote:

But the examples seemed poorly chosen, a stretch if you will as you could have used .. .......

You are attacking me, not my arguments

Exactly why YOUR Copernicus comparison happens to be better that my comparison of ulcers and H.Pylori?

My point was about how science says one thing for years, then turns about and says completely the other - here and here exactly the same thing transpired.

Quote:

Again, they recently thought all morbidly obese people overeat... this isn't true either...

No, there is a number of factors where morbid obesity is caused by medical conditions, genetic for example, this is true.
Keep in mind, thought, the percentage of those are very, very low comparing to those who are obese due to bad diet and general lifestyle - I've seen numbers as low as 3% obese due to medical reasons vs 97% due to overeating in various article stated.

So yes, mainly eating too much, eating wrong kinds of food and not moving enough is still the main reason for morbid obesity.

Have you ever seen any episodes of Brookhaven Obesity Clinic?
Ruby Gettinger at Brookhaven Obesity Clinic - Video - Oprah.com

Now, before I say anything, I want to say I feel for these people.
After watching a few episode, I understand eating is an addiction, too.
Very serious.

So, my point here is not about criticizing these people, no.
My point is about precisely why these people are obese- because they eat too much.

They are in the clinic fighting for their life,
thousands and thousand of money are being spent on professionals working
on their diets, physical therapy, psychotherapy on a daily basis
to help them lose weight.
yest some of them demand from their families to sneak up chocolate bars, fried greasy foods, humongous containers of sugary soft drinks.

Medical reasons?? no, EXCESSIVE CALORIES.

Fuzzy

jillio · 11-08-2011, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Audiofuzzy

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?

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".

Something to educate yourself better with, Jillio:

Migraines: Myth Vs. Reality

Fuzzy

No one missed your point. We are simply telling you it is not applicable.

jillio · 11-08-2011, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug5

If opiates were legal, he wouldnt have to doctor shop or by them off the street. Buying injesting opiates is no more of a crime than buying alcohol and drinking it

The opiates prescribed to him are legal. He wasn't satisfied with a medically therapeutic dose. He wanted more. He obtained them illegally. He stepped outside the bounds of the law. Oh, well.

FireTiger · 11-08-2011, 06:31 PM

@ Fuzzy

I do not want anyone to feel personally attacked so sorry- that that did sound like a personal attack, I should reread with 'fresh' eyes sometimes-

I have watched people, eating 1/3 the calories I consume still be unable to lose weight, still exercising as much as possible like water exercises 1hr a day alternating cardio and strength -(limited due to being crippled by genetic flaw of the hip structure).

I'm of the opinion (see any homosexual topic) that is ONE is innocent then the rest cannot be condemned with clean hands- so if .001% were due to medical reasons instead of caloric intake that would be enough for me to say, "not all morbidly obese people overeat,"

I -still- get science might change its mind tomorrow regarding what is and isn't physically or psychologically addicting.

Not sure how that changes the fact that some teen or adult (usually) willingly (usually) proceeded to take one or more doses (often) of an illegal substance -before they were hooked.

They were being criminals before they were hooked, now they are hooked criminals... too bad I guess.

**sallylou** · 11-08-2011, 06:44 PM

I hope that genetic research leads to a medication that can help addicts. Determining the molecular pathway involved in a disorder has already led to new drugs.

FireTiger · 11-08-2011, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sallylou

I hope that genetic research leads to a medication that can help addicts. Determining the molecular pathway involved in a disorder has already led to new drugs.

That would be awesome...

"You have been convicted of possession and using (drug)... take this pill and go home"

11-08-2011, 06:44 PM	#209 (permalink)
sallylou Potterhead and Janeite Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: My own private Idaho Posts: 6,653	I hope that genetic research leads to a medication that can help addicts. Determining the molecular pathway involved in a disorder has already led to new drugs. jillio and FireTiger like this. __________________

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

11-07-2011, 01:11 AM	#183 (permalink)
Doug5 Registered User Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 865	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 **** 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.

11-07-2011, 03:28 PM	#197 (permalink)
FireTiger Registered User Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Arl, Jax, NE-FL, SE-USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy, Local Group, Universe A, Mutiverse 1 Posts: 518	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...)

11-08-2011, 06:31 PM	#208 (permalink)
FireTiger Registered User Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Arl, Jax, NE-FL, SE-USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy, Local Group, Universe A, Mutiverse 1 Posts: 518	@ Fuzzy I do not want anyone to feel personally attacked so sorry- that that did sound like a personal attack, I should reread with 'fresh' eyes sometimes- I have watched people, eating 1/3 the calories I consume still be unable to lose weight, still exercising as much as possible like water exercises 1hr a day alternating cardio and strength -(limited due to being crippled by genetic flaw of the hip structure). I'm of the opinion (see any homosexual topic) that is ONE is innocent then the rest cannot be condemned with clean hands- so if .001% were due to medical reasons instead of caloric intake that would be enough for me to say, "not all morbidly obese people overeat," I -still- get science might change its mind tomorrow regarding what is and isn't physically or psychologically addicting. Not sure how that changes the fact that some teen or adult (usually) willingly (usually) proceeded to take one or more doses (often) of an illegal substance -before they were hooked. They were being criminals before they were hooked, now they are hooked criminals... too bad I guess.