Conservatives should get weak on drugs

[William Gaatjes]

People often confuse physical, and physiological dependence with addiction.

Ah, potatoes, potatoes you think. The end result is the same, though. I really expected not any more (not evenless) since my first post yesterday as reply on this thread... None of you people has given me an argument that makes think : Hmmm, he or she actually has a point. Any of you can throw mud all you like. I am only enjoying it more. For it proves my point even stronger...

 

[Darwin333]

So you are saying that Drug addicts can stop and get back to a normal life.

Then why do they continue?

Are you implying that someone like yourself will start smoking crack simply because it is now legal to do so?

How about all those legal prescription drugs that are by design mind/mood altering that have horrendous withdrawals? They are practically prescribing them like candy these days (don't believe me, simply tell your doc you think your a bit depressed and would like something) for all sorts of reasons. I have chronic back pain and didn't want the heavy duty narcotic pain relievers (another "legal" drug that has the same affects as the illegal ones) so the doc wrote me a RX for Cymbalta. Luckily I did a bit of research on it before starting to take it, from what I have read the withdrawals from the opiates would have been better not to mention those itsy bitsy side effects like:

* Suicidal thoughts or behavior (see Cymbalta and Suicide)
* Anxiety, agitation, or panic attacks
* Hostility or aggressiveness
* Engaging in unusual or dangerous activities
* Restlessness or inability to sit still
* Extreme elation or feelings of happiness that may switch back and forth with a depressed or sad mood
* Other unusual changes in behavior
* Signs of serotonin syndrome (a rare but dangerous problem associated with certain medications) such as:

o Confusion or other mental changes
o A rapid heart rate
o Nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea
o Hallucinations
o Blood pressure changes
o An irregular heart rhythm
o Overactive reflexes
o Fever, sweating, or shivering
o Shakiness
o Agitation
o Seizures
o Coma

(btw, there are 3 total pages of side effects, the above is half of a single page)

But all that stuff is ok because we have a huge industry, and their associated lobbyists, that develop and make them. Anyone can get the above with very little difficulty to "enhance their mood" but if they wanted to smoke some pot or do some blow thats too dangerous and we need to protect them from themselves.

Then we have the small issue of the government creating an insanely lucrative black market that results in far more violence than the actual drug use itself. So how exactly have we benefited from the "war on drugs"? Well, drugs are cheaper, higher quality (especially drugs like heroin), more widely available, more violence involved in the drug trade, tons of non-violent productive tax paying citizens have been and are now locked up at the expense of taxpayers, insane amounts of money spent on enforcement of the laws, over crowded prisons to the point that violent criminals are let go early, $10's of billions spent every year and yet a relatively large portion of the population still uses illegal drugs in some form or fashion (by far mostly recreational use, the addicts and crackheads are the only ones you hear about)

So could you please explain to me what good has come from the so called "war on drugs" and what good we can expect in the future from continuing it?

 

[William Gaatjes]

It starts to get fuzzy what addiction even means. The best google result I can find would be this one:



The tricky part is deciding whether or not the withdrawal is caused by the drug doing some kind of damage to your body or if you're just going back to the way you were before you took that drug. Example:
-I am tired
-I drink coffee
-I feel very awake
-coffee wears off
-I feel very tired

Would you say the tiredness is a withdrawal symptom caused by the coffee, or would you say I'm just going back to the way I was before I had any caffeine? For a lot of drugs, the withdrawal is just a return to the way they were before. Depressed guy stops taking his meds and feels depressed. Cocaine guy feels tired and sad after the cocaine wears off. These I would say are not symptoms of addiction since they are both reflective of how that person was before. A real addiction would be something like alcohol where people can literally die from withdrawal. Another one is certain SSRI antidepressants which cause weird shocking pains in the neck when people stop taking them. You wouldn't say the person already had weird shocking pains before taking the medication, therefore the shocking pain is directly caused by a dependence on that drug.

There is a psychological dependence and there is a physical dependence .
It depends on the kind of drugs you take which of the 2 stated above is existent or dominant.

Strictly speaking, you are addicted when you have to use all the time. Why is that ? Because you think you need it all the time ? Why is that ? Because some part of your brain is constantly interrupting you that it wants to get high again. You start to think about it. Some people even have hallucinations about it. When you give in, you are lost...

Physical dependencies are usual more seen as withdrawal effects.
Nevertheless, it does not make it less worse then it is. Nor is it a reason to just say, hey, lets legalize the heavy forms of drugs.

 

[Darwin333]

Ignorant.. Look close at human history and try to think about you just have written. As long as it is possible humans in this world are born with a genetic disease that makes a lot of them vulnerable, you are wrong. As long as this world you live on is not a perfect heaven for humans because of humans, people will always try to run away from reality, you are wrong. You fail to see what happens when a few generations in a row use these kind of poisons. Epi-genetics...

They are already doing the drugs. The only difference is now some of them get caught, loose their jobs and often go to jail. When they are released they often have a very difficult time getting meaningful employment when they are released from jail.

Again, how are you helping or solving a problem? From where I sit all I can see is the WOD doing nothing but harming our society. I don't buy the argument that everyone will all of a sudden become crackheads if we make crack legal either. Will you be drawn to smoking crack or shooting up heroin simply because it is legal to do so?

 

[zsdersw]

Learn to use less dope, you will be able to think a little deeper.

I don't use "dope". You appear to do so, however.

 

[xj0hnx]

It starts to get fuzzy what addiction even means. The best google result I can find would be this one:



The tricky part is deciding whether or not the withdrawal is caused by the drug doing some kind of damage to your body or if you're just going back to the way you were before you took that drug. Example:
-I am tired
-I drink coffee
-I feel very awake
-coffee wears off
-I feel very tired

Would you say the tiredness is a withdrawal symptom caused by the coffee, or would you say I'm just going back to the way I was before I had any caffeine? For a lot of drugs, the withdrawal is just a return to the way they were before. Depressed guy stops taking his meds and feels depressed. Cocaine guy feels tired and sad after the cocaine wears off. These I would say are not symptoms of addiction since they are both reflective of how that person was before. A real addiction would be something like alcohol where people can literally die from withdrawal. Another one is certain SSRI antidepressants which cause weird shocking pains in the neck when people stop taking them. You wouldn't say the person already had weird shocking pains before taking the medication, therefore the shocking pain is directly caused by a dependence on that drug.

The key difference between them is that addiction "causes significant disruption and negatively impacts the quality of life of an organism".

Meaning you can be physically dependent on a drug, and not have it cause a problem, and not exhibit the symptoms of addiction. For instance people that take morphine for pain, they will become physically dependent on the drug, but not necessarily be an addict, or display psychological dependency. The problem is that they almost always go hand in hand.

In the short term your thinking is correct, we are simply returning to our previous state as the drugs wear off. Long term use of some drugs, such as opiates, develop physical changes in our bodies, such as the body not producing enough of it's own endorphins with long term use.

 

[xj0hnx]

Ah, potatoes, potatoes you think. The end result is the same, though. I really expected not any more (not evenless) since my first post yesterday as reply on this thread... None of you people has given me an argument that makes think : Hmmm, he or she actually has a point. Any of you can throw mud all you like. I am only enjoying it more. For it proves my point even stronger...

The only one that hasn't made any worthwhile debate here is you, and your clear lack of understanding in this field. The whole of your argument rest on denying the reality that is, and that somehow keeping them illegal, and continuing to treat it as a criminal matter are somehow going to make it better even though decades of documented history say it will not.

 

[ShawnD1]

In the short term your thinking is correct, we are simply returning to our previous state as the drugs wear off. Long term use of some drugs, such as opiates, develop physical changes in our bodies, such as the body not producing enough of it's own endorphins with long term use.

But this opens up a new can of worms. One could say sugar is addictive because it is tied to diabetes - the body can no longer produce enough insulin. That's quite similar to how taking too much meth for too long causes your body to not produce enough dopamine to function properly.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

There is a psychological dependence and there is a physical dependence .
It depends on the kind of drugs you take which of the 2 stated above is existent or dominant.

Strictly speaking, you are addicted when you have to use all the time. Why is that ? Because you think you need it all the time ? Why is that ? Because some part of your brain is constantly interrupting you that it wants to get high again. You start to think about it. Some people even have hallucinations about it. When you give in, you are lost...

Physical dependencies are usual more seen as withdrawal effects.
Nevertheless, it does not make it less worse then it is. Nor is it a reason to just say, hey, lets legalize the heavy forms of drugs.

No. You're a fucking dolt troll who doesn't even know the difference between psychological dependence and addiction. You may be smart but you are woefully uneducated on this subject directly and equally ill-informed on the history, psychology, sociology, and politics required to make a valid point about drug policy and its effects. You are as free as anyone to empty your sewer of a brain here, but it is as plain as day to many people that you simply buy into the views of those who have indoctrinated you in a very uninformed and fear-based way.

I keep replying to you because I find great humor every time you suggest anyone get an education. Perhaps someone will get an education however... in how to come across like an idiot.

Back to bong snorting this pile of coke.

 

[surfsatwerk]

But this opens up a new can of worms. One could say sugar is addictive because it is tied to diabetes - the body can no longer produce enough insulin. That's quite similar to how taking too much meth for too long causes your body to not produce enough dopamine to function properly.

For that matter the government needs to regulate sex. Sexual addiction is a crippling disease that destroys the lives of thousands everyday. SA meetings will be mandatory for all grade school children to prevent them from falling into a life of perversion and fornication.

 

[xj0hnx]

But this opens up a new can of worms. One could say sugar is addictive because it is tied to diabetes - the body can no longer produce enough insulin. That's quite similar to how taking too much meth for too long causes your body to not produce enough dopamine to function properly.

That's a symptom of use, not a symptom of behavior. Morphine causing the body to not produce it's own endorphins is not what makes it addictive, it's just a side effect.

 

[Mani]

Can it you partisan hack, democrats are just as in bed with big pharma, and the current debacle of a justice system as republicans.

Speaking of hacks, thanks for joining us. Democrats have their hands dirty but participation does not mean equivalence. Saying they are "just as in bed" with them is intellectually dishonest, but that's nothing unexpected from you. If you need evidence, just stack up democrat vs. republican records on topics like decriminalization and overwhelming health care reform that would have castrated drug companies.

 

[Mani]

Prisons benefit from the war on drugs but drug companies do not. Think of how much money a company like Pfizer or Merck could make if amphetamines like Adderall and Dexedrine did not require a prescription.

The current war on drugs is less about making prescription drugs OTC and more about criminalization of banned substances. Ending it would have a tremendous effect on drug companies because recreational drugs are their competition, and in many cases can be grown in anyone's back yard. The drug companies have been some of the largest donors to the Partnership for a Drug-free America for this reason.

 

[xj0hnx]

Speaking of hacks, thanks for joining us. Democrats have their hands dirty but participation does not mean equivalence. Saying they are "just as in bed" with them is intellectually dishonest, but that's nothing unexpected from you. If you need evidence, just stack up democrat vs. republican records on topics like decriminalization and overwhelming health care reform that would have castrated drug companies.

Back in your hole hack adults are talking here. The dialogue is going quite well enough without your partisan stupidity, save your foam flecked ranting for one of Spidey's threads.

 

[xj0hnx]

The current war on drugs is less about making prescription drugs OTC and more about criminalization of banned substances. Ending it would have a tremendous effect on drug companies because recreational drugs are their competition, and in many cases can be grown in anyone's back yard. The drug companies have been some of the largest donors to the Partnership for a Drug-free America for this reason.

Prescription drugs have a very high rate of diversion. And last I checked you can't grow MDMA, LSD, cocaine, heroin, meth, or ludes in your backyard.

 

[Mani]

Back in your hole hack adults are talking here. The dialogue is going quite well enough without your partisan stupidity, save your foam flecked ranting for one of Spidey's threads.

Funny to see someone claim they are an adult when they can't put two complete sentences together in an argument. Get back to me when you can actually come up with a repudiation of my points without resorting to "I'm rubber you're glue".

 

[SphinxnihpS]

But this opens up a new can of worms. One could say sugar is addictive because it is tied to diabetes - the body can no longer produce enough insulin. That's quite similar to how taking too much meth for too long causes your body to not produce enough dopamine to function properly.

Except for the tiny fact that eating too much sugar does not cause diabetes. Whoever told you that has something to sell you.

 

[Mani]

Prescription drugs have a very high rate of diversion. And last I checked you can't grow MDMA, LSD, cocaine, heroin, meth, or ludes in your backyard.

It's well known that the vast majority of recreational drug usage in this country is marijuana which can be readily grown - that is the battleground for the current war on drugs. Of course you knew this if you had half a brain cell (arguable I suppose), you just decided to point out the rest in a half-assed attempt poke a hole in what I'm saying.

 

[xj0hnx]

Funny to see someone claim they are an adult when they can't put two complete sentences together in an argument. Get back to me when you can actually come up with a repudiation of my points without resorting to "I'm rubber you're glue".

You have no point. Actually, your point is moot because the dems have as much stake, and backing from big pharma as the pubs, you are just too willfully ignorant to see it. Obama's back room deals, as well as millions in contributions say you are just another partisan hack, that would rather throw out red herrings than discuss the topic at hand. I know it's complicated but please, try to keep up with the thread.

 

[xj0hnx]

It's well known that the vast majority of recreational drug usage in this country is marijuana which can be readily grown - that is the battleground for the current war on drugs. Of course you knew this if you had half a brain cell (arguable I suppose), you just decided to point out the rest in a half-assed attempt poke a hole in what I'm saying.

Except we are not discussing weed, once again, try to keep up.

 

[Mani]

You have no point. Actually, your point is moot because the dems have as much stake, and backing from big pharma as the pubs, you are just too willfully ignorant to see it. Obama's back room deals, as well as millions in contributions say you are just another partisan hack, that would rather throw out red herrings than discuss the topic at hand. I know it's complicated but please, try to keep up with the thread.

Once again, do you have anything besides throwing around the term partisan hack? It's really pretty amusing to see someone try to use that term when it so clearly applies to them. But of course by using it you get to feel like you are somehow above the fray despite consistently taking the republican side and attacking democrats. It's like Glenn Beck stating that he's an "independent".

 

[Mani]

Except we are not discussing weed, once again, try to keep up.

I was initially responding to the OP, not you. Try to keep up.

 

[xj0hnx]

Once again, do you have anything besides throwing around the term partisan hack? It's really pretty amusing to see someone try to use that term when it so clearly applies to them. But of course by using it you get to feel like you are somehow above the fray despite consistently taking the republican side and attacking democrats. It's like Glenn Beck stating that he's an "independent".

You are similar to that semi-retarded kid at a party that just blurts out unrelated shit while people are talking. Once again, do you have anything that has to actually do with the topic at hand, or do you just scan threads looking for the word republican so you can puke you partisan bullshit all over it?

 

[Mani]

You are similar to that semi-retarded kid at a party that just blurts out unrelated shit while people are talking. Once again, do you have anything that has to actually do with the topic at hand, or do you just scan threads looking for the word republican so you can puke you partisan bullshit all over it?

Try looking back at who started the namecalling and took this in this direction. Seriously, do you have any self-awareness whatsoever?

 

[BoberFett]

Says the future junkie.

You're just jealous that your mental issues are genetic and not drug induced.