^

ps npr did a short thing today on drug hype in the media and the misinformation they spew and how it prevents people from getting the real facts. kinda interesting

[Edited on October 16, 2005 at 4:55 PM. Reason : .]

10/16/2005 4:53:18 PM

With no drug is the hype more evident than with LSD.

Certain number of tabs = T3h certain insanity!

10/16/2005 5:14:42 PM

hahha yeah

"lsd causes genetic disfunction!"

10/16/2005 8:36:17 PM

My concern with LSD is that it's a mistake you simply can't move away from. Someone who used to do it a lot might wise up and quit (without much problem, since it's not addictive), and still have flashbacks years later. The risk of those causing really serious harm might be low, but it's still there and it's still something you can't prevent.

Strictly speaking I suppose you can call any condition wherein you see things that aren't there "insanity."

10/16/2005 9:46:49 PM

Quote :

"So what long term trauma are you talking about?"

The kind that gives an adult hellish nightmares for weeks. I dont want to think about what a bad OD trip can do to a preteen's psyche. Do the words "loss of self" mean anything to you?

[Edited on October 16, 2005 at 10:20 PM. Reason : pff]

10/16/2005 10:13:16 PM

Quote :

"Someone who used to do it a lot might wise up and quit (without much problem, since it's not addictive), and still have flashbacks years later."

a.) the instances of flashbacks are significantly low. Not using this as evidence of that, but I've never had one, and I've never met anyone who's had one. Also, most bad trips AND "hellish nightmares that last for weeks" only occur when an already disturbed person takes psychoactives. People with strong psyches can generally survive hallucinogens their whole lives with no problems.

b.) If you don't want people to be involved with something that causes flashbacks, best to not support wars. Just sayin'.

[Edited on October 16, 2005 at 11:30 PM. Reason : .]

10/16/2005 11:29:56 PM

^^^

Quote :

"In the present review, an integrated approach to craving and addiction is discussed, which is based on recent insights from psychology and neuropsychopharmacology. An integrated model explains craving and relapse in humans by the psychological mechanism of "attentional bias" and provides neuropsychopharmacological mechanisms for this bias. According to this model, cognitive processes mediate between drug stimulus and the subject's response to this stimulus and subsequent behavioral response (e.g., drug use, relapse). According to the model, a conditioned drug stimulus produces an increase in dopamine levels in the corticostriatal circuit, in particular the anterior cingulate gyrus, amygdala, and nucleus accumbens, which in turn serves to draw the subject's attention towards a perceived drug stimulus. This process results in motor preparation and a hyperattentive state towards drug-related stimuli that, ultimately, promotes further craving and relapse. Evidence for this attentional bias hypothesis is reviewed from both the psychopharmacological and the neuroanatomical viewpoints. The attentional bias hypothesis raises several suggestions for clinical approaches and further research."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12787841&dopt=Abstract

Quote :

"The medical community now carefully distinguishes between physical dependence (characterized by symptoms of withdrawal) and psychological addiction (or simply addiction). Addiction is now narrowly defined as "uncontrolled, compulsive use despite harm"; if there is no harm to the patient or another party, there is no addiction. The obsolete term physical addiction is deprecated because of its pejorative connotations, especially in modern pain management with opioids where physical dependence is nearly universal but addiction is rare."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction

speaking of scarce brain power, yours might be spent better debating something you have a fucking clue about

P.S. Attempting to seperate marijuana from the discussion of general prohibition is effectively admitting defeat in this debate. Drugs are drugs, their legality has been a function of SOLELY socioeconomic factors. There is no consistent moral, neuropharmacological, or psychological standard for current legislation. If you attempt to establish arbitrary standards of this sort, you'll find many of your most demonized substances fail to objectively meet the criteria for prohibition... and then where will you be?

[Edited on October 17, 2005 at 4:31 AM. Reason : *]

10/17/2005 4:25:42 AM

That last bit is actually a fascinating topic. I recall reading that the reason the two types of addiction were separated was cocaine--it was the first time it was discovered that a drug could cause psychological addiction with no evidence of physical addiction.

10/17/2005 5:14:26 AM

perhaps im confused, but i thought a lot of people did become addicted to painkillers and whatnot after major operations. i know its anecdotal, but ive seen quite a few people have an unhealthy and unusual affinity for vicodin and the like.

beyond that though, despite the medical community having drawn the destinction between the two because of certian cases (coke or medical opiods), that does NOT mean that addiction and dependence cannot go hand in hand for many illegal substances and have very negative consequences. so what was the point in arguing semantics there? just because there is a medical distinction doesnt mean everyone can just buck up and handle rehab.

i also still dont see the point or evidence for:

Quote :

"Few happy, healthy people will succumb to addiction, even when exposed to addictive patterns of use through the course of medical treatment. So, the whole "there is no choice" angle is complete and total bullshit. There is no choice for certain individuals that have the prerequisite disenfranchisement from society, true, but there is nothing you can do for these individuals by prohibiting the substance. Their life is pretty fucking shitty for them to feel they have nothing to do but dull their memory and blur the passage of time."

we're making a lot of assumptions about a large group of people.

[Edited on October 17, 2005 at 12:04 PM. Reason : .]

10/17/2005 12:03:48 PM

Since you apparently can't even click a link to read up before getting back to your foregone conclusion, I'll cite from the American Pain Society link that Wikipedia cited.

Quote :

"Most specialists in pain medicine and addiction agree that patients treated with prolonged opioid therapy usually do develop physical dependance and sometimes tolerance, but do not usually develop addictive disorders."

Is it getting any clearer now? Physical dependance and psychological addiction are seperate phenomena. There is little interaction between the two. This isn't you or me talking out of our asses, this is a society of pain specialists talking about something they know and live. The first cited source explains addiction as, essentially, positive reinforcement. That's the National Institute of Health there. When you can cite something other than your own misunderstanding, feel to share.

[Edited on October 17, 2005 at 1:03 PM. Reason : *]

10/17/2005 12:55:01 PM

Quote :

"a.) the instances of flashbacks are significantly low. Not using this as evidence of that, but I've never had one, and I've never met anyone who's had one. Also, most bad trips AND "hellish nightmares that last for weeks" only occur when an already disturbed person takes psychoactives. People with strong psyches can generally survive hallucinogens their whole lives with no problems."

And what the fuck are we supposed to do with this? Legalize LSD, but only sell it to people with "strong psyches?" Or do we sell it to everyone, and then just shrug when this hard-to-define "weak-psyched" crowd flips out in public, or while operating a car, or whatever else?

Quote :

"Attempting to seperate marijuana from the discussion of general prohibition is effectively admitting defeat in this debate."

How so? Marijuana is clearly one of if not THE most benign drug out there, with several major factors separating it from "hard" drugs, which have quit obviously been at the center of ou dicussion. By your logic, if I separate nicotine or alcohol from the discussion I'm admitting defeat.

10/17/2005 2:38:17 PM

Omitting alcohol from a discussion of prohibition would not be simply admitting defeat, it would be admitting stupidity complicated with a lack of historical perspective.

10/17/2005 4:06:28 PM

sorry i didnt want to read the whole thing. so what you're telling me is that because medical opioids dont necessarily have addictive behaviors linked to their physical dependence that the two cannot be related. something as simple as: "i am deathly afraid of the withdrawl symptoms so i want to continue to do the drug to avoid those problems and i need to do more to still reap the positive benefits." i think being reliant on a drug to feel normal/grounded would make you pretty fucked up in the head over time.

but even if you are correct concerning all drugs, what is your take on something like cocaine. according to the study with the chart it is the most reinforced/addictive drug without having much physical dependence. your original point still has yet to be readdressed. are regular people not susceptible to the heavy positive reinforcement that cocaine provides? would legalizing it do anything besides free the prisons up from a bunch of cokeheads and making a drug that is heavily reinforced and tolerable cheaper? how is putting people in jail more cruel than letting them OD or scrounge for drugs the rest of their lives? i dont see the good that legalization provides.

10/17/2005 5:20:29 PM

i had addiction to pain medication even with that narrow definition of addiction

10/17/2005 6:28:09 PM

They choose to scrounge for drugs, and choose to take enough to OD if that happens (I can think of RARE instances where that might not be the case).

10/17/2005 7:13:40 PM

Quote :

"how is putting people in jail more cruel than letting them OD or scrounge for drugs the rest of their lives?"

There are a lot of people that function in society with addictions. Putting someone in prison can in some cases ruin their chance of career and a normal life.

There really aren't that many ODs juxtaposed with number users.

10/17/2005 7:31:53 PM

Quote :

"They choose to scrounge for drugs, and choose to take enough to OD if that happens (I can think of RARE instances where that might not be the case). "

These situatons are also a lot less likely to happen with drugs if they were legalized since people would know what they are taking and how much.

[Edited on October 17, 2005 at 8:35 PM. Reason : ]

10/17/2005 8:35:06 PM

fine, if you wanna look at it that way, but until free usage affects me in no way im not a fan of adding any more intoxicating substances to our plate. it seems to me the results could be a lot worse than they are now as opposed to being overly better (but maybe thats just because im not some druggy).

Quote :

"There are a lot of people that function in society with addictions. Putting someone in prison can in some cases ruin their chance of career and a normal life."

agreed, many people can, but there are plenty of others who fail to function at all and even more that may function but not productively. you could argue that prison might be the kick in the ass some ppl need. without a ton of info either way though it is hard to say.

Quote :

"These situatons are also a lot less likely to happen with drugs if they were legalized since people would know what they are taking and how much."

much like the above i dont think we can conclusively state that. i could just as easily say that having a heavily reinforced drug readily available might make some peoples drug habits worse or cause more people to try them out and become addicted (not all but obviously increase usage leads to increase addiction). if they're willing to steal and commit other crimes just to get money for drugs, what makes us think they'll decrease use or be more safe about its usage?

10/17/2005 10:22:30 PM

Quote :

"but there are plenty of others who fail to function at all and even more that may function but not productively."

That's the whole chicken vs egg argument. I'd reason that the person was the problem first and not the drug.

10/17/2005 10:50:04 PM

^^my point was that drugs themselves will be undeniably safer and reduce the chance of OD and definately accidental OD. (I should have cut the part about about scrounging out of my quote), we can see this in the case of alchohol prohibiton.

Illegal moonshine during prohibition used to have the potential to do everything from blind to paralyze people. With it legal not many people care to drink the moonshine that has the potential to do this.
....
As for the rest, you and Grumpy appear to be arguing that the govt should employ billions of dollars and a fuckload of manpower to protect a tiny fragment of the population.

Here is who you are trying to protect, basically: People who are anti-social, have addictive and wreckless personalites but for whom the current illegality stops them from using drugs now and forces them into productive lives.

How many people you reckon that is?


[Edited on October 17, 2005 at 10:51 PM. Reason : ]

10/17/2005 10:50:20 PM

the "addictive and wreckless personality" was the part i was originally complaining about. i think more people may be compelled to try drugs that they may become addicted to. even if i was curious i wouldnt randomly seek out heroin.

i never said people had to be productive either, i was just arguing that point because it seemed you were inferring that addiction didnt have much affect on many people's performance within society.


the intoxication is my number 1 concern personally, as i've said before. im also for cutting the drug war a bit. i agree with lessened penalties for users (dealers can still get raped in prison for all i care) and instead bump up penalties on drunk drivers...especially dui's resulting in accidents or deaths. the rest of my points im arguing simply because i dont agree with the logic or ideas behind the theory of "let ppl do what they want with their bodies."

10/17/2005 11:00:32 PM

Quote :

" i think more people may be compelled to try drugs that they may become addicted to."

More people might try drugs, sure. But what makes you think that it would cause the number of addicts to increase by a significant enough number that it requires their complete ban?

Even now plenty of people try drugs but of those only a very small number will become long time addicts. This is true for even the hardest of drugs. Addiction isnt random, as Incognero has pointed out again and again most addicts will fit a certain psychological profile. People with this type of profile would also be unlikely to have been stopped by drug prohibition.

The bottom line is that I dont think you can show that enough people would have the potential to become unproductive junkies to warrant the money wasted, and lives destroyed by any type of ban on drugs.

Quote :

"the intoxication is my number 1 concern personally"

Then alcohol is the drug you want to ban.

Quote :

"dealers can still get raped in prison for all i care"

I hate this kind of shit. People dont just decide to become dealers for the hell of it at the age of 21 for the most part.

For people who are poor and uneducated, the black market for drugs provides them with more benefits than their next best alternatives and this is why they choose to do it.

Most of the time they decide to do this at a very young age and as a result of the money they gain from it, they dont develop the skills needed for normal jobs.

And by forcing them into prison, you make damn sure they will never even get a chance to lead a productive life.

10/17/2005 11:22:30 PM

hey but thats what they choose to do, lets just think of the children!!!!

i understand most of your points, but it just seems a bit hypocritical to say...naw these addicts all fit a certain profile and people in the same situation can avoid it, but anyone who is poor and decides to sell drugs was just a victim of circumstance and cant work out of it. i understand the difficulties in "getting out" of some drug rings or whatnot, but just as we have rehabs and detox clinics we have programs that help people learn skills (or they could just fund some college with their hefty drug salary).

10/18/2005 10:25:05 AM

Quote :

"For people who are poor and uneducated, the black market for drugs provides them with more benefits than their next best alternatives and this is why they choose to do it."

The can become prostitutes too, doesn't mean doing so is no longer immoral or criminal.

10/18/2005 12:59:12 PM