On 'drugs'
I've been there and still struggle with being a stim addict, which started out in my case as treating ADHD and then just progressed into a spiral of trying what's 'best'. For the matter, what corporate America has done to children who can't focus in the classroom, through the pharmaceutical industry and the pill pushers who are psychiatrists, should be seen in the future as a first-rate crime against humanity.
Anyway, not to feel melancholy over something so insidious and destructive, I was wondering why do some people resort to drugs to fill their time? We live in a drug culture, that's, I think, intuitively obvious. Coke and Pepsi are filled with sugar and phenylalanine to elicit a similar response to what a brain on coke looks like. Sugar by itself is highly rewarding to the brain. In some studies, water laced with high levels of sugar was more rewarding to mice or rats than water laced with cocaine. Even caffeine or alcohol classify as drugs to some extent, although not as addictive as the more sinister of the bunch.
So, what's the deal with drugs? After a while, the brain just adapts to these chemicals and they no longer have the same physiological response, yet people still take them.
Is it that people who take them are;
A) Bored with their own lives or want to escape from their mundane lives,
B) On a more general level, people are hedonists,
C) It's in some sense a 'cool' thing to do,
D) A form of self-medication that eventually leads to drug dependency and addiction?
E) Is it just a matter of low self-esteem?
F) We're experiencing a new era of a type of 'Brave New World', where everyone wants to (read 'feels a neurotic need to') function on a higher level and be on 'Soma'.
Anyway, not to feel melancholy over something so insidious and destructive, I was wondering why do some people resort to drugs to fill their time? We live in a drug culture, that's, I think, intuitively obvious. Coke and Pepsi are filled with sugar and phenylalanine to elicit a similar response to what a brain on coke looks like. Sugar by itself is highly rewarding to the brain. In some studies, water laced with high levels of sugar was more rewarding to mice or rats than water laced with cocaine. Even caffeine or alcohol classify as drugs to some extent, although not as addictive as the more sinister of the bunch.
So, what's the deal with drugs? After a while, the brain just adapts to these chemicals and they no longer have the same physiological response, yet people still take them.
Is it that people who take them are;
A) Bored with their own lives or want to escape from their mundane lives,
B) On a more general level, people are hedonists,
C) It's in some sense a 'cool' thing to do,
D) A form of self-medication that eventually leads to drug dependency and addiction?
E) Is it just a matter of low self-esteem?
F) We're experiencing a new era of a type of 'Brave New World', where everyone wants to (read 'feels a neurotic need to') function on a higher level and be on 'Soma'.
Comments (170)
So, you do post under the influence! I knew it, lol.
Full disclosure, I haven't had any weed in a couple months, but I'll be getting some soon, I have periods of stress, and sleeplessness is my excuse, normally I just listen to music, get totally lost in thoughts, and lay around, so I don't tend to post very much when I have any anyway.
So you're wrong if you're thinking recently.
I'm sorry to have made the claim implicitly or explicitly without knowing all the details. My bad, man. :(
All good, I've done tons and tons of it, so I'm probably just perma-stoned is all.
Has there been a recent discussion on the justice of anti-drug laws?
I think Locke would be very clear on this and he is the foundation of American views on freedom and rights.
I liked Russel Brand's answer:
I don't understand why you'd expect substances which mess with your brain chemistry in unnatural ways to not be self-destructive. We weren't designed by evolution to be smoking weed, if you believe in evolution that is. Nor were we designed by God for that matter to be smoking weed, if you don't believe in evolution.
Yes.
Quoting Posty McPostface
No, not all are hedonists. But yes, hedonism does prevail in the Western cultural milieu at the moment.
Quoting Posty McPostface
Only for teenagers.
Quoting Posty McPostface
Yes.
Quoting Posty McPostface
Yes.
Quoting Posty McPostface
Maybe.
How do you know? Maybe the desire to smoke weed was caused by evolution. And, maybe smoking weed causes changes which could become evolutionary.
Impossible, we haven't done it in our history.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
They could, but we have little reason to think they'd be beneficial. It wasn't an integral part of our environment that we were meant to adjust to over time.
People are smoking weed right now, today. Something must have caused that desire within people to smoke it. How is this not a product of evolution?
Quoting Agustino
It is a self-created part of our environment, cultured, just like milk, beef, and wheat. What distinguishes one of these over the other as beneficial or harmful?
Yeah just like some beetle in Australia is swarming beer bottles thinking they are the perfect females (and going extinct). We just found a product that deceives our senses, that our senses weren't prepared to handle. Much like porn for that matter.
But people quickly become tolerant, then the deception does not continue. Developing ways to overcome deception is good for the human being, is it not?
It is addictive, I see no reason to suppose it would be beneficial, but many reasons to expect that it wouldn't be.
Our brains have cannabinoid receptors. Why do you think that is?
You mean they have structures which happen to be affected by certain drugs? Why am I not surprised...
Why aren't you surprised? You wrote:
Quoting Agustino
I pointed out that our brains have receptors for cannabinoid molecules. Therefore you should be surprised. Why ARE you not surprised? Am I being too literal in some way?
We, every breathing human and animal, have an endocannabinoid system in all of us a reason. We are discovering daily that Cannabinoids work just as effectively with the body as do Opiates for pain, without the physical addiction of Opiates. Now I will agree with you that a person can become 'habitual' in their use of Cannabis but you cannot become Physically addicted to Cannabis.
Knowing that, might make it is easier to see the benefits, especially in the face of the Opioid Crisis that we have here in the USA. Cannabis has always been considered the "Gateway Drug to harder drugs" when in all reality it is Cannabis that is being proven to be the gateway to get off of hard drugs.
OK, I call it becoming tolerant, you call it becoming addicted, two different ways of saying the same thing.
I don't live in a drug culture, and most of the people I know don't live in one either. (Drugs here meaning recreational drugs, and some pharmaceutical products which are psychoactive and potentially addicting or likely to develop dependence).
Quoting Posty McPostface
Sugar (glucose) is what the brain runs on. It's not just rewarding, it's essential.
Quoting Posty McPostface
Caffeine, alcohol, nicotine, cocaine, opiates, benzodiazepines, amphetamines, etc. are all addictive substances. How easily one becomes addicted, and how much difficulty one will have overcoming addiction depends on the individual. Most people (like... 80%) do not readily become addicted to most drugs, and if addicted, are generally able to withdraw from the drug use on their own. Some people (maybe 20%) however, are much more prone to become addicted (because of their biology) with less exposure than the 80%, and will have a lot of difficulty withdrawing from drug use.
So it isn't just the drugs -- it's also the users the produce the difficulties of addiction.
Most people probably become seriously bored at times, but don't resort to drugs Why do you think that is?
A hedonist is a person who believes that the pursuit of pleasure is the most important thing in life, I don't think we are, in general, hedonists. Some people are, but being a hedonist doesn't mean they are all going to smoke, snort, swallow, or inject every drug they can get their hands on.
Everyone doesn't think it is cool. Many people think it is stupid, unhealthy, or immoral.
Maybe, self medication. Alcohol is actually a very poor drug for most problems. I don't know what problem methamphetamine helps with. Some drugs do seem to deaden pain (physical and psychic) so self medication with benzodiazepines, opiates, or pot makes sense.
Maybe, but people with medium to high self-esteem get addicted too.
Soma wasn't intended to help people "function on a higher level"; it was a freely available tranquilizer designed to quell feelings of discontent.
How about drinking wine, smoking cigars, pipes and cigarettes (not to mention chewin' tobacca) and knocking back caffeine-rich beverages?
Ditto caffeine :-)
ps -- On a more serious note, the question is not whether any given drug is a net good for society. The question is, it is less harmful than prohibition? Prohibition inevitably gives power to gangs of violent criminals; causes people to get sick from adulterated product as it did when the US tried outlawing alcohol; and ruins the lives of casual users branded as criminals.
Mother's little helper has been around for a long time. This from 1965.
Actually I think that Big Pharma holds a lot of responsibility for the opioid epidemic.
Fentanyl is 50 to 100 times more potent than morphine, but some fentanyl analogues, which are designed to mimic the pharmacological effects of the original drug, may be as much as 10,000 times more potent than morphine.
To date, more than 12 different analogues of fentanyl have been produced clandestinely and identified in the U.S. drug traffic. The biological effects of the fentanyl analogues are similar to those of heroin, with the exception that many use
rs report a noticeably less euphoric high associated with the drug and stronger sedative and analgesic effects.[citation needed]
Mother's little helper
Now suddenly it's this huge drug of abuse.
The owner of a place I used to eat breakfast at died of a fentanyl overdose. I had no idea people in my community are flipping pancakes in the morning and doing that after work. If it touched my sheltered life then it's a lot more prevalent than I thought.
I don't buy the Chinese angle that this is something they're pushing on us. Americans are the world's hugest consumers of illicit drugs by far. The entire world labors to supply the American consumer with drugs. That 's the truth and everything else is the hypocrisy around it. If Americans ever stopped using drugs, the entire global economy would collapse; from the peasant farmers who pick the drug crops to the industrial plants that make the precursor chemicals to the banks who launder the money The DEA, the CIA, and whatever local warlord we want to support that week are the drug business. A lot of mouths to feed. Nobody wants this to stop.
We never ask: What is the sickness in the American soul that needs so desperately to be numbed?
And by the way, why is there a renewed demand for opiates these days? Couldn't have anything to do with our war in Afghanistan, could it? In 2002 the Taliban had virtually eradicated the opium trade. They're against it. The US came in and got it going again. We're for it. The US Army guards the poppy fields over there. True. In the 1980's Reagan ran secret wars in south America and we had a huge coke epidemic, while Nancy Reagan told us to "Just say no" to the drugs her husband's CIA was flying in by the planeload.
I don't know whether our culture thrives on addictive personalities, but consumption is not merely pushed, it's ram-jacked. The poverty of everyday life is relieved largely through shopping. It isn't that people can't resist plastic geegaws. It is that they are desperate to find something interesting in life, and shopping is offered as the most effective cure.
Were American consumers to moderate their consumption -- reduce by 15% to 20% their discretionary spending, our economy would slide into a prolonged recession. Recessions cause real pain. Basic needs for most of the population have been met. Growth can not come from meeting basic needs: growth in sales and profits has to come out of discretionary spending. The G20 countries are capitalist: Investors demand continuous growth in profits.
What is true for us is true for the G20 nations: all of the advanced economies are dependent on robust discretionary spending for growth. Meeting basic needs keeps many of the industries going: housing, transportation, food, heating, electricity, communications, and the basic industries like metals, refining, mining, agriculture, etc. which support them. There is not a lot of growth potential in meeting stable basic needs. Growth comes in generating and selling new wants--all the stuff that goes into discretionary spending. Like buying new bigger cars
Everyone now has a cell phone, a computer, a television, a car, a house or apartment, a refrigerator, and so on and so forth. We do not need to change cell phones every year (or less), and the same for all the other gadgets and durable goods, like cars and houses. We don't need to buy new outfits to wear every few months. We are driven (not addicted) to buy all this stuff by a massive array of manufacturing, distribution, retail, and advertising systems. Ever shopped at IKEA? A lot of their stuff is K-Mart grade products -- cheap plastic. There is only one aisle in the store, and it winds around from the top to the bottom, so that you have to walk past every kind of attractively displayed merchandise they have for sale.
Google didn't get rich looking up words or obscure web sites for us. It got rich by selling and placing advertising for products which, by and large, we do not need. But Google is good at putting the ads for stuff we don't need in front of the right eyeballs.
It's not addiction, it's desperation.
Drug War? American Troops Are Protecting Afghan Opium. U.S. Occupation Leads to All-Time High Heroin Production
The date is June 24, 2017. This is happening on your dime (if you're a US taxpayer) and with your pro-rated share of moral culpability.
There's your drug war folks.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/drug-war-american-troops-are-protecting-afghan-opium-u-s-occupation-leads-to-all-time-high-heroin-production/5358053
ps -- I just have to quote this bit. This is a quote from an article in Common Dreams.
[i]The cultivation of opium poppy in Afghanistan—a nation under the military control of US and NATO forces for more than twelve years—has risen to an all-time high, according to the 2013 Afghanistan Opium Survey released Wednesday by the United Nations.
According to the report, cultivation of poppy across the war-torn nation rose 36 per cent in 2013 and total opium production amounted to 5,500 tons, up by almost a half since 2012.
“This has never been witnessed before in the history of Afghanistan,” said Jean-Luc Lemahieu, the outgoing leader of the Afghanistan office of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, which produced the report.[/i]
And now in 2017 the crop is the new world's record. That's what the war in Afghanistan about. We're in the dope business.
There's been a strong tendency from the government to prevent the use of marijuana. I don't entirely know how to put this; but, marijuana tends to break down the drive for consumerism or at the very least provides a short sense of relief from the utter urge to consume (apart from food). Governments have recognized that marijuana tends to break down the desire to consume or follow with the social conditioning that many people are brought up with. I have no idea how to rationalize on some deeper neurological level.
Then there's the issue of consumerism itself and how it relates to drug use. Again, it seems half-baked; but, there seems to be a strong link between satisfaction (or rather the lack of it) and consuming goods. Drugs tend to amplify the feeling of satisfaction; but, we all know that that is a short-lived feeling and tends to subside after the effects of the drug have worn off. Consumerism is like gambling, fun as long as there is money to spend. It's ridiculous how easy it is to spend money on the internet. It's literally too easy. People who have limited self-restraint or have a high urge to instant gratification are prone to becoming poor or engage in drug use, which is exploited to the detriment of people nowadays by consumerism.
There's also a strong sense of liberty and individualism being professed by drug consumption. The laws against it also don't help dissuade people from their lure and appeal. Perhaps, it is something that is really interesting to do, although the effects subside after prolonged use.
I believe that people find it harder and harder to connect with people or their families and this tends to leave a gaping hole that needs to be filled with some sort of entertainment or more consumption.
Then, there's the strange reason why drugs aren't seen as a societal issue and instead as a legal or illegal choice. If communities got together or were more close, then I suspect drug use would plummet.
Still, a topic worth exploring more in detail in my opinion.
Same deal (apart from wine probably - grape juice), which is why I avoid all of them.
Quoting fishfry
How do you go from the fact that we have brain structures capable of handling cannabinoid molecules to "we were designed by evolution to be smoking weed"? Those structures haven't evolved because we were smoking weed - they have evolved for completely unrelated uses. Thus, when we smoke weed, we put something in the body that we haven't evolved to handle well. We obviously do have structures which handle it - we don't die, at least not immediately. But this isn't why those structures evolved.
When I was helping a young girl remove herself from a toxic environment that enabled her addiction to drugs to appear normalised, her high level of anxiety seemed to be matched with a high intelligence that she could not communicate or utilise effectively as though her ability to identify with the external world was not coherent. She was surrounded by people who were negative and intellectually beneath her capacity but at the same time she cared for them, and so it is like being caught in a bad dream and not being able to move or say anything.
She had to survive that lack of coherency to confront the reality of her situation, to survive the feelings and care she felt for the people around her but who were at the same time very bad for her that she could not understand and so her drug-use became a tool to survive that lack of control. To be conscious and fluently communicate how you feel requires a certain objectivity and that would mean to confront a separateness, a disconnection from the people in her life and that choice is far too much for some people because it clearly pronounces the reality that they are alone.
That is scary and leads to the assumption that there is only two choices and most choose the lesser of two evils; to be around such people but remain miserable. It is better than being miserable and alone. The other choice is far too confrontational as you pretty much disregard the fabric of your identity and everything you have thought was true or real; it is like dying. To recognise that you actually don't like the people you love and if you have low self-esteem, there is no chance that you would believe in yourself and believe in your capacity to find happiness away from that environment.
Erich Fromm said that the root of all our anxieties are caused by this separateness or aloneness, and the resemblance between drugs and consumerism is rooted in this very anxiety. The addiction to drugs help overcome the feelings of disconnection and because of the low self-esteem, they believe that they are unable to self-regulate their behaviour. Substance abuse is symptomatic of a type of apathy to one's own self, they shut down and just don't care because it is easier than actually feeling the anxiety (which I believe is a form of pain).
Consumerism offers another form of alleviation from this anxiety and we believe that the next purchase will make us happy when - just like drugs - we are caught in a vicious cycle where the next purchase never seems to end; drugs are helping her to survive when it is at the same time causing her destruction (of who we actually are). It is deliberate self-destruction and any justifications for it are formed by this apathy. The only way to find happiness is to leave that environment and start taking care of yourself, to basically accept the death of your former identity and begin anew.
I think you understand more than you realize for you are describing how the theory actually works. It has been said that "Weed will get you through times of no money, better than money will get you through times of no weed." People who smoke marijuana often become much more content with where they are in life and many do not feel the need to take part in the inflated consumerism, to the degree that non marijuana smokers might.
Do they? So, people who smoke marijuana don't have an iPhone or a pair of Nike sneakers, because apparently they're more content in life considering the drug itself is very cause of this temporary alleviation of anxiety that enables this contentment? Or that addict that walks around on the street, lacking hygiene and unable to take care of himself, he must be content? I am not sure if it is inflated consumerism or inflated egos here, but I would suggest a more thorough approach to the subject because I have seen quite the reverse.
Nicotine, caffeine, cocaine, opioids, cannabis... all attach to specific sites. That these sites exist doesn't mean we evolved to use the drugs. Europeans, for instance, found nicotine quite amusing back in the 16th century, when tobacco was abruptly introduced. The receptors came first, then certain plant alkaloids became popular because they stimulated those receptors.
Male canaries (reportedly) sing more when they are fed cannabis seeds. Did they evolve to eat cannabis? No. Robins that eat fermented fruit get drunk. Did they evolve to get drunk? No,
Or maybe the Taliban is in the dope business. But... whoever produces it, the US is one of several big markets for opiates.
I understand you have some quite specific interests in cannabis, but I wonder whether the contentedness you have attributed to using cannabis is a chicken/egg problem. Do people prefer cannabis because they are already laid back, contented, un-acquisitive ... or were they very anxious people, up-tight, and acquisitive before they used cannabis and then found salvation in weed? I've known regular cannabis users who clearly need something stronger than weed if they are going to calm down.
The other thing is that many people have achieved these laudable states of peacefulness without using any drugs at all--not even alcohol. (Beats me how they do it.)
But that's an absolute falsehood. By 2002 the Taliban had virtually eliminated the opium trade in Afghanistan.
Are you this seriously uninformed? Or just shilling for the neverending war?
I'm genuinely puzzled by your factually wrong claim.
In July 2000, Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, collaborating with the United Nations to eradicate heroin production in Afghanistan, declared that growing poppies was un-Islamic, resulting in one of the world's most successful anti-drug campaigns. The Taliban enforced a ban on poppy farming via threats, forced eradication, and public punishment of transgressors. The result was a 99% reduction in the area of opium poppy farming in Taliban-controlled areas, roughly three quarters of the world's supply of heroin at the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan#Rise_of_the_Taliban_.281994.E2.80.932001.29
Of course that ended with the invasion of Afghanistan by the US in 2002. Now the opium crop is at record levels, thanks to the good old U S of A. And in totally unrelated news, the US is having an opiate crisis. Move along, nothing to see here.
It is not uncommon for people to feel that they are "better", and more caring while stoned,and that this feeds back into sober life.
Quoting fishfry
I rarely make mistakes of any kind, seeing as how I am nearly omniscient, but I can't be right all the time. It's just not possible. Damn!
Thank you for bringing my error to my attention. No good deed goes unpunished, and you'll get yours later.
I have no doubt :-) Thanks for the comments.
Quoting TimeLine
Yes, as I said above, people who smoke marijuana often become much more content with where they are in life.
Quoting TimeLine
I don't agree with your statement "considering the drug itself is the very cause of the temporary alleviation of anxiety that enable this contentment". You are assuming that there is anxiety about not having the 'stuff' consumerism promotes such as an iPhone or a pair of Nike sneakers.
What I am suggesting is that people who smoke marijuana, are often the same people who share a car instead of owning two, who give away more than they keep or who will cover the difference of someone who comes up short for their purchases, all which fly in the face of falling victim to an inflated level of consumerism. It would be erroneous to believe that people who smoke marijuana are any less caring just because some don't see the value in the consumerism happening around them. Having said that, some marijuana smokers are indeed tempted to be constantly upping their financial consumption, who are jumping into their leased car, heading to a 9 to 5 career, only to be standing next to a fellow college, with drink in hand at the bar by 6pm.
Quoting TimeLine
I am not speaking about "that addict" I am speaking of some marijuana smokers. Not everyone who smokes marijuana is an "addict" (I will use your word addict and let it pass because physically you cannot become addicted to marijuana, habitual addiction yes, physical addiction no) anymore than the person who attends happy hour for alcohol, being an alcoholic.
BitterCrank, I know you understand that I am an advocate for the use and formal study of Cannabis. You probably already know that I am choosing to live a life Opiate free, after a severe addiction to OxyContin and Cannabis is the only pain reliever at my disposal. I am allergic to Aspirin, IB causes my Ulcers to bleed and we wonder why even Tylenol makes my ulcers bleed but that could be attributed to the year that I stayed awake on Meth. The only way I took Meth was by mixing it in a bit of juice and drinking it. My thinking is that the Meth may have called pin holes in my stomach lining but I don't know that for sure. I just know that there are going to be a LOT more people out there that are going to need to get off of Opiates forever and Cannabis might be their only option for pain control. I can tell you I had oral surgery, with bone grafting and a suture around the surgery sight and only had to take only two Somas on day one and three, the rest was pain control via a Cannabis extract called RSO or Rick Simpson Oil, whose dose is the size of a single grain of rice. Forgive me if I explain in such detail, but I was damn impressed with my ability to get through that without what would have been in the past at least 30 Percocet ingested.
To answer your chicken/egg question: I don't really know. I have seen it go both ways where laid back people who consume Cannabis are even more laid back once under the influence and I know people who were uptight, acquisitive, very anxious people and tried to find their "salvation in weed" and it wound them up even tighter. But I cannot think of a Cannabis consumer that is striving for the house on the hill or for the 2018 Acura with all the bells and whistles. What I can think of is Cannabis consumers that are raising well mannered children, a decrease in the use of physical discipline with children, a shift in their focus from obtaining 'things' to focusing on the contentment their lives are now.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I have heard that Faith is a good alternative. O:)
Oh, forgive me, I did not know that you somehow knew all people all over the world who smoke marijuana and thus have some transnational power that has enabled you to verify all smokers are content with where they are in life. And here I was, silly little me, thinking that smoking causes a temporary sense of contentment because they are unhappy or miserable, which therefore verifies they are in fact not content and the smoking is the tool to assist with that sense of contentment.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
What? No, I am saying that a person who takes drugs can still be a consumerist; the world is not you or the people you know. Are you saying that drugs do not alleviate the anxiety that enables one to feel contentment? Geez, then why would people take it?
Taking drugs temporarily alleviates anxiety and gives one a sense of calm and contentment, but that is taking away the anxiety that ultimately returns and thus the cycle is that one relies on the drugs to enable a faux contentment. Consumerism offers the same.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
This is hilarious. I really don't know how to respond to it but the justification is bordering the absurd.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
:-|
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
The most powerful of addictions are the habitual, the constant need to return until you form a tolerance or a need to continue the cycle. It is the first stage of forming an addiction. The rituals of spending time getting high soon enough loses the control that one has over the drug that they become dependent on it and for those who have pre-existing or a vulnerable to mental health issues, the development of an enduring psychotic illness is of serious concern. Any denial of that and of the existing research that indicates that is disturbing.
Yes, for you, it is recommended that your try smoking it, out of the bong if possible, to get an authentic experience and feel content with your life. Hope you enjoy :D :
[hide]jk >:O >:O >:O [/hide]
Stoner Mom (L)
>:O
Quoting Agustino
Ever heard of trolling?
Quoting TimeLine
I have been very careful in not saying that "all" do anything. I have said "often become" but that is quite different from "always become". As far as your "thinking that smoking causes a temporary sense of contentment because they are unhappy or miserable" is true in some cases and maybe even prevalent in your experiences. However, I am drawing off of my own experiences and as a patient advocate, I am in the position to help registered patients find the pain relief they are seeking, I am not in the position to try to talk them out of it. Of the three patients, in the last four years, that I as a fellow patient have advocated for, three have died so my record would appear on the surface to be nothing to applaud but to the families of the loved ones we lost? My guidance was something they valued more than money itself. The Cannabis patients I have been involved with so far were at the point where money is no object, not because the push of consumerism but rather a chance at a greater quality end of life.
"I don't agree with your statement "considering the drug itself is the very cause of the temporary alleviation of anxiety that enable this contentment". You are assuming that there is anxiety about not having the 'stuff' consumerism promotes such as an iPhone or a pair of Nike sneakers." ArguingWAristotleTiff
Quoting TimeLine
The experiences I have to draw on are quite different from yours, which is fine but there is a difference. To answer your question of whether or not people would take Cannabis to alleviate "anxiety" is situation dependent. Some strains of Cannabis increase anxiety where others have a calming effect, if the right strain is found, the anxiety comes into check, based upon each persons body chemistry.
Quoting TimeLine
I am not sure who your source is about how Cannabis can interact with a person's chemistry but the never ending cycle you speak of is not always the case. As shocking as it may be, there are people who are not stuck in the cycle of consumerism or the cycle of addiction.
"What I am suggesting is that people who smoke marijuana, are often the same people who share a car instead of owning two, who give away more than they keep or who will cover the difference of someone who comes up short for their purchases, all which fly in the face of falling victim to an inflated level of consumerism. It would be erroneous to believe that people who smoke marijuana are any less caring just because some don't see the value in the consumerism happening around them." ArguingWAristotleTiff
Quoting TimeLine
Absurdity is an important part of Philosophy. The ability to embrace the absurd allows one to hear the other end of the spectrum, so you know where everybody 'can' stand, regardless of the popular position. Some people understand the importance of absurdity in relation to Philosophy and others do not, it either is or it isn't. And from the sounds of it, you are not familiar with the perspective of the absurdity, that is around 'thinkers' or arm chair philosophers, us.
"some marijuana smokers are indeed tempted to be constantly upping their financial consumption, who are jumping into their leased car, heading to a 9 to 5 career, only to be standing next to a fellow college, with drink in hand at the bar by 6pm. — ArguingWAristotleTiff
Quoting TimeLine
I do apologize for the misspelling as I meant 'colleagues' not college but my point stands. The consumption of alcohol is the consumption of a drug and happy hour comes once a day and colleagues who look down their nose at Cannabis consumers are standing on the same ground, they just haven't realized it yet because they are waiting for society to say it's acceptable.
"I am not speaking about "that addict" I am speaking of some marijuana smokers. Not everyone who smokes marijuana is an "addict" (I will use your word addict and let it pass because physically you cannot become addicted to marijuana, habitual addiction yes, physical addiction no) anymore than the person who attends happy hour for alcohol, being an alcoholic." ArguingWAristotleTiff
Quoting TimeLine
You have created your own version of a Cannabis consumer and I apologize if not all of 'us' fit into the mold you have created but stick with it and see where it gets you. I would appreciate it if you could find the time to read this latest study and understand the complexity of Cannabis and the degree of damage, if any and recognize the cases in which Cannabis has proven to be a protector from lung cancer, where even the non smokers of any kind, had an increased rate of lung cancer over the Cannabis smoker.
While I appreciate that you are drawing off your own experiences, at present the discussion is about what compels a person to take drugs and not about the legality or benefits of cannabis. A person without direction from a medical professional is often compelled to drug-use due to self-esteem issues and a sense of apathy, stress and anxiety, as well as accessibility. This causes greater difficulties for a person with pre-existing mental health issues, and even cannabis - particularly following long-term and frequent use - can be detrimental and lead to the development of serious psychosis and other forms of pathology. Those living with mental health issues including depression and anxiety have a higher risk of forming a dependence on substances that includes alcohol and drugs.
William Styron' book Darkness Visible is an account of the severity of depression and how after forty years of alcohol-dependence that helped alleviate his anxiety throughout that length of time, the moment he stopped drinking alcohol he declined into a severe state of depression. His substance abuse was a means to “calm the anxiety and incipient dread that I had hidden away for so long.” By facing that anxiety, he almost committed suicide and indeed the link between depression and substance abuse is clear, just as much as depression and other mental health ailments are linked with suicide. You may have a personal or direct experience with a few people seeking pain relief and that is fine, but 29.5 million people worldwide are addicted to illicit drugs, 800,000 people commit suicide each year, millions living with the pain of depression, anxiety or disassociation, not to mention the decline in health and wellbeing including the spread of diseases.
It doesn't help that more than 50% of people who begin with marijuana move on to illicit drug use and I am not sure if you have ever seen a teenager addicted to Ice or other opioids, but it is the most horrific thing to see. So when you say:
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
It is not a mould I have set, it is a thing called reality. The problem transcends your backyard.
When you say:
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
I think it is you creating this "mould". By the way, I have never taken any form of drugs including cannabis and I do not drink alcohol, but I am "content".
I agree that Cannabis has contraindications when used by someone who has an undiagnosed psychosis among a few other medical conditions/illnesses.
Quoting TimeLine
It is true that some people fear sobriety more than they do death.
Quoting TimeLine
In being a patient advocate I have seen all walks of Cannabis users and as I said before, I have seen Cannabis help people get off of harder drugs such as alcohol and Opioids, so your personal experience is not the same as mine.
29.5 million people worldwide are addicted to illicit drugs but with no list of what drugs they are addicted to, it makes the number less relevant to your using it as support. Once again I will repeat myself that Cannabis is not a physically addictive drug. Please provide a breakdown of that statistic: of what drugs and where in the world the addiction is if you want to cite your assertions.
Quoting TimeLine
Ah, the old idea that marijuana is the gateway drug to.....wait...how can marijuana be "illicit" enough to be to be combined in your world wide statistics above but now you are saying that "It doesn't help that more than 50% of people who begin with marijuana move on to illicit drug use" suggesting that marijuana is not an "illicit" drug. Which is it? Do you know how marijuana is seen around the world?
When you ask me if I have ever seen a teenager addicted to Ice which is a form of Methamphetamine or Opioids, all I have to offer you is a gracious smile, as I wonder if you have read and comprehended a single word that I have written,
Quoting TimeLine
The "reality" is that Cannabis is not always a "problem". Did you read the study I linked my last post to or were you still responding emotionally?
Quoting TimeLine
Alcohol is one of the deadliest drugs on the market so be sure to keep it included in your "any form of drug", it is more comprehensive and accurate that way.
I am genuinely thrilled for you to be able to say you are "content". (L)
As this is a philosophy forum, can I suggest that the most fundamental discussion about recreational drugs is not the whys and wherefores of drugs that are currently out there, but the use of drugs in principle.. Could I ask whether you are against recreational drug use in principle?
Why?
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
I'm not sure what part of the following you did not understand.
Quoting TimeLine
There are other issues here then medicinal cannabis and I really do not want to discuss the highly addictive chemical THC and cannabis with you. Alcohol, for instance, is appreciated socially and yet it is responsible for more harm than the deadliest of illicit drugs. Thanks for the link, I guess? I could give you this, and this or this, but then, what is the point if you are going to go back to the same 'cannabis is good for people' when I am trying to say that drugs are bad for people, for communities, for the economy both nationally and globally.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Ok, so it appears you have some fixation with cannabis. I am interested in the effect substance abuse can have globally. So, as the World Health Organisation stated, while it can provide therapeutic relief for medicinal purposes to cancer and HIV patients, the link to youth culture enables the following that far outweighs its benefits:
When I say 29.5 million, I am saying, "those who engage in high risk consumption of drugs, e.g, people who inject drugs, use drugs on a daily basis and/or people diagnosed with drug use disorders based on clinical criteria contained in ICD-10 or DSM V."
Cannabis has a prevalence of 183.3 million users worldwide
Opioids (opiates and prescription opioids) of 35 million users.
Opiates has 17.7 million users.
Cocaine has 17.1 million users.
Amphetamines has 37 million users.
Ecstasy has 21.6 million users.
Globally, it is estimated that 13.1% of 12 million people who inject drugs have HIV Aids, leading to further distribution of the deadly disease particularly in the case of some developing countries. More than 50% have hepatitis that causes 220,000 of that total to die each year, while 60,000 are attributed to HIV.
Leading to 39.6% die annually due to drug-related mortality, while it is the cause of a number of health-related concerns including disease, disability, psychiatric disorder and premature death. 35% of organised crime units are for the drug-trafficking trade that is connected to other major crimes including human trafficking, people smuggling, fraud and property crime.
Here, read it yourself. I hope that helps you with whatever the reasoning is behind your request?
How exactly you are unable to link the 'use of drugs in principle' without ascertaining some understanding of the 'whys' and 'wherefores' is somewhat a mystery to me. What has what I believe got to do with anything? Whilst I understand that the question is as follows:
Quoting Posty McPostface
My initial post described by example what I later stated to be caused by self-esteem issues and a sense of apathy, stress and anxiety, as well as accessibility.
It is quite easy because the "whys and wherefores" I mentioned were "whys and wherefores" of specific drugs. Some people are against the notion - in principle - of using chemicals recreationally to enhance brain activity - and I was wondering if you were one such person, because I feel that a discussion of why one might be for or against recreational drug use in principle would be an interesting aspect of this discussion. Perhaps you think I should open a new thread devoted to the question before answering my enquiry?
"I felt loss at every hand. The loss of self-esteem is a celebrated symptom, and my own sense of self had all but disappeared, along with any self-reliance. This loss can quickly degenerate into dependence, and from dependence into infantile dread. One dreads the loss of all things, all people close and dear. There is an acute fear of abandonment.”
As I said, I have never taken any drugs neither do I drink alcohol, but pressure caused me to smoke cigarettes once, which I haven't touched in a number of years. And I really cared for someone who was clearly affected by his environment and substance abuse; such a brilliant mind all but gone.
Thanks for your reply - I can see that safety issues are paramount in your thinking. However, in order to gain a complete picture, I think you need to realise that there are great benefits to be had from careful choice and use of mind altering substances, and that many people feel their lives are greatly enhanced by them.
Quoting Jake Tarragon
The reality of this self-destruction far outweigh the benefits.
Quoting Jake Tarragon
As I have been saying repeatedly to you, the benefits are what compel otherwise why would anyone want to take drugs? The brain is the network that architects everything that you experience and the structural networks of neurons send signals and messages both within it and throughout the body that harmoniously organises everything that you think and feel. It is not just some random pill or smoke or injection, but the chemicals from these drugs mimic this neural network and interfere in the natural neurotransmitter messages and receptors and changes how the message is delivered (i.e. dopamine). While it can activate these "faux" transmissions (that is, unnatural) it is nothing like the brain' natural neurotransmitters and so it releases abnormal disruptions that ultimate damage how the brain communicates information.
From an evolutionary perspective, we are wired to desire pleasure and feelings of euphoria and we seek this (in our brains), thus when we active this area of the brain, it continuously motivates us to want more. While you think that this pleasure is gratifying, or as you say cerebral, perceptual, developmental, social, hedonistic, intellectual, creative, and the fact that it produces such feelings in a much more amplified manner than naturally, the reality is that any lengthy or continuous use eventually impairs how our brain functions as its natural neurotransmitters decrease by its faux replacement or the drug-induced dopamines. Overtime, when our natural processes start to dysfunction the person begins to experience a depressed state that thus enables the cycle of addiction, to keep that person going (the withdrawal). It is that one-off experience that may not effect you depending on the network or circuits in your brain as some are more prone to addiction than others, but over time the damage of natural neurotransmitters is completely disrupted.
How long is lengthy?
What if a drug was produced, and the evidence convinced you that it was not harmful - would you accept its use?
Well let's see if the result could be absurd.
Suppose you answer "yes, I would accept the use of a drug if I was convinced it was safe". Then I would be sure that you had no hidden agenda or belief regarding drug use besides safety, such as personal distate or religious indoctrination.
If you answer "no ..." then the converse would be true - I would be sure that you did have a hidden agenda or belief - the existence of which, if not the exact nature, has now come in to the open because of your answer.
The role of "hidden beliefs" in discussion is crucial. For example, suppose a person declared that rugby was too dangerous for women to play, and that this person cited a lot of evidence to back their statement up. If it transpired that this person also believed that women should not play sport at all, then one would have to lower the priority one gave to that person's opinions on the matter of women playing rugby. So it is important to seek out hidden agendas.
Where? I went back and re-read everything you have said and I see very little of this "reasoned approach" you speak of and I guess you can tell yourself what you like, but you are not actually making any arguments at all. I could have a more intellectually thrilling conversation with a dried leaf. And no, I am not talking about hashish.
I would not be the person I am today without the drug use I experienced when I was younger. Clearly the effects are long term. Also, I would be dissatisfied with myself and unhappy if I didn't belief that those effects were beneficial towards making me the person that I am today. However, some of the short term effects, specifically involving experimentation and over usage, were harmful. So I disagree with you, I think that the long term effects are beneficial, while the short term effects are harmful. This is common to many medical procedures, short term pain for long term gain.
I am unable to ascertain the actuality of your situation because I am unaware of all the details, but just as William Styron said, his addiction to alcohol indeed helped him with his creative work and capacity to socialise until he stopped drinking and experienced withdrawal (in the neural networks); his brain no longer had the capacity to communicate as it would have naturally prior to his dependence and as such for several months following experienced profound sense of anxiety and doom that led him to almost-suicide. Luckily, he was able to survive those months through medical intervention until one day he experienced an epiphany that happiness in life is actually available (which is basically his brain now functioning naturally) and he healed from that point. He says that the terrible experience of depression and anxiety, now overcome and never returning to alcohol, has made him feel more happier than he has ever felt before. So, perhaps from a different angle, those that are able to overcome any addiction or substance abuse do fare a greater advantage.
The problem here is that clearly not everyone is as lucky.
1) a medical cure and prevention for glaucoma.
2) contrary to previously stated, there is evidence that marijuana consumption reverse effects of carcinogenic product consumption, as well as increasing resistence to such effects.
3) it helps control epilepsy and lower the amounts of seizures.
4) in fact it helps prevent seizures in a slew of different cases, ex Dravet's Syndrome
5) smaller doses act as sedative, and as such is a good remedy for anxious personnalities
6) act to slow the progression of Alzheimer, and might actually helps preventing it
7) is one of the only effective way of easing pain symptom in over 30 types of sclerosis
8) is an excellent muscle relaxant, thus greatly helping with different spasm issues.
9) increases the treatment effectiveness of a few diseases, including Hepatitis C
10) can be used to treat inflammatory bowel disease
11) an effective relief for arthritis.
12) a great way to accelerate your metabolism slightly and improve your carbohydrate intake efficiency
13) a treatment for lupus
14) associated with an increase in creativity and verbal fluency
15) currently studied as a potential treatment for PTSD
16) helps contain the brain damage normally caused by a stroke or concussion, after the fact
17) a way to disturb REM sleep, to the point where regular users will tend to stop dreaming altogether. while the advantage might not seem immediate, some people are plagued by terrifying nightmares, and clinical studies have shown that marijuana almost always prevents these.
18) a way to motivate appetite.
19) an effective and strategic replacement for other chemical dependencies.
I don't like the psychoactivity, just the positive effects of CBD mostly. I also rarely smoke cannabis. Get too much anxiety.
Re : the OP
I have been smoking marijuana daily for nearly 13 years now. In principle I am fine with acid, mushroom and occasionnal cocaine consumption, but I have never tried those nor have been really tempted to. I actually used to be incredibly strict about anything else than marijuana, and once threw out a party out of my place when I figured people had brought cocaine and meth. Meth and speed are the plagues and curses of these times, imho. I have seen meth turn a group of coherent young people into a rabid violent mob. About 20 kids beat the crap out of another for absolutely no reason. The guy lost all but 4 teeth. I have had a gigantic drunk half-naked dude swing a machete at me, and I wasn't half as terrified as when I saw that other group beat that kid.
I smoke almost exclusively at night, or right when waking up when I do not have work or university. I find it doesn't affect my focus much, although I would be very badly placed to say if it affects my memory at all : I've always had the most terrible memory for anything else than conversations.
The one negative is with withdrawal nightmares. If I find myself in a context where I can't smoke at all before sleeping, then I will sleep terribly, and if I do, I'll have the most psychotic ultra vivid dreams ever.
A bit of a rant. I guess if I'd have to say why I smoke, I'd have to go back to why I started at first, and then why I kept on doing it, and then on why I'm doing it now. The reasons changes. It started because I had access to it (as a teen, I fed the cats of an old lady who would grow some in her basement, so I'd nip a bud now and then) and my friends had shown interest. When I tried it, the effect where initially very very strong, and very very fun. Then I stopped because it wasn't really that important or easy to get. I started again when I went bumming in Alberta, because that's what bums do if they don't do something worse. Never ever been a fan of alcool. And with the time, when I stopped being a bum, I just realized that most of my friends were fine with it, even if I did smoke quite a bit more than them. Now it's just that the habit still mostly fits my lifestyle, and the habit is still, albeit less, fun.
Is this what compels you to continue, or is there a sense of apathy to your general health and well-being? Your initial reasons were accessibility, but as this is followed by being a "bum" I take it that you never really had much ambition or guidance. The fact that you point out that your friends were fine with it also makes me assume your environment is not the best. I guess the question is whether this occurred before or after this eventual continuity.
I never experienced any such withdrawal. I drank lots, smoked lots of weed, and every once in a while I would quit one or the other for a month or two to see what it was like. I don't remember any withdrawal problem. Eventually my usage lessened. I do have withdrawal problems when I quit coffee though. So if you judge the drug based on the withdrawal, coffee appears to be worse for me than weed or alcohol.
Quoting Posty McPostface
Do you smoke CBD weed? If so, for what ailments, or benefits?
I do think the reasons change but this must, for me at least, be the main reason. It is absolutely a matter of instant gratitude. But, there's sugar, and caffeine, and alcohol, and plenty of other legal drugs that have 'bad' side-effects just like the illegal ones. Our own sense of morality and what is acceptable comes from the society we get raised in and well, when you get raised up in a society that promotes consumerism and dependence on certain products (still drugs), it's easy to see how righteous people are in their choice to take a drug that by far compared to most others is harmless.
I think if you define drug as a "mind-altering substance", many things are mind-altering substances. Chocolate, a lover, a book. All these things have positive and negative effects on your psyche. We all choose to partake in things that will both give us a 'good' and a 'bad'. Everyone places different values towards certain faculties. Some might say memory is so important. Some might say your breathing. Some might say your ability to use your liver. Point is, it's a matter of perspective. I, smoking weed and the occasional psychedelic, bash on alcohol all day. There certainly is good effects to alcohol as well as the bad. But really, for the better of future teens, yeah alcohol is bad.
People bum out for a lot of reason. Mine was that my dad had just decided to make a hole in the wall with me, and I had had enough of semi-abusive helicopter parents by the time I had turned 18. That seemed conducive to my packing my shit and leaving without saying a word.
As for ambition or guidance... I don't know. I was sent to private school my whole life, had a lot of tutors, played 10 years of piano. Since I came back from Alberta, I've finished a Law degree and am nearing the end of my Philosophy one. I fully intend on doing a Master and a Doctorate afterwards (although I have no clue on what yet). It is entirely true that I've never been a competitive individual. Beating others was fun while I was in Law school, but otherwise I'm really more into cooperative boardgames than team sports.
And no, I don't smoke to avoid the vivid dreams. I smoke mostly because the effect, after long-term use, is very mild but still amusing. The vivid dreams would disappear after 2 weeks of withdrawals, so its not like the end of the world.
As for my environment : I live in a 7 1/2 in one of the most petite-bourgeoisie parts of Montréal. My roommates are an architect and a social worker specialised with autist kids. They do drugs perhaps twice a year, although they'll do harder stuff than I would.
Quoting Jake Tarragon
Note that Hallucinogens are not included in Timeline's list. MDMA (Ecstasy) is, and I think of it as a quasi-hallucinogen, which isn't addictive and isn't anywhere near as destructive as the other drugs on the list.
I have known many people whose lives have been enhanced by Hallucinogens and Ecstasy also. None of those people ever developed serious problems of abuse with those drugs. To throw all drugs into one category demonstrates simplistic thinking.
Ok, but it surely sounds like you have had, financially and materially, quite a privileged upbringing:
Quoting Akanthinos
Most people simply cannot afford the luxury to do a law degree and a philosophy one on top of it immediately after. And yet I would venture to guess that you have all this money for it from your family right? Are you working at the moment? Or how do you pay your bills?
Quoting Akanthinos
Oh dear...
You assume a lot. I have the distinct advantage to live in a country where a law degree from a prestigious university costs less than 4k a year. I work full-time, and but for a few intervals, have done so since I'm 20.
Quoting Agustino
I've got the Master mostly down. It's the Doc I don't know what I'll be doing it on. I'm really starting to get annoyed at how conservative my Husserl teacher is, but we've been talking about him tutoring my Master for a couple of years now, so there's that in my future for sure.
Right, so I suppose in the land of opportunity Canada everyone has lots of private tutors and goes to private schools?
Well, given that a good private school was about 2k a year back then, I mean, if your parents are doing relatively well and decide to dedicate ressources to it, then yeah, it's fairly accessible. Mine weren't rich in any way, they just wouldn't spend 5k a year on vacation trips.
But no, I've always paid my own university fees, while they mostly paid those of my sisters. My mom even made me pay my last year of private college after a philosophy teacher flunked me because of an administrative error. Even after I corrected it and got myself an 85% mark as a result, she insisted it would be good for me.
I haven't spoken to my family in the last 2 years. It makes it kinda hard to rely on them for money.
Better thinking is slowly catching on around the world it seems, but there is still much progress to make.
Cannabinoids, MDMA and hallucinogens are the substances with the better use to danger ratios, though cannabinoids need to be considered separately in themselves, I would say.
Quoting Frank Barroso
And of course, there's Prof Nutt and his team in the UK developing their very safe alternative to alcohol - what's taking him so damn long??!!
If I can afford it, I try and get a vape product of CBD, which is still quite expensive. The benefits are mostly anti-anxiety. It's also good for depression last I read.
Who said anything about it being easy? I mean, it's not war, but 37.5 hours of drudge works + 3 or 4 courses a session + study time does mount up to pretty much all of my waking hours. I mean, all my old peeps from law school complains about their 70+ hours work weeks and all I can do is grind my teeth.
You all complain, that doesn't surprise me. Everyone complains today :s - you all wished you worked 0 hours, I have no idea what you'd do then though.
What you experienced is not of concern to me, it is what the majority experience and while you may be an isolated case that contradicts the statistics, the fact is a large proportion do go through withdrawal and a great many other detriments to their health and well being. If you want to go on the defence because of your personal connection to it, by all means, but I don't know the real you or what you genuinely do, so stop blabbing about you and start showing me facts.
Those 'who engage in high risk consumption of drugs' include amphetamine-type stimulants, tranquillizers and sedatives, hallucinogens, solvents and inhalants, but LSD is no longer as popular as other drugs. What young people purchase on the market is mostly not pure MDMA and so the effects of an addiction to drugs varies because of the other substances laced to it and nevertheless still targets the same areas of the brain that itself can influence the continuity and dependency particularly around withdrawal and the psychological effects; developing a tolerance to a drug increases the need to consume more.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/23/study-hallucinogenic-mushrooms-safest-recreational-drug-lsd
That's not because there aren't new things to discover, new exciting opportunities to expand human knowledge, to improve society, to get closer to God, etc. It's because most human beings are lazy.
Those who are born hungry and think for themselves outrun those who are born privileged and think with the collective mind.
An unintended consequence of the USA's new approach to the Opioid epidemic, even though I have discussed it at length with my Doc and he has with his colleagues and we can both see it coming, is the demand for Heroin since the pills are being cut off systematically, rather than based upon getting a person OFF the physical addiction to Opiates.
Pain control Doctors and addiction specialists have know for years that Cannabis helps a patient getting off of Opiates, if that is a route that the patient sees as the best way for them to get off the Opiates.
Now the numbers have fleshed it out and there is also a GOOD unintended consequence of Medical Cannabis being available to patients and that is, that EVERY state that has embraced the program have witnessed a decrease in Opioid overdoses in their state, a 25% reduction in Opioid deaths. If we could change just one life, save one human from an Opioid overdose, anything would be worth trying, right? I have listened to grieving parents expressing such openness to Medical Cannabis but it was already to late.
But what good would Medical Cannabis have on an addiction to another drug? Isn't that just trading one addiction to another? If it is trading an addiction, they are trading a physical addiction to a habitual addiction, surely there is a net benefit in that, right?
Are people who take IBuprohin everyday addicts? What is the opinion of society going to be when Medical Cannabis is as accepted as readily as an Opioid? Or when Medical Cannabis and it's derivatives, such as CBD's are next to the IBuprohin? Which would you choose for pain control if both were offered? KNOWING that the medical community we trusted to keep our pain under control, pushed an Opiate like OxyContin, as a 'little risk of addiction to the patient', which turned out to be the exact opposite of what OxyContin actually does to the body.
To add salt to the wound, the maker of OxyContin, Purdue, KNEW that it was addictive when they advised Doctors to increase the patients dose, if the patient is having breakthrough pain 8 hours into their 12 hour dose.
Which would you choose knowing the facts as best as I have presented them?
Drug-testing kits are available, so anyone stupid enough not to ensure they are purchasing purity will obviously take somewhat greater risks than those who do.
In any case it can easily be seen that the risks with Ecstasy are not high at all if the number of deaths and even hospitalizations is compared to the numbers of people who take the drug.
And do you realise just how absurd you sound by actually comparing mortality rates to the use of the drug? It is what the person, their family, friends, the community and the economy experience while they are alive that is the issue we are attempting to ascertain in order to prevent the prospect of death.
What are you talking about? Drug testing kits are freely and cheaply available on the net. It's cheap to say I "sound absurd" but I don't even know what point you are attempting to make in your last paragraph. :s
What I am trying to tell you Janus is that kids do not make informed choices about the drugs that they take. A person who is conscious of its dangers, who would sit on the internet and make a purchase of a drug testing kit, usually do not take drugs.
Quoting Agustino
Nietzsche clearly never met an Australian woman. There are certainly a number of privileged whingers here who cry out in anger because mummy didn't cut the crusts of their jam sandwich correctly before stomping off to live a life of leisure, but how a person copes with the difficulties that they face and perhaps even uses it to their advantage is character that transcends nationality and gender.
That's simply not true; I have known quite a few MDMA enthusiasts who always tested to make sure they were getting the real thing. The world is full of many dumb people and a few smart ones. Legislating against drug use won't change that. You are barking up the wrong tree.
Of course you do, and we can verify this by... your word? So, are you saying that we should legislate for drug-use? Having a conversation with you is indeed barking up the wrong tree.
Doesn't take much disagreement before you resort to insult does it?
I'm not interested in trying to sustain a conversation with someone who doesn't take me at my word when I report what I know from experience. Google 'drug test kit', and you might educate yourself a little. :-}
I can only you give facts when it concerns my own experience. Statistics are bullshit. So it's you who should stop blabbing, and show me some facts based in cold hard experience, rather than bullshit. When I was a kid, it was a well-documented "fact", that LSD causes chromosome damage. You seem to be spouting the same sort of "fact" about the addictiveness of marijuana.
How does your word matter to me without any practicality in what you say? In the real world, a drug-test kit is not practical, not for the millions of young people who access drugs from sources like friends or acquaintances. If you have some facts, why is it difficult for you to just show me?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Since when is statistics bullshit? It may not be all-encompassing, but it does verify trends particularly relating to illness and mortality. Calm down and go back where you will see the plethora of information and facts that I have shown. Cold hard experience? What, all the young people I have seen damaged from the drugs that they have taken? Read my first post. No, I am not talking about addictiveness at all, again, go back and re-read what I have written.
Who programs the robotics and the software that does the jobs?
There will always be new and innovative things to work on, things that robots cannot do. The problem will be that most people will not be willing to or able to work on such issues, since they will take a lot of knowledge and expertise to work on. So the question really should be what should be done with those people, who now no longer need to work (cause robots provide for them), but now have all this free time? And I frankly don't know. But I think they will be sort of marginalized (a strange word, since they will be the majority), living in a sort of idiocracy, like in Brave New World, with lots of drugs, sex, and partying to keep them going. Entertainment will be a very big business.
Which is why the argument for being able to obtain some drugs from legalised sources would be a very useful way of minimising harm is a powerful one.
Quoting TimeLine
Not fully relevant to your quote I realise, but here is a question - would you ban dangerous sports and outdoor pursuits? Plenty of people get killed and injured in this way.
And education for personal growth, hopefully!
Most people are interested in personal growth only because it helps them earn a bit more. But if money was no longer relevant since everyone was provided with life's necessities, then I doubt they'd be interested in self-development.
Have you watched the show The Wire? There was a part of the series where they experimented with the idea of 'Hamsterdam' which was an attempt to fight the battle of drugs by legalising it in one area and it worked wonders for the community in general. The 'free zone' however was a hell-hole spreading disease and prostitution to continue their drug addiction. The Wire is probably one of my most favourite TV series of all time, you should watch it.
The simple answer, however, is no. To legalise what is very harmful to people is to programme disaster.
Quoting Jake Tarragon
Plenty of people get killed driving. You are committing a fallacy by asking this question as it diverts the attention away from what we are discussing. I would, however, ban the use of sports-related drugs.
Oh come on Time Line, face reality. Addiction, and the problems involved with addiction, is all you've been talking about. Here's the first line of your first post:
Quoting TimeLine
Every post, all you talk about is the horrors of addiction. Then you had the audacity to claim that marijuana is highly addictive in order that you could categorize marijuana use as an addiction problem:
Quoting TimeLine
The fact is that marijuana, THC, is not addictive. Of the millions of people who use it, only a very few can even be said to be addicted, even by people like you who define "addicted" to suit your purpose.
Quoting TimeLine
Yes, statistics are bullshit because they can be produced, and presented so as to support any argued position. For instance, if one out of every ten thousand marijuana users is addicted to it, you will use this statistic to argue that marijuana is addictive. What sense does that make? When a very small percentage of those engaged in an activity become addicted to it, why would you categorize that activity as addictive? That's bullshit, categorizing something according to a property with a low probability of occurrence.
That's why I brought up the issue with LSD and chromosome damage. In those days, the 70's, "the statistics" clearly indicated that LSD caused chromosome damage. But it was all bullshit, just like your addiction talk.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
"Small percentage" from where? Which "statistics" did you get that from, or are you carefully trying to use such expressions to somehow verify a moot point? Whether a person is "addicted" to marijuana or any other drug or not, continuous and repeated use over a lengthy period of time as highlighted in my post that shows the effects it has on the brain leads to a cycle of continuous use. That may not be an "addiction" in the way that you are attempting to highlight, but it is certainly disorder characterised by compulsive engagement in rewarding stimuli, despite adverse consequences.
The idea that "In the real world, a drug test kit is not practical" is promoting a falsehood.
Drug test kits for party going kids trying MDMA are supported by the Australian Federal Police "Drug testing isn’t perfect. Not only will some people take what they have anyway, some might be allergic to a substance in the drug and not know it. But senior figures including former Australian Federal Police commissioner Mick Palmer say they would support pill testing to reduce the danger for young people who choose to take ecstasy. “I have no problem with it at all, I think it makes absolute sense to try to test the quality of the drugs that people are taking,” Mr Palmer said.
Most experts agree the government’s “war on drugs” isn’t working."
The Bunk Police might be surprising to you since their sole intention is to make sure party goers know what they are taking before taking it with portable test kits and they are WIDELY distributed for FREE to party goers. Are they promoting the use of MDMA? Or are they facing the reality that people will do MDMA (which does have therapeutic uses) and is with most "stigma" drugs, on schedule to be medically legalized by the FDA by 2021.
That depends on character. If most people make a lot of money, you see them the whole day at the pub >:O .
It still does not change my initial remarks against the practicality of using drug-tests, but please don't get me wrong, I support the use of them. This was arranged at the music festival and I remember watching that program for which the article is written and many figures on the show were against the use of them. For instance, our Ice epidemic is mostly in rural country settings, amongst friends in backyard parties and not at festivals and access to these kits are not readily available. It also provides a false security and that the purity of any drug does not suddenly change the danger factor, as said in the end of the article:
This is the problem and another diversion used to fuel your argument. The government will never endorse the kits despite what Palmer stated. And perhaps you should read between the lines, rather than speak about these isolated groups at music festivals:
"Drug use shows no sign of slowing down at festivals, along with its the deceptive marketing and sale to attendees. It's pretty clear as forms of oblivious consumption remain a plague... "I've seen so many terrible things happen to people at events; people die, people run their bodies and minds, and have years of lasting effects from using these substances... [festival-goers] just aren't aware what's going on most of the time."
The problem with considering 'all illegal drugs dangerous' and have no 'benefit to society' is that does not address each drug, the reason it is being used or abused and the long term affects on the human body. In order to speak of addiction or drugs having a detrimental affect or a beneficial affect, it is necessary to break the drugs down into specific categories. The physical addiction to a drug called Ice (here in the states it is a pure form of Methamphetamine) is worlds away from the possible habitual addiction to marijuana or the use of MDMA. I strongly disagree with the idea that knowing the purity of a drug before taken doesn't change the danger factor as it isn't my experience with Methamphetamine, nor what I have observed in young adults using MDMA.
Quoting TimeLine
These are hardly isolated groups at music festivals and to think that our youth does not research a drug before taking it is the absolute opposite of what our youth is doing. Our youth not only use computers to research the chemical makeup, short term affect and long term affects, they have their own version of Terros who sends out alerts about bad 'batches' of various drugs on the street so those choosing to use, do so informed. This new generation has sites like DanceSafe that cover the risks of drugs and how to stay safe and are not promoting the use of drugs but rather embracing the reality and wanting those who want to engage in risky behavior, to do so with an educated approach.
Quoting TimeLine
The above quote can be applied to just about any drug, from long before Woodstock to today, alcohol to MDMA. The cliché of "Sex, Drugs and Rock and Roll" is a cliché for a reason and that reason has a rich history, so to believe that there will be any separation of the two on the horizon is hopeful but not likely.
OK, so personal growth ain't everything.
The beer, the entertainment, etc. - that is everything to them :P
Check any statistics, they're all over the internet. It's very clear that only a small percentage of those who use, or have used marijuana, are actually addicted to the stuff, or will ever become addicted. Yet your claim is that THC is "highly addictive".
Quoting TimeLine
Oh, I see your point, continuous usage of something, even though there are some adverse consequences, constitutes a "disorder". I guess I'm addicted to the hammer that I use every day at work, and the adverse consequences of an occasional blister or a sore wrist on a hard day, or a hit to my thumb now and then, means that my usage of the hammer is a disorder.
How do you propose to weigh the very obvious rewards against the very sketchy "adverse consequences"? Why don't you lay out these adverse consequences in plain English rather than just alluding to "addiction"?
Quoting TimeLine
Anytime that you get tens of thousands of people together for an event, especially adolescents, there is the possibility of "terrible things". The fact that drug use is associated with some of these "terrible things" is incidental rather than momentous, unless you happen to believe that drug use is itself a terrible thing.
This seems to be your argument, because it is possible that a terrible thing can happen to someone who uses drugs, therefore drug use is a terrible thing. The relationship you make between "drug use" and "terrible things" is completely askew. Just like your claim that just because a very small percentage of those who use marijuana will become addicted, therefore marijuana is highly addictive, you want to say that because terrible things happen to a very small percentage of drug users at festivals, therefore drug use is a terrible thing.
I am reminded of the problems with alcohol addiction among indigenous peoples, when they are "brought into the modern world".
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
When you said:
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I am not sure, but as one who clearly advocates the use of drugs, perhaps this may be an indication that it is not all that good for you?
Are you saying that THC is not addictive? What is addictive to you? For me, it is a clinical term so I checked the "statistics" and while it differs in its addictive potential from other more powerful drugs like amphetamines, "the belief that cannabis had no addictive potential was, in part, based on observations that withdrawal of the drug did not result in spontaneous physical withdrawal symptoms in animals or humans. However 1 in 9 cannabis users meet the clinical criteria for dependence as described by the ICD10 or DSM-IV. In summary, based on the latest insights, cannabis should be considered as a drug with addictive potential; albeit the conditions for this addictive potential to emerge are somewhat different from those known from the "typical" drugs such as amphetimines or opiates where tolerance, dependence and withdrawal are robust phenomena after repeated use. Thus, under appropriate conditions, it can be demonstrated that THC and related cannabinoid agonists have an addictive potential and fulfill the reward-related behavioral criteria for drugs of abuse."
Another key feature of all addictive drugs is the increase in dopamine levels where the brain reinforces the positive and pleasurable effects it has that causes a person to continue the use that only increases in strength as one becomes more tolerant to it.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
This is just... yeah, well, awkward moment.
The rest of your rubbish doesn't even merit a response.
I didn't say they're a path to fulfilment, just a path that many people take, probably because it's easy, and not very painful upfront.
Ok, so we're down to 11%. To me, that's already a low percentage. Now how many of those who meet the criteria for "dependence", meet the criteria for "addiction"?
Quoting TimeLine
I would assume that if 11% of the people who try marijuana get addicted to it, you would say that it has "addictive potential". I would also assume that if 1%, or if.1%, or .01%, or .001%, (etc.), of the people who try marijuana get addicted to it, you would also claim that it has "addictive potential". That's why I claim that your use of statistics is "bullshit". The statistics are meaningless with such usage.
Consider my example of the claim that the use of LSD causes chromosome damage. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that some so-called "scientists" experimented on some creatures, giving them LSD, and found that a small percentage of those creatures displayed chromosome damage. So, they claim, "LSD causes chromosome damage". You see the deficiency of this claim don't you? In the way that I stated the example, there is no control group, and it is highly probable that the few incidents of chromosome damage were caused by something other than the LSD.
Now apply this to your claim that marijuana is addictive. You have a low percentage of the people who try the drug getting addicted to it. You have no control group, and therefore no scientific means of saying that the addiction is not caused by something other than the drug. So I put it to you, that since the rate of addiction is so low, it is highly probable that the addiction is caused by something other than the drug.
Quoting TimeLine
Do you believe that the addiction to sweets is caused by sugar? If so, why don't you turn your rant toward a real problem sugar addiction, rather than a pseudo problem, THC addiction.
Anyway my original point was in reference to the privelidged in our current world. They are due to their privelidge already well tutored in how to conduct a life of leasure. Whereas the starving, or the "primitive" is not so prepared, hence the problems of addiction amongst indigenous populations when forced into a life of houses, clothes, supermarkets, TVs etc.
THC is not physically addictive, like some drugs which have serious withdrawal symptoms in which illness can follow abstinence.
But as with some other things such as nice things, be that Star Wars films, Mars Bars, or comfy chairs, they can have psychological addiction, which makes you disappointed if you don't get them.
Did you click on and read the link that defines clinical addiction? IF 11% of 183.3 million is more than 20 million, how is that a low percentage to you?
Ok, so now you say:
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
When you said:
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Just reminding you of your doucheness.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I wouldn't claim anything. The professionals are.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
There is clarity around what these percentages mean, around the likelihood vis-a-vis excessive use whereby the potential damage could occur, the risks to the brain if taken for a lengthy period of time etc. How you read the statistics is your problem, but it is not actually a problem.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
:-|
Try telling that to TimeLine.
Quoting TimeLine
Do you even know what "percentage" means? 11% is a low percentage whether the overall number is two, twenty, twenty million, or twenty billion.
Look, you are focusing on the descriptions from the 11% who purportedly get addicted, while totally neglecting the descriptions from the vast majority, the 89% who do not. So you conclude THC is addictive based on that small minority.
Do you not see that this is extremely faulty inductive reasoning? Suppose that 11% of people saw a certain object as green, while 89% saw that same object as blue. Would you insist on the conclusion that the object is green? Your argument makes no sense at all. As in the case with the 11% which say that the object is green, I would say that your 11% who are purportedly addicted, just have difficulty describing what they experience.
Quoting TimeLine
I don't think you've told me what doucheness means yet. Care to elaborate?
Quoting TimeLine
Right, you're starting to see reason. How I read the statistics is not actually a problem. It's how you read the statistics that's a problem. You focus on a very low percentage of cases, completely ignoring the vast majority of cases. Then you claim that the reports which that small minority make concerning the object (THC), represent the true properties of that object. So you treat the vast majority, which includes me, as if we're chopped liver. I think I know what doucheness means.
`When the government asks for evidence of the harm of something, it is the easiest target to shoe damage. Put sugar in a test tube, or salt, or chocolate or just about anything other than water, and you can damage chromosomes.
Alcohol, fat, sugar, tobacco, and many other common substances have the same risks when you ignore the importance of saying how much and for how long exactly.
Oh sorry, can you clarify, they have the same risks on the brain? No need to divert the attention away from the fact that this thread is about drugs, though, right?
It is like talking to a wall. Do you not value human life?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Yeah, sorry buddy, we're done.
Pot is basically harmless, like anything else, when used responsibly.
We really need a facepalm emoticon.
Communicating with me may be like talking to a wall, but I can see through you like glass. I hope you now recognize that what you promote is nothing but extremely faulty inductive reasoning.
We have an object, THC. We have numerous people who have experience with that object, many of them describing their experience. The vast majority, 89%, describe the object as non-addictive. A slim minority, 11%, describe the object as addictive. Your conclusion: therefore the object is addictive. Facepalm?
Quoting TimeLine
Of course I value human life, but that's irrelevant, we're talking about marijuana here, not a deadly toxin.
That's not how them stats works, tho.
That's rather sexy that trailer. I suppose that's how they got such a following, with the use of sex appeal.
So, drugs give people an escape from their own selves. It's sad.
Let's see, do you smoke pot? >:)
I my life I've tried most drugs, except heroin, and of all those drugs pot is the least addictive; tobacco the most addictive.
Pot has been a great stimulus to help consider alternative opinions. And its something I would heartily recommend those that think they are open minded on this Forum.
As an artist is has enhanced my imagination to improved my output.
As a drummer, it is crap, and a single pint of beer is the best drug to help you loosen up.
So what is your drug experience?
Use it in the mirror it will do you some good.
Alternatively get a life and drop a tab of acid.
I think the intention here is not to suggest that drugs are inexpensive, but that they are morally "cheap". But if one is indeed not "feeling alive" - not quite sure what that means but I assume it is something very unpleasant, then I fail to see how drug use is immoral just because it happens to alleviate that "problem".
Quoting Maytane Winner
Some drugs maybe. Other drugs tend to amplify - including one's disquiet with oneself or other things,
Recreational drugs are no more an escape than a film, comedy, or a drink down the pub.
Most people that like to moralise about drugs tend to have no experience of them.
They are not any substitute, but can be a great way to re-set your perspective; and provide a fresh outlook.
Perhaps that the propaganda was more successful than we might imagine.
I actually just thought it was funny. Haven't seen the movie. I think the leader is enough.
I agree with both of these, as benefits of pot usage. Perhaps by slightly altering your mind it opens your mind to alternative perspectives. It seems to assist the power of empathy.
When you say that "MDMA really does that", you have plenty of back up to your assertion for MDMA is in it's final trial stage of controlled studies, on it's path to being made available by prescription by 2021.
I had an inkling that you had first hand experience but I did not want to cite you doing something that maybe you, yourself had not. As far as "testimonies" from people of your acquaintance? I do not doubt what you say or what people you have talked to have reported. I have an appreciation for what people say, especially if they are being truthful, which I believe you are being.
Having said that, I find myself in an unfamiliar position because my reply to you was agreeing with what you had said and I was offering the citation for the assertions you were making, strengthening the idea that MDMA should be legalized and noting the fact that it is in the final stage of study, before being approved by the FDA, for prescribing to patients for the qualifying conditions.
But your blanket response that
"Drop a tab and you will know immediately. This is a complete no brainer" scares the living life out of me. And I am fully aware as to what the effects of MDMA can possibly have in the short term and what might be the possible long term effects, both from literary research as well as a mental library, overflowing with "testimonies" of "acquaintances.
Here is the difference and please make note of it: You have ingested MDMA and I have not. Before you are tempted to classify what I am saying as an: irrelevant conclusion, let me explain what scares me.
I have been told by what I consider the best of friends that I should never do MDMA or acid and when I asked why, my question was dismissed by saying they needed a sober person there in the event of an event. So I bought that logic in my early 20's since I was unable to drink as well, I had become accustomed to being the designated driver.
After giving birth to my second child, my Doctor said that I should probably stop at two children, as both pregnancies threw me into such a depression, he didn't want me to risk the drain that another pregnancy would put on my mental well being. I took his words as rule and stopped at two children.
Fast forward to about five years ago when MDMA surfaced as a topic again within my group of friends and I said what others had said some 20 years ago and it resonated with them, to the point that they said that maybe I shouldn't do it now. I asked why and my best guy friend said in the most genuine way possible that "Tiff you have a loose enough grip on reality that it is probably best to skip this drug." I was shocked not by what he had the courage to say but what others had been unwilling to say over my life. That my mental well being is fragile enough, that is what my Doctor was saying, that is what my friends were saying and now I have accepted that as fact, even though I am still tempted to try it.
And I have said all of that because the idea that anyone should ever suggest that "Drop a tab and you will know immediately. This is a complete no brainer" scares the living life out of me. Had I run into you on a forum and took your advice and went with the "complete no brainer" my guess is that I would not have had the same experience as you, with the possible, likely probable, negative experience in the short term and likely in the long term.
MDMA is not psychotropic in the way LSD or heroin is, however, but simply increases your empathy. I do not consider an increase in reality as a challenge to a conception of reality, but a emotional response to people around you.
I'm not going to recommend it to you if you think that about yourself, nonetheless, as I don't know you personally. But I still think the drug is relatively harmless against, say, valium, oxycodeine, or many other prescription drugs. The only other question is, since not regulated, would you actually be taking the real stuff, being cooked up by persons unknown?
What drugs do you take, and how do they affect you?
To be genuine with you, I am by nature, a very empathetic person and maybe that is what is a factor in why I shouldn't participate.
Quoting charleton
If I think that about myself....if I think that about myself.... hmmmm I am digesting what you have reflected back to me and I will have to think about it. If that is really what I think about myself in this regard.
Quoting charleton
Quality control will take over once under the umbrella of the FDA. Until then, I am fairly convinced with the test kits to test the purity of the MDMA found in the recreational arena.
Quoting charleton
The list is long and the affects are many so I shall stick to my experience of illicit drugs tried and some that you mention for now.
First introduction of an Opiate was when I was 15 and had my tonsils removed. Mom administered, Mom controlled but check the box for first experience.
Second induction of an Opiate was at the Dentist following a root canal when I was prescribed 30 Percocet. The affect was a warm cottony feeling cushioning my brain and relieving all pain.
Second drug tried was Methamphetamine, never paid for it because of my friends, friends who were 20 years my senior. I loved Meth! I loved the sense of invincibility, I loved that I never had to eat or sleep, I loved it so much that I stayed awake for about a year straight. Then as it always does, shit came crashing down and I was left with a choice. Get myself off Meth (a gram a day just to function) by myself or lose the remaining family that loved me. Which also meant giving up ALL of my "friends" in order to get myself off the Meth because they were go fast friends and I was trying to re-enter my life I had carelessly left behind. I weaned myself down to a grain of rice a day before I stopped completely. It took me 5 days of living hell before I could even muster up an hour of awake time without any Meth.
Back to more days of Opiates when I would get stressed, my mouth would throb in one tooth or another so back to the dentist for some more Percocet's.
Followed by a severe gel candle fire that caused 2 and 3rd degree burns to my left hand which had to be debrided twice a day for 30 days. I had to numb up with 2 Percocet's with each debridement in order to tolerate the pain.
Finally I broke my back in a high speed, high impact horseback riding accident. I was at the hospital for 4 days with Morphine controlling my pain as surgery was not an option and it was just going to take time to heal, 6 months to heal. In order to go home I had to get off the Morphine which was easy as they converted me over to OxyContin. For the next 2.5 years I was addicted to OxyContin and the next 2.5 years was spent seeing an Addiction/Pain Management Specialist who saved my life by prescribing Suboxone which at that time, he was allowed to have 30 patients total on Suboxone at one time under his care. From my last microdose of Suboxone to the day of my first Dopamine Dump was 45 days. Fourty five days of functioning at 10% of regular life, laying in bed motionless to keep the pain under control. Once I made it though to the other side of Opiate addiction, I swore on my life not to ever be there again. Slaying the Opiate dragon is not an easy thing to do and so now I just say I am allergic to Opiates and all it's cousins. I have instructed those close to me, to not leave my side and check all medications in the event of an accident that leaves me unable to state my decision to not have any Opiates introduced.
Which leaves me with one form of pain control and that is Medical Cannabis. I have had to use it for oral surgery recovery and RSO is what works for me. I dread the day that I am at the mercy of the medical community respecting my choice to not use Opiates.
How about yourself?
By the time I was 21 I had had my fair share of alcohol which I also started early, buying pints of beer at the local pub at age 16. And that is also when I had my intro to hashish.
Reaching 21 and finding my self in the smog of LA my lungs packed up and so I gave up smoking tobacco, but was still able to tolerate joints made with pure marijuana.
Alcohol never interested me that much, but Pot was a friend for years, and have tried it as oil, hast, bush, bud, you name it. I also tried speed, and one or two prescription drugs like valium for fun.
In the autumn we all used to enjoy freshly picked Psilocybin mushrooms when I could get them.
Over the years I've tried opium, crack and coke. None of which I have liked enough to risk addiction to.
Eight years ago i was diagnosed with tonsil cancer stage 4A. I suffered from extensive radiotherapy and chemotherapy which caused a lot of distress and pain. Tramadol and Morphine were the chosen pain killers, both opiates. I did get dependant on Tramadol and coming off them caused whole body spasms, but it did not last too long. When the neck pain gets too bad I sometimes take one with a strong inflammatory - by try not to do this more than once at week at most.
Smoking has been the worst for addiction, and that despite giving up for ten years, stupidly started again, with the addiction as strong as ever immediately. I gave up again 12 years ago, and will never smoke again, after having cancer.
I can happily say that I am not addicted to any drug. Even when in pain I can take them or leave them as I wish. Mindful management is the key here; and setting basic rules for yourself.