Drug experimentation and dependence

[JeSSica WaBBit]

aaronphetamine - i couldn't have said it better myself, big hug.

Thats what i am talking about, spread the love!

JW

 

[theasxgorilla]

PS I have a problem - that deep down I don't believe in prohibition ( especially in the case of alcohol) - so what's the answer in the case of both booze and drugs? - education maybe?

Prohibition is necessary. Drugs are insidious and it's just not possible to trust people with them. How many examples of instances of lung cancer does it take for a reasonable person to conclude that smoking is an extreme health risk? How many cases of GREAT people self-destructing do we need to know that tampering with drugs is like Russian roulette? They shouldn't be anywhere near within arms reach to tempt people. Would we think it prudent to limit access to firearms and sharp objects with a person who is suicidal?

The only way to fix the problem IMO is to rebuild societal values en masse so that every single one of us believes so strongly that there can be NO WAY that taking drugs is okay. Regardless of how capable a person claims to still be at their job or running their business or just being a good bloke, a drug taker is not strong and when presented with the option of "will I or won't I" they made the weak choice and and in an idyllic version of Australian society we just can't value that outcome.

Programs to support people who have already gone off the rails are fine and necessary, but the BIG solution has to hit at every individual tipping point where a member of our society thinks, "will I or won't I". If that can be replaced with, "I would never!", then we have a solution.

The solution will not work while society is fractured in all the places that it currently is. Putting the family back together so that people still feel a strong compulsion to seek the approval of their parents would be a VERY good place to start.

When presented with the "will I, won't I?" moment how can we expect weak, sick, ill-equipped members of society to make the correct choice?

Society needs to be rebuilt and I reckon it will take a least twice as long to do it as it took for it to break down, so we're talking 50 years plus. This assumes of course that we want to change... compromise can be a dirty word in today's me-me-me world of extreme capitalism.

In the neighbourhood where I grew up what was once an idyllic new residential development of single family homes and 1/4 acre blocks is now rental properties. I am not joking when I say that every single one of the 8 houses surrounding my parents house is a rental property...some have been subdivided increasing the density of tenants. Hope everyone has enjoyed the property boom because IMO extending the number of rungs on the class ladder has had a societal cost.

Isn't that a wacky idea, to associate a recreational drug epidemic with an economic boom??? Society is more integrated than many people think but you wouldn't know about that if you just drove from your nice suburb along the motorway to and from work every day.

This may also come as a bit of a wacko theory out of left field, but one of the key problems that is making people more susceptible to drugs en masse these last 25 or so years is the crap food we're eating. Some allergy specialists are of the very strong opinion that there is a link between the additives and excess sugar and crap like MSG, in the processed food we eat and the more sensitive individuals (of which more and more come out of the wood work every week) are susceptible to the benefits of self medicating with drugs.

For example, to take the edge off anxiety caused by an overdose of preservatives in bread by smoking dope...countering with meth the lethargy caused by an artificial color and flavour laden fast food meal (post sugar high of course).

If people are putting absolute crap into their bodies breakfast, lunch and dinner how can we expect them to make the correct "will I, won't I?" decision when it comes to doing more harm to their bodies?

In Australia where we have fresh fruit and veg and an abundance of cheap world class fish and meat practically all year round we're as well positioned as any country to solve this problem.

 

[Gar]

If people have self control and knowledge of what they are putting into their body's drugs can be a positive thing.... if they don't then it can be a different story.

The same applies to alcohol, food, sex etc. its about strong grounding & common sense.

 

[Dukey]

I don't really believe in prohibition either - just doesn't work. but the problem (I think) is exactly this....

If people have self control and knowledge of what they are putting into their body's drugs can be a positive thing.... if they don't then it can be a different story.

The same applies to alcohol, food, etc. its about strong grounding & common sense.

... a large proportion of people don't have that kind of self control. Or - it takes a while to learn it - and in the meantime, serious damage can be done. - Just take a walk down the aisle of your local acute mental health unit- you'll see plenty of cases. Say Hi! to my sister while you're there.
(speed triggered szchizophrenia).

As for E in particular it does seem to be less of a problem than some others - but I'm no expert.

 

[Julia]

This is a huge subject and one on which I have conflicting feelings as a result of someone I loved being lost to the mire of narcotic addiction.

Aaronamphetamine said the most important thing about addiction:

"all of which may have been avoided, if they had simply addressed the issues confronting them"

The person in my life was a doctor who experimented with amphetamines as a registrar working the long hours that junior doctors do. It appeared to allow him to cope with the long hours and lack of sleep. It was so easy to acquire.

Later, amongst an unhappy marriage, severe headaches began. A single tablet of a potent narcotic not only swept away the pain but all the anxiety of the failed relationship. The headaches persisted. So easy to go on taking that magic drug which made it all OK. In less than a year that one tablet had turned into 40 tablets a day. One of these tablets would render a non-addicted person free from pain and euphoric for at least twelve hours.
To an addict, the 40 tablets are doing nothing more than allowing him to avoid going into withdrawal.

When I met this person, he showed no effects of drug use - successful, productive GP, president of the Medical Association, active in Emergency Team work, divorced father of two beautiful daughters. But what he was doing was unethical and illegal - prescribing drugs for patients and then collecting them for himself. No one had a clue what was going on.
Eventually he made a mistake and the whole charade fell apart.
The details don't matter. He went to jail for an extended period of time.
Amongst all this, with the inevitable lying and deception, the second relationship crumbled.

I went through with him countless attempts at withdrawal but each time it failed. Why? I don't know. Perhaps because - as has been suggested above - he had an addictive personality, though this concept has been widely disregarded by many researchers. Perhaps because he was one of many who always push the boundaries - drive faster, take more risks etc - than do the rest of us. Or perhaps nothing even so complicated but simply a physiological situation where after a time of exposure of potent drugs, the area of the brain involved in decision making becomes deficient. There appears to be some disagreement currently as to whether this brain physiology is altered prior to the drug taking or whether the altered brain chemistry is as a result of prolonged drug exposure.

Anyway, it simply doesn't matter. He is dead now. He left behind a trail of ravaged lives, including those of his two precious daughters.

So, to those of you who might be thinking it's pretty cool (or whatever the currently popular terminology is) to experiment with drugs, I'd suggest you reconsider. If a highly intelligent, well educated doctor can become a victim of drug use, then how much more likely is it that some street junk of unknown origin and purity is going to cause you some problem?

So "everyone you know does drugs". Well, whoopdedo! I'd suggest you find another social circle and consider doing something more damn useful with your time, energy and money.

And, just to be clear, although I used the word "victim" in the preceding paragraph, I do not ever consider any addict to be a victim unless they developed the addiction as a result of narcotics being prescribed for severe and protracted pain. The person in this story had total responsibility for his actions.

 

[Julia]

aaronphetamine - i couldn't have said it better myself, big hug.

Thats what i am talking about, spread the love!

JW

No risks involved, huh, Jessica?

 

[Dukey]

Anyway, it simply doesn't matter. He is dead now. He left behind a trail of ravaged lives, including those of his two precious daughters.

Julia - just felt this bit was worth focusing on.
The trail of destruction is where the true cost to society lies....

... I'm off to my cot - let the ravers rave on.

 

[Whiskers]

I have a different opinion to most when it comes to drugs, i take them when i feel like it and i enjoy every minute of it...

I'd say wake up and smell the dasies, time to educate people about HARM MINIMISATION rather than try and say no.

Hi Jessica

I would like to discuss a couple of things with you, if you don't mind.

Firstly, could you please briefly identify the harmfull effects that you are aware of for the drugs that you use recreationally?

Regards
Whiskers

 

[disarray]

the government should supply free heroin to registered users in safe locations with access to counsellors and assistance. many users turn to speed and ice - far more physically and socially destructive drugs - when there are problems with heroin supply.

overseas trials have indicated that associated property crimes to feed habits would be reduced when people don't need to resort to desperate measures to score, and it would also curtail a major revenue source for organised crime, who use the profits from drugs to branch into other illegal activities.

party drugs like cocaine and ecstacy are luxury items, consumed by those with money (and by extension, access to education, support structures etc.) whereas speed and heroin are generally associated with a lower "class" of drug user. this would be the most logical place to target different methods of drug management and control.

drugs have always been and will continue to be a part of the human condition. working against human nature will never achieve results, however it can be guided, manipulated and channelled. all it takes is some vision and some balls to trial new strategies, however our leaders are lacking in both so they would rather continue to pour money into failed strategies, continue to make it easy for organised crime to rake in hundreds of billions of dollars a year globally and continue to have families endure suffering and shame for what is ultimately a mental health issue.

 

[2020hindsight]

Originally Posted by Julia
Anyway, it simply doesn't matter. He is dead now. He left behind a trail of ravaged lives, including those of his two precious daughters

.

Originally Posted by Dukey
Julia - just felt this bit was worth focusing on.
"He is dead now. He left behind a trail of ravaged lives, including those of his two precious daughters."
The trail of destruction is where the true cost to society lies....

tough story there Julia - and I agree with Dukey

meanwhile - some new terms / philosophies / dimensions to the problem ..
"tough love" vs
"safe injecting rooms" , "needle exchange programs" etc

I don't see reference to HIV/ AIDS, but it's also a factor I guess
but there is also reference to adopting out the kids of addicts

http://kalimna.blogspot.com/2007/09/bronwyn-bishop-gets-tough-on-harm.html

Sunday, September 16, 2007
Bronwyn Bishop gets tough on harm minimisers
The Coalition’s ‘tough on drugs’ policy has been, in fact, a de facto harm-minimisation policy with a tough, external public persona. The years of being tough on drug users in Australia are, in fact, long since finished.

With respect to heroin addictions, emphasis for a long time has been on treatment of the addiction by switching addicts to the use of commercially-acceptable opiates such as methadone or buprenorphine that are just as addictive as heroin. It is primarily a pessimistic viewpoint - the assumption is that we cannot eradicate illicit opiate use so let us learn to live with illicit drug use by 'medicalising' the problem.

A safe injecting room, use of needle exchanges and an increasing reluctance to use the force of the law against drug users, have all acted in unison to reduce the user costs of being a ‘dope fiend’ thereby encouraging use. So-called ‘harm-minimisation’ policies reduce the user costs of drug use creating more users.

With respect to heroin, usage fell in Australia after years of growing strongly (due partly to the support of our local harm-minimisation industry) because of the successful attack on heroin supplies by the Australian police in 2000/2001. This led to Australia’s so-called ‘heroin drought’. This has greatly reduced the number of new drug users and vastly reduced the number of heroin overdose deaths. I am completing a study of the 2001 drought, with Lee Smith, which I will release later this year, but the main conclusions are clear. Heroin demands and initiation rates are relatively price elastic (this is known from a myriad of studies including many not relating at all to the drought) so a reduction in supply will reduce demand. This, in simple terms, is what happened in Australia in 2001.

The industry of drug treatment officers and doctors with the thousands of their clients who they keep addicted to commercial-acceptable opiates have not contributed to reducing usage. They have transferred large numbers of users from illicit to licit opiates but have not primarily targeted the ending of drug addictions.

Partly I suspect the medicos hate the idea that supply restrictions and consequent price increases can reduce heroin demanded simply because they are ignorant of economics and fairly ignorant of anything outside their specific disciplines of study.

Doctors do very specific vocational degrees and don’t study social science disciplines. They don't have breadth in their approach to issues - you either support their line or you are a heartless fool who understands nothing. Their objective, as they see it, is simply to reduce harm to the patient in front of them and that is it. The notion that this might encourage costly continued usage by that patient or 'spill-over' effects on broader society does not cross their minds. The subversive notion that, by coming to the aid of junkies and making their life easier on every account, one might increase demand for the use of drugs is simply preposterous to them. It is preposterous because they are so ignorant of basic social science research.

At drug conferences, like the annual APSAD meetings, those addicted to drugs are keynote speakers and treated with hushed tones of reverence. I take a different view of these social parasites.

Partly too, any suggestion along the lines of an expanded role for the law cuts into the extent to which the addiction issue can be 'medicalised' and thereby limits the ability of 'harm-minimisation' oriented institutions to get more money and to ‘empire build’ on the basis of the expanded demands that their so-called harm-minimisation policies bring about.

The research groups like NDARC that draw in millions in research grants each year do really low standard work. If I marked most of it as an honours thesis it would get a fail grade. The researchers clearly don’t understand basic statistics or economics – most of their so-called analyses are based on bi-variate graphs where some sort of confused causality is asserted between two variables. Their Commonwealth Government-funded forecasts of current drug use trends are an absolute joke and an embarrassment to even others in their own professional groupings.

Senator Bronwyn Bishop’s Senate Committee report, The Impact of Illicit Drug Use on Families, is designed to challenge the harm-minimisation paradigm that we have de facto come to rely on by seeking to re-promote the virtues of drug use abstinence. The report involves a recommitment to a 'zero tolerance' approach to illicit drugs.

The Bishop Report has already aroused ire among the medical community and the spiteful army of ‘harm-minimisers’. This is hardly surprising as it is the most radical critique of the harm-minimisation policy for years. Of course, whether it will ever be translated into policy is doubtful given the Government’s current problems. A group of Labor Party pollies on the Committee did put forward a minority report but they did agree with most of the core committee recommendations which is hopeful.

By throwing the ‘cat among the pigeons’ the report should provoke a community rethink. It is primarily an optimistic report that suggests we can reduce illicit drug usage to low levels. While it has been strongly criticised it has also gained support from groups such as Drug Free Australia.

Some of the main ideas in the Bishop Report: · Constrain treatment options to be those that seek drug use abstinence rather than living with an addiction.

· Maintain a continued emphasis on policing for addressing drug issues.

· Minimise harm with respect to the children of addicts by removing children them from parents who are drug addicted into adoption. Expend increased resources for detecting illicit drug use by parents and promote contraception among addicts and manage the social security income of users to promote the provision of basic needs for kids.

· Fund only agencies promoting drug use abstinence. The primary objective of pharmacotherapy should be the cessation of an individual’s opioid use so Naltrexone implants – designed to end heroin addiction – are proposed to be listed on the PBS.

· Reassess the role of needle and syringe exchange programs to determine whether they are supported by the local communities and examine whether they direct users to treatment enabling them to be drug free.

· Have random testing for drivers affected by illicit drugs concurrently with random breath testing for alcohol and random workplace drug testing regime to improve safety for patients and other staff.

· Place child users aged up to 18 years in mandatory treatment for illicit drug addiction with an organisation seeking to make them drug free.

It is a ‘tough love’ approach to the issue of illicit drug use. But, in combination with policies that make heroin and other drugs expensive, these sorts of policies will help to minimise the extent of addiction and the harm that addicts inflict on communities.

 

[2020hindsight]

then again, there's the concept of the "drug rota" - allegedly to avoid dependence ... like this post I found on another forum ...

http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/archive/index.php/t-298712.html
Weekly(monthly?) drug rota for harm minimisation and for putting an end to tolerance!

http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/archive/index.php/t-298712.html
So moving on from the 'Who uses drugs on a daily basis?' thread i propose that us more orderly drug takers (yeah right..) make up our perfect rota for drug taking! This would involve picking drugs according to the way they affect the body to avoid tolerance and dependance issues. An example would be not using drugs which work on the GABA system every day, say not using valium and GHB two days in a row or not using serotonergic drugs within a few days of each other, like 2c-b and LSD. This is probably grossly simplified but its a good yard stick IMO.

So for me...
monday - 2c-b/LSD/4-aco-DMT whatever (although i don't use psychs once a week)
tuesday - GBL/GHB
wednesday - ketamine (midweek k-hole treat, yummy)
thursday - kratom/poppy tea
friday - **** sake its friday take whatever
saturday - see above
sunday - valium and a spliff (ohhh, picking two thats a bit naughty, lol)

Of course you could adjust this to a two week or monthly system if you prefer and are sensible, if you wanted to be really anal you could set yourself a drug rota where you tick off the drugs you've done in a week to not do the same one twice.

I suppose a lot of the time what drugs you take are influenced by who you are with but **** that be self absorbed!!

 

[Ageo]

At the bars in the city u bump into some ojne and they nearly wanna deck ya, but in the family, u bump into some one and they smile give ya a hug and a handshake haha.

lol thats because you just need to look at what kind of people drink on a regular occasion and what people take drugs. Most drug takers are little panzies that like frothing in their mouth while bouncing for 24 hours then grinding their teeth to bits when they wake up. Get a footy team thow coked up you will see how they act

 

[wayneL]

lol thats because you just need to look at what kind of people drink on a regular occasion and what people take drugs. Most drug takers are little panzies that like frothing in their mouth while bouncing for 24 hours then grinding their teeth to bits when they wake up. Get a footy team thow coked up you will see how they act

Oh brother!

 

[weev]

This is a huge subject and one on which I have conflicting feelings as a result of someone I loved being lost to the mire of narcotic addiction....

Julia, thank you for sharing your experience.

Young doctors can be rather crazy, more so than what people know.

There is a knock on effect to losing it on drugs, your friends and family, those that survive after your gone.

OK, I think people take drugs for several reasons:

1. Because they are looking for a metaphysical experience, not available outside of spiritual ritual.

2. Because life is by nature boring and routine. Hunt, eat, sleep, hunt eat, sleep etc.

3 Because sexual pleasures lets us know we can have heightened sensual experiences with ourselves and others.

4. Because it makes us laugh and we are completely free and living in the moment when we laugh.

5. Because society is a fabrication of colluded deceits and deceptions filled with fear and anxiety. Drugs breaks this down by cutting through it.

When I was growing up it was (apart from alcohol, the system-sanctioned drug) mostly pot and some trips. Later, people got into coke and pills.

It would be fair to say that no one tries a drug with any intention of getting hooked, and that getting hooked is more a social function first, followed by genuine addiction. The psychological before physical. "I can't go out without a line, pill, drink etc"

There are drugs out there now I am not interested in trying (ice, meth) because the old established ones are enough work as it is.

Drug-taking is like a hobby. And like all hobbies you choose one over the other. The opportunity cost of taking drugs recreationally might be career success, a family, or perhaps just better health. If you smoke pot each night then you are not reading good literature or practicing your guitar playing, that is the opportunity cost.

A decade can slide by where you have partied your ass off, done lines in toilets with beautiful people, thought up some crazy ****, had some wild times. Actually, had a bloody fun time. Though the sum total you have left is a bunch of memories that you can't share with the people you had them with cause they/you moved on. They are like happy daydreams you must keep to yourself in a straight world.

Don't underestimate how drugs can change you. You will be the last to realise. Perhaps channel that frustration at the crap John Howard world we live in to changing the world rather than escaping from it.

And I know that you wouldn't use the word 'escape' to describe recreational use.

Do I have regrets? Only a few. I could have spent some more time into getting that dream life instead of a 'dreaming' life, but at the end of the day, at the sunset, it doesn't matter.

It is only human beings, of all animals, that understands our finite existence. We are the ones that know we will die. That we will age, and that all will pass. This alone might be the reason why we take drugs, and why we can't, in all intelligent consciousness, deny others that experience.

 

[Ageo]

Oh brother!

hehe excuse my last post Wayne. See what a little booze can do

 

[theasxgorilla]

Weev,

While I wish we lived in a wholesome drug free society what you wrote made extraordinary sense and unfortunately that is what makes this issue such a challenge.

ASX.G

 

[2020hindsight]

then again, there's the concept of the "drug rota" - allegedly to avoid dependence ... like this post I found on another forum ...

http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/archive/index.php/t-298712.html
Weekly(monthly?) drug rota for harm minimisation and for putting an end to tolerance!

Anyone know what this bloke is talking about , GABA etc?

An example would be not using drugs which work on the GABA system every day, say not using valium and GHB two days in a row or not using serotonergic drugs within a few days of each other, like 2c-b and LSD. This is probably grossly simplified but its a good yard stick IMO.

GABA?
I thought that was a cricket ground ?

 

[Gar]

Brain recepters 2020

Anybody that thinks they can keep up a regime like that and not end up with some form of dependance is clearly deluded.

Dont take the view that most drug users are that stupid

 

[2020hindsight]

Dont take the view that most drug users are that stupid

gar, thanks - so after a while they don't enjoy particularly good reception, I take it

PS I'm sure he wasn't that stupid either - before he started taking hard drugs

 

[Lucky]

I think most people would be very surprised at the extent of drug use amongst the population. I spent 7 years living and working in London. I was a financial contractor and worked for various corporations in a multitude of industries; everything from oil, media, television and telecoms. Drug use was rampant and was surprising how far up the food chain it went. Maybe it was just London, but drug use was as common as going for a pint. It was rampant and from what I could see tolerated(and maybe begrudgingly accepted) as part of the "London lifestyle." I worked with a lot of "respectable" intelligent, well informed people, who had "respectable" professional jobs and careers, that took drugs, and their use of drugs did not interfere one iota with any other part of their life. From what I could tell it was about having a good time, having a laugh.

Now I'm not saying that everyone in London takes, or has taken drugs, but when the population has the ease of accessability(and availabity) to drugs at very affordable prices, people are going to try, use and experiment with drugs.

I'm sorry to hear about some of the bad experiences and losses that people have had to deal with due to uncontrolled drug abuse - it's unfortunate. As I have stated and so too have a few others, the reasons, the whys, are different for many people. Not all drug users are the same and not all drugs are the same. Just as we have all encountered some people who shouldn't drink(or for whatever reason are unable to exercise self restraint) it's the same with drug taking. Some people just shouldn't take drugs.

Personal responsibility is the key to it all, but unfortunately there are those in society that are unable or unwilling to be held responsible for their actions and the repercussions they may have not only to themselves but to others around them.