Next time you are at the emergency room in a hospital ask to see the psychological intake nurse. Ask the nurse about illegal drugs. What the nurse will tell you is that people who take drugs are self medicating.
The medical profession in America knows the truth. Sadly because of fear of the law they do not communicate what they know to people not in the profession.
Election results
-
Mike Holmes
- Posts: 308
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:15 pm
Yeah, agreed. You would think that the 18th Amendment fiasco would have taught us something. But apparently not.
Oh, but that's "just" alcohol.
Anyone who thinks that there's some substantive difference in the nature of the addiction based on the substance used, doesn't understand that addiction doesn't occur because of the substance, but because people have pain in their lives that they're trying to numb. If it's not heroin, it'll be something else. Even if they have to resort to huffing fumes from aeresol cans. To eliminate all sources of self-medication, we'd have to get rid of a vast array of chemicals and substances that we have around.
We just supplant one method of controling people's depression with another. Want to know the number one method used by people of the late 20th century to suppress feeling bad? Television. That hypnotized look we all get when focused on the boob-toob? That's a physiological response that's caused by the way the projected TV light affects our brain chemistry.
And don't tell me you don't know any TV addicts. The term "Soap Addict" is theoretically in jest, but it's accurate for many depressed housewives (and men, too). I mean, think about it. Let's say that you knew somebody who did heroin, and spent 8 hours a day in a trance state when on the substance, and the rest of their time just eating and sleeping, and basic life maintenance. You'd say they had a problem with an addiction, right?
But since TV is socially acceptable, the "problem" is much less. At the very least the person doesn't have to deal with a social stigma and shame for their addiction. All of which is part of the downward spiral of problematic forms of addiction. The dissociation that somebody feels as they have to hide their activities, and loss of self-esteem as they feel that they're doing something shameful, leads them into believing that the only way to deal with these new pains is more of their addictive substance.
That's not to say that we should just endorse every form of addiction. But we should treat them all the same way. As a problem not with the substance, but with the person's ability to deal with life without the substance. This is how all twelve-step programs work. They give the person a way to deal with life that doesn't involve resorting to numbing themselves.
Pain will, unfortunately, probably always be a part of life. But to the extent that we can socialize people to have a place in life, and a meaning to which they can cling when things get rough, this goes a long way to helping prevent people from becoming addicted.
As long as we think, "Oh, they just need to be strong and not do bad things," without giving folks a methodology by which to do that, we'll have to medicate people somehow. Because, statistically, not everyone can just do it themselves. Be that due to genetics, environment, behavior, personality, whatever. Trying to eliminate supply of substances, or disincentivizing demand, both fail to target the real cause, and are treating the symptoms of the disease.
Educate and socialize people better, and you'll gradually lower dependency rates.
To the extent that you feel that it's not society's imperative to take care of all of it's members, the sound thing then is to accept that people will use substances as a way to take care of themselves. To that extent, why make this activity criminal? Worst, why illegalize something like marijuana, a drug that's better than any prescription drug at keeping folks happy, and does not impair them any worse than any prescription drug. I have known many THC addicts who can function perfectly well as video store clerks or similar.
If you don't want them to be hooked on heroin (the effects of which are stereotypically exaggerated, but...) why not make marijuana available legally. That would go a long way to making the heroin market dry up fast. Allow American farmers to sell it legally - it's already their largest cash crop - and they'll supply the world. Tax it like we do cigarrettes, and we'll pay off the deficit in record time.
Mike
P.S. Don't get me started on the tobacco hypocrisy. Let's see, a $2000 a year habit that will almost certainly kill you in spectacularly expensive fashion? That's not slavery?
Oh, but that's "just" alcohol.
Anyone who thinks that there's some substantive difference in the nature of the addiction based on the substance used, doesn't understand that addiction doesn't occur because of the substance, but because people have pain in their lives that they're trying to numb. If it's not heroin, it'll be something else. Even if they have to resort to huffing fumes from aeresol cans. To eliminate all sources of self-medication, we'd have to get rid of a vast array of chemicals and substances that we have around.
We just supplant one method of controling people's depression with another. Want to know the number one method used by people of the late 20th century to suppress feeling bad? Television. That hypnotized look we all get when focused on the boob-toob? That's a physiological response that's caused by the way the projected TV light affects our brain chemistry.
And don't tell me you don't know any TV addicts. The term "Soap Addict" is theoretically in jest, but it's accurate for many depressed housewives (and men, too). I mean, think about it. Let's say that you knew somebody who did heroin, and spent 8 hours a day in a trance state when on the substance, and the rest of their time just eating and sleeping, and basic life maintenance. You'd say they had a problem with an addiction, right?
But since TV is socially acceptable, the "problem" is much less. At the very least the person doesn't have to deal with a social stigma and shame for their addiction. All of which is part of the downward spiral of problematic forms of addiction. The dissociation that somebody feels as they have to hide their activities, and loss of self-esteem as they feel that they're doing something shameful, leads them into believing that the only way to deal with these new pains is more of their addictive substance.
That's not to say that we should just endorse every form of addiction. But we should treat them all the same way. As a problem not with the substance, but with the person's ability to deal with life without the substance. This is how all twelve-step programs work. They give the person a way to deal with life that doesn't involve resorting to numbing themselves.
Pain will, unfortunately, probably always be a part of life. But to the extent that we can socialize people to have a place in life, and a meaning to which they can cling when things get rough, this goes a long way to helping prevent people from becoming addicted.
As long as we think, "Oh, they just need to be strong and not do bad things," without giving folks a methodology by which to do that, we'll have to medicate people somehow. Because, statistically, not everyone can just do it themselves. Be that due to genetics, environment, behavior, personality, whatever. Trying to eliminate supply of substances, or disincentivizing demand, both fail to target the real cause, and are treating the symptoms of the disease.
Educate and socialize people better, and you'll gradually lower dependency rates.
To the extent that you feel that it's not society's imperative to take care of all of it's members, the sound thing then is to accept that people will use substances as a way to take care of themselves. To that extent, why make this activity criminal? Worst, why illegalize something like marijuana, a drug that's better than any prescription drug at keeping folks happy, and does not impair them any worse than any prescription drug. I have known many THC addicts who can function perfectly well as video store clerks or similar.
If you don't want them to be hooked on heroin (the effects of which are stereotypically exaggerated, but...) why not make marijuana available legally. That would go a long way to making the heroin market dry up fast. Allow American farmers to sell it legally - it's already their largest cash crop - and they'll supply the world. Tax it like we do cigarrettes, and we'll pay off the deficit in record time.
Mike
P.S. Don't get me started on the tobacco hypocrisy. Let's see, a $2000 a year habit that will almost certainly kill you in spectacularly expensive fashion? That's not slavery?
Dude, I am coming from a family of medical doctors and I am working in the medical field.
Plus I have personally known and seen people who suffered from this. I have seen them turn into zombies and die as slaves.
Tools of racial oppression, what are you smoking? We do not have any racial opression here and we do have the same issues, so that is a pile of dung, sorry.
On the genetics, yes it is true that there is a genetic predisposition that can increase your risk of becoming an addict. I have this and had been a smoking cigarettes for 16 years before I finally managed to quit this year. Starting to smoke was easy, everyone in my class smoked and it was not illegal to buy cigarettes even as a teenager. It was easy to get into this. If heroin was as easily accessible... I dont even want to think about it.
Further I want to point out to you again, that legalizing has not lead to any success in those countries that tried. None, nada, in contrary it got worse. So do your homework!
Self medication for what? Some of the addicts I knew came from "good" families. They were just stupid once in their lives and then suffered for the short rest.
People really, get out of your 4 walls and check the real life. Just because MTV and some idiots call for the legalization of drugs based on phony ideals and studies, does not make this a fact. I have seen facts, I have seen them with my own eyes! How about you Msimon?
Oh and bombing drug farms helps more than legalizing I am sure. Sure farms can move, but bombers move faster
Plus I have personally known and seen people who suffered from this. I have seen them turn into zombies and die as slaves.
Tools of racial oppression, what are you smoking? We do not have any racial opression here and we do have the same issues, so that is a pile of dung, sorry.
On the genetics, yes it is true that there is a genetic predisposition that can increase your risk of becoming an addict. I have this and had been a smoking cigarettes for 16 years before I finally managed to quit this year. Starting to smoke was easy, everyone in my class smoked and it was not illegal to buy cigarettes even as a teenager. It was easy to get into this. If heroin was as easily accessible... I dont even want to think about it.
Further I want to point out to you again, that legalizing has not lead to any success in those countries that tried. None, nada, in contrary it got worse. So do your homework!
Self medication for what? Some of the addicts I knew came from "good" families. They were just stupid once in their lives and then suffered for the short rest.
People really, get out of your 4 walls and check the real life. Just because MTV and some idiots call for the legalization of drugs based on phony ideals and studies, does not make this a fact. I have seen facts, I have seen them with my own eyes! How about you Msimon?
Oh and bombing drug farms helps more than legalizing I am sure. Sure farms can move, but bombers move faster
My tabacco addiction cost me 450 Euros a year before I quit and yes that is to much money spent on this shit.
However, a smoker is still highly functional in society, a heroin addict is NOT and you can bring me as many studies as you want to.
I have seen them myself many times. The only thing they can do is being prostitutes, thieves and beggars. Maybe work a very, very simple job that does not require much thinking and that is rare and inbetween.These people get apathic and passive, even after they stopped taking the drug. I have seen the same affect in people that consume marijuana. Frequent abusers get permanently dumb and I mean this literally.
The really sad thing is that these people are far below their potential. If you have to many people in a society that are operating far below their potential it will harm the society they live in.
This is could cause western society to collapse.
However, a smoker is still highly functional in society, a heroin addict is NOT and you can bring me as many studies as you want to.
I have seen them myself many times. The only thing they can do is being prostitutes, thieves and beggars. Maybe work a very, very simple job that does not require much thinking and that is rare and inbetween.These people get apathic and passive, even after they stopped taking the drug. I have seen the same affect in people that consume marijuana. Frequent abusers get permanently dumb and I mean this literally.
The really sad thing is that these people are far below their potential. If you have to many people in a society that are operating far below their potential it will harm the society they live in.
This is could cause western society to collapse.
-
Mike Holmes
- Posts: 308
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:15 pm
I'm not sure to which "Dude" you refer. But you can rest assured that you don't want to compare "real world" pedigrees with me on this subject (and I'd rather not discuss them, either, it's rather personal). You ought to ask a person's credentials before you decide to attack them with ad hominems and make assumptions about where they get their information.
But anecdotal evidence, yours or mine, is not scientific. If you're not willing to accept scientific evidence, then I think that your interests on this site are strange. You seem to be unwilling to argue points people have made on this issue (attacking straw men instead), which means we really don't have much to discuss.
Mike
But anecdotal evidence, yours or mine, is not scientific. If you're not willing to accept scientific evidence, then I think that your interests on this site are strange. You seem to be unwilling to argue points people have made on this issue (attacking straw men instead), which means we really don't have much to discuss.
Mike
That was to Msimon who was quoting annectodal evidence from a nurse.
I do know scientists working in this field and none of them would ever suggest such nonsense as to legalize drugs.
Also, the whole socializing and educating thing only has a limited affect. We have been doing this for decades here (and people here are very social with a tight social net and pretty much equal opportunity for everyone) and we do still have a problem.
The problem is that addicts become addicts as young as 13 years old. You can not expect them to be rational at that age. Education appeals to people that are rational. At that age being cool, or belonging into a group is more important. Also do not expect that everyone has the intelligence as you have and is capable of making equally intelligent decisions as you are. If your were of only avaerage intelligence, then 50% of the population of your country are dumber than you.
Also I am not affraid to measure my real world pedigrees with yours Mr Holmes. Further I do have a very good understanding of science and I do know how scientific studies work. I am personal friends with a leader of an institute here that is specialized on blood chemistry and pathological implications of such (I did an internship there while I was studying biology). They have done a lot of studies on this matter and while my friend does have a very liberal attitude towards certain drugs, he would never suggest such a foolish idea as to legalize heroin or other hard drugs.
Oh and on the self medication thing:
These drugs dont medicate depression very efficiently. They bring a short and increasingly smaller releave during the times the person is high, but they lead to even greater depression inbetween.
Let me list the reasons against a legalization of heroin and cocain again:
1. As few as a single use can lead to addiction.
2. addicts are not functional in society. They dont live up to their potential. This costs society dearly.
3. Crime resulting from them needing money to buy the drugs. This criminality will only increase with more users, so legalizing the drugs will not make this kind of crime (theft, robbery, breaking and entering, etc) go away. They still need to make the money to buy that stuff after all.
I have yet to see a good argument for legalization, other than there would be less people in prison and I dont think that this is good.
I do know scientists working in this field and none of them would ever suggest such nonsense as to legalize drugs.
Also, the whole socializing and educating thing only has a limited affect. We have been doing this for decades here (and people here are very social with a tight social net and pretty much equal opportunity for everyone) and we do still have a problem.
The problem is that addicts become addicts as young as 13 years old. You can not expect them to be rational at that age. Education appeals to people that are rational. At that age being cool, or belonging into a group is more important. Also do not expect that everyone has the intelligence as you have and is capable of making equally intelligent decisions as you are. If your were of only avaerage intelligence, then 50% of the population of your country are dumber than you.
Also I am not affraid to measure my real world pedigrees with yours Mr Holmes. Further I do have a very good understanding of science and I do know how scientific studies work. I am personal friends with a leader of an institute here that is specialized on blood chemistry and pathological implications of such (I did an internship there while I was studying biology). They have done a lot of studies on this matter and while my friend does have a very liberal attitude towards certain drugs, he would never suggest such a foolish idea as to legalize heroin or other hard drugs.
Oh and on the self medication thing:
These drugs dont medicate depression very efficiently. They bring a short and increasingly smaller releave during the times the person is high, but they lead to even greater depression inbetween.
Let me list the reasons against a legalization of heroin and cocain again:
1. As few as a single use can lead to addiction.
2. addicts are not functional in society. They dont live up to their potential. This costs society dearly.
3. Crime resulting from them needing money to buy the drugs. This criminality will only increase with more users, so legalizing the drugs will not make this kind of crime (theft, robbery, breaking and entering, etc) go away. They still need to make the money to buy that stuff after all.
I have yet to see a good argument for legalization, other than there would be less people in prison and I dont think that this is good.
I gotta admit, that's the main flaw in my view! I was hoping people wouldn't notice. Drug testing is not definitive.Skipjack wrote:Helius, one problem with these tests is that there can be false positives.
I still feel the demand side analog should be that of a watchful family; You don't get privileges unless you prove you warrant them through drug abstinence. Driving is just one. There are others that would pertain to 13 year olds. The point is to try to stop them from starting. This view is not mutually exclusive to supply side destruction or traffic interdiction.Many of them probably did not even have a drivers license to begin with, yet allone a car.
There are 13 year old girls on heroin here that is sold in front of their schools. They still need 5 years (here) until they can drive, to long for most teens to be of actual relevance.
Anyway, legalization does not work, it has not worked anywhere and I have not seen any good argument why it would. The only thing that works is zero tolerance towards dealers and the mafia behind them. Secret service methods and surgical military strikes. If you get them while on foreign soil, even better less problems in courts and less people in prison.
-
Mike Holmes
- Posts: 308
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:15 pm
More straw men. You attack annecdotal evidence after I've already rejected it. We agree. Where are you going with that? Are you denying that your arguments are based on annecdotal evidence? You keep posting things like, "I have seen the same affect [sic] in people that consume marijuana."
Let me try this again. You seem to propose that you have some sort of superior "real world" experience with such people, and that this supports your point. But then you condemn other's annecdotal evidence. I said that we need to jettison that anecdotal evidence, but you then attack back with "I know scientists..."
I'm saying we need to kick to the curb our annecdotal evidence. Do you agree or not? Or does only yours count?
By the way, where is "here?" Are we talking the USA? I had wondered because I'm assuming that English is your second language (your writing constructions seem to indicate this, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt).
As for socialization, let's compare. What countries have a low incidence of addiction? Well, they tend to be places that are rather draconian about liberties overall. But, for instance, Islamic countries tend to have lower rates of addictions. This is, quite simply, because their belief system includes not only banning addictive substances, but replacing that need with things like five times daily prayer.
I'm not advocating that we become a religiously intolerant nation. Or a hard-line communist one like China. Those resorts would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. But they do indicate that doing something in the lives of people does have an effect. Something more than simply throwing them in jail if the society doesn't help them with their problems.
In fact, when we disrupt this, and try to replace it with "freedom" the addiction problem increases: http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/ ... N=49024975
(note that this source would hardly tarnish the American brand if it could avoid it)
Message? Disrupt people's orderly socialized lives with war or displacement, and they turn to drugs. Conclusion? More work socializing people in stable environments means less drug use.
If, in fact, "here" is the USA, then look at an inner-city segment of any large American city, and tell me seriously that the people there feel enfranchised. To bring things slightly back on topic for the thread, in the recent election Obama was elected mostly by WHITE PEOPLE. Blacks certainly came out in record numbers, but still only a fraction of that population voted. Far less than the percentage of white people.
I don't disagree that "opportunity" is available in this country on a pretty good basis. But that's not at all like saying that we've incorporated all of the segments of society into our society in a fully functional manner.
Mike
Let me try this again. You seem to propose that you have some sort of superior "real world" experience with such people, and that this supports your point. But then you condemn other's annecdotal evidence. I said that we need to jettison that anecdotal evidence, but you then attack back with "I know scientists..."
I'm saying we need to kick to the curb our annecdotal evidence. Do you agree or not? Or does only yours count?
By the way, where is "here?" Are we talking the USA? I had wondered because I'm assuming that English is your second language (your writing constructions seem to indicate this, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt).
As for socialization, let's compare. What countries have a low incidence of addiction? Well, they tend to be places that are rather draconian about liberties overall. But, for instance, Islamic countries tend to have lower rates of addictions. This is, quite simply, because their belief system includes not only banning addictive substances, but replacing that need with things like five times daily prayer.
I'm not advocating that we become a religiously intolerant nation. Or a hard-line communist one like China. Those resorts would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. But they do indicate that doing something in the lives of people does have an effect. Something more than simply throwing them in jail if the society doesn't help them with their problems.
In fact, when we disrupt this, and try to replace it with "freedom" the addiction problem increases: http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/ ... N=49024975
(note that this source would hardly tarnish the American brand if it could avoid it)
Message? Disrupt people's orderly socialized lives with war or displacement, and they turn to drugs. Conclusion? More work socializing people in stable environments means less drug use.
If, in fact, "here" is the USA, then look at an inner-city segment of any large American city, and tell me seriously that the people there feel enfranchised. To bring things slightly back on topic for the thread, in the recent election Obama was elected mostly by WHITE PEOPLE. Blacks certainly came out in record numbers, but still only a fraction of that population voted. Far less than the percentage of white people.
I don't disagree that "opportunity" is available in this country on a pretty good basis. But that's not at all like saying that we've incorporated all of the segments of society into our society in a fully functional manner.
Mike
Helius, I agree, both is needed.
I am sorry if I come over offensive in my posts here at times, but drugs are one of these topics that make me very heated up.
The strange thing is that people were all upset about 9/11 and happily went to war about that, but as horrible as 9/11 was and as much a slapp into the face for all us western people, the victims there were few compared to the ones dying of drugs in the western world all the time.
That does not even count the ones killed by drug related crimes.
To me the drug mafia is a red towel. They are the worst of the worst. Slaviers, thats what they are. No worse, because they dont even leave people their minds and thoughts.
I am sorry if I come over offensive in my posts here at times, but drugs are one of these topics that make me very heated up.
The strange thing is that people were all upset about 9/11 and happily went to war about that, but as horrible as 9/11 was and as much a slapp into the face for all us western people, the victims there were few compared to the ones dying of drugs in the western world all the time.
That does not even count the ones killed by drug related crimes.
To me the drug mafia is a red towel. They are the worst of the worst. Slaviers, thats what they are. No worse, because they dont even leave people their minds and thoughts.
I am sorry my english is not good enough to fool you
Yes I am not from the US, but I have spent some time there. I am from central Europe and english is my second language.
My evidence is not purely annectodal, but I refuse to give details away as I do wish to keep certain circumstances of my personal life, including my social environment out of this discussion.
I am for a lot of freedom, but there is a difference between freedom and anarchy. Allowing something that is as disruptive to society as heroin to be legal is anarchy and not freedom.
I mean I might just as well ask for the "freedom" to shoot drug dealers at will (please excuse the sarkasm), right? This would be just as anarchistic. There are laws for a reason.
The first duties of a government is protection of its citizens to threads from the outside and the inside. Drugs threaten lives. To protect the lives of the citizens drugs need to be banned and fought, just like any other agressor would be. They are just like terrorists, actually many terrorist orginazations get their money from drugs.
Yes I am not from the US, but I have spent some time there. I am from central Europe and english is my second language.
My evidence is not purely annectodal, but I refuse to give details away as I do wish to keep certain circumstances of my personal life, including my social environment out of this discussion.
I am for a lot of freedom, but there is a difference between freedom and anarchy. Allowing something that is as disruptive to society as heroin to be legal is anarchy and not freedom.
I mean I might just as well ask for the "freedom" to shoot drug dealers at will (please excuse the sarkasm), right? This would be just as anarchistic. There are laws for a reason.
The first duties of a government is protection of its citizens to threads from the outside and the inside. Drugs threaten lives. To protect the lives of the citizens drugs need to be banned and fought, just like any other agressor would be. They are just like terrorists, actually many terrorist orginazations get their money from drugs.
-
Chuck Connors
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 11:23 pm
Roger,Roger wrote:I think you owe a lot of people an apology, for spewing that kind of hatred.Chuck Connors wrote: as well as a strong supporter of the Navy and armed services. Clearly the same cannot be said of the President elect or his supporters.
Gimme a break...hatred? You've got to be kidding me. I don't hate Obama or the Democrats. I don't agree with half the things the Republicans do or say either.
There is no apology to be made here. Good, Bad, or Indifferent....Clinton stripped the Military to the bone...it is my 'Opinion' that Obama is in a position to do the same. Congressional Dems have already called for a precipitous drop (at least 25%) reduction in military spending....and this is just a warm-up. Does Obama have the ability to say No? Will he even try?
This is a Polywell forum, correct? How do you see large military cuts affecting Polywell research? Would you call supporting major reductions in military spending 'supporting the armed services'?
Facts and figures are great, but the campaign is over and actions speak louder than words.
-
Mike Holmes
- Posts: 308
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:15 pm
Just to be clear, "annecdotal" means not just "I heard it" but also "I experienced it." First hand experience is often a determiner of how we feel about things. But it's not at all scientific. My first hand experience, yours, anybodies, has to be discounted. Because in terms of making policies, you can't do it based on so small a data sample, when the policy will affect so many.
Mike
Mike
-
Chuck Connors
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 11:23 pm