Harrison wrote:I don't understand addiction in general.
I didn't either for a very long time, and then I read a book that changed that. You should try reading it. It's called A Million Little Pieces by James Frey.
Moderator: Dictators in Training
Harrison wrote:I don't understand addiction in general.
Arlos wrote:*shrug* A very good friend of mine has been smoking pot since high school, and at various times has tried shrooms, acid, speed, ecstasy and a few others (though as of right now all he uses is pot, pretty much), and both owns his own home here in the bay area (you seen the house prices here?), pulls in well over 100k a year, and is the main person sent around the world by his employer on business travel to solve customer issues. In the last year he's been to Japan, Korea, China, England, Holland, Germany and France, and it's looking like he may be sent to India shortly.
Arlos wrote:Basically, any drug is a problem if it is abused. The issue with some drugs currently illegal is that they are extremely physically addictive, and thus prone to misuse. However, that's no different than Tobacco, to be honest. It's all a matter of the speed at which they kill you, and while nicotene may not be quite as addictive as crack, it's still insanely addictive.
I have known people who have taken just about every different pharmaceutical you can name, and have absolutely no problem with any of them, and are extremely successful. I have also known people who's sole concession to "screwing up their life" with drugs was as the result of a possession conviction, which would have obviously not been an issue if the stuff was legal.
Dylan wrote:Hey guys, take two people who are identical to eachother in every way.
Then put one on drugs.
Which one is gonna lead a healthier life?
Shut up, stoner faggots.
lyion wrote:Remember, these drugs are much more potent and addicting. So the billions we spend now would be expanded tremendously. These are a few things that I can think of, I'm sure there are more
Addiction rehab.
Lost work.
medical costs.
Societal Infrastructure costs.
public accidents.
Crimes to support drugs.
Social welfare costs since many druggies won't be able to work. We have a bunch we support now and drugs are illegal.
Pharmaceutical costs
Costs for children born from druggies
etc, etc
Vivalicious wrote:Lots of females don't want you to put your penis in their mouths. Some prefer it in their ass.
Drem wrote:Yes, Lyion, I've seen it happen a few times, but the addicts you hear about and the ODs you hear about really are about 1 or 2 in a million. It's such a weak point for anti-legalisation mongers. There are blinding statistics that tell you what? About 100,000 more people died from prescription drug abuse/adverse reactions than people using every single fucking illicit drug known to man combined. If that isn't convincing enough, I don't know what is. You can't make blanket assumptions, either, that there are a far greater number of prescription drug users than illicit drug users. I'm sure it's true to an extent, but it's also probably completely proportionate. There are bad seeds in every aspect of the world and you know that those are what our government likes to highlight to put things they don't approve of in a negative light. It's understandable, but it's also unfair.
FYI, Mindia, Methadone is not "legal heroin." Morphine is the closest thing to that (since, like I said, heroin's real name is "diacetyl morphine"). They're similar, but not the same. Methadone is for waning people off of opium addictions and is an ultra-mild narcotic. Heroin is a powerful narcotic. A pain-killer. It's exactly the same as morphine but the euphoria comes on much faster. And in an instance where morphine helps but doesn't quite do the trick (like in Saving Private Ryan when the guy is screaming "More morphine! more morphine!"), that's when heroin should be used. The fastest-acting pain killer on the planet. I'm not saying you should be able to go to Hirons and get a gram of it, though. Don't put words in my mouth.
PS: Lyion, you're horribly wrong about nicotine addiction. Its addiction is easily comparable to cocaine addiction. It kills hundreds of thousands more people than cocaine (but here I would easily say your blanket statement is applicable), it's much more toxic (it takes 60mg to overdose on nicotine, it takes 1 - 1.5g of cocaine to overdose. small difference, right?). It's statistically 5 to 7 times more addicting than cocaine. It even triggers the same effect in your body (a flood of dopamine). The only reason nicotine kills you slower is because of its regulated dosage.
You seem think like you do and say they're incomparable because of dosage differences and your exposure to nicotine is probably 473728932-fold your exposure to cocaine. So where does your bias lay? Of course, with the illegal drug that kills less maybe 1% of the amount of people than nictone does, has a much lower toxicity level, and isn't used as a fucking pesticide like nicotine is. Very lol to me. You sound like a slave to the government's scare tactics when you say nicotine is less-dangerous. You're passing a very toxic drug off as "happenstance" because you see it around you all the time. And since it's sold in stores and there are commercials, so it can't be nearly as bad as cocaine, right?
Just think of it like: Nicotine is such a harmful poison to people that the government has regulated dosages down to as low as 1mg of nicotine in a cigarette. If it were illegal and nicotine were on the black market, people would die at a staggering rate because it takes about one drop of nicotine in your bloodstream to kill you. If all drugs were regulated in such a manner with legitimate, un-biased information like people get nowadays about nicotine, people wouldn't be as stupid about them, which has, essentially, been my point for this whole arguement.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests