Hard Drugs Ruining Society

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Originally Posted by Drip Curl Magic

I've read studies that suggest that most of the people who get addicted to hard drugs, started out with brilliant minds. For some reason, lots of intelligent people need an escape. I think it might be because when an intelligent mind realizes how insignificant human beings are... they are more likely to be the ones to give up, realizing that anything we do is futile.

I'm sorry Drip, but I emphatically disagree with 'realizes how insignificant human beings are' part. We are anything but insignificant. We're all we've got so that's hardly insignificant. I love what it means to be 'human' and have every expectation that we can straighten things out.

Brilliant minds are more aware of the fallacies that we live by and can't understand why people are so blind to them. And so they watch the people they love wander aimlessly behind belief systems that make no sense constantly shooting themselves in the foot. It's painful to watch. It's painful to know that they can then limp to the poles and vote according to those belief systems. That is the definition of terrifying. I understand why they blow their minds.

The solution entails understanding that 'Brilliance' is a learned behavior. As long as we believe that it's genetic, we're screwed.

[sanctus]

Tweekers are definately easy to spot... I think we should just take them all out into the woods and shoot them all.

 

Sounds a bit Nazi-like to me. The typival idea that by elminitating the people there won't be others doing. Almost like in Bali (where you get 2 years just for smoking weed), China/Singapore (you get death penalty) or Sweden (where there is pure repression).

 

Is there a cure? It's certainly not my government's 'free crack pipes and needles' program.

 

I don't think the aim of this handing out is to cure. The aim is more to improve the hygiene of the people taking drugs, not to have infected needles and so on. It's only human because with clean needles the maybe live long enough to find the force to stop, instead of dying from a disease which could have been

easily not taken.

[Cedars]

Craig, your post was interesting to read and has alot of facts. One piece I think was omitted was about the purity of the street meth vs pharmacuticals. I think the street meth now has a higher concentration of the methamphetime than what you seem to be familiar with as a "normal" dose. Back when the meth trade was primarily the realm of the biker gangs, they tended to cut the stuff alot. The stuff being brewed in these various places now seems to have not been cut much, as with any competitive business (and the people doing this are usually users) the purity level has increased. So it seems the everyday user is getting a much higher dose then when doctors were prescribing this for weight loss. Much like the cocaine purity in the 70s vs the 80s had changed alot.

 

Another point that has not been discussed it the evidence of neurological damage that the users are inflicting on themselves. Now this seems to be mainly in long term use (if I remember right 5+ years). But I do not know if there is enough study done with the various processes and ingredients to know if one type causes this damage faster or more often than another type.

 

Its one of the worst drugs I have seen. In my state, we have seen its use jump dramatically in the last 10-15 years though there has always been a element of users.

 

I have known people, either personally or close friends whos own family/friends are users, users have quit doing speed/crank/crystal 20 + years ago, lose their homes/jobs/family, end up in prison or even dead, within a few years (or less) of begining to use this stuff again. I feel really bad for those who are around 20 and find themselves really enjoying this crap now, getting off it, and the potential for their relapse sometime in the future. I have never seen so many fall so far, after having so much time between their youthful indulgences and their rediscovery of this particular high. And they dont care at all.

 

As far as a solution, I dont have one. All I can do is avoid it myself and discourage others from trying it. There are a few drugs I am absolutely against. Street meth is one.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

I think it's our ignorant response to hard drugs that's ruining society. But the problem has a cause that's deeper and it stems from the belief that we can legislate choice.

Legislation places limits (or at least it should) on how we relate to others. It cannot and must not place limits on how we treat ourselves.

A father that drinks and ruins his life and screws up the support structure of his family is a jerkoff. But that is not an area of life that can be legislated. However, if he beats his wife or his kids in a drunken stupor, then the law can and should step in. He's crossed the line limiting how he relates to others. The penalties should be doubled if he was drunk to make a point about responsibility. And if the crime was commited against a person subsumed by the implied 'trust umbrella', the penalty should be doubled again.

If a person is drunk and drives and hits and kills someone, the penalty should be double what it would be if he/she were to deliberately run someone down.

What I wish.... is that we'd stop legislating choices and focus more on what we do to people that cross the line that limits human interaction.

The fundamental fallacy that we live under is that it is illegal to blow one's brains out. All of the other stupidities arise from this fallacy. I own my life and every second of it. By saying it's ok to legislate this fundamental right, we give over ownership of ourselves to 'the government' and we take a giant step into the land of lala.

People choose to live or die every day. The problem comes when a John Wayne Gacy doesn't follow through on his choice.

[Tarantism]

i agree, mostly...

 

EXCEPT.

 

The problem comes when a John Wayne Gacy doesn't follow through on his choice.

 

the problem is when John Wayne Gracy runs out of money and kills his buddy tim for a cheap TV set.

 

no laughing matter.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Well, the point about Gacy is that we put him to death because of his choice to die, which he made the moment his first victim died. We didn't kill Gacy, Gacy did. The law just carried it out for him because his life was the only one he had the right to take. That is not the way it's looked at, but it should be.

[Tarantism]

yeah i see, but you are taking for granted that he who commits the crime does not turn himself in, or plan to get caught. anyone who commits a murder or crime it is said should have already "accepted the punishment", but if every criminal did that, then we wouldnt need police to catch them, they would simply turn themselves in...

 

the whole idea of fugitives is that they dont want to accept the consiquences of their actions and therefore run away. Gracy did not kill himself, we killed him. it was bounty for his actions, and thereofore there was nothing wrong with putting him to death, but you cannot say that he made the choice to die. he made the choice to kill and then he got caught.

 

sayign that it was his choice is just a way to make people feel better for putting people to death.

[Loricybin]

yeah i see, but you are taking for granted that he who commits the crime does not turn himself in, or plan to get caught. anyone who commits a murder or crime it is said should have already "accepted the punishment", but if every criminal did that, then we wouldnt need police to catch them, they would simply turn themselves in...

 

the whole idea of fugitives is that they dont want to accept the consiquences of their actions and therefore run away. Gracy did not kill himself, we killed him. it was bounty for his actions, and thereofore there was nothing wrong with putting him to death, but you cannot say that he made the choice to die. he made the choice to kill and then he got caught.

 

sayign that it was his choice is just a way to make people feel better for putting people to death.

 

i completely agree

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Tartanism:

sayign that it was his choice is just a way to make people feel better for putting people to death.

Oh for sure that is a benefit, but can you see how that statement implies a guilt for being selfish? And, in today's moral climate, that is considered wrong. So we reject the thought behind it for the wrong reasons and hence cannot find a solution to the problem. Do you see how that statement ends up reinforcing the idea that we do not own our own lives?

The bottom line is that if society legislates choice, we do not own our own lives. If you don't own that, you don't own anything. Why that is so hard for folks to understand, I don't know.

If one is lost in the woods and there is only one path out, if that path is blocked by illusion, one will remain lost forever.

[Drip Curl Magic]

all I can say is, humans will be humans. ya know? We all play a roll in society. We are all equals, but the way nature works, we can't allow ourselves to be equal. No matter what, there will always be the cranksters hiding in the midst of society. There will always be the rule enforcers standing out and telling people what to do... and there will always be the realistic people who just go with the flow... because we know that nothing will ever fix any of it.

[Cedars]

I think it's our ignorant response to hard drugs that's ruining society. But the problem has a cause that's deeper and it stems from the belief that we can legislate choice.

Legislation places limits (or at least it should) on how we relate to others. It cannot and must not place limits on how we treat ourselves.

 

There are true points here. The War on Drugs and its invasion of doctors offices and prescription writing has helped the illegal drug trade more than they imagined, I am sure. Many persons have seen the problems with pain management and other associated medications (whether their own or family members) and trying to get help from a doctor. There is a huge number of doctors who fear being called up on the carpet to explain why they have written such prescriptions.

 

The penalties should be doubled if he was drunk to make a point about responsibility. If a person is drunk and drives and hits and kills someone, the penalty should be double what it would be if he/she were to deliberately run someone down.

What I wish.... is that we'd stop legislating choices and focus more on what we do to people that cross the line that limits human interaction.

 

With the meth problem, you have people creating toxic waste, causing explosions, ruining rental units, etc. This in addition to the same problems you associated with intolerable drunk behaviors and the suggestion of doubling the penalties for those drunks who step over this societal line of acceptable behavior.

 

The only way I see to get the "stop legislating choices" is to remove the DEA from doctors offices. But there is also those persons who are getting scripts for these medications and turning around to sell them which is a huge part of why the DEA is involved. Rush Limbaugh? The numbers presented in the media for the amount of oxy he obtained is way too much for an one person.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/12/limbaugh.painkillers.ap/index.html

 

and this:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/12/elderly.dealers.ap/index.html

 

The fundamental fallacy that we live under is that it is illegal to blow one's brains out. All of the other stupidities arise from this fallacy. I own my life and every second of it. By saying it's ok to legislate this fundamental right, we give over ownership of ourselves to 'the government' and we take a giant step into the land of lala.

 

Its only illegal to survive an attempt to blow ones brains out.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Cedars:

Its only illegal to survive an attempt to blow ones brains out.

Thanks, I needed that. Also, thanks for the feedback.

The thing that scares me the most is the number of and variations of fallacies that society lives under. You start looking and quickly draw back from its immensity.

I remarked to my wife last night about the nature of the commercials on tv, about how violent and strident and revolting they're becoming. I don't advocate limits on that stuff. On the bright side they do provide a barometer of the 'societal mind' and what it's focusing on. Not lookin good. Perhaps someday soon that 'mind' will wake up and look at itself and not like what it sees - and change. I wish it would hurry.

And yet we still carry on. Humans are amazingly resilient creatures.

What would it be like without all of the encumbrances, roadblocks and blindnesses - and the consequent fears?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Drip_Curl:

because we know that nothing will ever fix any of it.

lol. that's way too easy. You imply that the state we are at right now isn't any better than when it was considered SOP to rampage into a neighboring country, rape and pillage and then impale the vanquished on sharpened stakes. I'm not saying we're far above that, but I think we've left that behind us. It's a good thing that someone took steps to put a stop to the way things were. You seem to think that we can't progress any farther. Given the number of fallacies most of us live under remains constant, I agree. So, we need to get rid of them one at a time. Laws that dictate choice are very good targets.

The only way it could (the impalings) reoccur is if everyone thought that 'that' and 'this' aren't different at all and gave up in hopeless, blind apathy. :eek2:

[Tarantism]

yeah unfortunitely there are too many hopeless americans out there that liek to be part of the world's big bully and so they assume that eveything that our government does is jsut and correct. i see it as a waste of time to try to convince those people otherwise...maybe we should just put all of the non-questioning ignorent fools (and the tweakers, crackheads, idiots) on an iceberg and just let them float away. then america wouldnt be so bloody crowded and we could just change things accordingly.

 

im kidding, of course...

[Racoon]

Isn't that how Australia was created Tartanism?? except desert island instead of Iceburg island.

 

I don't really think that Harsher penalties will solve problem.

I've learned that treatment of users works better than trying to get the makers/dealers . Curb Usage side NOT supply side. When there is Use, then there will always be supply.

The problem being that Meth is so hard to treat!The stuff leaves/can leave permanent damage..

 

Did anyone stop to consider a while back when the FDA banned Ephedra??

It wasn't because 18 or so people died from it over the years ('cuz 80 people die a year from Aspirin!)

It was the Gov't's feeble (and I think wrong) attempt to make it more difficult to make Crank! After they made Proponoyl (spelling) illegal.

ie Prope Dope. ( which was the Good Stuff Man! :eek2: )

The government had to show its 'doing' something.

I don't buy this " our Government thinks it's so much better " BS.

We enforce our views because of Monetary/Resource hunger.

 

Plus, they want stiffer penalties, because they want people locked up!

They spend more per capita to detain prisoners than they do to treat.

It's Cheaper to treat addicts, than to Institutionalize them!!!

Its Bush Senior's War On Drugs BS, that has been anything less than sucessful; Only more and more expensive!

Since its inception, Not have we only spent hundreds of billions, but we have more users,dealers,and prisoners than ever before!

[Cedars]

The thing that scares me the most is the number of and variations of fallacies that society lives under. You start looking and quickly draw back from its immensity.

 

Which fallacies are you refering to, regarding drugs?

[Cedars]

I don't really think that Harsher penalties will solve problem.

I've learned that treatment of users works better than trying to get the makers/dealers . Curb Usage side NOT supply side. When there is Use, then there will always be supply.

The problem being that Meth is so hard to treat!The stuff leaves/can leave permanent damage..

 

For those who get into meth to the point of destroying their lives, it seems to me, treatment seldom will work. The base issue for these users is they really enjoy what meth does for them. I do not see any real success for the treatment of meth addiction without some type of medication. The few items I have read about the brain damage is that limited healing occurs and if the person begins using again, the healing that has taken place is destroyed almost immediately. Once the user has produced the brain damage that some research has indicated, there is a chemical hole in these users brain functions that I do not see how the 12 step programs can replace. For to medicate for this problem runs contrary to the idealisms of the 12 step programs.

 

Which brings up the issues I have with the whole 12 step program and its lack of evolution as our knowledge of addiction is changed via science.

 

Persons in the treatment industry acknowledge many factors in drug use, such as abuse in the past, social conditions, etc. But their focus is on treating a symptom of the problem rather than the problem itself. For many who are labeled as "addicted" their real issue is they are a problem user rather than a person with a using problem. Meaning if you solve the problem that creates the need to feel better, the using will subside.

 

Did anyone stop to consider a while back when the FDA banned Ephedra??

 

It was the Gov't's feeble (and I think wrong) attempt to make it more difficult to make Crank!

 

Plus, they want stiffer penalties, because they want people locked up!

They spend more per capita to detain prisoners than they do to treat.

It's Cheaper to treat addicts, than to Institutionalize them!!!

 

Since its inception, Not have we only spent hundreds of billions, but we have more users,dealers,and prisoners than ever before!

 

Its easier to lock people up than to fix the issues that lead to this kind of self destruction/abuse.