So, please people... Discussion of "hard drugs" is ok with me, I suppose. Advocating their use is not. Please, let us not go there.

+1

plus something:)

Those lucky enough to have retrieved themselves(because only they can make the decision), from the hell of addiction frequently replace the addiction with another 'crutch'(not meant in a bad way} such as the AA, or 12 Step program or Religion.

Interesting. Religion as a addiction. Addictions spring from unhappy lives. That is one thing many organized religions promise, a happy future life. Perhaps that is why the religious right has made a point of waging war on drugs. They wage war on other religions .... makes one think ....

---

Those lucky enough to have retrieved themselves(because only they can make the decision), from the hell of addiction frequently replace the addiction with another 'crutch'(not meant in a bad way} such as the AA, or 12 Step program or Religion.

Interesting. Religion as a addiction. Addictions spring from unhappy lives. That is one thing many organized religions promise, a happy future life. Perhaps that is why the religious right has made a point of waging war on drugs. They wage war on other religions .... makes one think ....

Careful, you are skirting close to quoting Karl Marx :)

---

Reality Internet Personality

Those lucky enough to have retrieved themselves(because only they can make the decision), from the hell of addiction frequently replace the addiction with another 'crutch'(not meant in a bad way} such as the AA, or 12 Step program or Religion.

Interesting. Religion as a addiction. Addictions spring from unhappy lives. That is one thing many organized religions promise, a happy future life. Perhaps that is why the religious right has made a point of waging war on drugs. They wage war on other religions .... makes one think ....

Careful, you are skirting close to quoting Karl Marx :)

Indeed:)

Those lucky enough to have retrieved themselves(because only they can make the decision), from the hell of addiction frequently replace the addiction with another 'crutch'(not meant in a bad way} such as the AA, or 12 Step program or Religion.

Interesting. Religion as a addiction. Addictions spring from unhappy lives. That is one thing many organized religions promise, a happy future life. Perhaps that is why the religious right has made a point of waging war on drugs. They wage war on other religions .... makes one think ....

Careful, you are skirting close to quoting Karl Marx :)

I had the same thought, Es99. What was it... something about religion

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

-- excerpt from A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right -- Karl Marx, 1843

All Drugs Legal. Gubment Run 'Opium Dens' fO The People. Free Medical and Psyche Care On Site. Plus Free Internet, Entertainment-movies and such-and Food, On Site. Drugs Nominal Cost.

Cost would be 1/1000 Spent on 'Drug' 'Wars'.

Be Like 'Paradise'.

Welcome To The City, We Got Fun and Games.

Yep.

Gubment still waiting for Pharma to come up with Soma.
Prozac didn't work.

Oh? Soma? They did.


http://www.drugs.com/soma.html

As to the Prozac, well maybe not well enough on the people, but you DON'T wanna know about what all the flushed drugs are doing to the fish.

All Drugs Legal. Gubment Run 'Opium Dens' fO The People. Free Medical and Psyche Care On Site. Plus Free Internet, Entertainment-movies and such-and Food, On Site. Drugs Nominal Cost.
Cost would be 1/1000 Spent on 'Drug' 'Wars'.
Be Like 'Paradise'.
Welcome To The City, We Got Fun and Games.
Yep.

Gubment still waiting for Pharma to come up with Soma.
Prozac didn't work.

Prozac does work!

Fluoxetine (also known by the trade names Prozac, Citalopram, and Sarafem, among others) is an antidepressant of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) class. Fluoxetine was discovered and developed by scientists from Eli Lilly and Company. It was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of major depressive disorder in December 1987. The U.S. fluoxetine patent expired in August 2001, so generic formulations are now available in the U.S.

Fluoxetine is used for the treatment of major depressive disorder (including pediatric depression), obsessive–compulsive disorder (in both adults and children), bulimia nervosa, panic disorder, and premenstrual dysphoric disorder.In addition, it is used to treat trichotillomania if cognitive behaviour therapy has been unsuccessful.

In 2010, over 24.4 million prescriptions for generic formulations of fluoxetine were filled in the United States, making it the third-most prescribed antidepressant after sertraline and citalopram. In 2011, 6 million prescriptions for fluoxetine were filled in the United Kingdom. It is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines, the most important medications needed in a basic health system.

The Sopranos Hip Hop Remix (PASS THE PROZAC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksOyTr4vOGU

Those lucky enough to have retrieved themselves(because only they can make the decision), from the hell of addiction frequently replace the addiction with another 'crutch'(not meant in a bad way} such as the AA, or 12 Step program or Religion.

Interesting. Religion as a addiction. Addictions spring from unhappy lives. That is one thing many organized religions promise, a happy future life. Perhaps that is why the religious right has made a point of waging war on drugs. They wage war on other religions .... makes one think ....

I don't believe I stated that I felt Religion was an addiction, I used the word crutch and explained it thoroughly. Interesting you would pick that out of the entire post. Probably belongs in another thread but please cite your examples of the "Religious Right" making war on other religions. I have only seen ISIS do that in this century.

I feel ALL man/womankind are born 'incomplete', that is with a need to fill some emptiness inside. Whether that is filled with Drugs, Politics, Romance or GOD, something is chosen to fill that void. Thus the predilection in some to Addiction.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Probably belongs in another thread but please cite your examples of the "Religious Right" making war on other religions. I have only seen ISIS do that in this century.

Fundamentalism in any religion would be the "right" of that religion. As to the last 100 years, the IRA comes to mind, but if you mean the last 15 years, this century, the war has been mostly words or burning Quran's. <ed> of course there is Srub's call for a crusade.

---

To me the important thing is not what drug of any type is being used, it is WHY any drug is being used in the first place. Are we saying the most of the world are unhappy and have unfulfilled lives? Are we saying that people can't survive without a ciggie, a drink, or something stronger to keep them going? If so then bugger the drugs, lets find out what is wrong with the world and put that right first!

p.s. I agree, target the dealers first, not the users, less supply = less users.

Psychiatrists call it self medication.
I see nothing wrong about it.
Im doing it my self using alcohol and Tobacco:)

It's when others are exposed in a bad way to a self medicator's habits it's turning ugly.

The Likely Cause of Addiction Has Been Discovered, and It Is Not What You Think

I think the recent interest of an old rat study could throw some light on the nature of drug addiction.

The rats with good lives didn't like the drugged water. They mostly shunned it, consuming less than a quarter of the drugs the isolated rats used. None of them died. While all the rats who were alone and unhappy became heavy users, none of the rats who had a happy environment did.

Good article; thanks for posting it.

---

The mind is a weird and mysterious place

IIf so then bugger the drugs, lets find out what is wrong with the world and put that right first!

Easier said than done. What's wrong(I feel) is there are 8 billion humans crowding together closer with each passing year. More pressure, to succeed, to provide for the family, to leave a 'mark'. A 24 hour news cycle keeps the pressure on with worry about everything.

The Hippie culture started largely as a response to the impending doom of nuclear annihilation. A generation believing the next day could be the last, started experimenting with hard drugs believing it couldn't be as bad as reality.

But again, how does it get fixed?

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

p.s. I agree, target the dealers first, not the users, less supply = less users.

That may not work as well as you might think.

Let's look at the economics of it.


There are a number of problems associated with the use/abuse of "hard" drugs.

As you mention, the addictive nature of these "hard" drugs is perhaps chief among them.

Their addictive nature causes the demand curve to be somewhat inelastic. That is, demand does not decrease very fast as price rises. Once one is hooked on said hard drug, one is hooked and will do almost anything to get one's next "fix".

Supply goes down, price goes up... way up... more people will have difficulty affording their fix. Crime goes up, way up, as people desperate for their fix turn to crime, or increase their crime, to get money.

No, busting dealers to reduce supply makes the problem worse, as the USA has found out during its 'war on drugs'.

Busting users has its problems too, as the USA has also found out.

One must find ways to reduce demand without further ruining the lives of those hooked on "drugs". I am not sure about how to go about this, but I do know that what has been tried so far... HASN'T.

p.s. I agree, target the dealers first, not the users, less supply = less users.

That may not work as well as you might think.

Let's look at the economics of it.


There are a number of problems associated with the use/abuse of "hard" drugs.

As you mention, the addictive nature of these "hard" drugs is perhaps chief among them.

Their addictive nature causes the demand curve to be somewhat inelastic. That is, demand does not decrease very fast as price rises. Once one is hooked on said hard drug, one is hooked and will do almost anything to get one's next "fix".

Supply goes down, price goes up... way up... more people will have difficulty affording their fix. Crime goes up, way up, as people desperate for their fix turn to crime, or increase their crime, to get money.

No, busting dealers to reduce supply makes the problem worse, as the USA has found out during its 'war on drugs'.

Busting users has its problems too, as the USA has also found out.

One must find ways to reduce demand without further ruining the lives of those hooked on "drugs". I am not sure about how to go about this, but I do know that what has been tried so far... HASN'T.

Yes. The USA has tried every way to attempt to break the problem of drugs by targeting the substance. Everything tried has failed. Now it is time to attempt to target something besides the substance.

As to the price people will pay for drugs, murder is in the acceptable range. I don't know what the value of that is in currency.

---

Dealers often times engage in selling drugs to support their own addiction at little or no cost. Works in theory but depending on the drug as the habit grows the need to sell more increases.

Also depending on how debilitating the drug is(Physically and Mentally), the dealer takes more chances or engages in taking a 'front' (drugs from a distributor on credit), and eventually ends up using the 'fronted' drugs and becomes heavily indebted to the distributor. This leads to a crime spree to repay the distributor before incurring, in some cases, bodily harm.

Obviously the target for enforcement needs to be(and usually is), the distributor and the importer(cocaine and heroin)or source (methamphetamine). Methamphetamine use is the worst problem faced in the US. Clandestine labs manufacture the drug everywhere. Users don't last very long and it is not a pleasant end.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

... why do people use drugs in the first place?

Perhaps the question should be, "Why shouldn't people use drugs?"

I think that might be a better starting place.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Where does all this new synthetic hard drugs come from?
It's requires a lot of technical skills and to do them requeries a profesional lab.
Who are responsible to let amateurs first getting the know-how and getting equipment on a free market?
FDA,Local authories, State authories, UN, WHO?
Perhaps Drug manufacturers should be blaimed?

I would argue that both questions have equal merit, just depends which side of the fence you are on, and whether you see drug use as negative or positive.

No it doesn't. It is just a way of analysing our assumptions about drug use and if those assumptions have caused us to adopt policies that are counter productive.

It is a simple question with no value implied at all.

---

Reality Internet Personality

.

... why do people use drugs in the first place?

Perhaps the question should be, "Why shouldn't people use drugs?"

I think that might be a better starting place.

You're absolutely right Es99.
Explaining why people use drugs might well be taken as justifying/encouraging use.

I don't see how "Users don't last very long and it is not a pleasant end." could be construed by anyone as condoning use.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

.

... why do people use drugs in the first place?

Perhaps the question should be, "Why shouldn't people use drugs?"

I think that might be a better starting place.

You're absolutely right Es99.
Explaining why people use drugs might well be taken as justifying/encouraging use.

I don't see how "Users don't last very long and it is not a pleasant end." could be construed by anyone as condoning use.

Well, if we are going back to first principles, you have to actually provide hard evidence that that assertion is correct and that, if it is, the they are coming to unpleasant ends because of drugs rather than those unpleasant outcomes being product of the way we treat drug use.

Think back to the rat study.

People are taking drugs because of what?
Is drug use the disease or the symptom?
What are the negative effects of drugs and how much are those helped/exacerbated by drug policy?
Are we deciding drug policy on moral grounds or scientific grounds?

and so on..

If you really do want to deal with the problem of drugs, then the very first thing you need to do is define what the problem actually is. Its basic problem solving strategy.

---

Reality Internet Personality