Drugs

[I_luv_saber]

I saw neither an indication that there should be more than one line NOR any indication of where you think any such lines should be. I would be interested in that....

I'm free for coffee next Wednesday

And for someone with ADD, 20mg of ritalin that worked a year ago might not work now, and might turn into 25 or 30mg, and that doesn't always imply addiction. My prescription is for significantly more ritalin that was initially prescribed, and I don't get it filled as often as I could, I don't take it if at all possible.....

No, it doesn't always imply addiction. But when your taking harder and stronger hits to feel high, your likely going to screw your body in a major way. I also know some people with the responsibility to be careful with meds like such.... and I know some who aren't. My point is, heroin will seriously mess up your body, and the danger of becoming addicted is significantly high, IMO.

There are people who only smoke 1 or 2 cigarettes a day, and are addicted to that level of nicotine, but it doesn't control their lives to the extent that people addicted to far more amounts of nicotine.

I suppose that depends on your definition of addiction. Personally, I wouldn't call that an addict. Because, likely, a person who smokes 1 to 2 cigs a day won't become as irrational, and may find it easier to quit, than say, a pack-a-day smoker. But really, I think this just comes down to one's definition of the word.

Part of it is social stigma. She would admit she was addicted to something legal for her to be addicted to, but not something illegal. Part of it has to do with making it societally consistent that addiction is a medical condition, rather than a criminal act. There already exist good programs, but often getting intot hem is difficult. It took my family (some of whom have worked in the drug treatment industry) almost a week to get my sister into a treatment facility. If it's difficult to get into a facility, that'll keep a lot of people from actually detoxing....

Absolutely. But, again, I think this has less to do with it being legal or not, but rather education people about it. Something doesn't have to necessarily be legal for entrance into the programs to improve, or for society to see it as more of a condition rather than a criminal act.

And, yes, there is probably SOME effect. However, studies have shown the genetic correlation to be VERY high regardless of the nurture factors. And even when there is causation, it's very hard to prove it.

"Since the 1950s, both the atmospheric CO2 level and crime levels have increased sharply. Hence, atmospheric CO2 causes crime. "

"Not eating causes anorexia nervosa."

Believe those? If you're still trying to argue that correlation and causation are the same, then it follows that those are true.

Yes, but does that mean it's safe to assume that it does NOT seriously effect the child? My feeling is it probably does... but I'm saying I don't think (or I have not been presented) there is enough information to say for sure one way or the other. But, again, I draw the comparison to child abuse. True.... just because there is a correlation in no way means it's true. But, also, ignoring it entirely is dangerous. A very large percentage of child abuse victims go on to be abusers.

Besides, while having an addict as a parent is certainly a negative experience that will psychologically affect a child for a very long time and is certainly to be avoided, why wouldn't it go the other way? Why wouldn't the child of an addict go out of their way NOT to be an addict? I'm sure there are studies on this, I just don't know where they are or where to look. I do know that I could find information on the genetic bit fairly easily though.

Very good point. My father was a heroin addict for a long time. He still attends clinic regularly. And I, for one, have seriously gone out of my way to not become an addict, to the point of fear. I have a fear of medications. Anything more than an asprin I'm extremely uncomfortable taking. Is it rational? Of course not... and when I need to take a med for some reason, I tell myself that and make myself take the med. But that doesn't mean I don't still feel that irrational fear. And anyways, I would think this is the exception to the rule. Again drawing the comparison of child abuse victims, or children witnessing domestic violence. Wouldn't this make them go out of their way to not turn into that? Yet, patterns show otherwise for the most part.

Yes, but the larger part of personal difference on this one seems to be psychological rather than physical.

I agree. But it's the fact that, in the process, you're killing yourself on crack or heroin rather than if you were just smoking a lot of pot.

I've known a variety of individuals who were very addicted to pot. Since pot is only marginally physically addictive (if you believe it to be physically addictive at all), one imagines that there aren't certain people who have a bizzarre medical condition where pot is physically addictive, that instead, something about the way their minds work is different. Again, it is in a sense physical, but most people do make a distinction.

Again, I agree. It seems a lot of people simply have addictive personalities. But again, smoking a lot of pot, and shooting a lot of heroin will do entirely different things to your body. If you take a stoner's pot from him, likely, he won't be happy,and will try to get more. I would bet, though, it would not be to the point of committing a serious crime in order to get it. Such is not the case with a heroin addict. They will do things completely outside the normal (or even their normal) rationality. It's like trying to take someone's air from them. They will rob to get it, at a minimum. Some will kill for it. In my mind, it seems legalization would cause more harm than good. I think steps can be taken to lower use, and find help for those who are addicted, without necessarily making it legal.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

The problem with drugs is their addictiveness, not their pharmacological effects. Does it matter if the psychological addiction is strong enough that the physical addiction is almost assured?

James.

What matters is that we make the distinction.

I consider myself alcoholic, and I've never had a drink. It's entirely possible that given the correct set of circumstances, I could drink and have everything be ok after, but there are more circumstances in which I shouldn't drink. Due to my family's record, I don't drink, and I don't do drugs.

But just because I know that it's very likely I would be incapable of using substances responsibly doesn't mean others can't. This mostly includes booze and pot, but might include other things. Just because my body and mind work in a certain way doesn't mean it's the same way for everyone.

I imagine that most people can use the less physically addictive substances without addiction (pot, alcohol, lsd?), and that there are some people with the right (wrong?) genetics that will get addicted to almost anything under the right circumstances.... But I also have to imagine that there are some people who are less likely to emotionally/psychologically become addicted to something. They might not be out there, and the way to find out is immensely risky(one I'm not interested in taking...) But I imagine it happens.

And if someone's actually able to use coke once a year under specific circumstances in which they are very careful to be responsible, and they won't become addicted...... other than the illegal part, I find very little argument they shouldn't be able to. Yes, they're definitely the exception to the rule, but it makes it worth at least differentiating between the two effects.

[jBirch]

What matters is that we make the distinction.

Why?

James.