twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Fwiw you can get hotdogs and a quart of milk at the dollar tree.
And chocolate.....lots of chocolate.
And altoids to pass a drug test.
And chocolate.....lots of chocolate.
And altoids to pass a drug test.
What do you think about preventing drug overdoses by legalizing drugs?
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
I don't know what this means or what you're trying to say, either way it has no bearing on what the chart does conclude; There is no correlation between the US drug prevention budget and addiction rates. If there is, prove it, show me some evidence there is. I've shown you evidence there isn't and just like I said before, you don't value evidence, reason or logic, so you simply dismiss it.
Show me the evidence
Aah, I'm starting to see a trend; you don't require evidence to support your beliefs. "Maybe" is not good enough reason for someone who values logic to come to a conclusion, it's a word that by definition means "I don't know". If there was a misuse of funding, show me the evidence that shows that.
What do you mean you don't know how to link it? Copy the URL and paste it in the reply box..
..Just in case, the URL is the address of the website on the top that starts with www.
It means, What would that addiction rate look like if there was no spending at all ? How do you know that the spending is not responsible for the steady rate and avoided an increase ? That`s not hard to understand.
Show you the evidence ??? You are definatly not street smart. I can`t tell you how many people I found out are addicts, Are they on this addiction rate chart too ? Or, Is it a list from clinics, hospitals and prisons and they missed no-one ? All are accounted for cuz this list says so. If I believed everything I read or heard I`d prolly be dead by now. And you want me to trust an incomplete chart ? Evidence can be misleading and wrong.
Copy to what ? "paste" Is that some kind of lick-n-stick thingy ? They had to invent the computer before I could try one, let alone afford one. I`m as computer illiterate as they come.
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
You're pretty clearly illiterate in a lot of ways - but it hasn't stopped you from having opinions.
First of all, the chart pretty clearly shows the level of addiction with no government spending - the same as it is today. How can we tell that the level of addiction has not been kept down by the massive increase? Because there is no correlation whatsoever between them. What suggests to you that this might be the case other than your own thick-skulled obstinance?
And the chart is incomplete because it doesn't include some people you know? Really? And if we don't know these junkie relatives of yours we have no street smarts? You clearly have no grasp of statistics either. What the fuck do you need - a cartoon showing a picture of your heroin addicted baby mama on the chart?
You clearly have no capacity for critical thought and no grasp whatsoever of logic. Your belief system seems to be based on some unhealthy combination of tradition, superstition and hate. You reject all evidence contrary to your beliefs without addressing the points they make. And the best thing is, your worldview is so narrow that you have no capacity for growth.
Yeah, I pity your kids. I am sure they could have done worse, but they drew a shitty straw.
I look forward to your continuing blather.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
The chart I posted does show addiction rates with little to no spending before Nixon initiated the war on drugs, then as it also shows, spending steadily rises, addiction rates remain constant, then, in 1986 the budget soars, yet addiction rates remain constant.
"Illicit drug use in America has been increasing. In 2012, an estimated 23.9 million Americans aged 12 or olderor 9.2 percent of the populationhad used an illicit drug or abused a psychotherapeutic medication (such as a pain reliever, stimulant, or tranquilizer) in the past month. This is up from 8.3 percent in 2002. The increase mostly reflects a recent rise in the use of marijuana, the most commonly used illicit drug.
Use of most drugs other than marijuana has not changed appreciably over the past decade or has declined. In 2012, 6.8 million Americans aged 12 or older (or 2.6 percent) had used psycho-therapeutic prescription drugs nonmedically (without a prescription or in a manner or for a purpose not prescribed) in the past month. And 1.1 million Americans (0.4 percent) had used hallucinogens (a category that includes Ecstasy and LSD) in the past month."
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/nationwide-trends
Cocaine use has gone down in the last few years; from 2007 to 2012, the number of current users aged 12 or older dropped from 2.1 million to 1.7 million. Methamphetamine use has remained steady, from 530,000 current users in 2007 to 440,000 in 2012.
So your request is that to come to any reasonable conclusion about the rates of drug addiction in the US, every single drug user in the United States has to answer the survey and you have to believe they're honest about it? Absolutely ridiculous.
It is irrelevant how many people have answered it. When they ask these surveys, they ask a group of people, usually, in something like this directly from the NIDA, they ask thousands of people, it's called a "sample pool", from every state with all different backgrounds, with that they come up with an accurate mathematical percentage based on the size of the population. This is how statistics works, as I'm sure you know, it's impossible to ask everyone.
What are you using?
neosapien
Well-Known Member
Over here in China, if you have some money you can walk into a pharmacy and get whatever "prescription" drug you desire. From what I've seen use and addiction are both very low fwiw.
Living in the tri-state area I can attest that our current model seems to be failing quite badly and we should try a different model.
Living in the tri-state area I can attest that our current model seems to be failing quite badly and we should try a different model.
kinetic
Well-Known Member
So no one can address my question on the previous page? Seemed valid.
Also I can produce charts as well. I guess valid questions get ignored without a fancy chart. Ill be back later with one that correlates increased opiate availability with increased od deaths.
I would also like to see a breakdowm of pada's chart on spending. The U.S. is notorious for overspending.
Also I can produce charts as well. I guess valid questions get ignored without a fancy chart. Ill be back later with one that correlates increased opiate availability with increased od deaths.
I would also like to see a breakdowm of pada's chart on spending. The U.S. is notorious for overspending.
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Its a good point. I can't refute it. However, those with more information might. I have a feeling that operational policies could play into it. I am reminded of a brief historical period (1919-21) in which controlled heroin buy centers were fairly common. After a short while, moralistic restrictions (more designed to assign blame and cause shame) caused most patients to abandon them for street dealers. Then they were illegalized.
Are most of these ODs happening from the prescribed meds or from street bought ones purchased after addiction?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Can you point me to the data?
bendoverbilly
Active Member
The increase in OD's would sure take the weak minded out of the gene pool.
kinetic
Well-Known Member
MrEDuck
Well-Known Member
There has been a dramatic increase in deaths since the advent of OxyContin because highly potent opioids are used far more frequently. I am willing to bet the deaths per capita are the same. As a society we generally know little to nothing about drugs, even the people dispensing them. Big Pharma came in with slick ads and essentially turned a niche drug primarily used for the dying (MSContin) into a multibillion dollar blockbuster (OxyContin). The other pharma companies saw Purdue making boatloads of money and got in on the game. Even when the FDA smacked Purdue for improper advertising they only fined them the equivalent to like 3 months of revenue.
I believe that actual education is the key. People are going to do drugs regardless of their legal status so lets give them some factual information to help them make better choices. Getting a buzz is fun but starting young dramatically increases your chances of having a problem (I don't have a formal citation for this but I've known an awful lot of drug users and the ones who had problems typically were the ones who started earlier, it's something I would love to see a study of) is the type of logic I might have listened to. Continuing down that line of reasoning with getting a buzz is fun but these are the drugs that are likely to really fuck you up so stay away from them.
Personally I favor legalization over decriminalization because drugs are a huge industry and I would like to see it regulated. I'm not a fan of lawyers but I'd rather they be used to resolve disputes than violence.
I believe that actual education is the key. People are going to do drugs regardless of their legal status so lets give them some factual information to help them make better choices. Getting a buzz is fun but starting young dramatically increases your chances of having a problem (I don't have a formal citation for this but I've known an awful lot of drug users and the ones who had problems typically were the ones who started earlier, it's something I would love to see a study of) is the type of logic I might have listened to. Continuing down that line of reasoning with getting a buzz is fun but these are the drugs that are likely to really fuck you up so stay away from them.
Personally I favor legalization over decriminalization because drugs are a huge industry and I would like to see it regulated. I'm not a fan of lawyers but I'd rather they be used to resolve disputes than violence.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Thanks Kinetic.
I would be very interested in a breakdown (which they won't have) of OD deaths by prescription holders v. users of diverted narcotics.
I am a bit astounded at how doctors are failing to educate their consumers about the dark side of the codones. I was one who fell into codone dependency, and I went in eyes open and with the sort of background that gave me zero excuse. I look back, and the docs didn't really say much about addiction and how to check for it. In my case, it could have been because I was a professional in the field.
I want to make it clear that in my case, i don't blame the doctors or the system. What i lack is a layman's perspective on how the doctors, the direct public interface in the marketing of these rainmaker drugs, are told to present them.
I see with some interest that heroin ODs didn't go up or down. i'd expect some overflow from codone users who failed to calibrate to the new drug. Interesting that that didn't seem to happen.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
I never argued it would reduce OD rates, I argued addiction rates would remain constant. Educating people about a policy like that would probably be something that would lead to reduced OD rates. I agree with the other two people who brought it up, I'm sure the OD rate would spike initially then level out. I personally think the personal freedom aspect of it is more important than the potential safety risks, and I think putting people behind bars for nonviolent drug offenses does more harm than the actual drugs themselves to the user/addict and to our society at large. The data backs this up. But one of the biggest points is that like I was telling the other guy, it doesn't matter how much we spend, we could spend every penny we have available and nothing would ever change, this is not a problem you can throw more money at to fix. Addiction rates will always stay constant with the size of the population. It's impossible to eliminate drugs in a free society, so what's the point in the big picture?
Edit: Oh, I guess I did agree, forgot what I titled the thread
...Maybe there are other variables?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I think the point is whether or not a free society is in the plan for our future. How long can they market the idea while engineering the opposite, this time having co-opted the general public?
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
I have heard, anecdotally, that doctors today can talk about pain management... But that if the discussion heads into dependency territory the doctor is pretty much obligated to cut you off due to concerns about their professional credentials. Any insight to the truth of this?
So you can party (or manage pain - same result - addiction)... But when the bill comes due you had better find a street source.
That's moralistic bullshit if true.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I take a rather Macchiavellian view of this.
With the codones as the New Smack, a diverted pill is still a pill sold by Unequal Treaties Inc. and allows the law enforcers to dip into the same well. The pharma-prison complex gets us both comin' and goin'. Talk about a sweet racket, and it's the sweetness of it that has me seriously doubting the viability of legislating away prohibition. The complex can afford much more and better legislators than we can.
Rak on Tur'
Active Member
We also need to be honest about the actual danger of each drug, not political nonsense trying to pass for science. I am glad to see some researchers actually look into it, without the emotion.
I found it pretty interesting
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/11/04/everything-youve-heard-about-crack-and-meth-is-wrong/
I found it pretty interesting
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/11/04/everything-youve-heard-about-crack-and-meth-is-wrong/
racerboy71
bud bootlegger
my take on this kinetic, take it for what it's worth obviously, absolutely nada, lol..
anyhoo's, here goes..
people who are addicted to and use drugs like heroin are very aware of the dangers associated with their drug(s) of choice, and therefore they tend to approach them with a bit more caution.. maybe..
people who are prescribed drugs by their loving family dr. tend to think, a lot of them at least, that these aren't real drugs, and aren't a real danger to their health for the simple fact that they come from their drs, not some filthy street corner and a real dealer.. they then don't look at drugs like oxy like it were heroin, when sadly that's about as far from the truth as you can get.. therefore, they don't approach the drug with the same caution as they would say if they were doing heroin..
that's my take on it..
and secondary reason, a lot of people don't take drugs from a dr to start out with for recreation.. it usually starts out for pain or after a surgery, etc.. imo, prescribed pill takers are a very different crowd then the heroin user.. so trying to compare the two, and the number of deaths between them is not really fair imo.. a lot of people break a hip and end up getting hooked on oxy.. had they not broken their hips, they'd not of gotten hooked in the first place.. see where i'm trying to go with this? for them, addiction wasn't ever really a conscious choice like it was with me saying one day i'm going to try some smack, for them it was accidental after getting injured or what have you.
racerboy71
bud bootlegger
lol, sad but true.. the worst detox i ever saw in my life was like a 50 year old house mother who got hooked on zannies after being prescribed by her doctor..
in this point in time, you'd think that people would start to realize dr's aren't really our friends, and are very willing to get us hooked on w/e drug to simply line their pockets, but for some odd reason it seems people are willing to either not accept this or simply over look it.
just watch tv during the day time and watch the commercials.. this drug can cause death or suicidal thoughts. also, this same drug, if you stop taking it can also cause death or suicidal thoughts and or actions.. i'll never understand why people are so willing to play guinea pig with their lives like that.