venomai

Some of these might help: http://www.noupe.com/tutorial/vector-illustration-60-illustrator-tutorials-tips-and-best-practices.html But the best way to learn is by trial and error. :)

I'm interested to see the result of that psilocybin study. LSD does not stay in your body more than a day. http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_myth1.shtml As for the flashbacks, that's more or less accurate. This is really important. It's all about setting "rules" for yourself so that you can use the drug in the safest and most enjoyable way possible. e.g. I never use psychedelics in the winter. Too depressing a season. Psychedelics are not toys to mess around with. Know what you are getting yourself into. :!:

'how romantic' = 'how idyllic' romantic 3. Of, characterized by, or suggestive of an idealized view of reality - some romantic dream of country peace

Sorry to hear you took my post to be some sort of personal attack. And sorry for the miscommunication; I didn't realize we had narrowed things down to the feelings of a few TIF members. Anyways, like I said before, social stigma is not based on concern or compassion. Source Source -- Maybe what you mean is that there is no clear/significant social stigma in the last few pages -- and that the posters here seem more concerned with harm reduction than anything. Like you have pointed out, most posters here have been talking about a certain "so-and-so" -- brothers, sisters, loved ones. It's harder to stigmatize your family. Social stigmas are much easier to apply to people you don't know and love. e.g. Would you hire a former heroin user otherwise suitable for the job? What about a current albeit "controlled" user? (this question goes for anyone)

And a late response to some stuff on a previous page... Depends what side-effects we are talking. Dementia pugilistica ("punch drunk") can be about as debilitating as anything you can get from chronic heroin/opiate use. Source: Boxing—Acute Complications and Late Sequelae In many ways addiction is as much based on biological, psychological, and social influences as it is physical influences. Sports don't produce physical dependence, but that doesn't mean we should rule out addiction, nor should we underplay the severity of a non-drug addiction. For more information on behavioural addiction: [hide] Even as early as 1996, behavioural addictions were already making their way into the literature: Source: Exercise dependence and associated disorders: A review Feel free to peruse some of the more recent literature on exercise dependence. Exercise dependence falls under a 'behaviourl addiction', much like pathological gambling, which itself has been compared to drug addiction. Source: The neurobiology of pathological gambling and drug addiction Although behavioural and drug addictions are by no means identical, they are certainly comparable. And, depending on the biological, psychological and social factors, certain behavioural addictions very well may be as severe as certain drug dependencies (or even more severe!). Source: A ‘components’ model of addiction within a biopsychosocial framework[/hide] NB: The point of my boxing analogy was not to say that it is equal to drugs. It was to point out that, based on harm and brain damage alone, the public should be as universally mortified by boxing as they are by cocaine or heroin.

I cited the Vietnam study to give more support to the statistic you cited earlier: roughly 20-25% of heroin/opiate users become addicted. I'm not making any claims on the population of heroin users in the United States. How romantic... naïvely thinking the stigma toward opiates is driven by compassion and concern. Try telling your boss or a loved one that you ride motorcycles, or box, or free-climb, or base jump. Then try telling them you occasionally use hard drugs in your free time. And let me know how that goes. Point being, the stigma is composed of a whole lot more than mere compassion/concern.

That's the point: they shouldn't be of any concern. But the social stigma still exists. The misinformation still exists (you admitted yourself, you had no idea of controlled heroin use). The laws and policies still exist. Hence my desire to discuss it here. You don't need a lot of research in order to use a drug smartly and safely. (Note: Some controlled users may have developed their 'rules' and discipline over time, rather than at the onset of heroin use.) Reaching a couple hundred controlled heroin users may seem insignificant compared to the countless hoards of junkies, but then again, the idea of controlled use was virtually non-existent no less than a decade ago. Tired. Will respond to other stuff later. -- A quick note on the addiction statistic mentioned earlier; here is a 1974 study which helps to back the ~23% Omar cited. This study took into account narcotic use during and after the Vietnam war: How Permanent was Vietnam Drug Addiction? A sample of 495 drug-positive Army enlisted men was taken. Of these... 79% had used heroin during Vietnam. During Vietnam, 20% had become addicted to a narcotic (heroin or another opiate). NB: After Vietnam, this addiction rate dropped to 1%. After 10 months of post-Vietnam, the remission rate for addiction was 95%. Addiction was almost completely gone.

On the subject of harming one's brain and body with drugs... I have a question: What are your thoughts on boxing? Let me explain this analogy through, of course, academic literature: Brain Damage in Modern Boxers "Brain damage is a frequent result of a career in professional boxing." Does Amateur Boxing Cause Brain Damage? "Blows to the head in amateur boxing appear to cause brain damage, according to research that presented at the American Academy of Neurology's 59th Annual Meeting in Boston" Is chronic brain damage in boxing a hazard of the past? "[...] The results indicate that modern medical control of boxing cannot prevent chronic brain injuries but may create a dangerous illusion of safety. The only way to prevent brain injuries is to disqualify blows to the head." Sport is not always healthy: Executive brain dysfunction in professional boxers "in boxers, as in brain trauma patients, [P3 wave stimuli response] was delayed and reduced. The P3 delay of boxers was correlated with the amount of performed sport exercise. [...] We suggest that this impairment is derived from the cumulative effect of blows to the head." Impact of recurrent head trauma on olfactory function in boxers "The aim of this study was to determine whether there are changes in the sense of smell in people undergoing recurrent head traumas. [...] The olfactory threshold (p < 0.001) and odour identification (p < 0.05) were significantly decreased in boxers [...] Boxing seems to affect olfactory function, particularly by reducing the olfactory threshold." The occult aftermath of boxing "The repeated head trauma experienced by boxers can lead to the development of dementia pugilistica (DP)--punch drunk syndrome. Epidemiological studies have shown that head injury is a risk factor in Alzheimer's disease (AD). It is probable that DP and AD share common pathogenic mechanisms leading to tangle and plaque formation." Ok, maybe you see what I'm getting at. Aside from the obvious short-term health impact, long-term boxing can lead to permanent brain injury, impairment of smell, higher risk of disease and Alzheimer's in later life, etc. Sure -- I wouldn't want my kid to box. But if two grown adults choose to hit each other in the head repeatedly in the name of 'sport', who am I to intervene?

You have no evidence to support that assumption, either. In truth, as the studies themselves admit, we have no way to gauge whether controlled heroin use represents the majority of heroin use, or the minority. Here's a snippet from the first study I cited: Fortunately, there have been some recent advances in reaching non-dependent and unobtrusive heroin/opiate users: A 2009 comparison of sampling methods was able to recruit another 127 non-dependent opiate/heroin users.[1] But here's the kicker: even if 99.99% of heroin users are homeless junkies, that doesn't mean heroin use must inevitably (or "almost always") turn you into a homeless junkie. We call this "correlation does not imply causation." I'm not suggesting that heroin is a problem-free drug. Rather, I'm suggesting that a vast number of people, if they so desired, are physically and psychologically capable of using the drug in a relatively problem-free manner. So why don't we cut the sweeping generalizations and unsupported assumptions, and start backing our claims with some evidence. :thumbup:

Contrary to the above assumptions, some literature in the past decade is beginning to suggest that controlled and relatively problem-free heroin use is very much possible. -- A 2005 report by Warburton et al. made some significant findings: Further conclusions: Source PDF: Occasional and controlled heroin use: Not a problem? -- And a 2005 study by Shewan and Dalgarno, studying controlled and unobtrusive heroin users, concludes: "The pharmacological properties of specific substances should not be assumed to inevitably lead to addictive and destructive patterns of drug use." Further conclusions: Source PDF: Evidence for controlled heroin use? Low levels of negative health and social outcomes among non-treatment heroin users in Glasgow

You underestimate the human capacity to experiment with caution and intelligence. :lol: With that said, I care for people. I care for my friends and family. If they were at a low point and considered turning to heroin or another drug to escape their problems, that is clearly an issue that I would want to intervene with.

In the day and age of Google, anyone can be a good researcher. Took me only a few minutes to find those papers.

Only here to get my fix -- been itchin' for another dose of drug talk. :ohnoes: I visited Amsterdam this summer, cool to see how a tolerated/decriminalized (but not legalized) drug policy can work.

My two pennies... a) Yes, but many would not admit to it. The stigma has the potential to ruin your career, love life, family, etc. (Could the stigma potentially be more destructive than the drug itself? That would be ironic.) b) Imagine this: Productive Paul has dabbled with hard drugs and lived to tell the tale. Tweakin' Terry, on the other hand, has seen his entire life fall apart due to drug use, and is now dead due to an overdose. Which story makes the news? Which story do the children hear? Which story sticks in our memory? (On the subject of productive people named Paul...) Paul Erdös (1913-1996) was an extremely influential and prolific mathemtician in the 20th century. Yet, he was also a habitual drug user -- he used amphetamines from the early 1970s until his death in 1996. Source: Prime numbers: the most mysterious figures in math That's gotta be the exception to the rule, right? Well, here's some food for thought -- a snippet of Peele's "Cocaine and the Concept of Addiction" published in the journal Addiction Research. The gist of it: Cocaine addiction is not nearly as common as the public perceives; only a small percentage of current cocaine users show signs of clinical addiction. [hide] [/hide] -- Since we're talking hard drugs, here's some unrelated fodder regarding heroin: Source: A comparative study of physiological and subjective effects of heroin and morhine Simply put: Although chemically similar, according to the study heroin is approximately 1.8-2.6 times more potent than morphine. Yet, at equal doses, both drugs produce the same effects on the brain and body and have the same potential for addiction. (In fact, according to the study, heroin's withdrawal symptoms do not last as long as those from morphine). The regulation debate always centres so much around cannabis... How about your thoughts on regulating heroin?

Hundreds. I don't generally think of certain friends as my best or favourite -- just closer/different/more personal interactions than with others. I become attached to a person. Then I move on to a different place, a different group, a different lifestyle. Eventually, months/years down the road, I see the person again... rinse and repeat. In two weeks I'll be in England studying at a school with an entirely new group of people, and after that, traveling Europe for a month where I'm sure I will build yet more contacts and reconnect with old ones I have not seen in years. And for the "Naked Photo Test", I stopped counting after 20. Maybe I just have less shame than the average person...