Drinking/Drugs

[Furah]

If you have concerns with what a friend is using, by all means, tell them. To say that I shouldn't have no problem to people using drugs if they so desire is not acceptable.

[Duff]

If you have concerns with what a friend is using, by all means, tell them. To say that I shouldn't have no problem to people using drugs if they so desire is not acceptable.

The second part of your post is confusing. I'm not sure whether you mean to say that it is unacceptable to have a problem with people using drugs if they desire to, or the other way around. There's a lot of "not"s in that statement. :P

 

To be honest, a lot of people on this thread mention not caring. And it may just be a language thing, but everyone cares, to some extent, what their friends/family (even those who aren't close) do. I just think most people aren't willing to physically prevent people from doing drugs because we all live in free counties (I assume), and we're not keen on telling each other what to do. That's perfectly understandable. Personally, I know I don't have the energy or the willpower to try to do something for all those drug users out in the world. When my friends are in question, I rise to the level of speaking up and saying something, such as, "Dude, be careful doing that. [cabbage] can happen." Fortunately, none of my friends do hardcore stuff. If anyone close to me were to start doing hardcore stuff, I'd have a sit-down with them and tell them why they shouldn't do it, and how screwed up they could become.

 

The furthest I would go prevention-wise would probably be trying to get them to go see a counselor or psychiatrist. Physical prevention would be for someone who has already let the drug screw them up, and their in the process of screwing up even more by going back to it.

 

Sorry, I kinda just rambled.

 

And to people like Nom (no offense at all), it's just so hard for me to believe that you would completely abandon/isolate a friend/family member instead of trying to help them. The only circumstance in which this might be acceptable is if you repeatedly attempted to get them help and they repeatedly refused to be helped. In that case, there is nothing else you can do but hope [and pray] that they find the strength to overcome.

[venomai]

No one in their right mind starts doing heroin; unless it's at a party, they're probably at a low point and not thinking straight.

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.

[Meldar]

I've been a smoker for several years now; got into it at 15 because practically everyone I knew (that is, everyone my age) smoked as well. So...that sucks. I have at least cut back to, as ironically mentioned above, about a pack and a half a week. Thing is, I liked tobacco before I actually started. I'll probably never stop, and that's just the way it is. I definitely prefer cigars to cigarettes, and my significant other and I like our nighttime discussions over a fine cigar. It's legal and we like it.

 

Alcohol, on the other hand...I suppose this may lead to some preconceptions, but I am a college student who does like social events. Thing is, I don't drink. Not only is it illegal, but I'm on a few medications that prevent me from processing alcohol (that is, one shot feels like four or five) and so...there's my excuse.

 

I've always been against the idea of alcohol as a crutch. I've seen too many friends go to rehab for alcohol and drug abuse (cocaine and heroin mainly). Extended family members of mine have been alcoholics. It's sad and frightening. As such, even though I identify as a social progressive, I am strongly against any legislation lowering the drinking age here in America. The rest of the world, fine, do your own thing. ;)

 

I've never tried hard drugs and don't plan to. I easily could, though, that's the scary thing. It doesn't speak very well of my area that I can I think of five places or people where I can potentially buy any number of substances, but that's the case. I don't like that at all...I see what it does to people, and it's terrible.

[Nomrombom]

There are plenty of places online to buy hard drugs, which I won't mention because the mods would v& me. :lol:

 

 

OT, I don't think any of us knows what we would do. There are SO many studies on what people say they would do in a certain situation and then they don't do it. We don't really have a place saying what we would do unless we've actually done it.

[Omar]

Furah, I can agree with you on that for other issues. Here, the stakes are far too high (pun unintended) to be so indifferent.

Picture this: you're going by a construction site with your friend. Suddenly, your friend locates a wad of money and a bunch of coins next to it, close the the workers. You two dash for it, and as he's picking it up, you notice there's a steel beam falling down on you! You warn your friend, but he thinks you're trying to take the money away from him. Do you let him be killed or seriously injured by the steel beam, or do you push him of the way?

[Nomrombom]

Heroin isn't guaranteed to kill or seriously injure you.

[obfuscator]

Heroin isn't guaranteed to kill or seriously injure you.

If you want to look at it that way, neither is anything.

 

Heroin is almost always dangerous and destructive. We shouldn't need 100% certainty to act on something.

[Omar]

Heroin isn't guaranteed to kill or seriously injure you.

If you want to look at it that way, neither is anything.

And that includes steel beams, as they could fall just short, for your eyes may be playing tricks on you. There is, however, such a thing as probabilities. You still haven't answered the question, Nom.

[Nomrombom]

Okay, my answer is I would push him out of the way.

 

 

Before you analyze that as hypocrisy, the situation is not the same as a friend who would be trying heroin. They would be aware of the dangers and they would *choose willingly* to put themselves in that danger. As I said before, I'd tell them they are an idiot and that it could seriously [bleep] them up, but I'm not going to pretend that I have any control over it.

[obfuscator]

Okay, my answer is I would push him out of the way.

 

 

Before you analyze that as hypocrisy, the situation is not the same as a friend who would be trying heroin. They would be aware of the dangers and they would *choose willingly* to put themselves in that danger. As I said before, I'd tell them they are an idiot and that it could seriously [bleep] them up, but I'm not going to pretend that I have any control over it.

So you don't think we should try to prevent suicide?

[Omar]

Okay, my answer is I would push him out of the way.

 

 

Before you analyze that as hypocrisy, the situation is not the same as a friend who would be trying heroin. They would be aware of the dangers and they would *choose willingly* to put themselves in that danger. As I said before, I'd tell them they are an idiot and that it could seriously [bleep] them up, but I'm not going to pretend that I have any control over it.

They would be aware of the dangers, but underestimating them. That's why only you see the steel beam in the analogy, because while your friend is aware he's on a construction site without any protective gear on, he's not aware or thinking of the accidents that could happen.

[Edit] I'm not calling you a hypocrite, by the way, just saying your logic is wobbly.

[venomai]

That's why only you see the steel beam in the analogy, because while your friend is aware he's on a construction site without any protective gear on, he's not aware or thinking of the accidents that could happen.

Heroin is almost always dangerous and destructive. We shouldn't need 100% certainty to act on something.

 

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:

[...] we have presented findings that contradict some popular assumptions about heroin. We have demonstrated the existence of subgroups of heroin users who have been using the drug non dependently or in controlled, stable and largely problem-free ways for prolonged periods of time. Our study cannot give any indication of the size of the population of non-dependent or controlled dependent heroin users; nor does it imply that heroin use is free of serious risks associated with dependence. However, it shows that heroin use does not inexorably and in every case lead to dependence; and it also shows that problem use, or uncontrolled use, is not an inevitable outcome of dependence on heroin.

 

Further conclusions:

[hide]Research on heroin use typically focuses on those in treatment or those passing through the criminal process. These are the most visible populations of heroin users. The users in our study differed from these groups in important ways. Their use was generally hidden from those around them, and they regarded it as largely problem-free. Most were in work or studying. They were more affluent than those in treatment, and had better accommodation. Most owned or rented their own homes. Their heroin using careers were very varied. Interviewees reported patterns of:

• stable mid- to long-term non-dependent use without ever incurring a period of dependence
  
• mid- to long-term non-dependent use after experiencing a period of dependent/problematic use
  
• stable mid- to long-term controlled dependent use
  
• transition (they had recently used dependently or problematically) and new using.
  

Our interviews revealed much about the process of control. Most respondents applied ‘using rules’ such as:

• not injecting heroin
  
• not buying heroin if they could not afford it
  
• not using heroin for more than two/three days consecutively
  
• being in the right frame of mind before using heroin, i.e. not using it to escape
  from problems in life but using for enjoyment
  
• buying a set amount and not buying any more once that had run out.

The concept of ‘controlled use’ was interpreted differently by non-dependent and controlled dependent users. The focus for nondependent users was on regulating the frequency of use; controlled dependent users placed a greater emphasis on ensuring that their use did not intrude into their everyday activities. Both groups tended to draw on previous experience of uncontrolled use to define their current use.

 

Many respondents were discreet, and some were secretive, about their use. They were keen to avoid being ‘labelled’ as heroin users – a factor that helped them control their heroin use. Most users had no incentive to give up their heroin use, as they thought it caused them few problems. Many interviewees were also distrustful and disinclined to engage with treatment services.[/hide]

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:

[hide]

Objectives.

This longitudinal study focused on 126 long-term heroin users who had never been in specialist treatment for use of any drug. The primary aim of the study was to assess whether this ‘hidden’ population resembled heroin users identified with drug treatment agencies, or alternatively, to test whether heroin could indeed be used in a controlled, non-intrusive fashion for an extended period of time.

 

[...]

 

Discussion

The participants described here are typically experienced users of a range of opiate and non-opiate drugs, including heroin. In contrast to typical samples of heroin users, levels of educational achievement and occupational status were comparable to those found in the general UK population. High levels of negative health and social outcomes were not a major feature of this group. While there was evidence of lifetime difficulties with health and with social factors such as family and employment, ongoing problems were rare, and heroin was not a significant predictor in either context. While there was evidence of intensive risky patterns of drug use among the sample, particularly with regard to alcohol, there was equal evidence of more controlled, planned patterns of use. Attributions were shown to be the main predictor of frequency of heroin use, demonstrating the importance of psychological factors in drug use. At the conclusion of the study, six of those participants recruited for follow-up had entered specialist drug treatment. None of the other Phase 2 participants reported that they perceived the need to enter treatment intervention.

 

[...]

 

Among other participants, those who used heroin on a more moderate basis, self-ratings of dependence on heroin were low, and they reported few problems in relation to their heroin use. However, the indication of negative outcomes associated with their use of other drugs, particularly alcohol, would challenge a definition of this group as controlled drug users. The findings here primarily identify the relative nature of any definition of controlled heroin use, both specifically and within the broader context of general drug use, and raise the need for further research to clarify such definitions. We would suggest that the term unobtrusive heroin use could be usefully employed as a starting point for such research. This term recognizes that some patterns of heroin use can be relatively non-intrusive to the individual user and to society, and also incorporates the recognition of a continuum of heroin use without making assumptions about the inevitability of movement along that continuum (Shewan et al., 1998; Strang

et al., 1992). This could be an important step in developing a more integrative theoretical understanding of drug use and addiction, one that does not rest primarily on assumptions about the causal effects of simply taking a particular drug.[/hide]

Source PDF: Evidence for controlled heroin use? Low levels of negative health and social outcomes among non-treatment heroin users in Glasgow

[obfuscator]

Hence why I said "almost always". I've no doubt it would be possible to use pretty much any drug in a non-addictive sense. But people in that group (particularly when it comes to heroin) are a tiny minority.

[venomai]

Hence why I said "almost always". I've no doubt it would be possible to use pretty much any drug in a non-addictive sense. But people in that group (particularly when it comes to heroin) are a tiny minority.

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:

This study has established, convincingly we hope, that there are subgroups of heroin users who are either non-dependent or dependent but stable and controlled in their use. The nature of our research means that we can hazard no guess about the representativeness of our sample, or the size of the population from which our sample was drawn. The conclusions that we have drawn are valid, we hope, regardless of whether the population of controlled users represents a very small minority of heroin users or a large minority.

 

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:

[Nomrombom]

Okay, my answer is I would push him out of the way.

 

 

Before you analyze that as hypocrisy, the situation is not the same as a friend who would be trying heroin. They would be aware of the dangers and they would *choose willingly* to put themselves in that danger. As I said before, I'd tell them they are an idiot and that it could seriously [bleep] them up, but I'm not going to pretend that I have any control over it.

So you don't think we should try to prevent suicide?

 

Actually, I don't. I support regulated assisted suicide.

[venomai]

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?

[Omar]

Good question, but let's not omit the fact that drugs with comparable negative effects are in general far more addictive, and therefore harder to quit.

[Zierro]

From what I've seen, sports can actually be just as "addicting" as drugs are. There are plenty of professional wrestlers who have taken blows to the head, recovered from broken limbs, and accumulated an assortment of other physical problems, but yet you still see them in the ring pursuing their passion. Now that's an adrenaline junkie. Same goes for excessive video gaming. Anything with long-term detrimental effects, that humans regularly like to take part in anyway, should ideally fall under the same category of recreational drug use.

[Omar]

I don't know. I thought I wrote "afaik" in my post, but yeah, that's my uneducated and temporary guess.

[Duff]

Addiction to sports and addiction to a drug isn't the same... I mean, from what I know, if one decides that they're done with getting hit in the head, no matter how enjoyable it once was, they can stop. I doubt their body would scream at them, "Nooo, I want broken limbs, I want brain damage. If you won't give me that, I'm going to quit working for you."

 

Sorry for the childish example, but seriously, comparing 'addiction' to a sport and addiction to a drug is quite a stretch.

 

@Venomai:

 

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 don't think anyone is saying that using heroine guarantees a [cabbage]ty life. I think what's being said is that heroin is 'almost always' unsafe. Yes, you can use it in a controlled fashion and minimize the unwanted affects. But that's an exception. I doubt there'd be much discussion along the lines we're on if everyone were talking about controlled drug and alcohol use to the point where there is no harm done to the person.

 

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.

And you assume that this vast number of people do the research you do and know how to use heroine in a controlled fashion? It was said eariler that many drugs are done out of curiosity. Curiosity implies not knowing much about whatever is being done. How many people do you think actually research "controlled heroine use" before they try it? Sure, they're physically and psychologically capable of doing said research and using heroine in a controlled manner. Doesn't mean they will. I hate to be pessimistic, but I doubt the larger population of drug users have health effects on their mind when doing the actual drug.

 

Sure, I don't have evidence to support my idea that the majority of drug users don't use their drugs in a controlled fashion. But honestly, numbers like 127 non-dependent opiate/heroin users, or 126 long-term heroin users don't mean much to me in light of who is the minority and majority. The research you did concluded that controlled heroin use was possible. Not that controlled heroin users were not the minority. So yours is just as much an assumption as ours. But, personally, common sense seems to back the generalization that there are more heroin abusers that controlled heroin users. It's not like that generalization is coming out of nowhere. You can't just dismiss it.

 

And, to be honest, controlled heroin users may be hard to find (possibly because they're rare). Doing research comparing the number of controlled use and abuse might be hard to find.

 

As a note, while writing this, many times I was thinking of throwing this post in the trash (haven't really re-read it, either). But I'm posting it anyway... and I'll probably get torn apart by Venomai

 

EDIT: If anything, I'll just say, I didn't know heroin could be used in a safe manner. Now that I do (thank you, Venomai), I'll make sure to note that whenever I talk about people being heroin users, I do not mean those using it in a controlled manner. I felt that those drug users in discussion (we were talking about being worried/caring for those using the drugs) were using them in a way that was harmful. I wouldn't be worried at all if someone were using drugs in a safe, controlled manner. And I think many of the people here are excluding those who use drugs in a controlled fashion because if they are, why are they of any concern?

[Omar]

I missed your post, venomai. You're right, this statistic on heroin dependance did surprise me:

with regular heroin use, tolerance develops, in which the user’s physiological (and psychological) response to the drug decreases, and more heroin is needed to achieve the same intensity of effect. Heroin users are at high risk for addiction—it is estimated that about 23 percent of individuals who use heroin become dependent on it.

http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/heroin.html

That's a lot less than I thought, but it's still one in four. The problem just doesn't really lie in that percentage, in my opinion. Is a one in four chance of developing dependance really worth the high?

@Duff: Your common sense comment means little here. For all you know all non-junkies out there are heroin users, you just don't know it.

[Duff]

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?

Watching a heroin user take his drug probably doesn't have the entertainment value that boxing does... Anyway, I don't think the side effects (brain damage) of boxing are as drastic and likely as those of heroin. I don't know what the likeliness of a boxer developing brain damage (of the same magnitude as brain damage resulting from heroin) is, but I don't think it'd be too high. And there's also the chance of getting addicted. The chance of getting addicted to boxing (addiction meaning unable to physically stop) is 0. Compare that to ~1/4 of heroin users being dependent on the drug, I'd say that's quite a huge difference.

 

I'm just trying to think of reasons why people aren't making a huge issue of boxing like they do of heroin. There's gotta be more. :P

 

@Omar: Point taken.

 

EDIT: But common sense tells me that even saying 75% of all non-junkies are heroin users is stupid. I'd even go as low as 50%.

[Zierro]

Addiction to sports and addiction to a drug isn't the same... I mean, from what I know, if one decides that they're done with getting hit in the head, no matter how enjoyable it once was, they can stop. I doubt their body would scream at them, "Nooo, I want broken limbs, I want brain damage. If you won't give me that, I'm going to quit working for you."

 

Sorry for the childish example, but seriously, comparing 'addiction' to a sport and addiction to a drug is quite a stretch.

 

Surely the psychologies behind partaking in dangerous activities differ immensely in this respect (which is why I had "addicting" in quotation marks), but it doesn't change the fact that people still do them anyways. People know there is a good chance that your body can develop physical dependency to such a euphoric substance, just as they know there is a good chance getting punched in the face repeatedly can cause brain damage. My main point was that making the choice to sacrifice your own personal health for the well-being of your soul (or we can just call it entertainment) is nothing new to our society. Whether the draw is physical or mental doesn't really make much of a difference - people want what they want.

 

I'm just trying to think of reasons why people aren't making a huge issue of boxing like they do of heroin. There's gotta be more. :P

 

The social stigma towards heroin usage seems to point at selfishness and not contributing to society, whereas at least boxers provide live entertainment.

[Duff]

You're right. And I agree.

 

Anything with long-term detrimental effects, that humans regularly like to take part in anyway, should ideally fall under the same category of recreational drug use.

I guess I just looked to much into this statement. I just think it isn't good to compare video gaming/sports with drug use. There's that sense of social acceptance that you alluded to (the stigma). Heck, driving a car is extremely dangerous. But we still do it, fully aware of how dangerous it is. Yet there's that distinct difference between driving and drug use (that I find to be common sense).