|
forgot my pants posted:So if we provided free heroin safely to junkies they would no longer be "addicted" to heroin because it would no longer negatively affect their life, right? Using this definition of addiction biases the term against illegal drugs and in favor of legal ones. But that makes sense so its wrong. Just check his txt and move on "I am a REAL ADDICT (to threadshitting) Please ask me for my google inspired wisdom on poo poo I know nothing about. Actually, you don't even have to ask."
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 05:21 |
|
|
forgot my pants posted:So if we provided free heroin safely to junkies they would no longer be "addicted" to heroin because it would no longer negatively affect their life, right? Using this definition of addiction biases the term against illegal drugs and in favor of legal ones. It means they would no longer have an addictive disorder. They would still be dependent. It's important to note however on the topic of prescription narcotics that dependence may just be correctly treating symptoms. If a chronic pain patient has their symptoms well managed, they will rightfully be resistant to having treatment withdrawn.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
forgot my pants posted:So if we provided free heroin safely to junkies they would no longer be "addicted" to heroin because it would no longer negatively affect their life, right? Using this definition of addiction biases the term against illegal drugs and in favor of legal ones. It is unlikely that providing free heroin to 'junkies' will meliorate all the negative effects of their addiction. It only reduces some of the harm (like the harm that was associated with financial loss for example). We may say that someone who is participating in a Heroin Assisted Treatment program is in remission though.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
Xandu posted:It seems like the essential point you're making is that substances, on their own, cannot be considered addictive. People can be addicted to substances though. That's fine, but it makes for a narrow definition that isn't particularly useful when comparing drugs. Because the reality is not all drugs are equal when it comes to causing addiction. First of all, there is nothing unique about 'drugs'* that makes them cause addiction: http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/sen/committee/371/ille/presentation/alexender-e.htm See also: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/addiction-in-society/201404/normalizing-drug-use This is not a narrow definition at all. It allows us to capture all manner of addictions - gaming, love, gambling, eating etc. * quote:The truth is that no single uniform feature is found in all the substances called 'drugs' that differentiates them from all the substances called 'nondrugs', except that all 'drugs' have been called 'drug' by somebody. KingEup fucked around with this message at 02:23 on May 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
Seems really weird to define addiction in such a way that rich people can never be addicts.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Seems really weird to define addiction in such a way that rich people can never be addicts. There is a non monetary dimension to addictive involvements.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
KingEup posted:There is a non monetary dimension to addictive involvements. The way you describe things would make it impossible for anyone with more than like 100 million in assets to be an addict.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:The way you describe things would make it impossible for anyone with more than like 100 million in assets to be an addict. Money does not buy you immunity to all the adverse consequences of addiction. Billionaires can still alienate their friends, ruin their marriage, neglect their children and still suffer physical and cognitive harm.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
So you agree drugs can cause harm and some are addictive now? Good.
Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 02:58 on May 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
KingEup Do you ever think there is a situation where the word "addictive" should ever, ever be used? Also, yeah, you're entire argument seems to be "if you don't think it's bad enough, it's not addiction" which, fine, may be the definition that works in the context you work in, a context well known for jargon that uses common words to mean something far more specific, but since there was no actual argument about what anyone meant, just you complaining that they weren't using your jargon, what are you even trying to accomplish here? Make people think you're an idiot that doesn't understand how words work? Because that seems like the only goal you've been working towards. Back on actual topic, does anyone know if there are any active movements to push for the legalization of other fairly harmless illegal drugs? It's incredibly frustrating, but it's become obvious to me that the sole criteria this country seems to use for its drug legalization is "is this too popular to ban"... What I mean is, has anyone gotten the sense that there seems to be a shift in opinion about the government banning "drugs", or solely about the government banning "marijuana". GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 02:45 on May 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
I guess I have two questions: One, is that as this debate of what drugs should be legalized continues in this thread, is there any progress in actually making any of the drugs legal? Marijuana obviously is trudging along, kind of slowly to me, but is legalization of any of the other drugs debated here even have a chance of legalization? Two, as a regular citizen, what power do I and others have for legalizing substances. I'm mainly concerned with marijuana, but wouldn't the strategy for marijuana work for the other drugs as well? I mean, even though there are polls saying that over 50% of Americans believe marijuana should legalized, that doesn't mean policies will change. At what point do people in power take notice? Is there anything individuals can really do? I'm assuming even if most people wanted a change, unless there is some beneficial reason to legalization, I assume policies would not change. E: Is VICE considered a legitimate source for news? They have some articles on harm-reduction in regards to harder drugs taking place in different parts of the world, but because they're a magazine(?) I'm not sure if they would be worth posting in here. Edgar Allan Pwned fucked around with this message at 07:55 on May 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 07:47
|
|
|
Edgar Allan Pwned posted:I guess I have two questions: Psychedelics are being tested again now on humans, so hopefully we will have at least medical access to them soon. Tests for using them to treat depression/anxiety and fear of death for terminal patients have been very successful.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 07:55
|
|
|
Do you have any sources for that? If its true, that is amazing news. From what I recall, the initial studies showed a whole lot of potential for that class of drugs in a therapeutic environment,until the government clamped down hard on further research. I am not finding much evidence of it if its true- psychadelics seem to still be schedule 1, effectively neutering possible research, no?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 13:20
|
|
|
You guys are arguing with a hophead who is really, uh, invested in his worldview, if you know what I mean.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 14:42
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Do you have any sources for that? If its true, that is amazing news. From what I recall, the initial studies showed a whole lot of potential for that class of drugs in a therapeutic environment,until the government clamped down hard on further research. Because the drugs in question are schedule I, it's hard as gently caress to get permission to do any sort of research on them. http://www.maps.org seems to be the biggest group of researchers that has their poo poo together and can actually test psychedelics on humans without going to jail forever..
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 14:48
|
|
|
I'm interested in the effects of desoxyn vs Ritalin...when my finals are over I will go over to the chemistry building and ask an old chemist I know. I've see papers that suggest meth has more dopamine agonism at high doses, which could explain why people are okay with small amounts but become rapidly psychotic on larger amounts. Anyways, I'm curious, so I'll ask later this week. Back in the day the students in the chemistry dept used to synthesize LSD as like part of an exam or something according to legend. My professor is probably going to think that I'm making meth
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
EXTREME INSERTION posted:I'm interested in the effects of desoxyn vs Ritalin...when my finals are over I will go over to the chemistry building and ask an old chemist I know. I've see papers that suggest meth has more dopamine agonism at high doses, which could explain why people are okay with small amounts but become rapidly psychotic on larger amounts. Anyways, I'm curious, so I'll ask later this week. Back in the day the students in the chemistry dept used to synthesize LSD as like part of an exam or something according to legend. My professor is probably going to think that I'm making meth
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Do you have any sources for that? If its true, that is amazing news. From what I recall, the initial studies showed a whole lot of potential for that class of drugs in a therapeutic environment,until the government clamped down hard on further research. You can't stop an idea from reproducing. [soapbox] That said, as RichieWolk said you can make it really, really hard to pursue that idea in a scientific way. This is essentially what they've done to pot for decades BUT they left the opportunity for research there in the form of NIDA funding. The problem for me though is that the name of the funding organization itself contains the conclusion; Drug Addiction biases people applying for funding to direct their research in a particular direction. That bias is poison and I've always hated it even though good research comes out of NIDA. So now we get to Colorado and the $10 million that they're going to grant to researchers. The administration of UCD and some other places in the state have set the standard for the use of that funding to NIDA/DEA levels meaning that if you want to do the research you have to be licensed by NIDA and then, and this is the annoying part, you have to get the pot you use from NIDA. It's free but it's exactly one strain and that's not what people in Colorado are being exposed to. The state funding however lets researchers do observational studies and the legalization makes standardization of exposure at least possible. We can't pay dispensaries to give specific strains to people that are in the study but we can identify, by name and location, what the participants are smoking and analyze that strain specifically. It's similar to what NIDA is doing elsewhere but doing it this way makes the research applicable to the people using pot which is great. A potential ethical problem with the legislation though is that it was initiated by the medical marijuana industry. On the plus side it was written by a very bright guy at the state who isn't beholden to industry at all. It is, however, spun from the perspective of looking at the therapeutic value of pot because the money came from red card licensing fees. Once again, this could be good or bad but I THINK that it's going to be good. The reason is that the legislation reminds industry that it has exactly no say in what research is done now that the legislation is in place. It also created a foundation/fund that they can contribute to to continue pot based research using industry funds in the future. So ethically I think the state has addressed this quite well but we have to see how it plays out. We want to recruit people who are using pot and we could do that most easily with the help of dispensaries. We'll see what happens when we publish the first negative results though. There's no way that pot is 100% positive and therapeutic and industry is aware of that; we just have to see how they react when we nail one of the negatives. Personally I think that there will be positives and that 10 years from now pot will be thought of almost exactly like alcohol, maybe better. After science takes this crack at pot we MIGHT see other schedule 1 drugs treated a little differently by the feds. I hope that we can get better directives from Justice for doing solid science using abuse-able substances like psychedelics. Personally I'd very much like to see NIDA broken as a stand alone funding agency and its experts distributed to other parts of NIH so that the assumption of addiction isn't there. It would also be nice to require scientific rigor in order to schedule a molecule instead of basing it on DOJ and politics. [/soapbox]
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
While psychedelics are certainly abusable to some extent, they mostly cause extreme levels of tolerance after only a single use that takes weeks or months to go away. It's nearly impossible to be "addicted" to psychedelics in any meaningful sense because they just stop working after the second or third dose. Speaking from experience, I find the idea of tripping daily or even weekly pretty harrowing at worst and boring at best. It's really ridiculous to have them included in schedule one besides heroin, meth, and crack.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:While psychedelics are certainly abusable to some extent, they mostly cause extreme levels of tolerance after only a single use that takes weeks or months to go away. It's nearly impossible to be "addicted" to psychedelics in any meaningful sense because they just stop working after the second or third dose. Speaking from experience, I find the idea of tripping daily or even weekly pretty harrowing at worst and boring at best. It's really ridiculous to have them included in schedule one besides heroin, meth, and crack. Crack and meth are both Schedule II.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Do you have any sources for that? If its true, that is amazing news. From what I recall, the initial studies showed a whole lot of potential for that class of drugs in a therapeutic environment,until the government clamped down hard on further research. I just did a report on it for one of my classes so I will dig up the research for you when I get back. Just google psychedelic end of life treatment. Many people, scientists included, thought it had been illegal to test with them and so almost nobody ever tried. Turns out, the government just made it super hard to get a license and only recently have groups had the resources to pursue that and get permission. goodness fucked around with this message at 20:20 on May 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
Yeah MAPS is, AFAIK the only non-profit putting drugs through FDA clinical trials, funded mostly by private donations. They've been working on it for like 25 years, last I heard (2012 I think) they completed phase II clinical trials for MDMA-assisted PTSD psychotherapy. They also have FDA-track research with LSD, marijuana, and a few others though they're not as far along.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Crack and meth are both Schedule II. You're right, I just meant heroin. Jesus, gently caress this country.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:While psychedelics are certainly abusable to some extent, they mostly cause extreme levels of tolerance after only a single use that takes weeks or months to go away. It's nearly impossible to be "addicted" to psychedelics in any meaningful sense because they just stop working after the second or third dose. Speaking from experience, I find the idea of tripping daily or even weekly pretty harrowing at worst and boring at best. It's really ridiculous to have them included in schedule one besides heroin, meth, and crack. I hate to use anecdotal evidence but myself and a friend did lsd, mushroom and dmt at least every other day, often multiple days in a row for at least a year and I have to say that while it was very mild I felt a sense of psychological addiction. Obviously I had a huge tolerance and was not tripping my nuts off (except for the deemsters) but there was definitely a psychedelic effect. Was this abuse? Some might say it is, I functioned just fine during that time period and stopped when I noticed delusional thought patterns start to develop. I don't feel that it in the long term it has been harmful or ~*enlightening*~ for me. I would definitely do it again and it is absurd that those drugs are illegal.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
brokowski posted:I hate to use anecdotal evidence but myself and a friend did lsd, mushroom and dmt at least every other day, often multiple days in a row for at least a year and I have to say that while it was very mild I felt a sense of psychological addiction. Obviously I had a huge tolerance and was not tripping my nuts off (except for the deemsters) but there was definitely a psychedelic effect. Was this abuse? Some might say it is, I functioned just fine during that time period and stopped when I noticed delusional thought patterns start to develop. I don't feel that it in the long term it has been harmful or ~*enlightening*~ for me. I would definitely do it again and it is absurd that those drugs are illegal. What made you decide to do LSD/Shrooms that often? Unless you were doubling your dose each time that would have had no effects after the first couple days. So you just decided to waste a couple thousand dollars just because? goodness fucked around with this message at 02:23 on May 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
Your 5ht2* receptors would be severely down regulated after even a couple doses. Your serotonin system would likely be depleted and you'd get almost nothing but the adverse effects such as nausea and vasoconstriction, with maybe some peripheral stimulation. Whatever "psychedelic" effects you were getting, if you did it more than 3-4 days in a row, were pretty certainly placebo. Mushrooms are one of the more gentle psychedelics in this regard, but after a few days they wouldn't do much if anything. I mean I guess If you were doing stunningly huge doses to keep up or staying at micro doses the whole time it'd be different, but it doesn't sound like that's what you meant. I'm not saying you're lying - your experience is your own, and perception is reality as far as the individual is concerned. But much of your experience was certainly generated from your own desire to have that experience and genuine belief that you were. empty whippet box fucked around with this message at 01:44 on May 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
KingEup posted:No, you don't understand the difference between physical dependence and addiction. You are a loving idiot. gently caress you.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
Pohl posted:You are a loving idiot. gently caress you. Modern cigarettes are a highly engineered product designed to administer satisfying dose of pharmacologically active ingredients, including but not limited to nicotine, in a convenient, simple to use package which requires no written instructions and is deliberately marketed to appeal to peoples underlying psychological/social/economic insecurities/problems. Nicotine gum contains just nicotine and a few excipients. They offer no exciting sensory experience (in fact they taste like poo poo), aren't marketed in glamorous packaging and make an embarrassing sound when you walk past your sexy colleague with a blister pack in your pocket. Plus they give you hiccups because people chew them wrong. The determinants of cigarette addiction go way beyond the presence of nicotine which is why Australia's aggressive tobacco control efforts (like plain packaging*) have been more effective than the UK's nicotine first based approach. * KingEup fucked around with this message at 10:29 on May 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 09:12
|
|
|
edit: nvm, not worth it.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 09:16
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Modern cigarettes are a highly engineered product designed to administer satisfying dose of pharmacologically active ingredients, including but not limited to nicotine, in a convenient, simple to use package which requires no written instructions and is deliberately marketed to appeal to peoples underlying psychological/social/economic insecurities/problems. Counterpoint; the nicotinic receptor GWAS hit on chromosome 15 for pulmonary function and COPD. Not being argumentative but there is an association between various polymorphisms in that receptor, smoking behavior and smoking related disease suggesting that the tobacco industry adding nicotine to their product was done because it worked. Counter-counterpoint; I can show that adjusting for the effects of smoking behavior (smoking intensity, depth of inhalation and amount of cigarette allowed to burn in the ashtray) remove the protective effect of ethnicity (Hispanic paradox) on COPD related mortality. Unfortunately I don't have Chr15 for that population so I can't show a DAG pulling the association apart. Interesting stuff though, that human behavior!
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Modern cigarettes are a highly engineered product designed to administer satisfying dose of pharmacologically active ingredients, including but not limited to nicotine, in a convenient, simple to use package which requires no written instructions and is deliberately marketed to appeal to peoples underlying psychological/social/economic insecurities/problems. None of that contradicts in any way the point (made also by that op-ed you linked) that "Nicotine plays a central role in tobacco use" and is a "necessary condition" for dependence.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 15:41
|
|
KingEup posted:Modern cigarettes are a highly engineered product designed to administer satisfying dose of pharmacologically active ingredients, including but not limited to nicotine, in a convenient, simple to use package which requires no written instructions and is deliberately marketed to appeal to peoples underlying psychological/social/economic insecurities/problems. Hahahahaha 
|
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Modern cigarettes are a highly engineered product designed to administer satisfying dose of pharmacologically active ingredients, including but not limited to nicotine, in a convenient, simple to use package which requires no written instructions and is deliberately marketed to appeal to peoples underlying psychological/social/economic insecurities/problems. So do you have articles or information where I can read about the above being true, or are you just talking out of your rear end again?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
AuxPriest posted:So do you have articles or information where I can read about the above being true, or are you just talking out of your rear end again? Here's a rat study for one particular additive: http://www.jneurosci.org/content/25/38/8593.full This guy did a long writeup that cites lots of journal articles, what he writes seems compelling but I don't have the knowledge to speak to what he doesn't write http://www.gwern.net/Nicotine
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:Here's a rat study for one particular additive: http://www.jneurosci.org/content/25/38/8593.full The MAO inhibition is really interesting, but I suppose I should have been more accurate and targeted this specifically. quote:and is deliberately marketed to appeal to peoples underlying psychological/social/economic insecurities/problems.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/14/2/127.short http://hpp.sagepub.com/content/4/3/266.short http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1748044/pdf/v014p00172.pdf http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1017909702926 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327027hc0302_1#.U3EOXfmSyA8 In Australia, cigarettes that are aimed at the poorest smokers are called 'Holidays' and 'Longbeach'. quote:supervalue brand identities... include freedom, escape, mildness, an aspirational attitude, blue tones, and waterside scenes. http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/12/suppl_3/iii79.short KingEup fucked around with this message at 19:14 on May 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:None of that contradicts in any way the point (made also by that op-ed you linked) that "Nicotine plays a central role in tobacco use" and is a "necessary condition" for dependence. The point is that it is overly simplistic to reduce the causes of cigarette addiction to just nicotine. It is way the UK's 'it's all about the nicotine' response to smoking has been a failure. KingEup fucked around with this message at 19:21 on May 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
Because there's so many cigs out there with no nicotine?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
KingEup posted:The point is that it is overly simplistic to reduce the causes of cigarette addiction to just nicotine. It is way the UK's 'it's all about the nicotine' response to smoking has been a failure. If the MAO inhibitors are used to simply reinforce the addictive properties of nicotine in the human brain, and the main addictive substance in tobacco is nicotine then... Does nicotine still not play a huge central role and should be focused on?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 05:21 |
|
|
From what I can tell, he doesn't believe substances should be called "addictive", because he rejects all common meanings of the term, and that's the entirety of his argument. In Summary: His arguments are and always will be solely semantic, and they mean absolutely nothing.Pohl posted:You are a loving idiot. gently caress you.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 19:54
|
|