[Banter]

Wildstriker, on 29 December 2010 - 11:51 PM, said:

Interesting, without any sort of third party watching them making sure they can't access the stuff and not harm anyone due to the psychosis associated with withdrawal? It's not that I don't believe you, but the fact is, even if they did quit, without some sort of lifelong program or guideline, they can find themselves lapsing again easily. Good for your former friends though, but individual cases don't justify discounting rehabilitation. Not everyone is that strong willed and educated nor quite frankly physically capable of handling withdrawal.


Edit: I know you didn't claim that rehab was useless, but I also know that Lindsey Lohan over here would probably use your post as evidence.

Yea, rehab works for those who actually want to quit. Anyways, my old friends had a good circle of people helping them through everything, including myself. I babysit them or anything so I can't say that they haven't relapsed once or twice, but they're obviously not high as fuck all the time when we do get together.

[Zak]

Wildstriker, on 29 December 2010 - 11:42 PM, said:

I missed this gem. I am not an ad hominem type of guy, but you're no Socrates either, so fuck it. How can you hate on meth users when I guarantee at least one of the drugs you use also damages your brain permanently, with the exception of marijuana if and only if you're above the formative age of 20 (I believe)? Why the fuck should we take anything about quitting drugs from you seriously when you yourself are a user, if not an addict?

inb4 "I can quit anytime I want" or "the shit I take is easily gotten at a pharmacy".

I hate on meth users/dealers because the substance has zero positive value. It's well on it's way to being a far worse scourge than crack ever dared to be. Due in large part to it's ease of production, incredibly addictive qualities, and serious health impact. Do I think all users of it deserve to be sent to the gas chamber. No. Do I think the cops that wasted the guy in his home were justified. No.

I've used everything available at least recreationally. I worked most of my adult career in the casino industry. Drug use is rampant in those areas. Be it employees or patrons. I've seen countless people, and friends addicted to many different things. None of those substances however have ever had the negative impact that meth has. In regards to the whole rehab scene. I've seen people go thru multiple rehabs, and when/if they quit it was 9 times out of 10 a personal choice. Not something rehab showed them the light to. I'll always stick with direct knowledge of an issue > statistics.

Your depiction of these issues on the other hand smack of little to no actual experience with the subject matter.

In regards to your "I am not an ad hominem type of guy" claim... just because you try to dress up your attacks on shit with the facade of being an intellectual doesn't change the fact that your goal is the same. "An attack upon an opponent in order to discredit their argument or opinion." Try having some basic understanding of the terms your using if you want to keep telling yourself your so much smarter than everyone.

[Chriscoffey]

Zak, on 30 December 2010 - 01:07 AM, said:

I hate on meth users/dealers because the substance has zero positive value. It's well on it's way to being a far worse scourge than crack ever dared to be. Due in large part to it's ease of production, incredibly addictive qualities, and serious health impact. Do I think all users of it deserve to be sent to the gas chamber. No. Do I think the cops that wasted the guy in his home were justified. No.

I've used everything available at least recreationally. I worked most of my adult career in the casino industry. Drug use is rampant in those areas. Be it employees or patrons. I've seen countless people, and friends addicted to many different things. None of those substances however have ever had the negative impact that meth has. In regards to the whole rehab scene. I've seen people go thru multiple rehabs, and when/if they quit it was 9 times out of 10 a personal choice. Not something rehab showed them the light to. I'll always stick with direct knowledge of an issue > statistics.

Your depiction of these issues on the other hand smack of little to no actual experience with the subject matter.

In regards to your "I am not an ad hominem type of guy" claim... just because you try to dress up your attacks on shit with the facade of being an intellectual doesn't change the fact that your goal is the same. "An attack upon an opponent in order to discredit their argument or opinion." Try having some basic understanding of the terms your using if you want to keep telling yourself your so much smarter than everyone.

I have saw people far more addicted to pill popping than meth. I knew people that did any drug for years and maintained somewhat functional life. I know many that also did that and fell out of touch with reality but I have never saw anyone who started doing the pill thing maintain any function in life and everyone 100% of the time fucked their entire life up. That is something i keep in mind when doctors throw around the "you take this, take that" card with all these side effects.

[Vigilous]

Quote

I hate on meth users/dealers because the substance has zero positive value.

As opposed to any other narcotic? Even with pot's medicinal value (which is debatable), people still kill and die for it.

Quote

It's well on it's way to being a far worse scourge than crack ever dared to be. Due in large part to it's ease of production, incredibly addictive qualities, and serious health impact... I've used everything available at least recreationally. I worked most of my adult career in the casino industry. Drug use is rampant in those areas. Be it employees or patrons.

Yes, meth hits the body harder than crack-cocaine. Yes, it is easier to produce. And yes, it has permiated much of this country that the other is merely an afterthought. Is it overtly worse than cocaine? Both are still deadly, both are still highly addictive, and both have and will continue to destroy lives. Not just of those using, but everyone around them. I would say that I'm shocked to see someone marginalize other opiates in spite of meth, however given your admitted "recreational use" (which is about as mind-numbingly stupid as "war on drugs") it's not surprising. Some addicts "recreational users", have a tendency to begrudge other drugs. "I'm not a bad person. I don't have a problem. I don't use (insert drug here), so that means I'm OK!"

The overarching problem is addiction, not the severity of the drugs in question.

Quote

In regards to the whole rehab scene. I've seen people go thru multiple rehabs, and when/if they quit it was 9 times out of 10 a personal choice. Not something rehab showed them the light to. I'll always stick with direct knowledge of an issue > statistics.

Your depiction of these issues on the other hand smack of little to no actual experience with the subject matter.

"Personal choice?" The only choice an addict makes is to get help, which means they first have to recognize that they have a problem. Pot, maybe. I can see how people could quit that cold turkey. But the others? No. Rehab is not about "lighting the way" or even really quitting. It's about people learning why they were an addict in the first place and how to cope with those emotions or situations that lead them to drugs. It's about giving people tools to control their self-destructive urges and impulses. Those nine friends of yours more than likely relapsed harder than anyone who completed rehab, and probably moved on to something else or different drugs at the same time. Which means if they do take another stab at sobriety, it's going to be that much more difficult for them, even if they attend rehab.

Your "direct knowledge" means dick. I can safely assume you've never been through rehab, which means you have no real grasp of how it works. Direct knowledge means that you and yours make up the statistics we can reference. And a user commenting on the attempted sobriety of others is just comical.

But, just to satisfy your blazed out noggin, let me run this by you.

When I was a kid, my mom started on pot and graduated to speed. She didn't just up and quit. She saw how horrible this was making our lives (she once contemplated suicide and offered to take me with her), and sought help. You do not just crawl out of a place like that. You do not flip a fucking switch and all is well. No addict knows how to quit because they do not know how they got there in the first place and what kept them there.

Yes, meth is a hard thing to kick. BUT SO IS EVERY OTHER FUCKING ADDICTION.

On a final note:

Quote

In regards to your "I am not an ad hominem type of guy" claim... just because you try to dress up your attacks on shit with the facade of being an intellectual doesn't change the fact that your goal is the same. "An attack upon an opponent in order to discredit their argument or opinion." Try having some basic understanding of the terms your using if you want to keep telling yourself your so much smarter than everyone.

Good job, you're not so blazed out of your mind that you can't look at a dictionary (read: type the word into a search bar). However, try having a basic grasp of junior high level reading. You obviously didn't know the word, and even after looking it up, you still had no clue as to its use. He attacked you, personally, by call- you know what? No. I'm not going to sit here and coddle a fucking burn out.

Being intellectually threatened by words or phrases that a good portion of moderately educated people know betrays a simple mind.

This post has been edited by Vigilous: 03 January 2011 - 08:54 AM

[Wildstriker]

Zak, on 30 December 2010 - 01:07 AM, said:

In regards to your "I am not an ad hominem type of guy" claim... just because you try to dress up your attacks on shit with the facade of being an intellectual doesn't change the fact that your goal is the same. "An attack upon an opponent in order to discredit their argument or opinion." Try having some basic understanding of the terms your using if you want to keep telling yourself your so much smarter than everyone.

That was my goal you moron, no sorry, addict.

[Zak]

Vigilous & WildStriker are related?

This post has been edited by Zak: 03 January 2011 - 11:35 AM

[Vigilous]

Zak, on 03 January 2011 - 11:33 AM, said:

Vigilous & WildStriker are related?

Ah, you've already retreated to the "I have no real argument, so I'll just post an image someone else made to try and prove some banal point that I can't prove with my own words." Well played, sir. Well played. A classic indeed. I shudder at the notion of what you might accomplish if your brain wasn't already congealed by narcotics, paint thinner, huffing, and the pink toilet mint.

This post has been edited by Vigilous: 03 January 2011 - 01:04 PM

[Keylime]

Vigilous, on 03 January 2011 - 08:53 AM, said:

"Personal choice?" The only choice an addict makes is to get help, which means they first have to recognize that they have a problem. Pot, maybe. I can see how people could quit that cold turkey. But the others? No. Rehab is not about "lighting the way" or even really quitting. It's about people learning why they were an addict in the first place and how to cope with those emotions or situations that lead them to drugs. It's about giving people tools to control their self-destructive urges and impulses. Those nine friends of yours more than likely relapsed harder than anyone who completed rehab, and probably moved on to something else or different drugs at the same time. Which means if they do take another stab at sobriety, it's going to be that much more difficult for them, even if they attend rehab.

I have to comment on this because of how true it is. There is no way to 'make' a person be sober once they have experienced addiction, those urges and cravings will be with them for the rest of their life. And like Vigilous said, rehab is all about empowering the addict by teaching them skills and coping mechanisms so they can be strong enough to resist the urges and to use the next time.

[treelo]

Ahh the joys of watching morons trying to defend drugs. You see it every time there is a discussion about legalisation: Government officials flock to defend their ridiculous laws backed by hordes of scientists with little to no experience of the topic other than catching a whiff of weed when they drop their kids off at school. To counter this? Some useless fucking youth smoking a two-sheet on the street corner, their sole argument based upon a lack of basic intellect or reasoning ability being "It's fuckin' phat innit youth?"

Quote

the substance has zero positive value.

Actually I think you'll find it is available on prescription for several health issues, and has been used medically since the start of the 20th century. Most recreational drugs begin their life as medical treatments in fact, and many are still in use today. I'm sure you meant that because you wouldn't take it, it has no value and is thus a blight upon society.

Quote

I've used everything available at least recreationally.

Really? That's quite a claim. So you've taken heroin recreationally? Crack? PCP? I could go on, but I think you get the point. Cocaine, ecstacy, and weed are not everything available. Your rather limited view from within the entertainment industry for the middle classes lets you down. Sure, drug abuse is rampant, but you're talking about a captive audience, many of whom won't even look at a drug dealer in their normal lives.

Quote

Your depiction of these issues on the other hand smack of little to no actual experience with the subject matter.

Right back at you. Sweeping statements that make little practical sense and a desperate need to justify your beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary hardly make you seem like an expert.

Quote

I have saw people far more addicted to pill popping than meth. I knew people that did any drug for years and maintained somewhat functional life. I know many that also did that and fell out of touch with reality but I have never saw anyone who started doing the pill thing maintain any function in life and everyone 100% of the time fucked their entire life up.

Pills? Really? Try to be a little more specific, or is it too hard for you to google ecstacy or MDMA? I abused the shit out of it during my college years, along with an unhealthy dose of cocaine as well. It was the *ahem* logical step to take in the path of drug abuse after suffering at the hands of unscrupulous speed dealers. 99% of my friends did exactly the same thing, we all managed just fine. The other 1%? Heroin addict, amongst other things. He didn't even make it to college to begin with, spent most his time living in a bedsit crafting vicious looking weapons out of razorblades (almost maiming another of my friends in the process), going so far as to run over another friend as he wobbled down the street on his motorcycle. He hasn't been seen by anyone in several years. Now meth really isn't a big problem over here, so this is about the closest I can get to an equivalent.

Quote

Your "direct knowledge" means dick. I can safely assume you've never been through rehab, which means you have no real grasp of how it works. Direct knowledge means that you and yours make up the statistics we can reference. And a user commenting on the attempted sobriety of others is just comical.

But, just to satisfy your blazed out noggin, let me run this by you.

When I was a kid, my mom started on pot and graduated to speed. She didn't just up and quit. She saw how horrible this was making our lives (she once contemplated suicide and offered to take me with her), and sought help. You do not just crawl out of a place like that. You do not flip a fucking switch and all is well. No addict knows how to quit because they do not know how they got there in the first place and what kept them there.

I've never been through rehab, so does that mean I'm ill-qualified to comment on addiction? I don't think so. I spent 2-3 years of my life shoving a mixture of hallucinagens down my neck on a daily basis, smoking anything from an eighth to a quarter of weed every day or two in an effort to drown out my increasingly obvious psychotic behaviour from work colleagues and family alike. Yet I managed to quit without any help, eliminating most of my drug use within the space of a few days. I still smoke cannabis regularly, and still suffer from the side-effects of prolonged existence on the fine line between reality and drug-induced fantasy. Apparently, despite all this I'm in no position to talk sense about the issue because I didn't end up in rehab? Nice try. Personal experience rarely substitutes for scientific study, I'm with you on that, but to completely discredit someone's opinion based upon their use of drugs or their failure to seek professional help is stupid and short-sighted. After all, the best people to speak to about addiction aren't reformed addicts, you get a much better idea of the problem from the addicts still struggling with their issues.

Generally rehab, like prison time, is largely ineffective. That isn't to say it doesn't work, because sometimes it does, but most long-term abusers drop in and out of rehab frequently. Many show up just for the methadone or other substitutes, once the supply dries up, they hit the streets again (assuming they ever left to begin with) and cycle through the system in a year or two. The obvious fallacy of treating addiction with prescription of other drugs is not one that has gone down well in history (see morphine/heroin) and the benefits of group therapy and counselling are limited. Rehabilitation is far from perfect, so please stop trying to make it out as the only solution to the problem, it just makes you look ignorant. Before you jump down my throat I'm not saying it is useless, merely a shoddy solution to a serious problem.

In the end, you're just as poorly qualified to comment on the issue as the idiots you're arguing against. The major difference being they're retards and you're able to construct a coherent sentence and know how to google statistics. Despite the multitude of truly horrendous moments I've subjected myself to over the years, I look fondly upon my colourful youth, and consider myself a much better person for it. I'd still legalise drugs, or if that doesn't float your boat I'd ban alcohol (which causes more crime and health issues than most hard drugs combined) and smoking (despite being a smoker myself, again based upon health issues that dwarf narcotics-related problems.) I can easily justify the existence of most illegal substances, yet I challenge anyone to find a logical argument for the legalisation of two of our biggest killers today. The age old argument still stands true, why ban some and not others?

Go ahead, throw the same accusations you've levelled against those two dipshits at me. We'll see how that goes.

[Chriscoffey]

treelo, on 03 January 2011 - 07:41 PM, said:

Pills? Really? Try to be a little more specific, or is it too hard for you to google ecstacy or MDMA? I abused the shit out of it during my college years, along with an unhealthy dose of cocaine as well. It was the *ahem* logical step to take in the path of drug abuse after suffering at the hands of unscrupulous speed dealers. 99% of my friends did exactly the same thing, we all managed just fine. The other 1%? Heroin addict, amongst other things. He didn't even make it to college to begin with, spent most his time living in a bedsit crafting vicious looking weapons out of razorblades (almost maiming another of my friends in the process), going so far as to run over another friend as he wobbled down the street on his motorcycle. He hasn't been seen by anyone in several years. Now meth really isn't a big problem over here, so this is about the closest I can get to an equivalent.

The pill(s) that I'm referring too aren't X (MDMA) but Oxycodone, Xanax and other prescription based pills. I have made Crystal Meth(C10H15N using P2P method thus less efficient) and helped in a part of making X(MDMA-C11H15NO2- using compressed pressure) back when I partied and it's not that much of a problem to understand the dynamics behind knowing the chemical analysis along with anatomy functions of your body. In knowing all this information you can fully understand what each drug can inflict upon a human being and what the outcomes can be mentally and physically during withdrawals. I am not a professional chemical engineer but when i decided I wanted to understand what this "good" feeling was i did my research and learned how to make it. I can say from my own personal experience of how the people around me felt and their reactions to being off or on drugs/pills.

I really could give a fuck less what you believe I know or to your hierarchy of bitchism but i was just making a generalized statement. I should expect no less from your rhetoric nor will I lower myself to have a 10 page bashing with you either. My statement was just what it reads being that in my experience I saw more people addicted to the "pills" that were prescribed than the other drugs associated with being a addict (meth/coccaine/etc). I hope this is a bit more detailed for your taste since you choose to put yourself above people in your statements every fucking time you can cut someone's throat to belittle them.

This post has been edited by Chriscoffey: 03 January 2011 - 10:53 PM

[Zak]

treelo, on 03 January 2011 - 07:41 PM, said:

Actually I think you'll find it is available on prescription for several health issues, and has been used medically since the start of the 20th century. Most recreational drugs begin their life as medical treatments in fact, and many are still in use today. I'm sure you meant that because you wouldn't take it, it has no value and is thus a blight upon society.

I wasn't aware of it being used in a medicinal capacity. To treat what exactly? I was under the impression it was first used to keep fighter pilots awake in WW2. I consider it a blight on society with good reason. Take a look at what the end result has been in Thailand.

treelo, on 03 January 2011 - 07:41 PM, said:

Really? That's quite a claim. So you've taken heroin recreationally? Crack? PCP? I could go on, but I think you get the point. Cocaine, ecstacy, and weed are not everything available. Your rather limited view from within the entertainment industry for the middle classes lets you down. Sure, drug abuse is rampant, but you're talking about a captive audience, many of whom won't even look at a drug dealer in their normal lives.

O.K. you got me on the PCP. Never tried that. Although that's hardly a main stream drug. I like yourself only smoke weed nowadays.. and that only occasionally. Also I never needed rehab to stop using anything.

treelo, on 03 January 2011 - 07:41 PM, said:

Right back at you. Sweeping statements that make little practical sense and a desperate need to justify your beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary hardly make you seem like an expert.

Exactly what beliefs am I desperate to justify?

As far as the cigarettes I'm all for banning those. That's another perfect example of something with out any redeeming qualities.

This post has been edited by Zak: 04 January 2011 - 01:27 AM

[firefeng]

treelo said:

I'd still legalise drugs, or if that doesn't float your boat I'd ban alcohol (which causes more crime and health issues than most hard drugs combined) and smoking (despite being a smoker myself, again based upon health issues that dwarf narcotics-related problems.) I can easily justify the existence of most illegal substances, yet I challenge anyone to find a logical argument for the legalisation of two of our biggest killers today.

I found a pretty big reason to keep alcohol legal.

[Keylime]

firefeng, on 07 January 2011 - 07:26 AM, said:

I found a pretty big reason to keep alcohol legal.

Drink all you like, so long as you take a cab home.

[treelo]

firefeng, on 07 January 2011 - 07:26 AM, said:

I found a pretty big reason to keep alcohol legal.

You know all those beauty product adverts that tell you 90% of women recommend it? You know, the ones you scoff at when the small print appears to tell you the number of people involved?

That's ignoring the wild conclusions drawn about several of the social groups included of course.

[firefeng]

treelo, on 07 January 2011 - 12:31 PM, said:

You know all those beauty product adverts that tell you 90% of women recommend it? You know, the ones you scoff at when the small print appears to tell you the number of people involved?

That's ignoring the wild conclusions drawn about several of the social groups included of course.

Well, except that the study in question controlled for socioeconomic status, although the study did only have 1800 people in it...

Not that I particularly care about living longer if most of my days start with hangovers, but considering biological imperative, living longer makes for a logical reason for 99% of human beings. This is also ignoring the obvious health benefits of drinking in moderation, the boons for which have been known for years by the scientific community. Your claim that there is no legitimate reason to keep alcohol legal seems more based off of an after-school special paranoia, the sort that infects the average, uneducated suburban household, than it is off of logic, though, so I don't know why you'd even request a logical reason to rebut your lack of one.

[treelo]

Quote

Your claim that there is no legitimate reason to keep alcohol legal seems more based off of an after-school special paranoia, the sort that infects the average, uneducated suburban household, than it is off of logic, though, so I don't know why you'd even request a logical reason to rebut your lack of one.

That isn't necessarily what I was saying. Alcohol has many uses beyond obliterating common sense and social boundaries. I merely asked for someone to suggest some, not because it would alter my views but merely to relish the inevitable reply where some poor sap had acted upon my request.

Besides, I was speaking ironically. I would never ban alcohol, I might be forced to wash away the taste of horse tranquilisers and plant food with less glamourous fluids if that were to happen.

This post has been edited by treelo: 09 January 2011 - 10:02 PM

[Arkley]

Quote

plant food

Assuming you're speaking of the substance I think you are, how are you still getting hold of the stuff? No one 'round here can get their hands on it any more. Not that I have particularly deep ties to a criminal underworld, it may simply be that it's still as common as it was last year and I just know the wrong people.

[treelo]

Depends on where you are and who you know I suppose. Never really had much issue getting hold of the stuff myself, when it hit the streets every wangster (ohohoho) with a net connection figured drug dealing was the new McDonalds and got themselves a new job. Sensible people stocked up before the change in legislation, cashing in on the subsequent price jump and decrease in supply. As with all illegal (recently or other) substances there is a market for it so people still provide it, a week before it became illegal there were already rumours of a slight variation on the stuff that would bypass the incoming ban. I can only presume we're getting this, and profits are through the roof.