The WAR on Drugs

[MurphOnMillerAve]

One tiny point about the misuse of drugs, is that I find it an overly indulgent euphemism to refer to such self-abuse as a "disease." It is not a disease, something which has been contracted or which has befallen a poor, hapless, and hopeless victim of some virus or bacterium traveling around out there in the world. Drug abusers have made a DECISION to abuse the use of various drugs, and thus, abuse themselves; they did not catch a "disease."

So what all those people that get addicted to pain killers then? Their decision was not made by them, yet they are addicts and once addicted that switch in their head cannot be turned off. Some people's switch gets thrown on the 1st pill or shot, or iv drip.

A significant portion of the opiate crisis has been the result of over prescription of what are very effective, very cheap, and very dangerous drugs.

Thank you for that important perspective, Rufus. I have added it to my perception of this question and its myriad "answers." You would know better than I, of course, given your profession,

[rogruth]

Rufus,
I understand how you are right about opiates but what do you tell me?
I have said this before. I am prescribed hydrocodone for pain, up to 3 a day.
Some days I don't need any. I have never taken more than 3 a day and that very seldom.
Up to 3 keeps the pain at a livable level. Is this wrong?
I went to my doc last week to renew my prescription of 90 pills a month.
The last time it was renewed was in 12/15/18.
Is there something better for me? Cheaper?
Aspirin and other OTC pain meds just don't work for me.
I must say that all the anti pain killer talk is frustrating to me.
I don't want to sit and hold my hands or legs because it hurts so bad.
Oh well.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Rufus,
I understand how you are right about opiates but what do you tell me?
I have said this before. I am prescribed hydrocodone for pain, up to 3 a day.
Some days I don't need any. I have never taken more than 3 a day and that very seldom.
Up to 3 keeps the pain at a livable level. Is this wrong?
I went to my doc last week to renew my prescription of 90 pills a month.
The last time it was renewed was in 12/15/18.
Is there something better for me? Cheaper?
Aspirin and other OTC pain meds just don't work for me.
I must say that all the anti pain killer talk is frustrating to me.
I don't want to sit and hold my hands or legs because it hurts so bad.
Oh well.

You take what you need and not what you want - important distinction. You are in control. That's what's different.

If you were taking 3 and looking for more and something stronger, etc. and not really needing it for pain, then that's something else entirely.

[HONDO74]

Roger
What variety of hydrocodone are you taking. Is it straight hydro such as a 5 to 10 mg pill or Hydrocodone/acetaminophen such as 5/325, 7.5/325, 10/325. The 5,7.5 or 10 is the amount of the hydro and the 325 is the acetaminophen which is actually Tylenol .

Have you tried Ibuprofen ?

[up148]

One tiny point about the misuse of drugs, is that I find it an overly indulgent euphemism to refer to such self-abuse as a "disease." It is not a disease, something which has been contracted or which has befallen a poor, hapless, and hopeless victim of some virus or bacterium traveling around out there in the world. Drug abusers have made a DECISION to abuse the use of various drugs, and thus, abuse themselves; they did not catch a "disease."

So what all those people that get addicted to pain killers then? Their decision was not made by them, yet they are addicts and once addicted that switch in their head cannot be turned off. Some people's switch gets thrown on the 1st pill or shot, or iv drip.

A significant portion of the opiate crisis has been the result of over prescription of what are very effective, very cheap, and very dangerous drugs.

It's still not a disease, anymore than SS is an entitlement. That SS is said to be an entitlement for people who have paid into it for decades just chaps my *ss.

[Roy]

One tiny point about the misuse of drugs, is that I find it an overly indulgent euphemism to refer to such self-abuse as a "disease." It is not a disease, something which has been contracted or which has befallen a poor, hapless, and hopeless victim of some virus or bacterium traveling around out there in the world. Drug abusers have made a DECISION to abuse the use of various drugs, and thus, abuse themselves; they did not catch a "disease."

Nobody deliberately goes out and exposes themselves to infections or some skin-eating organism, or polio, or influenza, for example. Sticking a needle into one's arm for a "thrill" is another matter, completely, in my unHO.

As one of my engineering instructors once said to a student in class, "you don't know what the fuckk you're talking about". The disease is addiction, and it destroys lives and, in fact, kills. Truly, a disease. The way that starts may or may not be a volitional act, but where it is, ignorance is usually a factor. "Just say no" - I should have gone and personally bashed that ratfucking kunt's brains out. What an evil piece of shit she was.

We need to protect our kids by telling them the truth about the possible negative consequences of messing around with dangerous substances, including tobacco, alcohol and sugar foods.

[Roy]

That SS is said to be an entitlement for people who have paid into it for decades just chaps my *ss.

Why?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

One tiny point about the misuse of drugs, is that I find it an overly indulgent euphemism to refer to such self-abuse as a "disease." It is not a disease, something which has been contracted or which has befallen a poor, hapless, and hopeless victim of some virus or bacterium traveling around out there in the world. Drug abusers have made a DECISION to abuse the use of various drugs, and thus, abuse themselves; they did not catch a "disease."

So what all those people that get addicted to pain killers then? Their decision was not made by them, yet they are addicts and once addicted that switch in their head cannot be turned off. Some people's switch gets thrown on the 1st pill or shot, or iv drip.

A significant portion of the opiate crisis has been the result of over prescription of what are very effective, very cheap, and very dangerous drugs.

It's still not a disease, anymore than SS is an entitlement. That SS is said to be an entitlement for people who have paid into it for decades just chaps my *ss.

Apples and aardvarks, Talk about linking 2 things that have nothing to do with each other at all.

Addiction is the result of a biochemical process gone askew in the brain. It's a disease just as much as any other neurotransmitter based disease is and the changes in brain activity is very well understood and can even be imaged...... Claiming addiction is not a disease is something from the 50s.

[MurphOnMillerAve]

But I am from the 50's. Why is that construed as a bad thing or, ah, well as untoward or misguided decision or far outdated set of experiences?

Everything "modern" just shoves aside the oldER or traditional , just because some smart aleck says so? Eh? Huh?

Ah, well, that means I am even further unconvinced , now, that calling deliberate addiction a "disease" is not specious euphemistic reasoning.

Here's an example. During the halcyon days of NYC of the 70's, I was present at numerous parties during which plenty of white powder was scattered atop glass-topped coffee tables, with a couple razor blades and small straws; mysterious drugs laced available punches on buffets. Since I valued my mind, needing it for my life's work/profession, I partook of NONE of it, even keeping my intake of booze to a minimum. My decision. It preserved my mind. I wasn't set-upon by a mysterious "disease." I DECIDED to avoid destruction.
See?

So shall I (we?) conclude that my old fashioned 50's principles served me well (as opposed to "victimizing" me,) right up to the present ?

[Roy]

But I am from the 50's. Why is that construed as a bad thing or, ah, well as a disease or misguided decision or far outdated set of experiences?

Everything "modern" just shoves aside the oldER or traditional , just because some smart aleck says so? Eh? Huh?

Alcoholism was studied as a disease well before the 50's. You should know that. In the wayback, alcoholics were institutionalized, to keep them from drinking themselves to death.

There's no excuse for harboring outdated or misguided views. People are far too precious, to be abused by them.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

But I am from the 50's. Why is that construed as a bad thing or, ah, well as untoward or misguided decision or far outdated set of experiences?

That's not. Holding on to what have since been well accepted as true vs. what was though then is something else. Things change, things are learned and understood better, and clinging to what has been clearly disproved as outdated gospel should not be held onto now.

Deliberate addiction? I'm not even sure what that means. I'm doubtful that all addicts woke up one day and decided "Yes, I'm going to get addicted to.....". Many just tried something out of stupidity, and ended up addicted thinking, "No, won't happen to me. I'm stronger than that!" and found out that they were not. So, there's a choice.....but you're still connecting 2 things that are not really connected. There's a physiological result of a bad decision or a medical treatment, or whatever that leaves addiction active forever.

A lot of this is why the so-called war on drugs was lost years ago - started out applying old dated concepts and understanding of what addiction really was to a problem that was really about economics and money.

[Roy]

Ah, well, that means I am even further unconvinced , now, that calling deliberate addiction a "disease" is not specious euphemistic reasoning.

Here's an example. During the halcyon days of NYC of the 70's, I was present at numerous parties during which plenty of white powder was scattered atop glass-topped coffee tables, with a couple razor blades and small straws; mysterious drugs laced available punches on buffets. Since I valued my mind, needing it for my life's work/profession, I partook of NONE of it, even keeping my intake of booze to a minimum. My decision. It preserved my mind. I wasn't set-upon by a mysterious "disease." I DECIDED to avoid destruction.
See?

So shall I (we?) conclude that my old fashioned 50's principles served me well (as opposed to "victimizing" me,) right up to the present ?

Yes, I learned about addiction straight from my parent's alcoholism. I've always stayed away from alcohol, so I never risked acquiring the disease. Here's the thing: there's a difference between using and/or abusing a substance, and being addicted to it. There are people out there who can mess with certain dangerously addictive substances, and take or leave them. I've found I can do that, where I don't care for the effect the stuff has on me. It's where you really like the effect, that you're at the highest risk for addiction.

Even then, if you know what you're dealing with, you can do as Roger has, and control your use of the substance.

P.S. I edited this, to change overly-pointed phrasing. Sorry, Murph.

[rogruth]

I am probably to simple to really understand all of this.
Seems that whatever we decide things to be it will be done.
When I was a kid using marijuana was a bad thing to almost
all but criminals. Today we have many non criminals pushing
for the "legalization" of marijuana. Alcohol was bad. then
it was/is OK. We,and I use the term very loosely, get what we
want. Don't like some law, change it. If we want it it must be OK.

I really should do what I said earlier and stay out of political discussions.

[MurphOnMillerAve]

Well, Roger, from my perspective, at least, I think such discussions can be of benefit, giving participants an opportunity to further clarify matters by voicing them.

For myself, learning that my viewpoint(s) can be considered antiquated or inadequate is not a bad thing.

Of course, I wasn't including in my statements all the patients who need their pain-minimizing or pain-cancelling medication constantly increased in dosage. I was referencing , and still am, those who became addicted due to self-indulgence, whether well-informed or blasé , resulting in suffering from decision, not disease. However, Rufus has made a good case otherwise.

That would bring me to an indulgence, back in the late 60's to 70's, wherein some -"party-heads" were licking the asses of a particular frog to "get high." I wonder where they would fit into the poor so-called "diseased" group of "victims".

[Roy]

This guy did his homework, on the war on drugs: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/what-novelist-don-winslow-thinks-of-americas-war-on-drugs