The use of drug addicts as an educational resource (Split from: What kind of training to doctors have in pharmacology ? How bout recreational drugs?)

[burn out]

An addict (in any stage of recovery) is NOT representational of who uses drugs. According to dr Carl Hart and dr Gabor mate, 80-90 percent of people who tried crack , meth and heroin did not become addicts

They are wrong about this. I like Gabor Mate but there are some areas in which I think he is very misguided this being one of them. The 80-90% number comes from a study or studies which found that 80-90% of people who tried drugs like methamphetamine, heroin and cocaine/crack do not currently use them and Gabor Mate used that to claim that the vast majority of people who try these drugs do not become addicted.

It's a ridiculous conclusion to make considering people like me would get counted as people who tried these drugs without becoming addicted. Never mind the fact that I used heroin for years, spent my entire life savings on it, went to jail, went through horrendous withdrawals and had it nearly kill me via overdose on a couple of occasions, I guess I was never addicted since I don't use it anymore.

It needs to be considered how you define addicted before putting forward a percentage. For example, do you count someone who tries crack, binges on it for several months and then stops after realizing he just spent what was supposed to be the downpayment for the house he had to buy on it? I don't have exact numbers but if I had to estimate I would say that more than 50% of people who try crack and heroin go on to experience some level of dependence on these drugs. Of course this number is inflated by the fact that people with a propensity toward substance abuse issues are probably a lot more likely to try crack and heroin than your average person. You'd have to do some kind of experiment where a random selection of people were given access to heroin and cocaine to see what the real number is. I still think it would be more than 10 percent for anyone who became any sort of regular/repeat user. It might be closer to 10% if you counted people who tried it once and then never did it again but in my experience it's actually the majority of people who ever become regular users of opiate drugs end up becoming dependent on them. It's rare to find long term successful chippers.

 

[the_void]

I want to just take a moment a say I really dislike and disagree with your statement. “Ex addicts are the worst because they tend to blame the drug for everything that went shit in their lives.”
Clean or strong out I don’t blame the drug and happy times or as you say when everything goes shit in my life I reframe from blaming others Even if their actions have caused consequences in my life it’s still up to me of how I choose to deal with that it is always my choice. Don’t get me wrong I might be mad hurt Etc. but how I choose to deal with that is always been me so not every addict using or not feels or thinks that way.

Yes of course. I should have said “generally.” I’m a former addict myself and don’t blAme the drugs for everything that went bad in my Life

I will edit my post with the word generally

 

[burn out]

I dont think anyone else was jumping to teach kids how to shoot up as being the harm reduction headliner. They should be aware IV use exists, why people do it, and that safer use is a thing though. Its not glorifying or teaching how, its being aware that IV use doesnt equal emaciated “junkie” overdosing at McDonalds or in a ditch. Chances are a few kids, particularly once youre talking high school age already are using IV and even more are around it in some way.

I was aware that IV drug use existed when I was in high school, I think that sort of information was touched upon in my health book and more information about IV use can be found online.

Personally what I think was most lacking in my drug education (high school level) was an explanation of what it is likely to happen if you do begin using drugs. For example, in the psychedelic section I remember reading about how LSD and magic mushrooms could make you hear colors and see sounds and I remember thinking that sounded awesome and being really curious about what that would be like. The book never really explained reasons not to take psychedelics, other than saying they could cause bad trips. Same thing with marijuana. Sure it said it can make your memory worse and make you care less about your appearance or something. Well I already didn't care much about my appearance and the possibility of a worse memory sounded like it might be worth it for the joys of getting high.

What I think needs to be explained that was never made clear to me is how the effects of drugs change over time. If you want to try a drug this is what is fairly likely to happen. Of course it's possible you could have a bad experience or an overdose your first time (especially if you're not careful and depending on the drug of course) but what is more likely is that you will try the drug and it will be a lot of fun (possibly even heavenly) and nothing too bad will happen. As a result of that, there is a high likelihood you will want to do it again, and again. This is how drugs trick you and trap you because as you become a regular user tolerance and side effects will set in. The high will become greatly diminished and you will be left feeling bad and empty without the drug making it more difficult to go without it. I would emphasize that for example, someone who is addicted to heroin does not experience that wonderful euphoric high that a new user will experience. Instead a long term junkie might feel high for about 10 minutes after shooting up and the rest of the day he feels no better than a regular person and much worse than a regular person as the drug starts to wear off and then worse still if he can't find another dose. Basically I think it needs to be emphasized how drugs affect people over time and convince people to avoid becoming regular users at all costs. Obviously the safest way to do that is to never try drugs in the first place but for those people who will try them regardless, then explain to them where regular use leads in a way they can understand.

 

[Joey]

They are wrong about this. I like Gabor Mate but there are some areas in which I think he is very misguided this being one of them. The 80-90% number comes from a study or studies which found that 80-90% of people who tried drugs like methamphetamine, heroin and cocaine/crack do not currently use them and Gabor Mate used that to claim that the vast majority of people who try these drugs do not become addicted.

It's a ridiculous conclusion to make considering people like me would get counted as people who tried these drugs without becoming addicted. Never mind the fact that I used heroin for years, spent my entire life savings on it, went to jail, went through horrendous withdrawals and had it nearly kill me via overdose on a couple of occasions, I guess I was never addicted since I don't use it anymore.

It needs to be considered how you define addicted before putting forward a percentage. For example, do you count someone who tries crack, binges on it for several months and then stops after realizing he just spent what was supposed to be the downpayment for the house he had to buy on it? I don't have exact numbers but if I had to estimate I would say that more than 50% of people who try crack and heroin go on to experience some level of dependence on these drugs. Of course this number is inflated by the fact that people with a propensity toward substance abuse issues are probably a lot more likely to try crack and heroin than your average person. You'd have to do some kind of experiment where a random selection of people were given access to heroin and cocaine to see what the real number is. I still think it would be more than 10 percent for anyone who became any sort of regular/repeat user. It might be closer to 10% if you counted people who tried it once and then never did it again but in my experience it's actually the majority of people who ever become regular users of opiate drugs end up becoming dependent on them. It's rare to find long term successful chippers.

Youre right on all accounts including when you come around and include people who try things once and then the number might be closer to 10% again. Lots of people party, hard, and dont wind up becoming addicted. Or try things once or a few times and then go on to leave it alone.

I have an addictions issue and also hang out largely with others who also have the same issue. More than I would otherwise. But that doesnt say a thing about actual statistics, what I see anecdotally.

if some of those 80-90% not currently using qualified as having an addiction previously when they were, thats a hole that maybe should be filled in on another study, but its still really significant that 80-90% who’d used here arent even using.

 

[Joey]

I was aware that IV drug use existed when I was in high school, I think that sort of information was touched upon in my health book and more information about IV use can be found online.

Personally what I think was most lacking in my drug education (high school level) was an explanation of what it is likely to happen if you do begin using drugs. For example, in the psychedelic section I remember reading about how LSD and magic mushrooms could make you hear colors and see sounds and I remember thinking that sounded awesome and being really curious about what that would be like. The book never really explained reasons not to take psychedelics, other than saying they could cause bad trips. Same thing with marijuana. Sure it said it can make your memory worse and make you care less about your appearance or something. Well I already didn't care much about my appearance and the possibility of a worse memory sounded like it might be worth it for the joys of getting high.

What I think needs to be explained that was never made clear to me is how the effects of drugs change over time. If you want to try a drug this is what is fairly likely to happen. Of course it's possible you could have a bad experience or an overdose your first time (especially if you're not careful and depending on the drug of course) but what is more likely is that you will try the drug and it will be a lot of fun (possibly even heavenly) and nothing too bad will happen. As a result of that, there is a high likelihood you will want to do it again, and again. This is how drugs trick you and trap you because as you become a regular user tolerance and side effects will set in. The high will become greatly diminished and you will be left feeling bad and empty without the drug making it more difficult to go without it. I would emphasize that for example, someone who is addicted to heroin does not experience that wonderful euphoric high that a new user will experience. Instead a long term junkie might feel high for about 10 minutes after shooting up and the rest of the day he feels no better than a regular person and much worse than a regular person as the drug starts to wear off and then worse still if he can't find another dose. Basically I think it needs to be emphasized how drugs affect people over time and convince people to avoid becoming regular users at all costs. Obviously the safest way to do that is to never try drugs in the first place but for those people who will try them regardless, then explain to them where regular use leads in a way they can understand.

Yes. I wish I had more of an idea where regular use would take me. I dont regret drugs or alcohol its the constant hell im in that fucks me up. Short of having some MAJOR thing happen the first or second try. Though that does happen.. its the regularity thats destroyed parts of my life and could end it prematurely.

I guess “Not even once” is a campaign that had its heart in the right place I guess but its a long road to end stage use and once to a bunch of times to hundreds and thousands is gonna happen to someone, somewhere, no matter what. Knowing how to navigate a party scene, or whatever youre in, and handle yourself, like social skills, is way more valuable than “dont ever do it”. Do it a hundred fucking times man just be informed and be aware the pinnacle is not how high you get on drugs its where you go in life and in your head, yknow?

I had no clue where particularly alcohol and meth would lead long term even with all my self study. Seeing it in other people and reading about it didnt prepare me either I dont have any ideas how to teach someone their personal demons before they happen though.. anyway im rambling

Resilience would be the thing to put more of a focus on I guess..

 

[the_void]

They are wrong about this. I like Gabor Mate but there are some areas in which I think he is very misguided this being one of them. The 80-90% number comes from a study or studies which found that 80-90% of people who tried drugs like methamphetamine, heroin and cocaine/crack do not currently use them and Gabor Mate used that to claim that the vast majority of people who try these drugs do not become addicted.

It's a ridiculous conclusion to make considering people like me would get counted as people who tried these drugs without becoming addicted. Never mind the fact that I used heroin for years, spent my entire life savings on it, went to jail, went through horrendous withdrawals and had it nearly kill me via overdose on a couple of occasions, I guess I was never addicted since I don't use it anymore.

It needs to be considered how you define addicted before putting forward a percentage. For example, do you count someone who tries crack, binges on it for several months and then stops after realizing he just spent what was supposed to be the downpayment for the house he had to buy on it? I don't have exact numbers but if I had to estimate I would say that more than 50% of people who try crack and heroin go on to experience some level of dependence on these drugs. Of course this number is inflated by the fact that people with a propensity toward substance abuse issues are probably a lot more likely to try crack and heroin than your average person. You'd have to do some kind of experiment where a random selection of people were given access to heroin and cocaine to see what the real number is. I still think it would be more than 10 percent for anyone who became any sort of regular/repeat user. It might be closer to 10% if you counted people who tried it once and then never did it again but in my experience it's actually the majority of people who ever become regular users of opiate drugs end up becoming dependent on them. It's rare to find long term successful chippers.

I too have thought of another flaw in this. let’s assume his figure is correct.

10 percent addicted of people who try crack addicted to crack + 10 percent of people who try meth addicted to meth become addicts + 10 percent of people who try alcohol become alcoholics + 20 percent of people who try heroin addicted to heroin = 50%. if someone tries these 4 drugs , they have a coin toss chance of becoming a serious drug addict , and that’s hardly the full tour throughout drugs

 

[Joey]

I too have thought of another flaw in this. let’s assume his figure is correct.

10 percent addicted of people who try crack addicted to crack + 10 percent of people who try meth addicted to meth become addicts + 10 percent of people who try alcohol become alcoholics + 20 percent of people who try heroin addicted to heroin = if someone tries these 4 drugs , they have m a coin toss chance of becoming a serious drug addict , and that’s hardly the full tour throughout drugs

adding yeah itd be 5/10 and more when adding other drugs, until over 10/10 are addicts.

So another way would be to say it like 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 2/10 = 2/10000 or 1/5000

thats obvious bs

Or, the greatest common divisor in your scenario, which is what would actually be close to finding a truth would the the 1 in your 1/10 or 10%


Numbers are fun to play with but the actual study had a point.

 

[the_void]

Apparently DARE has been replaced with a program that supposedly works better , keeping it real

https://youth.gov/content/keepin’-it-real

I grew up with DARE and don’t know anything about this. Any younger people that have wanna chip in?

 

[Joey]

Apparently DARE has been replaced with the program that supposedly works better , keeping it real

I grew up with DARE and don’t know anything about this

Never heard of it either Im looking it up now.

 

[Jabberwocky]

I notice almost all the discussion is about hard drugs/injecting etc. I really wish there had been evidence-based education about the potential dangers of weed for youth. Although a lot of that evidence has only emerged after I was a youth myself.

I’d be unlikely to have bipolar disorder if I had known not to smoke weed every day as a young teenager.

 

[Joey]

I notice almost all the discussion is about hard drugs/injecting etc. I really wish there had been evidence-based education about the potential dangers of weed for youth. Although a lot of that evidence has only emerged after I was a youth myself.

I’d be unlikely to have bipolar disorder if I had known not to smoke weed every day as a young teenager.

There was too much of a divide between the pro pot crowd and the opposite so that it was kind of like reefer madness vs the miracle cure-all for a long time. It is absolutely correlated with lower IQ scores in adults who used as kids (or even below 25) and schizophrenia, and I mightve read that and taken it seriously but I was too busy calling it “just an herb” in my early teens. As I started losing my edge intellectually and sometimes heard things which were not there. Theres some predisposition happening here as well, but the whole thing with pot in retrospect is a perfect example why not to go to extremes picking a side and politicizing the issue...there shouldnt really even be a side or political vest with drugs itd be cool if it was just called the risk it is and the sentence it isnt as well. Generally..

 

[burn out]

I too have thought of another flaw in this. let’s assume his figure is correct.

10 percent addicted of people who try crack addicted to crack + 10 percent of people who try meth addicted to meth become addicts + 10 percent of people who try alcohol become alcoholics + 20 percent of people who try heroin addicted to heroin = 50%. if someone tries these 4 drugs , they have a coin toss chance of becoming a serious drug addict , and that’s hardly the full tour throughout drugs

Well statistically it doesn't work like that because first off that's not how you sum probabilities and secondly there is some overlap among the groups. Of course you are probably right that the more drugs you try the more likely you are to become addicted to one (or more) of them but you need to brush up on your math skills if you want to represent that as a probability.

 

[Joey]

I think what was happened with cannabis is what I call the pendulum effect - not too long ago the general population thought this was an evil and dangerous drug with no redeeming value - that’s nonsense . Now it’s fashionable to take the other extreme - that it’s a harmless plant that cures everything from anxiety to cancer - that is equally nonsense.

I think in today’s social climate, the explanation for the common NEGATIVE effects of cannabis stresses the psychological and sociological factors - while the pharmacological factors are NOT stressed enough (for example if someone loses motivation during a cannabis addiction, people are eager to point out this person was lazy to begin with - maybe so, but the effects of cannabis would make it even harder for a lazy person to move forward.)

By contrast , when dealing with so called hard drugs - we see exact opposite as what we see with cannabis - this time, sociological and psychological factors are COMPLETELY ignored, and the pharmacology is given ALL the attention. So say if a person goes into psychosis with crack - yes psychosis is DEFINITELY a part of cracks pharmacological profile. However the people completely ignore the crack addicts prior mental illness/trauma, what kind of scum they’re surrounded by, and the abysmal way the general population treats crack addicts

Yep

 

[the_void]

Well statistically it doesn't work like that because first off that's not how you sum probabilities and secondly there is some overlap among the groups. Of course you are probably right that the more drugs you try the more likely you are to become addicted to one (or more) of them but you need to brush up on your math skills if you want to represent that as a probability.

Lol honestly it was the first time I really ever thought about 1. About the cumulative effect and 2. Furthermore, As @Outlier noted ,That it would sooner or later exceed hundred percent and this is impossible. Anyway yes I need to look into these “stats” some more

Cocaine (SNDRI) , meth (SND releasing agent) , alcohol (gabaA) and heroin (mu receptor agonist) are all pharmacolgically diverse though , and are the main “categories “ of the heavy hitters though

You got ketamine (NMDA antagonist) that can be habit forming as well , but at least where I live , that isn’t a commonly taken street drug anymore

 

[Joey]

Lol honestly it was the first time I really ever thought about 1. About the cumulative effect and 2. As @Outlier noted ,That it would sooner or later exceed hundred percent and this is impossible. Anyway

I can say that I became physically addicted 100% of the times I became physically addicted in my life, and once an addict always an addict, which has been multiple times so Im probably about 5000% addicted and thats only accounting maybe HALF the times I withdrew let alone the mental addiction. Im at least 10000% addicted, and addict as well because I am what I eat and who I hang w

100,000 %
125,000 %
Look its getting bigger right now cant stop smoking meth dudez lol


I looked at that keepin it real program. Its BC only but looks better than DARE. They focus on teaching resiliency and resistance, like that social skills and navigation I was talking about and not scare tactics. Im in favour of it as a step the right direction. Figures its from BC, the most harm reduction province in the country.

 

[the_void]

I can say that I became physically addicted 100% of the times I became physically addicted in my life, and once an addict always an addict, which has been multiple times so Im probably about 5000% addicted and thats only accounting maybe HALF the times I withdrew let alone the mental addiction. Im at least 10000% addicted, and addict as well because I am what I eat and who I hang w

100,000 %
125,000 %
Look its getting bigger right now cant stop smoking meth dudez lol


I looked at that keepin it real program. Its BC only but looks better than DARE. They focus on teaching resiliency and resistance, like that social skills and navigation I was talking about and not scare tactics. Im in favour of it as a step the right direction. Figures its from BC, the most harm reduction province in the country.

Lol

 

[burn out]

I think what was happened with cannabis is what I call the pendulum effect - not too long ago the general population thought this was an evil and dangerous drug with no redeeming value - that’s nonsense . Now it’s fashionable to take the other extreme - that it’s a harmless plant that cures everything from anxiety to cancer - that is equally nonsense.

I think in today’s social climate, the explanation for the common NEGATIVE effects of cannabis stresses the psychological and sociological factors - while the pharmacological factors are NOT stressed enough (for example if someone loses motivation during a cannabis addiction, people are eager to point out this person was lazy to begin with - maybe so, but the effects of cannabis would make it even harder for a lazy person to move forward.)

By contrast , when dealing with so called hard drugs - we see exact opposite as what we see with cannabis - this time, sociological and psychological factors are COMPLETELY ignored, and the pharmacology is given ALL the attention. So say if a person goes into psychosis with crack - yes psychosis is DEFINITELY a part of cracks pharmacological profile. However the people completely ignore the crack addicts prior mental illness/trauma, what kind of scum they’re surrounded by, and the abysmal way the general population treats crack addicts

You even see this with tobacco. I remember trying to argue that marijuana is addictive and people would say "no, some people just like doing it a lot" and I would point out how some people experience withdrawal and they would say "it's all in their head" and if I pointed to physical symptoms like loss of appetite they would say "that's just rebound effects, pot makes you hungry so some people don't feel hungry for a bit when they stop". They'd act like anyone who had an addiction issue to marijuana was just a weak person who tried to use "addiction" as an excuse to be lazy and smoke pot all day.

However, then if someone said they were addicted to tobacco they would be like "oh you poor dear, tobacco is so horribly addictive. I sympathize with your plight."

And I would think that was so ridiculous because it's literally almost the exact same situation. In fact I have used tobacco daily and quit without much withdrawal or difficulty. According to the "pot isn't addictive" crowd, that alone should prove tobacco isn't addictive (since they would constantly site the fact that they could stop smoking marijuana without much difficulty as proof it was not addictive).

 

[burn out]

I notice almost all the discussion is about hard drugs/injecting etc. I really wish there had been evidence-based education about the potential dangers of weed for youth. Although a lot of that evidence has only emerged after I was a youth myself.

I’d be unlikely to have bipolar disorder if I had known not to smoke weed every day as a young teenager.

Yes, I was greatly harmed by heavy marijuana use throughout my late teens and early 20s. I was never educated about these risks, like I was saying all I was really warned about was that it might make my memory worse or my grades worse or other stuff that just didn't sound all that bad. In fact I remember being confused at why more people didn't smoke marijuana if the high was so enjoyable and the negative effects so slight why not just smoke up all the time?

 

[the_void]

Yes, I was greatly harmed by heavy marijuana use throughout my late teens and early 20s. I was never educated about these risks, like I was saying all I was really warned about was that it might make my memory worse or my grades worse or other stuff that just didn't sound all that bad. In fact I remember being confused at why more people didn't smoke marijuana if the high was so enjoyable and the negative effects so slight why not just smoke up all the time?

Curious, can you tell me more about being hurt by heavy marijuana use early on?

 

[burn out]

Yeah and there's nothing wrong with examining the notion of addiction but if you're going to do that you have to apply the same standard to all drugs, because by the standards of the hardcore pot isn't addictive people cocaine isn't addictive either yet they will claim cocaine is super addictive ignoring the fact that cocaine doesn't really have much physical withdrawal. Honestly I had more trouble withdrawing from weed than cocaine and also found weed a lot harder to quit in a long term sense. When I used to smoke crack I would feel super addicted during a crack binge but I could easily go days without it after I fully came down. With weed, it just seemed to ingrain itself into my life so much more deeply and it was so much harder to give up both physically and mentally.