Bobby Jindal signs into law bill increasing heroin penalties for dealers to 99 years

[Erikmen]

I've been poor. My argument is 99% of drug dealers who don't "get high on their own supply" make WAY more than they need to live off of.
They might have been poor at one point, then they discovered how profitable drug dealing is, then they make way more than what they would need to live comfortable.
Don't try and say drug dealers stop when they consider themselves not to be poor... lol

Fair point.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Money isn't as addictive as heroin tho.
Money is based on greed. Heroin addiction is based on trying to feel okay and not going into withdrawal which is hell on earth.
And sure, heroin addicts tried heroin... but everyone makes mistakes, and some people are more susceptable to addiction than others, some just have "addictive personalities".
That doesn't justify a dealer turning a profit from an illness a person has

Honestly i'm surprised so many on BL aren't being more sympathetic towards heroin addicts...

There is no evidence that some people are more or less intrinsically susceptible to "addiction," in the sense you use the word, than others. There is a shit load of evidence that people's circumstances make certain activities (using opioids, self medicating with tobacco, drinking too much, etc. etc.) more or less useful, accessible or desirable than other activities. Very, very, very (VERY) few people (if any) have truly what you call an "addictive personality" (which would mean someone is intrinsically susceptible to addiction) in any case, when the resources to live a healthy life are readily, actually available and supported/endorsed by their society.

To the degree you have more or less people with said addictive personality, or to the degree that certain people are deemed as having such a "personality," that is much more telling about the society they live in than anything about them whatsoever, especially when it's the intrinsic characteristics that are most important.

I'm curious 2Iso, are you a "heroin addict?" Ever been one? I mean because I know of a handful of people in this thread who you'd probably refer to as or think of as being heroin addicts. Especially with your comment on how people aren't being more sympathetic to "heroin addicts," it's almost ironic.

 

[Trying2Iso]

There is no evidence that some people are more or less susceptible to "addiction," in the sense you use the word, than others. There is a shit load of evidence that people's circumstances make certain activities (using opioids, self medicating with tobacco, drinking too much, etc. etc.) more or less useful, accessible or desirable than other activities. Very, very, very (VERY) few people have truly what you call an "addictive personality," in any case, when the resources to live a healthy life are readily, actually available and supported/endorsed by their society. To the degree you have more or less people with said addictive personality, or to the degree that certain people are deemed as having such a "personality," that is much more telling about the society they live in than anything about them whatsoever, especially when it's the intrinsic characteristics that are most important.

I'm curious 2Iso, are you a "heroin addict?" Ever been one? I mean because I know of a handful of people in this thread who you'd probably refer to as or think of as being heroin addicts. Especially with your comment on how people aren't being more sympathetic to "heroin addicts," it's almost ironic.

Well the truth is that i've seen people who get ripped off for heroin get hooked faster than people who can practically get it for free.
Some people i've witnessed fall for the stuff so fast, despite having practically everything going for them in life. 23% of people who try the drug get eventually become addicted, if you want me to cite my source just ask, altho u can just google it yourself it's credible. (i am not going to waste my time in an argument over whether heroin is addictive or not, it's addictive, if you don't think it is you live under a rock where there is no heroin)
And many people can have addictive personalities, there are books written on different psychological, genetic, and personality types and how they can influence susceptibility to certain addictions. look sensation-seeking personalities, for example.
What i mean by a heroin addict isn't someone who uses heroin everyday. It's someone whose use has gotten out of their own control and they can't stop at their own will.
I.e the definition of "addiction"...

 

[poledriver]

Smoking is addictive and it's going to kill 1.8 million Australians, or two-thirds of smokers 45 and up, i've seen people get beat up to steal their cigarettes and I've seen many a news article about people robbing stores to get packs of them.

So why should people be allowed to use tobacco which is very addictive and deadly and not heroin? (if they choose).

It's a persons own body and their own health, I think they should be allowed to do whatever drugs THEY like, not what a government chooses to be legal or not for whatever their reasons.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Well the truth is that i've seen people who get ripped off for heroin get hooked faster than people who can practically get it for free.
Some people i've witnessed fall for the stuff so fast, despite having practically everything going for them in life. 23% of people who try the drug get eventually become addicted, if you want me to cite my source just ask, altho u can just google it yourself it's credible. (i am not going to waste my time in an argument over whether heroin is addictive or not, it's addictive, if you don't think it is you live under a rock where there is no heroin)
And many people can have addictive personalities, there are books written on different psychological, genetic, and personality types and how they can influence susceptibility to certain addictions. look sensation-seeking personalities, for example.
What i mean by a heroin addict isn't someone who uses heroin everyday. It's someone whose use has gotten out of their own control and they can't stop at their own will.
I.e the definition of "addiction"...

I think the definition you're working with is what some of us are taking issue with. Keep in mind, there was no such definition of addiction a hundred years ago. Then addiction had no negative connotation attached to it, nothing at all - one could be just as addicted to opium as politics or reading the morning paper with coffee and toast. The way you're thinking of addiction is something we've created in the last half century really. There is a lot to be said that it wouldn't exist, the definition of addiction as you understand it, without the war on drugs and prohibition.

And to be more specific, it's your idea of what constitutes addiction that I take issue with, a definition created and promoted by the war on drugs. Make addicts think they're sick, and will always be so, because it makes people labelled as addicts that much easier to control - and then making that seem right. Victor's justice, no?

And BTW, you still haven't actually responded to the substance of either my posts, or the questions. It's not necessary, I'm just curious.

Oh, and everything in your post can be said about any other drug or activity that any human has bonded with. Not to mention its content is entirely anecdotal.

And lest we forget, just how it's not necessarily true just because you read it somewhere, the more books there is about something has absolutely nothing to do with whether it's true or not. If you want to mention the name of a book, like the DSM, that's another story, cause then we all have something to reference and not some open signifier.

 

[Trying2Iso]

I think the definition you're working with is what some of us are taking issue with. Keep in mind, there was no such definition of addiction a hundred years ago. Then addiction had no negative connotation attached to it, nothing at all - one could be just as addicted to opium as politics or reading the morning paper with coffee and toast. The way you're thinking of addiction is something we've created in the last half century really. There is a lot to be said that it wouldn't exist, the definition of addiction as you understand it, without the war on drugs and prohibition. And to be more specific, it your idea of what constitutes addiction that I take issue with.

There was no definition because the science of psychology was underdeveloped at that time. Back then, people still believe alcoholics just had no willpower, now that there's more research we are finding out that alcoholism is more than just a matter of simple willpwer.
I've seen addiction ruin lives, i saw my cousin mitch balling his eyes out while telling me and my brother about how desperate he was to stop IV oxymorphone, but he couldn't, all he wanted to do was stop but he had that NEED to have more, he kept emphasizing need.
Addiction is real.
Nicotine, heroin, alcohol,gambling, it's real.

 

[Trying2Iso]

And lest we forget, just how it's not necessarily true just because you read it somewhere, the more books there is about something has absolutely nothing to do with whether it's true or not. If you want to mention the name of a book, like the DSM, that's another story, cause then we all have something to reference and not some open signifier.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10668599
scientific journal good enough for you?... read the whole abstract.
It DOES make sense too, that sensation-seeking, adhehonia, and impulsive personality types would be more susceptible to addiction and react more negatively to cravings.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Actually there was a definition of addiction, it just didn't look anything like what you're speaking of. And the fact some medical field wasn't as such yet as developed as it now is (even though it's hardly very developed, ironically), in this case, has little to do with why things have changed. The concept of addiction wasn't a product of medicine, but tabloid journalism, bigotry and greed.

Notice I have never denied that "addiction exists" or some such. You might have noticed my hints that I have experiences it firsthand myself, not from a family member or friend (although that in and of itself, for you and for me, make our sentiments no more real in and of itself). And I wouldn't just bet your brother could have stopped IVing oxymorphone with the proper help, or done whatever need to be done in order to get his life back where he wanted it had he been given the help, that he obviously needed.

What disgusts me sometime is how people act like they know exactly what the problem is and how to make it right. Over and over (and over again) I see how this just isn't the case. They just keep walking down the same street and falling into the same hole - only it's not them that gets hurt as much as it is other people. Yet they themselves keep at it. Like, why? Seem like the same behavior an "addict" would exhibit. This behavior can be ascribed just as accurately to fear mongering politicians as addicts and their families themselves.

[EDIT: Other than to use circular logic to prove your point, the study you mention doesn't do much for your argument. Just in the abstract we can see how limited the study is, both in scope and methodology.]

 

[Trying2Iso]

Actually there was a definition of addiction, it just didn't look anything like what you're speaking of. And the fact some medical field wasn't as such yet as developed as it now is (even though it's hardly very developed, ironically), in this case, has little to do with why things have changed. The concept of addiction wasn't a product of medicine, but tabloid journalism, bigotry and greed.

Notice I have never denied that "addiction exists" or some such. You might have noticed my hints that I have experiences it firsthand myself, not from a family member or friend (although that in and of itself, for you and for me, make our sentiments real in and of itself). And I wouldn't just bet your brother could have stopped IVing oxymorphone with the proper help, or done whatever need to be done in order to get his life back where he wanted it had he been given the help, that he obviously needed.

What disgusts me sometime is how everyone acts like they know exactly what the problem is and how to make it right. Over and over (and over again) I see how this just isn't the case. Yet they themselves keep at it. Like, why? Seem like the same behavior an "addict" would exhibit.

[EDIT: Other than to use circular logic to prove your point, the study you mention doesn't do much for your argument. Just in the abstract we can see how limited the study is, both in scope and methodology.]

Um Mitch wanted to quit more than anything, and was sent to rehab twice, and was in several programs, and was still unable to stop.
IME, rehab hasn't helped many people i've known, even those who really took it seriously and wanted to stop. Some of my friends have told me addiction never really goes away, it's just something you have to keep checking up on yourself and watching yourself to make sure you don't slip up and relapse.
I talked to an NA counselor who has seen people 35 years sober from heroin and all substances suddenly relapse...
Addiction isn't just media hype, bud.

 

[SixBuckets]

Yeah, but for the sake of my argument, ill refer to non drug addict schizo people.

I'm going to presume you don't know that that's an offensive term, rather than that you're being deliberately inflammatory. So, giving you the benefit of the doubt: please don't use the abbreviation 'schizo'. It's offensive.

I've been poor. My argument is 99% of drug dealers who don't "get high on their own supply" make WAY more than they need to live off of.
They might have been poor at one point, then they discovered how profitable drug dealing is, then they make way more than what they would need to live comfortable.
Don't try and say drug dealers stop when they consider themselves not to be poor... lol

I just don't see how you can possibly know this? You must be aware that basing thing on your own experience and/or media reports is extremely limited. I am not aware of any large scale study being done on 'drug dealers' as a class. Are you drawing a line where you say that someone's only a 'drug dealer' once they're making a lot of money? There are plenty of people who have or do sell drugs (and don't use them) but don't make a full on business out of it.

And they're often NOT the same people as well, i've met actually more schizophrenics who scoff at the idea of cannabis, let alone a hard drug.
and most of my friends who succumbed to heroin addiction never had any MI. The ones who did only had depression/anxiety.
It's true that many Schizophrenics use drugs, but there are many who don't as well?

Yes, because people living with mental illness are very diverse. I didn't mean to imply that all or even most people living with schizophrenia use drugs, but they are statistically over-represented as both drug users and people with problematic levels of drug use. If I could, I'd draw you a Venn diagram to show you what I mean!

There is no evidence that some people are more or less intrinsically susceptible to "addiction," in the sense you use the word, than others. There is a shit load of evidence that people's circumstances make certain activities (using opioids, self medicating with tobacco, drinking too much, etc. etc.) more or less useful, accessible or desirable than other activities. Very, very, very (VERY) few people (if any) have truly what you call an "addictive personality" (which would mean someone is intrinsically susceptible to addiction) in any case, when the resources to live a healthy life are readily, actually available and supported/endorsed by their society.

Hrmm, yes and no. More than one study has shown that the biggest risk factor in developing a life long substance abuse problem is having one or more family member who was a substance abuser (their language, not mine). Every one of these studies that I've read, though, has failed to demonstrate whether this indicates an inherited susceptibility to substance over OR an environmental/circumstantial programming factor.

 

[Trying2Iso]

Hrmm, yes and no. More than one study has shown that the biggest risk factor in developing a life long substance abuse problem is having one or more family member who was a substance abuser (their language, not mine). Every one of these studies that I've read, though, has failed to demonstrate whether this indicates an inherited susceptibility to substance over OR an environmental/circumstantial programming factor.

the study i posted that came to the conclusion of those 3 personality traits increasing risk for addiction speaks for itself, it was a wide variety of patients, randomly selected. did u even read it?
it also makes a lot of sense- impulsive types are more likely to try hard drugs on a whim without thinking through the consequences. People who experience Anhedonia use drugs to get sensation because they can't get pleasure from anything else. And sensation-seekers... do i even have to explain that one?
also, show me YOUR studies, why am i the only one who has to cite his sources?...

 

[SixBuckets]

the study i posted that came to the conclusion of those 3 personality traits increasing risk for addiction speaks for itself, it was a wide variety of patients, randomly selected. did u even read it?

Well, no, because only the abstract was available at the link you provided, not the full study. I have no idea whether that study distinguished between inherited factors and environmental factors. According to the abstract, it looked at 'personality traits', but there was no information about whether the study presented a theory about where these personality traits come from.

also, show me YOUR studies, why am i the only one who has to cite his sources?...

I don't really care if you cite your sources or not? I'm interested in knowing which studies are being referred to so I can read them, but I have not personally demanded that you verify anything you're saying. There's a lot of research out there on this topic and I don't think any of us are going to have read all of it.

 

[Trying2Iso]

Well, no, because only the abstract was available at the link you provided, not the full study. I have no idea whether that study distinguished between inherited factors and environmental factors. According to the abstract, it looked at 'personality traits', but there was no information about whether the study presented a theory about where these personality traits come from.
.

Why does it matter where the personality traits come from? if someone has the trait they have the trait, and are therefore more susceptible to addiction.
the traits could be inherited genetically, or possibly acquired because of personal experiences. Either way, nobody would CHOOSE to have Anhedonia, for example.
Environmental or genetic, they still present the symptoms of the trait if they have it.

The study was to prove that these traits increase the risk of addiction. Not to find out how people come to acquire these traits.

 

[SixBuckets]

Why does it matter where the personality traits come from? if someone has the trait they have the trait, and are therefore more susceptible to addiction.
the traits could be inherited genetically, or possibly acquired because of personal experiences. Either way, nobody would CHOOSE to have Anhedonia, for example.
Environmental or genetic, they still present the symptoms of the trait if they have it.

The study was to prove that these traits increase the risk of addiction. Not to find out how people come to acquire these traits.

Then I'm not sure why you replied directly to my comment, because we are talking about two different things. The study you linked to is interesting and I would like to read the full text, but it's not really a response to what I said.

 

[Trying2Iso]

Then I'm not sure why you replied directly to my comment, because we are talking about two different things. The study you linked to is interesting and I would like to read the full text, but it's not really a response to what I said.

well one of the things you said was that there is no evidence to the fact that certain personality traits make someone more susceptible to addiction, the study show there is however, as does logic... pretty obvious some personality types are more likely to get hooked than others, some can handle their highs, some can't.

btw you did write this... "I have no idea whether that study distinguished between inherited factors and environmental factors. According to the abstract, it looked at 'personality traits', but there was no information about whether the study presented a theory about where these personality traits come from."
and this///
"Yes, because people living with mental illness are very diverse. I didn't mean to imply that all or even most people living with schizophrenia use drugs, but they are statistically over-represented as both drug users and people with problematic levels of drug use. If I could, I'd draw you a Venn diagram to show you what I mean!?" I've met more schizophrenics who are straight edge (including refraining from alcohol) than i have who ever used drugs. and i've met many b/c i've been in hospitals before. The only 2 i ever met who did drugs at any point stopped when they were diagnosed with schizophrenia. Im sure there's exceptions, but trying to group addicts and schizophrenics together isn't fair or even realistic.
They are both illnesses, they are both real, and they can both happen without comorbidity.

 

[SixBuckets]

I think maybe you're thinking of the other person who was posting? My only comment was that no one's demonstrated whether acknowledged predisposition to substance abuse is 'innate' or 'environmental'.

I'm not denying your experience (I've met people with mental illness who both do and don't use drugs as well) but I'm afraid there's lots and lots of data telling us that substance abuse and mental illness is frequently comorbid. It's recognised as a treatment priority in the Australian Drug and Alcohol strategy, and there's a lot of work being done right now in Aus on treatment unification (recognising that people are falling through the gaps because AOD services and mental health services are distinct from each other).

However, it's totally true that people living with mental illness (and especially schizophrenia) experience a lot of stigma associated with drug use even if they have never used drugs, so I completely understand why you're really eager to emphasise the fact that not all people living with schizophrenia use drugs. I agree with this - I just feel that destigmatising drug use is a better way to go about it than distancing people living with mental illness from drug users. It's all the same bucket, you know?

 

[Trying2Iso]

It's all the same bucket, you know?

Schizophrenia and drug addiction are still two totally different problems...
Predisposition to drug abuse is based on personality traits, such as anhedonia, sensation-seeking, and impulsivity. Whether these traits are acquired innately or environmentally is irrelevant, as either way they still contribute to susceptibility to addiction.

 

[SixBuckets]

Schizophrenia and drug addiction are still two totally different problems...

I don't think you can say schizophrenia is a 'totally different problem' any more than you can say homelessness and schizophrenia are different problems, or hep C and schizophrenia are different problems, or suicide and schizophrenia are totally different problems. Again with the Venn diagram. There's significant overlap, meaning that all these things have to be considered for wholistic treatment. You can't just look at one aspect of mental health and expect to understand priority issues for the affected population.

This has really dragged on a bit, though. You're quite invested in the idea that the two things aren't linked at all, so I'm happy to bow out of the argument.

Predisposition to drug abuse is based on personality traits, such as anhedonia, sensation-seeking, and impulsivity. Whether these traits are acquired innately or environmentally is irrelevant, as either way they still contribute to susceptibility to addiction.

The question of 'relevance' depends on why you want to know what causes substance abuse. If your aim is to identify at-risk populations and provide appropriate interventions before substance abuse commences (which is what most of these studies are driving towards) then it becomes really important to distinguish between inherited and acquired risk factors.

 

[Trying2Iso]

You're quite invested in the idea that the two things aren't linked at all, so I'm happy to bow out of the argument.

The question of 'relevance' depends on why you want to know what causes substance abuse. If your aim is to identify at-risk populations and provide appropriate interventions before substance abuse commences (which is what most of these studies are driving towards) then it becomes really important to distinguish between inherited and acquired risk factors.

I agree that many schizophrenics are drugs addicts. I am asserting that they aren't in "the same bucket" all of the time. They are two distinct illnesses and often occur without the other one as well. Saying that they are in the same bucket is stigmatizing.

The best way to screen for these traits is psychological testing, much in the same way it was done in the study. This would cover both people who acquired the traits environmentally and innately. Trying to find at-risk populations would be pointless, because if people acquired the traits innately they could be in any population really.
The original point i was asserting tho, was that it has been demonstrated personality type and addiction susceptibility are connected.

 

[SixBuckets]

I agree that many schizophrenics are drugs addicts. I am asserting that they aren't in "the same bucket" all of the time. They are two distinct illnesses and often occur without the other one as well. Saying that they are in the same bucket is stigmatizing.

I think you may have misread my post. The 'bucket' I was referring to was stigma itself.

The best way to screen for these traits is psychological testing, much in the same way it was done in the study. This would cover both people who acquired the traits environmentally and innately. Trying to find at-risk populations would be pointless, because if people acquired the traits innately they could be in any population really.

That's kinda how prevention works, though? It's unrealistic to screen everyone in the world (when? As children? When do these personality traits become measurable?) in the hope of identifying individuals who may develop substance abuse problems. I'm also quite interested to see that you're really adverse to acknowledging the overlap between mental illness and substance abuse, yet have no problem testing for people who have personality traits and viewing them as potential substance abusers. No matter what metric we use to evaluate risk, there are going to be people captured who do not and would not use drugs.

The original point i was asserting tho, was that it has been demonstrated personality type and addiction susceptibility are connected.

Cool. Like I said, I'd be interested in reading the study.