Why Do We Treat Heroin Addicts Like They Deserve to Die?

opi8 said:
^ The main fact is the drug is less harmful than cigarettes and alcohol, if it was as readily available, a lot of the problems doors has witnessed would not have happened.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. Alcohol and tobacco are very strong drugs that are detrimental to human health when used even in moderation.
The same cannot be said for heroin.
If heroin were legal, the related crime and number of OD fatalities would drop to near nothing.
Society has a very strong anti-drug bias, which is expressed in different ways for different drugs.
Heroin takes a strong stereotype hit, no doubt. Other drugs which are similarly demonized are (nearly) all far worse for human and societal health: crack, meth, etc. Very unfair.
And, I agree: nice post, opi.
 
I think heroin should only be available to those already addicted to it; the problem might be determining the cutoff.
 
^ To me, I would say that people have the basic right to use whatever drugs the want to - including heroin and more dangerous drugs like meth and crack. By providing safe, legal drugs, we could discourage the use of e.g. meth and crack and promote the use of safer alternatives.
 
I guess while I agree with you that on an individual level it would be safer to use heroin I think that's a sacrifice the individual has to make in exchange for a more productive society.
 
^ Interesting that your two sources disagree about how addicting heroin is...
Reading the first source, it seems like it is barely addictive at all.
The second source harps continuously on the idea that heroin is incredibly addicting.
Hard to know how to think about it after that...
 
DOB said:
becose they make world suck even more for people that aint that stupid to become heroin junkie... world is overpopulated,weak should leave first,heroin addicts fall into that category

in Sparta,they trew unfit from the cliff and never looked back,there wasnt 10 Spartan taxpayers carrying burden of one ill motherfucker
Click to expand...

I know you're just a 18 year old senor who like to make troll posts wherever you go, especially in these front page threads. And DOB the drug ruined my life for the longest time, more than opiates ever did, and i'm on methadone. If anything that surprise non-LSD hit from 2001 probably lead to me going to opiates. Fuck you generally.

You should read the chapter "The False Idol Of Natural Selection" in the book Anarchy Evolution : Faith, Science and Bad Religion in a world without God by Greg Graffin. This stellar punk singer / Ph.D Professor has a lot to say about those who view evolution as a firm survival of the fittest thing and nothing else. You are nothing more than a cultist at this point, I suggest you read the whole fucking book and rethink how you worship science that you selectively take as gospel to help you sleep better at night.
 
So the question becomes what would happen to that number if its made readily available. I think they should have given values for other lengths of time too. I wonder how they constructed their study. Good source nonetheless.
 
well alcohol and cigs are legal but not everyone drinks or smokes. Portugal legalized drug usage and their using population dropped significantly. even if H became legal, I'm an addict in recovery so I'm not gonna use it anyway. I've offered free H to friends and most declined it. this im sure others have realized. just because its available doesn't mean people are going to use it.
 
slimvictor said:
^ Interesting that your two sources disagree about how addicting heroin is...
Reading the first source, it seems like it is barely addictive at all.
The second source harps continuously on the idea that heroin is incredibly addicting.
Hard to know how to think about it after that...
Click to expand...

They are talking about completely different measures of "addicting." The first source claims that only a small minority of people who try heroin become addicted to it. The second source describes how the vast majority of people who do become addicted to heroin stay addicted. These are in no way contradictory.
 
MyDoorsAreOpen said:
If I go into private practice, I'll tell new patients right upfront that I don't script scheduled substances of any sort until at least the third visit, by which time I'll have done a really thorough history and physical exam, gotten all your old records faxed to me, and had a chat with your old doctor. Ain't got that? Then it'll be as long as it takes me to have some hard evidence in the form of exam findings and test results that strongly support the scripting of the scheduled substance. I'm not against using any Schedule II~V drug for a purpose that I deem medically warranted to the best of my knowledge. But surely it's not unreasonable to ask for some hard proof of this, plus at least the start of a relationship of trust. And complicated chronic pain, psych, or substance abuse recovery patients -- I'm referring them to somebody who does nothing but that all day, because these patients have little margin for error when dosing and adjusting their meds.
Click to expand...

Not every patient who is suffering from chronic pain is going to be able to present you or their doctor with objective medical evidence. As a consequence, they suffer needlessly for it because the laws regarding prescription narcotics are so bloody strict.

So then these patients end up with an Rx NSAID which just doesn't cut it - all because you can't see any proof of their pain.

When they hit a dead end with their doctor - yes, absolutely, many of them WILL start to self-medicate with whatever they can get their hands on. Some may find the relief they're looking for with weed. Many others however end up using narcotics. The physical dependency will get them - it's a fact, but a fair trade if the pain goes away and their supply is there to stay (rarely happens, but there are ways). And some will end up dying from an overdose. Others will eventually find their way to a methadone clinic.

Can you blame them though? Because I can't. I believe the system failed them. And the system failed me. It sent me home with enough Toradol to burn a hole through my stomach, and I'm now pissing blood as well. All because whatever is causing me pain, discomfort, distress cannot be seen on an x-ray, a CT Scan, or an MRI. And if life isn't already painful enough, you're dictated to what you can or cannot ingest.

Fuck the conservative government, fuck the war on drugs, and (nothing personal but) fuck all the quacks who leave you - and who have left me - to suffer needlessly because they don't know why (and if they don't know why, surely (s)he's either exaggerating, or perhaps malingering). Almost forgot - also, fuck all the ignorant, brainwashed dumbshits (millions and... more millions of whom have no idea what it's like on the other side of the field so to speak) who consider us scum because we don't use a pharmacy to get what we need to help us manage.
 
ro4eva said:
Not every patient who is suffering from chronic pain is going to be able to present you or their doctor with objective medical evidence. As a consequence, they suffer needlessly for it because the laws regarding prescription narcotics are so bloody strict.

So then these patients end up with an Rx NSAID which just doesn't cut it - all because you can't see any proof of their pain.

When they hit a dead end with their doctor - yes, absolutely, many of them WILL start to self-medicate with whatever they can get their hands on. Some may find the relief they're looking for with weed. Many others however end up using narcotics. The physical dependency will get them - it's a fact, but a fair trade if the pain goes away and their supply is there to stay (rarely happens, but there are ways). And some will end up dying from an overdose. Others will eventually find their way to a methadone clinic.

Can you blame them though? Because I can't. I believe the system failed them. And the system failed me. It sent me home with enough Toradol to burn a hole through my stomach, and I'm now pissing blood as well. All because whatever is causing me pain, discomfort, distress cannot be seen on an x-ray, a CT Scan, or an MRI. And if life isn't already painful enough, you're dictated to what you can or cannot ingest.

Fuck the conservative government, fuck the war on drugs, and (nothing personal but) fuck all the quacks who leave you - and who have left me - to suffer needlessly because they don't know why (and if they don't know why, surely (s)he's either exaggerating, or perhaps malingering). Almost forgot - also, fuck all the ignorant, brainwashed dumbshits (millions and... more millions of whom have no idea what it's like on the other side of the field so to speak) who consider us scum because we don't use a pharmacy to get what we need to help us manage.
Click to expand...

I can't disagree with anything you said here. I can say that I sympathize with you.
As Numbers said, pissing blood is not good... you should get some help as soon as possible.
I am interested to hear My Doors' response, because I respect him/her as an intelligent and (more importantly) caring individual.
 
slimvictor said:
I can't disagree with anything you said here. I can say that I sympathize with you.
As Numbers said, pissing blood is not good... you should get some help as soon as possible.
I am interested to hear My Doors' response, because I respect him/her as an intelligent and (more importantly) caring individual.
Click to expand...

Yes
Yes and
Yes (while I still disagree with MDAO and see no reason to change my mind with that uniqueness thing atm)

:)
 
23536 said:
^why are you pissing blood? Sorry to hear that.
Click to expand...

I don't know for sure - yet - what exactly is going on, but things began going downhill about 2 weeks after I was prescribed the Toradol. Edema, hypertension, dizziness, abdominal pain (stomach and/or small intestines), and moderately severe back pain where my right kidney is located. Not to mention I began noticing my urine had an orange-like tint to it, and upon wiping my penis after urinating - I saw diluted red.

That was my cue to stop, but several weeks later I'm still pissing blood. Now it's not all the time, it comes and goes, with decreasing frequency as time passes (which is incredibly therapeutic mentally to notice).

Kidney stone was ruled out when I went to see my GP, as was any infections. At this time, no one knows why there's blood in my urine. They now know there IS blood after collecting a urine sample, but not why - which infuriates me because I have a nagging suspicion that the fucking Toradol is, at least, partly responsible. Interesting to note - The doctor who prescribed it told me it's not an NSAID 8)

That being said, I have nothing particularly personal against the use of NSAIDs. I find they are excellent when it comes to tooth pain, and I usually take Advil for that.

So yeah, currently I'm still waiting on the results of a CT Scan of my right kidney. If they do find it's damaged, I'm probably going to consult an injury/disability attorney.

I hate to play the victim here, but I placed my trust in the hands of a medical professional, and I've come out the other end a whole lot worse. If I would have shot myself in the foot (with a very small caliber gun to minimize the chance of limping for the rest of my life) before going to see him... would I still be in the same predicament? Yeah... It's a crazy world we be livin' in.
 
Last edited:
I just want to say that this debate/discussion has been perhaps the most intellectually stimulating one that I have encountered in my seven years as a posting member of bluelight.

No time to add anything of substance right now, but I just want to tell everyone no matter what perspective you take: thank you for your contributions and keep on sharing your thoughts with us!
 
S.J.B. said:
They are talking about completely different measures of "addicting." The first source claims that only a small minority of people who try heroin become addicted to it. The second source describes how the vast majority of people who do become addicted to heroin stay addicted. These are in no way contradictory.
Click to expand...

That is not how I read the second one (though I did read it quickly).
It doesn't have a well-developed definition of addiction, maybe, but it simply says, again and again, that heroin is addictive. Not that people stay addictive, necessarily...
 
Putingrad said:
I just want to say that this debate/discussion has been perhaps the most intellectually stimulating one that I have encountered in my seven years as a posting member of bluelight.
Click to expand...

Glad to hear it! But where have you been hanging out? We have a good number of stimulating discussions here, I would say, such as these threads, which I particularly enjoyed:

http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/threads/633369-Pot-smoking-moms-tired-of-being-judged-by-wine-drinkers

http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/threads/492661-A-man-with-virtually-no-serotonin-or-dopamine


And other forums can be really top-notch (e.g. I tend to like Philosophy & Spirituality, Words, Advanced Drug Discussion, and Current Events and Politics).
 
slimvictor said:
That is not how I read the second one (though I did read it quickly).
It doesn't have a well-developed definition of addiction, maybe, but it simply says, again and again, that heroin is addictive. Not that people stay addictive, necessarily...
Click to expand...

The chapter that introduces heroin as incredibly addictive in the book focuses on how few people are able to quit heroin even after treatment in rehabilitation facilities. Nowhere in the book do they quote any statistics relating to the proportion of users who become addicted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top