• 💊 OTHER DRUGS 💊 Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Notable Threads 1 Notable Threads 2
    Dangerous Combos Addiction Support
    Emergency Services Benzo Guide v.1
    Addiction Stories Scary Case Studies
    Biology, Pharmacology & Drugs 101
  • Select Your Topic Then Scroll Down
    Alcohol Bupe Benzos
    Cocaine Heroin Opioids
    RCs Stimulants Misc
    Harm Reduction All Topics Gabapentinoids
    Tired of your habit? Struggling to cope?
    Want to regain control or get sober?
    Visit our Recovery Support Forums

How long of being opiate-free does it take to get back to normal?

^You're missing something.

To underestimate is to think something is not as good as it really is. "Oh man, he's a really good basketball player for being so short. I totally underestimated him." You estimated him to be under the level he is actually at.

To overestimate is to do the opposite. "Oh man, he sucks at b-ball for being so tall. I completely overestimated him." You estimated him to be over the level he is actually at.

Let's look at your examples under that light:

"You can't underestimate human recovery ability." This basically means it's easy to estimate the ability for a human to recover to be less than what it actually is. "I completely underestimated my liver's ability to regenerate. I can still drink!"

"You cant overestimate human recovery ability" This means it would be easy to estimate the ability of a human to recover to be more than what it actually is. "I completely overestimated how well my liver could regenerate. I'm fucking dying!"

Using the word "can't" in the beginning of the statement makes it easier to confuse what the true intention of the statement is. By saying "You can't under/overestimate...," it's actually saying "Don't under/overestimate..." It doesn't actually mean you can't do it, it means you shouldn't do it.

Class dismissed.
 
Last edited:
^6/7, our disagreement appears to be centered on the definition of "can't"

In my example, I'm taking "can't" to mean "unable--ie, it is nearly impossible for a person to do", as in "you can't swim the English Channel in two minutes" or something like that.

By substitution, my example "You can't underestimate human recovery ability" becomes "It is nearly impossible to underestimate human recovery ability". Clearly, this means that any estimate of human recovery ability is likely to be an overestimate. In other words, this example is basically calling human recovery ability weak.

I think you're taking "can't" to mean something like "shouldn't". In that case, the last example becomes "You shouldn't underestimate human recovery ability." This means, you shouldn't "just assume" human recovery ability is weak. In other words, this interpretation of "can't" makes the example imply that human recovery ability is strong.
 
took me about a couple months to get my sleeping pattern normal... that was probably the thing that was fucked up the most... took a lot of ambien then eventually weaned myself off that... as for the sex drive i've noticed someone mention... when i have heroin i have a girl with golden eyes... who needs anything else?
 
Binge Artist said:
^6/7, our disagreement appears to be centered on the definition of "can't"

In my example, I'm taking "can't" to mean "unable--ie, it is nearly impossible for a person to do", as in "you can't swim the English Channel in two minutes" or something like that.

By substitution, my example "You can't underestimate human recovery ability" becomes "It is nearly impossible to underestimate human recovery ability". Clearly, this means that any estimate of human recovery ability is likely to be an overestimate. In other words, this example is basically calling human recovery ability weak.

I think you're taking "can't" to mean something like "shouldn't". In that case, the last example becomes "You shouldn't underestimate human recovery ability." This means, you shouldn't "just assume" human recovery ability is weak. In other words, this interpretation of "can't" makes the example imply that human recovery ability is strong.
Click to expand...

Right, and using "can't" can not mean what it would if read literally, since it is completely possible to both under and overestimate the recovery power of the human body, so what it should really say is "You shouldn't blah blah blah."

Sorry folks, back on topic now.
 
About this talk of younger people never recovering completely from opiate addiction, I believe I remember Rachamim saying in one thread before that he abused opiates a lot (and in high dosages) when he was younger and that if you do that before the age of 25 (I think) you might never be completely comfortable without some sort of opiate in you.

I'd swear he said it before somewhere...
 
Well I went to my suboxone doctor today, and he said that it's totally possible for me to get back to totally normal and the suboxone over an extended period of time should help a lot with making a very smooth transition out of PAWS.

I think if you can't really get back to normal, it's definitely more of a psychological thing and perhaps there's a void in your life that you used H to fill up with that's still empty.

I think good nutrition, supplements, and exercise can probably do a lot to get you back to normal, and perhaps maybe even put you into a better place than before you were addicted.

I enjoy playing music a lot and I spent a day jamming with a band, and going out and doing things like that that are fulfilling and can tire you out in a positive kinda way can do wonders for your physical and psychological well-being. The weather also seems to be getting kinda better out here in Chicago so that makes me feel better too. I would definitely love to go outside and go jogging or riding my bike when the weather is really nice and work up a sweat. I'm gonna get a gym membership and lift a lot of weights and whatnot as well. It might take a really long time before you start noticing positive changes in your build like bigger muscles and more stamina and whatnot, but an increased sense of general well-being is something you can notice immediately after a good work out session.
 
QuasiStoned said:
About this talk of younger people never recovering completely from opiate addiction, I believe I remember Rachamim saying in one thread before that he abused opiates a lot (and in high dosages) when he was younger and that if you do that before the age of 25 (I think) you might never be completely comfortable without some sort of opiate in you.

I'd swear he said it before somewhere...
Click to expand...

My doctor (psychiatrist/addictionoligist) has said something similar to me.

That some people, after long periods of abuse, really do need opioids/opiates (I always get it wrong so I'll put both) to function at their best.

He never stated that it was for younger users, but I'm only 21 so maybe he didn't feel it necessary to clarify.
 
psychiatry is a religion, take every commandment that rolls off their tongue with a few grains of salt and possibly some hard liquor.
 
The Straight Dope said:
Well I went to my suboxone doctor today, and he said that it's totally possible for me to get back to totally normal and the suboxone over an extended period of time should help a lot with making a very smooth transition out of PAWS.

I think if you can't really get back to normal, it's definitely more of a psychological thing and perhaps there's a void in your life that you used H to fill up with that's still empty.
Click to expand...
I totally agree with you.
I know bunch of people who are off opioids that started when they were very young and later on in life managed to kick their habits.
Two of them are very close friends and they now live happy lives without any drugs - no Buprenorphine or Methadone or any other medications.
They say that they have never been happier, never had such great outlook on life and the future, big plans, achived goals etc.

And that is stories of deep, deep heroin addiction from 16-17 of age til the age of 30ish.
I know people who kick their habits, and really struggle and struggle but keep saying that they will never feel "good" or "satisfied" again.
But one common thing among those are that they don't give it enough time, when 6-9-12 months have gone by and they "still don't feel good"
they dive into this hole believing that they will never recover... but that is wrong - it takes a lot of time and effort to heal all those mental wounds that have occured during the many years of heavy addiction.
 
the straighr dope- what your doctor said is correct and you wont feel any PAWS because you are still taking opiates!!subuxone will do nothing to eliminate paws in the long run as its just another opiod and you will withdraw from that after you stop taking it...

the jury is still out on whether or not somoene will feel normal again once getting clean off opiates...studies would be hard to get done because there are so many factors involved...some people seem to make great recoveries while others dont despite puting alot of work in..
 
you will never feel "normal" again .... opiates will be in the back of your mind till you die probally an unhappy man w/o H or pharms thats just from my experience been there done that life off opiods is not one i want to live
 
sixpartseven said:
Right, and using "can't" can not mean what it would if read literally, since it is completely possible to both under and overestimate the recovery power of the human body, so what it should really say is "You shouldn't blah blah blah."

Sorry folks, back on topic now.
Click to expand...

Sorry to keep derailing this thread, but like you I occasionally suffer from pedantry withdrawal syndrome.

However, in an effort to keep this thread somewhat on track, I will offer my recommendation on dealing with PAWS. Relacore and weight training.

There, now that that's done, a few very brief remarks about the grammatical situation. Notice, I didn't interpret "can't" 100% literally. Instead, I took it to mean "nearly impossible" [as in, "you can't swim the English Channel in two minutes"]. With this interpretation, the statement "You can't overestimate human recovery ability" means that, while it is technically possible to overestimate human recovery ability, it would take quite a bit of imagination to do so. And I do think that was clearly the intention of alexxlife.

Your interpretation, in which overestimate was replaced by underestimate, is roughly equivalent [similar to "Never underestimate the powers of the handicapped"]. However, there is a slight logical problem. Your interpretation of can't implies a "commandment" (as in, never do such and such, or you shouldn't do such and such...you can't drink and drive, and so on). But, how can you make a commandment about estimating? You only know "after the fact" if your estimate was "under" or "over". It would sort of be like, "When I flip this coin, you MUST correctly determine if it's heads or tails BEFORE it lands." Granted, no one would probably interpret "you shouldn't underestimate human recovery ability" in that manner. Indeed, the most salient interpretation would be, as you suggested, "Don't give an overtly low estimate of human recovery ability."

I think the most important principle in the whole matter is "giving the writer the benefit of the doubt". Obviously, he could have said what he intended much more clearly. Phrasing that comes to mind might be "The human body has a remarkable ability to recover". Considering the tone of his passage (ie, "once an addict, always an addict", or something of that nature), the closing statement served as more of an "afterthought". So he may have wanted to end with something like "But...you never know. The human body has a remarkable ability to recover."
 
I think you and I would get along IRL.

IF YOU DON'T WANT TO READ TWO GRAMMAR NAZIS DISCUSSING SOMETHING IRRELEVANT, SKIP THIS POST

I get what you're saying, but let's look at the whole post again:

alexxlife said:
That's nice to know, makes sense. I was told something similar in rehab but they sad that if someone started using after 21-25 it's easier for them to quit because their brains are totally developed and remember how to live without opiates. and people who started using 14-21 mass up their brains for the rest of their lives.I don't know if this is true, you can't overestimate humans ability to recover completely.
Click to expand...

Using overestimate just doesn't fit. If you simplify the end of the post, it goes something like: "People who start using opiates between the ages of 14 and 21 are likely to cause irreversible changes to the brain. I don't know if this is true..." right here is where it gets confusing again because of punctuation. From how I'm reading it, instead of a "," there should be a ";" After that, if it continued on how it is written, it would make no sense:

"People who start using opiates between the ages of 14 and 21 are likely to cause irreversible changes to the brain. I don't know if this is true; you can't overestimate a human's ability to recover completely." The problem with using "overestimate" is that no one was overestimating anything. By saying that between the ages of 14 and 21, irreversible damage will be caused, you are actually underestimating.

The statement should say: "People who start using opiates between the ages of 14 and 21 are likely to cause irreversible changes to the brain. I don't know if this is true; it's easy to underestimate a human's ability to recover completely."

EDIT - I just thought of something that could change all of this. By saying that last part, about "you can't overestimate a human's ability to recover completely," maybe alexxlife was actually referring to the 21 - 25+ age bracket, saying that maybe a brain being unable to recover is the norm for everyone. alexxlife could clear that up for us. I doubt that's what s/he meant, because it just wouldn't be true.

ETA: Everyone else probably thinks we're crazy lol And sorry, alexxlife, I don't mean to be singling you out or anything. I just find stuff like this interesting.

SUPER LATE EDIT -

Binge Artist said:
I think the most important principle in the whole matter is "giving the writer the benefit of the doubt". Obviously, he could have said what he intended much more clearly. Phrasing that comes to mind might be "The human body has a remarkable ability to recover". Considering the tone of his passage (ie, "once an addict, always an addict", or something of that nature), the closing statement served as more of an "afterthought". So he may have wanted to end with something like "But...you never know. The human body has a remarkable ability to recover."
Click to expand...

If that is what they meant, then that definitely means it should have been underestimate instead of overestimate.
 
Last edited:
WARNING: MORE GRAMMATICAL BULLSHIT

I think your paraphrasing is correct, and captured the author's intention:

"People who start using opiates between the ages of 14 and 21 are likely to cause irreversible changes to the brain. I don't know if this is true; it is easy to underestimate a human's ability to recover completely."

Your phrasing is clear, unambiguous, and logical, because something can, in fact, be "easy to underestimate". In other words, easy is an acceptable modifier of "to underestimate", and anyone can easily grasp what it means without doing a double-take [by the way, the ability of a sentence to be understood without "double-takes" is part of linguist Noam Chomsky's definition of a grammatically correct sentence].

Of course, our first interpretations "You shouldn't underestimate human recovery ability [your phrasing]" and "It's nearly impossible to overestimate human recovery ability [mine]" both mean roughly the same thing as "It's easy to underestimate human recovery ability" (BTW, this is essentially my sentence, only double negated, and hence, equivalent--ie, impossible negates to easy, and overestimate negates to underestimate). However, I'd say that my initial phrasing was stylistically awkward, and yours was logically awkward (like the coin tossing analogy). And I'd say that alexxlife's phrasing was somewhat "colloquial" or informal, yet easily understandable.

More to alexxlife's credit, I must add that his original phrasing does have a certain "literary appeal". He began his paragraph with a sort of "scientific tone" discussing scientific findings that being a young addict fucks your brain for life, only to close with more of a "colloquial tone", casting doubt on those "scientific findings" (ie, the whole "can't overestimate" thing). Indeed, the tone change almost makes it look like a struggle between the "common man on the street" and the "scientific elite in their ivory towers".

Whether he did that consciously or not, kudos to him!
 
Last edited:
you guys are blowing my mind 8o 8o 8o

Actually you aren't, I understood the sentence the first time, but I think it is amusing how you keep going on. <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
 
i think its very annoying to see these 2 go at it over a word...they should start up a new thread and talk about it there...
 
^ Hey man, it's healthy discussion. Like I said, if you don't like it, ignore it.

Jeez.

It's settld now anyways, since the two of us have pretty much agreed. So there. Have fun. Continue to contribute nothing anymore useful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top