Opioids Opiates dont seem addictive to me- addictive potential exaggerated?

[shake]

i didnt read the OP's whole post mainly just the thread's name. opiates for me are addictive as fuck

 

[chester mcgruder]

It's the old and tired belief that illegal drugs must be bad because they are illegal. Drinking all day, every day is fine; but a line is crossed when someone uses heroin 3 times a day apparently. It's fine to brew your beer, but nobody would say the same about cooking up meth or making GHB or whatever, even if the process was just as easy and safe as brewing beer.
The only difference between a heroin an addict and an alocoholic is the fact that heroin addicts have to steal to afford their DOC. Alcohol is one of the worst drugs out there; the amount of people who die from alcohol (and tobacco) is phenomenal (not including drunk driving, etc), yet all people ever think about when they hear of drugs killing people is stuff like heroin or bad XTC.
How the fuck can a non-violent offender be locked up for 5 years for possession of heroin when alcoholics consistently act violently and all they get, at worst, a night in the clink to sober up?
If someone is irresponsible for getting hooked on opiates, then you are in the same boat man... like I said, the only difference between you being plastered every day on alcohol and the junky living in an alley down the street is the fact that you can but your drug at a price that allows you to still pay your rent.

I agree with everything you said here. Unfortunately we live in a society that demonizes illegal drugs and glorifies alcohol. That does play a role in irresponsibilty of using each substance. I wish every drug was as easy to get and as well regulated as alcohol, but until that happens it will remain much easier and faster to ruin your life with heroin than alcohol. I kind of see it as the difference between street racing and nascar. Ultimately you shouldn't do either, because it significaantly raise your risk of dying. Its just that the illegal one carries all sorts of additional risks. It doesn't make you a worse person for choosing opiates, but if there are people depending on you, you have better chance at a good life if alcohol is your DOC instead of heroin. Ignoring the legal/money aspect I don't know if one is worse than the other. Someday mabye we will find out

 

[VDUBNBUD]

I mean, different drugs affect different people in different ways imo.

BUT. you are taking 120mg... so you are a frequent user if your tolerance has built up to such.

How often do you take them? Once a week/month/three months/ and so on ?

 

[VDUBNBUD]

It's the old and tired belief that illegal drugs must be bad because they are illegal. Drinking all day, every day is fine; but a line is crossed when someone uses heroin 3 times a day apparently. It's fine to brew your beer, but nobody would say the same about cooking up meth or making GHB or whatever, even if the process was just as easy and safe as brewing beer.
The only difference between a heroin an addict and an alocoholic is the fact that heroin addicts have to steal to afford their DOC. Alcohol is one of the worst drugs out there; the amount of people who die from alcohol (and tobacco) is phenomenal (not including drunk driving, etc), yet all people ever think about when they hear of drugs killing people is stuff like heroin or bad XTC.
How the fuck can a non-violent offender be locked up for 5 years for possession of heroin when alcoholics consistently act violently and all they get, at worst, a night in the clink to sober up?
If someone is irresponsible for getting hooked on opiates, then you are in the same boat man... like I said, the only difference between you being plastered every day on alcohol and the junky living in an alley down the street is the fact that you can but your drug at a price that allows you to still pay your rent.

I'd agree with you if you were stating marijuana and alcohol are on the same level yet publicly viewed under a different light. Heroin, not so much. The reason I believe so is because the addiction is that much more likely to occur when comparing an equivelant quantity of alcohol and heroin being consumed by two different test subjects. Not to mention, individuals are more likely to endure more risky "paths" to achieve the heroin high than alcoholics are. Now, I don't agree with the way drug abuse, addiction, and drugs in general are handled in the USA but to say the consumption levels in order to reach the same level of addiction between Heroin and Alcohol are the same is ludicrous. Since the path leading to the addiction is heavily different it is only natural that a beer brewer and an individual carrying out a meth lab are viewed under entirely different lights.

 

[VDUBNBUD]

I kind of see it as the difference between street racing and nascar. Ultimately you shouldn't do either, because it significaantly raise your risk of dying.

Despite the fact one is carried out on a closed track designed for this away from the public population with trained medical professionals on scene while the other is done on public roads used by the general population which is put in danger from such acts.

Not even close man.

 

[Johnny blue]

Well I think you guys are the arseholes, I stated my experience and observations in a calm and friendly manner, not attacking any individual but you guys are attacking me. Please have the basic intelligence to provide valid points as to why you disagree with my views instead of all the hostility and attacks upon my person. (This is not directed to the people above that were not rude in their responses- thankyou)

So you guys are saying that people who become addicted are blameless? That taking huge doses of opiates day after day (as opposed to using them occasionally) should not be considered a valid argument as to why people become addicted?

What I was trying to say that is I think their is a strong behavioral / attitude element regarding addiction potential, it seems to me this is equally the case as is the generally addictiveness of these substances. It annoys me that opiates are portrayed as being so horrendously addictive, when this contradicts my experience. I am NOT saying that physical withdrawal is not horrendous ONCE you become addicted, I am talking about getting addicted in the first place. I am not making moral judgments to people who are addicted. If I had access to plenty of opiates when I was younger I would almost certainly have gobbled them up and become addicted. I am not saying people who become addicted are losers or anything, I myself have suffered from addiction to other substances. I was saying that the media and other elements seem to portray opiates as worst drugs than I have found them to be. And yes if someone decided to whack up heroin for 3 weeks in a row then it is sort of predictable that they are going to get withdrawal symptoms, but I am not making value judgments as to what sort of person they were in the first place to do this.

I'd like to say that people who are addicted to opiates for medical reasons, that I was not directing any of my comments towards them. Obviously in such cases it is probably a necessary evil to become addicted.

As for my using opiates more than I have stated- this is not true. I am just a person who seems able to tolerate large doses of opiates, I am a fairly large guy etc. Someone said they "hope" i get addicted, this is certainly not a very civil thing to say. I certainly have not demonstrated that I "hope" that any person gets addicted, I think this demonstrates the commentator is sadistic. Maybe I will someday become addicted (though I doubt it), if I do then of course I will face the same problems as any other person addicted to opiates.

Again I cannot see how people could interpret my comments as hostile, yet I was met with hostility. This is a discussion forum, and even if my views are not correct, isn't the best way to correct my views by discussing things in a calm and respectful manner?

EDIT: You people seem to think I have some sense of lack of empathy for people addicted to opiates, this is not true at all. I feel very sorry for anyone addicted to them, and I like opiate users much more than I like users of other groups of drugs, such as amphetamines.

Ok... You've been using off an on for a year. That's exactly how I started, and 90% of my pillhead friends as well.

That's the allure man. For about 2 years it just wasn't a problem. I'd use maybe once a week tops.
Then knowing no one could tell I'd start doing it more and more. Saving some for work the next day. Buying some to use while watching football with friends. Sooner or later you hit a dose that gives ya a nice nod, or you start snorting em.

For me I felt not fucked up but just cool with whatever. If I had a lot of work to do I'd bring some oxy. Something happen and you can't drink or be paranoid from weed get some oxy. You start buying more to save money. You start doing more cause you have em. A couple months go by and you start noticing that work sucks without it. In fact you feel like shit without em. Maybe you make it through wd a couple times easily. Then they get worse and worse and soon you don't want it, you need it to function. From then on out the best feeling you'll have is the subtlety of the warm blanket feeling removing your wd symptoms, taking the tightness away, fixing your stomach, and most of all letting you sleep.

I can't judge you. I was you. I didn't see it either. I wasn't like everyone else and now years later and on suboxone just to feel normal I'm telling you, you even more so than those that crave it right away are fucked. At least they know what they are dealing. After all you've been doing it for a whole year and you're not hooked... And? Bottom line you keep at it, you will become an addict. No one wakes up and says "hey you know what I'm gonna IV some H today" its a progression and IME the opiate progression is so slow it just blends into your life. Good luck bro, I mean it.

 

[johanneschimpo]

I've learned its something that no one believes until its happened to them. Then again, there are some people who are able to break the cycle before it gets to the tipping point, but I'm inclined to think that we all fall to some extent. There's only so much that you can say, and it sucks to watch people crumble and not be able to help. I'm not trying to get preachy on anyone here (in fact, I don't really know what the OP is about - I only read Johnny's post), thats just my experience. Maybe I should go get emo in The Dark Side.

 

[blackwrx]

I think that opiate addiction is a very personal thing and the psychological aspect is what leads most addicts into becoming addicts. The point in my life where I was at an all time low was when I became heavily addicted to opiates. After cleaning my life up (outside of drugs), using opiates actually became exactly what you described for me. For the past 2 years I have been able to use oxycodone maybe once or twice a month (in high enough doses to make me REALLY high), and I haven't slipped up yet because I simply don't feel the need to use daily anymore.

 

[Cane2theLeft]

My favorite addiction researcher Bruce K. Alexander looked at rats and morphine and drew impressive results through his rat park studies. Many people point to animal experiments that show monkeys, rats or whatever animals in cages to neglect almost anything to continue injecting coke or heroin as evidence that the DRUGS are addictive. Alexander saw an inherent flaw in this- people don't live in cages.

He created an experiment (the rat park studies) that compared rats in cages use of morphine to rats in 'colonies'- the latter group had space to move, social interaction, the ability to exercise, mate in privacy and essentially everything they need to be content. The rats in cages were nearly 16 times more likely to abuse the morphine and develop dependence.

Alexander's findings are summed up below:

Alexander's hypothesis was that drugs do not cause addiction, and that the apparent addiction to opiate drugs commonly observed in laboratory rats exposed to it is attributable to their living conditions, and not to any addictive property of the drug itself. [1] He told the Canadian Senate in 2001 that prior experiments in which laboratory rats were kept isolated in cramped metal cages, tethered to a self-injection apparatus, show only that "severely distressed animals, like severely distressed people, will relieve their distress pharmacologically if they can." [2]SOURCE

Alexander and Stanton J. Peele have put out an immense body of writing that show that calling any drug addictive is disingenuous- there are far too many factors to construct a view of addiction as such.

One of their primary findings to demonstrate the cage vs. colony hypothesis was Vietnam. (I am not positive about these numbers but I am demonstrating a point more than trying to recite stats with specificity). Something like 49% of solders in Nam used heroin and only 7% continued their use when returning to the US. Overwhelmingly the soldiers who were addicted in Vietnam (the cage) stopped their use when they returned home (to the colony).

The only group that largely continued their use at home after returning were those who used before they went to Vietnam at all.

I think their findings are quite telling.

 

[geomantric]

My favorite addiction researcher Bruce K. Alexander looked at rats and morphine and drew impressive results through his rat park studies. Many people point to animal experiments that show monkeys, rats or whatever animals in cages to neglect almost anything to continue injecting coke or heroin as evidence that the DRUGS are addictive. Alexander saw an inherent flaw in this- people don't live in cages.

He created an experiment (the rat park studies) that compared rats in cages use of morphine to rats in 'colonies'- the latter group had space to move, social interaction, the ability to exercise, mate in privacy and essentially everything they need to be content. The rats in cages were nearly 16 times more likely to abuse the morphine and develop dependence.

Alexander's findings are summed up below:



Alexander and Stanton J. Peele have put out an immense body of writing that show that calling any drug addictive is disingenuous- there are far too many factors to construct a view of addiction as such.

One of their primary findings to demonstrate the cage vs. colony hypothesis was Vietnam. (I am not positive about these numbers but I am demonstrating a point more than trying to recite stats with specificity). Something like 49% of solders in Nam used heroin and only 7% continued their use when returning to the US. Overwhelmingly the soldiers who were addicted in Vietnam (the cage) stopped their use when they returned home (to the colony).

The only group that largely continued their use at home after returning were those who used before they went to Vietnam at all.

I think their findings are quite telling.

Thats great,Ive always had that quoted to me about rats in the cage with little rebuttal.Thanks for the info, love ya work cheers Geo

 

[Rexeh]

Hmmm...

I found the addiction to Opiates to really slowly creep up on me and it gets you eventually if you keep playing with them. I noticed my cold suddenly disappearing after I took some Codeine and found out I needed OxyCodone to get out of bed once, then twice, etc.

I use them for pain but I guess I am just another Opiate addict now who needs his daily fix LOL

Peace o/

 

[Johnny blue]

My favorite addiction researcher Bruce K. Alexander looked at rats and morphine and drew impressive results through his rat park studies. Many people point to animal experiments that show monkeys, rats or whatever animals in cages to neglect almost anything to continue injecting coke or heroin as evidence that the DRUGS are addictive. Alexander saw an inherent flaw in this- people don't live in cages.

He created an experiment (the rat park studies) that compared rats in cages use of morphine to rats in 'colonies'- the latter group had space to move, social interaction, the ability to exercise, mate in privacy and essentially everything they need to be content. The rats in cages were nearly 16 times more likely to abuse the morphine and develop dependence.

Alexander's findings are summed up below:



Alexander and Stanton J. Peele have put out an immense body of writing that show that calling any drug addictive is disingenuous- there are far too many factors to construct a view of addiction as such.

One of their primary findings to demonstrate the cage vs. colony hypothesis was Vietnam. (I am not positive about these numbers but I am demonstrating a point more than trying to recite stats with specificity). Something like 49% of solders in Nam used heroin and only 7% continued their use when returning to the US. Overwhelmingly the soldiers who were addicted in Vietnam (the cage) stopped their use when they returned home (to the colony).

The only group that largely continued their use at home after returning were those who used before they went to Vietnam at all.

I think their findings are quite telling.

That's fascinating and truly a great post. Just goes to show that physical dependency can only be as strong as we make it. Funny how our own intelligence (if that's what you wanna call it) can fuel our vices. A higher state of consciousness doesn't come cheap after all.

 

[Binge Artist]

My favorite addiction researcher Bruce K. Alexander looked at rats and morphine and drew impressive results through his rat park studies. Many people point to animal experiments that show monkeys, rats or whatever animals in cages to neglect almost anything to continue injecting coke or heroin as evidence that the DRUGS are addictive. Alexander saw an inherent flaw in this- people don't live in cages.

He created an experiment (the rat park studies) that compared rats in cages use of morphine to rats in 'colonies'- the latter group had space to move, social interaction, the ability to exercise, mate in privacy and essentially everything they need to be content. The rats in cages were nearly 16 times more likely to abuse the morphine and develop dependence.

Alexander's findings are summed up below:



Alexander and Stanton J. Peele have put out an immense body of writing that show that calling any drug addictive is disingenuous- there are far too many factors to construct a view of addiction as such.

One of their primary findings to demonstrate the cage vs. colony hypothesis was Vietnam. (I am not positive about these numbers but I am demonstrating a point more than trying to recite stats with specificity). Something like 49% of solders in Nam used heroin and only 7% continued their use when returning to the US. Overwhelmingly the soldiers who were addicted in Vietnam (the cage) stopped their use when they returned home (to the colony).

The only group that largely continued their use at home after returning were those who used before they went to Vietnam at all.

I think their findings are quite telling.

Oh, my, how breathtakingly brilliant this Mr. (or should I say Dr.) Alexander is!

Who would have EVER guessed that "ghetto" (cage) rats would be more likely to become drug addicts than "suburban" (colony) rats?

See, this is why I should have become a psychologist. The field is wide open for any moron with the slightest degree of creativity to thrive.

 

[Tchort]

Tchort, you may not like the statement the OP made, but how can you say its not true? Excluding prescribed medical situations, how can becoming a heroin addict not be grossly irresponsible? Using an addictive drug to the point of physical dependence just for fun seems like the very definition of irresponsible. It doesn' matter who does it, or even if they can maintain their life. It is needlessly risking the destruction of your life simply to feel good in the short-term. I am not saying its wrong or anything. Many people do dangerous things, but it is still irresponsible. If you jump out of a plane enough times, evemtually your chute won't open one time.

Your entire premise is flawed. Certain drugs are harmful to various parts of the mind and/or body, over time, or in certain unpredictable situations. Overall opioids, including potent opioids, are very safe compared to many other recreational and compulsion developing drugs.

I'm sure many people here can attest to the old timers they've met or seen around, men and women who have, by choice, circumstance, or against their will, have maintained opioid dependancy and addiction for decades into old age.

No one chooses to become an addict. It is a consequence, not a goal. Or the end result. I didn't start using Heroin and continue to use it to become and stay an addict. I used and use for a variety of reasons. Becoming an addict was simply a side effect. Here I disagree with the concept in Junky that the purpose of junk is to enter and maintain the morphine metabolism; that Heroin/other opioids do not increase enjoyment of life, moments, activities, etc the way other drugs may, that the entire 'kick of junk' is being in the dependant addict state. I believe the case to be the opposite. Addiction and dependancy are simply by products, unfortunate cons of prolonged, regular use (not the same as irresponsible use), and Heroin/opioids can and do lead to emotional, intellectual, physical stimulation and joy.

Human actions and inaction is so relative that it isn't helpful or meaningful to say using a particular drug is irresponsible, when this isn't the case all of or even a majority of the time.

As for jumping out of a plane with a parachute many, many times, why does the chute have to fail at some point? I don't believe it has to, or is even likely to. So to use your metaphor, and what I already posted, thats why I have a problem with the op's and your statements.

 

[Snowbear]

Its NOT how good they make u feel when u take opiates thats addictive, its how bad your going to feel when u stop.

Take a 30-day break and see how u like that.

Addiction to oral narcotics occurs very very slowly. You don't know it has u, until its to late. By the time u realize what has happened, u can't stop. Thats why its so dangerous to play with opiates.

I was 5 years into using opiates for pain (usually 3 days per week) and I kept thinking, "how does anyone get addicted to this? Sure it feels nice, but I could give it up at anytime."

The OP reminds me of me.

Will

 

[Binge Artist]

There's a lot of talk on this thread about "dependence" being some sort of death sentence--a point of no return.

Suppose on Monday, Bob is a non-dependant chipper. But he goes on a week long binder and develops a dependence. I fail to see the "big deal" here. He quits for a month, which sucks for the first week or so, but then he's right where he was on Monday. Life goes on.

The way I see it, dependence is much less of an issue than addiction. To see this, just think about a drug like crack that causes virtually no dependence, but tons of addiction.

 

[Johnny blue]

There's a lot of talk on this thread about "dependence" being some sort of death sentence--a point of no return.

Suppose on Monday, Bob is a non-dependant chipper. But he goes on a week long binder and develops a dependence. I fail to see the "big deal" here. He quits for a month, which sucks for the first week or so, but then he's right where he was on Monday. Life goes on.

The way I see it, dependence is much less of an issue than addiction. To see this, just think about a drug like crack that causes virtually no dependence, but tons of addiction.

Ya life does go on. I think its hard to portray opiate addiction/dependence without it seeming so dark though. If I had all the money I spent on my habit back I'd be a lot better off than I am now.

People lose a lot. Of course there is a lot of personal accountability that comes with drug use. Many blame their addiction/dependency for their problems and need to wake up and take control of themselves.

To say its no big deal I think is irresponsible. Personally I saw a lot of myself in the op and thought it better to warn him then say don't worry about it, its easy to handle. Some people can't and even those that can do things that perhaps they wouldn't such as go to the gym or whatever, finding a substitute. That substitute whether good or bad does show a change that wouldn't be there if there was never a problem.

I don't want to personally attack you BA. I agree, to me its a very manageable problem. But realistically you stopped because your dealer went away, right? Are you positive that you'd be where you are if that didn't happen?

I can deal with it. I still function. I do however know I'd be much better off if I never let it get as bad as it did. I have 2 dead friends, lost to addiction. Whether you end up dead, in jail, or you live happily ever after if it comes to dependency to any degree you will be affected even if ever so slightly. I just don't think that many people are capable of binging and just walking through wd like its no biggie. Like I said, sure wd isn't that bad the first few times but after a while it can be. At one point I was copping just to go to sleep so I could work the next day. If it wasn't for access to suboxone I couldn't say where I'd be but it wouldn't be pretty.

 

[Binge Artist]

Ya life does go on. I think its hard to portray opiate addiction/dependence without it seeming so dark though. If I had all the money I spent on my habit back I'd be a lot better off than I am now.

People lose a lot. Of course there is a lot of personal accountability that comes with drug use. Many blame their addiction/dependency for their problems and need to wake up and take control of themselves.

To say its no big deal I think is irresponsible. Personally I saw a lot of myself in the op and thought it better to warn him then say don't worry about it, its easy to handle. Some people can't and even those that can do things that perhaps they wouldn't such as go to the gym or whatever, finding a substitute. That substitute whether good or bad does show a change that wouldn't be there if there was never a problem.

I don't want to personally attack you BA. I agree, to me its a very manageable problem. But realistically you stopped because your dealer went away, right? Are you positive that you'd be where you are if that didn't happen?

I can deal with it. I still function. I do however know I'd be much better off if I never let it get as bad as it did. I have 2 dead friends, lost to addiction. Whether you end up dead, in jail, or you live happily ever after if it comes to dependency to any degree you will be affected even if ever so slightly. I just don't think that many people are capable of binging and just walking through wd like its no biggie. Like I said, sure wd isn't that bad the first few times but after a while it can be. At one point I was copping just to go to sleep so I could work the next day. If it wasn't for access to suboxone I couldn't say where I'd be but it wouldn't be pretty.

Hi JB.

To answer a few of your questions/comments. True, my dealer DID go to jail. But in all honesty, he was only there for a day or two. But still, he chose a bad time to go to jail; I realized I was hurting, so I said fuck all this noise, I'm done. Basically, my "mental strategy" was to delude myself into thinking he was gone for good--even though, realistically, he was anything BUT gone (my cell phone is full of texts from him that I just got around to reading).

About my last post, though. The point of that post was to attack the idea that heroin use is "all well and good" until one reaches the point of dependence. As if "dependence" is some sort of magical line in the sand.

 

[Binge Artist]

To clarify:

Yes, WD's suck. They suck donkey balls. But I do not believe that WD's are that magical point in opioid use when you've fucked your life to no return. I think that point is much more psychological than physical.

 

[Kenaz]

I smoked crack quite a few times in my misspent youth. While I enjoyed the rush well enough, I never cared for the comedown: I certainly never got the urge to pawn my possessions so I could buy another rock. I also snorted a fair bit of meth, but never got habituated to the stuff. (I might still do a line of crystal or some amphetamines if I needed to be awake for some reason, but I can't imagine doing it for recreation... to me it's no fun at all). On the other hand, I was a raging alcoholic by the time I was 15 and continued to be one until I sobered up at age 30.

Many people I've talked to said they don't enjoy opiates at all. They describe the high not in terms of euphoria but as feeling groggy, itchy and nauseated. While they might become physically addicted to opiates after an injury, they would have little trouble tapering off and no desire to keep using once the pain went away.

Addiction is a personal thing. Some people will take opiates once and be like "Where HAVE you been all my life?!!" Others will be like "Meh, I can take it or leave it." It depends on a whole number of different factors. I couldn't tell you whether the OP is telling the truth or deluding himself about his habit -- but I can say that there are definitely people who can use opiates without becoming addicts.