Smack Dilemna

[Blue Lava]

Hey all. I've never done heroin, but I do have a question about it. When I was in college I took some sociology courses on drug use. I remember a professor saying that heroin presents a no win situation for a user. He said the reason for this is as follows. (A) There is a set amount of heroin for each person that if exceded results in death. This fatal dose level would always be roughly the same no matter what. (B) A user develops resistance to the drug and needs more and more to achieve the same type of high. Putting the two togther it would seem that if a user continues to use on a regular basis, and continually ups the amount to get high, that eventually that amount would be equal to the fatal dose.
What do you heroin users think of this? Is it true theoretically? How about practically? He did have a lot of nice things to say about heroin like it causes very little damage to the cells of a person's body. Also, I am aware that William S. Burrows did heroin well into his 80's. So, whattcha think?

 

[PeyoteK]

Yeah, there's a point at which tolerance equals the lethal dose. Obviously for a user that's gonna be a lot higher than for a non-user. However, guys like army veterans who were addicted during treatment for wounds tend to reach a level where they are happy with a dose that wards off withdrawal symptoms and they live long, productive normal lives just like diabetics.
That's with a legal, cheap, pure supply tho.
If you're on the street, you are injecting deadly shit like brick dust into your veins and have no idea what purity stuff you are getting. That's where all the deadly things comes in. Plus you are spending all your time and money forever trying to find stuff so you neglect your health and eating etc. Not a good prospect for a long life. Burroughs was the exception.
Pure heroin is less toxic to the body than sugar. It is addictive tho.