Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
^Yup
fixed.In money We Trust
I agree, at least so far as what I've read is true. From Malcolm Gladwell's "The Tipping Point":That's absolute garbage.
Please, please, please just read the Consumer's Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs. All the questions that keep coming up about heroin were answered in 1971, but everybody just ignores it and the same misconceptions continue to be propagated.
In the 1996 Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 1.1 percent of those polled said that they had used heroin at least once. But only 18 percent of that 1.1 percent had used it in the past year, and only 9 percent had used it in the past month.

Please, please, please just read the Consumer's Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs. All the questions that keep coming up about heroin were answered in 1971, but everybody just ignores it and the same misconceptions continue to be propagated.
In their comprehensive 1964 study of narcotics addiction among New York City adolescents, The Road to H, Dr. Isador Chein, professor of psychology at New York University, and his three coauthors concluded that opiates should be dispensed by physicians to addicts:
There is an obvious expedient for reducing the demand [for black-market narcotics]-and that is to make a better quality of narcotics, and far more cheaply, available to addicts on a legal market. There are many advocates, the present writers included, of one variant or another of such a plan; and the numbers seem to be increasing. No one, of course, advocates Putting narcotics on the open shelves of supermarkets. The basic idea is to make it completely discretionary with the medical profession whether to prescribe opiate drugs to addicts for reasons having to do only with the patient's addiction....
We think it is high time . . . to call a policy of forcing the addict from degradation to degradation, and all in the name of concern for his welfare, just what it is vicious, sanctimonious, and hypocritical, and this despite the good intentions and manifest integrity of its sponsors.... Every addict is entitled to assessment as an individual and to be offered the best available treatment in the light of his condition, his situation, and his needs. No legislator, no judge, no district attorney, no director of a narcotics bureau, no police inspector, and no narcotics agent is qualified to make such an assessment. If, as a result of such an assessment and continued experience in treating the individual addict, it should be decided that the best available treatment is to continue him on narcotics ... then be is entitled to this treatment.17
An editorial in the New York Times for February 27, 1965, stated:
"The best hope for smashing the illicit traffic in narcotics lies in the dispensing of drugs under medical controls-particularly at hospitals in the needv sections of the city, where physicians and psychiatrists can initiate well-rounded programs of medicine, counseling, and therapy as a basis for helping addicts overcome their dependence on narcotics."18
Also in 1965, the General Board of the National Council of Churches urged that physicians be given full power "to determine the appropriate medical use oi drugs in the treatment of addicts." 19
These were powerful voices demanding a change in the American system of heroin distribution. Yet they were voices crying in the wilderness. judge Morris Ploscowe explained why, in the Interim Report published in 1958 by the joint ABA-AMA Committee:
The spearhead of the opposition to legal narcotics clinics has been the present Bureau of Narcotics. For years it has opposed legal clinics and dispensaries for the treatment of drug addicts.
In the 1996 Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 1.1 percent of those polled said that they had used heroin at least once. But only 18 percent of that 1.1 percent had used it in the past year, and only 9 percent had used it in the past month.
A quick question - How much bupe have you been on for all these years? If you're suffering from that dysphoria syndrome, I can attest that lower doses of bupe (1-2mg once or twice a day) provides much more of the agonist effect bupe can produce at low doses. Anyways I'd waaay prefer 1-2mg than anything more than that (especially insulfated, especially when in the form of a crushed up generic subutex pill).
Doctors who exaggerate a patient's history of abuse of any prescription drug deserve a good ass kicking.
I've had to deal with a few of these scumbags myself and they've done nothing but burn more and more bridges for me.
A few months ago, after leaving the office of one such quack, I was so enraged by the false allegations set against me by him (after asking why he didn't wanna prescribe me a certain medication) that I waited... and waited... until I saw him leave his office. I followed him home (luckily, he wasn't from out of town, as so many doctors tend to be), and waited for him to park and go inside. I shit you not - I witnessed the piece of shit smoking a bowl while watching CNN. I even snapped a photo. Anyways, the next appointment, I kept on asking why does the office smell like weed. The look on his face was priceless, and his body language changed dramatically. I'm pondering a subtle, but effective way of letting him know that I know he tokes, that I'm tired of putting up with his two-faced ego, and that if he doesn't stop treating me like a second rate citizen, one morning he will find his picture printed, framed and nailed to his office door.
so much of US policy is based on supposedly Christian ideals
yet they all seem to forget about Christ's big ideas -- love, acceptance, forgiveness... the guy hung out with prostitutes and thieves, he hugged lepers...
fucking sigh
Best movie ever. The Lebron James of movies.
lol, you sure you wanna play that game with your doctor? Methinks he could end up getting _you_ set up for blackmail charges or some legal issue related to drugs. Might want to think about this could play out, m'man. Just sayin'.
I'm still in recovery today. Almost 17 months clean and I hate having to lead a double life due to possible persecution for my past. I'm careful about my track marks and the way I talk about drugs. Its like a dirty secret I have to keep hidden outside meetings.
I have a lot of theories on the subject, but if you were to say go to the er with and abcess from injecting, you get red flagged in the system as a drug abuser. From then on in after waiting 3 hours in excrutiating pain while the nurses and other staff member fuck around and dont do their jobs you finally get seen and they treat you like something they scraped off their loafer. In the drs min the patient is using an illegal drug so they must be doing all sorts of other illegal activities, robbery to support their habit, rappe, jaywalking ect ect. If you ever really want to feel bad about yourself and your opiate porblem, go to the er, they are great at it...buttheads.
Also, in my line of work we deal with a lot of heroin addicts. I won't get into exactly what it is, but we interact with them and we provide them with a service on many occasions. It is funny the things my co-workers will sometimes say about them, just because they are an addict. Saying they should just die and the world would be better without them. They are just assumed to be trash. Talking about them like they are pedophile rapists and murderers. Sometimes I will throw in my 2 cents, like hey maybe he will kick the habit and cure some horrible disease, or invent something great(trying not to sound too defensive because I don't want to sound like I am speaking from experience, sort of making it sound tongue in cheek). And I am sure these people would say the same thing if their brother/sister, son/daughter, or other loved one developed a drug problem. Granted a lot of the addicts out there are scummy people who abuse the system, but to generalize like that is a very poor thing.