7 Facts About Drugs That Will Make You Question Everything You Know

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't know if I agree with the addiction statistics, In the state where I live, Oxycontin IS addicting lots of people and the death rate is extremely high. Meth is also extremely addictive and devastating communities. And of course the first of these drugs is coming from the biggest drug dealer of them all, BIG PHARMA. They are making a killing disseminating the drugs onto the streets and then setting up rehab clinics to boot. I do agree that incarceration is NOT the answer, the answer is treatment.

a reply to: openminded2011

Do you have the numbers on how many people are using it but not getting addicted to make that comparison?

a reply to: verschickter

I seriously doubt the heroin part. Because experience with family members and their friends in a big city, gave me enough material to discard this "fact". It´s addictive from the first time, maybe not for everyone but after some usage it´s definitly so addictive that you can die while your body get´s rid of it.

Its addictive from the first time?

No,

One time use will not create addiction,

casual use ( once a week) most likely wont cause addiction, it might push for an increase from casual to more frequent use and its frequent use, every day or every 2 days over a period of a month - 3 months is what will create the signs of addiction and create the withdrawal effects if one tries to stop.

your fact one is false and I deem it to be a very dangerous false fact.

It might be false if it was better described, but it simply says "use" it doesn't say how frequent the drug use is which is a key factor to drug addiction.

For people to say they are addicted to a substance from their first try, that is not addiction, it is more so a mental addiction not a physical addiction.

Its the euphoric sensation that tells their mind they want more, its not the body craving for it and the body becoming sick because they cant get it, for heroin use that type of physical addiction comes after prolonged frequent use, not after the first try.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

We were talking about addiction, regardless if psychical or physical. It does not matter, in the end your are addicted, the outcome is the same. Without wanting to go too deep, I´ve spoken to both of my uncles, both on the unspeakable and one of the many things they said was, from the first time on, they had this urgent crave. They said never try it, although, both kept on doing it. One is not living anymore, the other one has real cognitive and intelligence problems since this. He was a smart guy, a technical one and a maker.

So it´s not that I´m talking out of my ass here. Also I was only reffering to heroin, not the other two (see my quote in your post). If you´ve you would have spoken to them, your point of view would be different, I promise.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: openminded2011

Do you have the numbers on how many people are using it but not getting addicted to make that comparison?

It's not like are they are submitting a term paper here, besides you are the one arguing from facts. Mind you, "facts" from a partisan blog which profits off of confirming biases.

For example, "Fact 1" is a bit misleading. The 85-90% of heroin, meth and crack also included cannabis.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I can say from personal experience that opiates are a scourge and the whole oxy contin pill pushing was was designed to get people who wouldn't normallydo heroin, to do heroin. Oxy is the same high as heroin and the destination for most people who try oxy. Then crack.

It's not just a city problems anymore, its crept into the suburbs.

I have been clean for years because of suboxone, a true miracle drug for anyone struggling with addiction to opiates.

The war on drugs is a scheme to 1. fill the prisons
2. Get people hooked on drugs, not prevent it. Anyone who wants drugs can get them.
3. Fill the pockets of the covert drugkingpin the US govt.

Anybody remember old man Bush busting out that kilo of crack from his desk in the oval office?

It was a carefully strategized advertisement, not a prevention message. The CIA was selling blow to Rick Ross through an intermediary for years. Public knowledge, everyone knows

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I can say from personal experience that opiates are a scourge and the whole oxy contin pill pushing was was designed to get people who wouldn't normallydo heroin, to do heroin. Oxy is the same high as heroin and the destination for most people who try oxy. Then crack.

It's not just a city problems anymore, its crept into the suburbs.

I have been clean for years because of suboxone, a true miracle drug for anyone struggling with addiction to opiates.

The war on drugs is a scheme to 1. fill the prisons
2. Get people hooked on drugs, not prevent it. Anyone who wants drugs can get them.
3. Fill the pockets of the covert drugkingpin the US govt.

Anybody remember old man Bush busting out that kilo of crack from his desk in the oval office?

It was a carefully strategized advertisement, not a prevention message. The CIA was selling blow to Rick Ross through an intermediary for years. Public knowledge, everyone knows

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: openminded2011

Do you have the numbers on how many people are using it but not getting addicted to make that comparison?

Is there an acceptable ratio of people who live versus those who die? If you think there is maybe you should tell that to the families of people who have the misfortune of being in that "minority" of people who get hooked on drugs and put themselves and their families through years of hell and then finally die.

originally posted by: Alto88

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: openminded2011

Do you have the numbers on how many people are using it but not getting addicted to make that comparison?

It's not like are they are submitting a term paper here, besides you are the one arguing from facts. Mind you, "facts" from a partisan blog which profits off of confirming biases.

For example, "Fact 1" is a bit misleading. The 85-90% of heroin, meth and crack also included cannabis.

Those "facts" are also sourced in said blog. Have you deemed to source check them perhaps? Or are you just dismissing it because your partisan bias doesn't allow you to like Huffington Post?

a reply to: Jonbet

Oh I'm not saying it's a great drug by any stretch of the imagination. I'm just saying that things about it have been exaggerated a bit. By the government. Yes, heroin and opiates are bad, but they aren't as bad as the government made them sound.

originally posted by: openminded2011

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: openminded2011

Do you have the numbers on how many people are using it but not getting addicted to make that comparison?

Is there an acceptable ratio of people who live versus those who die? If you think there is maybe you should tell that to the families of people who have the misfortune of being in that "minority" of people who get hooked on drugs and put themselves and their families through years of hell and then finally die.

What are you talking about? I'm just asking about numbers. Where is this business about acceptable ratios come from? It's not like I'm saying that we should be giving out heroin like candy or anything. Opiates are STILL bad regardless of whatever percentage of people get hooked on them.

What about all the people that get hooked on alcohol? That's a legal drug and is also VERY bad for you. I don't see you getting all bent out of shape about the families destroyed by alcoholism. The only differences between heroin and alcohol are the legality and their social perception. They are both HIGHLY destructive drugs, and they are both downers.

Please decouple your emotions from the argument because you are jumping to conclusions that I haven't made.

a reply to: ReadLeader

I'm currently in a legal battle over a possession of pot charge. Looking like it will get dropped because out here in the sticks in this state, cops like to break more laws than criminals just to bust someone for a gram of bud...smdh

a reply to: verschickter

If you´ve you would have spoken to them, your point of view would be different, I promise.

Unlike you I dont need need 2nd hand info from others about the substance and how one becomes addicted to it, I have 1st hand knowledge.

If its addiction we are talking about then my posts stands, the addiction takes time, the craving for the substance can happen after the first time but most people when they try it for the first time have a bad reaction to it, its overwhelming and the body will attempt to flush the substance out, yes after one regurgitates what ever else they have inside them or after they vomit the euphoric feeling is like non other, however one cannot addicted to heroin after their first try, it takes prolonged and constant use for their white blood cells drop in numbers.

Addiction is physical, with physical symptoms.

Having a craving or feeling dependent after using a few times does not equal addiction.

a reply to: Jonbet

May I ask how long it took to stop taking Suboxone? I have a friend addicted to that stuff, and it seems worse than heroin.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: RomeByFire

Don't forget that caffeine is also a highly addictive legal narcotic. That is one that isn't mentioned as often because it isn't known to be destructive.

Im Crazyewok and I am a caffine addict.

a reply to: crazyewok

LOL crazywok I am too!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Alto88

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: openminded2011

Do you have the numbers on how many people are using it but not getting addicted to make that comparison?

It's not like are they are submitting a term paper here, besides you are the one arguing from facts. Mind you, "facts" from a partisan blog which profits off of confirming biases.

For example, "Fact 1" is a bit misleading. The 85-90% of heroin, meth and crack also included cannabis.

Those "facts" are also sourced in said blog. Have you deemed to source check them perhaps? Or are you just dismissing it because your partisan bias doesn't allow you to like Huffington Post?

No that was my point, the blogs "facts" were different than the actual facts of it's own sources.

Don't deflect, being on the look out for bias doesn't take any agenda other than denying ignorance.

a reply to: Alto88

I'm not deflecting. This is the first anyone has pointed out that the facts are different from the blog. If that is the case, point it out. Which facts are different from the sourced articles? Put in some effort and prove me wrong. I can take it. I'm a big boy.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

We've discussed fact one, and I can't say with 100% certainty the article's sources were beyond reproach, but there was some twisting of words and wordsmithing done to create a bias. We can leave it at that, but I want to share something with you: DEA Yearly Assessment

Start with the overview on page 1. I may be wrong, but I think you and I are on the same page with the regard to the sovereignty of one's mind.