It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Worries About Meth Trends

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by odd1out
Once a junkie, ALWAYS a junkie...ever heard that?


Mostly true, but not always, it really depends on the drug in question and the length of use.

I mean .. I've seen people beat some really bad addictions, and I've beaten a few that were bad to ME .. (not society)




posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpookyVince
Religion is the most dangerous drug in the world.

Curing an addict is near impossible.

There are new addicts everyday.

It has killed more than any other drug.

It will continue to do so.

My 2 cents.

And I sign.


Manipulation uses religion like a man uses a gun.
So i guess I disagree with you...half-so, anyways.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by redled

Originally posted by redled
I'll try again, my last was 'way off topic.'

We can talk about banning (in answer to Revolution 2012)

Can we talk about unbanning?

Things have to be banned first after they're noticed?


Now, I go further,

If we constantly talk about banning things, the laws of probability and sophistry decree they will all be banned.

If we cannot 'unban,' all will therefore end up banned? Are we still on topic?


Now, if I may get back to my cut off post, statiscally and logically (forget fuzzy logic, we expect DECISIONS off our law givers, not random and would castigise them for the latter).....

There are two states, legal and illegal. If we allow all legal to be talked into illegal, but no illegal back, we have a legalistic problem and this affects the drugs debate hugely, which is why we need freedom of speech, especially on such an illustrious site as ATS.

We would end up with all illegal.

Mods, does this get around our little problem?

[edit on 25/1/2009 by redled]



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by runetang
 


There are exceptions of course. Then again, many addicts sober for three years, or five years, or 27 years, and even 39 years, think that they beat their addiction...only to find that are soon worse than before they stopped. If this is a disease, and it is not curable, that means that no amount of time will separate you from it. A lot of people don't believe that, then they go to the bar just to have a drink or two..and pick up right where they left off years before.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by redled
Mods, does this get around our little problem?

[edit on 25/1/2009 by redled]


No it doesn't. That is not the topic.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   
I really hate seeing this thread chopped up like this, and I hope no one is afraid to chime in here, within the rules of course.

We can learn from others suffering or ignore it, neither will make this curse go away. Addiction of any kind usually starts quite innocently, I don't believe anyone sets out to become an addict, on the contrary many believe they can control it and stop whenever they want to. The reality is that they never had control.

I wish there were easy answers to the hell that is addiction, but I am afraid there are none, but there is hope and opportunity to first avoid addiction (the easiest) or break an addiction (the hardest but still possible)

If there is anyone reading this thread and you are affected, perhaps addicted to meth, or know someone who is, please know that you are NOT alone. There is help available, it by no means has to be a death sentence.

If you have a story about addiction to share, please do so.

Perhaps through creating awareness someone could be saved from this.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Walkswithfish
 


YOu know WWF I have a pet theory that everyone is actually addicted to something--I look at addiction as something that a person uses to defer unpleasant emotions, not a physiological addiction to a substance.

For some people this is drugs or booze. We tend to point the finger at them, because they choose a substance to drown their pain.

But for many other people, the addiction is religion, hobbies, television, sex, collections, a certain social group, or going to work.

I think as long as we say "X substance is addictive" and call that the reason why it makes addicts, then we are only ogoing to make partial progress.

Most everyone who is addicted to someone has an emotional reason for partaking in their drug of choice as much as a physical one.

I see the phenomena of transferred adictions as proof of this theory. I remember watching an interview with Carnie Wilson, talking about how after she "cured" her addiction to food, she started drinking very heavily, and finally got to the bottom of what was really bugging her.

[edit on 25-1-2009 by asmeone2]



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by asmeone2
 


I absolutely agree, but there are some addictions worse than others, since I have a personal perspective on meth addiction I can say that few if any can be more destructive.

There are reasons people turn to various addictions, though few have such a grip on the soul that eventually the damage done is irreversible, and in some cases the addict is irretrievable. illicit drug addictions are the worst because before they kill you they consume everything in your life, your soul, and eventually life itself. And for some people like my family member that irreversible descent into hell happened rather quickly.

I was shocked to discover young people are using meth, without any fear of the potential addiction, most are not aware that there are any risks of any kind, in fact they seem to believe that it is completely harmless. That is why it is so incredibly dangerous, and with production and use on the rise now, awareness is important.

I have also seen people who's lives were equally destroyed by alcohol and prescription drugs which were legal, but no less destructive or addictive.

Evil comes in many forms apparently.

[edit on 25-1-2009 by Walkswithfish]



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   
A core message from this thread that I agree with 100% is that being addicted to any substance should not be a crime. Whether its medical, physical, mental, spiritual or just part of being human, it itself is not a crime.

The current system ensures that resources are going everywhere, through the war on drugs, but where they aught to - helping the person who is addicted.

I wouldn't even pretend to know who all benefits - from police forces, narcotics operations, pay-backs -- you name it. The "system" is addicted to all the money flowing thru it, and will do anything to maintain itself in spite of its uselessness.

This thread is an excellent wake up notice. Thank you OP. I applaud the mods for their patience and discretion.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Walkswithfish
 


I was not trying to make it sound like illicit drug users should get off the hook, at all. Not in any way but I see how the post could be construed that way.

What strikes me is how often the family and close friends will make excuses though. How "Codependant" people can be or even unwilling to admit what is going on.

I understand that they do this out of love, for the most part, or because they are addicted to the arguing cycle and the drama, but having confronted a few addicted people in my time I am a real hardnose here...

I watch the show "Intervention" sometimes and it is interesting in how that shows that for every substance addict, there are 5-6 people supporting them in their habits.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by wayno
 


Agreed. BUT I do think there should be harsher penalties for a person who commits a crime under the influence of a drug, as with vehicular negligence with alcohol involced.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by odd1out
There are exceptions of course. Then again, many addicts sober for three years, or five years, or 27 years, and even 39 years, think that they beat their addiction...only to find that are soon worse than before they stopped. If this is a disease, and it is not curable, that means that no amount of time will separate you from it. A lot of people don't believe that, then they go to the bar just to have a drink or two..and pick up right where they left off years before.


I understand the "addicted for life" mentality but find it much too negative and bleak to adopt as one of my own personal tools for success. On the same exact level and situation, a person can be clean and never have a drug problem for 5, 10, 20, or 40 years only to find themselves hopelessly addicted to a drug just 2 years later. Just as bad as the so called "relapsed" addict after the same amount of sober time, especially if we're talking tens of years here. So therefore, ANY HUMAN can fall victim to addiction if the substance is taken regularly enough, long enough, REGARDLESS of their previous history. Because every addict started somewhere, started off with a minor habit, or as a weeekend warrior, someone having fun etc. Then one day they read up on their drug of choice and realize the potential for dependance, and try to stop using, only to discover that they are indeed entering withdrawl sydnrome from stopping the use, and are physically hooked before they even know it. That happened to me once through a crappy doctor who gave people too much medication without considering the risks of doing so without informing them in detail about it. I learned my lesson, went thru my withdrawl week, and felt better and never went near that type of medication again, but my point is, does this mean I am plagued with this "disease of addiction" for "the rest of my life"? Or does this put me on the exact same status as a person who's never had an addiction of any reasonable level of difficulty before? Either person has equal opportunity of one day falling victim to another addiction in the future. In fact, I could argue I'd be LESS APT to fall for an addiction in the future than the NAIVE person who has no concept of the true power of addiction.

So there it is, folks .. it starts with YOU. You have to be legit, genuine, and determined to change your life. When you finally succeed, its up to YOU to keep it that way by realizing how wonderful it is to be clean and happy and not needing a fix just to not be in agony and pain and withdrawl each day. Once you get past the withdrawls .. and full recover, if you can stay away for 10 years of no use, I'd honestly say you're probably SAFER than your average naive human being who has yet to experience (and defeat) such a heinous affliction as a serious drug addiction. Do you see where im coming from?

Maybe I just come from a long line of WINNERS who create our own realities. I mean, my Father was an alcoholic most of his life, only to beat it and be dry for the last 15yrs of his life, which was short when he died at age 57 from diabetes complications. Funny thing, I cant stand a drink .. well, maybe one or two, but I stand stand the feeling of being drunk. Being heavenly numb in blissful nodding can be nice, though. Not nice enough to ever, ever, ever get a habit / physical dependance going ever again, feel me?



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Sonya610
 


I do strongly believe there are people that are addicted but classifying everyone in one group is absurd, best thing to do is sort them out, I am treated legally by the govt as a Felon being young they've ruined my life I cant get a job I'm very limited in things i can do, and this has a good chance of following me around the rest of my life. For a first offender i got screwed. Nonetheless do i need to be told i cant have kids!! I do go to college and have a 3.0 gpa and by no stretch of the imagination am i stupid, but for the Govt to take more of my freedoms away would drive me insane!!!

Edit: Drug use snipped.

[edit on 25-1-2009 by intrepid]



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by wayno
A core message from this thread that I agree with 100% is that being addicted to any substance should not be a crime. Whether its medical, physical, mental, spiritual or just part of being human, it itself is not a crime.

The current system ensures that resources are going everywhere, through the war on drugs, but where they aught to - helping the person who is addicted.


Amen, and thank you.

The war on drugs, busting the users and dealers hardly addresses the victims... The addicts are seen as criminals. Treated as such, then expelled from the criminal system no better than before, in fact possibly worse and more prone to return to the addiction. This wont do, but of course there is little that can be done about that at this time, so creating awareness and prevention should be a top priority, for now, also letting your elected representatives know how you feel about these issues in significant numbers would also be great but less likely. People are too busy with other issues to worry about drug addicts, at least that is how I have found it to be. The criminal system is making things worse, no doubt.

[edit on 25-1-2009 by Walkswithfish]



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 08:51 PM
link   
I wonder what the pro drug libertines think about legalizing these mind destroying highly addictive drugs? This is a cancer on our society! Having said that it is well known that the only way to fight the drug war is to go after the users and not necessarily the dealers. They need to be put into mandatory rehab programs at their own expense.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by wayno
A core message from this thread that I agree with 100% is that being addicted to any substance should not be a crime. Whether its medical, physical, mental, spiritual or just part of being human, it itself is not a crime.


Excellent post wayno!

As a college freshman, I watched meth addiction take its toll on my roommate – a terrifying sight, even as I was diving into a bottle myself.

In recovery (AA) from my own alcoholism, I have seen many meth addicts get better, so I know that the same 12 steps work on meth addiction as on any other addiction.

As with any substance, there are certain issues that are peculiar to meth addiction, but the underlying problem remains. And it's not the physical addiction, which can be overcome relatively easily. It's the mental obsession, and the fact that taking the substance triggers that mental obsession, that is the hard part of recovery.

I hesitate to call any one addiction worse than another. People say it's hardest to kick oxycontin; certainly meth use is especially conducive to certain lifestyles that leave a lot of damage for years after the addict quits.

For purely practical reasons blaming and criminalizing addicts is counterproductive. They (we) can become great assets to society when we recover – being rescued from the prospect of either a slow and gruesome or lightning-fast and untimely death leaves people willing to do more than their part in helping others. But addicts need a moment of grace to recover – a moment when it seems possible to stop using, and when a hand reaches out to help them do so.

__________________________________________________

Originally posted by runetang
I understand the "addicted for life" mentality but find it much too negative and bleak to adopt as one of my own personal tools for success. On the same exact level and situation, a person can be clean and never have a drug problem for 5, 10, 20, or 40 years only to find themselves hopelessly addicted to a drug just 2 years later. Just as bad as the so called "relapsed" addict after the same amount of sober time, especially if we're talking tens of years here. So therefore, ANY HUMAN can fall victim to addiction if the substance is taken regularly enough, long enough, REGARDLESS of their previous history. Because every addict started somewhere, started off with a minor habit, or as a weeekend warrior, someone having fun etc. …


Any person can become physically addicted to a substance; that does not mean that they are an addict in the sense used in 12 step groups. If you don't have a mental obsession to continue using the substance that kicks in while you're using it, then the 12 step definition doesn't fit you.

And to say that the "addicted for life" mentality is negative or bleak is completely misunderstanding it.

As long as I don't drink, my alcoholism does not interfere with my life now that I've been sober for a while. In fact, it is an asset in my life, in so far as I have been able to help others in their struggles; in that it has forced me to a much greater understanding of myself and given me much more empathy towards others; in that it has introduced me to a whole bunch of people who I wouldn't have met if we weren't all addicts.

But I truly believe that if I take a drink tonight, I will start to obsess about drinking again. And that will ruin everything. Maybe it doesn't seem that different than the person who hasn't yet found their drug of choice, who will become an addict late in life. But I have a huge advantage over them, because I know that I'm addicted, so I can work to prevent relapse.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by wayno
A core message from this thread that I agree with 100% is that being addicted to any substance should not be a crime. Whether its medical, physical, mental, spiritual or just part of being human, it itself is not a crime.

The current system ensures that resources are going everywhere, through the war on drugs, but where they aught to - helping the person who is addicted.

I wouldn't even pretend to know who all benefits - from police forces, narcotics operations, pay-backs -- you name it. The "system" is addicted to all the money flowing thru it, and will do anything to maintain itself in spite of its uselessness.

Didn't mean quote so much, but what you said here is a great summary.
I think education goes a long way towards prevention. The goal should be to prevent as many people as possible from even trying these things. Once a person is addicted, help, becomes much more complicated. The symptoms and behavior of the addict preclude hem from any kind of help until a certain personal threshold are reached. That varies from person to person. Some will get a DUI, or get arrested for possession, and stop. Others will go on long after such consequences, often repeating their behavior many times with the same consequence. I am in the latter group; I wish I could explain why I kept going for years after the last person tried to help me. This behavior defies logic, and the best approach to help seems to be a spiritual solution. That defies the logic of many users when they come to 12 step programs. I am sober through the 12 step program, and why what I have done works baffles me. The program makes little sense. What makes even less sense is that I tried about 10 methods to end the hell that was my life, and the things I did that did not work to get me sober, still make more sense to me now, than what I do that actually works. The state of NY sent me to a program under medicaid in 1987, just after I got out of the Army. They accidentally sent me the bill. It was for $69,000 for a 45 day treatment program. I was loaded again within 72 hours of leaving that place.
Money will not fix the problem. Logic and science can't explain the behavior of addiction. The most successful treatment seems to be where one recovered addicted person shows another addict the way out of the darkness. But it may be a VERY tedious process to get to that point, and that point, has to be reached by the addict before that can happen.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Ican't find who said it here, but I do think certain drugs could be said to be "worse" than other addictiosn in that they make people violent.

For example... I cannot lie, I am a caffeine addict, physically, emotionally, the whole shebang. At least 6 cups a day here, withdrawls if I don't get my coffee, and good luck getting me to think straight before that first cup. I have heard some people who did use hard drugs say that quitting coffee was just as hard as quitting drugs.

So in that sense I could be classed as voraciosly addicted as methhead, but since there are no visible health detriments and especially because it doesn't make me violent, this is an OK addiction to have.

Cigarettes are another one... no one debates that they are addictive, impossible for some to quit, and bad for the health--but since this doesn't make a person go violent, it slides by.

Same thing for pot and '___'... I do not thing these are regarded as bad in the same way as some drugs, since they generally have a calming effect--at worst a person might have a bad trip and flip out, accidentally injuring himself or somoen else.

But compare that to meth, PCP, alcohol for some, for example, which seem to turn a person evill... those I think could be considered worse drugs.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join