Want to take drugs? Teen guide 'shows how' (1 Viewer)

[KFunk]

Note that dependence is not the same as addiction, Riet, though they are closely related. I think dependence is about a psychological need for the drug whereas addiction is more about a physical/biological need.

While the distinction is often murky, I think the division in the literature (where one exists) tends to be the other way around. Pharmacologists tend to be precise about defining physical dependence (say, in terms of the resetting of molecular/physiological homeostasis) whereas addiction tends to be a somewhat vague notion (note the potential moral and philosophical undertones - are we addicted to water/sex? Is it only addiction when it is a problem? or when it displaces other behaviors? What defines a 'problem'?).

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Neb: Barbiturates are like alcohol but stronger. Based off alcohol, I can easily understand their danger.

Yah yah I know what they do, but they're erm, pretty minor in terms of how many abuse them yah? Compared to other drugs of similar intensity. I mean, alcohol's slow acting and pretty light, generally, whereas barbiturates are, like you said, stronger, intense and fast acting. So pretty much anyone who uses alcohol for any positive effect wouldn't use a barbiturate since they pretty much knock you out like *that*

Barbiturates are really easy to make. True story.

(say, in terms of the resetting of molecular/physiological homeostasis) whereas addiction tends to be a somewhat vague notion (note the potential moral and philosophical undertones - are we addicted to water/sex? Is it only addiction when it is a problem? or when it displaces other behaviors? What defines a 'problem'?).

Perhaps it has a lot to do with what's necessary for the human body. You know, water, food and sex are kinda what humans are designed to use/do, whereas using heroin (or alcohol, or ether) doesn't quite fit into that definition.

 

[Riet]

Considering endorphins act in almost exactly the same was as morphine, I'd say that last bit is debatable . I think the destinction between dependence and addiction is that dependence results in actual physical withdrawl symptoms if someone stops cold turkey. For example, if you go from drinking half a dozen cups of coffee a day to zero you end up getting headaches and feeling tired. If you stop smoking you get irritable because of the cravings, but there aren't any physical symptoms.

I agree it's hard to define though. One can always play the devil's advocate using the example of food. We need it to live and will suffer withdrawl symptoms if we starve ourselves. When we do eat it provides a feeling of satisfaction as well as having effects on our CNS, i.e. you often feel tired after a big meal. Why is food not considered a drug but meth is?

 

[KFunk]

Perhaps it has a lot to do with what's necessary for the human body. You know, water, food and sex are kinda what humans are designed to use/do, whereas using heroin (or alcohol, or ether) doesn't quite fit into that definition.

Sex isn't necessary to keep you alive; nor are most types of food (taken individually). You simply delay the arbitrariness by using a vague term like "what's necessary for the human body". Necessary for what? Staying alive? Biological perpetuation of the species? Well being? etc...

The other thing worth noting is that a great deal of what we do is not necessary (for life, say). E.g. music, computer software, casinos, universities, and texas hold 'em. And yet many amongst us get attached to these things to varying degrees and perhaps deem them important/central to our life. Enjoyable activities can trigger dopaminergic reward pathways too.

Note also that many humans undoubtedly become addicted to sex / food.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Sex isn't necessary to keep you alive

Which isn't what I said.

When I said what we're designed to use/do, yeah, I obviously meant perpetuation and being alive.

 

[KFunk]

Aye, but that wasn't the thrust of my argument. The other points hold irrespective.

 

[KFunk]

Mmm, such is my thrust.

 

[makeHSChistory]

dont sweat it guys, i got a plan.



... lets go get fucked up!

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

The point is that we can live entirely from a healthy diet. However, food high in fats, sugars and flavour enchancers can have serious health impacts. They can also be highly addictive. With over 50% of Australians now obese and the cost to our healthcare system in the billions, its seems absurd to regulate self harm through drug use, but not through use of foods which are known to be unhealthy if consumed regularly.

i concur. regulate all!

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

I don't think that drugs should be regulated, tard, I just think that your reasoning is absurd.

 

[Ennaybur]

Mmm, such is my thrust.

oh wow I'd like him to thrust me

 

[Zrap]

Snoop Dog is the most mellowed out carnn goin around, if we all smoked weeed, we'll be all mellow, wouldnt world be just peaceful.

 

[HalcyonSky]

I'm pro-regulation. Bad shit should be cut from society, generally; smoking, heroin, ice, cocaine, gambling (aka tax on the stupid) and obesity.

you don't think alcohol should be added to that list?

i'm against regulation for the masses, people should be able to do as they will, with the condition it has no collateral affect on those around them, ie alcoholic violence, being an alcoholic parent, passive smoking, being a disgusting fatshit etc. People who breach their responsibilties should be regulated, not those who can do drugs sensibly. This is hardly practical, though

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

I don't think many people doubt that drugs have a negative impact on society: Costs of corpses in streets, overdoses, rehab programs, injecting centres, and think of all the extra stuff should they be legalised. It costs the taxpayer a fair bit. What yeh haf to say to that eh?

why? use clear prose instead of obcure, Iron style references.

You were acting as if the amount of obese people in Australia (through lack of regulation on fatty foods etc) somehow provides evidence for making drugs legal and/or easier to get. Obesity is not a good thing, ergo, it doesn't provide any weight to your belief that drugs ought to be legalised, unless you have other reasons (and I'm sure you do).