Faces of meth

[Dee Dee Warren]

Now this is some high grade idiocy.

He is sticking to what he has shown himself to be very good at.

[anthrogirl]

Jimmy,

there is a big difference between slamming meth and smoking cigs. I have two cousins imprisoned for murder because of their meth addiction--NOT their tobacco addiction.

Yes, tobacco is awful--but the atrocities associated with meth are much more immediate--and more harmful to the local population and economy. While tobacco is more addictive than cocaine and heroin, meth is even more addictive still.

The amt of endorphines released after smokin/snorting/slamming meth is triple the amt released after snorting cocaine. The amt of endorphines released after taking meth is many, many times the amount released during orgasm. No wonder it's such a popular drug! Sadly, in some cases, an individual can become addicted after only one or two uses.

Many moons ago, when I was in high school, crank became popular in my hometown. Now, nearly 15 years later, it is very common to find pock-marked 13-year old tweakers roaming the streets, breaking into cars and houses, mugging people, (and of course, pooping on the sidewalk). So let me ask you this, Jimbot--which one is a more urgent and/or immediate problem:

13 year olds smoking meth
or
13 year olds smoking cigs?

At least we have nicotine patches and other drugs that are widely available to tobacco-addicted folks (a victory for public health). Meth addicts don't have the same resources readily available to them for self-help.

The good news is that neurologists now know that brain cells can be replenished, with time and care. So it is possible for the meth addict to make a recovery. But since meth contains chemicals that are literally thrown together to maximize toxicity (toxic = a wicked phat high), there are cases in which a person will suffer seizures or other motor problems for the rest of their lives.

I am still looking for my notes on meth...will share staggaring figures with you as soon as I find them...

ag

[Meh_Gerbil]

Jimmy,

there is a big difference between slamming meth and smoking cigs. I have two cousins imprisoned for murder because of their meth addiction--NOT their tobacco addiction.

Yes, tobacco is awful--but the atrocities associated with meth are much more immediate--and more harmful to the local population and economy. While tobacco is more addictive than cocaine and heroin, meth is even more addictive still.

The amt of endorphines released after smokin/snorting/slamming meth is triple the amt released after snorting cocaine. The amt of endorphines released after taking meth is many, many times the amount released during orgasm. No wonder it's such a popular drug! Sadly, in some cases, an individual can become addicted after only one or two uses.

Many moons ago, when I was in high school, crank became popular in my hometown. Now, nearly 15 years later, it is very common to find pock-marked 13-year old tweakers roaming the streets, breaking into cars and houses, mugging people, (and of course, pooping on the sidewalk). So let me ask you this, Jimbot--which one is a more urgent and/or immediate problem:

13 year olds smoking meth
or
13 year olds smoking cigs?

At least we have nicotine patches and other drugs that are widely available to tobacco-addicted folks (a victory for public health). Meth addicts don't have the same resources readily available to them for self-help.

The good news is that neurologists now know that brain cells can be replenished, with time and care. So it is possible for the meth addict to make a recovery. But since meth contains chemicals that are literally thrown together to maximize toxicity (toxic = a wicked phat high), there are cases in which a person will suffer seizures or other motor problems for the rest of their lives.

I am still looking for my notes on meth...will share staggaring figures with you as soon as I find them...

ag

Pearls.

Your factual approach combined with personal experience is really the input this thread needed. Good show, anthrogirl.

[Hitch]

He is sticking to what he has shown himself to be very good at.

That was the first post of his I'd ever seen,,,

[Teallaura]

Beginning next month, Oregonians will need a Rx for Sudafed and all products containing pseudo-ephedrines. Regulations in Oregon are much tougher because the problem is so urgent here. But yes, you're right--there are a number of states that lock up the Sudafed (and similiar drugs). However, in Oregon, one needs a prescription to obtain these formerly OTC drugs.

ag

Okay, thanks. I wasn't aware of that.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Jimmy,

there is a big difference between slamming meth and smoking cigs. I have two cousins imprisoned for murder because of their meth addiction--NOT their tobacco addiction.

Yes, tobacco is awful--but the atrocities associated with meth are much more immediate--and more harmful to the local population and economy. While tobacco is more addictive than cocaine and heroin, meth is even more addictive still.

And I think meth should be illegal, it should be stamped out. It has no physical benefits and can only cause pain. It's literally poison.

I just want to point out how some people seem to decry this in the face of meth, when cigarettes continue to be sold at pharmacies. No one is speaking positively for meth legalization. I just wonder why some people get upset when smoking gets banned in some places.

[Bambiraptor]

Somehow, I feel that a person who needs drug induced pleasure will get it whether or not a lovely piece of paper says its legal or not.

Isn't it silly to argue on which non-medicinal drug is worse? Aren't they all negative in some way or form? I mean, who think smoking is actually a good habit, as well as excessive drinking, unprotected sex, too many video games - Aren't all addictions (physical and psychological) truly awful?

The answer lies not within chopping the weed's leaves off to make get it out of sight for a little time. We must kill the root.

[Hitch]

Somehow, I feel that a person who needs drug induced pleasure will get it whether or not a lovely piece of paper says its legal or not.

Isn't it silly to argue on which non-medicinal drug is worse? Aren't they all negative in some way or form? I mean, who think smoking is actually a good habit, as well as excessive drinking, unprotected sex, too many video games - Aren't all addictions (physical and psychological) truly awful?

The answer lies not within chopping the weed's leaves off to make get it out of sight for a little time. We must kill the root.

It takes a village idiot to equate meth and video games.

But then hey,,, stubbiing your toe is painful,eating ice cream too fast is painful and geting shot five or six times is painful,,its all the same right???

H

[Bambiraptor]

I said any addiction is negative, the level of severeness is different, but they are all negative in some manner. This fighting over which addiction is worse is silly because it distracts from the real goal: getting rid of them. Why? Why should we spend time on getting rid of addictions as a whole? Therein lies the answer to our problem. If you cannot see the connection, than let me make it clearer.

Just because you would get rid of one bad thing doesn't mean another can't take its place. If you can find out the factors that would actually possess a person to attempt an addictive behavior, then you can stop the seed from ever taking root. An addict does do something because it is addictive, but they he or she does it because they want to enjoy a particular feeling. Both psychologically and physically, but a person is nearly always responsible for getting addicted in the first place. Now the key lies here: why would they need such a thing in life? Or perhaps in your case, why would a person need to produce meth in the first place? You can tear down as many meth labs as you want, but they either pop back up or are replaced by something else. Just because a friendlier looking version of something pops up (more subtle addictions) does not mean the problems that infected your society are gone, it merely means they have taken a new, temporary shape to survive.

Now if you must go to name calling to achieve anything, that just speaks for itself.

[Hitch]

I said any addiction is negative, the level of severeness is different, but they are all negative in some manner. This fighting over which addiction is worse is silly because it distracts from the real goal: getting rid of them. Why? Why should we spend time on getting rid of addictions as a whole? Therein lies the answer to our problem. If you cannot see the connection, than let me make it clearer.

Just because you would get rid of one bad thing doesn't mean another can't take its place. If you can find out the factors that would actually possess a person to attempt an addictive behavior, then you can stop the seed from ever taking root. An addict does do something because it is addictive, but they he or she does it because they want to enjoy a particular feeling. Both psychologically and physically, but a person is nearly always responsible for getting addicted in the first place. Now the key lies here: why would they need such a thing in life? Or perhaps in your case, why would a person need to produce meth in the first place? You can tear down as many meth labs as you want, but they either pop back up or are replaced by something else. Just because a friendlier looking version of something pops up (more subtle addictions) does not mean the problems that infected your society are gone, it merely means they have taken a new, temporary shape to survive.

Now if you must go to name calling to achieve anything, that just speaks for itself.

All the glittering generality doesnt help.


An addict does do something because it is addictive, but they he or she does it because they want to enjoy a particular feeling.

Strike the 'glitter'. This is plain old generality,useless but plain.

Just because a friendlier looking version of something pops up (more subtle addictions) does not mean the problems that infected your society are gone,

Im curious, did you post this thinking it to be some sort of revelation, some advanced concept previously unknown? Your post contains nothig but statements of the obvious.

What is not obvious to folks in areas where meth is not a common disease is its unusually destructive ,and quick to arrive consequences.

[Bambiraptor]

Meth is not a disease. It's a drug, like any other. It just strikes faster and harder. I've seen the disfigured faces, as so many other Americans in school. But people still do it. Now, forward . . .

If you want a really simple version of my argument, than ask yourself: Why is meth here in the first place? Why would people want to use it? How can I get rid of it? . . . and . . . Why should I care?

The answers are difficult, and there is (again) no easy solution. It would be naive, no, absolutely childish to think there is even a simple solution for any one of those issues.

[Wyzaard]

Wow... so many unjustified assumptions here, I wouldn't know where to start...

You are a pathetic twerp

Again, not much of a rebuttal. Let's start with those 'unjustified assumptions'... I didn't go into great detail in the post, so there does need to be some clarification and drawing out of a few ideas, so why not start off by bringing up a couple?

[Wyzaard]

He is sticking to what he has shown himself to be very good at.

Holding people accountable to their reactionary claims and bringing up uncomfortable systemic facts? Yep.

[Wyzaard]

Question for everyone: The causes of Meth use are... what?

Another question: Compared to tobacco use, how does Meth abuse stack up in terms of social cost?