DescentBB

bash wrote:Only a fool equates infirmity with accomplishment.

Agreed.
Because you were such a good one. It didn't take direct experience for you to come to that wisdom. You just listened to mommy and daddy and learned html and shot Internet guns at people.

BS. You partied and came away with a better answer for yourself. Just say that... at least you ain't a preacher.

snoopy wrote:Why do people do drugs in the first place

There is more than one reason for this, some of them have already been discussed. But I think the most influential is the need to fit in, to be part of the crowd. The friends we choose influence what we do, even if we imagine ourselve to be an "independant" thinker.

This is what happened to me. When I was in the eighth grade all my friends began smoking cigarettes. I held out, but eventually started smoking to feel part of the crowd. (I quit in my early twenties and am very gald I did). Eventually I moved to pot, speed, downers, acid, and a few other things, all because I was in the comapny of kids who thought of this as normal routine. We didn't get high to rebel, we got high to have a good time. And we got high a lot.

During my 10th grade year I discovered the unfortunate side affects this life style can deliver.
Two of my friends were dead, as a direct result of getting high, which is worst thing that could happen.
Although most of the people I new didn't die, many of them landed in jail.

I was never arrested, but during my 10th grade year I ditched 63 days during the second semester, and ended the school year with an "F" in all my classes except Drafting (why that teacher gave me a "C" is still a mystery to me - guess he felt sorry for me). But then the turning point happened; The drugged up logic my so called "friends" possessed lead to some bad decisions, which caused me to be mugged by three guys (all twice my size). The reason for the beating would never have happened had my "friends" been sound of mind (it's a long story). Suffice to say I then realized what a waste my life had been (Why do you think they call it getting "wasted?"), and that my "friends" didn't really deserve that title. I eventually sought out new friends and left that whole drug scene behind, and I'm glad I did. I've never seen anything positive come from that life style, ever.

I guess apparently one of the "secrets" to becoming a millionaire lies within the context of that idea....your environment allegedly plays a huge role in that you supposedly reflect it...hmm

roid wrote:since this thread was initially fueled by a media article on meth (that i as yet still havn't seen... link pls?):

Meth In America: Hype Or Crisis?

Doctors, Scientists, Medical Researchers Call On Media To Be More Careful & Less Outrageous In Their Coverage Of Meth

http://www.csdp.org/news/news/methupdate.htm

How about a different angle ?

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonia ... xml&coll=7

I thought those articles where interesting as well:

http://www.oregonlive.com/special/oregonian/meth/

What about 80% of boys that are on meth, er I mean Ritalin...

Ferno wrote:What about 80% of boys that are on meth, er I mean Ritalin...

Sorry Ferno, there is absolutely no comparison between meth and Ritalin. Ritalin (even in large doses) doesn't even come close to what meth does.

Get the facts.

Where I live there is a HUGE problem with meth labs in a couple cities just 30 mintues and 60 minutes away. Nearly every day there is another meth lab bust or people the Law is searching for in connection with a meth bust. Recently, one of the largest chemical suppliers to the meth labs in the nation was arrested (which has slowed the problem down a little... for now). We see and hear about the effects of meth all the time. It is bad stuff. Nearly anyone who tries it just once... is forever hooked... and it destroys them and you tell a meth head from other people easily just by the way they look.

Ritalin, by comparison, would be a little like using cocoa instead of coffee.

Ritalin is not an amphetamine, though I do agree that it is used as a crutch.

TheCope wrote:You come off like some guy who waited until marriage to have sex (not that that's bad) and is trying to tell me what good sex is, you have no reference point, your wife may be a terrible lover. You don't know what you are talking about at all; you have no experience with the subject first hand at all. Yet, you make grandiose statements like you are a wise old man. You are not.

Of course, this is something you're NEVER guilty of. Though I'll imagine you haven't, ever seen a hardcore masochist in hospitol, maimed for life, because he was having fun getting sliced apart?

Before you ask, neither have I, but I can safely assume that did I witness such a thing, I wouldn't reserve judgement on being cut to the bone over and over as an entertainment. I'd know, from an outsider's perspective with reasonable certainty, that it's not something I want, and it's something that guy would have been better off without.

You can't tell that guy that a good time isn't having a knife taken to you, or that he would honestly be happier if he found a way to enjoy himself that didn't involve removing extremities. But you can be pretty sure those things stand true for you.

Grendel wrote:

roid wrote:since this thread was initially fueled by a media article on meth (that i as yet still havn't seen... link pls?):

Meth In America: Hype Or Crisis?

Doctors, Scientists, Medical Researchers Call On Media To Be More Careful & Less Outrageous In Their Coverage Of Meth

http://www.csdp.org/news/news/methupdate.htm

How about a different angle ?

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonia ... xml&coll=7

I thought those articles where interesting as well:

http://www.oregonlive.com/special/oregonian/meth/

i apologise for that link. it really wasn't that interesting to me, so i'm not sure how interesting it would be for anyone else either .
the title jumped out at me and i posted it without reading it. sorry guys.

i read the article you linked. it's talking about a few specific cases of meth abuse (not normal use) and to me it simply shows how familys who deal with substance abuse (not use) are similar everywhere - irrespective of the substance.

i'll see if i can find some figures on use-vs-abuse ratios for various drugs. in the meantime here's a website i frequent that correlates factual raw statistical information regarding drugs - here's it's methamphetamine page http://www.briancbennett.com/meth.htm

as you can see meth use peaked around 1981.
but it seems that meth related deaths suddenly skyrocketed in the 90s (but unfortunately that data only goes upto 1998).

meth related hospital mentions and deaths are still pretty low compared to other drugs. http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/daw ... umbers.htm <- numbers of in-hospital mentions (the recording process of this tends to skew the numbers).
http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/dea ... deaths.htm

it just seems to me that the facts DON'T support a sudden panic over methamphetamine. Which means that it's just yet again the media trying to get you all into a scare by reporting on a false "outbreak".
As far as i've seen there is no outbreak - as both the wiki article, and another article has already said:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2123838/

this list should give grounding to anyone who is feeling a bit panicy:
http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/death/big-list.htm


the article you linked cited figures on things such as foster care, i don't have any whole statistics on those to compare (and i know better than to expect the article to offer them). if you could find some that'd be handy.

TechPro wrote:We see and hear about the effects of meth all the time. It is bad stuff. Nearly anyone who tries it just once... is forever hooked...

while it's great for selling papers, it's of course quite incorrect.

http://www.health.org/govstudy/BKD405/default.aspx
"In 2000, the estimated number of persons who have tried methamphetamine in their lifetime was 4.0 percent of the population"

so that estimates it to be 1 outof every 25 people who have ever tried meth. are 1 in every 25 people meth addicts? no

and the numbers of ppl who had ever tried meth have been a lot higher in the past.
these stats here say that in the year 1981 a full 3rd of all kids by their 12th year of school had tried meth at least once. A THIRD OF ALL KIDS!
the lowest recorded in that data was in 1992 when only 1 outof every 7 kids in year 12 said they had meth before.

so:
"Nearly anyone who tries it just once... is forever hooked..."
is just plain wrong.

Here's your facts Techpro and DCrazy.


Straight from erowid:

"Ritalin (methylphenidate) does contain an amphetamine-like backbone, however it is more complex. Take a look at the difference in Chem-Compare. The additional structures on this molecule also alter its interaction with the body and the neurons in our brains. Methylphenidate is reported to have less euphoric effects (some people describe it as 'more dull') than methamphetamine, but every individual is unique in their reaction to psychoactives, so no statement is universally true."

prescription Methamphetamine is also used to treat ADHD. just like Ritalin
http://www.psyweb.com/Drughtm/desoxyn.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desoxyn

roid wrote:i read the article you linked. it's talking about a few specific cases of meth abuse (not normal use) and to me it simply shows how familys who deal with substance abuse (not use) are similar everywhere - irrespective of the substance.

Meth abuse is the problem. I'm not even sure if there would be such a thing as "meth use". None if the ppl on meth I met so far was a "user". To me the modus operandi of the drug seems to be that you become an "abuser" almost instantly.

roid wrote:it just seems to me that the facts DON'T support a sudden panic over methamphetamine. Which means that it's just yet again the media trying to get you all into a scare by reporting on a false "outbreak".
As far as i've seen there is no outbreak - as both the wiki article, and another article has already said:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2123838

As someone living in an area that heavily influenced by meth I totally disagree. But that's probably just me..

Also, around here it became problematic in the last 5 years. Seems like the sites you quote have only data til 1999 at best..

Edit: To clear that, meth fatalities are rare. The main problem is the effect on society -- abandoned kids, increased crime rates, totally disfunct junkies etc. And no, methamphetamine is not the same as amphetamine (as the msn article tries to imply)

ah, ok i see. we are getting mixed up here because this thread started off talking about drug USE and why do people USE drugs - while citing reports about meth ABUSE - as if they are one and the same. these 2 things are completely seperate, and i completely agree that drug ABUSE is bad for all involved, ABUSE being a suitable negative term for it.
so given that USE & ABUSE were treated as the same thing at the first post i guess a mixup was in the cards from the start.

so on the one hand i'm talking about drugs USE in general, on the other hand i'm talking specificly about meth USE. then some ppl are talking about drug ABUSE and meth ABUSE. and... argh, everyone ends up talking about different things yet thinking they are all talking about the same thing.

Continued regular Meth use, combined with a lack of education as to it's effects (and just a basic understanding of psychology &/or neurochemistry), will very likely lead to habit - which will then very likely lead to ABUSE.
(there is a difference, in the same way that you can be quite fine addicted to caffine - it will be defined as caffine ABUSE if it starts (and then continues) to detriment your health or lifestyle - which will probabaly never happen thx to caffine's cultural acceptance, low cost, legal status, and weak addiction potential)

in the society we live in anyone with a substance abuse problem is visible. if someone walking down the street looks normal then all we know about them is that whatever they do in life is not a problem. since you assume that meth causes guarenteed problems - you will by extension assume that normal people do not ever use meth.
i've shown statistics that show that a lot more people than you think have used meth.

Also, around here it became problematic in the last 5 years. Seems like the sites you quote have only data til 1999 at best..

Edit: To clear that, meth fatalities are rare. The main problem is the effect on society -- abandoned kids, increased crime rates, totally disfunct junkies etc.

those are all abuse problems, not use problems, and i've shown how the 2 are not one and the same. but i hear you - you're talking about abuse.

as far as rehab admissions go stimulants do seem to be somewhat on the rise, and this could indicate a rise in meth abuse.
http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/ted ... -drugs.htm
but look at the numbers (it goes upto 2002) compared to other the other drugs, meth is not "America's Most Dangerous Drug".
by all factors (incl death) alcohol still is the most dangerous by a long shot.

i've heard this "America's Most Dangerous Drug" crap before, not just once. I believe not too long ago they were saying the exact same thing about cannabis, and then ecstasy. They have probabaly said it about most illegal drugs at one time or another - it's just hype.

What I don't undrestand is why people are not talking about Adderall. Adderall is much stonger than ritilin and is way closer to meth. I tried Aderal but did nothig for me because i needed a sabilizer. But I know for a fact from all the people that like it, says is's an intense form of speed. And believe me I see how they act, not pretty.

And for the record I tried meth only once and I was never hooked.

Oh yea one more thing, alcohol and herion or way more dangerous than any other drug. They cause more crime and death. Believe me I know from personal experience with friends and loved ones.

Ferno, that's the exact paragraph from which I got my link. Notice the fact that it was from Erowid?

yea, but you seem to me missing the part where it says 'contains an amphetamine backbone'

Except it doesn't say that. It says "Ritalin (methylphenidate) does contain an amphetamine-like backbone". And that by definition makes it not an amphetamine. Look at the molecules again. Ritalin is much more complex.

Overprescription of Ritalin is an entirely different topic.

only difference is the nitrogen hydroxide cluster, and the clorohydroxide molecule.

in essence it's a modification of the typical amphetamine molecule.

Ferno wrote:only difference is the nitrogen hydroxide cluster, and the clorohydroxide molecule.

in essence it's a modification of the typical amphetamine molecule.

Chlorohydroxide? There's no chlorine in that molecule. Are you referring to the methyl group being moved?

I was wondering if i had my chemical names right...

what is the CH3 group called?


"Are you referring to the methyl group being moved?"

yup.

the orintations of the molecules are different. that counts for a lot.

CH3 is methyl

On ritalin vs amphetamine:

amphetamine (for referance)


ritalin/methylphenidate


These molecules are VERY different, particularly considering their size. Methylphenidate is going to be far less likely to have a workable orientation in a chemical collision for a reaction to occur purely based on probability.

An evolutionary purpose to 'drugs' has been proposed by a few authors.

http://www.innertraditions.com/isbn/1-59477-069-7

'Drugs' are a process for mutating our consciousness, opening up awareness and possibilities for cultural changes to happen fast, and not get to bogged down in lore and dogma.

This requires that mind altering substances be part of our diet; a very 'natural' thing when using the substances that are offered my Mother Nature. For example, one of my favorites is a tryptamine:

http://www.magic-mushrooms.net/psilocybin.html

And, fy-google

http://www.lycaeum.org/drugs/Tryptamines/Psilocybian/

wadja talkin' bout? Drugsh ish gud!1

then explain why the effects are similar Phoenix.

you can't compare a drug like weed with a drug like meth. if i could paint the picture it would not be so sterile as molecular orientation. it's a human picture, or one that apes humanity at its most degenerate. the devil himself could not have wrought a more sinister plague upon mankind than meth.

you would not believe how many meth addicts are parents. you would not believe how many parents put meth before their children. i've lost count of the wasted lives; those that are ruined.

i will not burden you here with the awful details. At best it is an NHB topic. At worst it shouldn't be uttered at all.

for me, the only thing harder than trying to ameliorate the damage would be not trying at all. the reward is having the chance to make a difference.

the challenge is to not break down. the challenge is to end the day without being jaded. sometimes dark humor is the only thing that lights the way. the hardest part is to learn how not to judge.

Amen Palzon!

Ferno wrote:then explain why the effects are similar Phoenix.

Almost certainly because the correct orientation for an effective collision involves the (unaltered) phenyl group. For the record, a phenyl group by itself (called benzene) is toxic and IIRC narcotic.

Phoenix Red wrote:

Ferno wrote:then explain why the effects are similar Phoenix.

Almost certainly because the correct orientation for an effective collision involves the (unaltered) phenyl group. For the record, a phenyl group by itself (called benzene) is toxic and IIRC narcotic.

is it me or does this make absolutely no sense?

Xciter wrote:Interesting site if it hasn't been posted yet, didn't read the entire thread, sorry if it's a dup... mug shots of repeat meth users over a period of time.

http://www.facesofmeth.us/main.htm

were you gonna add some interest to it? the only content is some shockingly ugly people accompanied by a "look! meth caused this!" statement.
it doesn't even supply explanations to the mechanisms that would cause these results.
shocking yes (makes for good headlines). not interesting.

Ferno wrote:

Phoenix Red wrote:

Ferno wrote:then explain why the effects are similar Phoenix.

Almost certainly because the correct orientation for an effective collision involves the (unaltered) phenyl group. For the record, a phenyl group by itself (called benzene) is toxic and IIRC narcotic.

is it me or does this make absolutely no sense?

I'll break down the chemical terms.

An "effective collision" is when two compounds make contact due to their usualy kenetic movement with sufficient force and correct orientation to cause a chemical reaction. Most of the time, they bounce off eachother.

The correct orientation as I'm sure you can deduce means having the ends of compound A that react with compound B in contact with compound B during the collision, and vice versa.

A phenyl group is c6h6, a cyclic carbon chain of 6 molecules in which each carbon atom is double bonded to another carbon, single bonded to another carbon, and bonded to a hydrogen. In the pictures, the uncircled hexagon represents a phenyl group. The corners are carbons, the lines are bonds, and the hydrogens are not shown (unfilled valence shells are assumed to be filled with hydrogen). That diagram is actually drawn in bad form, as positioning the double bonds is misleading. Without getting into submolecular physics, they spread out into a field above and below the carbon ring. Benzene is usually represented by a circle encased by a hexagon.


They call it an amphetamine BACKBONE because the business end is the same, it's the property-altering end they changed.

This topic also came up in chat the other day. Very interesting...

I definately had my heyday, especially with drinking. I've tried various different substances, including alcohol, nicotine, marijuana, cocaine & various psychedelics.

These days, I'm much more laid back. I (rarely) use alcohol and marijuana. I'm more of a "2 margaritas" kind of guy these days. Marijuana is more of an all-or-nothing type of experience, so that's even rarer for me. I've quit smoking (cold turkey) for years at a stretch on several occasions, and I'm approaching a one-year nicotine-free anniversary.

Do I think drugs are bad? NO. Not in general, not for everybody. I think there is a part of all of us which enjoys and maybe even NEEDS altered states of consciousness. Different people choose different means of getting "high". Whether it's putting a substance into your bloodstream, an adrenaline rush, an endorphin kick, Vedic chanting, spinning in circles until you're dizzy, acheiving nirvana through meditation or falling in love, the end result is the same: an altered state of consciousness.

As with everything, however, irresponsibility and excess can cause tragedy. IMO, the destructive effects of most addictive drugs (including nicotine, at least in it's native tobacco form) outweigh any possible positives which might be derived from casual, non-medical usage. There are definately other drugs which should be more tightly restricted as well, while it could be beneficial to loosen restrictions on others which are more benign in overall effect. Of course, finding unbiased research to support an initiative along these lines would be quite a challenge! The Liquor Lobby & the Tobacco Lobby, for example, would be up in arms!

I think the biggest problem is societal however. Without going into excess detail, it's been noted elsewhere that the erosion of personal responsibility is one of the roots of many of our society's ills.

Just to add some levity to the discussion, take a look at Foamy's latest rant. (Warning: abundant use of profanity ) I thought it was a funny coincidence that that cartoon would be posted while this thread was going on.

TG, was that brevity or levity??

For God's sake...no one else saw anything, right?

Top Gun wrote:... take a look at Foamy's latest rant. (Warning: abundant use of profanity ) I thought it was a funny coincidence that that cartoon would be posted while this thread was going on.

Ha ha !

I liked it, makes a lot of very good points... though I could do without the profanity...

Hemp does not only produce textiles like a burlap sack.
it produces soft textiles similar to cotton.

Foamy is funny in his own nieve judgemental kindof way . please feel free to bring up any of his points here and we can debate them.

[edit: http://www.megatokyo.com/index.php?strip_id=755 read Seraphim's editorial below as well]