On 2004-10-17 13:14:00, Anonymous wrote:
"I agree with most of what the last anon poster says..and maybe prohibition is not a realistic way to go,at least with adults even if smoking up or whatever is generally bad for them...but for god's sake people use your common sense...don't worry about whether some "famous" person who you don't know anything about personally did or did not use drugs at some point in time.
It's really interesting to see how Anon changes his tune as, one by one his misconceptions are exposed. But he still does not comprehend that "smoking up" ain't necessarily "generally bad" for you bad for you any more than is a glass of wine with your meal. He still works from mthe false assumption that all drug use is abuse. And I do not need to go to "famous" people as I know many "successful" people personally who have smoked up with no ill effects. Indeed. there are some who would describe the experience as being something that opened doors of perception they otherwise would not have experienced.
Look to your own life and experience..if you do, how can you possibly not see that substance use especially in the early and mid teens is a recipe for disaster? Even if there are exceptions to the rule, this is the rule
Substance use (as opposed to abuse (or misuse)) as a recipe for disaster? Perhaps.
Perhaps as Antigen suggests, you take the "USE" of prescription pharmeceuticals as being a recipe for disaster. Now some kid who is taken into care by Child Welfare for out-of control behaviour might just be deemed to be in need of an anxiolytic, for example, diazepam (valium to the uninitiated). Now this helps him sleep but does not treat the root causes of the behaviour. Result: because benzos have a short half-life, over time this kid becomes dependant (you notice I do not use the word addicted). Not only that, because the kid gets little or no education in how the drug works , and still has to deal with the untreated demons that bother him, he learns to fall back on this drug for the escape he needs. When he hits 18 he's cut loose to vie for himself.
As it happens the vast majority of street people you see in Alberta's two major cities were a) in care as children and adolescents and b)were treated with valium and c) when they have attempted to withdraw have suffered brain damage.
Then a more recent drug prescribed for "Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder" Ritalin. (remember the out of control kid above who never got his underlying problem diagnosed?) Now we have kids being prescribed a stimulant very closely related to, you've got it, dexadrine and methamphetamine. In fact, methamphetamine can be obtained on prescription in the US -- in cases of the most extreme forms of ADHD.
Now a kid who is given Ritalin on a superficial diagnosis by a GP can be A)Correctly diagnosed or B) incorrectly diagnosed. In either case kid may not like how the drug affects him. It has been known for kids who don't like the drug to pretend to take it and pass it off to friends. It has also been known for such kids to rather like what the drug does to them. It doesn't take long for them to find out that bennies make them feel even better and then, hey, Meth! And recent research seems to indicate that people with undiagnosed ADHD find that Meth actually helps them. The problem is that they have way too high a dose and suffer extreme rebound effects.
You will note, gentle reader, that nowhere in my diatribe do I adopt a moralistic condemning attitude nor do I suggest that such users of drugs are to be written off as "losers". In both cases there is a lack of insight, true. But that arises as much as anything from the inability of the institutions and families in the background of these individuals to recognise or accurately diagnose what is going on with these individuals.
In one case I recently dealt with the Valium dependence arose from untreated sexual abuse the child had suffered when she was 5 at the hands of her uncle. In the other, the Methamphetamine dependance had a great deal to do with 2 young men suffering many of the symptoms of ADHD which one set of parents recognized but doctors didn't. When that boy discovered Meth helped him concentrate he first became dependant and gradually became toxic. The other boy was poor and cut off Ritalin when he was old enough to work without getting Welfare or having a pharmacare plan. He was also more likely Bipolar. When helped to understand where he was coming from (without browbeating or preaching) this individual was able to turn around and rebuild his shattered life.
And what would make the drug-pushing posters here not be able to see it, except denial and self-justification...really shameful behavior"
Naah, I'm sorry, Antigen and those of us who oppose the mythology and methodology of AARC are not "drug-pushers" What is really shameful behaviour is that you, who did embark on truly criminal behaviour (robberies, beatings, theft, etc.)seek to evade or avoid accepting fully personal responsibility for your actions. That's like the TWINKY defence. Oh! the drugs made me do it! How convenient!
No, You may feel that Dr. Vause's methodology has empowered you to take control of your life, but really, if you still believe that you would be unable to partake of a drug, any drug, in moderaton, without succumbing to excess, then you have not been empowered, but truly disempowered. For the young man I know, who went through coerced treatment, admits to me that, "if I take just one dose (of meth) I KNOW I'll just go straight back to the gutter. Too bad, I suspect that if he had gone the route of the other guy he may well have succeeded in quite a different way.
I could go on with scores of example in my personal knowledge but one thing is certain in the drug war, the "common sense" you talk about , first of all ain't too common, nor does it make any sense.
