Posted by fairnymph on July 31, 2002, at 15:36:57
In reply to Re: Experimenting with recreational drugs ..., posted by Jackd on July 30, 2002, at 23:19:26
You and Dr.Bob are right; I did weaken my argument through my lack of self-control. Unfortunately, I go a little crazy when I encounter people like you. And while that is unacceptable, it will not happen again. Anyway...
You said: "but I think the list of most addictive substances known to man goes like this: 1.Nicotine 2.Methamphetamine 3.Crack...." and "And btw, I didn't just pull that out of my ass, empiracally that really is the list of most addictive substance for humans."
Care to provide a source for the latter comment? According to the Merck Manual ( http://www.merck.com/pubs/mmanual/tables/195tb1.htm ), opiates are more addictive (physically AND psychologically) than both cocaine and methamphetamine. So what should Mr. Ratt believe...your anecdotal opinion or the Merck? I'm guessing he'll go with the latter.
> Alcohol is more physically addictive than meth and kills more people....do you ever drink?
>"Physically, yes, but all things considered it is not nearly as addictive. And I drink quite heavily and am able to stop for months. Meth heads who I have been close friends with keep doing it compulsively until, as I said, they die or go to jail. Again, I have witnessed it, I'm not telling stupid urban legends or myths like "I knew a guy who knew a guy.... etc"."
Again, how are you authorized to say that "all things considered [alcohol] is not nearly as addictive”? You simply cannot say such things unless you are willing to back them up with legitimate evidence. Again, I refer you to the Merck table that I gave you the link to earlier in this post. Alcohol is considered JUST AS psychologically addictive as meth and not nearly as physically addictive. So, 'all things considered’, ALCOHOL is more addictive.
I know at least 10 people (personally!), in addition to myself, who have used meth heavily (although my use has never been quite 'heavy', I have used it regularly for weeks at a time) for periods of time and have been able to cease and move on with their lives. Furthermore, I know HUNDREDS (and I am not exaggerating -- you get to know a lot of drug users in a job like mine) of people who have used meth recreationally and have never become addictive or ruined their lives as a result. Just as you were able to move on after drinking heavily. On the other hand, I know at least 10 people who have ruined their lives through alcohol abuse.
You say you have witnessed it; well, so have I. Furthermore, alcohol kills more people every year than meth does. Alcohol is KNOWN to be toxic to various parts of the body. Unless you never drink, smoke, or engage in any form of recreational drug use (whether legal or otherwise), if you speak as you do you are being extremely hypocritical. And to THAT I take extreme offense.
>Oh yeh, and I was being sarcastic...
I would expect you to realize that it is not always easy to detect sarcasm online. Therefore, it is far wiser to argue lucidly and say exactly what you mean and nothing more or less.
>It's all relative, and besides, I was exaggering to make a point.
This ties in to what I just said above. Exaggeration 'to make a point' (or for any other reason) is unacceptable when it comes at the price of misinformation. As it is, there is already a wealth of drug misinformation and myth on the internet. I would appreciate if you could refrain from adding to it.
>You sound like the over-typified cynical rebellious narrowminded youths so humorously stereotyped in films.
I am neither cynical nor rebellious. On what grounds did you come to such erroneous conclusions?
And regarding your comment that "meth users start flicking needles after a week"...I simply cannot believe such a thing. Even the craziest drug users I have known have not progressed so quickly. It just doesn't work like that. Wild exaggerations of this sort always arouse tremendous suspicion.
>You can't be on meth all the time and nor should you be...you need to know how to deal with life in other ways.
>"I sense bias and hostility throughout your reply, whereas I was simply sharing information and words of caution as a benevolent more experience individual. I have dabbled with all sorts of drugs, from the tame to the mind blowing, and seen both worlds, where as you obviously seem stuck or inclined to lean in just one. "
I was somewhat hostile towards you; but I firmly believe that I was not biased in my commentary. If you truly disagree, then please point out exactly what I said which brought you to this conclusion. I am truly curious as to how you could say that I am biased. What makes you think that I too haven't "seen both worlds"? I have used recreational drugs, yes, but I have never been addicted to any drug, and I have never had any drug use impact negatively on my life. I'm not saying that drugs are good, but they aren't evil either. I know many people who have had their lives negatively influenced by their drug use, but I also know many others like myself who have been able to use drugs in a semi-responsible and moderate manner.
>All I have to say is, have you honestly ever met a casual meth user?
I have met many casual meth users. Furthermore, seeing as you described the meth high as if you had experienced if firsthand, aren't YOU YOURSELF a 'casual meth user' who has "dabbled in drugs" to no great ill effect? Do you really think that you are the ONLY person who is capable of experimenting with recreational drugs and still living a happy and productive life?
> Do you know what drug is sweeping small towns in the country leaving ashes of murder, theft and voilence? Don't believe me? Read some statistics. Do some homework before naively huffing and puffing with your infantile assumptions and misconceptions.
Again, as I have stated, alcohol (and tobacco, while we are on the topic of 'socially acceptable recreational drugs') causes more far problems in the US than methamphetamine. Seeing as you failed to provide statistics (despite accusing me of providing false information), I will do so.
According to the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), a subsidiary of the government sponsored Center for Disease Control (CDC):
"In 1999 a total of 19,102 persons died of drug-induced causes, which includes not only deaths from dependent and nondependent use of drugs, but also poisoning from medically prescribed and other drugs. This does not include deaths from accidents, homicides, or other causes indirectly related to drug use.
A total of 19,171 persons died in 1999 from alcohol-induced causes, which includes dependent and nondependent use of alcohol and accidental poisoning from alcohol. This total excludes accidents, homicides, and other causes indirectly related to alcohol use. The total also excludes deaths from fetal alcohol syndrome."
You can view this information here: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/releases/01facts/99mortality.htm
Thus, alcohol caused MORE DEATHS than ALL OTHER DRUGS COMBINED! And the 'other' drugs category INCLUDES non-recreational, legal drugs!
According to the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN -- a subsidiary of the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, www.samhsa.gov) Annual Medical Examiner Data for 1999, there were 690 mentions of methamphetamine/speed in drug related deaths in 1991 in the US. Of those, only 2.5% (1.725 -- which is LESS THAN TWO DEATHS!) resulted from methamphetamine use alone. 47.7% (329.13 total) of the deaths resulted from multiple drugs...i.e. combining methamphetamine with one or more other drugs. 30.6% (248.4 total) of the deaths resulted from 'drug and external physical event' (e.g. they got shot while they had meth in their systems, and the like).
My point, not even TWO people died directly as a result of methamphetamine use in 1999 in this country! THAT is why I object to your unsubstantiated, deceptive statements.
>Do you know how to properly try to persuade or write persuasively? I don't mean misleading. >From my personal experiences, my friends' experiences and friends of friends' experiences, and >news articles and stories and statistics, I have come to these conclusions.
It appears that I just contradicted your supposedly statistic-based 'conclusions'.
>What do you know? >Really. You think I'm going to come out here to scare people? Have you >ever been to NA meetings in San Diego, LA, small towns in AZ or TN? You are so naive.
I don't presume to know everything, but I do my best to provide accurate information, as I have done here. I haven't been to NA meetings but by no means does that make my comments any less valuable or applicable. You say I am naïve -- based on what conclusions? You don't know my age, my background, or any of that. Again, an unsubstantiated statement.
>You haven't even experienced enough to make anything close to an opinion, so why object mine? That's just plain ignorance, and it's almost laughable if it wasn't so dispicable.
Apparently I have 'experienced enough' to have learned proper grammar. Last time I checked, the verb ' to object', when taking a direct object, uses the preposition 'to'. As in, 'so why object TO [my opinion]'. 'dispicable' isn't actually a word, btw...perhaps you meant 'despicable'? Furthermore, you seem to have forgotten the use of the subjective tense (like many Americans). It is incorrect to say: 'it's almost laughable if it wasn't so dispicable'. The correct phrasing is: ' it WOULD BE laughable if it WERE NOT so despicable'.
>I NEVER said he was a pussy for being shy. Jumping to conclusions and putting words in my >mouth again. I simply said "Don't be a pussy and take the easy way out".
If you didn't mean for others to interpret your statement as I did, then you should have stated it more clearly. I do not believe I was being farfetched in my interpretation.
>Stick to watching MTV and vehemently hating government restrictions without knowing why. Or >better yet, read some books, meet some more people, and figure out that there's more out there >than your little world.
I don't own a television, or ever watch any, let alone MTV. I was fortunate enough to grow up without television. Instead I read books (at least we agree on something?).
When did I say I hated government restrictions, let alone say that I hated them 'vehemently'? And you said I put words into YOUR mouth...
I'm not going to dicksize with you, but chances are I am more well read and well traveled than you. I certainly haven't met many people who have had as many opportunities as I in these respects.
P.S.
A suggestion for you future posts here: spell-check your posts first, if you are going to be condescending in your commentary.
poster:fairnymph
thread:113832
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020731/msgs/114660.html