Normally, on topics like this I post under a throwaway. Now, I don't see why I should.
I'm an ex-heroin addict, and am on Suboxone Opiate Replacement Therapy. I've been clean for 9 months, after 6 years of opiate addiction (starting with Oxycodone, and moving quickly to Heroin). I'm 22 years old.
This article has a few factual inaccuracies, which I want to correct.
First: Injecting Suboxone is NOT safe. Not even close, especially with the method described in the article: unless you are a fan of Talcosis (which will kill you), you need to get a micron filter. Even then, it's not worth it. The high is minimal, tolerance builds rapidly, and it's dangerous. There are numerous complications that come from injecting pills, and it's never worth it.
Second, and this is a small nitpick, heroin users don't have "eyes like saucers" - you have eyes like pinpricks. Opiates constrict pupils, not dilate then.
Third, heroin withdrawal IS torture, at least if you have a sizable habit. Yes, Burroughs did say it was "overrated", but I can tell you from experience, it's absolute torture. It's not like fever. It's an entire body ache, down to your very bones; it's your mind crying out for relief. It's something I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.
There were a number of annoying factual inaccuracies in the article, particular with respect to heroin:
> ..time-killing properties of opium or heroin, but with none of the likelihood of it stopping his heart
Opiates do not stop your heart. The notion that every single usage of opium or heroin is like a game of russian roulette, that might stop your heart, is fantasy. Opiates are actually quite safe, as drugs go. It's not until you take far too much or mix them that you are screwed. And that's true of any opiate, prescription or otherwise.
> Heroin kills, and OxyContin, unless badly mishandled, does not.
Basically not true; injected oxy requires no more 'mishandling' than heroin to kill. Both will happily shut down your respiratory system and kill you if you administer too much. Of course one could argue that the pharma is of a consistent manufacture and dosage, whereas one batch of too-strong street opiates could kill someone used to weaker stuff, but the author of this piece seems far too clueless about the subject to be making such distinctions.
Then we have comparison of marijuana's 'addictiveness' to that of opiates. The difference between psychological dependence and physical dependence is one of kind, not degree.
Injected OxyContin is worse, actually. Being 2/3rds the strength of heroin, but being in pill form, means you're running the gauntlet with talcosis, and causing other terrible and fatal medical conditions due to the nature of what is put in the pills themselves.
Heroin and pure opiates are actually "safe" as far as drugs go. I'm clean, and even when addicted held down good jobs, earning good money, and no-one was the wiser. My vitals are still perfect to this day.
As a child I was once in a english class for people in rehab from heroin. This was Spain in the early 90s and most of them had been addicts fOr more than 10 years.
They were definitely affected neurologically, they were like a bit in slow motion and could disengage from their sorroundings quite easily.
They were in the last part of the therapy, almost ready to go home, but I can't tell if that was an effect of a substitution therapy( at the time it was methadone), or they had a permanent cognitive damage.
Methadone, at least in my experience, really does "zombify" you. It has really pronounced CNS depressant effects. It's basically no different from Heroin in how it affects your state of mind: that's why I personally chose Suboxone as my ORT drug.
I've done high-level cognitive activities like programming for 5 years of methadone therapy with little to no problems. I took the GRE on methadone therapy and did better than when I was on no opiates 10+ years ago. Used properly, methadone's side effects can be minimized to almost none in most patients. I tend to get sleepy after lunch, but I honestly can't tell if that's the methadone.
Most of the "zombified" methadone users are way overmedicated, usually because this is the state they are seeking.
> Opiates do not stop your heart. The notion that every single usage of opium or heroin is like a game of russian roulette, that might stop your heart, is fantasy. Opiates are actually quite safe, as drugs go.
They, in large doses, stop your breathing which is close enough and will kill you (like you later said), unlike, say a benzodiazepine which you can take to your hearts content and will just knock you out senseless without killing you (unless you add alcohol or another GABA receptor drug).
They also can send you into a hypotensive crisis if you're hypovolemic, which also will kill you. So I would really be hesistant to call them "quite safe, as drugs go" because they are definitely on the dangerous spectrum. We could list a ton of drugs I'd rank higher on the safety spectrum than opioids in terms of both short and long-term effects, with opioids only "redeeming" quality being their instant reverse agent (naloxone) or partial reverse agents (pentazocine or buprenorphine).
Did you read the quoted sentence before replying? I'm not unaware that the consequences of high doses are respiratory shutdown and death.
All I'm trying to get across is that taking a moderate dose of an opiate is exceedingly unlikely to suddenly kill the naive user, as the article suggests - less so than with say, coke or meth, which can interact poorly with a wider range of health conditions and other substances.
None of which is to say that I endorse the use of opiates or recommend them. I am generally all for responsible drug use, but nearly everyone who thinks they can responsibly 'manage' the use of heavy opiates ends up losing that gamble eventually. And the costs are very, very high.
Did you read my response where i said "like you later said" then went on to list another life threatening issue with opioids, as well as your statement that it's a pretty safe drug is actually very wrong when you compare its side effect and safety profile to the vast majority of drugs on the market?
My apologies, for both my tone and for overlooking your reference back.
I think 'vast majority' of drugs is overstating it a bit, but still - I very much understand where you're coming from and do not disagree.
I regret saying that "Opiates are actually quite safe, as drugs go." I think it has some validity in it's hastily-written context, mostly concerned with countering the article author's cluelessness on his subject. In moderate dosage and without mixing substances, it's basically true - though I'm admittedly coming at it from the perspective of a long-time recreational drug user, hardly that of an upstanding mentor to the young and impressionable here. It's obviously a reckless thing to say in any context, and I would certainly hope that no-one takes it as guidance.
Subutex and Suboxone are not the same drug (I have no doubt my parent knows this, but for others edification), though both contain the same narcotic. Suboxone includes an opiate antagonist for the sole purpose of trying to keep people from injecting it. Injecting suboxone will send you into very unpleasant withdrawals immediately (I imagine there is some way to overcome that, though).
I used Suboxone to wean myself from physical dependence to opiates after years of pain management. I agree that the article glosses over how bad opiate physical withdrawals are, and my experience didn't include the emotional withdrawals. My understanding is that suboxone withdrawals are much longer, due to its long half-life, but not as intense as heroin's. For six weeks, I didn't sleep more than two hours at a time, had constant chills and diarrhea, couldn't really eat, ached everywhere, and had non-stop restless muscles. A fever, indeed!
Injecting Suboxone (Buprenopherine/Naloxone) actually has no ill effects apart from what I've posted below (hardening veins, danger in general...).
Bupe's affinity for opiate receptors is so high that the Naloxone never gets a chance to bind itself. It simply has no effect, and doesn't stop a number of people at my clinic from injecting Suboxone.
I hope you're doing better SoftwareMaven. Opiate withdrawals are hell, although mine were self-inflicted.
As another interesting anecdote: Suboxone/Subutex withdrawals are far more drawn-out (although less acute) than heroin, due to it's long half-life. They suck balls, too. EDIT: LOL, you said that yourself. I'm an idiot.
I did get better, but it took forever. Even months later, I had the continual runny nose. Interestingly, all of the symptoms stopped when I started taking a very low dose of Naltrexone (another opiod antagonist). It may have been coincidence, but the remaining symptoms cleared up within 72 hours. There is some evidence that, at very low doses, Naltrexone will increase dopamine production through its slight interference, which is what caused me to try it in the first place.
I can't even begin to empathise with what heroin withdrawal must feel like.
Back when I was going through a really rough spot, I sought solace in food and became quite the, uh, chunky chap. When I realised the destructive path I was headed down, I decided to quit junk food cold turkey. There were many, many days when I would lay on my bed trembling and gripping the sheets tightly to prevent myself from dialling out for pizza or chicken. I swear it did feel as if even my knees and toes wanted to eat, eat, EAT!
It does kick in quicker. There's no "rush" like Heroin, but it does hit you all in one go.
Apart from that, needle fetish, mainly. That and culture: if everyone is injecting it, if you start, you are probably going to start with the needle yourself.
Interesting thing however, Suboxone as the film has been known (anecdotally, but across a lot of people) to cause your veins to harden and become useless for fixing with.
Such a terrible idea. I did it once, at the start of my treatment, then vowed to never do it again. And I haven't :)
The article's playing down of heroin withdrawal was very strange. I have sat outside the door of someone withdrawing from heroin and they might as well have been playing The Exorcist at full volume in there. This goes on for days and usually ends up with the 'gatekeepers' breaking down and letting them out.
Also, it has never killed anyone? Mindboggling. It is well-known that year-long users can die from withdrawal (brain aneurysm in the cases I know of).
My best friend's girlfriend at that time, her father had a life-long script for it due to work induced nerve damage. Thing is, he never took them. Add to that my rather severe clinical depression and a terrible home life, and you've got a recipe for disaster.
I'd like to note, though, that I take full responsibility for my choices. Doesn't matter how bad things were: I still consciously chose this path.
I decided to get clean, because I had had enough. I simply didn't enjoy drugs (any of them) any more, and I believe that a heroin addiction isn't conducive to running your own business, which is my plan for the medium-term future.
No, there isn't a solution, I'm afraid. People will take drugs, and the people that want to most are at the greatest risk of addiction.
What saved me from blood-borne infections, and other various hazards was Harm Minimisation. We have an excellent needle exchange with a huge range of information and amazing people running it here in Brisbane (Biala, on Roma St, next to the QLD Police Headquarters ironically enough).
This enabled me to do things "right". I never shared a needle, I never re-used a needle, and I always tested my gear before "going nuts". That's why I'm still here.
Interestingly, Biala is also where I decided to get clean. They are amazing, and my case-worker is brilliant. I plan on staying this way for the rest of my life (sans the Suboxone hopefully).
Minimise harm, and let people take responsibility for their choices. That's what did it for me, at least.
Around 1 in 20 people have personalities such that they're prone to addiction, to the extent that it can cause them to make questionable decisions. Drinking, smoking, sex, heroine, gambling, porn, work, party drugs, Subutex, anti-depressants, whatever, you name it. We need to stop prohibiting whatever activity/substance people actually get addicted to because its essentially arbitrary, and start compassionately treating the root psychological causes.
1 in 20 ? I'd say most people are addicted to something. Whether that thing is authorized or not is another story, but the whole human race is seeking out what's pleasurable in life , and this often leads to addiction in one way or another. "Passion", "Interest" are just synonyms of addictive behaviours.
By "addiction" in this context I mean addictive personality disorder, in the psychopathological sense. i.e. people that become addicted to something to the extent that it becomes extremely physically or mentally damaging but they can't stop. That's quite different from most peoples pleasure seeking, which I agree can become somewhat habitual, but is much more harmless.
Heroine is powerfully addictive to those susceptible to addiction, which is not everybody. A percentage of the population are going to find their way to these things and then for a percentage of those people its going to become a problem. Arguably the most dangerous thing about such substances is the criminalisation and unclean-supply. I'm not saying we just let them check out of life and spend every day in a stupor. I'm saying we stop blaming and demonising the substances and start treating the many and varied situational and psychological issues that get people into bad places.
They actually all are primarily mediated through one pathway in your brain (ventral tegmental area having dopaminergic projections to the nucleus accumbens), so do, at their most basic level, work rather identically.
I'm addicted to being awake 16 hours a day and asleep for 8 hours a day. If I don't drink several glasses of water a day, I'll go into withdrawal and die!
start compassionately treating the root psychological causes
How? Couldn't limiting access of an addicted person to the substance or activity the person is addicted to be one part of compassionate treatment? What research is there on this?
Limiting access to a substance or activity doesn't address the problem, which is the behavior. If the person in question ends up replacing it with a safer substance or activity, that may be somewhat better, but they may instead end up replacing it with something even more dangerous. It's a gamble and it doesn't even address the problem. Blaming inanimate objects for the actions of humans never really helps. It would be better to address the actual humans, their actions, and the causes instead. We just don't know how to do that yet. As a society, we aren't smart enough.
Unless the activity is demonstrably harmful to others nobody should have the right to actively limit or prohibit anybodies access to anything. Much less criminalise. How can it be moral to interfere with someone's autonomy like that? All we have the right to do is educate about the dangers and then help if help is welcome.
As an opiate addict on methadone for 5 years, I have a problem with this article because of several major factual inaccuracies.
First, and most notably, heroin withdrawal, like withdrawal from any opiate worth its cost, is absolute torture. It's ironic that Burroughs was quoted here, since he's written some of the most accurate descriptions of the utter pain of withdrawal. It's far, far more serious than something like swine flu (which I had during the pandemic), and people can and do die from opiate withdrawal on a frequent basis, usually from the accompanying cardiac issues.
Second, having dosed in methadone clinics across this country, I've never seen one with an armed guard, or even an unarmed guard. I've dosed in a clinic in Gary, Indiana, and one in a rough spot near Orlando. Both were clean, safe, well-run places with no guards necessary. In my 5 years on methadone, I've only seen the police called to a clinic on one occasion, when a disgruntled patient got a little verbally abusive toward a counselor. But never physical violence, and never a need for armed guards. It's possible that there is a clinic somewhere that has an armed guard, but saying methadone clinics in general have armed guards is incorrect.
Others with far more experience in issues like this than the writer have commented on other inaccuracies, like the "saucer-like" eyes of heroin users, and the exaggerated desirability of Subutex to IV drug users.
Because of inaccuracies like this, I have to doubt the other "facts" reported in this article. The whole piece seems to have been written to support a pre-existing idea the writer has about drug policy. Good journalists do this the other way around.
I've never been near one of these clinics, but is it not possible that 95% of them do have armed guards and the two you went to are in the 5%. Not saying you are or aren't wrong, just that both ways are possible.
Note to self, never visit Georgia. This is how they did it:
>If you think New York’s stop-and-frisk rule is invasive, try Georgia’s: Cops can stop anyone at any time for no reason and force him to urinate into a cup. Fifty-three thousand people were stopped on the street in 2007, or about one in 20 of the young men in Georgia.
WAY off-topic, but I think this is the first mobile-theme I've seen that renders the site completely unusable on a mobile device. (iPhone 4s - doesn't scroll at all)
I can scroll using Chrome on Android 4.0.3. The "share" popup tab is useless however as it requires pressing down which selects text and then hides the tab.
Honestly the cure seems worse than the disease here, if what they were saying about Subutex is true (I'd never heard of it before this article). Heroin is horrible stuff that can easily kill you. For that matter so is alcohol. I really don't see the point of cracking down on something that is displacing far more dangerous drugs.
It wasn't displacing heroin. Heroin didn't make a resurgence. Krododil did, but its use was not nearly as prevalent as the use of Subutex was. The point is that the society got a lot safer and more productive after the Subutex problem was fixed.
"Krokodil" (which just by the way, barely creates trace amounts of Desomorphine; the chemistry just isn't correct. No-one really knows WHAT it creates) is guaranteed to kill you. Suboxone (while possible) generally didn't have that sort of guarantee. I'm not sure which is better.
The only concrete improvement I see cited is solving their needle disposal problem. Surely there are less drastic alternatives that could have accomplished that.
FYI- Suboxone is actually buprenorphine combined with naloxone whereas Subutex is only buprenorphine. When Suboxone is taken sublingually as indicated, the buprenorphine is absorbed and naloxone is not. Thus, if taken as prescribed, Suboxone can be an effective detox/maintenance drug. However, if it is injected, the naloxone becomes bioavailable, binding as an antagonist to the opiod receptors and inducing withdrawal if the user was taking methadone, heroin, or buprenorphine (theoretically). Clever.
The US has had its dictators too. FDR was given almost absolute executive and legislative power. He openly admired european facists, describing himself, in the presence of journalists, as a blood brother of Stalin and Mussolini. He imprisoned citizens without trial.
I think a similar argument could be made about Lincoln. He too siezed unprecedented executive powers.
I'm not saying they were good or bad. I'm just trying to point out that we have had presidents that have taken extreme measures to deal with percieved crises. And we have, for the most part, interpreted this as a-ok.
"FDR was given almost absolute executive and legislative power."
Um, no. This is incorrect. Roosevelt's plans and projects were repeatedly frustrated by opposition in the other branches of government. That doesn't happen in dictatorships.
Much of the New Deal, for example, ended up being struck down by the Supreme Court. Roosevelt tried to prevent that from happening again by "packing" the Court with friendly justices (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Reorganization_Bill_o...), but Congress shot that plan down. He desired for years before Pearl Harbor to get the US to join with the Allied powers in opposing German and Japanese expansionism, but the Neutrality Acts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrality_Acts_of_1930s) made it nearly impossible for him to provide any US support for the Allies at all. Even in 1941, after the fall of France and the Battle of Britain, Congress only agreed to extend the military draft instituted in 1940 by a single vote.
You can argue whether Roosevelt was in the right on any of the policy decisions he made, but you can't argue that he was operating without checks and balances, because he wasn't.
There were actual laws on the books long before FDR (some repealed and some not) that gave such authority to arrest and detain US citizens without trial or for controversial reasons. The first time in 1798[1] and the second in 1917[2] and the third and 1918[3]. If we're just talking about imprisoning without trial and not the rationale behind it, then even Abraham Lincoln is guilty of that[4]. Not that FDR is my favorite president, but the US Government has had a long history of abusing* power and bending the rules when it was considered critical by certain powers that be (regardless of political party and historical popularity of the politician). I just don't think one can single out FDR when it was already a precedent in times of war (and near war) to do so before him.
Well, in fact, they can't. I am pretty sure, there are many regimes that you can consider dictaroship, and they haven't solved these problems.
Dictatorships can do a lot of nasty things, but they cannot solve such problems. They may _look_ like they are able to, and they may _pretend_ that they solved these problems(especially if problems aren't easily noticeable by an average citizen. Take heavy heroin abuse as an example), but no, they can't and won't solve them.
"Dependence on pot isn’t a minor thing—imagine stalling the careers of a tenth of the U.S. workforce for a year—and we should certainly consider it in the negative side of the ledger when contemplating reform in drug policy."
Because the purpose of life is to work, produce as much as possible?
Talk about an addiction, an unhealthy dependence, obsession with a metric that has nothing to do with either happyness or fullfilment.
Almost as if we're actually craving enslavement. As if chasing promotions, or wealth as if we're gaining XP or coins in a videogame, is a better way to spend our time, health and energy on.
Im not saying there is no pot abuse, or working is evil, or other hippy logic, i just wanted to point out that this particular argument is flawed.
Being a little dramatic aren't we? Some people thoroughly enjoy they're jobs, bringing them great satisfaction. And it is certainly true that people have lost those same jobs from the use of illicit drugs.
Is this because of the drug, or because of cultural values about that drug? In the latter case, i could rephrase it the other way around.
Some people thoroughly enjoy their drugs, bringing them great satisfaction. And it is certainly true they had to give up on those drugs because of the usage of illicit invasive labour practises.
There is this assumption, mostly in the states, that one should sacrifice almost anything to be as productive as possible. I disagree strongly.
Im proud to say im about 60% as productive as i could be. The other 40% of my energy is poured into other things that matter to me. Like family, friends, free time, being allowed to be myself, and just enjoying life in general. I could sacrifice many of these things to be more produtive. But i am not a slave. And the notion of limiting the freedom of people, because as a society we decided their output volume should be higher, is at the very least unhealty, and perhaps even a tad fascist.
I'm with you on the whole enslavement and false idea that the purpose of life is to work, my personal pet peeve is how "passion" is used as a word that means "slavish devotion to enriching a company"
However, we live in an imperfect world and the career disruptions that can ensue from a devotion to TCH reduce people's quality of life in no uncertain terms.
>However, we live in an imperfect world and the career disruptions that can ensue from a devotion to TCH reduce people's quality of life in no uncertain terms.
THC does not, in the majority of cases, reduce somebody's quality of life. Mandatory drug tests on the other hand...
I've found that far and away the most satisfying long term activity that I can do is to learn, grow my skills and produce things that have value to me and others.
Sure. Im just suggesting it isnt the only metric or the only path to fullfillment and it can be taken too far.
There are many more people suffering from pressure to "achieve" than that society is pressuring people to relax and take care of their loved ones. Some people do amibition way more unhealthy than others do pot.
What evidence is there that marijuana use "stalls careers"? That seems like a stereotype rather than anything based on real-world data. A lot of incredibly successful people have been marijuana users.
Imagine what Steve Jobs could have done if he hadn't gotten into drugs! I bet Barack Obama could have gone so much further in life if he hadn't smoked weed.
I will gladly get further ahead in life than people in my industry that are chronic pot smokers (that continue to deny the effects).
Smoking pot does effect the drive of many people, whether you would like to believe it or not. Some people are better at functioning under the influence than others.
Two examples of people that dabbled in drugs does not make your case.
I could give you two examples of couples that have sex without protection every day and have never gotten pregnant. Does this mean everyone can do it with the same outcome?
Nobody in this thread knows what they're talking about. You might as well have said "As entertainment, food is no worse or distracting than television."
Look, not everybody gets addicted to pot, in fact most folks don't. But it's psychologically addictive like everything chemically active you put in your body, and being constantly stoned because you're addicted is a miserable way to live.
I know, because I've been trying to quit all year. I've failed twice since February and I'm on my third go of it right now. And I only smoked a half-ounce a week for a year or so. That's probably a lot to the people reading this, but it's really not much as far as potheads go.
I'm sick of thinking so much slower than I know I can, being so much dumber than I used to be. I can't do my job nearly as well and I take pride in my work, so being too dumb to do my job has been really upsetting. I almost wish I were still addicted to cocaine, because at least then I kicked ass and took names when it came to thinking/analyzing/working in general.
I'm tired of being too lazy to leave my apartment all weekend, of the food I eat when I'm stoned, of not being present around my friends, family and co-workers, of needing to smoke when I wake up because it's so uncomfortable to be lucid. My motivation to pursue new ideas, to eat healthy and go to the gym, to meet new friends and pursue new women is all through the floor. My body desperately wants pot right now and I'm anxious and depressed as hell and my body is tugging at me to reach for any alternative, like alcohol or cigarettes.
Every drug taken to extreme can seriously hurt your life. Even weed. Stop trivializing it because you smoked a few joints in college.
Edit: and now I'm slowbanned, for sticking up for myself when someone kicked me while I was down. Time to roll a new account, I guess.
I don't know why you're so angry at r0s; the potential felony really is the thing most likely to fuck up your life with respect to weed.
A half-ounce a week is a pretty hefty habit. I can barely imagine the constant cognitive impairment, paranoia, and anxiety that are likely to come with that on a daily schedule. You aren't using the drug, you're abusing it.
> My body desperately wants pot right now
No, it doesn't. Your mind does. Your situation is not even remotely comparable to an opiate addict going cold turkey.
> Every drug taken to extreme can seriously hurt your life.
The drug isn't seriously hurting your life. You are. The psychological addiction you are experiencing is yours to walk away from - or get medication for, since there are probably serious compulsive or depressive problems in the mix if the hold is that strong. I wish you the best in conquering it and feeling 1000% better - and you surely will - but I really don't see what you're trying to say here, or what everybody else in the thread supposedly has got wrong. Weed is a remarkably benign drug by any measure, and the author of this piece is far too naive of his subject matter for anyone to be thinking too hard on anything he has to say.
What is the difference between a pharmacologically mediated 'psychological' addiction and a pharmacologically mediated 'physical' addiction? It is all physical. Of course marijuana is not identical to heroin, e.g. in withdrawal symptoms. But withdrawal is not the only way that habits are sustained and this does fail to demonstrate that every addiction to a drug other than heroin is simply 'yours to walk away from' or (as other posts have suggested) equivalent to any repeated benign behavior. Even if a drug like alcohol or cannabis is generally benign and can be used in a disciplined way, that doesn't mean every problem involving a substance other than heroin is trivial.
> What is the difference between a pharmacologically mediated 'psychological' addiction and a pharmacologically mediated 'physical' addiction? It is all physical.
That's basically nonsense. A heavy weed smoker can stop smoking immediately, and while he will certainly be in anguish, bored and anxious and miserable without it, there remains no true physical component to his 'withdrawal', if that term could even be credibly used in the context of marijuana.
The heavy opiate user has developed a full-blown physical dependence on the drug, and their body will go into excruciating revolt upon it's sudden absence. Most ex-addicts spend years tapering off on suboxone, methadone, etc for a reason.
The point is, hard drug dependence vs soft drug 'addiction' is utterly apples and oranges, comparing them is meaningless. I am not sure why people insist on blurring the lines between these two very different conditions. Like it or not, Bagdar has far more in common with the guy upthread who was talking about cold sweats from ceasing his overeating, than he does a Subutex fiend in Georgia.
> The heavy opiate user has developed a full-blown physical dependence on the drug, and their body will go into excruciating revolt upon it's sudden absence.
Yes. Sudden withdrawal from some substances (alcohol, barbiturates) can cause death because physical addiction is so destructive.
From my personal experience, it takes about 21 days to get rid of the psychological issues regarding to cannabis addiction. Just hang in there, and you will make it.
I understand that cannabis can cause a _real_ addiction, although many people deny this. I've been there. It's not fun, when all you can think of is getting high.
Yoga, swimming and sauna were the savers for me. Without kundalini yoga I would not have realized that I have the power to empower myself, to make myself feel good, without the pot. I would totally recommend to anyone doing some kind of spiritual exercise, where you get your Chi flowing.
Because this is what cannabis does, at least according to my experiences, it makes your life energy or chi flow down to your physical body, it drains it so to speak on the long run. And you start to crave food to replace it, and this drainage also leads to the bad moods and thought patterns of "I need this in order to do this", when truthfully you can do it without the pot also.
Hang in there, you can do it. I've done it a couple of times, from my experience it takes around 3 weeks to get rid of the habit, after this if you continue and just persist on choosing the alternative way, you can make it back to normal life.
Although probably you are going to be bored a lot, so it's important to find some new activities to fill in those blanks.
Anyway, here is also a good text on what cannabis does to us, how it drains our chi: http://pastebin.com/1zKRXDZR.
You might as well have said "As entertainment, food is no worse or distracting than television."
Uh yeah, food is a very common form of entertainment; restaurants, cook-offs, eating contests... it's only when people go overboard that they begin to have a problem.
I'm tired of being too lazy to leave my apartment all weekend, of the food I eat when I'm stoned, of not being present around my friends, family and co-workers
These are all personal choices you made. If you really wanted to spend time with your friends and family you'd just do it. It sounds like you just can't be bothered but smoking pot gives you a convenient excuse to blow off social obligations. I mean jeeze, you're just so addicted to pot, how could you ever find the time to hang out with your friends?
I know, because I've been trying to quit all year. I've failed twice since February and I'm on my third go of it right now. And I only smoked a half-ounce a week for a year or so
Give me a break. Failing to quit pot is in the same category as failing to quit World of Warcraft, it ultimately comes down to the fact that you really just prefer to smoke.
needing to smoke when I wake up because it's so uncomfortable to be lucid.
Do psychoactive drugs affect behavior, or not? If they do affect behavior, then can we say that everything people under the influence do is simply their own choice? At least we must say that it is their choice under-the-influence, which might have been different.
Some people have an easy time quitting tobacco. Others don't. There are real differences in how the drug works on a person and fits into their life which aren't captured by phrases like 'you just can't be bothered'.
Do psychoactive drugs affect behavior, or not? If they do affect behavior, then can we say that everything people under the influence do is simply their own choice?
Caffeine is also a psychoactive drug, but overworked engineers don't blame coffee for 20 hour work days, instead, their coffee habit is understood as a supplement to their chosen lifestyle. Pot functions the same way for someone who decided to sit on the couch and play xbox all day; the pot didn't intoxicate him into playing video-games instead of going to class, if class was important to him he'd just go, stoned or otherwise.
edit: look, I'm entirely sorry about the appeal to ridicule. It's a shitty way to get a point across and I just look like an asshole by doing it.
I get that addiction is no joke, however your problem is not the same problem caused by the drugs in the article, and your failure to quit the pot is entirely of your own pattern of behavior. Find another peer group to associate with.
I guess what I'm frustrated with is the on-going prohibition, which was brought about by the same exact type of alarmist bullshit. So you have problems with your choices in life, that does not mean that everyone else has that issue, or even a significant sample.
Let others have the freedom to make their own decisions, the same sort of freedom that was decided during the first great experiment with Prohibition. We all know what happened there. I think people are starting to realize what's happening now.
...seriously? Because as far as researchers are concerned, the LD50 is something like grams of THC/kg before you can die, and that was the drug being injected.
Nope, it's bullshit, just like badgar's half ounce-a-week descent into ruin. I have to doubt its legitimacy because the post reads like a plant by one invested in treatment facilities and private prisons.
If not, then I truly sympathize, but it is entirely incorrect to link a behavioral addiction with a physical addiction such as the one caused by opiates. They are in no way equivalent.
> Nope, it's bullshit, just like badgar's half ounce-a-week descent into ruin.
Excuse me? First of all, nothing I described was "descent into ruin." I said I'm having a hard time not smoking pot and it's affecting many aspects of my life. You have no idea what you're talking about, how dare you say I'm not struggling? Have you ever considered that people have a hard time quitting drugs? That pot might actually harm someone? No, your mind's made up: it's all a conspiracy by the drug companies!
> I have to doubt its legitimacy because the post reads like a plant by one invested in treatment facilities and private prisons.
Fuck you, you conspiracy-minded, condescending prick. I'm having a hard time over here but you think you're so important that treatment facilities and prisons are planting stories on a tiny technology startup forum.
> If not, then I truly sympathize, but it is entirely incorrect to link a behavioral addiction with a physical addiction such as one caused by opiates. They are in no way equivalent.
You don't sympathize, you're busy paranoid that prisons are astroturfing HN. And I thought paranoia was bad when you smoke on the streets. By the way, this entire subthread is talking about marijuana use and affecting career growth. So this entire point is irrelevant.
An interesting video, but fair warning before you watch: it gets pretty graphic about halfway through. They show some clips of people with the side-effects of krokodil: the skin drying out, falling off, and parts of bodies getting pretty raw.
I don't have a particularly weak stomach, but my dinner started getting restless.
I wonder what the actual affect on people is of Subutex. If the effects generally are similar to pot, why bother regulating it? 30,000 people per year in the US die of alcohol related accidents and other issues, and 250,000 or so die of smoking related cancers. Yet they remain completely acceptable legal "drugs". I don't know off hand the number of deaths from illegal and misdirected drugs including violence but I am sure it's not a small number either. The inconsistency of treating each mind-altering substance is what makes little sense to me.
I found this: "The most common reported side effect of Subutex and Suboxone include: cold or flu-like symptoms, headaches, sweating, sleeping difficulties, nausea, mood swings.
Like other opioids Subutex and Suboxone have been associated with respiratory depression (difficulty breathing) especially when combined with other depressants."
30,000 people per year in the US die of alcohol related accidents
That's kind of irrelevant since alcohol is much more widely available and used. The question is, what would happen if [insert drug] was legal and widespread? What effects would it have on individuals and society at large?
The article didn't really explain the justification for the crackdown on Subutex except for the usual "drugs are bad, mmmkay". It seems like Subutex is a good cure for misery without serious side effects.
can induce mild withdrawal symptoms in patients dependent on opioids; also diarrhoea, abdominal pain, anorexia, dyspepsia; vasodilatation; dyspnoea; paraesthesia, asthenia, fati- gue, agitation, anxiety; less commonly flatulence, taste disturbance, angina, hypertension, syncope, hypoxia, wheezing, cough, restlessness, depersonali- sation, dysarthria, impaired memory, hypoaesthesia, tremor, influenza-like symptoms, pyrexia, rhinitis, rigors, muscle cramp, myalgia, tinnitus, dry eye, and dry skin; rarely paralytic ileus, dysphagia, impaired concentration, and psychosis; very rarely retching, hyperventilation, hiccups, and muscle fasciculation
--British National Formulary 59
As well as all the complications that come from self-injecting with potentially non-sterile equipment, and of things not intended for IV use (crushed pills have a number of inactive different binders and fillers that don't dissolve and get lodged somewhere in the body, typically the lungs[2]) It's metabolism can be pretty hard on the liver as well, which is a major concern if users have hepatitis from needle sharing/reuse.
Another big problem is that since it operates as an opioid receptor anagonist (rather than an agonist, as practically all other opioids), the usual treatment for overdose -- Naloxone -- won't work very well. Buprenorphine also has a fairly hard effectiveness ceiling at ~32mg/day (although it would be a lucky/rich addict indeed who could afford that at €300/8mg quoted in the article)
Finally, if an addict ends up in hospital or requires strong pain-relief, there's not a lot of options because the blockade effect will prevent (afaik) virtually all other opioids from working.
I assume it's because the mob eventually got involved. Plus, the authors comment about his first trip there makes me think they wanted to clean up the country so as to not scare off tourists.
Is it just me, or is this article praising Subutex ? If you want to know what subutex does to people, watch this Finnish Documentary about Subutex, Reindeerspotting, Escape From Santaland: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8O_Ot-wCIg.
Subutex misuse is a big problem in Finland, and it seems to create more problems than solve them, at least to the information I've read about it.
In summation, tough policy cleans up the majority of the drug addicts, but the diehards resort to a worse substitute that is , for lack of a better word, grotesque. I wonder if they reintroduced subutex if the old drug addicts would come back, or if just the die hards would return and be free of krokodil?
I wish more people were familiar with Ibogaine. It's expensive, but it's helped two friends completely return to life with no withdrawal symptoms or desire to use again.
It has properties that break opiate withdrawal almost instantaneously, as well as other psychological effects that tend to reset senses such as smell, touch, etc, back to an almost childlike state. Very mysterious and beautiful substance.
I'm an ex-heroin addict, and am on Suboxone Opiate Replacement Therapy. I've been clean for 9 months, after 6 years of opiate addiction (starting with Oxycodone, and moving quickly to Heroin). I'm 22 years old.
This article has a few factual inaccuracies, which I want to correct.
First: Injecting Suboxone is NOT safe. Not even close, especially with the method described in the article: unless you are a fan of Talcosis (which will kill you), you need to get a micron filter. Even then, it's not worth it. The high is minimal, tolerance builds rapidly, and it's dangerous. There are numerous complications that come from injecting pills, and it's never worth it.
Second, and this is a small nitpick, heroin users don't have "eyes like saucers" - you have eyes like pinpricks. Opiates constrict pupils, not dilate then.
Third, heroin withdrawal IS torture, at least if you have a sizable habit. Yes, Burroughs did say it was "overrated", but I can tell you from experience, it's absolute torture. It's not like fever. It's an entire body ache, down to your very bones; it's your mind crying out for relief. It's something I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.
Just thought I'd add my two cents.