Lets talk about meth

[Dezaad]

Would the endorphin rush not alter the brain's release and reuptake of neural transmitters? Is that not the definition of a high? It is not comparable. No two effects are. However they are both forms of "highs" and can both be addicting.

If you want to question my intelligence, then I guess we can carry that conversation somewhere else.

I didn't question your intelligence, I questioned whether you had used meth. Why would you even think I had questioned your intelligence in that post.

There is no evidence that the endorphin rush obtained through exercise alters the brain's release and reuptake of neural transmitters in an adverse manner. On the other hand, it has been shown that meth does so.

I am not saying they are not comparable in the sense that they are merely different from each other. I am saying that meth is just so unbelievably intense compared to most other highs. So, yeah, they are not comparable, and one is highly likely to lead to psychological dependence as one of the traits that make them incomparable.

 

[Dezaad]

Again, dangerous is subjective. There is no fact to something being "dangerous". I feel that driving is "dangerous", someone else may not feel the same. Poor argument.

Of course there will be more in public, they don't have to hide their habits. That doesn't mean that more people are going to use the drug. I don't know many people who do things simply because they are legal.

As for the home invasion, no I have not. Have you ever heard of people getting lung cancer from cigarettes? Have you ever heard of people getting lung cancer from other people smoking cigarettes? Have you ever heard of liver failure from alcohol? Have you ever heard of domestic violence linked to alcohol abuse? How about alcohol poisoning. COPD? Emphyzema? Throat/mouth cancer? Gum disease? Tooth loss? Again, your argument of danger is weak

"Dangerous" is not subjective. The level of risk is quantifiable, and subject to objective evaluation. The point that ChrisL is making is that meth addicts become dangerous to other people at a rate that ChrisL finds unacceptable. Most knowledgeable people do find it unacceptable. The argument shouldn't be over whether meth is too dangerous. It should be over whether prohibition of meth makes people safer.

 

[Chelsea]

How is danger not subjective? We are individuals with unique reactions. I go,into anaphylactic shock if I eat watermelon or get stung by a honeybee. Taking Ibuprofin could kill me if Im not being medically observed at the time because of possible harm to my kidney. Im sure not all of those pose a danger to yourself.

People taking Zoloft can react with homicidal or suicidal thoughts and actions, but it is FDA approved. Just because illicit drugs cause a masking of internal pain, energy boosts, and/or endorphine rushes for pleasure or leisure vs medical necessity, doesn't make them more or less dangerous.

Plus EVERYTHING will kill us now. Chemical exposure, high fat diets, cell phone usage, even our high stress jobs/go go go lifestyles. Does it really matter how we get to the inevitable end?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

People taking Zoloft can react with homicidal or suicidal thoughts and actions, but it is FDA approved.

This is a misnomer. Here is what actually happens when people take the SSRIs. SSRIs often take 3-4 weeks for full effect. However, some people feel SOME effects within a week or so. Often people who are depressed have little motivation to do anything. The first effect that the SSRI will have is to activate the individual. So, if they had some suicidal feelings in the past, now... still being depressed, but having been activated, it is more likely that they may act on these suicidal feelings. Most people in my profession were incredulous at the stupidity of the "black box warning". SSRIs creating suicidality just doesn't happen. In fact, after the "black box warning" was issued on SSRIs, the rate of prescriptions went down at least 30%... and suicides, both completed and attempted went UP comparatively.

The comparison between SSRIs and illicit drugs is a poor one and makes no sense.

 

[Chelsea]

Ive been on both before. Zoloft was definately the worse of two evils in that case.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Ive been on both before. Zoloft was definately the worse of two evils in that case.

Between meth and Zoloft, you found Zoloft worse? No, I don't buy it.

 

[TheLastIndependent]

I didn't question your intelligence, I questioned whether you had used meth. Why would you even think I had questioned your intelligence in that post.

There is no evidence that the endorphin rush obtained through exercise alters the brain's release and reuptake of neural transmitters in an adverse manner. On the other hand, it has been shown that meth does so.

I am not saying they are not comparable in the sense that they are merely different from each other. I am saying that meth is just so unbelievably intense compared to most other highs. So, yeah, they are not comparable, and one is highly likely to lead to psychological dependence as one of the traits that make them incomparable.

I apologize, I read it far too fast and assumed it to be an insult. No, I have never done meth and I do not plan on it either.

"Dangerous" is not subjective. The level of risk is quantifiable, and subject to objective evaluation. The point that ChrisL is making is that meth addicts become dangerous to other people at a rate that ChrisL finds unacceptable. Most knowledgeable people do find it unacceptable. The argument shouldn't be over whether meth is too dangerous. It should be over whether prohibition of meth makes people safer.

Danger is quantifiable? This should be interesting. So if you want to talk about danger, let's define danger as an ability to cause death, sound fair? Meth killed 500 people in 1998 (The last year available on the internet). That's not very many people. Especially when it is compared to: Smoking tobacco 435,000 Obesity 111,909 alcohol 85,000 traffic collisions 43,000. Total drug related deaths (in I believe 2000) was 17,000. That is 0.7% of all deaths. So tell me, which is more dangerous? A)Drugs or B) Your everyday routine. If you base your answer solely on quantifiable "danger" (which is still entirely subjective mind you), then B is the obvious, statistically backed choice. You are more likely to die in a car accident than you are doing drugs. But they are so dangerous while alcohol is good for you. Except we all know that alcohol isn't. The reason why it is legal is because (give me a drum roll) Prohibition FAILED. It is now too. It's only a matter of time before we are granted the freedom to make our own choices while the government is not wasting their time and money trying to make it for us.

You mentioned prohibition making us safer. I answer with this: "Those who are willing to give up liberty for safety deserve neither"

 

[TheLastIndependent]

My argument is not weak. You OTH are not even making one. Dangerous is subjective? That is just silly. You provide me with an adequate link that says that methamphetamines are not dangerous, and then maybe I'll buy it.

Here is my argument, the government has no right to say that I cannot do meth. Why? Because that is not their role.

Meth has potentially harmful side effects. As does say, driving your car, breathing polluted air, living in a nation at war, eating seafood, having sex, walking around, sleeping, smoking tobacco, eating hard candy, living in general. All of those are "dangerous" activities. How many of those are illegal? None. Why? Because, none of those are "immoral".

Once more, your argument of "danger" is weak and I will continue to give you examples of why it is weak until you come up with an argument that is logical and not emotional. Deal?

 

[ChrisL]

Here is my argument, the government has no right to say that I cannot do meth. Why? Because that is not their role.

Meth has potentially harmful side effects. As does say, driving your car, breathing polluted air, living in a nation at war, eating seafood, having sex, walking around, sleeping, smoking tobacco, eating hard candy, living in general. All of those are "dangerous" activities. How many of those are illegal? None. Why? Because, none of those are "immoral".

Once more, your argument of "danger" is weak and I will continue to give you examples of why it is weak until you come up with an argument that is logical and not emotional. Deal?

Please, you are comparing drug use with mundane things, most of which cannot possibly be avoided in life. OTH, meth is something that is not necessarily, and I don't think hard drugs like that should be made legal. The only legitimate argument you have is that the government shouldn't be able to tell us what to put in our bodies, which for the most part I agree with; however, I think that certain things should be illegal, such as a destructive chemical that really does ruin lives.

 

[ChrisL]

"Dangerous" is not subjective. The level of risk is quantifiable, and subject to objective evaluation. The point that ChrisL is making is that meth addicts become dangerous to other people at a rate that ChrisL finds unacceptable. Most knowledgeable people do find it unacceptable. The argument shouldn't be over whether meth is too dangerous. It should be over whether prohibition of meth makes people safer.

And I think that to an extent it really does keep people safer, and I don't think that supplying people with an addiction with the substance they are addicted to is doing them any favors.

 

[TheLastIndependent]

Please, you are comparing drug use with mundane things, most of which cannot possibly be avoided in life. OTH, meth is something that is not necessarily, and I don't think hard drugs like that should be made legal. The only legitimate argument you have is that the government shouldn't be able to tell us what to put in our bodies, which for the most part I agree with; however, I think that certain things should be illegal, such as a destructive chemical that really does ruin lives.

Okay. Alcohol, tobacco, driving. Three of the most dangerous preventable activities. All legal. Oh but alcohol doesn't slowly rot your liver. Tobacco doesn't take a breath out of your mouth with every inhale (it actually takes more). Driving collisions don't take the lives of our loved ones (mostly centered around younger drivers). So because it has the potential to ruin our lives, like many other activities, it ought to be illegal? What about highly addictive prescription drugs like opiates? THose have ruined many lives. Should those be illegal?

Quite honestly, I'm not really following your logic. The reasons that you are giving to keep meth illegal should also ban several other activities and products.

 

[TheLastIndependent]

And I think that to an extent it really does keep people safer, and I don't think that supplying people with an addiction with the substance they are addicted to is doing them any favors.

Keeping it illegal keeps everybody so safe except for the people that still use the drug. You are refusing to see that prohibition laws never work and they never will. There is no amount of reasonable enforcement to keep something out of the hands of people who want it.

 

[Chelsea]

Between meth and Zoloft, you found Zoloft worse? No, I don't buy it.

Zoloft caused a week long bought of insomnia. I was 12 and hadn't slept in 8 days and started hallucinating. Obviously I know that I took parasomnic "catnaps" when my body was at rest, but other than that, nada, zippo, zilch. Worst Ive done on meth is stayed up 2 nights and had one hella clean house for 2 days.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Zoloft caused a week long bought of insomnia. I was 12 and hadn't slept in 8 days and started hallucinating. Obviously I know that I took parasomnic "catnaps" when my body was at rest, but other than that, nada, zippo, zilch. Worst Ive done on meth is stayed up 2 nights and had one hella clean house for 2 days.

You're talking about one side effect for one person, verses a drug (meth) that has caused significant harm to many. So, Zoloft may have been the wrong medication for you. Other SSRIs might have worked more effectively. On the other hand, guaranteed that prolonged meth usage would have caused more problems than any SSRI, save one that you are allergic to.

 

[Dezaad]

Okay. Alcohol, tobacco, driving. Three of the most dangerous preventable activities. All legal. Oh but alcohol doesn't slowly rot your liver. Tobacco doesn't take a breath out of your mouth with every inhale (it actually takes more). Driving collisions don't take the lives of our loved ones (mostly centered around younger drivers). So because it has the potential to ruin our lives, like many other activities, it ought to be illegal? What about highly addictive prescription drugs like opiates? THose have ruined many lives. Should those be illegal?

Quite honestly, I'm not really following your logic. The reasons that you are giving to keep meth illegal should also ban several other activities and products.

Insurance companies use actuaries to quantify the risk (danger) of many of the activities you describe. We are capable to some extent to intuitively grasp the different levels of danger for the activities in question, and the fact that we do it intuitively doesn't make it subjective.

Fact is, people don't have the right to consume chemicals which potentially will turn them into criminally minded sociopaths. We have the right to stop them if it will be effective to do so. I agree with you that it may not be effective to criminalize their use, but please leave aside this nonsense about the risk being subjective.

 

[VanceMack]

You're talking about one side effect for one person, verses a drug (meth) that has caused significant harm to many. So, Zoloft may have been the wrong medication for you. Other SSRIs might have worked more effectively. On the other hand, guaranteed that prolonged meth usage would have caused more problems than any SSRI, save one that you are allergic to.

Not to mention the apples to dumptruck comparison. Yes...at 12 she may have experienced certain symptoms while the drugs and brain chemistry struggled for dominance. Efficacy typically occurs in 2-4 weeks so who knows how the long term benefit might have looked. on the other hand...if at 12 she started abusing meth (I cant imagine meth as a substitute for Zoloft for any clinical purpose) its entirely likely that it would have a different end result.

I hope the OP is very clear on the difference between medically indicated ingestion of legal prescription amphetamines and the use of meth.

 

[AreteCourage]

This is a tough subject because I hate what Meth does to people. However, I still stand firm in my belief that government shouldn't regulate morality. If someone chooses to use it and doesn't harm anyone else then that should be their right of choice.

The government could tax it and make revenue off of it.

 

[TheLastIndependent]

Insurance companies use actuaries to quantify the risk (danger) of many of the activities you describe. We are capable to some extent to intuitively grasp the different levels of danger for the activities in question, and the fact that we do it intuitively doesn't make it subjective.

Fact is, people don't have the right to consume chemicals which potentially will turn them into criminally minded sociopaths. We have the right to stop them if it will be effective to do so. I agree with you that it may not be effective to criminalize their use, but please leave aside this nonsense about the risk being subjective.

Okay, even if risk is not subjective, what right does the government have to stop us from doing something because of risk? And that still is a poor argument. The risk of dying from a fast food diet or smoking is far greater than meth use.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

This is a tough subject because I hate what Meth does to people. However, I still stand firm in my belief that government shouldn't regulate morality. If someone chooses to use it and doesn't harm anyone else then that should be their right of choice.

The government could tax it and make revenue off of it.

…which would put government in a position to profit from drug abuse; which would give government an incentive to encourage more drug abuse. Am I the only one to whom it is obvious what a really bad idea this would be?

 

[Fruityfact]

…which would put government in a position to profit from drug abuse; which would give government an incentive to encourage more drug abuse. Am I the only one to whom it is obvious what a really bad idea this would be?

Well the government doesn't encourage tobacco use...im pretty sure even if they made it legal(which i highly doubt) that they would discourage meth use if anything

 

[Chelsea]

Im sorry if my comparisons seem a little odd. I dont know how much you know about the 16 personality traits but my set is INFP. Logic isnt in my DNA but it by no means dulls my intelligence.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Im sorry if my comparisons seem a little odd. I dont know how much you know about the 16 personality traits but my set is INFP. Logic isnt in my DNA but it by no means dulls my intelligence.

Perhaps not, but it's clear enough that drug abuse has done so.

 

[Black Dog]

(Sung to the tune of "Let's Talk About Sex" by SALT 'N' PEPA)

Let's talk about meth, baby
Let's talk about you and me
Let's talk about all the good things
And the bad things that may be
Let's talk about meth
Let's talk about meth
Let's talk about meth
Let's talk about meth

Let's talk about meth for now to the people at home or in the crowd
It keeps coming up anyhow
Don't decoy, avoid, or make void the topic
Cuz that ain't gonna stop it
Now we talk about meth on the radio and video shows
Many will know anything goes
Let's tell it how it is, and how it could be
How it was, and of course, how it should be
Those who think it's dirty have a choice
Pick up the needle, press pause, or turn the radio off
Will that stop us, Pep? I doubt it
All right then, come on, Spin

Let's talk about meth, baby
Let's talk about you and me
Let's talk about all the good things
And the bad things that may be
Let's talk about meth...

 

[Chelsea]

Perhaps not, but it's clear enough that drug abuse has done so.

I would disagree. I graduated college with a 4.0 last year. I graduated high school with a 4.0 in 2006 (a year early). I learned ASL in 2005, Spanish in 2007, and I am currently working on Arabic. I am very intelligent but lack the smallest iota of common sense.

 

[AreteCourage]

…which would put government in a position to profit from drug abuse; which would give government an incentive to encourage more drug abuse. Am I the only one to whom it is obvious what a really bad idea this would be?

Government already does this with the pharmaceutical companies.

To waste money trying to catch users, and imprison them is just not going to work. Drug users will find a way to get their drug of choice regardless of whether or not it is illegal.

The government should make revenue off of it rather than waste money legislating against it. Addicts who seek help should be sent to hospitals or clinics.