Join us on Discord:

Dilbert_X wrote:

uziq wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

Way to cherry-pick a bunch of people well-known for their drug use (and PSH, but I don't know much about his personal life) and sprinkle in the "weak people" phrase that no one but you has said. Oxycontin wasn't released until 1996, with an aggressive marketing campaign and certain outright lies. It's not surprising the current crisis affects more vastly more average people than those you've picked.
also dilderp, heroin was glamorous in rock music. it was part of those social circles from the velvet underground on (and it was the drug of choice in hip-cool jazz circles for plenty of time before that). of course if you're a rockstar, heroin is going to be around you, heroin addicts and heroin pushers too. you are eliding fucking rock stars with average weekend drug-taking edwards. i think rockstars, writers, poets, etc., getting addicted to heroin is like a self-perpetuating little sideshow. that's a very weird subcultural 'glamour' that your suburban kid experimenting with molly is never going to get.
I'm sure those people had a complete smorgasbord of drugs to choose from, money was no object, and yet they gravitated to heroin.
It would be interesting to know why, I doubt there was any 'glamour' to it for them, there's no a whole lot of glamour in boiling up your own blood and reinjecting it into yourself., it was their use which lent glamour to it.
because you only have to dabble in heroin a few times and you're caught. you do realise that some recreational drugs are far more addictive and have far higher abuse potential than others, right? it doesn't surprise me that rockstars, actors, celebs etc. dabble with just about every drug possible: but they gravitate and centre around drugs like heroin because that's not something you can use recreationally and maintain control over. my point is people take those drugs for the first few (voluntary) times because they are duped by the whole heroin-addict/doomed-poet heroin glamour ('heroin chic' is a fucking genre in fashion for god's sake; it's a thing).

my basic point still stands that your average thrill-seeking, partying recreational drug user is not going to make the lightyears-leap from MDMA at a rave to heroin addiction because of 'boredom'. it is not the same sociocultural cachet at all. and taking uppers and fun party drugs does not make you mentally disposed to try the biggest downer drugs. they have intrinsically different appeals. nobody gets bored of snorting cocaine in cocktail bar toilets with their business pals and then picks up heroin, just 'cuz.

Last edited by uziq (2018-02-17 05:11:59)



Jay wrote:


I hope you never have someone in your family die from opoids so they never have to hear you say "who cares"

you're a real piece of shit
I'm a piece of shit because out of 330,000,000 people 33,000 die from opioids and I say that in the grand scheme that number is negligible? Statistically speaking, I'm correct. I'm not saying it's not tragic, it is, but it's not worth the mass hysteria being pushed by the media and drug warriors.

I have plenty of addiction issues in my own family. I'm not trying to minimize anyone's pain and suffering. I've seen the destruction addiction causes first hand. But it's one of those control the things you can control situations. We've spent many billions of dollars on education, rehabilitation, punishment and interdiction and all it's done is create mega rich cartels and massive amounts of crime by pushing the issues underground.
I would expect that someone that admitted to having addition issues within THEIR OWN FAMILY would understand that there's not some zero sum where addiction is OK unless it results in death.  Unfortunately, dying is probably the BEST outcome for addicts unless they can get themselves sober.  Until then, it's pain and suffering and emotional and social and familial hysteria, breakdowns, and destruction.  But keep holding up the death toll as a reason to not address the problem.

also i don't get jay's 'super rational libertarian' reasoning on this. comparing the total number of deaths annually to the total US population is not exactly a good use of statistics. people are calling it an opiate epidemic because it is (obviously) disproportionately affecting certain segments of the population and certain ex-industrial podunk communities way more than others. if you live in a town where a third of all the kids are whacked on prescription drugs or street-level opiates, it's a serious problem. what the hell does including the total US population in that little harm calculus achieve? desertfox is completely right from a medical-administative point of view in that, if anything spikes and triples overnight, it's a cause for alarm. the number of people actually dying and overdosing on these drugs is just the tip of the iceberg. for a start, most people who develop serious issues with prescription drug abuse will overdose on some street-level fix like fentanyl, thereby shifting the numbers around a bit. but that doesn't mean the prescription drug abuse isn't the determining and alarming factor in that scenario.

Last edited by uziq (2018-02-17 05:18:38)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2020 Jeff Minard