Meth Myths
In The American Conservative, heartland meth user Nick King hits some myths about meth. High points:
Taking meth is like joining a secret society. Most users don't talk about those activities to outsiders, but we can communicate all we need to each other, even when surrounded by the uninitiated, with knowing smiles, quick head bobs, subtle sniffs of the nose. Once I became at least a semi-regular consumer of the drug, I discovered that users extended well beyond the speed freaks at Wal-Mart buying lithium batteries at three in the morning. I could read the signs perfectly—the teeth grinding, chain-smoking, darting eyes, and omnipresent bottles of water—and could even spot those members of my town's upper crust who happened to enjoy a rush…..
most of my town's good, God-fearing folk….substituted hysteria for real knowledge of the drug. We walked among them as their employees—or employers, for that matter—neighbors, and friends, but if they had known who we were, they would have descended upon us like a screech owl on a vole. Anyone arrested for meth got his face splashed across the front page of the paper. Within days, even hours, formerly respected members of the community could have their lives ruinedby the drug but by people's perception of it. But regardless of how shocking the upstanding citizens of town found it when one of their own was exposed as a fiend, the revelation never made them question their presumptions…..
For the most part, however, we were not the stereotypical burnouts that people expected this behavior from, nor did we think of ourselves as such. Several of my closest friends and I were in the top decile of our class despite being intoxicated half of our waking lives—frequently including school hours. We were almost all athletes and participated in a number of activities and clubs. For two years, every one of my class's officers was a multiple drug felon.
We were also, by and large, neither poor nor neglected by our parents. Our mothers and fathers were solidly middle-class or, in a few cases, upper-class. They worked as doctors, bankers, teachers, contractors—very few lawyers, oddly—and owned some of the most respected small businesses in town.
King debunks the popular notions that economic woes or boredom led him and his friends to their non-life-destroying drug use, and delivers some well-observed tales of heartland American teens and postteens living a life that just happens to include a lot of drug use--a whole lot more than most people consider normal, but as King tells it he and his buddies just dealt with it as part of life. He concludes:
I didn't fully comprehend how warped my little town was until I moved away for college. I attended an elite Midwestern university, and many of my classmates came from supercilious locales like New York and L.A. For the most part, they thought of my friends and me as half-mad provincials with minds twisted from the tedium of small-town life and adulterated methamphetamine. The same attitude pervades the journalists who cover drug use in rural America. (Reding is exceptional in that he has a small-town pedigree and makes a noble attempt to see through his subjects' eyes. Still, despite his best efforts, he remains an outsider in the places he describes.) They come to find madmen, who are admittedly easy to find, confirm their prejudices, and file their stories confident that they've made a difference. True, they have told the rest of the world more than it ever wanted to know about rural America's underbelly. But they can't tell us the whole truth because they don't know it and never will.
Reason's Jacob Sullum wrote a wonderful book on the matter of normal people leading normal lives that happen to include illegal drug use, Saying Yes. I blogged back in November for Reason on surveys indicating overabuse of meth among rural kids is a myth.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Oh gawd, the poor meth heads are sooooo misunderstood. Poor lads.
Yeah, I can't understand this desire that Libertarians have to just judge people based on their actions toward others. Why can't they understand that there is an inherent moral component to what people do when nobody is looking, and that we must intervene to be sure they are always behaving according to the moral code. All this "drugs don't always create addicts" talk ignores the moral component - we have to throw you in jail for decades to ensure moral purity!
libertarianism is political; if you are using it as a moral guide or set of values to help you in your interactions with others, I feel very sorry for you.
Libertarianism is a moral philosophy. "Don't coerce people" doesn't just apply to politicians.
No. Libertarianism means "Don't use the government and taxpayer money to coerce people". The politicians and few dozen bureaucrats in a Libertarian government can do all the coercing they want in their free time.
I think it's a little bit of a chicken and egg argument. The belief that people ought to just leave each other the hell alone extended to political phylosophy.
I guess I'm saying that I don't think you can 100% segregate your moral and political beliefs within your overall thought process.
"Phylosophy"?
May I coerce you into correct spelling? :-p
So murder, rape, and theft are OK as long as the government isn't doing them? Gee you're dumb.
So what does libertarianism have to say about lying? Or half-truths? Or adultery? Or the personal morality vis-a-vis substance use and abuse? How about advocacy in favor or coercion without actual coercive actions?
Sb in favor *of
As far as moral judgments, libertarianism says let people judge however they want to judge. Just don't make government power based on judgments of what people do that doesn't harm others.
And advocacy in favor of coercion is just that: advocacy in favor of coercion. It's basically the opposite point of what libertarianism argues: non-coercion.
Nice explanation. I don't know why people find these concepts so hard to grasp. It's probably one of the simplest political philosophies on the planet.
Yes, it is political. It is not and ethical or moral system. That is my point
Which seems to be the main sticking point when I talk to my family/friends about it.
Their arguments for coercion basically boil down to "people will do things I don't like"...but they don't see the underlying issues with that way of thinking.
So libertarianism doesn't say that non-political murder and theft are immoral?
Nothing. There is nothing inherently immoral about any of those things.
Centuries!
Ya, and protection-free fucking doesn't always make you pregnant, playing Russian roulette doesn't always shatter your skull...only fools play the odds.
Advertizing stupidity as moral purity misses the palpability
I advertise stupidity every time I post.
Is this a spoof? Spelling advertise incorrectly and using the wrong word? (palpability??)
You can't spoof rectal's idiocy, dude. It is legion.
Epi, have I mentioned today that I HATE YOU?
palpabilitypal?pa?ble? ?
[pal-puh-buhl] Show IPA
?adjective
1.
readily or plainly seen, heard, perceived, etc.; obvious; evident: a palpable lie; palpable absurdity.
yeah, she used the word correctly. However it may have been by accidental. Surely she is seeking palpation of the vulva, which is an historical cure for hysteria. Depending on severity the vagina could take several hours to be properly palpated. I'm not certain that anyone is up to the task, thus, the hysteria continues.
However it may have been by accidental
Dieu merci!
bitch, palpability is suitable, and 's' and 'z' are curses for the French. Congrats on your appropriate name
EOM
Cyto's being sarcastic, but the idea that self-regarding behaviors have an intrinsid moral worth whether voluntary or involuntary is widespread, and it works both ways. So in many societies if one is raped, that counts as moral strike against both the rapist and the rapee (not to speak of the rapier he threatened to use, and the rap music that went with it); while if one is kept forcibly in a monastery that counts as a moral bonus for the prisoner.
They worked as doctors, bankers, teachers, contractors?very few lawyers, oddly?and owned some of the most respected small businesses in town.
Interestingly, meth might turn your kid into a prositute or porn star, but at least they won't be a lawyer.
Interestingly, meth might turn your kid into a prositute or porn star, but at least they won't be a lawyer.
The problem is that my children just don't like the taste and are afraid of needles. I always tell them, if you don't do this you might end up as an attorney but at this young age they fail to appreciate the true horror that word should inspire. Maybe if I could find some of that strawberry flavored meth....
Candy-cigarette meth? Bubble-gum-cigar meth?
Next up:
Opium Dens! How our society misunderstands nature's gentle massage.
http://library.thinkquest.org/.....m_dens.jpg
Legalize cocaine and meth use will drop like a rock. *smirk*
A domestic product is much cheaper than something that needs to be imported, prohibition magnifies this. If both are legal most will pay the small premium for a cleaner 'rush'.
They're not perfect substitutes. Coke has the rockstar glam to it, but doesn't last that long and the rush isn't as impressive. Amphetamine makes you feel smart, lasts quite a while, and is a performance enhancer for many activities (like disassembling toasters).
Coke is a great party drug, amphetamines are a lifestyle drug.
But do either and you should go to jail forever. Jesus said so.
legalize coca tea and coca leaf chewing and the use of cocaine would drop. Certainly smoking crack would drop if cocaine were legal. Legalize mj and alcohol consumption might drop. I think there is a pattern here. OTOH employment of prison guards, cops, rehab centers, and attorneys would reduce, so there's that.
I don't think alcohol and MJ are exactly substitutes.
They are not equivalent, however I know of at least two people who come from hard-drinking families who are heavy pot users. Both are convinced they would be alcoholics w/o pot.
When used in conjunction less total quantity is consumed.
coca tea is actually pretty good
Uh, crack use would fall if cocaine were legal? More likely, crack users would simply freebase cocaine in small batches rather than buy crack.
Growing up in the stereotypical small, midwest farm town, lemme tell you, we did a LOT of drugs and drinking, even back in the 70's. Like this guy, top 10% in class, athlete, had a job...smoke a LOT of pot, did coke, opium, acid...never meth (did it exist back then?)
Our rationale: "what ELSE is there to do in this podunk town?" Gave it all up in my early 20's after I dropped out of college for a couple years and had to earn a living.
All this by way of saying: yeah, I think unless you come from a place like that, it's hard to believe how much insidious shit really goes on beneath the "everyone's at church on Sunday" veneer. And with all that, I wouldn't have wanted to grow up anywhere else - very, very, very safe environment to do all this shit and not get in trouble.
Can't wait to retire so I can start smoking pot again...:)
"did it exist back then?"
Yes, but it was called crystal and you snorted it. Had quite a bite iirc.
Overheard somebody looking for Mary, Lucy, and Tina. But Lucy wasn't around so Molly came instead.
@pancakes: WTF?
I think he's using drug dealer slang.
Marijuana = Mary Jane = Mary
LSD = Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds = Lucy
Crystal Meth = Christina = Tina
Ecstasy = MDMA = Molly
It was just the other day, and quite surprising to find that Tina is still around.
waffles translating for pancakes. The International House of SUBSTANCE ABUSE!
Order UP!!
I will take two of each.
Don't forget, I'm gratis and will be on every table when you sit down.
And I come with free refills!
...I have no idea what's goin' on...you wanna get high?
You're the worst character ever, Towelie.
So you're saying you want to enforce a Towlie Ban...?
My wife is from a "small town in America" that at one point happened to be the meth, STD and teen pregnancy capital of the US. Having visited a time or two, I can understand why. The only two things to do in that craphole are do drugs and fornicate...
So this is what it feels like to wonder if you've run into your husband in the comments.
Re: Almanian: Shit man, you just described my teen years in the 70's, too. To a T.
Got a meth head living next door and the description above fits him to a T. Though I've never seen these traits as something positive.
I wonder if there any pictures of this Nick King. I bet it ain't pretty.
It's one thing to be for legalization, which I'm heartily in favor of. But it's quite another to opine that taking drugs like meth is a good thing.
http://organizations.missouris.....k_king.jpg
Does he self-identify as a bro?
I don't think that anyone is trying to say that it is a good thing to use meth on a regular basis. Only that it is not as bad of a thing for many people as reporting on the subject would have us believe. An awful lot of people really buy that shit.
Several of my closest friends and I were in the top decile of our class despite being intoxicated half of our waking lives?frequently including school hours. We were almost all athletes and participated in a number of activities and clubs. For two years, every one of my class's officers was a multiple drug felon.
Cue the Tea Party soccer moms:
"This is why we need random warrantless searches in our schools! And drug testing! Teh Dope Fiendz!!!!!!!'
citation needed
cant imagine a drug concocted for banzi charges would have bad effects/
...says the tweaker.
http://jebsen.tumblr.com/photo.....nR61qz6f9y
LOL.
Nice.
I snorted
I can't stop laughing.
We need a legal mandate that Flouride is added to meth, to protect users' teeth.
One should not do drugs that make one unattractive.
One should not do drugs that make one others unattractive.
FIFY
One should not do drugs that make fat chicks attractive.
What if you already find them attractive?
In all my years of judging
I have never heard before
Of someone more deserving
Of the full penalty of law
Curve: The loveliest distance between two points. ~Mae West
Can you imagine a world without men? No crime and lots of happy fat women. ~Nicole Hollander
I firmly believe in the Theodore Darymple theory that there is no such thing as drug addiction. Drugs are merely the excuse degenerate people use to be degererates. This guy is an example of someone who is not a degenerate, uses drugs and shockingly enough doesn't act like a degenerate. There are millions like him. There have to be. If there wasn't, there wouldn't be billions of dollars to be made in the drug trade. Sorry, but homeless crack whores and welfare heads don't have the kind of money to create that kind of demand. There has to be millions of productive drug users in the world using drugs and living productive lives. They just don't get caught because they never come up on the police radar the way poor people and degerates do.
Excellent point, John. I had not considered that.
Not an excellent point. Have you ever heard of people committing crimes to support their habit? The notion that there is no such thing as addiction is silly.
I am for legalization of all drugs. I think that people should be allowed to do meth if they want to. They should be discouraged because in many cases the "degenerates", (John's scientific term), hurt other people.
Anyone who has ever known a "degenerate" knows the pain his/her family goes through, not to mention the pain and guilt they go through (when they're not high).
His point was that degenerates are the minority of drug users. If the billions of dollars in annual drug trade came mostly from degenerates don't you think there would be a lot more crime?
Your reply is some stupid emotional bullshit that has no bearing on John's original observation.
No, his point, to which I replied, but which you chose to ignore, was that he agreed with Dlarymple that there is not such thing as drug addiction. Of course the majority of "drug" users are not committing crimes to obtain drugs. But a significant number of crack and meth "addicts" do commit crimes to pay for their habit. Including some degrading things that I guess are stupid emotional bullshit, unless you've seen a family member stoop to that to get a hit of crystal meth. So, go fuck yourself.
I suppose the question I'm asking isn't about addiction at all. Rather that the majority of drug purchases don't come from junkies or hopeless degenerates, but at least partially functional members of society.
Yes, rampaging addicts who lie, cheat, and steal from their loved ones are unfortunate. But if they were representative of most drug users the market would not be so lucrative and consistent as it is.
Sorry. I take back the go fuck yourself. It was uncalled for.
Maybe it's the rampaging meth addiction, the perpetual procrastination, or maybe even the shadow spiders that are trying to crawl into my ear canal, but I understand the need for vituperation.
Now my dereliction of duty has ended. After all, these spiders won't milk themselves.
"If there wasn't, there wouldn't be billions of dollars to be made in the drug trade. Sorry, but homeless crack whores and welfare heads don't have the kind of money to create that kind of demand."
Yet they cost billions in welfare. So maybe they transfer that money to drug dealers.
I agree with everything except the "no such thing as drug addiction" bit. I certainly don't buy the whole helpless slave to a chemical view on addiction, but there is certainly more to the attachment people develop towards certain drugs than simply an excuse to be degenerate. Have you ever met anyone who smokes tobacco? Smokers are not, by and large, degenerates, but many do have a hell of a time stopping.
Of course, the biggest problem in debates about the nature of addiction is that everyone seems to define the word to suit their views on the subject. Our definitions of the word probably differ in important ways.
Hell, look at coffee drinkers. That headache hits, and most of them go running for that java.
See my response below.
I think "addict" and "addictions" are words that don't deserve to exist. They obscure more than they reveal about people's behavior. Even Stanton Peele hasn't convinced me there's enough good use for the words that they should ever be used.
Anybody can draw a line around a set of anything and give that set and its members a name, but that doesn't necessarily add any utility to the language. I could, for instance, say that anything with 2 pointy projections and that makes a sharp sound when struck in a certain way is an agfhjpio, but what reason would you have to make statements about that category of things? The existence of the word and statements including it would be a distraction.
While I agree that the numbers game suggests most users aren't "unproductive" poor people, I don't get how that implies there is no such a thing as drug addiction. Physical and psychological dependency have been more or less scientifically proven. Of course it's dependent upon the type of drug, the maturity/self-control and responsiveness of the user and the environment in which it is consumed. But because even a majority of users can consume drugs without becoming addicted, and a majority of addicts can remain productive while addicted because they still have to keep up appearances and put food on the table, doesn't mean addiction is just some made-up scourge for the sake of scaring children away from drugs. It is real, and we shouldn't underexaggerate it even if the drug warriors vastly overexaggerate it.
I say take the Darwinistic approach and let the idiots without self-control teach us why self-control is so important.
I guess the question is if someoen uses a product but still leads an productive and happy life how does the term "addiction" really have any meaning? You could argue that I am "addicted to coffee". Certainly, if I don't drink it I get a headache and the morning sucks. But I could stop it if I chose to. Indeed, I have in my life a few times and didn't drink it at all until my 20s. When placed in an environment where it wasn't available I adjusted and did just fine. That tells me that I don't "have to drink coffee". I choose to drink coffee. The same way I choose to watch TV or jerk off or do any number of other things that I do for pleasure. I don't see how calling my coffee drinking an "addiction" really adds anything to the description. It is just a meaningless term used to imply that I somehow am not morally responsible for my actions.
Indeed, as it has become more and more apparent that the term addiction doesn't mean anything, we have increasingly started using it to describe all sorts of behaviors that were previously just considered excentric or examples of bad moral character. We now have "porn addiction" and "sex addiction" and "internet addiction" and so forth. Pretty much any activity that can be self destructive when done in the extreme can fairly be called an "addiction". That strikes me as just nonsense.
To believe that it isn't, you have to beleive that there is something special about illegal drugs that makes it impossible to use them in moderation. And the millions upon millions of one time or casual drug users in the world put lie to that. People who over use drugs over use them for the same reason I drink a lot of coffee; they choose to do so.
I understand what you are saying, but drugs like junk and opium are likely to make an "addict" unproductive while drugs like meth might make the addict more productive (at least for a while). Some drugs like hallucinogens might go either way, depending on what "productive" means. I'm not sure productivity or lack thereof is the best test for the validity of addiction - especially because you seem to be predominantly referring to careers and how much money one makes, although it is a factor. A more rounded view would define it as "desperation to attain drugs by any means possible, inability to withdraw (coffee being far softer of an addiction for most people than crack or meth) and adverse effects on one's physical/mental/emotional health, relationships, careers and the safety of others around them." Of course, the drug war simply worsens many of these problems instead of fixing the addiction itself and has pushed users towards riskier, trashier and more addictive substitutes.
But millions of people have dropped acid or snorted coke or even shot heroin for a short period of time or once and then chosen not to do it anymore. If there really was such a thing as "addiction" such people wouldn't exist. Or if they did there would be some physical reason for some people being able to walk away and others not. But there doesn't seem to be such a physical reason. We just use the term "addiction" to excuse to moral culpability of people who use their drug use as an excuse for bad behavior. Nothing about drugs requires someone to steal to buy the stuff. I love Islay scotch. And it is expensive as shit. But I choose not to steal or not pay my rent to get it.
As I said, it depends on many factors and neither generalization about drug addicts nor anecdotal evidence from non-addict users are particularly helpful in explaining the nature of addiction. Some addicts can successfully manage their addiction and show minimal effect. Some can break their addiction, move on with their lives and not return to it. Some relapse. And some die sticking as much stuff up their nose or in their veins in as short a period of time as possible. Some of these people were likely suicidal in the first place.
The best generalization I can make is that people generally break the cycle of addiction (or at least debilitating addiction) when they regard certain things (jobs, families, etc.) that are being interfered with as worth more than the pain of withdrawal (and the cost of losing something that makes them happy/feel good).
"But millions of people have dropped acid or snorted coke or even shot heroin for a short period of time or once and then chosen not to do it anymore. If there really was such a thing as "addiction" such people wouldn't exist. "
Yes because if biology has taught us anything it's that all people react to chemicals the exact same way. Which is why terms like LD50 are just an environmental conspiracy.
In all seriousness, it's pretty well established that different people react to chemicals differently. Some take a chemical and react strongly, positively and are therefore more likely to become addicted to a substance than those that did not react as strongly or as positively. That's why there are people who can go out and smoke cigarettes on a Vegas weekend out with friends and others find it difficult to quit.
If you require objective verification of the existence of addiction: Alcoholism has a huge genetic component. Also, alcohol withdrawal for some heavy drinkers can cause seizures and deathly high blood pressure. Wouldn't you call them addicted?
Some people may use the term "addiction" to excuse bad behavior, but others use it to indicate physiologic dependence.
I don't disagree with what I see as the main pint of your post, but I'd disagree with some of your argument.
There is nothing inherent in drugs that makes people use them; there are people who have done heroin, tobacco,etc. - the most "addictive" of all substances - without developing a habit.
People become addicts. Even then, how they behave is still ultimately within their control. Having said that, I don't think "addiction" is a meaningless term. There is a point past which it becomes much harder to quit something.
I view addiction (except physical symptoms) as when the person taking the drug believes they can not stop.
Indeed, as it has become more and more apparent that the term addiction doesn't mean anything, we have increasingly started using it to describe all sorts of behaviors that were previously just considered excentric or examples of bad moral character. We now have "porn addiction" and "sex addiction" and "internet addiction" and so forth. Pretty much any activity that can be self destructive when done in the extreme can fairly be called an "addiction". That strikes me as just nonsense.
But, from my understanding, this is the definition of addiction: when the desire to engage in the activity consumes one's existence to the detriment of normal functioning. So, the person who uses heroin, meth, or coke, WITHOUT affecting his/her normal life, IMO, would not be an addict.
To believe that it isn't, you have to beleive that there is something special about illegal drugs that makes it impossible to use them in moderation. And the millions upon millions of one time or casual drug users in the world put lie to that. People who over use drugs over use them for the same reason I drink a lot of coffee; they choose to do so.
Yes, they ultimately choose to use the drug, but there is a mental component to addiction that drives the user to seek the high. Even after discontinuation of the drug, they continue to struggle with the compulsion to seek the high. Coffee has no equivalence to crack.
I think smoking is a better example than coffee. Smoking has really obvious negative effects, but not so bad as to ruin your life. Some people have a much harder time quitting than others. (Ever read about the end of Freud's life?). For many long time smokers, quitting can cause serious depression symptoms. One does not think very rationally or have very good self control when depressed.
I think that everyone is responsable for their own actions, and an addiction is no excuse for any behavior, but that does not mean that the psychological conditioning of an addiction does not exist and does not make it very difficult to change certain behaviors.
Well off people don't do crack and yet that particular trade does quite well.
Well off people do crack.
I agree. I wonder how many of the lawyers here (Jesus, you can throw a rock in the air and hit one of these fuckers) are on something.
Gosh! Students at an elite university taking methamphetamines? Who'd a thunk it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adderall
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzadrine
I thought those were just regular amphetamines.
I think folks like Nick King should have every right to make the decision as to whether or not to take meth (or LSD, or pot, or whatever), but I can't say that the article exactly sells the meth lifestyle.
I don't think he was trying to. He was mostly pointing out the details he thought journalists miss when looking at rural drug use. That and pointing out that using a hard drug doesn't necessitate a transformation into a wild-eyed, feral loonie who bites people if they get too close.
No, I understand. I just think he's a little closer to the wild-eyed, feral loonie than I was expecting from Doherty's post.
i don't think you can be perfectly average and normal and justify a meth habit. I mean, its a bit more extreme than some lifestyle drugs.
Yeah, we had meth back in the day, though as noted above we called it "crystal" and snorted it. I always preferred clean, pharmaceutical amphetamines, myself. Where I live the kids still do, so Adderall is the speed of choice. Of course we're a little behind the times, so crack is still big business hereabouts. Same old story, though; in spite of widespread propaganda about its uniquely and instantaneously addictive qualities, there are large numbers of casual, social crack smokers, including at least a few lawyers.
Being buried in the ground so that worms can eat your flesh isn't normal.
But with death it is.
Death. Not even once.
In the podunk Midwest town I grew up in, getting drugs was easier than getting alcohol. I could always score a bag of weed, but getting a six-pack of beer was much harder. So we smoked pot... and watched too much of Pink Floyd - "The Wall".
If I had my way, I'd have all of you shot.
so are you pro or anti Pink Floyd?
I got some bad news for you, sunshine.
I'm ambivalent to the whole Brit-rock thing.
I'm generally fine with Pink Floyd. Poised between the polarities of love and hate, but eschewing the dank recesses of indifference.
The way you made them suffer
Your exquisite wife and mother
Fills me with the urge to defecate
I understand.
No such thing as too much.
Yeah I grew up in the burbs of a large midwestern city and weed was much easier to get than beer. But prohibition is for the children. Remember that.
Sounds familiar.
Has anyone ever tried Jet? I hear it does great things for your action points. I'm afraid to try Psycho, though for obvious reasons. I've been looking for quality morphine for a while, until I realized they just rebranded it as Med-X, probably for PC reasons.
Nuka Cola Quantum is really cool. Have you tried it?
Is that like Jolt?
I'm still seeing Lucy and Mary quite a bit nowadays.
I feel like Grandpa Simpson reading this thread, except that I was never "with it" to begin with. I wonder if this is how hard drug users feel when they read through an alcohol-related thread that degenerates into a discussion of microbrews.
Is "degenerates" really the right word? What about a discussion of caffeine-related thread that degenerates to the typical tea vs. coffee battle?
No, everyone likes microbrews. I find the pervasive distinction between "hard" drugs and "soft" drugs is misleading. The first time I ever saw heroin or cocaine in the wild there was this visceral "oh shit those are hard drugs" reaction. Now I realize this distinction was mostly concocted by the DARE mind probe inserted into my skull during the mid 90s.
Mary is my regular girl. She usually tags along when plunk down the extra change to see Lucy too. Personally, I think Molly just isn't that talented and Tina just rubs shoulders with the wrong crowd.
You are insane; Molly is the greatest chick to have ever been born since the Virgin Mary, and maybe even greater than her, too. Saved my marriage, I shit you not.
Molly and Tina are both timeless classics. Great gals all around
YOU CAN'T FOOL ME. I KNOW WHAT ALL OF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
If I'd ever done meth, I'd say this about it:
It was nice for someone with normally nasty, almost crippling insomnia to be able to function at full-awake alertness for six hours at a time.
The only 'addiction' I ever had was that after a while, I got used to being able to spend my entire day functional instead of just a few hours.
After I stopped because I couldn't afford it anymore, I was sad, but it wasn't that big of a deal, honestly.
I've also had occasion to get hooked on Vicodin (due to some fairly inept dentistry, and a dentist who thought 'give him more opiates' was a good solution to said inept dentistry), and let me tell you, there's no comparison. Not even close. I was out of action for two weeks of pure misery after about six weeks of regular Vicodin use (use, not abuse; I took the dosage the dentist told me to).
Similarly, I've quit smoking, and that was grueling and terrible.
Meth was more like 'Oh well, guess I'll have to sleep more.'
In case anyone's curious about opiate withdrawal: It feels just like the flu. Except it's a flu that does not go away for two solid weeks. You sweat, then you have the chills, then you sweat more. You have a constant headache. You're nauseated. You just want to sleep, but you can't sleep because your skin hurts all over.
Take the worst flu you've ever experienced, then stretch that over two continuous weeks, and add the awareness that Just One Little Pill could make it all go away.
I'll never take that shit again, unless it's life or death. Ugh.
Its kind of a lesser of two evils thing (when people with traumatic injuries get addicted to morphine), but atleast you know that a month long stint in rehab is all you need to break it.
I don't think that "addiction" is the same thing as simple physical dependence. Anybody taking opiates daily for more than a few weeks will become physically dependent and have some physical discomfort upon stopping. In a medical situation this is often handled by gradually weaning the patient off the drug. Most models of addiction have a strong psychological component as part of their definition. Those are the folks who take more than prescribed, lie to get more, find reasons to continue taking even when no longer warranted, and are convinced they "need" the drug. These are behaviors that are actually quite rare among people on opioid pain therapy, even after years of high dose usage.
true, it is important to distinguish the two.
"A flu that does not go away for two solid weeks" is what most of us call "the flu". But with me the flu has sometimes taken 2.5-3 weeks.
I've also had occasion to get hooked on Vicodin
The tylenol will 'splode your liver before you can get "hooked" on Vicodin.
In case anyone's curious about opiate withdrawal: It feels just like the flu. Except it's a flu that does not go away for two solid weeks.
The flu lasts more than two weeks! I bet you had the flu.
I know everyone reacts differently but it takes a hell of a lot of narcotics, done morning-noon-and night to develop an "addiction" with actual withdrawal. I'm talking IV too, not a damn 'script from just one dentist.
Slightly off topic, but still pertaining to the war on drugs.
This American Life did a story on drug court Judge Amanda Williams, who.....well, just read/listen to it:
http://www.thisamericanlife.or.....tough-love
yall sound like a buncha perscription drug addicts...which remain THE most abused drugs. go ahead & pump ur kid full of ritalin instead of sports which burns-off the energy.
Protip: Ritalin makes your kids better at sports. Pill them up and get that athletic scholarship!
Hollywood screenwriters love rural meth because it "proves" that rural America is "worse" than urban America. Also, they believe that living in a small town is so insanely boring that it's more or less impossible to avoid becoming a meth-head. See "Friday Night Lights," "True Blood," "Justified," etc.
Jesus Christ Venneman you actually said something intelligent and non douche like. Either someone is spoofing you or hell just froze over.
Anal Vanneman providing useful commentary isn't normal.
but on meth it is.
Meth. Not even once.
Winter's Bone was pretty good, it didn't really look down on it's subjects. And the bit with the recruiter was a nice surprise.
We didn't use meth, but man we dropped the hell out of acid as a teen in a suburban/rural area. We did it because it was awesome as a teen to halucinate while listening to the Pros and Cons of Hitchhiking. Roger Fuckin' Waters, man. Roger Fuckin' Waters.
Also, i'm X sometimes, but that stopped after a friend tried to make love to my christmas tree.
Hey Girl, take out the dagger, and let's have a stab at the... Sexual Revolution.
Hey girl,
Don't point your finger at me...
All I ask is to be able to walk into Costco and buy (effective) decongestants without being treated like I'm a criminal.
For the most part, however, we were not the stereotypical burnouts that people expected this behavior from, nor did we think of ourselves as such. Several of my closest friends and I were in the top decile of our class despite being intoxicated half of our waking lives?frequently including school hours. We were almost all athletes and participated in a number of activities and clubs. For two years, every one of my class's officers was a multiple drug felon.
Welcome to the world of anyone who grew up in the 70s or early 80s.
I remember sitting out one night with my crew in high school, trying to list all the people in our class of around 170 that didn't use drugs at least occasionally. I think we came up with 4, maybe 6.
Big urban high school (class of '71 numbered 660--I still meet people I went to school with who I've never heard of). Only the losers didn't drink, smoke, sniff, drop, or snort (if not necessarily all of the above), as borne out by the decades since.
John's comment above is probably one of the most intelligent things I've ever read about drugs, addiction, etc.
I think it also has a lot to do with the state of your life when you start using. If you are unemployed, poor, and single and you start taking meth to cope, I imagine you're heading for a world of trouble.
But with a steady job, interests or hobbies unrelated to the drug, good group of friends, etc. I'm sure it can be used to enhance your life rather than dominate it.
It's common knowledge that most Wall Street traders sniff blow. And they run the freakin' country.
It's common knowledge that most Wall Street traders sniff blow. And they run the freakin' country.
I'd be more comfortable if they didn't however, cocaine or no...
I've never done meth. Can anyone tell my why one of these guys would be buying lithium batteries at three in the morning?
for my guitar tuner. something about meth makes it hard to tune a guitar by ear. If I want to thrash the way I oughhhtaa gotta get me them LITH-E-YUMS!
OK, and how do the batts help with that?
To make more meth. So scrapple can play his speed metal.
Lithium-Ammonia Reduction of Ephedrine to Methamphetamine: An Unusual Clandestine Synthesis, Journal of Forensic Sciences, Vol. 35, No. 3, May 1990
I think lithium(or iodine?) is needed for one of the organic chemical reactions.
This is some seriously stupid shit. "Drugs should be legal"=/="DRUGS FUCKIN ROCK". This better not be some new libertarian movement to play apologist for hardcore drug users.
Meth is fucking terrible for you, and no halfway competent person would choose to use it. Do I think they should be allowed to fuck themselves up? Well sure. But they're goddamn morons.
It's hard enough to convince people that marijuanna isn't dangerous at all (which it isn't). That crusade becomes all the more motherfucking difficult when you have smacktards also defending drug abuse that IS actually horrible for you.
the standard is NOT the side effects but whether the pharm industry can make tons of money which is the gold standard.
yes.
Fresh Prince - "Hard Drugs are not as bad as has been claimed (over and over and over...)"=/="DRUGS FUCKIN ROCK"
Let Natural Selection play itself out. 🙂
"For the most part, they thought of my friends and me as half-mad provincials with minds twisted from the tedium of small-town life and adulterated methamphetamine."
That's an improvement. When I was in college the predominant view is that small-towners had their minds warped by tedium alone.
Stipulated, I am for total legalization of all psychoactives, including meth, which views I have written for Reason.com:
http://reason.com/archives/200.....no-laughin
But all drugs are not created equal, in terms of their dangers. And all drugs aren't formulated equally, which is why I call meth "the bathtub gin of neo-Prohibition" because of the impurities that can damage the body, from something made in somebody's basement or from fertilizer on a farm. And I have seen the devastation of lives in the urban gay community of a substance that is hugely more problematic to mental and physical health than almost any other "party drug" of which I am aware. I would advise anyone thinking about using crystal meth to think twice. I'll support your right to risk the horrendous effects of this drug, but I'll advise you not to--just as I'll urge you not to drink much alcohol or smoke much tobacco.
This is a good point. Meth cooked up by some dropout in his garage isn't going to match Barr Labs for quality.
Again, another example of the drug war making it more dangerous for drug users. Then the drug warriors use the damaged caused by their own policies to argue for harsher sentencing.
No time to read the entire thread, but for what it's worth:
Yet.
Typical tweeker thinking. Having been around them long enough, I know that it only takes one small life crisis to turn a weekend warrior into a needle filled freak-fest.
Also, tweakers aren't the only ones who can spot(or smell) a tweeker a mile away. Yes, even the ones in business suits.
Fucking tweekers.
people seem all too willing to cover their ears and scream "hear no evil!!" when it comes to "uncool" drugs like Meth.
Who would of thought that marijuana isn't the only drug that has a cloud of myths and propaganda surrounding it?
But the trouble is that most people aren't radical libertarians, so to convince them to legalize anything we have to make them believe it's less dangerous than they've previously thought -- and in many cases the thing in question is much less dangerous than they've previously thought. And in some cases it may be possible to fool them into thinking it's less dangerous than it really is, which is good for individual liberty because people are more commonly allowed to do things thought to be safe.
My concern is not with calling out overexaggeration for what it is, and I understand that underexaggeration is largely done to offset the overexaggeration. As close to the truth as possible is what SHOULD be aimed for, since underexaggeration of danger on a societal scale could result in uncontrolled, destructive behavior that would actually increase the case for making it illegal. Overexaggeration does this too by feeding the forbidden fruit mentality.
A balanced education on risk, including a qualified exhibit on the extreme outliers, is always ideal so people can best determine what is or isn't right to engage in based upon their personal values, body types and environments.
Umm... congratulations?
Meth heads are vampires. I've seen them with my own eyes, in the dark of night.
One of them asked me "why does there have to be so much misery in this world?"
Cute, a poetic vampire.
Leave it to a meth addict to try to scrape all the positives he can out of the drug.
Now with the illegal war in Libya over we can move on to the real issues of the day, like puff pieces about drug users.
Oh wait, WHO CARES?!?!?
Everyone but you?
Two of my students are completely fucked up because Mommy and Daddy lived with them in a van with their pet meth lab. We've had to talk them down off the top of the school building - twice. Several of our after-school program students try to stuff extra food in their backpacks for later. Mommy thinks it's ok to trade food stamps for drugs instead of, you know, buying food. One of these parents used to be the head of a local nonprofit org. here in town. Another was a teacher. How do these (sadly true) scenarios fit into the drugs-for-all libertarian mindset?
Sure, it'd be great if we were all as wonderful and resilient as you, but it turns out that humans fuck up, and take their kids with them. Also, I'm really sick of the 'boring town' excuse. I'm in a backwoods town in WV that has two stores and, other than a couple of pathetic school programs, nothing to do. Lots of our kids still manage to stay straight and figure it out. They mow lawns, play sports, volunteer at the tiny library, even get jobs. Imagine that! I will be the first to admit that this town sucks for kids, but most of them manage to do something besides drugs. In fact, the kids who do drugs almost always have parents who do drugs, although I can think of about two exceptions.
I honestly don't care what people do, except for the fact that they have a tendency to take their kids (and possibly my kids) with them. I'm thinking of car accidents - my child just got her license. I'm also thinking of my son, who's stepmom thinks that because she parties all night and dooesn't 'feel' like getting up in the morning, and how much school he gets to miss.
Grow up, folks. Theoretical discussion is fine, but that's all it is. Just because you're toeing a different, more shocking party line, it doesn't mean you aren't toeing one.
How do these (sadly true) scenarios fit into the drugs-for-all libertarian mindset?
Well, for starters, they all occured despite the fact that the laws you favor were already in place, but what the hell, I'll play along.
1)Two of my students are completely fucked up because Mommy and Daddy lived with them in a van with their pet meth lab.
If drugs were legalized, there would no longer be mobile meth labs (poor quality product and not cost effective)
2)Mommy thinks it's ok to trade food stamps for drugs instead of, you know, buying food.
If drugs were legalized, they would be much, much cheaper (plus, there's no food stamps in libertopia).
3) One of these parents used to be the head of a local nonprofit org. here in town. Another was a teacher.
Most businesses fail, and people fuckup all the time. Drugs provide a convenient excuse. Protecting people from themselves is a fool's game (unless you're using it to gain power, it's great for that).
They mow lawns, play sports, volunteer at the tiny library, even get jobs. Imagine that! I will be the first to admit that this town sucks for kids, but most of them manage to do something besides drugs.
They do all that stuff and still use drugs. You're just oblivious to it, because you wrongly assume that they wouldn't be able to live a functional life if they were.
I honestly don't care what people do, except for the fact that they have a tendency to take their kids (and possibly my kids) with them.
Gee. It's for the kids, huh? Never heard that one before.
Fuck your kids. It's not the governments job to be their parents, and it's damn sure not the governments job to be mine.
Well said.
I took a break from completely disassembling my impeccably functional vacuum cleaner to read this fascinating article.
Stop hating on me! I've done nothing to you.
Once Monster Beats dipped its toes into the headphone market, there was no stopping the cable manufacturer from releasing a bevy of earphones on the unsuspecting masses. From in-ear to on-ear to over-the-ear models, you shouldn't have trouble finding a pair of undeniably stylish Monster Headphones to suit your needs. The latest offering, the Beats by Dr Dre Solo headphones, is an on-ear model that features ControlTalk, which is essentially fancy terminology for an inline mic and integrated controls for an iPod. This ?155 set offers all the bass we expected from the first two Dr Dre headphones in a slick, compact package. Unfortunately, while the low end is satisfyingly ear-shaking, it also tends to muddy up the overall sound space.http://www.okbeats.net
Stop hating on me! I've done nothing to you.
Your post is really good providing good information. Garlic health benefits I liked it and enjoyed reading it.Keep sharing such important posts.Sinus headache
I like this topic, very interesting. Thanks for sharing it with us
Marc Jacobs bring its brand idea, let their cartoon take lv handbag, classic black and white dot gloves and with Louis Vuitton Bags.
I like this topic, very interesting. Thanks for sharing it with us
http://www.lvhandbagbuy.com.
So good!