cocaine

what you're talking about here is not addiction. it's tolerance and desensitization. two completely different things. and actually, with regular drug use receptor downregulation occurs in the brain, not upregulation as you said. meaning there will be less receptors than there were prior to drug use. this is called desensitization. essentially it means a person will need a higher dosage to produce the same effects over time. all this is physiological facts that accompany drug use and none of them have anything to do with said addiction.

addiction is not a disease. it's made out to be that but that's a misconception. i've already explained how.

 

I see your point. Ultimately I think we're just arguing about semantics. I use the term "addiction" as a general term to refer to compulsive behavior that is difficult to quit. A lot of people are internet addicts, video game addicts, unhealthy food addicts, gambling addicts etc. Like you said, drugs are hardly unique in that regard. The media does portray drugs in a sensational and unrealistic manner, at this point I practically expect them to. Like I said to a friend recently, it's the same media that had everyone thinking the Miami face eater guy "was on bath salts ('the new lsd')" because a cop at the scene of the crime speculated that was the case, though there was no evidence of such (and it was later proved false), but now the masses think bath salts=cannibalism.

 

but you can definetly get really attached to drugs to the point where you cannot stop using it. like that heroin addict lady who traded her baby for a small amount of heroin to an undercover cop. plus, how do you explain the serious, sometimes fatal withdrawal symptoms addicts experience when they stop taking a drug that they have been using regularly? the body becomes dependent so that people need the drug. that is definetly a disease. when my father stopped drinking he had to go to the hospital for really bad detox, he almost died. and after rehab he started drinking again, because it is almost impossible for addicts to stop. so you can believe whatever you want, but im convinced that addiction is a kindof disease

 

i already explained it. it's due to homeostatic mechanisms that govern the way human body functions. go read some scientific literature in place of those partial third party accounts and what the DEA and the media keep feeding the ignorant masses hungry for sensational stories and entertainment.

the body goes through withdrawal. people don't need the drug to get through it. they need to wait it out or wean off it with alternative means. which is a completely real solution to the problem, by the way. but they don't do that because they don't want to. people go back to drugs because they want to get high again. simple as that.

it's easier for a drug user to say 'oh i'm just sick, it's a disease' than admit he doesn't want to quit. even if it fucks up other things in his life.

i don't need to believe whatever. i have first hand experience. i also have friends and acquaintances, exactly like me. using and being in control of their use. i have read the available science and research on the subject, that is neurochemistry that pertains to drug use. i have read objective science. not what the drug enforcement whose purpose is to eradicate all drugs from the planet has to say about it. not what the rehab clinics have to say about it, they're essentially a business not medicine, and their product and income depends on people believing 'addiction' as you all call it is a disease and something that needs medical intervention. all in order to get money. it's not a bad income. even though it's a complete scam.

a lot of people are convinced addiction is real and an illness, like you do. i've talked to people like that too, and to a man they don't know a single thing about drug use except what they see on TV or the horror headlines that reach the newspapers. that's their source. when you try to explain the actual physiology behind it and get down to science, when you start making sense the other way around they just turn away, shut their ears and refuse to listen. it's because it does make sense, and they can't accept it. they prefer to cling to their illusions. ignorance really must be bliss.

you can stay in your dreamland as well. it's so nice and simple. people there don't have to take responsibility for negative things they do to themselves and others. they can't really control their actions at all. they're all just sick. just keep on wondering why the rehab doesn't work for the 27th time someone's in and out of there. you have reached a mathematical equivalent of 2+2=0. and you're never gonna understand it until you get your first grade math right.

 

You're way off base Medridian, Drug addiction is not some made up illness by the DEA lol. It's been a phenonema that has been documented in many different cultures for many centuries. Science has even provided further evidence and reasons why drugs may produce addiction. Many different types of illness have a very low success rate of curing so relapsing into drug addiction is no big surprise.

 

documented in many different cultures for many centuries? examples please. although, since many centuries ago people also documented e.g. lightning, drought, floods being divine retribution for immoral behavior of the people, i'm not sure how seriously we can take that 'documentation' if you have it.

it is a made up illness. i already said what addiction essentially is. a universal attitude/behavior not specific to drug use. the fact that it is made out to be specific is what is completely false.

all science has provided in this respect is reward pathways being activated in the brain with drug use. the same reward pathways that get activated when a person buys chocolate, falls in love, plays a piano, races on a bike, etc. that doesn't point to any disease being in effect at all. in fact it points to a normal human being going about doing what they like to do. have you even read any scientific research at all or are you just quoting what someone heard someone else say?

 

Regarding opium and Tobacco use in China...

... And I'm not sure we can take any of your anecdotal stories serious either, you haven't said anything remotely convincing to me, so at best spongbob4life is right about you can believe whatever you want.

Here is a general overview that touches upon your view... as well as discusses some science.

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/drug-abuse-addiction

 

i haven't provided any anecdotal stories yet. i said my first hand experience and experience of my friends and acquaintances hasn't provided me with a single sign of the supposed addiction anywhere yet.

i don't believe anything. that's the thing. in order for me to think the way addiction is represented is true, i would need to come across some material that actually makes it make sense. and there hasn't been any so far.

i read that thing. the science that it included was the same science i've already talked about on this thread (tolerance, receptor downregulation, withdrawal, etc). that is science, and like i already said physiological truth. that in itself does not equal addiction. and that text failed to provide an adequate explanation for what addiction is. instead it provided such a wide definition of the term that you can replace the word addiction with just about any quality and the text still makes sense. that's a definition of nothing.

using scientific terms does not make a text scientific on a certain issue. fact is, people who come in contact with 'addiction' on a professional basis themselves don't even know what it is and how exactly it comes to be. that's my problem with it. nobody can really explain it satisfactorily but most everyone calls it a disease. you're all jumping to an easier way out without doing any serious thinking on the subject. analogously, homosexuality was thought to be a disease as well. now most everyone on this planet agrees that it's not.

all i ask is an explanation that makes the addiction the way you people perceive it make sense. none of you are capable of providing it. instead you say, 'you're wrong', 'this is what it is', 'this person said that and he's right'. none of that makes it make sense. all that is completely meaningless in terms of proving anything at all.

 

It's clear to me that no matter what anyone would post you won't concede your stance. Drug addiction has been defined for you, shown that it has been pervasive throughout history and shown that it's not limited to media propaganda and acknowledged as a disease by medicinal and scientific criteria. Seems like you'll continue to backtrack and backtrack every point of yours that gets knocked down and attempt to transform it in some semantical slant or inept argument. So I provided points to address my argument and I'm not going to waste my breath to try to sway your belief.

 

i won't change my opinion unless what someone posts actually makes sense. not 'no matter what'. you're just pissed you fail to make sense.

drug addiction has not been defined here at all. all you have presented me with have been some vague texts and definitions wide enough to apply to whatever. that's obviously proof enough for you since your bar on proof is pretty low as it appears. 'pervasive throughout history'? all that has been said on that is that people used opium and tobacco centuries ago and couldn't 'do without it'. wow. you should send that to a physics journal and claim a nobel prize for solving the mystery around drug addiction. because that is a solid unshakable evidence proving addiction right there.

like i said, just because it is accepted as a disease by some medical professionals doesn't make it so. medicine has gotten it wrong before, and i already provided an analogy in the form of homosexuality. you can't change my opinion because you don't have anything to prove your point with. all you have are third person opinions and guesswork. that's enough to convince you obviously.

you haven't knocked down any of my theories. you've only quoted known science that i already know to be a fact myself, and then you've linked some text the flaws in which i've addressed and you've ignored.

 

Whether or not you accept that definition is your buisness but there it is for you, plain and crystal fucking clear.

You're intial argument is that drug addiction does not exist... So you want to use homosexuality as an equivalent analogy? Guess what homosexualiity exists... So there goes that argument of yours regarding drug addiction. As far as classifying it as a disease, you concede it is accepted by some medical professionals as a disease, so yes qualifying drug addiction by those that are qualified certainly does increase validity and affirms my stance and as I said leaves you with a weak argument. Lastly you don't know shit about me and are making an
assumption that all I'm relying on is the work done by qualified professionals, you could not be more wrong if you think I haven't experienced drug addiction in my own life.

 

that's proof? all it says is 'addiction is this'. it makes a statement, it doesn't explain a damn thing. how does it make a person incapable of quitting drugs? exactly what neurological factors play a role in this? what are the changes in the structure and function of the brain that they're talking about? what methods have been used to verify these changes? how is this any different from other compulsive behavior that occurs naturally in human beings? how have they verified it is different, if they have done it? answering all of these questions is essential in claiming having scientific proof on this particular subject. and no-one has them. because research like this has not been done, or either research has proven inconclusive. addiction the way they represent it has not been proven to be true.

and of course drug use leads to changes in the function of the brain. every idiot knows that. that's not a claim that says anything other than that drugs affect your brain in some significant way. which anyone who has ever done cocaine, heroin, hallucinogens, etc, can figure out by themselves. those changes alone do not make it a disease. every drug a person takes, whether it be aspirin or cocaine, changes the way your body/brain functions. unless you think taking aspirin should be considered a 'disease' because it leads to changes in the structure and function of your body, that statement goes nowhere.

have you read any of my posts at all or are you just posting things in a way to make it more suitable for your point of view? i said the way people (like you) understand addiction is a misconception. that it is not what it's made out to be. those were my exact words up there somewhere. obviously there are people whose drug use is unhealthy. that still doesn't make it a disease any more than engaging in any other behavior that a person enjoys doing does. my point is it follows from a universal trait in human psychology/character that people use for other activities (love, profession, hobbies, etc) in their life, and that it is not classifiable as a disease.

in your pissed off state you failed to understand why i used homosexuality as an analogy. it was to demonstrate that there were times the medical professionals also claimed homosexuality to be a disease, a brain disease even. and today there are medical professionals claiming drug addiction is a 'brain disease'. i can't spell the analogy and consequent significance of this out any clearer than that. if you still fail to get it, then maybe the drugs you did did destroy parts of your brain capable of logical thought. but, just as long as it's not your own fault...

 

I think you should seek out some of your own answers to those questions, a few of them are blantantly obvious and answered in this thread already and the links supplied, some of them don't have answers yet just as the answers to several other diseases/illnesses haven't been found yet. As I said before, I really don't think you're trying to understand anything anyone is trying to say and just want to continually backtrack or take the argument off onto some other tangent. Perhaps the reason you claim to have difficulty understanding others points is that your points aren't very focused.

I already responded to your homosexuality analogy, It's a weak argument. I understand the hypothetical 'what if' scenario in regards to that analogy, that if say several hundreds of years from now some new info or advance in medicine comes to light which changes the view of drug addiction as disease, perhaps AIDS may not be considered a disease in the future as well. But since neither of us are Nostradamus we have to go by the accepted medical and scientific criteria and data available to us. It's silly to suggest that we can't make assertions about the world solely based on a hypothetical 'what if' scenario.

You claim to be against DEA propaganda yet you're 'They can stop when they want to' 'They just do it cause they like it' attitude is a pro DEA type mindset.

 

none of those answers have been provided here or anywhere.

People here have presented their viewpoints and I have disagreed with that being the truth. What's there to understand beyond that? I've taken in the information, processed it and concluded it's not adequate enough to convince me addiction is a disease.

You didn't respond to the homosexuality analogy, you initially misunderstood it. And as far as demonstrating how much weight the abstract opinion of medical professionals' carries, it's to the point. There are medical professionals and physicists who share my opinion on this whole thing. Books have been written expressing that addiction is a myth. Not saying that is proof of anything, just that there are professional arguments on both sides. I have read up on both sides and addiction as a disease doesn't make sense to me, whereas the opposite stance does. You don't own the truth on this subject, because the truth hasn't been conclusively settled yet, and yet you talk like you know everything. You're the one with the belief here. Because the information you have is not final, but you stubbornly claim it to be absolute truth. You're the religious one on this thread.

Obviously you have to go by the book. I don't have to do anything. I'm a free man and I can think for myself.

Is that the DEA's stance on this? I thought they were all for 'addiction is a disease' point of view. I might be wrong on that one, I don't know. I don't really follow DEA's every word.

 

HA! The DEA want drug addicts to be viewed as criminals, not viewed as sick individuals.

 

meridianwest, i didnt get alot of what you said in your posts, you are obviously very smart, smarter than me at least. but i would like to ask you, are u a doctor? if not, then i dont see how you can claim to know more than the entire medical community of people that have studied this much more extensively than anyone else. and guerillabedlam is right, addiction is not DEA propoganda because the last thing the DEA wants to do is portray the people they are arresting as helpless victims of disease, and give people an excuse for why they use drugs. in fact, as far as i can tell you are arguing the exact DEA viewpoint. also, just because you have not experienced something it doesnt make it non existent. having witnessed my dad ruin his life by binge drinking throughout my life, i think its offensive that you are saying he just does it because he wants to, because drinking has ruined basically every part of his life including both of his marriages. i can see no reason why someone would ruin their life by constantly using a substance unless that substance exerted a huge power of them. in fact, i am extremely offended that you think you have the right to disclaim an established disease that has hurt a lot of those around me and millions of people around the world. anyways, once again you can think what you want but it is common knowledge that you are wrong

 

spongbob4 life, i've already presented my arguments on this topic. there's no point for me to endlessly go over and over the same things. you don't have to agree with me, i don't care what you think. it is not my purpose to change anyone's minds. i've simply stated my opinion.

i am not arguing for DEA's viewpoint. i disagree with the portrayal of drug users as criminals and decadent too. but i agree that it is a choice, a personal one that should be left to the person's own discretion. the fact that a minority of the users use the drugs in an unhealthy manner doesn't mean the drugs should be illegal/prohibited. this doesn't come anywhere near DEA's point of view.

addiction as a disease is not common knowledge. just because most people believe something doesn't make it true. most people also believe in the existence of god. but no-one can truthfully claim whether god exists or not.

i am not a doctor. are you? and like i already said, there are medical professionals and physicists who agree with the take i've argued for on this addiction issue. i should know since i've had talks on this topic with physicists, and medical researchers; also like me, they agree that changing the public perception on this issue would be extremely difficult since the media, peers, even medical community itself conditions people to think about it in a certain way. so saying some medical professionals agree with a certain notion doesn't prove a damn thing. and i don't claim to know more than the entire medical community. i claim to have a different take on an issue that has not been conclusively resolved, and i claim this by having studied relevant science.

the reasons why drug users keep using their drug of choice even when it ruins other aspects of their life is because those drugs provide something good in other aspects, or because they're self-destructive. just because someone can do something to make their life better doesn't mean they want to do that. it's a lot more complicated than just what's on the surface. but saying it is a disease, speaking purely on science and physiology there is no proof of that. and it doesn't make sense. you make of it whatever you want.

 

fuck this your fucking retarded man

 

You obviously have never experienced addiction, meridian so what you are saying is meaningless.

 

JUST picked up a half gram of some fire stuff. Gave a line to my buddy to try and he said it was real good.

The person whom provided it for me also said compared to the old stuff, its that fire. Cant wait to try it as i haven't indulged in IV coke in a while. Going to be using tomorrow at some point. Wish i could tonight but probably cannot due to personal shit...