![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]Shown: posts 4 to 28 of 28. Go back in thread:
Posted by oracle on July 26, 2002, at 16:08:32
In reply to Experimenting with recreational drugs ..., posted by MrRatt on July 26, 2002, at 14:40:52
You need a proper diagnosis and evaluation. Are you seeing a medical doc ?
Posted by MrRatt on July 26, 2002, at 16:32:23
In reply to Re: Experimenting with recreational drugs ..., posted by oracle on July 26, 2002, at 16:08:32
> You need a proper diagnosis and evaluation. Are you seeing a medical doc ?
Yes. The person I'm seeing at school is a psychiatrist. She, in my opinion, is horrible however. She always fails to remember my name or what we discussed in previous sessions. Our meetings never last for more than 15 minutes. I see her more as a prescription pad than a medical doctor. She is, unfortunately, all that is available to me through the university. Is there anyone out there that can relate to my problem of being emotionally disconnected? If so, what medications have you tried?
I realize the hazards of meth use. I also *luckily* don't have an addictive personality.
Posted by velaguff on July 26, 2002, at 16:43:53
In reply to Re: Experimenting with recreational drugs ..., posted by oracle on July 26, 2002, at 16:08:32
Wellbutrin works great for some people who need a stimulant type AD, but don't want or can't get real prescription speed. It didn't work for me. The trouble with meth, you'll never "learn" to act like you're on it, when you're not on it. It just changes your brain chemistry so much, that's unrealistic. I've done it, and would like to feel that way all the time, but we should look for sustainable, long-term strategies. Meth can fry your dopaminergic system, leaving you a permanent bedridden slacker. If you have read any of my windbag posts (I only joined a few days ago), you'll see I'm obsessed with "memantine", an alzheimer's drug that supposedly prevents tolerance to prescription speed (script is better cleaner safer), and to opiates, as well. I think all the bad things about prescriptospeed are due to tolerance. With Memantine & no tolerance buildup wouldn't prescriptospeed be great for depression? AND....weight control? "Diet Pills", in the 1960's sense of the phrase, might once again be viable, only safer and more effective in the long run. I SEE NO REASON WHY DEXEDRINE AND MEMANTINE CAN'T BE COMBINED IN THE SAME CAPSULE. We're becoming a nation of land whales, we shouldn't rule out promising options.
Posted by oracle on July 26, 2002, at 16:45:22
In reply to Re: Experimenting with recreational drugs ..., posted by MrRatt on July 26, 2002, at 16:32:23
> I realize the hazards of meth use.
No you don't ! Because you made this statement:
I also *luckily* don't have an addictive personality.
With drugs as strong a meth it does not matter.
Posted by MrRatt on July 26, 2002, at 16:56:59
In reply to Re: Experimenting with recreational drugs ..., posted by velaguff on July 26, 2002, at 16:43:53
My friend got a large prescription for Ritalin filled that she has offered to let me try. I've snorted it before at a party and liked the effects. Have you tried it?
Posted by MrRatt on July 26, 2002, at 17:04:26
In reply to Re: Experimenting with recreational drugs ..., posted by oracle on July 26, 2002, at 16:45:22
May I ask what meds you are on and what problems you are treating?
Posted by fairnymph on July 26, 2002, at 18:11:41
In reply to Re: Experimenting with recreational drugs ..., posted by oracle on July 26, 2002, at 16:45:22
> > I realize the hazards of meth use.
>
> No you don't ! Because you made this statement:
>
> I also *luckily* don't have an addictive personality.
>
> With drugs as strong a meth it does not matter.
>
>
I beg to differ. I have used crystal meth on many occasions and have never suffered any negative effects or addiction. Some people can handle recreational drugs, some cannot.People often talk about how addictive opiates are...I have had opiates prescribed to me for over five years for pain and NEVER used them recreationally. I shot heroin once but found it to be a boring experience...
Blame the user not the drug.
Oh, and meth is NOT that much stronger than say, dexedrine. Yeah it's more euphoric but still...the addition of that methyl group does not change the drug THAT dramatically.
To mr.ratt --I think if nervousness is a problem than Wellbutrin might not be the best drug for you. I suffer from obsessive compulsive disorder which is an anxiety disorder as well as depression and I have been taking wellbutrin for two weeks now...I am doing alright now but I BARELY got through the first week and a half of tremendous anxiety. The more stimulating antidepressants are likely to make your anxiety/nervousness worse.
I would suggest that you try upping your effexor dose. I found that effexor worked well but only at doses of 300+ mg daily.
If you still don't find that a higher dose helps, I suggest trying another SSRI, perhaps a more 'stimulating' SSRI like zoloft or prozac before trying wellbutrin.
Just my 2 cents.
~fairnymph
Posted by fairnymph on July 26, 2002, at 18:14:11
In reply to Re: Experimenting ... - To velaguff, posted by MrRatt on July 26, 2002, at 16:56:59
If you've done meth then ritalin will be a tremendous disappointment. I find it is very weak and only gives me a headache...no rush no euphoria no stimulation...worthless IMO.
If you are going to do drugs, you are much better off spending your money on more worthwhile substances (such as meth).
Posted by oracle on July 26, 2002, at 18:36:15
In reply to Re: Experimenting with recreational drugs ..., posted by fairnymph on July 26, 2002, at 18:11:41
> Oh, and meth is NOT that much stronger than say, dexedrine. Yeah it's more euphoric but still...the addition of that methyl group does not change the drug THAT dramatically.
Not really, it is stronger dose for dose than
d-amphetamine and much longer acting.
Posted by velaguff on July 26, 2002, at 19:58:30
In reply to Re: Experimenting ... - To velaguff, posted by MrRatt on July 26, 2002, at 16:56:59
Yes. My MD agreed to allow me to try it about a year ago, but only at 5mg twice daily. He refused to up the dose. As an instantaneuosly acting drug, since I had a month's supply (300mg in all), when I figured out after the first couple of days that 5 mg X 2 was stupidly inadequate, I spent the next couple of days snorting the rest. What's the harm, just something I have to hand. Rit doesn't produce the same euphoria that other "speeds" do, but, when you want to focus on something, I at least found greater powers of concentration. There's considerable mood elevation, just don't expect a "meth" rush. By the way, I'm 44 years old, and was diagnosed with ADD in 1965. In those days, it was a rare diagnosis. I still feel I have "adult" ADD today, but, at his point, I feel it's more a side effect of depression than anything else. To a certain extent, one can outgrow it, people's experience seems to suggest....but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be treated, maybe just that treatment won't necessarily be needed on a lifetime permanent basis. My depresssion is lifetime, and permanent, and, as yet, remains untreated. Thankfully, I'm smart enough to get through life, in a marginal way, essentially, as a cripple (but a mind is a terrible thing to waste). Some people in my situation end up on the street. They may not have my intellect, but morally, that doesn't make them any less deserving of happiness, or effective treatment.
> My friend got a large prescription for Ritalin filled that she has offered to let me try. I've snorted it before at a party and liked the effects. Have you tried it?
Posted by Terri C. on July 27, 2002, at 11:38:21
In reply to Experimenting with recreational drugs ..., posted by MrRatt on July 26, 2002, at 14:40:52
I had a terrible experience on Effexor and did some research about this medication after suffering some serious side effects. At that time, about a year ago, the web page for Effexor listed one of the side effects as drug and alcohol abuse. Just an FYI.
Posted by Terri C. on July 27, 2002, at 11:55:13
In reply to Re: Ritalin, posted by fairnymph on July 26, 2002, at 18:14:11
> If you've done meth then ritalin will be a tremendous disappointment. I find it is very weak and only gives me a headache...no rush no euphoria no stimulation...worthless IMO.
>
> If you are going to do drugs, you are much better off spending your money on more worthwhile substances (such as meth).If you follow the above-noted suggestion, you're bound to eventually experience drug addiction.
>> better off spending your money on more worthwhile substances (such as meth).>>
I'd challenge the writer to define "worthwhile substances." Meth is made by drug dealers who have only one goal...to make a drug as inexpensively as they can and to sell that drug for as much money as they can. As an ex meth addict, I've had meth so good that all I wanted was more, more, more...and meth so bad that my head pounded with pain during every unrelenting hour of being awake. In recovery now for 13 years, I look back and wonder how I lived through it all. I certainly won't advocate to anyone that meth is a "worthwhile substance." Realistically, who really knows but the drug cookers, and can we really trust their testimony?
Posted by colin wallace on July 27, 2002, at 15:05:49
In reply to Re: Ritalin, posted by Terri C. on July 27, 2002, at 11:55:13
I was pretty amazed to discover that effexor, when combined with alcohol, felt VERY similar to ecstasy (without the initial, overwheming rush).Others have reported this too, as I recall. If I drank a beer or two whilst on effexor, and any dance-type music was being played, I'd hardly be able to keep still, and would dance for hours(not that I've indulged in recreational drugs often- too destabilizing for me!)Otherwise though, effexor made me feel pretty rotten.
Perhaps the manufacturers could extend the patent by marketing it as a 'safe' recreational dance drug?? Just add beer.
Posted by oracle on July 27, 2002, at 17:03:44
In reply to Re: Experimenting with recreational drugs ..., posted by Terri C. on July 27, 2002, at 11:38:21
> I had a terrible experience on Effexor and did some research about this medication after suffering some serious side effects. At that time, about a year ago, the web page for Effexor listed one of the side effects as drug and alcohol abuse. Just an FYI.
As you expressed this it is "junk science" That
1 or 2 persons, while in an Effexor study of 1,000's, abused drugs does not show a relationship between the 2. But it does get reported, just as the "side effects", some very significant, that the folks in the study report while on sugar pills.Effexor, as with most AD's , block MDMA (and analogs) and junk science have turned this into
"Effexor is just like X".
Posted by tim mayo on July 27, 2002, at 21:59:12
In reply to Re: Experimenting with recreational drugs ..., posted by oracle on July 27, 2002, at 17:03:44
not sure where to start here to throw in my two cents on this. my only real qualifications on this subject are these: a deadhead who understand experimenting with rec. drugs,a recovering alcoholic who no longer experiments with anything recreational and one who was recently placed on adderal. im not sure i ever experimented with anything to medicate myself that i knew of. i know now that was what i was doing, trying to medicate myself. today i know to leave it to someone who really does or at least know how to do it, like a doctor. it just seems to me that if i was poking around into something like meth because it helped me more than adderall than chances are im just using it as an excuse to over medicate myself. i would have to ask myself am i trying to feel 'normal' or not feel at all? just as people tell me we all suffer from some add i feel thats true for depression but i have to find the point for me that is toleable not using rec drugs.
tim
Posted by Jackd on July 29, 2002, at 0:03:20
In reply to Experimenting with recreational drugs ..., posted by MrRatt on July 26, 2002, at 14:40:52
You seem like a bright guy. Don't get into Crystal Meth. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the list of most addictive substances known to man goes like this: 1.Nicotine 2.Methamphetamine 3.Crack.... You get the idea.
And don't give me bullshit about not having an "addictive personality". It's always the shy nervous ones who find a quick fix for their problems who become raging alcoholics or benzyl alcoholics.
Meth gives you a high so amazing that nothing in real life can compare. I mean, it feels better than that first kiss, that first roller coaster ride, that first time at the stadium. Really it does. How can anything else compare to a powder that can give you all that instantly?
I'm not saying don't use it, or that it's going to do damage from a few times, but I can't tell you how many seemingly normal, whitebread straight edge kids I've seen flicking needles a week after doing meth. But don't take my word for it.
Don't use your experience on meth as a guideline to how you want to feel or what medicine you want to be on. EVERYONE feels how you did on meth. If you want to be dead or in jail quick, or get a random assortment of movement disorders then become a hedonist.
I would stick with the SSRI's and maybe add a stimulant like ritalin or something. Just don't be a pussy and take the easy way out, be a man. Trust me you'd probably never know but I was painfully shy too, and I couldn't even imagine how I'd be now. Hang in there.
Posted by fairnymph on July 29, 2002, at 20:37:40
In reply to Re: Experimenting with recreational drugs ..., posted by Jackd on July 29, 2002, at 0:03:20
> You seem like a bright guy. Don't get into Crystal Meth. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the list of most addictive substances known to man goes like this: 1.Nicotine 2.Methamphetamine 3.Crack.... You get the idea.
You are wrong. Opiates are more addictive that amphetamines. Stimulants can be very psychologically addictive but their physical addiction potential is low. Cocaine/crack is not at all physically addictive, btw.
Alcohol is more physically addictive than meth and kills more people....do you ever drink?
>
> And don't give me bullshit about not having an "addictive personality". It's always the shy nervous ones who find a quick fix for their problems who become raging alcoholics or benzyl alcoholics.I'm not the shy nervous type so I can't comment. Regardless, I doubt it's possible to generalize so broadly...
> Meth gives you a high so amazing that nothing in real life can compare. I mean, it feels better than that first kiss, that first roller coaster ride, that first time at the stadium. Really it does. How can anything else compare to a powder that can give you all that instantly?
You are wildly exaggerating. MDMA may compare a bit to a first kiss...but that's where the drug/real life comparisons stop. Yeah, meth is great fucking high...but it's not the best thing ever. And if you think it is, you haven't experienced life fully.
>
> I'm not saying don't use it, or that it's going to do damage from a few times, but I can't tell you how many seemingly normal, whitebread straight edge kids I've seen flicking needles a week after doing meth. But don't take my word for it.A WEEK? For chrissake, take your goddamn propaganda elsewhere. You remind me of the DARE cop who told me that he saw a some guy on 'angel dust' (ie pcp) "take his eyeballs out with his own hands". Scare tactics are lame.
>
> Don't use your experience on meth as a guideline to how you want to feel or what medicine you want to be on. EVERYONE feels how you did on meth.This part at least is true. You can't be on meth all the time and nor should you be...you need to know how to deal with life in other ways.
> If you want to be dead or in jail quick, or get a >random assortment of movement disorders >then become a hedonist.Guess what, not EVERYONE who does drugs goes to jail or dies or develops parkinsons...in fact most people don't! So stop spewing out this kind of nonsense..
> I would stick with the SSRI's and maybe add a stimulant like ritalin or something. Just don't be a pussy and take the easy way out, be a man. Trust me you'd probably never know but I was painfully shy too, and I couldn't even imagine how I'd be now. Hang in there.
This advice is alright...though I still despise ritalin. I don't think he is a 'pussy' though for being shy.
Posted by Terri C. on July 30, 2002, at 22:37:44
In reply to Re: Experimenting with recreational drugs ..., posted by oracle on July 27, 2002, at 17:03:44
This was the Effexor manufacturer's "junk science" and was rated as "frequent" and not "rare," which would support that more than one or two people were reporting this experience. Regardless, it was posted in the Effexor manufactuer's website and was confirmed and documented as valid information regarding the medication.
Not a 'dis' on Effexor, just an attempt to share authentic information.
Posted by BekkaH on July 30, 2002, at 23:08:50
In reply to Experimenting with recreational drugs ..., posted by MrRatt on July 26, 2002, at 14:40:52
I hate taking drugs of any kind, but right now I need them for my depression and cognitive problems. I hope I can do without drugs someday, but I don't know whether that's possible. I can understand how college-aged kids might want to experiment with recreational drugs once or twice, but after all the years I've spent on medicines for my depression, I have a really hard time understanding how anyone would want to take drugs on a regular basis if they don't absolutely have to take them.
Posted by Jackd on July 30, 2002, at 23:19:26
In reply to Re: Experimenting with recreational drugs ... » Jackd, posted by fairnymph on July 29, 2002, at 20:37:40
Hmmm... though your post deems little dignity for response, I will attempt to educate you.
> You are wrong. Opiates are more addictive that amphetamines. Stimulants can be very psychologically addictive but their physical addiction potential is low. Cocaine/crack is not at all physically addictive, btw.When I say addictive, I mean addictive psychologically/physiologically. They kind of go hand in hand. And btw, I didn't just pull that out of my ass, empiracally that really is the list of most addictive substance for humans.
> Alcohol is more physically addictive than meth and kills more people....do you ever drink?Physically, yes, but all things considered it is not nearly as addictive. And I drink quite heavily and am able to stop for months. Meth heads who I have been close friends with keep doing it compulsively until, as I said, they die or go to jail. Again, I have witnessed it, I'm not telling stupid urban legends or myths like "I knew a guy who knew a guy.... etc". If their is no trust between us than why even bother debating?
> I'm not the shy nervous type so I can't comment. Regardless, I doubt it's possible to generalize so broadly...
Isn't that how people relate and live their lives? Generalizing? If I really need to explain that you need to open your eyes. Oh yeh, and I was being sarcastic...
> You are wildly exaggerating. MDMA may compare a bit to a first kiss...but that's where the drug/real life comparisons stop. Yeah, meth is great fucking high...but it's not the best thing ever. And if you think it is, you haven't experienced life fully.It's all relative, and besides, I was exaggering to make a point.
> A WEEK? For chrissake, take your goddamn propaganda elsewhere. You remind me of the DARE cop who told me that he saw a some guy on 'angel dust' (ie pcp) "take his eyeballs out with his own hands". Scare tactics are lame.
Propaganda? You sound like the over-typified cynical rebellious narrowminded youths so humorously stereotyped in films. Again, this was actual first hand experience, take it or leave it. I mean, honestly, if that had been your experience, wouldn't you want to share it with other would-be meth users as incredulous as it would sound?
> This part at least is true. You can't be on meth all the time and nor should you be...you need to know how to deal with life in other ways.
I sense bias and hostility throughout your reply, whereas I was simply sharing information and words of caution as a benevolent more experience individual. I have dabbled with all sorts of drugs, from the tame to the mind blowing, and seen both worlds, where as you obviously seem stuck or inclined to lean in just one.All I have to say is, have you honestly ever met a casual meth user? Do you know what drug is sweeping small towns in the country leaving ashes of murder, theft and voilence? Don't believe me? Read some statistics. Do some homework before naively huffing and puffing with your infantile assumptions and misconceptions.
> Guess what, not EVERYONE who does drugs goes to jail or dies or develops parkinsons...in fact most people don't! So stop spewing out this kind of nonsense..
I didn't say everyone, I was making a point. Do you know how to properly try to persuade or write persuasively? I don't mean misleading. From my personal experiences, my friends' experiences and friends of friends' experiences, and news articles and stories and statistics, I have come to these conclusions. What do you know? Really. You think I'm going to come out here to scare people? Have you ever been to NA meetings in San Diego, LA, small towns in AZ or TN? You are so naive.
You haven't even experienced enough to make anything close to an opinion, so why object mine? That's just plain ignorance, and it's almost laughable if it wasn't so dispicable.
> This advice is alright...though I still despise ritalin. I don't think he is a 'pussy' though for being shy.
Hahahahaha. When did I ask you if you liked ritalin...? Are you somehow twisting this thread into relating to you or directed toward you somehow? Does the universe revolve around you?
I NEVER said he was a pussy for being shy. Jumping to conclusions and putting words in my mouth again. I simply said "Don't be a pussy and take the easy way out". How you would interpret that as you did is beyond me and speaks volumes about your intellect and emotional intelligence.
Stick to watching MTV and vehemently hating government restrictions without knowing why. Or better yet, read some books, meet some more people, and figure out that there's more out there than your little world.
Posted by oracle on July 30, 2002, at 23:39:36
In reply to Re: Experimenting with recreational drugs ... » oracle, posted by Terri C. on July 30, 2002, at 22:37:44
> This was the Effexor manufacturer's "junk science" and was rated as "frequent" and not "rare," which would support that more than one or two people were reporting this experience. Regardless, it was posted in the Effexor manufactuer's website and was confirmed and documented as valid information regarding the medication.
>
> Not a 'dis' on Effexor, just an attempt to share authentic information.
>
>I do not find this in the monograph so it remains misquoted junk science. What "effexor site" are you talking about ?
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 31, 2002, at 8:07:03
In reply to Re: Experimenting with recreational drugs ..., posted by Jackd on July 30, 2002, at 23:19:26
> Yeah, meth is great fucking high...but it's not the best thing ever. And if you think it is, you haven't experienced life fully.
> take your goddamn propaganda elsewhere.
> stop spewing out this kind of nonsense
>
> fairnymphYour opinions may differ, but please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down or use language that could offend others:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
----
> your post deems little dignity for response
> And btw, I didn't just pull that out of my ass
> You sound like the over-typified cynical rebellious narrowminded youths so humorously stereotyped in films.
> I sense bias and hostility throughout your reply
> Do some homework before naively huffing and puffing with your infantile assumptions and misconceptions.
> Do you know how to properly try to persuade or write persuasively?... What do you know? Really.... You are so naive.
> You haven't even experienced enough to make anything close to an opinion, so why object mine? That's just plain ignorance, and it's almost laughable if it wasn't so dispicable.
> Are you somehow twisting this thread into relating to you or directed toward you somehow? Does the universe revolve around you?
> Stick to watching MTV and vehemently hating government restrictions without knowing why. Or better yet... figure out that there's more out there than your little world.
See above.
> I was being sarcastic
> I was exaggering to make a point.
And please don't be sarcastic or exaggerate, either.
Bob
PS: Follow-ups regarding posting policies, and complaints about posts, should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration; otherwise, they may be deleted.
Posted by fairnymph on July 31, 2002, at 15:36:57
In reply to Re: Experimenting with recreational drugs ..., posted by Jackd on July 30, 2002, at 23:19:26
You and Dr.Bob are right; I did weaken my argument through my lack of self-control. Unfortunately, I go a little crazy when I encounter people like you. And while that is unacceptable, it will not happen again. Anyway...
You said: "but I think the list of most addictive substances known to man goes like this: 1.Nicotine 2.Methamphetamine 3.Crack...." and "And btw, I didn't just pull that out of my ass, empiracally that really is the list of most addictive substance for humans."
Care to provide a source for the latter comment? According to the Merck Manual ( http://www.merck.com/pubs/mmanual/tables/195tb1.htm ), opiates are more addictive (physically AND psychologically) than both cocaine and methamphetamine. So what should Mr. Ratt believe...your anecdotal opinion or the Merck? I'm guessing he'll go with the latter.
> Alcohol is more physically addictive than meth and kills more people....do you ever drink?
>"Physically, yes, but all things considered it is not nearly as addictive. And I drink quite heavily and am able to stop for months. Meth heads who I have been close friends with keep doing it compulsively until, as I said, they die or go to jail. Again, I have witnessed it, I'm not telling stupid urban legends or myths like "I knew a guy who knew a guy.... etc"."
Again, how are you authorized to say that "all things considered [alcohol] is not nearly as addictive”? You simply cannot say such things unless you are willing to back them up with legitimate evidence. Again, I refer you to the Merck table that I gave you the link to earlier in this post. Alcohol is considered JUST AS psychologically addictive as meth and not nearly as physically addictive. So, 'all things considered’, ALCOHOL is more addictive.
I know at least 10 people (personally!), in addition to myself, who have used meth heavily (although my use has never been quite 'heavy', I have used it regularly for weeks at a time) for periods of time and have been able to cease and move on with their lives. Furthermore, I know HUNDREDS (and I am not exaggerating -- you get to know a lot of drug users in a job like mine) of people who have used meth recreationally and have never become addictive or ruined their lives as a result. Just as you were able to move on after drinking heavily. On the other hand, I know at least 10 people who have ruined their lives through alcohol abuse.
You say you have witnessed it; well, so have I. Furthermore, alcohol kills more people every year than meth does. Alcohol is KNOWN to be toxic to various parts of the body. Unless you never drink, smoke, or engage in any form of recreational drug use (whether legal or otherwise), if you speak as you do you are being extremely hypocritical. And to THAT I take extreme offense.
>Oh yeh, and I was being sarcastic...
I would expect you to realize that it is not always easy to detect sarcasm online. Therefore, it is far wiser to argue lucidly and say exactly what you mean and nothing more or less.
>It's all relative, and besides, I was exaggering to make a point.
This ties in to what I just said above. Exaggeration 'to make a point' (or for any other reason) is unacceptable when it comes at the price of misinformation. As it is, there is already a wealth of drug misinformation and myth on the internet. I would appreciate if you could refrain from adding to it.
>You sound like the over-typified cynical rebellious narrowminded youths so humorously stereotyped in films.
I am neither cynical nor rebellious. On what grounds did you come to such erroneous conclusions?
And regarding your comment that "meth users start flicking needles after a week"...I simply cannot believe such a thing. Even the craziest drug users I have known have not progressed so quickly. It just doesn't work like that. Wild exaggerations of this sort always arouse tremendous suspicion.
>You can't be on meth all the time and nor should you be...you need to know how to deal with life in other ways.
>"I sense bias and hostility throughout your reply, whereas I was simply sharing information and words of caution as a benevolent more experience individual. I have dabbled with all sorts of drugs, from the tame to the mind blowing, and seen both worlds, where as you obviously seem stuck or inclined to lean in just one. "
I was somewhat hostile towards you; but I firmly believe that I was not biased in my commentary. If you truly disagree, then please point out exactly what I said which brought you to this conclusion. I am truly curious as to how you could say that I am biased. What makes you think that I too haven't "seen both worlds"? I have used recreational drugs, yes, but I have never been addicted to any drug, and I have never had any drug use impact negatively on my life. I'm not saying that drugs are good, but they aren't evil either. I know many people who have had their lives negatively influenced by their drug use, but I also know many others like myself who have been able to use drugs in a semi-responsible and moderate manner.
>All I have to say is, have you honestly ever met a casual meth user?
I have met many casual meth users. Furthermore, seeing as you described the meth high as if you had experienced if firsthand, aren't YOU YOURSELF a 'casual meth user' who has "dabbled in drugs" to no great ill effect? Do you really think that you are the ONLY person who is capable of experimenting with recreational drugs and still living a happy and productive life?
> Do you know what drug is sweeping small towns in the country leaving ashes of murder, theft and voilence? Don't believe me? Read some statistics. Do some homework before naively huffing and puffing with your infantile assumptions and misconceptions.
Again, as I have stated, alcohol (and tobacco, while we are on the topic of 'socially acceptable recreational drugs') causes more far problems in the US than methamphetamine. Seeing as you failed to provide statistics (despite accusing me of providing false information), I will do so.
According to the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), a subsidiary of the government sponsored Center for Disease Control (CDC):
"In 1999 a total of 19,102 persons died of drug-induced causes, which includes not only deaths from dependent and nondependent use of drugs, but also poisoning from medically prescribed and other drugs. This does not include deaths from accidents, homicides, or other causes indirectly related to drug use.
A total of 19,171 persons died in 1999 from alcohol-induced causes, which includes dependent and nondependent use of alcohol and accidental poisoning from alcohol. This total excludes accidents, homicides, and other causes indirectly related to alcohol use. The total also excludes deaths from fetal alcohol syndrome."
You can view this information here: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/releases/01facts/99mortality.htm
Thus, alcohol caused MORE DEATHS than ALL OTHER DRUGS COMBINED! And the 'other' drugs category INCLUDES non-recreational, legal drugs!
According to the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN -- a subsidiary of the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, www.samhsa.gov) Annual Medical Examiner Data for 1999, there were 690 mentions of methamphetamine/speed in drug related deaths in 1991 in the US. Of those, only 2.5% (1.725 -- which is LESS THAN TWO DEATHS!) resulted from methamphetamine use alone. 47.7% (329.13 total) of the deaths resulted from multiple drugs...i.e. combining methamphetamine with one or more other drugs. 30.6% (248.4 total) of the deaths resulted from 'drug and external physical event' (e.g. they got shot while they had meth in their systems, and the like).
My point, not even TWO people died directly as a result of methamphetamine use in 1999 in this country! THAT is why I object to your unsubstantiated, deceptive statements.
>Do you know how to properly try to persuade or write persuasively? I don't mean misleading. >From my personal experiences, my friends' experiences and friends of friends' experiences, and >news articles and stories and statistics, I have come to these conclusions.
It appears that I just contradicted your supposedly statistic-based 'conclusions'.
>What do you know? >Really. You think I'm going to come out here to scare people? Have you >ever been to NA meetings in San Diego, LA, small towns in AZ or TN? You are so naive.
I don't presume to know everything, but I do my best to provide accurate information, as I have done here. I haven't been to NA meetings but by no means does that make my comments any less valuable or applicable. You say I am naïve -- based on what conclusions? You don't know my age, my background, or any of that. Again, an unsubstantiated statement.
>You haven't even experienced enough to make anything close to an opinion, so why object mine? That's just plain ignorance, and it's almost laughable if it wasn't so dispicable.
Apparently I have 'experienced enough' to have learned proper grammar. Last time I checked, the verb ' to object', when taking a direct object, uses the preposition 'to'. As in, 'so why object TO [my opinion]'. 'dispicable' isn't actually a word, btw...perhaps you meant 'despicable'? Furthermore, you seem to have forgotten the use of the subjective tense (like many Americans). It is incorrect to say: 'it's almost laughable if it wasn't so dispicable'. The correct phrasing is: ' it WOULD BE laughable if it WERE NOT so despicable'.
>I NEVER said he was a pussy for being shy. Jumping to conclusions and putting words in my >mouth again. I simply said "Don't be a pussy and take the easy way out".
If you didn't mean for others to interpret your statement as I did, then you should have stated it more clearly. I do not believe I was being farfetched in my interpretation.
>Stick to watching MTV and vehemently hating government restrictions without knowing why. Or >better yet, read some books, meet some more people, and figure out that there's more out there >than your little world.
I don't own a television, or ever watch any, let alone MTV. I was fortunate enough to grow up without television. Instead I read books (at least we agree on something?).
When did I say I hated government restrictions, let alone say that I hated them 'vehemently'? And you said I put words into YOUR mouth...
I'm not going to dicksize with you, but chances are I am more well read and well traveled than you. I certainly haven't met many people who have had as many opportunities as I in these respects.
P.S.
A suggestion for you future posts here: spell-check your posts first, if you are going to be condescending in your commentary.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 31, 2002, at 19:10:55
In reply to Re: Experimenting with recreational drugs ... » Jackd, posted by fairnymph on July 31, 2002, at 15:36:57
> Unfortunately, I go a little crazy when I encounter people like you. And while that is unacceptable, it will not happen again.
Thanks for trying to exercise more restraint. It's always an option, of course, not to respond to them at all...
> According to the Merck Manual ( http://www.merck.com/pubs/mmanual/tables/195tb1.htm ), opiates are more addictive (physically AND psychologically) than both cocaine and methamphetamine.
Your many responses like the above are informative and contribute to the discussion...
> >You haven't even experienced enough to make anything close to an opinion, so why object mine? That's just plain ignorance, and it's almost laughable if it wasn't so dispicable.
>
> Apparently I have 'experienced enough' to have learned proper grammar. Last time I checked, the verb ' to object', when taking a direct object, uses the preposition 'to'. As in, 'so why object TO [my opinion]'. 'dispicable' isn't actually a word, btw...perhaps you meant 'despicable'? Furthermore, you seem to have forgotten the use of the subjective tense (like many Americans). It is incorrect to say: 'it's almost laughable if it wasn't so dispicable'. The correct phrasing is: ' it WOULD BE laughable if it WERE NOT so despicable'.But grammar isn't the focus here, and correcting someone else's may lead them to feel put down.
> chances are I am more well read and well traveled than you.
> if you are going to be condescending...
As may statements like the above...
Bob
Posted by Jackd on August 1, 2002, at 23:53:22
In reply to Re: Experimenting with recreational drugs ... » Jackd, posted by fairnymph on July 31, 2002, at 15:36:57
Dr.Bob is right, I'm going to waste everybody's time and patience on a few arguments based on etiquette and protocol. Here's my email address, in case you want to take this up "outside"... mind you, I take this all in good fun (really): [email protected] .
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.