The only thing that I consume daily and am addicted to is snark. Take dat! Take dat!

Yeah.

Espcially, coke because I'm allergic to it, so yeah, if someone made a synthetic version that I wouldn't be allergic to or addicted to, then yes, I would at least want to try it.

Same with X but not sure what mean by X, just molly or candy flippers? Either way, yes.

You don't need to get headaches or an uncomfortable side effect to be addicted to it. You feel as though you need coffee because it gives you a "high."

I rarely drink coffee (maybe once every 5 months) and when I do it's because I like the coffee flavor.

I have never smoked a cigarette but I puffed on a cigar a couple of times (puffed, meaning, puffed out but too paranoid to puff in or inhale...or whatever...LOL--still no fun).

You didn't read the original proposition properly. Go back, read it again, and THEN answer.

And I hate to break it to you, but your doc is full of shit. You're addicted.

It's not only the intestity of things that makes them illegal, sometimes it's where they come from. MDMA was outlawed because some people were having fun, and that pissed off people that didn't like them.

If you're going to do something daily, tea and a bottled water are better. ;)

Eh I'm not sure it shouldn't be illegal, but it probably doesn't need to be a Schedule I. It has been shown to have some therapeutic use and further tests are essentially impossible with current restrictions. Looks like the medical community put it in schedule III. Similar to cannabis.

Mmm chai tea. Caffeine, milk, sugar.... not sure it's so much better ;)

(Herbal tea is not nearly as fun)

While a Panera chai is a treat, I do well with the tea bags at home too, I'm sure that's just as good.

And no, I'm a black tea girl through and through. Irish breakfast is my favorite. Although I do have a cupboard full of other flavors they're almost all black tea and I drink most of them with milk since I learned to drink tea in Ireland. I've heard some hard core tea peeps think that this is the most heinous thing known to man, but ah well.

I've never used agave, honey or just a sugar cube or two works for me. Ah well, I'm an addict, I admit it.

Why should it (or anything) be illegal?
I have never understood the logic of people who say "such and such should be outlawed."

Seriously trying to understand other opinion, didn't mean that to come across like it did when I re-read it.

Well you can assume that drugs are banned simply because 'someone' doesn't like it, or you can do the research yourself. You might still disagree, but I think it's reasonable to restrict the use of drugs, particularly addictive ones. Should all prescription drugs be OTC?

See, I am of the mind that folks should be able to do what they please with their own bodies and lives as long as their choices do not infringe upon my right to make choices about how I live my life.

This is where the legality issue comes into play. Declaring something illegal undercuts the far reaching repercussions of someone choosing to become a drug addict (i.e. the attendant crimes that are frequently associated with drug use), implications that might infringe on others' rights to live as they choose. In that respect, I understand why something might need to be illegal, even though I feel that folks should be able to do what they want with themselves, their bodies, and their lives.

This. Although I do not agree with the current status of every substance on the list, I don't think we should make everything legal either.

Any faith I had in the government knowing what should be legal or illegal (which wasn't much to begin with) went down the toilet when the heroin use in the midsize city near my hometown went up. Do you know why it went up? Because people couldn't get a hold of Oxycontin - which is a perfectly legal drug. Digest that again - they couldn't get the legal drug, so they substituted the drug which is pretty much considered to be the Big Bad of illegal drugs.

The reasons that the drugs that are illegal, are illegal, are 99% political and have nothing to do with their effects or addictive properties as there are legal drugs that are equally as dangerous.

Pimping this show again, but it really shines a light on a lot of this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQlk01sxO_E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lrd5x...eature=related

Legal =/= acquirable at your local corner store though, I think some things should be restricted. And I don't think heroin's seen as the big bad evil, it's an opiate just like oxycontin. Were these people with pain problems or addictions, because if they were already addicted to an opiate, switching to the harder stuff doesn't shock me.

It's not like heroin has always been illegal either. It wasn't exactly of great social benefit then.

Are you me? I don't remember much coming off my nitrous high, but I distinctly remember asking me mother (as she ushered me into a wheelchair), "Do they sell this on the street?" :p I couldn't wait to come back for the second session.
iLaughed.

*raised hand* May I be part of the SSU? Pleeeeassse?? :o


To sum up this thread: "I inhaled. That was the point." :cool:

Yeah, well that doesn't answer the question at all does it?

And the only reason MDMA was outlawed is because people didn't like it. It has very small chance of addiction from all the research I've seen. And by itself has killed less people than alcohol, so I really don't see any other reason it's banned.

It was banned because people like to tell other people what to do.

And as to your question, yes probably. No prescription should be witheld from someone based on age, and the pharmacist should have the power to dispense whatever he please to whomever he or she deems fit.

Yeah, and then a ton of people die. Don't think so. Oh yes and we have superbugs due to abuse of antibiotics.

*shakes head* it's more complex than that.

And just because MDMA appears to be an overreaction due to its being a designer drug, doesn't mean the rest of it is bunk too.

A ton of people die how? Pharmacists know their paitents better and can therefore prevent bad interactions.

So, basically, you're reasoning is: "because I say so and it's more complex"?

yes, it's more complex then "someone didn't like it" If you disagree, provide more concrete objections. You assume that the pharmacist will automatically know all medications a person is taking, you assume a pharmacist will take the same level of care as a doctor? How is that any more free? And, I really don't want highly addictive substances so available, that's the matter of public interest that gets the government involved. Yes there are examples of overreactions, MDMA and Cannabis among them, but you don't want to return to opium dens either nor encourage high levels of addiction that results in negative social behaviors to get the next fix.

A high? But I'm still in my right frame of mind when do drink it. And I haven't had coffee in a few weeks, because I was using one of my 3 week vacations because of my rotations. I mean, I studied, but I went to bed when I felt sleepy. When I did drink it a lot, that was when I was doing my classroom work. I would think an addict drinks it almost daily, like someone who smokes cigarettes. I didn't drink it like that. I will be when it gets closer to my board exam, but right now, I don't stay up all night like I did during my 1st 2 years of school. Now, I have to perform surgeries, give anesthesia etc. It's hard to do that without any sleep. I mean, I don't even know why anyone would compare coffee to crack, or any of the other illegal drugs. Those drugs not only get you high, they make you do things that you normally wouldn't do, like kill, steal, hurt people, etc, just to get it. And smoking? Ewwww, that's just gross, to me.

lol
Yeah, but there's a lot of sugar and then there's your version of "a lot of sugar." You put sugar in your coffee like Seth Brundle did in the fly. That movie still makes me laugh, especially the bar scene and the candy bar.:p

An addict is an addict.

:o:D

No, the average drug addict (who would be a law abiding citizen if not for the illegal nature of drugs) does not kill, steal, hurt people, or commit crimes to support the habbit. That scare tactic was used to shape public opinion on drugs.

The average motivated offender (who is a lawbreaker beyond the illegal nature of drugs) who is also a drug addict (most are) does kill, steal, hurt people, or commit crimes to support the habbit. Moreover, offenders often take drugs or consume alcohol to further free themselves from a law abiding mindset before commiting a crime. This is what it means that drugs are a facilitating factor for crime.

BTW, a high = whatever utility the substance had for you.

I didn't look at it like that. That makes sense. It's just that I was thinking addict as in meaning someone who's "gotta have it." Ya know what I mean? I guess I was just thinking that if someone is doing coke or crack, at work, they really wouldn't be able to function and would look a mess, and their work would suffer. With coffee, people can drink it at work, function, and look normal. But, I never thought about the high as being the way you pointed it out to be. Makes sense.

"Intervention" has people thinking that addicts have to look and act a certain way to people who don't see them in intimate settings.

One of the points of addiction is the ability to hide it and suffer in silence. People can be alcoholics for years until it begins to impact their professional lives. Their home lives may have suffered for a long time. An example is bigtime corporate execs and politicians who are celebrated in the public eye--while their families know they use cocaine and drink alcohol everyday. Some call this "functional/recreational use," but I don't believe that anything that you "need" is "functional/recreational use."

DrPhil, thanks for posting this. This is really interesting and it's amazing how society can make people believe things that aren't necessarily true. Sad, but true. It's like whatever is socially acceptable is o.k.

I think the only reason it's referred to as "functional" is that people are still functioning in what society considers a socially acceptable manner - going to work, getting to appointments on time - rather than spending all day drunk in a bar or sitting in the living room doing coke.

I think the only reason it's referred to as "functional" is that people are still functioning in what society considers a socially acceptable manner - going to work, getting to appointments on time - rather than spending all day drunk in a bar or sitting in the living room doing coke.

ETA: I just peed my pants laughing at your signature.

Yeah, it's a clinical/recovery term, not something that's supposed to imply that the addiction is working for them or healthy.

Sure but if you called it something else they'd still buy in because that fits into their world view. Anything that supports the addiction.

Yes. Different language, same sentiment.

1) No, I'd still be nervous about my reactions to said drugs.

2) No; again, I'd be nervous about my reaction to said drugs (even under the conditions you described).

It also has people thinking that interventions are easy events which can be handled in a matter of minutes. They're not easy, and they're not always lead by professionals.

Plus, they're not always the best idea. (I say that as someone who has helped out in a friend's intervention)