Alpha Phi dies of alcohol poisioning at SDSU

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Yeah or I could go based on my class on substance abuse last semeseter.

But to humor you
http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/cocaine.html
States that it's extremely addictive, and dangerous no matter how frequent a user you are, but nothing suggesting there are no casual users.

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/cocaine/cocaine.shtml
Is just a list of links that may be useful, but not in this particular situation.

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/concern/cocaine.html
Same as the first one, it's addictive *shocking* and dangerous

And finally
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/cocaine.html
Addictive and dangerous

There's other information there, but not relating to this discussion, I don't need a link dump on cocaine to know that there are casual cocaine users. Next time you'd like to debate something don't just link dump please and thank you.

Your prior posting seemed to be rather close to minimizing usage.
And I could also go by my mothers life time job experience.

As for casual vs "hard-core"-does it in truth matter? The young lady is dead.
Others die as well.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by jon1856

Your prior posting seemed to be rather close to minimizing usage.
And I could also go by my mothers life time job experience.

As for casual vs "hard-core"-does it in truth matter? The young lady is dead.
Others die as well.

The statement was that there were no casual users of cocaine. This is false. Minimizing its use would be more like suggesting that hardly anyone is addicted, that it's no big deal, and here have some coke on me.

What's the benefit to pretending that everyone who uses coke is a complete addict? It doesn't raise awareness. If anything it makes people less likely to listen to what they consider alarmism.

I'm not stupid, cocaine is a serious drug. It's dangerous even for your first time, even in small doses, and particularly when mixed with alcohol. (This is of course what allof your links said as well) This is a discussion, saying "what does it matter" is pointless. If you think it doesn't matter, you're free not to participate.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by srmom

My brother died by getting into a car with a kid who had been drinking. He was 13 years old. It completely devastated my family! I have told my kids about the experience with the idea that they should know that bad things do happen when you least expect them to and that noone is immune. I hope that they have listened to me because it would kill me if anything happened to them.

There's a BIG difference between telling kids about someone they never knew (I'm assuming, unless you were really really really older than your brother) 20+ years after the fact, and shoving messages down their throats when they're devastated at the loss of a friend.

MC, if my child started a dialogue with me about drunk driving as a result of a friend's death in an accident or something - that would be fine. But if they wanted to NEVER discuss it (it being their friend's death) with me, that would be fine too. We can talk about drunk driving some other time. Their friend DIED. That's hard enough for them to deal with no matter how it happens. I don't understand why people think it's OK to use a teenager's or young adult's death by misadventure to "teach a lesson" to his peers. One of the women here was killed in a car accident several years ago. We certainly didn't have a company wide showing of a movie about why we should use our seatbelts. No one would have sat through something so insensitive.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by 33girl

I don't understand why people think it's OK to use a teenager's or young adult's death by misadventure to "teach a lesson" to his peers.

And I don't understand why you don't think a parent or teacher can initiate a respectful conversation with their kid or student when tragedy hits close to home. I also don't understand why you can't see that such respectful conversations can be had without being insenstive, without lecturing, without showing stupid movies, without hitting people over the head or shoving messages down their throats, and without dishonoring anyone's memory or anyone's feelings.

I guess we will just have to agree that we don't understand each other on this one and move on. But please, just because someone doesn't share your understanding doesn't make them "pathetic" or "revolting."

[srmom]

33girl, I completely agree with "not shoving it down their throats." after the death of a friend. As I said before, that would be totally insensitive. (and you're right in that my kids didn't know him)

But, in the case of the death of a friend, I might take the time to gently tell my child how much I love him and how hard it would be for me to lose him - under any circumstances - and to please be careful and use good judgement. I don't think that is "shoving it down their throat"

There has to be sensitivity in everything, but as we all know, that is not always the case. I can see how, out of fear, a parent might freak out and say something in the wrong way. Or how someone, out of a feeling of frustration and loss, might try to turn the death of a friend or relative into a crusade. Noone does everything perfectly and to everyone's satisfaction all the time, especially in parenting. We are all just doing the best we can and are learning along the way...

But, this is a completely different discussion

[33girl]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

And I don't understand why you don't think a parent or teacher can initiate a respectful conversation with their kid or student when tragedy hits close to home. I also don't understand why you can't see that such respectful conversations can be had without being insenstive, without lecturing, without showing stupid movies, without hitting people over the head or shoving messages down their throats, and without dishonoring anyone's memory or anyone's feelings.

I guess we will just have to agree that we don't understand each other on this one and move on. But please, just because someone doesn't share your understanding doesn't make them "pathetic" or "revolting."

Because I think it's disrespectful to anyone, be they 6 or 60, to interfere when they are trying to deal with a death, unless your assistance is requested. Everyone deals with it differently and it's a very individual thing, even if it's your child or spouse dealing with it. That's pretty much the sum of it. The important thing is that your child lost a friend, not how the friend was lost.

[OtterXO]

Originally Posted by jon1856

As for casual vs "hard-core"-does it in truth matter? The young lady is dead.
Others die as well.

Actually I think it does matter. Casual cocaine use is what I was referring to (pages back in this thread) when I said that it was very common in the San Diego party scene. Most people aren't doing coke on a day to day basis, nor are they what you would classify as addicts. They do it on the weekends with their friends after parties or after going to the bars. The problem with making everyone seem like an addict is that if Sally does coke of the weekends, it's really easy for her to distinguish herself from an addict. The dangers of casual use aren't publicized as well, certainly not in the universities. The only thing people say is "you shouldn't do that, you could become addicted!"....which isn't a really good argument for the casual user who uses is recreationally. There needs to be more information regarding the dangers of casual use.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by OtterXO

Actually I think it does matter. Casual cocaine use is what I was referring to (pages back in this thread) when I said that it was very common in the San Diego party scene. Most people aren't doing coke on a day to day basis, nor are they what you would classify as addicts. They do it on the weekends with their friends after parties or after going to the bars. The problem with making everyone seem like an addict is that if Sally does coke of the weekends, it's really easy for her to distinguish herself from an addict. The dangers of casual use aren't publicized as well, certainly not in the universities. The only thing people say is "you shouldn't do that, you could become addicted!"....which isn't a really good argument for the casual user who uses is recreationally. There needs to be more information regarding the dangers of casual use.

Exactly. If you throw out the ADDICTION scare tactice all the time you don't reach the people who know they aren't addicted. Catching them when they're casual users with the potential to quit instead of waiting until some of them become addicts (because some will) is better for everyone involved.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Because I think it's disrespectful to anyone, be they 6 or 60, to interfere when they are trying to deal with a death, unless your assistance is requested. Everyone deals with it differently and it's a very individual thing, even if it's your child or spouse dealing with it. That's pretty much the sum of it. The important thing is that your child lost a friend, not how the friend was lost.

When it comes to one's children, what you call "intefering" I think I would call "parenting." Ah well, you say potato . . . .

Like I said, we're going to have to agree to disagree here, because it doesn't seem that I am persuading you, and I can assure you that you're not persuading pathetic and revolting me.

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

When it comes to one's children, what you call "intefering" I think I would call "parenting.")

I agree -- and we've been through it with our kids -- including friend's OD's, fatal traffic accidents while under the influence, suicides and other tragedies.

If a parent doesn't offer some guidance, they're taken to task for being bad parents.

There's no winning here.

It's interesting now that our "problem child" who "experimented with 'casual'" drugs and finally realized whe was killing herself and went through a thankfully successful rehab looks back now and says, "Dad, most of what you and mom told me turned out to be true, even thought I didn't believe it at the time."

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

The statement was that there were no casual users of cocaine. This is false. Minimizing its use would be more like suggesting that hardly anyone is addicted, that it's no big deal, and here have some coke on me.

What's the benefit to pretending that everyone who uses coke is a complete addict? It doesn't raise awareness. If anything it makes people less likely to listen to what they consider alarmist.

I'm not stupid, cocaine is a serious drug. It's dangerous even for your first time, even in small doses, and particularly when mixed with alcohol. (This is of course what all of your links said as well) This is a discussion, saying "what does it matter" is pointless. If you think it doesn't matter, you're free not to participate.

I am heartened to see that we, for the most part agree.
However "Regardless of how cocaine is used or how frequently, a user can experience acute cardiovascular or cerebrovascular emergencies, such as a heart attack or stroke, which could result in sudden death. Cocaine-related deaths are often a result of cardiac arrest or seizure followed by respiratory arrest." sort of prevents much of a difference between casual and "hard-core" users. And I do not see the point here or any where else on GC to start conversation on just what is a casual user of a drug and where, when and how one becomes an addict.

And in the case of this young lady, in the end does it really matter?

And I for one do not see much use for this as a "study aid". That, in truth, sound like an excuse an addict would use. Any kind of addict.

And since you did not ask, my mother is a clinical psychiatric Social Worker who started and ran a suicide prevention/crisis intervention service. You do not want to hear the life stories I have heard. I am sure it is much more in depth than your class. This is just MHO and I could be wrong.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by jon1856

I am heartened to see that we, for the most part agree.
However "Regardless of how cocaine is used or how frequently, a user can experience acute cardiovascular or cerebrovascular emergencies, such as a heart attack or stroke, which could result in sudden death. Cocaine-related deaths are often a result of cardiac arrest or seizure followed by respiratory arrest." sort of prevents much of a difference between casual and "hard-core" users. And I do not see the point here or any where else on GC to start conversation on just what is a casual user of a drug and where, when and how one becomes an addict.

And in the case of this young lady, in the end does it really matter?

And I for one do not see much use for this as a "study aid". That, in truth, sound like an excuse an addict would use. Any kind of addict.

And since you did not ask, my mother is a clinical psychiatric Social Worker who started and ran a suicide prevention/crisis intervention service. You do not want to hear the life stories I have heard. I am sure it is much more in depth than your class. This is just MHO and I could be wrong.

I'm not sure why you keep quoting the same bit of it. There are big differences between casual users and addicts. BIG ones. And sometimes those dangers listed are much like the side effects on a bottle of medicine. They don't effect everyone equally.

Yeah, an addict could claim to use it as a study aid, or students could use its stimulant effects the same way they use Ritalin's. Party use surely vastly outweighs this use, but it IS used for marathon study sessions.



And you're right, I don't care what your mom does because all of her stories are anecdotal. Heartbreaking, surely, but not of any use when trying to show someone up in a conversation. Neither were your links for that matter.

Stop trying to re-educate me. I corrected someone and you felt the need to try and correct me. You have failed to do so because you are wrong. And now you're now trying to say "it doesn't matter, it didn't help this girl." If it didn't matter you wouldn't have tried to say anything about it in the first place.

This is indeed a tragedy, but if we are going to talk about risk management at all, it needs to be in a way that addresses the members' issues, not as another poster suggested, in kicking out troublesome members just to save your chapter's skin.

The terminology is important because it affects your outreach.
Denying that there are casual cocaine (and other hard drug) users inhibits your ability to educate. It's like denying that people can have sex without getting an STD or pregnant. It's not true, and when kids find that out they don't believe anything you said, even the valid points. Why have anti-drug ads done so poorly historically? Because they claimed that pot=ADDICTION AND DEATH. When teens discovered this wasn't true, they weren't afraid of it at all.
Acknowledging casual drug use is not going to encourage kids/teens/etc to use drugs, nor does it minimize the REAL effects of a drug. It just doesn't lie to them.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

I'm not sure why you keep quoting the same bit of it. There are big differences between casual users and addicts. BIG ones. And sometimes those dangers listed are much like the side effects on a bottle of medicine. They don't effect everyone equally.

Yeah, an addict could claim to use it as a study aid, or students could use its stimulant effects the same way they use Ratline's. Party use surely vastly outweighs this use, but it IS used for marathon study sessions.

And you're right, I don't care what your mom does because all of her stories are anecdotal. Heartbreaking, surely, but not of any use when trying to show someone up in a conversation. Neither were your links for that matter.

Stop trying to re-educate me. I corrected someone and you felt the need to try and correct me. You have failed to do so because you are wrong. And now you're now trying to say "it doesn't matter, it didn't help this girl." If it didn't matter you wouldn't have tried to say anything about it in the first place.

This is indeed a tragedy, but if we are going to talk about risk management at all, it needs to be in a way that addresses the members' issues, not as another poster suggested, in kicking out troublesome members just to save your chapter's skin.

The terminology is important because it affects your outreach.
Denying that there are casual cocaine (and other hard drug) users inhibits your ability to educate. It's like denying that people can have sex without getting an STD or pregnant. It's not true, and when kids find that out they don't believe anything you said, even the valid points. Why have anti-drug ads done so poorly historically? Because they claimed that pot=ADDICTION AND DEATH. When teens discovered this wasn't true, they weren't afraid of it at all.
Acknowledging casual drug use is not going to encourage kids/teens/etc to use drugs, nor does it minimize the REAL effects of a drug. It just doesn't lie to them.

You still have your copy of The American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic Criteria from DSM-IV?
IMHO, I did not deny the difference between Cocaine Dependence and Cocaine Abuse. And if the perception is that I did, I am sorry
I just pointed out that the end can be the same.
And in truth, I would follow the advice of a professional over one who just took a class. And I did have a long conversation with Mom about this.

At this point, believe and do what you wish to.
There is very little you can say to change my POV on this matter.
Peace Out.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Exactly. If you throw out the ADDICTION scare tactics all the time you don't reach the people who know they aren't addicted. Catching them when they're casual users with the potential to quit instead of waiting until some of them become addicts (because some will) is better for everyone involved.

Very good point.
Another way of looking at it is Abuse VS Dependence.
Neither one, IMHO, is all to healthy.

[SoCalGirl]

Originally Posted by jon1856

Another way of looking at it is Abuse VS Dependence.

Casual users wouldn't consider their use to be abuse.