• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

OPIATES

PosTMOd

Well-Known TRIBEr
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by emiwee:
opiate use is not all harmful and it's not all harmless</font>
Just like anything in life then, right?

Truth be told, alcohol-- legal-- causes way more problems than all the other illegal drugs put together...

Oh, and another truth: in the Netherlands, where drug users aren't shit on, the addiction rates for heroin are 1/10th of those here in North America... hmmmm?

Selection bias is the first thing you should mention when talking about drug studies...
 

Quirkz

TRIBE Member
Let's consider street kid who starts using opiates, vs. crack, vs. alcohol.

I guarentee you the opiate using street kid has the best life expectancy and health.
 

DJAlchemy

TRIBE Promoter
I can't believe I'm saying this but: Jack it doon!

Really there is more anger in the above tones then necessary. I don't think anyone was trying to accuse or belittle anyone else, so lets try not to take each others words as personal attacks.

emiwee: I think that if you were to look at any recovering addict you would have the same disgusted opinion about the drugs they were taking. Obviously taking drugs legal or otherwise involves risks and the further you move up the drug ladder the greater risks you are taking. Legal drugs can actually be the most dangerous because many people seem to think that because they are legal they must be pretty much harmless. I think this is a big misconception and one of the reasons there are as many alcoholics as there are.

I wanted to try smoking opium (cause I like my doobage so much) but I think I'm through with putting any more forign substances in my body.

Peace & love. D
 

BassInMyFace

TRIBE Member
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by t-boy:
the wrd was for tonedeff

bassinmyface, just cuase you're a bumbum and took 25 gravols, doesn't mean ALL OTC drugs are the work of the devil


gravol is safe in the recommended dosage, and so are most other over the counter / prescription drugs (obviously some side effects, and some adverse reactions in small percentage of population)...

if you drink javex and die, does it mean that its the work of the devil too?

anyhoo...

gravol != good and gravol !=bad

its a tool, and your usage is the only thing that can be bad or good.. anyhoo you have a good weekend, and don't do any large doses of gravol, aight dude?
</font>
Easy tiger easy.
The devils work is a funny figure of speach. Perhaps I shouldnt have included all OTC drugs. And yes I agree that it was the usage that was the Devils Work.


This is somthing I did when I was like 17, so as for the name calling...LoL BumBum? I was just relating a OTC drug experience....
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

t-boy

TRIBE Member
hey that's why i said bumbum, not "you fucking idiot", because i wasn't trying to insult you.. jeez can't posts have some fake attitude anymore?


fuck i've done even more retarded things.. i'm not even going to mention them.
 

emiwee

TRIBE Member
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Quirkz:
Oh please. When nixon first came to power, the number of addicts multiplied by the amount of money the dea estimated they stole per day, worked out to something like 10 billion per year, at the time orders of magnitude more then all the theft in the country. </font>


i honestly don't understand what you mean by this point... i am not talking abou the US... nor am i referring to a time when Nixon was in power (you must remember, that was over a generation ago... a very different social context)... what you show in that paragraph is that drug use is a large monetary problem... so what? that's common knowledge.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Any study that draws primarly from street drug users is *obviously* severly flawed. </font>
how so? do street drug users have an agenda of study result destruction? if we are conducting a project on the behaviours of street drug users, we're not going to interview the Pope, now are we? street drug studies need to involve street drug users... without them, we would be making even more erroneous assumptions

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Addictions research seems to have people wiht problems falling all over them so they never seem to notice or want to notice how many functioning people are out there without problems.</font>
this is simply not true... addiction can be a problem... usage is not the problem... any first year psychology textbook will tell you this...

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Opiate addiction is not as bad as people tend to think. There are two problems with opiates and there addiction.</font>
uh, you mean "THEIR"?

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">One, if there is little left in your life but drugs then the need for them is all consuming, but on the otherhand, if drugs aren't priority #1, the withdrawal is nothing more then a flu, sometimes a bad annoying flu, but it's no harder to deal with. </font>
i'm assuming by this statement that you have A) been a very regular opiate user who underwent terrible withdrawal AND B) been someone who was a casual user and got the "flu" upon abstinence?
This simply doesn't make sense... you tell me later that i can't understand until i experience it... so i'm guessing you've experienced this?

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Two, you can't use them for a period, quit for a period, and start back at square one. There is cumulative tolerance and effects.. But the addiction is mostly physical, it's not hard to get your head around, not like someone on a crack binge.</font>
again... simple crap from a first year psychology text book... i understand tolerance... i never claimed that you start at "square one" after a period of abstinence... i don't even understand the relevance

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">emma, the truth is, until you actually experience something yourself you will not be able to fully understand it. It is important to keep that in mind. But hey, it's nto that big of deal, take some painkillers every day for a month, see what you are like, see what quitting is like. Until then, you're only guessing.
i never said that i was an expert... and since i'm never going to go out get hooked on opiates just to know how it feels, i guess i will never know (by your definition)... your suggestion seems to be that anyone who wishes to study opiate use must become an opiate user... that honestly doesn't make any sense... i'm sure that there are many experiences in this world that we can appreciate without engaging in them first-hand


and as a final note to you Quirkz... i have read some of your ideas on drug usage before... and you seem to be a proponent of usage in order to be in a position to comment upon drug use... i may have mentioned before that this is a dangerous proposition... just because you use doesn't mean you know... and just because you don't use doesn't mean you can't know at least something about the nature of drug addiction
 

emiwee

TRIBE Member
everyone on here seems to have some type of complex whereby they must always be right....
you keep refuting my points with information that i never even mention...

i never said that illicit drug use was worse than licit or legal drug use... i agree that alcohol use and abuse, as well as nicotine, are incredibly more damaging than illicit drug use...

i have conceded to the majority of the points that you people bring up... but for once can you not concede to some of the points i am making??
i am assuming that the majority of you are not involved in front-end empirical research with regards to illicit drug use... and, because i am, i am just trying to share a little bit of my experience...

i do recognize that empirical research studies are flawed... any competent researcher would admit this too... and yes, selection bias is an important point... many of these studies operate on a volunteer basis... and that in itself is problematic, because the only interface to provide information to solicit participants is through needle exchange and other social services... and there is inherently something special about those who seek help as compared to those who are quiet about their illicit drug use...

so please, you don't need to attack me... i am making my points just as you are making yours... and i have not come down on everything you have said

emma
 

BassInMyFace

TRIBE Member
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by t-boy:
hey that's why i said bumbum, not "you fucking idiot", because i wasn't trying to insult you.. jeez can't posts have some fake attitude anymore?


fuck i've done even more retarded things.. i'm not even going to mention them.
</font>
My apologies, I misinterpreted your fake attitude for actual attitude....my mistake!

Yeah Ive got some dumb things under my belt too...Heh heh.......

*note to self* bumbum = you big ol lovable dummy!

Peace
 

emiwee

TRIBE Member
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by PosTMOd:

Oh, and another truth: in the Netherlands, where drug users aren't shit on, the addiction rates for heroin are 1/10th of those here in North America... hmmmm?

</font>
the netherlands is a very different society than that of north america, so it is difficult to make the comparison... there are other factors at play than simply legislation of drugs
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories

Tonedeff

TRIBE Member
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by emiwee:
and i can definitely say that assuming opiates are the "safest" for your brain and body is a meaningless statement... they affect the individual in profound and irreversible ways, physically and mentally...</font>


It's not a meaningless statement, it's simple biochemistry. You can't muddle individual psychological consequences and their attendant physical consequences to refute something that has been demonstrated by hard science. Find me ANYTHING written by a doctor or a scientest that refutes the statement that opiates are not neurotoxic and only slightly toxic somatically and then you have a departure point for a discussion.

And I am not talking about someone who fixes every couple of hours with whatever is being sold as junk at the local cop shop, or about the potential for neurochemical changes with long term continued use of a drug that induces euphoria, changes in the brain's reward and anticipation systems, physical dependancy, etc. These are two different narratives: one has a readily established and referrable beginning and end written by medical science; the other is full of variables and plot twists that are specific to the characters involved.

Yes there are profound and sometimes irreversible psychological consequences to an opiate addiction, and yes, these psychological consequences can manifest themselves physically and neurochemically in a person for any number of different reasons, including lifestyle, diet, pre-existing or underlying physical and mental conditions, but this doesn't change the fact that opiates are not harmful as chemicals interacting with chemicals in your brain.

As for the empirical study you cited, I am not going to comment on it for reasons already mentioned...
 

t-boy

TRIBE Member
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by BassInMyFace:
*note to self* bumbum = you big ol lovable dummy!

Peace
</font>
alright, alright, c'mere ya big ol' lovable dummy and gimme a hug.

PLUR, you dumdum! Lol

ok i'm off to snort some chowdah
 

Quirkz

TRIBE Member
internet spelling in effect...

With the overwhelming presence of anti-drug propaganda, mis-information, and even valid information, keeping an objective context is very hard, and I just don't think you do it. I'm sure if you're immersed at the centre it's practically impossible.

Maybe I should say, any study that draws from street drug users and then tries to imply that conclusion is valid for everybody, or jsut even more stupidly, doesn't aknowledge that it is limited to whatever type of person decides to live that way on the street.

A common flaw when people think about drug use seems to be how they weight personality and personal factors. We've been programmed to think they are neligble considerations when a person decieds to throw their, *cough* I mean there, life away to drugs. It's so easy to want to find a scapegoat, and it's so easy to lay more on it then you really should.

Like that other thread about drunk driving. Why are there such light penalties for drunk driving? Because it's a social norm to think that you are much less responsible for things you do when you are fugged up. That's wrong, that's just an easy out, and it's why drugs are so demonized and considered a scouge by so many..

And yes, I am intentionaly pro-drug, but I wouldn't consider myself the "devil's advocate".

As for my drug use, that's personal, but I'm a profesional, I make good money, and I still do a lot of stupid things just for the fuck of it. And it's a lto of fun.

so their!
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
You fucking asshole.

Most of the people on this board are dumb enough to try playing with these. For christ sakes what the fuck are you thinkiong listing a god damn shopping list for morons who know no better.

You didn't even have enough class to mention any of there addictive properties. Shit next time I see you I'm going to bitch slap you PUBLICLY!!!!!
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

Tonedeff

TRIBE Member
and emiwee don't take anything I say as a personal attack, I enjoy your posts and you are obviously an intelligent person, but I reserve the right to disagree with you and state the reasons for my disagreement...

and can you do something about your username, just typing it made me cringe
 

emiwee

TRIBE Member
just because i'm bored on a friday night... i decided to take you up on your offer of finding medical evidence of toxicity of opiates... and i found some!

Pharmacological characterization of morphine-6-sulfate and codeine-6-sulfate.
AU: Author
Zuckerman A; Bolan E; de Paulis T; Schmidt D; Spector S; Pasternak GW


Immunotoxicological screening of morphine and methadone in an extended 28 day study in rats.
AU: Author
van der Laan JW; Krajnc EI; Krajnc-Franken MA; van Loveren H

Functional neurotoxicity of drugs of abuse.
AU: Author
Pulvirenti L

Methadone toxicity causing death in ten subjects starting on a methadone maintenance program.
AU: Author
Drummer OH; Opeskin K; Syrjanen M; Cordner SM

to save you some reading... the basic idea of these articles is that opiates are neurotoxic... specifically affecting the immune system

emma

(however... i do not like to rely on animal studies fully because they are not always transferable to humans... and i will admit that there were articles that stated opiates were minimally neurotoxic as well... just like any research... there's evidence for both sides)
 

emiwee

TRIBE Member
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Quirkz:

With the overwhelming presence of anti-drug propaganda, mis-information, and even valid information, keeping an objective context is very hard, and I just don't think you do it. I'm sure if you're immersed at the centre it's practically impossible.</font>


since when is a pro-drug use opinion objective? and i agree there is misinformation... just as there's misinformation about how "non-harmful" drug use is

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Maybe I should say, any study that draws from street drug users and then tries to imply that conclusion is valid for everybody, or jsut even more stupidly, doesn't aknowledge that it is limited to whatever type of person decides to live that way on the street.</font>
i never meant to imply that these results were applicable to everybody... they are applicable to the subjects of the study!

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">A common flaw when people think about drug use seems to be how they weight personality and personal factors. We've been programmed to think they are neligble considerations when a person decieds to throw their, *cough* I mean there, life away to drugs. It's so easy to want to find a scapegoat, and it's so easy to lay more on it then you really should.

Like that other thread about drunk driving. Why are there such light penalties for drunk driving? Because it's a social norm to think that you are much less responsible for things you do when you are fugged up. That's wrong, that's just an easy out, and it's why drugs are so demonized and considered a scouge by so many..

And yes, I am intentionaly pro-drug, but I wouldn't consider myself the "devil's advocate".

As for my drug use, that's personal, but I'm a profesional, I make good money, and I still do a lot of stupid things just for the fuck of it. And it's a lto of fun.

so their!
and just by some of your ideas and atrocious spelling... it leaves me wondering what kind of "professional" you are....

emma
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories

Tonedeff

TRIBE Member
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by emiwee:


to save you some reading... the basic idea of these articles is that opiates are neurotoxic... specifically affecting the immune system

</font>
okay, I have to go out into the real world now, so I will respond to this more completely later...but is there a online link for that study? what were the daily dosages per kg and how frequently were they administered? how do they extrapolate immunotoxicity to straight neurotoxicty?

and your username just reminds me of baby talk (emily-&gt;emiwee), a minor pet peeve of mine
 

PosTMOd

Well-Known TRIBEr
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by emiwee:
the basic idea of these articles is that opiates are neurotoxic... specifically affecting the immune system</font>
Ummm... neurotoxic... immune system? Hello?
 

emiwee

TRIBE Member
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tonedeff:
okay, I have to go out into the real world now, so I will respond to this more completely later...but is there a online link for that study? what were the daily dosages per kg and how frequently were they administered? how do they extrapolate immunotoxicity to straight neurotoxicty?

and your username just reminds me of baby talk (emily-&gt;emiwee), a minor pet peeve of mine
</font>
you'll have to check it out on MEDLINE... the abstracts are pretty extensive...

and sorry my username rubs you the wrong way... *wink*
 

Rosey

TRIBE Member
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by PosTMOd:
Ummm... neurotoxic... immune system? Hello?

</font>
yeah, that's what i was wondering too.

but i've been mean and grumpy enough for one day. and i don't know enough to hold my own in this arguement.

but please continue. i am enjoying this.

although ditto much has a point.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders
Top