Prescription Drugs

[Da_Funk]

I know what you're saying. I understand and agree that experience is generally important. But it only goes so far.

It has very little to do with taking drugs or not taking drugs. An experienced drug addict has significantly less to offer than an experienced drug counselor. Wouldn't you agree?

That’s why the inmates don’t run the institution. Their opinions are tainted by the fact that they’re on drugs/defending their habit. I’d rather have someone with experience treating addicts than someone who is an addict. What you’re saying is, if you want to get sober, go talk to the drunk homeless guy in front of 7-11, because he’s got the experience and he knows what’s up.

Not at all. You are taking this to the most extreme scenarios possible. This is what destroys all discussion on here.

What I'm saying is that when someonelike sebastian comes here and calls people such as myself, stred, wood, SOFI, edouble "fucking morons" for using drugs (despite that at least two of us have accomplished more in life than seb ever will), we have every right to tell him to shut the fuck up.

 

[Ristol]

What destroys these discussions is people (you and SOFI in this case) feeling the need to repeat themselves because they've been disagreed with.

I'm not taking the discussion to extremes at all. I'm following the logical course of your argument through to its end. Also, I'm making a joke about homeless drunks in front of 7-11.

Now I'm going to bow out of this conversation, no matter how much more redundant shit you and SOFI post.

 

[Sebastian]

It all started with Pittsey saying that someone who has never done drugs can not have an intelligent discussion on this subject. This OBVIOUSLY is a wrong statement to make. And Ristol did a pretty good job at explaining why it is wrong/illogical (better than i did).

Not at all. You are taking this to the most extreme scenarios possible. This is what destroys all discussion on here.

What I'm saying is that when someonelike sebastian comes here and calls people such as myself, stred, wood, SOFI, edouble "fucking morons" for using drugs (despite that at least two of us have accomplished more in life than seb ever will), we have every right to tell him to shut the fuck up.

Im curious (and amused at the same time) but what are you talking about?

I would never seriously call SOFI a "fucking moron" because hes a smart kid. And im not just talking about scoring high on an iq test or something. You on the other hand...

 

[Pittsey]

The problem with this discussion is that everyone takes this as extremes. My points were countered with "What about a counsellor who deals with this everyday, but might not have taken drugs?"

Yes. A counsellor would obviously have a lot of experience. Which I agreed with. But on average very few people are actually in this position. I was on about the general populous not the exceptions.

I also said that most counsellors would only see the extreme cases. Known as the cliche. This was countered with "A lot of people get sent just for smoking one joint by over zealous schools, colleges, parents and Police departments/

Again this isn't the norm. Especially in countries outside the bible belt of America.


I think people are getting so obsessed with being right and winning the argument that these points are being missed. Ristol has made some good points so have others. But everyone is trying to argue 2 extremes instead of meeting in the middle.

The average person who has never drunk or done drugs is going to understand very little. Getting your information from the media, or from films or even books is not going to give you well rounded knowledge. Yes, a counsellor will have this knowledge. That pretty much goes with out saying. If that makes my statement wrong. Well done. You defeated me in court. But you have also misunderstood my point. I wasn't actually talking about counsellors. You found the loophole in my statement. Next time I will add an exceptions list at the end of my posts for those rare silos that don't fit in with my very general statements.

So Sebastian is right. I OBVIOUSLY did make a wrong statement. But it's only in court and on forums that your "statements" are picked apart in this way. My statement was general. Related to the average person. Not superheros nor counsellors. The normal non-supercounsellor type person will lack that knowledge that the normal non-supercounsellor type drug user has.

I rest my case your honour.



Anyways. I hate to write this much on here. But I am hungover.

 

[Casey]

People who haven't done drugs can't talk about them. I mean, they can talk about them, but they have no basis for everything the say.

And to clarify, smoking weed (I don't care how much) does not count as doing drugs.

I find this interesting, what qualifies as "doing drugs" and therefore, according to you, having the understanding to talk about them with experience. Where do you draw the line? Addictive potential? Like, if I smoke weed, I can't have an opinion "with basis" for doing crack?

But if I do lines of coke and drop acid, would I then be able to talk with basis about heroin?

I get where you're coming from but it's not many people that have never touched a single drug and make blanket generalizations about all drugs. Would you say a meth addict can talk "with basis" regarding heroin even if they've never done it, simply because they have experience with hard drugs?

 

[Pittsey]

Well....

I now have 20 valiums. I feel prepared to get on a plane, again.

 

[Da_Funk]

It all started with Pittsey saying that someone who has never done drugs can not have an intelligent discussion on this subject. This OBVIOUSLY is a wrong statement to make. And Ristol did a pretty good job at explaining why it is wrong/illogical (better than i did)

And i disagree with this whole heartedly. Maybe Pittsey worded it wrong, regardless, his point is the same. See his post for further explanation.

Im curious (and amused at the same time) but what are you talking about?

I would never seriously call SOFI a "fucking moron" because hes a smart kid. And im not just talking about scoring high on an iq test or something. You on the other hand...

What makes me a moron then? Because I normally don't have enough time (the next two weeks are an exception) to get involved in length discussions on here and therefore I make fun of everything/don't take it seriously?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I come here purely for entertainment purposes.

I find this interesting, what qualifies as "doing drugs" and therefore, according to you, having the understanding to talk about them with experience. Where do you draw the line? Addictive potential? Like, if I smoke weed, I can't have an opinion "with basis" for doing crack??

It is my belief that you have to have done a drug to have an understanding of it. Anyone and everyone can have opinion on everything and anything (see this forum). In your example of smoking weed, I would say no, you don't have a basis for understanding crack. As one is a psychoactive and one is a stimulant (they're opposites). Obviously you'd be sacrificing a lot to try and understand a drug. Its like everything else in life man, you can read about it all you want but you have to experience it know it.

But if I do lines of coke and drop acid, would I then be able to talk with basis about heroin?

I get where you're coming from but it's not many people that have never touched a single drug and make blanket generalizations about all drugs. Would you say a meth addict can talk "with basis" regarding heroin even if they've never done it, simply because they have experience with hard drugs?

In your first example, no. Would you have a better understanding than someone who hasn't done coke or acid? Yes. Would you still be an ignoramous? Yes.

In your second example, I believe the meth addict can talk to the heroin addict about the horros of addiction, yes. But again, we are getting into extremes which I hesistate to talk about. I've never been an addict (or so i think) and therefore my opinions on addiction have no real value.

 

[Casey]

OK, gotcha. Fair enough.

 

[Ristol]

This has been a wonderfully mature discussion in which we've made our points and kept personal attacks to a minimum.

I'm proud of you all.

#relentlesspositivity

 

[Jokerman]

By the way, unless you've played Metal Gear Solid (to the end), you don't know what it is to be a Special Ops soldier and your opinions have no real value (even if you were a Navy Seal in Iraq). And that's that.

 

[Pittsey]

By the way, unless you've played Metal Gear Solid (to the end), you don't know what it is to be a Special Ops soldier and your opinions have no real value (even if you were a Navy Seal in Iraq). And that's that.

Your sarcasm aside. Surely your comment is in the pro-experience corner?

Because you'd only know what it's like to be a Special Ops Soldier by being in the Navy Seals. And no matter how often you played Metal Gear Solid, or completed it. You wouldn't know what it's like because you haven't experienced it.

Was that the point you were trying to make....?

 

[Sebastian]

What makes me a moron then? Because I normally don't have enough time (the next two weeks are an exception) to get involved in length discussions on here and therefore I make fun of everything/don't take it seriously?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I come here purely for entertainment purposes.

Just to give you three examples (the first two speak for themselves):

First one:

Know what is even more funny? When you haven't take any drugs or alcohol, and still have no education, a shitty income, and are still living with your parents at 25+

Second:

(despite that at least two of us have accomplished more in life than seb ever will),

Three:

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I come here purely for entertainment purposes.

Yeah, fine. I dont blame you for not spending more time on the board or writing long ass answers. Its still no excuse for spending the short time you are here with making dumb/ignorant/illogical posts and then excuse it with what ive quoted.

 

[Da_Funk]

Just to give you three examples (the first two speak for themselves):

First one:



Second:



Three:



Yeah, fine. I dont blame you for not spending more time on the board or writing long ass answers. Its still no excuse for spending the short time you are here with making dumb/ignorant/illogical posts and then excuse it with what ive quoted.

My posts contain nothing but truth. Fact.

 

[PuffnScruff]

I live in a place where Rx pills are abused widely and easy to get. I live right on the pill pipe line. I see the dangers of the drugs first hand in my job. They are very easy to get addicted too and you will be before you even know it.

I've talked to people at work that have given away vehicles, rings worth tens of thousands of dollars, and basically thrown their whole lives away because they got hooked on pills. Any it's not even the typical white trash people that you would expect. The biggest users of them here are upper middle class young people that comes from rich families with bright futures.

I've had xanax and lortabs prescribed to me before. They are great, but I found myself getting hooked quick. You really have to be careful with narcotic pills.

 

[S O F I]

^Lortab, I understand. I had that prescription for some injury. But Xanax? WTF PUFF?

 

[Tha_Wood]

im going to try performing a CWE with some codeine pills one of these days

 

[Mr Marz]

my name is pat and im an addict.. id have to say im the ny expert on this... some docs will doll out up to 720 30mg roxycodones (which is max allowable rapid release oxycodone) but you have to be a pain management doc to give out more than 120 pills. its hard to find a good pain management place thats willing to give out that much medicine. and those places can be expensive to get into if you dont have insurance- one place i heard was 750 for the first visit and 250 after that. i know florida is even crazier than up here. watch the oxycontin express on youtube.

 

[Da_Funk]

^I just watched it, thats really fucked up.

 

[Da_Funk]

I find this interesting, what qualifies as "doing drugs"

I don't consider weed a drug because of the following:

If you look at people who smoke weed everyday, in general, they are lazy under achievers but they can still function in life. Albeit they may not be as high functioning as they could be, nonetheless they still function in life. If you look at someone who develops a bad drinking problem, coke problem, heroin problem etc they can't function in life. it destroys everything around them.

 

[Shadows]

The white man says, lazy and underachieving is not functioning.