PDA

View Full Version : Kasich on drugs



Pages : [1] 2

Gypsy
12-24-2015, 12:48 AM
The quote:
13769

The reality
http://www.healthy.ohio.gov/~/media/HealthyOhio/ASSETS/Files/injury prevention/2014 Ohio Preliminary Overdose Report.pdf

2,482 deaths in '14. 2015 is going to end up having an even bigger death toll. More people in Ohio die from drug overdoses than in car accidents.

And he has the answers?

Mac-7
12-24-2015, 05:13 AM
The quote:
13769

The reality
http://www.healthy.ohio.gov/~/media/HealthyOhio/ASSETS/Files/injury prevention/2014 Ohio Preliminary Overdose Report.pdf

2,482 deaths in '14. 2015 is going to end up having an even bigger death toll. More people in Ohio die from drug overdoses than in car accidents.

And he has the answers?

Why do you expect the government to do for drug zombies what they failed to do for themselves?

these are screwed up people - mostly obama voters - who are acting irrationally because of the mind corroding drugs they put in their bodies.

but now having messed up their lives to the point of death the Freedom-From-Governmement Legalize Drugs crowd expect republicans to clean up the mess libs have made of themselves.

Its better to write those fools off and concentrate on saving young people who are not hooked on the drugs yet.

hanger4
12-24-2015, 08:22 AM
The quote:
13769

The reality
http://www.healthy.ohio.gov/~/media/HealthyOhio/ASSETS/Files/injury prevention/2014 Ohio Preliminary Overdose Report.pdf

2,482 deaths in '14. 2015 is going to end up having an even bigger death toll. More people in Ohio die from drug overdoses than in car accidents.

And he has the answers?
Perspective; ........ http://www.statista.com/statistics/246637/top-ten-leading-states-concerning-death-rate-of-drug-overdose-in-the-us/ ....... BTW Gypsy are you insinuating that this is somehow Kasich's fault ?? or just throwing crap to see what sticks ??

Common
12-24-2015, 08:36 AM
The quote:
13769

The reality
http://www.healthy.ohio.gov/~/media/HealthyOhio/ASSETS/Files/injury prevention/2014 Ohio Preliminary Overdose Report.pdf

2,482 deaths in '14. 2015 is going to end up having an even bigger death toll. More people in Ohio die from drug overdoses than in car accidents.

And he has the answers?

Gypsy I had been in personal contact with drug addicts, mentally ill and convicted felons for 3 decades and there is one constant with dealing with all of them. Treatment rarely works except for mentally ill and the only treatment that does for them is drugs. Drug Addicts and convicts only change ONLY CHANGE if the want too. No amount of counseling does a damn thing.

In my humble opinion society and tax payers reap very little benefit for the money spent on counseling

donttread
12-24-2015, 09:03 AM
The quote:
13769

The reality
http://www.healthy.ohio.gov/~/media/HealthyOhio/ASSETS/Files/injury prevention/2014 Ohio Preliminary Overdose Report.pdf

2,482 deaths in '14. 2015 is going to end up having an even bigger death toll. More people in Ohio die from drug overdoses than in car accidents.

And he has the answers?


Prohibition causes more drug overdoses than the pharmacology of the drugs themselves. Imagine if alcohol was you're drug of choice, but you had no way to know it's strength until you had already ingested it . That's how Heroin addicts live and die

donttread
12-24-2015, 09:05 AM
Gypsy I had been in personal contact with drug addicts, mentally ill and convicted felons for 3 decades and there is one constant with dealing with all of them. Treatment rarely works except for mentally ill and the only treatment that does for them is drugs. Drug Addicts and convicts only change ONLY CHANGE if the want too. No amount of counseling does a damn thing.

In my humble opinion society and tax payers reap very little benefit for the money spent on counseling

Just like Type two diabetics, obese people and smokers. Are you giving up on all of them as well? Recovery is real , however so is relapse

donttread
12-24-2015, 09:08 AM
Why do you expect the government to do for drug zombies what they failed to do for themselves?

these are screwed up people - mostly obama voters - who are acting irrationally because of the mind corroding drugs they put in their bodies.

but now having messed up their lives to the point of death the Freedom-From-Governmement Legalize Drugs crowd expect republicans to clean up the mess libs have made of themselves.

Its better to write those fools off and concentrate on saving young people who are not hooked on the drugs yet.

How many Americans would have to be in the prison industrial complex here in the "Land of the used to be free" to make you happy?

Mister D
12-24-2015, 09:12 AM
Just like Type two diabetics, obese people and smokers. Are you giving up on all of them as well? Recovery is real , however so is relapse

None of whom prey on others to support their addiction.

hanger4
12-24-2015, 09:23 AM
Just like Type two diabetics, obese people and smokers. Are you giving up on all of them as well? Recovery is real , however so is relapse
Diabetes is just an addiction ?? How cool is that. I can inform my wife she can just stop her meds and treatments and it'll just go away. :rollseyes:

Mac-7
12-24-2015, 09:28 AM
How many Americans would have to be in the prison industrial complex here in the "Land of the used to be free" to make you happy?

I dont think the liberal Legalize Addictive Drugs advocate who started this thread want less government in the drug zombies lives but rather more in the way of drug treatment

as if it is my responsabilty to take care of them after they have freely chose to ruin their lives.

Or do you think making it easier and more legally acceptable for more people to try dagerous drugs will meam fewer drug overdose deaths?

I think the more peopke who use drugs the more drug problems society has

Peter1469
12-24-2015, 09:38 AM
Diabetes is just an addiction ?? How cool is that. I can inform my wife she can just stop her meds and treatments and it'll just go away. :rollseyes:

Depending on how long someone has had Type II, proper nutrition and exercise can eliminate it. At some point the damage is irreversible. Type II use to be called sugar diabetes.

hanger4
12-24-2015, 10:00 AM
Depending on how long someone has had Type II, proper nutrition and exercise can eliminate it. At some point the damage is irreversible. Type II use to be called sugar diabetes.
When we were younger exercise and diet worked wonders. As father time marches on not so much.

donttread
12-24-2015, 10:09 AM
Depending on how long someone has had Type II, proper nutrition and exercise can eliminate it. At some point the damage is irreversible. Type II use to be called sugar diabetes.

Yup, a disease of one part body chemistry and two parts behavior just like most diseases today including the lion's share of COPD and cardiac problems.

Matty
12-24-2015, 10:17 AM
Prohibition causes more drug overdoses than the pharmacology of the drugs themselves. Imagine if alcohol was you're drug of choice, but you had no way to know it's strength until you had already ingested it . That's how Heroin addicts live and die



No one forced them to use that first hit. It was a conscious decision. Blaming it on illegal drugs is not rational.

hanger4
12-24-2015, 10:26 AM
Yup, a disease of one part body chemistry and two parts behavior just like most diseases today including the lion's share of COPD and cardiac problems.
Your knowledge of Diabetes is sorely lacking. ....... http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/info/diabetes/

donttread
12-24-2015, 10:36 AM
Your knowledge of Diabetes is sorely lacking. ....... http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/info/diabetes/

Did you read your own article? why do you think "over weight and obese people have a much higher risk of developing type two diabetes "? The plain fact is that most of our medical system is now geared to treat the ravages of lifestyle vs. the ravages of bacteria.
Why are you so forgiving of the food or sugar addict or the sedentary couch potato , even the smoker , but not the heroin addict?
Lung Cancer, COPD, CAD, all diseases of behavior to a large extent. Insomnia, "hardening of the arteries" and many cancers have a significant lifestyle component. Tobacco kills nearly half a million Americans a year for example.

donttread
12-24-2015, 10:38 AM
No one forced them to use that first hit. It was a conscious decision. Blaming it on illegal drugs is not rational.

No one forced you or your teenage buddies to take that first drink or smoke either back in the day. Should these things be "capital offenses?"

Bo-4
12-24-2015, 10:39 AM
Why do you expect the government to do for drug zombies what they failed to do for themselves?

these are screwed up people - mostly obama voters - who are acting irrationally because of the mind corroding drugs they put in their bodies.

but now having messed up their lives to the point of death the Freedom-From-Governmement Legalize Drugs crowd expect republicans to clean up the mess libs have made of themselves.

Its better to write those fools off and concentrate on saving young people who are not hooked on the drugs yet.

You my friend are a piece-o-work

Matty
12-24-2015, 10:47 AM
You my friend are a piece-o-work



No, he is absolutely correct.

hanger4
12-24-2015, 10:51 AM
Did you read your own article? why do you think "over weight and obese people have a much higher risk of developing type two diabetes "? The plain fact is that most of our medical system is now geared to treat the ravages of lifestyle vs. the ravages of bacteria.
Why are you so forgiving of the food or sugar addict or the sedentary couch potato , even the smoker , but not the heroin addict?
Lung Cancer, COPD, CAD, all diseases of behavior to a large extent. Insomnia, "hardening of the arteries" and many cancers have a significant lifestyle component. Tobacco kills nearly half a million Americans a year for example.
I'm not forgiving anyone, I'm telling you not all Diabetics are or were obese and or couch potatoes. My wife was a HS athlete. Fitness is second nature to her. Lumping all into your preconcieved box of life is foolishness and shows a lack of knowledge on your behalf.

donttread
12-24-2015, 11:54 AM
None of whom prey on others to support their addiction.

Some of them would if sugar and cigarettes cost $200.00 a day .

donttread
12-24-2015, 11:59 AM
I'm not forgiving anyone, I'm telling you not all Diabetics are or were obese and or couch potatoes. My wife was a HS athlete. Fitness is second nature to her. Lumping all into your preconcieved box of life is foolishness and shows a lack of knowledge on your behalf.

Type two diabetes, almost by definition, has a lifestyle component. Some moreso than others. I'm just sick of the whole "holier than thou" attitude many on here have towards people who's vices happen to be illegal

Mister D
12-24-2015, 12:00 PM
Some of them would if sugar and cigarettes cost $200.00 a day .

No, they would just quit sugar and smoking.

Mister D
12-24-2015, 12:01 PM
Type two diabetes, almost by definition, has a lifestyle component. Some moreso than others. I'm just sick of the whole "holier than thou" attitude many on here have towards people who's vices happen to be illegal

Heroin and crack aren't vices. They're ruin.

donttread
12-24-2015, 12:03 PM
No, they would just quit sugar and smoking.

LMFAO. Right, cause that's exactly how addiction works! MF'ers who smoke with an oxygen mask on wouldn't steal for a fix of the most addictive drug on the planet if they had to. Congrats "D" That's the most comical comment of the day

Mister D
12-24-2015, 12:04 PM
LMFAO. Right, cause that's exactly how addiction works! MF'ers who smoke with an oxygen mask on wouldn't steal for a fix of the most addictive drug on the planet if they had to. Congrats "D" That's the most comical comment of the day

I quit quite easily, donttread. So have tens of millions of Americans. lol

Common
12-24-2015, 12:07 PM
Just like Type two diabetics, obese people and smokers. Are you giving up on all of them as well? Recovery is real , however so is relapse

Intentional infliction and Health Ailments are two different things

Mister D
12-24-2015, 12:09 PM
Intentional infliction and Health Ailments are two different things

Of course they are. Now we'll be told we're "drug warriors" etc.

Tahuyaman
12-24-2015, 12:09 PM
The quote:
13769

The reality
http://www.healthy.ohio.gov/~/media/HealthyOhio/ASSETS/Files/injury prevention/2014 Ohio Preliminary Overdose Report.pdf

2,482 deaths in '14. 2015 is going to end up having an even bigger death toll. More people in Ohio die from drug overdoses than in car accidents.

And he has the answers?

whats going on now is not working. Obviously we must change our methods here. Laws need to be changed at the federal level. State laws need to be changed. The Feds need to start supporting these needed changes in state laws instead of fighting them.

donttread
12-24-2015, 12:41 PM
I quit quite easily, donttread. So have tens of millions of Americans. lol

Hardly anybody quits easily. However the fact that some addicts are able to stop using does not disprove the fact that nicotine is the planet's most addictive drug on the planet. The drug associated with the most violence and death however is probably alcohol

Matty
12-24-2015, 12:43 PM
Type two diabetes, almost by definition, has a lifestyle component. Some moreso than others. I'm just sick of the whole "holier than thou" attitude many on here have towards people who's vices happen to be illegal


So you admit one must knowingly break the law? So, A. You gotta break the law. B. You know it's addicting. C. You do it anyway? And society should bail you out why?

Mister D
12-24-2015, 12:46 PM
Hardly anybody quits easily. However the fact that some addicts are able to stop using does not disprove the fact that nicotine is the planet's most addictive drug on the planet. The drug associated with the most violence and death however is probably alcohol

Bologna. Tens of millions of people have quit smoking. Sorry, it's just not that hard no matter what the commercials tell you. Secondly, I don't care if nicotine is the most addictive drug on Earth (which is patent nonsense anyway). No one is going to cut a man's throat fr a pack of Marlboros.

donttread
12-24-2015, 12:47 PM
So you admit one must knowingly break the law? So, A. You gotta break the law. B. You know it's addicting. C. You do it anyway? And society should bail you out why?


Society should accept addiction as a disease whether or not you approve of the drug of choice

donttread
12-24-2015, 12:50 PM
Bologna. Tens of millions of people have quit smoking. Sorry, it's just not that hard no matter what the commercials tell you. Secondly, I don't care if nicotine is the most addictive drug on Earth (which is patent nonsense anyway). No one is going to cut a man's throat fr a pack of Marlboros.


You're wrong. One cigarette for example gives you a 1/3 chance of becoming a daily smoker , a significantly higher rate of one time use addiction than Heroin. Must be you quit so easily because you are so holier than thou.

donttread
12-24-2015, 12:51 PM
Bologna. Tens of millions of people have quit smoking. Sorry, it's just not that hard no matter what the commercials tell you. Secondly, I don't care if nicotine is the most addictive drug on Earth (which is patent nonsense anyway). No one is going to cut a man's throat fr a pack of Marlboros.<br>
<br>
Yes millions of us have quit smoking , out of a BILLION smokers world wide

Matty
12-24-2015, 01:04 PM
Society should accept addiction as a disease whether or not you approve of the drug of choice

PBS, it's not societies responsibility should you decide to break the law. You pay for it.

hanger4
12-24-2015, 01:14 PM
Society should accept addiction as a disease whether or not you approve of the drug of choice
Addiction is a choice not a disease.

donttread
12-24-2015, 01:16 PM
PBS, it's not societies responsibility should you decide to break the law. You pay for it.

What about paying for medical care for smokers? Alcoholics? Overweight people? I suspect some of you would deny unless you or yours is directly affected

Matty
12-24-2015, 01:24 PM
What about paying for medical care for smokers? Alcoholics? Overweight people? I suspect some of you would deny unless you or yours is directly affected


Are those legal activities? Yes, do I want to be responsible for their excesses? No?

donttread
12-24-2015, 01:26 PM
Addiction is a choice not a disease.

Unless it involves too much sugar and fried food, right? LOL

donttread
12-24-2015, 01:29 PM
Are those legal activities? Yes, do I want to be responsible for their excesses? No?

They typically are not legal when initiation starts because people almost always have their first drink or smoke underage. Therefore any resulting long term damage was based on a concious choice and should be there responsibility only

Matty
12-24-2015, 01:35 PM
They typically are not legal when initiation starts because people almost always have their first drink or smoke underage. Therefore any resulting long term damage was based on a concious choice and should be there responsibility only


Are you you saying underage people are responsible for the choices they make? If not let their parents pay. Tell me one good reason I should pay for your dumb choices? Make it rational now.

Ethereal
12-24-2015, 01:46 PM
Why do you expect the government to do for drug zombies what they failed to do for themselves?

these are screwed up people - mostly obama voters - who are acting irrationally because of the mind corroding drugs they put in their bodies.

but now having messed up their lives to the point of death the Freedom-From-Governmement Legalize Drugs crowd expect republicans to clean up the mess libs have made of themselves.

Its better to write those fools off and concentrate on saving young people who are not hooked on the drugs yet.

Big government Republicans, always trying to "save" people from themselves with progressive-style social engineering. And it costs taxpayers billions of dollars every year, too.

Ethereal
12-24-2015, 01:48 PM
Gypsy I had been in personal contact with drug addicts, mentally ill and convicted felons for 3 decades and there is one constant with dealing with all of them. Treatment rarely works except for mentally ill and the only treatment that does for them is drugs. Drug Addicts and convicts only change ONLY CHANGE if the want too. No amount of counseling does a damn thing.

In my humble opinion society and tax payers reap very little benefit for the money spent on counseling

Society reaps even less benefit from throwing them into prisons with violent criminals. But drug prohibition, like alcohol prohibition before it, is not based on anything logical or just. It's just a fear-induced policy that robs millions of their liberty and their tax money, and it's supported by big government Republicans, Democrats, and "moderates" alike.

Ethereal
12-24-2015, 01:49 PM
None of whom prey on others to support their addiction.

There are already laws against preying on others. Adding an additional layer of prohibition and bureaucracy is not the answer.

hanger4
12-24-2015, 01:51 PM
Unless it involves too much sugar and fried food, right? LOL

Again you know not of what you speak. A Type II on set can be caused by a number of things including but not limited to poor diet. Even genetics plays a part. Plus Type 2 Diabetes isn’t always caused by insulin resistance.

Ethereal
12-24-2015, 01:52 PM
I dont think the liberal Legalize Addictive Drugs advocate who started this thread want less government in the drug zombies lives but rather more in the way of drug treatment

as if it is my responsabilty to take care of them after they have freely chose to ruin their lives.

Or do you think making it easier and more legally acceptable for more people to try dagerous drugs will meam fewer drug overdose deaths?

I think the more peopke who use drugs the more drug problems society has

Why do you keep acting like your objection to this policy is based on tax money? You have no problem spending billions upon billions of tax dollars in order to prop up an unconstitutional, big government drug war that is a demonstrable failure, just like its progressive predecessor, alcohol prohibition. So why do you really support drug prohibition, because it's clearly not about the money.

Ethereal
12-24-2015, 01:59 PM
No, they would just quit sugar and smoking.

If it were that easy, then nobody would become morbidly obese.

Highly processed foods linked to addictive eating (http://www.ns.umich.edu/new/releases/22693-highly-processed-foods-linked-to-addictive-eating)

http://rollingrelease.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Obese.jpg

Captain Obvious
12-24-2015, 02:10 PM
If it were that easy, then nobody would become morbidly obese.

Highly processed foods linked to addictive eating (http://www.ns.umich.edu/new/releases/22693-highly-processed-foods-linked-to-addictive-eating)

http://rollingrelease.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Obese.jpg


http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/773/268/b14.jpg

Mac-7
12-24-2015, 03:34 PM
Big government Republicans, always trying to "save" people from themselves with progressive-style social engineering. And it costs taxpayers billions of dollars every year, too.

I guess that means Im not a big government repub by your defination.

My position is very simple.

as long as bleeding heart libs tell us we are responible to take care of drug addicts and their family through the blosted government welfare system then the voters have every right to criminalize drug use.

The day that drug zombies are free to freeze and staeve under a bridge without imposing on the taxpayers thats when the legalize drugs crowd will have a winning argument with me.

Ethereal
12-24-2015, 07:28 PM
I guess that means Im not a big government repub by your defination.

My position is very simple.

as long as bleeding heart libs tell us we are responible to take care of drug addicts and their family through the blosted government welfare system then the voters have every right to criminalize drug use.

The day that drug zombies are free to freeze and staeve under a bridge without imposing on the taxpayers thats when the legalize drugs crowd will have a winning argument with me.

That doesn't make any sense, as I've already explained numerous times. Criminalizing drug use doesn't save you any money. If anything, it costs you much more money than you would be paying otherwise. It's just an additional layer of bureaucracy that costs billions of dollars every year. So why do you support an unconstitutional, big government social engineering program that costs billions of tax dollars? Because it's clearly not about saving money.

Ethereal
12-24-2015, 07:44 PM
Republicans love intrusive, expensive big government social engineering programs, just like their progressive cousins. Don't believe these people when they claim they're in favor of "small" or "limited" government, because they're not.

Matty
12-24-2015, 07:46 PM
Republicans love intrusive, expensive big government social engineering programs, just like their progressive cousins. Don't believe these people when they claim they're in favor of "small" or "limited" government, because they're not.


Use drugs. Pay for your own treatment. Can't be any more un intrusive than that. You game?

Ethereal
12-24-2015, 07:48 PM
Oh, look. Another big government progressive pretending to be a conservative. Lots of these people around.

Mister D
12-24-2015, 07:51 PM
Oh, look. Another big government progressive pretending to be a conservative. Lots of these people around.

This is one of those things that is genuinely generational. I think I will live to see the legalization of pot nation wide. The criminalization of marijuana is indefensible. Heroin and crack...different story. I'm undecided.

Ethereal
12-24-2015, 07:53 PM
And this false choice argument they keep using, whereby we must have drug prohibition as long as welfare exists, is patently ridiculous and nonsensical. How does adding an extra layer of bureaucracy and government onto the preexisting welfare system save tax money or reduce the size of government? It doesn't! In fact, it has the exact opposite effect. The idea that drug prohibition is somehow necessary because we have welfare MAKES NO SENSE.

Ethereal
12-24-2015, 07:55 PM
This is one of those things that is genuinely generational. I think I will live to see the legalization of pot nation wide. The criminalization of marijuana is indefensible. Heroin and crack...different story. I'm undecided.

I think they should be legal, but I'm willing to leave it up to the states, which is what the constitution calls for. Federal drug prohibition is blatantly unconstitutional. That is why even the arch-progressives who pushed through alcohol prohibition amended the constitution, because they knew, despite their love of centralized big government, that there was no constitutional authority for the federal government to prohibit any drugs. If these drug warriors really want to be "conservatives", then they can AMEND the constitution in order to reflect their intrusive big government tendencies instead of relying on the SCOTUS's fallacious, totalitarian interpretation of the interstate commerce clause.

Matty
12-24-2015, 07:56 PM
Oh, look. Another big government progressive pretending to be a conservative. Lots of these people around.


A liberal he wants to play, he wants others to pay. Typical.

Ethereal
12-24-2015, 08:02 PM
I guess in faux-conservative la-la land, adding a mulit-billion dollar layer of bureaucracy and government onto the welfare system saves money.

Matty
12-24-2015, 08:03 PM
And this false choice argument they keep using, whereby we must have drug prohibition as long as welfare exists, is patently ridiculous and nonsensical. How does adding an extra layer of bureaucracy and government onto the preexisting welfare system save tax money or reduce the size of government? It doesn't! In fact, it has the exact opposite effect. The idea that drug prohibition is somehow necessary because we have welfare MAKES NO SENSE.


If iyou are against big government why would you expect taxpayers to pay for your vices? If you can afford to buy drugs you do not need welfare.

Mac-7
12-24-2015, 08:03 PM
That doesn't make any sense, as I've already explained numerous times. Criminalizing drug use doesn't save you any money. If anything, it costs you much more money than you would be paying otherwise. It's just an additional layer of bureaucracy that costs billions of dollars every year. So why do you support an unconstitutional, big government social engineering program that costs billions of tax dollars? Because it's clearly not about saving money.

I'm willing to give up the war on drugs when libs are ready to end the war on poverty.

So I dont qualify as a big government social engineer at all.

Ethereal
12-24-2015, 08:03 PM
Faux conservative: Welfare is expensive. So let's save money by adding a multi-billion dollar drug war on top of it.
Faux conservative II: Good idea, comrade!

Ethereal
12-24-2015, 08:04 PM
If iyou are against big government why would you expect taxpayers to pay for your vices?

I don't.


If you can afford to buy drugs you do not need welfare.

I agree.

Ethereal
12-24-2015, 08:06 PM
I'm willing to give up the war on drugs when libs are ready to end the war on poverty.

Are you being purposely obtuse? Your argument MAKES NO SENSE. Why does the war on poverty justify the war on drugs? It doesn't save you any money, so why are you in favor of it?


So I dont qualify as a big government social engineer at all.

You obviously do, since you support a big government social engineering program that is blatantly unconstitutional.

Ethereal
12-24-2015, 08:07 PM
How does spending more money save money? Any fake conservatives want to explain that "logic" to me? Because it escapes me at present.

Ethereal
12-24-2015, 08:09 PM
Faux conservative I: As long as I have to pay for welfare, then I should have to pay for drug prohibition, too.
Faux conservative II: But why would you want to do that, comrade?
Faux conservative I: Because if I have to pay for someone's welfare and imprisonment, it will save me money.
Faux conservative II: Brilliant thinking, comrade!

Mister D
12-24-2015, 08:10 PM
I think they should be legal, but I'm willing to leave it up to the states, which is what the constitution calls for. Federal drug prohibition is blatantly unconstitutional. That is why even the arch-progressives who pushed through alcohol prohibition amended the constitution, because they knew, despite their love of centralized big government, that there was no constitutional authority for the federal government to prohibit any drugs. If these drug warriors really want to be "conservatives", then they can AMEND the constitution in order to reflect their intrusive big government tendencies instead of relying on the SCOTUS's fallacious, totalitarian interpretation of the interstate commerce clause.

I agree on the commerce cause. The way it has been interpreted more or less allows the federal government to do whatever it wants. The shortsighted and stupid have no problem with that as long as federal action is taken in support of a cause they like. It would also be nice if progressives today kept the Constitution in mind.

Mister D
12-24-2015, 08:16 PM
<br>
<br>
Yes millions of us have quit smoking , out of a BILLION smokers world wide

Many more people use tobacco as opposed to heroin, for example, because you can function unimpaired on the former. Anyway, has not the percentage of Americans who smoke gone down. As in, way down? Were they all lyinfg in in their own sweat wishing they were dead? No, donttread, they quit a dirty habit and were glad to.

Matty
12-24-2015, 08:18 PM
Many more people use tobacco as opposed to heroin, for example, because you can function unimpaired on the former. Anyway, has not the percentage of Americans who smoke gone down. As in, way down? Were they all lyinfg in in their own sweat wishing they were dead? No, donttread, they quit a dirty habit and were glad to.


Do you recall once upon a time in America the tobacco companies purposefully added addictive ingredients to their products to keep people smoking?

Mister D
12-24-2015, 08:19 PM
You're wrong. One cigarette for example gives you a 1/3 chance of becoming a daily smoker , a significantly higher rate of one time use addiction than Heroin. Must be you quit so easily because you are so holier than thou.

That's nice but it says nothing about the effect of nicotine on your body in terms of addiction. I could smoke everyday for a week and feel fine without smoking the following Monday. Try that with opiates.

Mister D
12-24-2015, 08:20 PM
Do you recall once upon a time in America the tobacco companies purposefully added addictive ingredients to their products to keep people smoking?

No. Do you?

Matty
12-24-2015, 08:21 PM
No. Do you?


Yes, huge lawsuits ensued.



https://books.google.com/books?id=ktPoYuXlY6wC&pg=RA1-PA220&lpg=RA1-PA220&dq=tobacco+companies+added+addictive+substances+to +their+products&source=bl&ots=SDJcojy2Iq&sig=snc0bZm66p1QkTi4QacywH9WE44&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjso8jR7PXJAhVB5iYKHUEoBr0Q6AEIPDAI#v=on epage&q=tobacco companies added addictive substances to their products&f=false

Mister D
12-24-2015, 08:34 PM
Yes, huge lawsuits ensued.



https://books.google.com/books?id=ktPoYuXlY6wC&pg=RA1-PA220&lpg=RA1-PA220&dq=tobacco+companies+added+addictive+substances+to +their+products&source=bl&ots=SDJcojy2Iq&sig=snc0bZm66p1QkTi4QacywH9WE44&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjso8jR7PXJAhVB5iYKHUEoBr0Q6AEIPDAI#v=on epage&q=tobacco companies added addictive substances to their products&f=false

Can you cite the relevant information? Secondly, what's your point?

Subdermal
12-24-2015, 08:35 PM
How does spending more money save money? Any fake conservatives want to explain that "logic" to me? Because it escapes me at present.

Hypothetically, it could be argued that Reagan saved us billions by winning the Cold War arms race.

We spend money on the A-Bomb, and saved money - and lives - using it in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

domer76
12-24-2015, 08:38 PM
Can you cite the relevant information? Secondly, what's your point?

I don't know his point, but he is correct on the additives in cigarettes

Matty
12-24-2015, 08:46 PM
Can you cite the relevant information? Secondly, what's your point?


Oh! I forgot to spell it out. Cigarettes were a legal product. Not addictive enough so the companies added addictive substances to hook smokers into smoking more product.

Ethereal
12-24-2015, 09:24 PM
Hypothetically, it could be argued that Reagan saved us billions by winning the Cold War arms race.

We spend money on the A-Bomb, and saved money - and lives - using it in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Accepting those premises, I don't see them as analogous because the war on drugs is a war that is unwinnable. Drug use is an ancient human behavior that will never go away, nor should it.

Subdermal
12-24-2015, 09:30 PM
Accepting those premises, I don't see them as analogous because the war on drugs is a war that is unwinnable. Drug use is an ancient human behavior that will never go away, nor should it.

I agree - but your assertion appeared to me to be more broad than that.

I do not believe in any war on drugs. It's asinine and a total failure.

Mister D
12-24-2015, 09:54 PM
Oh! I forgot to spell it out. Cigarettes were a legal product. Not addictive enough so the companies added addictive substances to hook smokers into smoking more product.

No, you forgot to actually make it. So even with all of the supposed additives cigarettes are still not anywhere near as addictive as some narcotics, such as heroin, crack and even powdered cocaine. That pretty much demolishes dontread's point about nicotine addiction. It's even less addictive than I thought.

Mister D
12-24-2015, 09:56 PM
I don't know his point, but he is correct on the additives in cigarettes

Presumably, her point was that nicotine is not anywhere near as addictive as many popular narcotics.

Matty
12-24-2015, 09:56 PM
No, you forgot to actually make it. So even with all of the supposed additives cigarettes are still not anywhere near as addictive as some narcotics, such as heroin, crack and even powdered cocaine. That pretty much demolishes dontread's point about nicotine addiction. It's even less addictive than I thought.


According to my MD they are.

Mister D
12-24-2015, 09:56 PM
According to my MD they are.

Then you see a quack.

Matty
12-24-2015, 09:57 PM
Then you see a quack.


Incorrect.

Mister D
12-24-2015, 09:58 PM
There's nothing funnier than watching smokers, fat asses and drug addicts blaming the world for their weaknesses and lack of will power. Then again, drug addicts whine a lot less than the other two. :wink:

Mister D
12-24-2015, 10:00 PM
Incorrect.

If he thinks cigarettes are as addictive as heroin you are.

The evil tobacco companies got you hooked! Poor thing. Shoe seems to be on the other foot now, huh? :laugh:

Matty
12-24-2015, 10:03 PM
If he thinks cigarettes are as addictive as heroin you are.

The evil tobacco companies got you hooked! Poor thing. Shoe seems to be on the other foot now, huh? :laugh:


Incorrect again. I am a non smoker. Non heroin user drug free.

Mister D
12-24-2015, 10:05 PM
Incorrect again. I am a non smoker. Non heroin user drug free.

I wasn't incorrect a first time. If your MD told you cigarettes are as addictive as heroin find a new one.

You seem like the kind of person who could really use a drink or a toke.

Matty
12-24-2015, 10:06 PM
I wasn't incorrect a first time. If your MD told you cigarettes are as addictive as heroin find a new one.

You seem like the kind of person who could really use a drink or a toke.


Incorrect again.




http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/quit_smoking/how_to_quit/you_can_quit/nicotine/



forgive me, but he is an MD and unless you are, I'll take his education over yours any day. Kerry on.

Mister D
12-24-2015, 10:17 PM
Incorrect again.




http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/quit_smoking/how_to_quit/you_can_quit/nicotine/



forgive me, but he is an MD and unless you are, I'll take his education over yours any day. Kerry on.

lol The only relevant bit is this:


Research suggests that nicotine is as addictive as heroin, cocaine, or alcohol.

Really? No such evidence is cited. Where is this "research"? In your quack's library?

Ethereal
12-24-2015, 11:13 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8yYJ_oV6xk

Matty
12-24-2015, 11:23 PM
lol The only relevant bit is this:



Really? No such evidence is cited. Where is this "research"? In your quack's library?



Hey listen, just do your drugs, smoke yer cigs, you will find out too late you made bad choices.

Gypsy
12-24-2015, 11:35 PM
My point is simple. Kasich can say that what he is doing works, but clearly it doesn't. Words are important. His words are untruths. Granted this is a problem everywhere but the southeastern part of the state along with the area that encompasses my hometown and the north eastern parts of Kentucky are the epicenter of the opiate drug abuse. Opiate addiction is the step before heroin.

Anyone that says that opiate addiction is a choice knows nothing of the problem. Anyone that says that this is a liberal only problem is a downright fool. This isn't just a regional or statewide problem ... it's a national problem and we need national policies and procedures.

Tahuyaman
12-25-2015, 12:14 AM
Kasich on drugs
He's on drugs? I thought he looked a little loopy in the last debate.

Peter1469
12-25-2015, 01:41 AM
SCOTUS is slowing getting control over Congress's misuse of the Commerce Clause. I believe the first case since 1937 to slap Congress's hand over using the Commerce Clause to justify anything was US v.Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, (1995) (http://www.lawnix.com/cases/united-states-lopez.html) .

A more recent example is the fist Obamacare case where the Court said that Congress could not justify the individual mandate with the Commerce Clause (they saved the law by adding that Congress could justify it via its tax power- despite the fact that Congress specifically said it wasn't using the tax power).

So, expect more cases to turn on the Commerce Clause and Congress's abuses associated with it.


I agree on the commerce cause. The way it has been interpreted more or less allows the federal government to do whatever it wants. The shortsighted and stupid have no problem with that as long as federal action is taken in support of a cause they like. It would also be nice if progressives today kept the Constitution in mind.

Mac-7
12-25-2015, 06:07 AM
Anyone that says that opiate addiction is a choice knows nothing of the problem.

Anyone that says that this is a liberal only problem is a downright fool. This isn't just a regional or statewide problem ... it's a national problem and we need national policies and procedures.

Opiates are illegal.

It was the drug addict's choice to obey the law and stay away from drugs in the first place or not.

Once you take that fork in the road where you end up is your fault and no one eleses.

donttread
12-25-2015, 08:34 AM
Intentional infliction and Health Ailments are two different things

Both are behavior based. How is that different?

donttread
12-25-2015, 08:38 AM
whats going on now is not working. Obviously we must change our methods here. Laws need to be changed at the federal level. State laws need to be changed. The Feds need to start supporting these needed changes in state laws instead of fighting them.

Yes, the war on drugs has failed almost since it's inception. It has failed to make drugs less available or less used.
However, it has succeeded in building the largest prison industrial complex on the planet , forcing users into the shadow world and keeping big pharma fat and happy.
Kinda makes you wonder what the real intent has been all along?

Peter1469
12-25-2015, 08:39 AM
Opiates are a Schedule II drug (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Schedule_II_drugs_(US)). That means that they are not illegal if a doctor prescribes some to you. And they can be highly addictive. Lots of people get opiates prescribed to them, they get hooked and when the doctor stops refilling their scripts they buy them illegally or turn to heroin- which is much cheaper.

I think that much of the problem is that doctors prescribe them too much and many doctors don't gradually cut down the dose. They just stop. If you got addicted to them, that is a big problem.


Opiates are illegal.

It was the drug addict's choice to obey the law and stay away from drugs in the first place or not.

Once you take that fork in the road where you end up is your fault and no one eleses.

donttread
12-25-2015, 08:41 AM
Are you you saying underage people are responsible for the choices they make? If not let their parents pay. Tell me one good reason I should pay for your dumb choices? Make it rational now.


You already pay for people's dumb choices. Most of the healthcare dollar in fact. You want to exclude certain addictions because somebody told you they are evil

donttread
12-25-2015, 08:44 AM
Society reaps even less benefit from throwing them into prisons with violent criminals. But drug prohibition, like alcohol prohibition before it, is not based on anything logical or just. It's just a fear-induced policy that robs millions of their liberty and their tax money, and it's supported by big government Republicans, Democrats, and "moderates" alike.

Exactly and legal vs not lagal has very little to do with how dangerous a drug is. I mean even here does anyone of you actually think pot is more dangerous that tobacco and alcohol?

donttread
12-25-2015, 08:46 AM
Oh! I forgot to spell it out. Cigarettes were a legal product. Not addictive enough so the companies added addictive substances to hook smokers into smoking more product.

True, but even before they altered cigarettes they were deadly. The king of England wrote all about it, including mentioning the brain damage in 1604

donttread
12-25-2015, 08:47 AM
Can you cite the relevant information? Secondly, what's your point?

Yesterday's RJ Renolds is today's Monsanto et al

Peter1469
12-25-2015, 08:47 AM
Yes, the war on drugs has failed almost since it's inception. It has failed to make drugs less available or less used.
However, it has succeeded in building the largest prison industrial complex on the planet , forcing users into the shadow world and keeping big pharma fat and happy.
Kinda makes you wonder what the real intent has been all along?

And it has made a black market industry that is the source of much of the violence seen in statistics about crime in the US. It has made lots of millionaires and more than a few billionaires.

There was talk in the early years of the Great Recession that drug cartels kept some of the big banks alive (http://www.theguardian.com/global/2009/dec/13/drug-money-banks-saved-un-cfief-claims) - probably as a payoff for laundering drug money over the decades.

donttread
12-25-2015, 08:50 AM
Then you see a quack.


"D" the science is both available and settled. Nicotine is the most addictive substance on earth although crack and heroin are close. However in terms of death, disability and use of healthcare dollars ALL other drugs combined can not rival the damage tobacco does. Not even close

donttread
12-25-2015, 08:52 AM
And it has made a black market industry that is the source of much of the violence seen in statistics about crime in the US. It has made lots of millionaires and more than a few billionaires.

There was talk in the early years of the Great Recession that drug cartels kept some of the big banks alive (http://www.theguardian.com/global/2009/dec/13/drug-money-banks-saved-un-cfief-claims) - probably as a payoff for laundering drug money over the decades.


Yes and admittedly the nation is party dependent on the underground economy, but largely by it's own choice of banning unbannable drugs and labeling users as essentially unemployable for life

donttread
12-25-2015, 08:55 AM
My point is simple. Kasich can say that what he is doing works, but clearly it doesn't. Words are important. His words are untruths. Granted this is a problem everywhere but the southeastern part of the state along with the area that encompasses my hometown and the north eastern parts of Kentucky are the epicenter of the opiate drug abuse. Opiate addiction is the step before heroin.

Anyone that says that opiate addiction is a choice knows nothing of the problem. Anyone that says that this is a liberal only problem is a downright fool. This isn't just a regional or statewide problem ... it's a national problem and we need national policies and procedures.

In fact many heroin addicts simply "climbed the ladder" after medicine got them addicted to oxy and then cut them off. We are seeing people in their 50's use heroin for the first time. But I'm certain they must be choosing to do so, morally weak, anti God type people. Or at least that's what many members seem to think as they suck on a big cigar and have their second Martini

hanger4
12-25-2015, 09:18 AM
Both are behavior based. How is that different?
You have already been shown that your ^blanket statement^ is incorrect.

Mister D
12-25-2015, 11:07 AM
"D" the science is both available and settled. Nicotine is the most addictive substance on earth although crack and heroin are close. However in terms of death, disability and use of healthcare dollars ALL other drugs combined can not rival the damage tobacco does. Not even close

Cite this science.

Mister D
12-25-2015, 11:08 AM
Yesterday's RJ Renolds is today's Monsanto et al

That's nice. Cite this "science' suggesting nicotine is the most addictive substance on Earth. And please...no wild goose chases. I'm not interested. Just cite a clear, coherent source. I'm not spending my time researching your claim.

Mister D
12-25-2015, 11:11 AM
SCOTUS is slowing getting control over Congress's misuse of the Commerce Clause. I believe the first case since 1937 to slap Congress's hand over using the Commerce Clause to justify anything was US v.Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, (1995) (http://www.lawnix.com/cases/united-states-lopez.html) .

A more recent example is the fist Obamacare case where the Court said that Congress could not justify the individual mandate with the Commerce Clause (they saved the law by adding that Congress could justify it via its tax power- despite the fact that Congress specifically said it wasn't using the tax power).

So, expect more cases to turn on the Commerce Clause and Congress's abuses associated with it.

Very interesting. Thanks.

Peter1469
12-25-2015, 11:17 AM
That's nice. Cite this "science' suggesting nicotine is the most addictive substance on Earth. And please...no wild goose chases. I'm not interested. Just cite a clear, coherent source. I'm not spending my time researching your claim.

I don't know if it is the most addictive, but it is very addictive. Science stuff link. (http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/tobacco/nicotine-addictive)

Personally I think stupidity is the most addictive thing on earth. :shocked:

Mac-7
12-25-2015, 11:21 AM
Opiates are a Schedule II drug (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Schedule_II_drugs_(US)). That means that they are not illegal if a doctor prescribes some to you. And they can be highly addictive. Lots of people get opiates prescribed to them, they get hooked and when the doctor stops refilling their scripts they buy them illegally or turn to heroin- which is much cheaper.

I think that much of the problem is that doctors prescribe them too much and many doctors don't gradually cut down the dose. They just stop. If you got addicted to them, that is a big problem.

Right peter.

According to you its too bad the opiates make the junkies so stupid they dont know that all they have to do is see the family doctor for a heroin prescription that Pedro the gang banger drug dealer will fill for them.

Obumer should make a PSA telling the drug addicts how to get their next legal fix to be paid for bu ObumerCare

Mister D
12-25-2015, 11:21 AM
I don't know if it is the most addictive, but it is very addictive. Science stuff link. (http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/tobacco/nicotine-addictive)

Personally I think stupidity is the most addictive thing on earth. :shocked:

I don't argue that it's not highly addictive. Of course it is. And I don't argue that people who have been smoking for decades have an easy time giving it up. I just don't believe for one moment that it's as addictive as opiates. You're body will get used to opiates in matter of a couple weeks. I smoked for about 2 or 3 years and gave it up cold turkey. The urge to smoke went away after a few days and then my lungs started to clear out letting me know how fn nasty that habit had been.

Mac-7
12-25-2015, 11:25 AM
And it has made a black market industry that is the source of much of the violence seen in statistics about crime in the US. It has made lots of millionaires and more than a few billionaires.

There was talk in the early years of the Great Recession that drug cartels kept some of the big banks alive (http://www.theguardian.com/global/2009/dec/13/drug-money-banks-saved-un-cfief-claims) - probably as a payoff for laundering drug money over the decades.

The law created the black market or stupid people who freely choose to break the law?

Its the latter I think.

Gypsy
12-25-2015, 11:29 AM
The law created the black market or stupid people who freely choose to break the law?

Its the latter I think.

Mac, you obviously know nothing about this subject. Ignorance is bliss, I suppose. Actually, I am happy for you that your little slice of the world is so insulated that real life issues don't touch you. Merry Christmas.

Peter1469
12-25-2015, 11:36 AM
I don't argue that it's not highly addictive. Of course it is. And I don't argue that people who have been smoking for decades have an easy time giving it up. I just don't believe for one moment that it's as addictive as opiates. You're body will get used to opiates in matter of a couple weeks. I smoked for about 2 or 3 years and gave it up cold turkey. The urge to smoke went away after a few days and then my lungs started to clear out letting me know how fn nasty that habit had been.

My dad was a 3 pack a day smoker for at least one decade, maybe more, and he stopped cold turkey after the doctor showed him an X-ray of his lungs.

Most people can't do that. My mom still smokes and she has TB (controlled by drugs). She can't stop.

Mister D
12-25-2015, 11:52 AM
My dad was a 3 pack a day smoker for at least one decade, maybe more, and he stopped cold turkey after the doctor showed him an X-ray of his lungs.

Most people can't do that. My mom still smokes and she has TB (controlled by drugs). She can't stop.

I think it depends on the length of use. I smoked for only a few years. I doubt many people have much trouble quitting in such cases. A habit that spans a decade or 3 is another story but at that point I doubt it matters what the habit is. It's going to be a bitch to break.

Mister D
12-25-2015, 11:52 AM
And some people just don't want to unfortunately. Especially older folks who have spent half their lives smoking. I guess they figure why stop now.

Peter1469
12-25-2015, 12:05 PM
You missed the point. My argument begins after the doctors cut you off from opiate scripts. Follow?




Right peter.

According to you its too bad the opiates make the junkies so stupid they dont know that all they have to do is see the family doctor for a heroin prescription that Pedro the gang banger drug dealer will fill for them.

Obumer should make a PSA telling the drug addicts how to get their next legal fix to be paid for bu ObumerCare

Peter1469
12-25-2015, 12:06 PM
The law created the black market or stupid people who freely choose to break the law?

Its the latter I think.

If those are the only two choice, I vote C.

People will find a way around government regulation if they want to. And usually, it is the stupid ones that get caught. Not the smart ones.

Subdermal
12-25-2015, 12:12 PM
Mac, you obviously know nothing about this subject. Ignorance is bliss, I suppose. Actually, I am happy for you that your little slice of the world is so insulated that real life issues don't touch you. Merry Christmas.

Your post is illegitimate. There is nothing about your stance on this or any other issue which would insulate you from Mac-7 writing the exact same words directed at you.

Other than Mac-7's clear intellectual superiority in recognizing the truth of what I've written here, and abstaining from lobbing stupid intellectually bankrupt grenades like you just did.

All you offered was a nasty and pejorative way to say "I disagree with you, but because I think so little of your position, I will additionally claim it as ignorance, instead of disagreement".

And then add a smarmy Merry Christmas at the end of it all. Fock your Merry Christmas, you disingenuous leftist.

Subdermal
12-25-2015, 12:15 PM
I think it depends on the length of use. I smoked for only a few years. I doubt many people have much trouble quitting in such cases. A habit that spans a decade or 3 is another story but at that point I doubt it matters what the habit is. It's going to be a $#@! to break.

From what I've learned and observed over time, I think it is more complex than that. I think there are both physiological and psychological factors. Some people are psychologically stronger; some less (this speaks to desire and discipline). Some people's psychological strength is countered by a stronger physiological addiction.

Some people aren't prone to these sorts of things at all, and can try even an addictive drug and never feel compelled to try it again. Some are instantly hooked for life.

Some can quit cigarettes quite easily, even after having smoked for 3 decades (both my grandparents); some are hooked after smoking for only a couple of months (my friend).

donttread
12-25-2015, 02:36 PM
You have already been shown that your ^blanket statement^ is incorrect.


No, I haven't. Most type two diabetes can be treated, and or prevented with lifestyle changes. Even if meds were still required , less meds would be required. Again the lions share of healthcare dollars in the "first world" are spent to tret the effect of lifestyle

donttread
12-25-2015, 02:37 PM
Cite this science.

I'll take as a an admission of defeat on your part in this debate

donttread
12-25-2015, 02:39 PM
That's nice. Cite this "science' suggesting nicotine is the most addictive substance on Earth. And please...no wild goose chases. I'm not interested. Just cite a clear, coherent source. I'm not spending my time researching your claim.

It's so well known within the addiction field that it stands as fact. So, I'm not citing shit, you are however welcome to continue to live in ignorance

donttread
12-25-2015, 02:41 PM
Right peter.

According to you its too bad the opiates make the junkies so stupid they dont know that all they have to do is see the family doctor for a heroin prescription that Pedro the gang banger drug dealer will fill for them.

Obumer should make a PSA telling the drug addicts how to get their next legal fix to be paid for bu ObumerCare

Did you get all your knowledge about drug use from an old movie or just this part?

donttread
12-25-2015, 02:44 PM
My dad was a 3 pack a day smoker for at least one decade, maybe more, and he stopped cold turkey after the doctor showed him an X-ray of his lungs.

Most people can't do that. My mom still smokes and she has TB (controlled by drugs). She can't stop.

Yes, and addiction science is trying to understand why your dad could quit and your mom couldn't. But for most of us it is a tough, long process. You would not believe the struggles I went through quitting smoking

hanger4
12-25-2015, 03:14 PM
No, I haven't. Most type two diabetes can be treated, and or prevented with lifestyle changes. Even if meds were still required , less meds would be required. Again the lions share of healthcare dollars in the "first world" are spent to tret the effect of lifestyle
Again, all type II is not caused by life style choices. Even you allude to same with your use of "Most type two". As I said your blanket statements are incorrect.

donttread
12-25-2015, 03:52 PM
Again, all type II is not caused by life style choices. Even you allude to same with your use of "Most type two". As I said your blanket statements are incorrect.


Most does not mean all. However , close to all cases can be improved with life style changes. Does your wife's doctor tell her to eat whatever she wants and no to exercise?

donttread
12-25-2015, 04:01 PM
I don't argue that it's not highly addictive. Of course it is. And I don't argue that people who have been smoking for decades have an easy time giving it up. I just don't believe for one moment that it's as addictive as opiates. You're body will get used to opiates in matter of a couple weeks. I smoked for about 2 or 3 years and gave it up cold turkey. The urge to smoke went away after a few days and then my lungs started to clear out letting me know how fn nasty that habit had been.

Believe what you wish. Besides which is more addictive vs that tobacco is very addictive is not really important to the general point.

hanger4
12-25-2015, 04:04 PM
Most does not mean all. However , close to all cases can be improved with life style changes. Does your wife's doctor tell her to eat whatever she wants and no to exercise?
Now you're just walking back your blanket statements. BTW your questions were answered several pages ago, do try and keep up.

donttread
12-25-2015, 04:06 PM
Do you believe that drugs are habit vs. addiction?

Mister D
12-25-2015, 04:06 PM
Believe what you wish. Besides which is more addictive vs that tobacco is very addictive is not really important to the general point.

I will and ,yes, it's not really that important which is why I'm somewhat surprised you keep claiming it. Some advice: when you exaggerate and add falsehoods to bolster an argument it has exactly the opposite effect.

Mister D
12-25-2015, 04:07 PM
It's so well known within the addiction field that it stands as fact. So, I'm not citing $#@!, you are however welcome to continue to live in ignorance

There is nothing to cite because no one, except Matty's quack MD, believe that.

Mister D
12-25-2015, 04:08 PM
I'll take as a an admission of defeat on your part in this debate

lol

donttread
12-25-2015, 04:13 PM
I will and ,yes, it's not really that important which is why I'm somewhat surprised you keep claiming it. Some advice: when you exaggerate and add falsehoods to bolster an argument it has exactly the opposite effect.

Tobacco has, among other things, the highest one time use to addiction ratio of all. Don't call me a liar when you don't know what you're talking about

donttread
12-25-2015, 04:14 PM
lol


So do you believe that legal drugs are pharaclogically safer than illegal drugs

Mister D
12-25-2015, 04:15 PM
Tobacco has, among other things, the highest one time use to addiction ratio of all. Don't call me a liar when you don't know what you're talking about

Donttread, a boy's first cigarette is a lot like his first sip of liquor. It's fn disgusting.

Mister D
12-25-2015, 04:17 PM
So do you believe that legal drugs are pharaclogically safer than illegal drugs

Nope. Never suggested such a thing. I have suggested that heroin and crack, for example, are more dangerous and more highly addictive than tobacco. Not sure why we wasted so much time arguing about something so obvious. Your problem is that you like to go to extremes when you make a case. Don't do that.

donttread
12-25-2015, 04:56 PM
Donttread, a boy's first cigarette is a lot like his first sip of liquor. It's fn disgusting.

Yet one third of those first time smokers will develop daily use addiction as opposed to under 25% for heroin

Peter1469
12-25-2015, 05:13 PM
There is nothing to cite because no one, except Matty's quack MD, believe that.

It could be a tool to let some patients know they are not alone so far as beating an addition goes. I will PM you.

donttread
12-25-2015, 05:37 PM
Nope. Never suggested such a thing. I have suggested that heroin and crack, for example, are more dangerous and more highly addictive than tobacco. Not sure why we wasted so much time arguing about something so obvious. Your problem is that you like to go to extremes when you make a case. Don't do that.


Because you were wrong nicotine is more addictive as empirical evidence bears out. As for more dangerous in the individual sense perhaps, but from a population public health point of view, it's not even close, Nicotine kills many times the number killed by crack and heroin, cost more in healthcare dollars and causes far more disbilty

Peter1469
12-25-2015, 05:56 PM
Because you were wrong nicotine is more addictive as empirical evidence bears out. As for more dangerous in the individual sense perhaps, but from a population public health point of view, it's not even close, Nicotine kills many times the number killed by crack and heroin, cost more in healthcare dollars and causes far more disbilty

That is because more people use nicotine.

Are there any numbers that compare harm done to the number of people who use nicotine, as well as other drugs. For instance, with smoking: (https://www.mskcc.org/press-releases/risk-lung-varies-among-smokers)


Researchers at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center analyzed data from a large lung cancer prevention study and found that the risk of developing lung cancer can be accurately predicted based on a person’s age, sex, and smoking history. These factors accounted for an individual’s 10-year risk for developing lung cancer which ranged from a low of less than 1% to a high of 16%. The study, along with an interactive lung cancer risk prediction tool, is published in the March 19 issue of The Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

Is the risk of death from being a heroin addict 1% to 16% every 10 years of use? Or is it lower? Or higher?

donttread
12-25-2015, 06:05 PM
That is because more people use nicotine.

Are there any numbers that compare harm done to the number of people who use nicotine, as well as other drugs. For instance, with smoking: (https://www.mskcc.org/press-releases/risk-lung-varies-among-smokers)




Is the risk of death from being a heroin addict 1% to 16% every 10 years of use? Or is it lower? Or higher?

Peter1469
12-25-2015, 06:15 PM
What was your response? I don't see anything.

donttread
12-25-2015, 06:18 PM
I'm not sure that opiates carry a lot of long term, bodily organ damage risk. Of course nicotine does. The problem with heroin is that the addicts tolerance to the effective dose builds more quickly than does his tolerance for lethal dose. Heroin addicts really need to know the purity of the drug they take, which of course they can't because of prohibition. Prohibition kills

Captain Obvious
12-25-2015, 06:20 PM
Chewing gum kills, legalize crack.

:biglaugh:

donttread
12-25-2015, 06:28 PM
What was your response? I don't see anything.

Post 146

donttread
12-25-2015, 06:29 PM
Chewing gum kills, legalize crack.

:biglaugh:

Why don't you share with us what the drug you take prior to posting is?

Captain Obvious
12-25-2015, 06:30 PM
Why don't you share with us what the drug you take prior to posting is?

I don't take drugs, I'm not an idiot.

Captain Obvious
12-25-2015, 06:31 PM
Post 146

Post 144

Did you pass out?

Mister D
12-25-2015, 06:39 PM
Yet one third of those first time smokers will develop daily use addiction as opposed to under 25% for heroin

That's because they keep smoking, donttread, for a variety of reasons. No one gets hooked on any substance after a "one time use".

Mister D
12-25-2015, 06:41 PM
Because you were wrong nicotine is more addictive as empirical evidence bears out. As for more dangerous in the individual sense perhaps, but from a population public health point of view, it's not even close, Nicotine kills many times the number killed by crack and heroin, cost more in healthcare dollars and causes far more disbilty

Where is this empirical evidence? You know, for a guy who talks so much about "settled science" you sure are taking your time presenting it. Your follow up points are irrelevant. The individual experience is all that is question.

Mister D
12-25-2015, 06:43 PM
I'm not sure that opiates carry a lot of long term, bodily organ damage risk. Of course nicotine does. The problem with heroin is that the addicts tolerance to the effective dose builds more quickly than does his tolerance for lethal dose. Heroin addicts really need to know the purity of the drug they take, which of course they can't because of prohibition. Prohibition kills

The primary problem with heroin is that, unlike nicotine, it's an addiction that impairs you and impairs an addict 24/7.

Captain Obvious
12-25-2015, 06:48 PM
The primary problem with heroin is that, unlike nicotine, it's an addiction that impairs you and impairs an addict 24/7.

It's like that argument "since guns are legal, why can't I own a nuclear warhead"?

:biglaugh:

Mister D
12-25-2015, 06:52 PM
It's like that argument "since guns are legal, why can't I own a nuclear warhead"?

:biglaugh:

lol yeah. Obviously, this is no defense of tobacco use (I chew twice a week) but the comparison to heroin is just plain silly. If heroin use matched tobacco use we wouldn't have a country.

donttread
12-25-2015, 06:55 PM
Where is this empirical evidence? You know, for a guy who talks so much about "settled science" you sure are taking your time presenting it. Your follow up points are irrelevant. The individual experience is all that is question.

I've listed the numbers before, such as 480,000 Americans dying each year from tobacco, ten percent of whom did not smoke

donttread
12-25-2015, 06:59 PM
lol yeah. Obviously, this is no defense of tobacco use (I chew twice a week) but the comparison to heroin is just plain silly. If heroin use matched tobacco use we wouldn't have a country.


So you were able to "easily " quit smoking but not quit nicotine

Mister D
12-25-2015, 07:00 PM
I've listed the numbers before, such as 480,000 Americans dying each year from tobacco, ten percent of whom did not smoke

That's nice but it doesn't support your claim. Donttread, your claim is BS. Nicotine is not more addictive than heroin. OK? Stop goign to such extremes when you want to make a case for something. Making a case for the hypocrisy of drug prohibition by citing the health effects of tobacco and alcohol should be pretty easy to do but you manage to fuck it up when you make absurd claims like this. Worse still, you stubbornly defend those claims for days!

Mister D
12-25-2015, 07:02 PM
So you were able to "easily " quit smoking but not quit nicotine

Um, no. I didn't use tobacco at all for a good 8 years after I stopped smoking. I chew on the weekend because I like it. If I was addicted to it don't you think I'd chew a little more frequently? :rollseyes:

birddog
12-25-2015, 07:10 PM
Some alcoholics only drink on weekends.

Mister D
12-25-2015, 07:13 PM
Some alcoholics only drink on weekends.

Not if we are defining alcoholism as an addiction to alcohol. The definition is of course expanded to include virtually any unhealthy drinking habits. That's a scare tactic.

Peter1469
12-25-2015, 07:13 PM
Um, no. I didn't use tobacco at all for a good 8 years after I stopped smoking. I chew on the weekend because I like it. If I was addicted to it don't you think I'd chew a little more frequently? :rollseyes:

Chew appears to get less nicotine in your system that dip or smoking does.

Captain Obvious
12-25-2015, 07:14 PM
lol yeah. Obviously, this is no defense of tobacco use (I chew twice a week) but the comparison to heroin is just plain silly. If heroin use matched tobacco use we wouldn't have a country.

The whole "well you can chew tobacco and drink Yeungling so everyone should be able do do heroine" is pathetic.

Mister D
12-25-2015, 07:14 PM
Chew appears to get less nicotine in your system that dip or smoking does.

I only use it when I've been drinking. When I haven't the rush is kind of intense.

Captain Obvious
12-25-2015, 07:15 PM
Not if we are defining alcoholism as an addiction to alcohol. The definition is of course expanded to include virtually any unhealthy drinking habits. That's a scare tactic.

That's the other end of this spectrum.

Mister D
12-25-2015, 07:15 PM
The whole "well you can chew tobacco and drink Yeungling so everyone should be able do do heroine" is pathetic.

Yeah, it works for pot but heroin? Get real, fellas.

Matty
12-25-2015, 07:15 PM
Some alcoholics only drink on weekends.



Drunk drivers kill other people, drug addicts high on their shit do the same.

Matty
12-25-2015, 07:17 PM
Chew appears to get less nicotine in your system that dip or smoking does.



It rots your teeth and gums and disfigures your face with cancer.



doctors will tell you this but what the fuck do they know?


http://www.killthecan.org/facts-figures/cancer-pictures/

Peter1469
12-25-2015, 07:21 PM
I only use it when I've been drinking. When I haven't the rush is kind of intense.
Dip would knock me off my feet. Chew not so much.

Captain Obvious
12-25-2015, 07:22 PM
Dip would knock me off my feet. Chew not so much.

What's dip, precious?

That powder snuff stuff?

Peter1469
12-25-2015, 07:25 PM
What's dip, precious?

That powder snuff stuff?

The powder is snuff. Dip is the finely cut tobacco that has lots of extra goodies added to it. Chew is the shredded tobacco that has little additives.

Mister D
12-25-2015, 07:26 PM
It rots your teeth and gums and disfigures your face with cancer.



doctors will tell you this but what the $#@! do they know?


http://www.killthecan.org/facts-figures/cancer-pictures/

How do people live like this?

Captain Obvious
12-25-2015, 07:27 PM
The powder is snuff. Dip is the finely cut tobacco that has lots of extra goodies added to it. Chew is the shredded tobacco that has little additives.

A guy I know chews side pouch, Red Man, Mail Pouch, stuff like that.

And Bubble Yum, says it packs the pouch better.

Oi...

Mister D
12-25-2015, 07:28 PM
The powder is snuff. Dip is the finely cut tobacco that has lots of extra goodies added to it. Chew is the shredded tobacco that has little additives.

Yeah, what I don't like about dip or snuff is that it tastes funny. You can tell there is something unnatural about it.

Mister D
12-25-2015, 07:28 PM
A guy I know chews side pouch, Red Man, Mail Pouch, stuff like that.

And Bubble Yum, says it packs the pouch better.

Oi...

I tried that a for a while when I was a maybe 19 or 20. Waaaay too much juice. You'd spit a river.

Peter1469
12-25-2015, 07:30 PM
Yeah, what I don't like about dip or snuff is that it tastes funny. You can tell there is something unnatural about it.

They add extra nicotine, additives, flavors, and some brands even some agent that finely cuts the mouth where you have it to provide a faster route for the nicotine.

Captain Obvious
12-25-2015, 07:31 PM
I tried that a for a while when I was a maybe 19 or 20. Waaaay too much juice. You'd spit a river.

When I was much younger I chewed Mail Pouch because it was way drier than the other stuff, Red Man, Chattanooga. Didn't need a drool cup.

Mister D
12-25-2015, 07:39 PM
When I was much younger I chewed Mail Pouch because it was way drier than the other stuff, Red Man, Chattanooga. Didn't need a drool cup.

I use either Red Man (which I can get here) or Southern pride which I order online. I used to chew plug tobacco. You know, the stuff cut into a stiff, rectangular shape? Red Man makes one. I'm sure you seen it. That's pretty strong. I used the Cannonball brand. man, your spit woudl be brown for an hour. lol

Captain Obvious
12-25-2015, 07:44 PM
I use either Red Man (which I can get here) or Southern pride which I order online. I used to chew plug tobacco. You know, the stuff cut into a stiff, rectangular shape? Red Man makes one. I'm sure you seen it. That's pretty strong. I used the Cannonball brand. man, your spit woudl be brown for an hour. lol

There was a brand I used to get in NC when we were on vacation called Black Maria. Plug, black as coal, very, very sticky sweet.

It was kind of exotic as far as that stuff goes. Not sure it's even available anymore, I haven't seen it in years.

http://zigaretz.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/zigaretz/black_maria_2.jpg

Mister D
12-25-2015, 07:50 PM
There was a brand I used to get in NC when we were on vacation called Black Maria. Plug, black as coal, very, very sticky sweet.

It was kind of exotic as far as that stuff goes. Not sure it's even available anymore, I haven't seen it in years.

http://zigaretz.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/zigaretz/black_maria_2.jpg

:laugh: looks ancient.

Captain Obvious
12-25-2015, 07:53 PM
:laugh: looks ancient.

The newer label didn't look like that but I couldn't spot it in google pics.

Not even sure if I remember what it looked like. I think it was non-descript, no artwork.

Dr. Who
12-25-2015, 09:48 PM
Diabetes is just an addiction ?? How cool is that. I can inform my wife she can just stop her meds and treatments and it'll just go away. :rollseyes:
Type two diabetes is often related to overconsumption of starches and sugars, which actually have addictive properties. http://www.dietcure.com/the-diet-cure-blog/sweets-and-starches-now-known-to-act-like-hard-drugs-in-the-body

Often type 2 diabetes, if caught early, can be reversed by drastic dietary changes.

Mister D
12-25-2015, 10:01 PM
The newer label didn't look like that but I couldn't spot it in google pics.

Not even sure if I remember what it looked like. I think it was non-descript, no artwork.

I think I would chew that just because of the wrapping. :laugh: I would like nothing better than to have that out among polite company.

Mac-7
12-26-2015, 06:02 AM
If those are the only two choice, I vote C.

People will find a way around government regulation if they want to. And usually, it is the stupid ones that get caught. Not the smart ones.

So you want to blame the doctor for perscribing the opiates to unsuspecting patients which hook the patients on opiates who then become drug zombies

and according to the legalization crowd the solution to this is to make the opiates legal and more readily available to the public?

Really?

Ethereal
12-26-2015, 06:09 AM
So you want to blame the doctor for perscribing the opiates to unsuspecting patients which hook the patients on opiates who then become drug zombies

and according to the legalization crowd the solution to this is to make the opiates legal and more readily available to the public?

Really?

It's not your business what individual members of the "public" put into their body, nor does the unconstitutional federal war on drugs save you any money. So what are you basing your position on aside from a desire to engage in big government social engineering? If your response is that welfare recipients shouldn't be doing drugs, then fine, go after welfare recipients. But leave self-reliant adults the hell alone. It's none of your damn business what they do in their private lives.

Mac-7
12-26-2015, 06:11 AM
It's like that argument "since guns are legal, why can't I own a nuclear warhead"?

:biglaugh:

The only people saying that listen to NPR and want to take away all the guns.

Matty
12-26-2015, 06:27 AM
It's not your business what individual members of the "public" put into their body, nor does the unconstitutional federal war on drugs save you any money. So what are you basing your position on aside from a desire to engage in big government social engineering? If your response is that welfare recipients shouldn't be doing drugs, then fine, go after welfare recipients. But leave self-reliant adults the hell alone. It's none of your damn business what they do in their private lives.



You aren't a self reliant adult if you put addicting shit in your body and then expect taxpayers to pay your expenses while your drug addled brain tells us we're saving money. What you actually are is a drug addled, addicted leech on society.

Ethereal
12-26-2015, 06:28 AM
You aren't a self reliant adult if you put addicting $#@! in your body and then expect taxpayers to pay your expenses while your drug addled brain tells us we're saving money. What you actually are is a drug addled, addicted leech on society.

:sleepy1:

Peter1469
12-26-2015, 09:49 AM
So you want to blame the doctor for perscribing the opiates to unsuspecting patients which hook the patients on opiates who then become drug zombies

Had you read what I have posted on the topic you would not have had to ask the question. I pointed out that after a course of opiates, like Oxy, the docs should slowly ween patients off the drug. Smaller doses getting smaller over time.


and according to the legalization crowd the solution to this is to make the opiates legal and more readily available to the public?

Ask the legalization crowd.


Really?

Not really.

Peter1469
12-26-2015, 09:50 AM
The only people saying that listen to NPR and want to take away all the guns.

Right. It is a silly argument put up by the gun grabbers.

Peter1469
12-26-2015, 09:51 AM
You aren't a self reliant adult if you put addicting shit in your body and then expect taxpayers to pay your expenses while your drug addled brain tells us we're saving money. What you actually are is a drug addled, addicted leech on society.

He has already said he doesn't expect society to pay for it, if I am not mistaken.

Matty
12-26-2015, 09:53 AM
He has already said he doesn't expect society to pay for it, if I am not mistaken.
That's what he said out of the left side of his mouth, out of the right side of his mouth he argues that we should pay for treatment and counseling as it is cheaper than incarceration.

donttread
12-26-2015, 10:23 AM
Chewing gum kills, legalize crack.

:biglaugh:

Do you strive to make the most ignorant post you possibly can? If so, bravo, you're doing a hell of a job

donttread
12-26-2015, 10:24 AM
That's because they keep smoking, donttread, for a variety of reasons. No one gets hooked on any substance after a "one time use".

But the fact is we can predict how many will and that number is highest for tobacco

donttread
12-26-2015, 10:27 AM
That's nice but it doesn't support your claim. Donttread, your claim is BS. Nicotine is not more addictive than heroin. OK? Stop goign to such extremes when you want to make a case for something. Making a case for the hypocrisy of drug prohibition by citing the health effects of tobacco and alcohol should be pretty easy to do but you manage to fuck it up when you make absurd claims like this. Worse still, you stubbornly defend those claims for days!

Believe what you want, now that I know you still use tobacco your rationalizations make sense. Just another addict trying to convince himself that he's not really hooked.

Matty
12-26-2015, 10:27 AM
Tobacco kills the person using it.


drugs and alcohol kill multiple people as in car accidents. There is no justification for that.

donttread
12-26-2015, 10:29 AM
Um, no. I didn't use tobacco at all for a good 8 years after I stopped smoking. I chew on the weekend because I like it. If I was addicted to it don't you think I'd chew a little more frequently? :rollseyes:

You like chewing toxic, bitter leaf by products? LMFAO. And not all addicts use daily

Matty
12-26-2015, 10:30 AM
Believe what you want, now that I know you still use tobacco your rationalizations make sense. Just another addict trying to convince himself that he's not really hooked.


He is addicted and he cannot quit, as addicted as if he was doing heroin.


http://www.news-medical.net/news/20100422/Stopping-smoking-may-be-harder-than-quitting-heroin.aspx



What smokers don't realise is that nicotine addiction is as powerful, or even more powerful, than heroin addiction," he said. " The (brain's) receptors for smoking are as strongly attached to nicotine as the heroine receptor is to opiates. That can come as a shock to a lot of people. Quitting is therefore a serious challenge for most." said Dr Seidler.

donttread
12-26-2015, 10:32 AM
There is nothing to cite because no one, except Matty's quack MD, believe that.

So is it just Matty's doc, myself and addiction science that are all wrong or is it anyone who disagrees with you?

Mister D
12-26-2015, 10:33 AM
You like chewing toxic, bitter leaf by products? LMFAO. And not all addicts use daily

:smiley_ROFLMAO:Yeah, some addicts take a break from their addiction Monday through Friday. It's strictly a weekend addiction! My body doesn't seem to mind the rest of the time.

Donttread, you are a terrible spokesman for your POV. You're making your position look increasingly absurd. Just an FYI.

donttread
12-26-2015, 10:33 AM
It's like that argument "since guns are legal, why can't I own a nuclear warhead"?

:biglaugh:

Not even close. Newsflash, the danger level of a drug has little to do with whether or not it is illeagal

donttread
12-26-2015, 10:34 AM
Not if we are defining alcoholism as an addiction to alcohol. The definition is of course expanded to include virtually any unhealthy drinking habits. That's a scare tactic.


So now the DSM is wrong too? Holy fuck "D" how deep in your denial are you?

donttread
12-26-2015, 10:35 AM
Chew appears to get less nicotine in your system that dip or smoking does.

Actually some chewers get a high level of nicotine, albeit in a much slower route of administration

donttread
12-26-2015, 10:36 AM
The whole "well you can chew tobacco and drink Yeungling so everyone should be able do do heroine" is pathetic.

I suppose it appears that way to those who don't bother to think it through

Mister D
12-26-2015, 10:36 AM
Believe what you want, now that I know you still use tobacco your rationalizations make sense. Just another addict trying to convince himself that he's not really hooked.

My rationalization for tobacco use is that I like it. :laugh: Ditto opiates.

Mister D
12-26-2015, 10:37 AM
So now the DSM is wrong too? Holy $#@! "D" how deep in your denial are you?

It's funny how you readily fall for scare tactics when it suits you! :laugh:

donttread
12-26-2015, 10:37 AM
Yeah, it works for pot but heroin? Get real, fellas.

Well Portugal decriminalized including heroin and now has less OD's

donttread
12-26-2015, 10:42 AM
It's not your business what individual members of the "public" put into their body, nor does the unconstitutional federal war on drugs save you any money. So what are you basing your position on aside from a desire to engage in big government social engineering? If your response is that welfare recipients shouldn't be doing drugs, then fine, go after welfare recipients. But leave self-reliant adults the hell alone. It's none of your damn business what they do in their private lives.

But they think everything other people do is their business to control. From whom they sleep with to which drugs they should and should not use to how to maintain their freaking yard. We live in control freak central

donttread
12-26-2015, 10:43 AM
So you want to blame the doctor for perscribing the opiates to unsuspecting patients which hook the patients on opiates who then become drug zombies

and according to the legalization crowd the solution to this is to make the opiates legal and more readily available to the public?

Let's blame big pharma, the pushers who wear suits so you're ok with

Really?

Mac-7
12-26-2015, 10:45 AM
But they think everything other people do is their business to control. From whom they sleep with to which drugs they should and should not use to how to maintain their freaking yard. We live in control freak central

Who they sleep with?

You mean society has no role to play or set limits for?

I dont agree with that.

donttread
12-26-2015, 10:46 AM
He is addicted and he cannot quit, as addicted as if he was doing heroin.


http://www.news-medical.net/news/20100422/Stopping-smoking-may-be-harder-than-quitting-heroin.aspx



What smokers don't realise is that nicotine addiction is as powerful, or even more powerful, than heroin addiction," he said. " The (brain's) receptors for smoking are as strongly attached to nicotine as the heroine receptor is to opiates. That can come as a shock to a lot of people. Quitting is therefore a serious challenge for most." said Dr Seidler.

This must be bad science because it contradicts "D"

donttread
12-26-2015, 10:47 AM
Tobacco kills the person using it.


drugs and alcohol kill multiple people as in car accidents. There is no justification for that.

More people die from second hand smoke each year in our country than die in car accidents

donttread
12-26-2015, 10:48 AM
:smiley_ROFLMAO:Yeah, some addicts take a break from their addiction Monday through Friday. It's strictly a weekend addiction! My body doesn't seem to mind the rest of the time.

Donttread, you are a terrible spokesman for your POV. You're making your position look increasingly absurd. Just an FYI.

Sure "D" the DSM, addiction science and me we're all wrong . Whatever it takes to justify your addiction

Mister D
12-26-2015, 10:52 AM
This must be bad science because it contradicts "D"

It's not science at all. It's basically some guy in Australia saying that because some smokers have a lot of trouble kicking the habit it's therefore as bad as heroin. :laugh: The article goes on to indicate the likely cause:


A recent survey commissioned by Pfizer Australia, a pharmaceutical company, had responses from over 2,000 smokers which revealed that smokers are much more likely to find chores to do rather than approach a health care professional to help them kick the butt. Amongst the respondents 35% would rather clean the house, 27% would rather pay the bills, 22% would rather go to work on the weekend and 18% would rather go to dinner with the in-laws to avoid visiting a health care professional.

People seek medical help for a heroin habit because the urge to take heroin is a helluva lot stronger for an addict than the urge to smoke.


Among heroin addicts, about 3 percent rank the urge to smoke as equal to or stronger than the urge to take heroin.

http://whyquit.com/whyquit/A_Henningfield_Benowitz.html

Mister D
12-26-2015, 10:54 AM
Sure "D" the DSM, addiction science and me we're all wrong . Whatever it takes to justify your addiction

You're all over the place, donttread. Dude, I don't care what you think of me or my habits. I'm just letting you know how delusional you are if you think a your struggle with smoking is like a heroin addiction. Thank God for you that's nonsense.

Mister D
12-26-2015, 10:56 AM
Oh, and when you don't take the heroin your body needs you're not "irritable" and "nervous". You're in fucking agony. People aren't able to distract themselves with chores. :rollseyes:

donttread
12-26-2015, 11:05 AM
You're all over the place, donttread. Dude, I don't care what you think of me or my habits. I'm just letting you know how delusional you are if you think a your struggle with smoking is like a heroin addiction. Thank God for you that's nonsense.


The highest risk for addition predicted by one time use is for nicotine. Even old science that rates heroin and crack as "more addictive" generally does so by the slightest of margins. How do you think a harmful, smelly, nasty product that provides limited mood enhancement came to addict 1,000,000,000 people? Think about it

Mister D
12-26-2015, 11:11 AM
The highest risk for addition predicted by one time use is for nicotine. Even old science that rates heroin and crack as "more addictive" generally does so by the slightest of margins. How do you think a harmful, smelly, nasty product that provides limited mood enhancement came to addict 1,000,000,000 people? Think about it

Donttread, I have thought about it. You're being lied to by people who want to help you quit smoking. Look, this isn't a support group for smokers, OK? I'm not going to humor what is quite obviously nonsense. Your addiction to cigarettes is not like a heroin addiction. That nicotine withdrawal doesn't rush you to seek medical help ought to be a clue. You should really treat these claims like you treat global warming. It's funny how you will embrace manipulation when it suits you.

Matty
12-26-2015, 11:12 AM
The highest risk for addition predicted by one time use is for nicotine. Even old science that rates heroin and crack as "more addictive" generally does so by the slightest of margins. How do you think a harmful, smelly, nasty product that provides limited mood enhancement came to addict 1,000,000,000 people? Think about it



The the clearest indication of addiction to any substance is denial and the belief that one can stop any time they want to. They just never " want to"

Mister D
12-26-2015, 11:13 AM
I think we may have to add "addiction" to "racism", "fascism" and other terms that have been emptied of specific content.

Mister D
12-26-2015, 11:15 AM
The the clearest indication of addiction to any substance is denial and the belief that one can stop any time they want to. They just never " want to"

Matty, you're the poster girl for drug legalization. If all this anti-drug propaganda is creating frightened lemmings I think perhaps it's counter-productive.

Peter1469
12-26-2015, 11:34 AM
That's what he said out of the left side of his mouth, out of the right side of his mouth he argues that we should pay for treatment and counseling as it is cheaper than incarceration.

Really?! :shocked: Can you support that?

donttread
12-26-2015, 11:56 AM
I think we may have to add "addiction" to "racism", "fascism" and other terms that have been emptied of specific content.


DSM defines addiction quite nicely

donttread
12-26-2015, 11:59 AM
Donttread, I have thought about it. You're being lied to by people who want to help you quit smoking. Look, this isn't a support group for smokers, OK? I'm not going to humor what is quite obviously nonsense. Your addiction to cigarettes is not like a heroin addiction. That nicotine withdrawal doesn't rush you to seek medical help ought to be a clue. You should really treat these claims like you treat global warming. It's funny how you will embrace manipulation when it suits you.


Sorry but I quit 13 years ago. You are the one trying to discredit me, Matty's doc, the DSM and other sources to support your own denial.

donttread
12-26-2015, 12:01 PM
You're all over the place, donttread. Dude, I don't care what you think of me or my habits. I'm just letting you know how delusional you are if you think a your struggle with smoking is like a heroin addiction. Thank God for you that's nonsense.


Sure ,nearly half a million Americans die every year from tobacco, but it can't be that addictive right? LMAO

donttread
12-26-2015, 12:04 PM
Oh, and when you don't take the heroin your body needs you're not "irritable" and "nervous". You're in fucking agony. People aren't able to distract themselves with chores. :rollseyes:

Hard for a control freak to face his own addiction

donttread
12-26-2015, 12:05 PM
That's what he said out of the left side of his mouth, out of the right side of his mouth he argues that we should pay for treatment and counseling as it is cheaper than incarceration.

Treatment IS cheaper then the incarceration you are already paying for .

Mister D
12-26-2015, 12:34 PM
Hard for a control freak to face his own addiction

Seems more like a case of donttread resorting to ad hominem because he can't make a rational argument. :wink:

Mister D
12-26-2015, 12:34 PM
Sure ,nearly half a million Americans die every year from tobacco, but it can't be that addictive right? LMAO

No one said it wasn't addictive. :rollseyes:

Mister D
12-26-2015, 12:35 PM
Sorry but I quit 13 years ago. You are the one trying to discredit me, Matty's doc, the DSM and other sources to support your own denial.

You have presented no sources. Matty's doc is not a source and the DSM does not support your claim. Secondly, I'm not the issue. lol

Mister D
12-26-2015, 12:37 PM
DSM defines addiction quite nicely

Post it.

donttread
12-26-2015, 01:42 PM
You have presented no sources. Matty's doc is not a source and the DSM does not support your claim. Secondly, I'm not the issue. lol

I mentioned the DSM in response to your inference that addiction required daily use , and the DSM most certainly does support my claim that this is not true.
You know for a man with such vast knowledge of world geography you still seem to believe that De Nile is a river in Eygpt

Mac-7
12-26-2015, 02:09 PM
Treatment IS cheaper then the incarceration you are already paying for .

If you are reduced to admitting that drugs cause problem then banning them is the reasonable thing to do.

Drug zombies have the choice if not using drugs the first time which improves their lives immeasurably.

donttread
12-26-2015, 03:22 PM
Post it.

Post the fucking DSM? LMFAO

donttread
12-26-2015, 03:24 PM
Can any of you name a single modern situation where prohibition has worked?

Mister D
12-26-2015, 03:45 PM
Post the $#@!ing DSM? LMFAO

The definition of addiction. You're not good at being coy.

Mister D
12-26-2015, 03:46 PM
I mentioned the DSM in response to your inference that addiction required daily use , and the DSM most certainly does support my claim that this is not true.
You know for a man with such vast knowledge of world geography you still seem to believe that De Nile is a river in Eygpt

I didn't say that "addiction" required daily use although if you are chemically dependent on a substance there is no such thing as a weekend addict. Now post the definition please. :smiley:

donttread
12-26-2015, 05:35 PM
If you are reduced to admitting that drugs cause problem then banning them is the reasonable thing to do.

Drug zombies have the choice if not using drugs the first time which improves their lives immeasurably.

They pose no more risk than legal drugs . Would you give up on type 2 diabetics and people with CHF, COPD and CAD resulting from their lifestyles as well?

donttread
12-26-2015, 05:37 PM
The definition of addiction. You're not good at being coy.

It's complicated but direct it involves tolerance and or withdrawal as well as impact on other life areas . It does not require daily use. Your view of alcoholism is very, very outdated

donttread
12-26-2015, 05:40 PM
I didn't say that "addiction" required daily use although if you are chemically dependent on a substance there is no such thing as a weekend addict. Now post the definition please. :smiley:


I'm not posting the DSM. Look it up and tell me where you disagree with me. See if it defines a guy who "quits smoking easily" but relapses to chew and cannot seem to drink without introducing tobacco into the equation. Hypothetical case of course

Mister D
12-26-2015, 05:40 PM
It's complicated but direct it involves tolerance and or withdrawal as well as impact on other life areas . It does not require daily use. Your view of alcoholism is very, very outdated

I give didn't give a view of alcoholism other than to say that someone who only drinks on the weekend cannot possibly be chemically dependent on alcohol. It's not possible.

Mister D
12-26-2015, 05:43 PM
I'm not posting the DSM. Look it up and tell me where you disagree with me. See if it defines a guy who "quits smoking easily" but relapses to chew and cannot seem to drink without introducing tobacco into the equation. Hypothetical case of course

Didn't think so. If the definition makes no distinction between weekend drinking and real alcoholism it's not worth looking for. It's bologna to frighten the sheep. Say baaaaah

Relapses on chew. :laugh:

donttread
12-26-2015, 06:02 PM
Didn't think so. If the definition makes no distinction between weekend drinking and real alcoholism it's not worth looking for. It's bologna to frighten the sheep. Say baaaaah

Relapses on chew. :laugh:

Physical dependence would be rare in a weekend drinker. But many so called weekend drinkers have a bit on Wednesday and then choose to include Monday as part of the weekend etc. What can be apparent with weekend drinkers is loss of control. Which is the inability to consistently stick to how much they planned to drink once they start. "I'll have 3 or 4" becomes drunk and blacked out for example

Mister D
12-26-2015, 06:05 PM
Physical dependence would be rare in a weekend drinker. But many so called weekend drinkers have a bit on Wednesday and then choose to include Monday as part of the weekend etc. What can be apparent with weekend drinkers is loss of control. Which is the inability to consistently stick to how much they planned to drink once they start. "I'll have 3 or 4" becomes drunk and blacked out for example

No, physical dependence would be completely unknown in a weekend drinker. Now once we start talking about people who drink everyday we are no longer talking about weekend drinkers are we?

Seriously, you strain out gnats and swallow camels.

donttread
12-26-2015, 06:09 PM
No, physical dependence would be completely unknown in a weekend drinker. Now once we start talking about people who drink everyday we are no longer talking about weekend drinkers are we?

Seriously, you strain out gnats and swallow camels.

Never say impossible, but phsical dependence in a true weekend drinker is unlikely. However, most people lie when defending their drinking

Mister D
12-26-2015, 06:27 PM
Never say impossible, but phsical dependence in a true weekend drinker is unlikely. However, most people lie when defending their drinking

It's about as likely as physical dependence in a teetotaler. It's simply not possible. If they're lying they aren't weekend drinkers.

donttread
12-26-2015, 06:38 PM
It's about as likely as physical dependence in a teetotaler. It's simply not possible. If they're lying they aren't weekend drinkers.

Pretty defensive "D". Why is that?

Mister D
12-26-2015, 06:45 PM
Pretty defensive "D". Why is that?

lol I drink everyday, donttread. Unlike you, I don't get scared when someone tells me alcohol is just like heroin. Yo know. this has been a very illuminating discussion. I didn't realize how inconsistent you are in your contempt for drug war dishonesty. You swallowed some real whoppers, man.

donttread
12-26-2015, 07:12 PM
lol I drink everyday, donttread. Unlike you, I don't get scared when someone tells me alcohol is just like heroin. Yo know. this has been a very illuminating discussion. I didn't realize how inconsistent you are in your contempt for drug war dishonesty. You swallowed some real whoppers, man.

I never said alcohol was "just like heroin" for one thing alcohol intoxication is much more likely to be a factor in violence. It's enlightening to me that you "quit smoking easily" but still use tobacco and that you "drink every day".