Crystal meth

scientific1982 · 18-11-2010 1:41pm

mloc wrote: »

How does that settle it? Your username is a misnomer; that is not a good comparison.

That social cost of alcohol, it's impact on society and public health and the lobbying power of the alcohol industry makes, quite reasonably, meth look like a very small issue indeed.

Alcohol related issues, indeed, trump the negative effects of every illegal drug, combined.

Ok. Compare the LD 50 of say vodka vs crystal meth.

In relation to its impact on society, alcohol has a larger impact because its more prevalent. If the same number of people who consume alcohol consumed crystal meth regularly, Ireland would be like a scene from 28 days later.

sbsquarepants · 18-11-2010 2:09pm

What have the ld50's of meth and vodka got to do with anything? The ld50 of a substance has absolutely no bearing on it's impact to society.
Take paracetemol, has quite a low ld50 in relation to similar drugs, it has hardly ravaged society though has it?
I don't think you're as scientific as your user name implies!

Terry · 18-11-2010 2:20pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I agree with you, of course some things are more addictive than others, but you can be guaranteed that it's nowhere near as bad as the press will tell you, and for the most part the people who will end up addicted to it, would end up addicted to something else if meth didn't exist. Addiction to anything doesn't happen overnight, there are warning signs which must be either missed or ignored before a full blown addiction can take place. The kind of disinformation contained in the media helps no one, except the media!

You seem to be quite naive as to the addictiveness of drugs. I would suggest that you stay away from anything illegal.

scientific1982 wrote: »

Simple way to settle it. Have someone take alcohol everyday for the next year and have someone else take crystal meth. Gee I wonder who would be worse off.

I've been drunk every night for he past year and I'm still functional.

mloc wrote: »

How does that settle it? Your username is a misnomer; that is not a good comparison.

That social cost of alcohol, it's impact on society and public health and the lobbying power of the alcohol industry makes, quite reasonably, meth look like a very small issue indeed.

Alcohol related issues, indeed, trump the negative effects of every illegal drug, combined.

Alcohol is nowhere near as strong as crystal meth. It's not even as strong as cannabis.
Think about how many drinks it takes to get drunk. Then think about how many drags of a joint it takes to get high. Factor in the time difference too.

Then look at crystal meth and how strong that is.

Of course alcohol causes problems, but not for everyone who drinks. Anyone doing crystal meth on a regular basis will become addicted to it. There is no disputing that fact.
This isn't like going on the lash for two week in Benidorm, or where ever is fashionable these days. You will come back from that holiday and not be an alcoholic. If you do crystal meth for two weeks straight, there is a very high probability of becoming addicted to it when you wake up.

Legalising other drugs will just lead to the same problems caused by alcohol. To ignore that fact would be foolish.

scientific1982 · 18-11-2010 2:28pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

What have the ld50's of meth and vodka got to do with anything? The ld50 of a substance has absolutely no bearing on it's impact to society.
Take paracetemol, has quite a low ld50 in relation to similar drugs, it has hardly ravaged society though has it?
I don't think you're as scientific as your user name implies!

Because we're fcuking talking about how harmful a drug is. I think its toxicity would be a consideration.

Zascar · 18-11-2010 2:35pm

Like a lot of 'drugs' alcohol can be enjoyed in moderation by 99% of the population, it’s the 1-2% that develop a problem that ruin it for the rest of us.

If everyone in the country was out smoking Meth a few times a week, it would be a hell of a lot more than 1-2% that would develop a problem.

Honestly, if you have not already, watch the documentaries mentioned above – and you’ll understand just how horrific this drug is.

sbsquarepants · 18-11-2010 2:49pm

Terry wrote: »

You seem to be quite naive as to the addictiveness of drugs. I would suggest that you stay away from anything illegal..

I've done plenty of addictive drugs in my time, without addiction, i'm far from naive. But thanks for your concern!

Terry wrote: »

I've been drunk every night for he past year and I'm still functional..

I think you might be the naive one

scientific1982 wrote: »

Because we're fcuking talking about how harmful a drug is. I think its toxicity would be a consideration.

We were talking about the damage to society, not to the individual. Alcohol already is way more damaging to society (see chart below) The Ld50 comparison is less than meaningless in this regard.

scientific1982 · 18-11-2010 3:01pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I've done plenty of addictive drugs in my time, without addiction, i'm far from naive. But thanks for your concern!

I think you might be the naive one

We were talking about the damage to society, not to the individual. Alcohol already is way more damaging to society (see chart below) The Ld50 comparison is less than meaningless in this regard.

We were talking about the actual substance. Yeah you're right, toxicity is only a minor concern when accessing the harmfulness of a drug. I dont know why pharmaceutical companies bother compiling drug safety data.

Fremen · 18-11-2010 3:05pm

scientific1982 wrote: »

Because we're fcuking talking about how harmful a drug is. I think its toxicity would be a consideration.

In that case, you should be looking at the ratio (Active dose) : (LD 50)

By the LD50 criterion alone, it would appear that Nicotine is about 700 times more dangerous than crystal meth.

scientific1982 · 18-11-2010 3:20pm

Fremen wrote: »

In that case, you should be looking at the ratio (Active dose) : (LD 50)

By the LD50 criterion alone, it would appear that Nicotine is about 700 times more dangerous than crystal meth.

Fair enough. Id say the information derived from the LD 50 alone is important when considering a substances harmfulness wouldnt you.

Also, I didnt say that we should look at LD 50 alone. However, by that criteria, crystal meth is 10 times more dangerous than alcohol.

mloc · 18-11-2010 3:30pm

scientific1982 wrote: »

Fair enough. Id say the information derived from the LD 50 alone is important when considering a substances harmfulness wouldn't you.

I think it depends on your definition of harmfulness.

LD50 merely tells us the dose at which 50% of certain population given that dose, died.

Death is rarely an issue with illegal drugs, heroin and cocaine aside. The vast majority of so-called "drug related deaths" are as a result of a combination of large quantities of alcohol and drugs. The most obvious danger for someone taking drugs alone is getting arrested.

Deaths attributable to drugs such as cannabis, MDMA and hallucinogenics alone are virtually non-existent.

Fremen · 18-11-2010 3:32pm

scientific1982 wrote: »

Ok. Compare the LD 50 of say vodka vs crystal meth.

My point is that this comparison is meaningless. The LD50 of caffeine is way lower than vodka or meth. It's silly to compare them in absolute terms.

K-9 · 18-11-2010 3:37pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I've done plenty of addictive drugs in my time, without addiction, i'm far from naive. But thanks for your concern!

I think you might be the naive one

We were talking about the damage to society, not to the individual. Alcohol already is way more damaging to society (see chart below) The Ld50 comparison is less than meaningless in this regard.

Certain alcoholics can manage fine, others can't. Usually long term it catches up on them though.

Anyway, I don't like the "sure look at alcohol" defence. It's like the "have you stopped beating your wife?" defence in politics. Comparing meths to one drug that cause huge social problems isn't an argument for it, it's a very lazy defence of it.

Kotek Besar · 18-11-2010 4:10pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

(see chart below)

Khat looks good. Might try that.

scientific1982 · 18-11-2010 4:23pm

Fremen wrote: »

My point is that this comparison is meaningless. The LD50 of caffeine is way lower than vodka or meth. It's silly to compare them in absolute terms.

Where did I say that it should be the sole test used to assess the harmfulness of alcohol vs meth. I just used it as one example.

scientific1982 · 18-11-2010 4:34pm

mloc wrote: »

I think it depends on your definition of harmfulness.

LD50 merely tells us the dose at which 50% of certain population given that dose, died.

Death is rarely an issue with illegal drugs, heroin and cocaine aside. The vast majority of so-called "drug related deaths" are as a result of a combination of large quantities of alcohol and drugs. The most obvious danger for someone taking drugs alone is getting arrested.

Deaths attributable to drugs such as cannabis, MDMA and hallucinogenics alone are virtually non-existent.

Yeah death would be the ultimate adverse effect. What about a comparison of the two substances in relation to neurotoxicity, mutagenicity, teratogenicity, ect. Id be fairly confident that a substance like meth, which is manufactured with drain cleaning fluid amongst other dubious ingredients, is going to be more harmful to an individuals health.

sbsquarepants · 18-11-2010 4:50pm

K-9 wrote: »

Certain alcoholics can manage fine, others can't. Usually long term it catches up on them though.

Anyway, I don't like the "sure look at alcohol" defence. It's like the "have you stopped beating your wife?" defence in politics. Comparing meths to one drug that cause huge social problems isn't an argument for it, it's a very lazy defence of it.

It is a bit lazy, but only because it's stating the obvious. Yes meth is addictive and some people will run into problems using it, probably a higher percentage than would with alcohol (for example). But lets not forget, over in america they prescribe this stuff to millions of kids! My whole point is yes, it's bad, but it's not THAT bad! There is really no need for hysteria.
I would be absolutely certain that i could do it without getting addicted, 100% certain, and the vast majority of people could too

Also, i'm not sure what the wife beating thing is, but i'd pay good money to hear Enda Kenny say it to biffo in the dail!:D

Zascar · 18-11-2010 4:59pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I would be absolutely certain that i could do it without getting addicted, 100% certain, and the vast majority of people could too

Strange comment. Are you referring to doing it once? I'm sure you'd be fine, but try doing it every weekend for a few months and then a few times a week for a while, and then every day - and then see how you're doing.

Do you think you could inject heroin and not get addicted?

Kotek Besar · 18-11-2010 5:03pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I would be absolutely certain that i could do it without getting addicted, 100% certain, and the vast majority of people could too

What a knob head.

K-9 · 18-11-2010 5:05pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It is a bit lazy, but only because it's stating the obvious. Yes meth is addictive and some people will run into problems using it, probably a higher percentage than would with alcohol (for example). But lets not forget, over in america they prescribe this stuff to millions of kids! My whole point is yes, it's bad, but it's not THAT bad! There is really no need for hysteria.
I would be absolutely certain that i could do it without getting addicted, 100% certain, and the vast majority of people could too

Also, i'm not sure what the wife beating thing is, but i'd pay good money to hear Enda Kenny say it to biffo in the dail!:D

It's the definition of a loaded question! Because one drug is ok, so should meths.

As for the wife beating thing, it is a variation of this:
Back on the Gonzo trail

as in this 'ancient and honourable' story of how Lyndon Johnson first got elected to Congress in 1948 when his opponent was a wealthy and politically favoured pig farmer: 'Lyndon was running about 10 points behind, with only nine days to go... He was sunk in despair. He was desperate... he called his equally depressed campaign manager and instructed him to call a press conference at two or two-thirty ( just after lunch on a slow news day) and accuse his high-riding opponent (the pig farmer) of having routine carnal knowledge of his barnyard sows, despite the pleas of his wife and children...

His campaign manager was shocked. 'We can't say that, Lyndon,' he said. 'It's not true.' 'Of course it's not,' Johnson barked at him, 'but let's make the bastard deny it.'

sbsquarepants · 18-11-2010 5:09pm

scientific1982 wrote: »

Yeah death would be the ultimate adverse effect. What about a comparison of the two substances in relation to neurotoxicity, mutagenicity, teratogenicity, ect. Id be fairly confident that a substance like meth, which is manufactured with drain cleaning fluid amongst other dubious ingredients, is going to be more harmful to an individuals health.

In work, i've recently purchased 50 litres of ethanol (ie drinking alcohol) for cleaning and degreasing metal bars, prior to them being glued. Does this mean a €1000 bottle of vintage champagne was made using dubious ingredients such as industrial degreaser? A lot of things can be made to sound worse than they really are.
There are all sorts of nasty chemicals in all sorts of things!

But don't get me wrong, meth is not health food:)

sbsquarepants · 18-11-2010 5:19pm

Zascar wrote: »

Strange comment. Are you referring to doing it once? I'm sure you'd be fine, but try doing it every weekend for a few months and then a few times a week for a while, and then every day - and then see how you're doing.

Do you think you could inject heroin and not get addicted?

I wouldn't permit myself to escalate like that, that's what i meant earlier by saying there are warning signs to addiction. They don't just happen overnight!

I wouldn't inject anything, so no. In fact i wouldn't try heroin at all.

Kotek Besar wrote: »

What a knob head.

Please like me!

mloc · 18-11-2010 5:20pm

scientific1982 wrote: »

Yeah death would be the ultimate adverse effect. What about a comparison of the two substances in relation to neurotoxicity, mutagenicity, teratogenicity, ect. Id be fairly confident that a substance like meth, which is manufactured with drain cleaning fluid amongst other dubious ingredients, is going to be more harmful to an individuals health.

By some definitions, alcohol is an industrial cleaning fluid.

edit:
Just noticed someone else has pointed this out already.

scientific1982 · 18-11-2010 5:20pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

In work, i've recently purchased 50 litres of ethanol (ie drinking alcohol) for cleaning and degreasing metal bars, prior to them being glued. Does this mean a €1000 bottle of vintage champagne was made using dubious ingredients such as industrial degreaser? A lot of things can be made to sound worse than they really are.
There are all sorts of nasty chemicals in all sorts of things!

But don't get me wrong, meth is not health food:)

No methanol isnt "drinking alcohol", thats ethanol. Nevertheless, you dont pop down the pub and order a pint of pure ethanol do you. You're right in saying that there are a lot of nasty chemicals in many of the beverages and foods that we eat, but we have very strict legislation concerning their manufacture and the levels of said cheimcals allowed. These foods and drinks are also extensively tested. Maybe im wrong but I dont think your average meth cook is bound by such tight controls.

scientific1982 · 18-11-2010 5:24pm

mloc wrote: »

By some definitions, alcohol is an industrial cleaning fluid.

edit:
Just noticed someone else has pointed this out already.

Yep. 70% alcohol is a very effective disinfectant too. Other common meth ingredients include chloroform, ether and acetone. Point.

sbsquarepants · 18-11-2010 5:39pm

scientific1982 wrote: »

No methanol isnt "drinking alcohol", thats ethanol. Nevertheless, you dont pop down the pub and order a pint of pure ethanol do you. You're right in saying that there are a lot of nasty chemicals in many of the beverages and foods that we eat, but we have very strict legislation concerning their manufacture and the levels of said cheimcals allowed. These foods and drinks are also extensively tested. Maybe im wrong but I dont think your average meth cook is bound by such tight controls.

I was in the process of changing it back to ethanol, spelling mistake (prob form typing meth so many times!) I'm not advocating meth for breakfast or anything like that, i'm just saying it's not as bad as some people are making out, and the "horrible" chemicals used in it manufature are also used in a lot of the things we eat and drink etc.
And as has been pointed out by another poster, it's readily available and widely used on prescription by millions of people, so it can't be that evil! No drug is good or bad, it's how it's used (or abused) that defines that.

Also, no i don't order pints of pure ethanol in a pub, but i can walk into any supermarket or off licence and buy enough to kill myself 10 times over and the nice girl on the till will simply smile and take my money. Society hasn't collapsed because of it, most people are sensible enough not to poison themselves with it, or get addicted to it. It is the same with everything.

Prof.Badass · 18-11-2010 5:42pm

brendansmith wrote: »

I don't want to talk to a scientist, y'all mother fcukers lyin, and gettin me pissed

I'm not a scientist

really must change this username　:(.

Terry wrote: »

Alcohol is nowhere near as strong as crystal meth. It's not even as strong as cannabis.
Think about how many drinks it takes to get drunk. Then think about how many drags of a joint it takes to get high. Factor in the time difference too.

Just because the actual action of taking alcohol takes longer than for other drugs doesn't make you more likely to overdose once you know what a suitable dose is, neither does it make it less addictive.
In fact it has been shown that one of the effects of alcohol is that as time goes on it actually makes you underestimate how drunk you are, which of course could very much lead to you drinking more than you intended.
Cannabis does not make you underestimate how altered you are, at least not to the same degree as alcohol.

Of course alcohol causes problems, but not for everyone who drinks. Anyone doing crystal meth on a regular basis will become addicted to it. There is no disputing that fact.
This isn't like going on the lash for two week in Benidorm, or where ever is fashionable these days. You will come back from that holiday and not be an alcoholic. If you do crystal meth for two weeks straight, there is a very high probability of becoming addicted to it when you wake up.

Yes. Crystal meth is more addictive than alcohol. It's neurotoxic effects are also imo worse than alcohol (even if meth causes less damage than alcohol, the nature of it makes it far worse imo).

If i was dictator i would decriminalise methamphetamine, but because of it's neurotoxicity I would not give it the 'recreational drugs regulatory authority' stamp of approval to be sold explicitly for recreational use. There are plenty of non-neurotoxic stimulants out there that are equally effective.

Legalising other drugs will just lead to the same problems caused by alcohol. To ignore that fact would be foolish.

Drugs belonging to different classes have different effects.
Alcohol (and drugs simmilar to it) are particular in the social harm they can cause and the way they can reduce judgement.
You also seem to assume that the amount of new people taking currently-illegal drugs will be high enough to have a negative social effect that even comes close to the massive social harm caused by the prohibition of drugs.

sbsquarepants · 18-11-2010 6:49pm

Prof.Badass wrote: »

I'm not a scientist really must change this username　:(.
.

I don't know who to trust anymore. Are you at least a badass?:)

mloc · 18-11-2010 7:01pm

scientific1982 wrote: »

Yep. 70% alcohol is a very effective disinfectant too. Other common meth ingredients include chloroform, ether and acetone. Point.

They are not "ingredients". They are precursor compounds or reagents used in the manufacture of meth. It is more true to state that cyanide is an ingredient in table salt.

I'm not saying meth is good; it's a harmful, addictive substance with little merit as a recreational drug.

What I am saying is that the level of misunderstanding, hyperbole and exaggeration surrounding the reality of drugs (and in that I include alcohol) in Ireland is staggering.

scientific1982 · 18-11-2010 7:45pm

mloc wrote: »

They are not "ingredients". They are precursor compounds or reagents used in the manufacture of meth. It is more true to state that cyanide is an ingredient in table salt.

I'm not saying meth is good; it's a harmful, addictive substance with little merit as a recreational drug.

What I am saying is that the level of misunderstanding, hyperbole and exaggeration surrounding the reality of drugs (and in that I include alcohol) in Ireland is staggering.

Yes obviously chemical reactions are involved leading to the formation of new chemical species. However, I highly doubt that the final product is subjected to thorough purification do you. What remains will also be floating aroud your blood stream.

Fremen · 18-11-2010 8:44pm

scientific1982 wrote: »

Where did I say that it should be the sole test used to assess the harmfulness of alcohol vs meth. I just used it as one example.

It was a lousy example. That's all I'm sayin'.

scientific1982 · 18-11-2010 9:51pm

Fremen wrote: »

It was a lousy example. That's all I'm sayin'.

Well its only an internet forum and you're not an authority on toxicology, so im not bothered. Thats all im sayin.

Terry · 18-11-2010 10:08pm

I'm not going to quote everyone who disagreed with me re:alcohol.
My point is that one unit of alcohol will impair the judgement of very few people.
One standard dose of meth will get you off your face.

Fremen · 18-11-2010 10:49pm

Terry wrote: »

One standard dose of meth will get you off your face.

That depends how you define a standard dose of meth. They give it to people with depression and ADD in "standard" doses. Not in the pure crystal form you get on the street, but then again, there's a difference between Carlsberg and poitin too.

I'm not saying crystal meth is a good thing - in fact I think it's about as dangerous as crack cocaine, and much worse for society because it's relatively easy to make. I just don't think it's as black and white as some others who have been posting.

Terry · 19-11-2010 1:34am

Fremen wrote: »

That depends how you define a standard dose of meth. They give it to people with depression and ADD in "standard" doses. Not in the pure crystal form you get on the street, but then again, there's a difference between Carlsberg and poitin too.

I'm not saying crystal meth is a good thing - in fact I think it's about as dangerous as crack cocaine, and much worse for society because it's relatively easy to make. I just don't think it's as black and white as some others who have been posting.

We're talking about the crap you buy on the street and not medication.

Remember, you're talking about the country which gave the world Hillbilly heroin.
Whatever you think about the vintners and pharmacists in Ireland, they don't have a patch on their U.S. counterparts.

The regulation on pharmaceuticals in America is far more liberal than it is here. The U.S. pharmaceutical lobby is extremely powerful. Their politicians are bought and sold by lobbyists, and most laws passed are funded by monied interest groups. Yeah, it happens here, but you just have to say that you won the money in Cheltenham and you're grand.

They have a completely different medical system to ours. If you have no money and no medical insurance, then you die. Simple as that. The pharmacists there do not want a welfare system like our own, so they sponsor politicians opposed to it.

Then you have the way medicine is dispensed. All you do is go to a psychiatrist. Tell them that you're obese and can't concentrate. Off you go with your Desoxyn.

I'll give you a personal example of what happens here. I'm addicted to xanax (alprazolam). My old GP (R.I.P.) gave me them. I was prescribed 0.25mg 3 times a day. That was about 12 years ago. I've been on the same amount since then.
That's a very low dose of that particular drug, but it's still very addictive.
Over the years I went through some bad patched where I would go through a month's supply in 2 weeks. My GP would then just give me more, but I always had to see a psychyatrist or councillor afterwards. I'd say this happened about 2 or 3 times a year.
After he died there was a slew of locums in his place. Most of them were very wary about prescribing xanax to me. On one occasion one of the locums wrote my prescription so that I had to go the the chemist every day to pick up my 3 pills.

At my worst I was popping 12 pills in one go. That's 3mg.
I'm down to about 2/3 of my monthly prescription for about a year now, so I only need to pick them up 8 times a year.

In the interest of honesty, I still have bad days. Today was one. I took 4 at about 2pm today. I was out for the count at 3. I was woken by my phone ringing at 6, and only got up because it was my cousin's kid nearly in tears because he couldn't connect to the internet (poor fecker lives in the middle of nowhere, so he never really made any friends), so I went and sorted that. I would have slept for another few hours.

Now let's look at America. I don't even think they bother with the 0.25mg pills.
They don't care if you're an addict. All they want is their referral fee and money. There's no after care for patients. They just throw pills at you. Whichever one works is the one they keep giving you. If you run out of money, then you can go and **** off.

You want treatment for your addiction? Then you're going to pay substantially for that too.
We don't care that we're the ones who gave you the pills in the first place. We're still going to charge you more in order to get you off those pills. We may even give you a substitute pill and charge you for that one too.

America is not the place to look to when you're talking about harmful substances. It's an extremely right wing capitalist society. They really do not care about the consumer. All they want to see is growing profits, and their government completely supports this. Just look at their reluctance to sign the Kyoto protocol.

Terry · 19-11-2010 2:00am

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I think you might be the naive one

I'm far from naive when it comes to drugs.
I'm an addict. I know exactly what it's like to be addicted to drugs. Mind you, they're all legal.

You come across as one of those who subscribes to the theory put forth in South Park's 'Bloody Mary' episode. That is, it's all about moderation. That's complete and utter crap.

I didn't set out to become addicted to anything. These drugs just got the better of me over a long period of time. The only one I ever took for pleasure was alcohol. Even with that, I can go without for a few days. The others are far more insidious, and hit you over a longer period of time.

Caffeine: Meh. Half the world is addicted in some way or another.
Nicotine: I only started smoking to see if it really was addictive. Sort of glad that I did. It made me realise what addiction is and kept me from doing readily available heroin.
Alcohol: I'm Irish.
Xanax: I'd say that I would have killed myself were it not for this drug.

Crystal meth: No thank you. I like my dopamine.

mloc · 19-11-2010 11:19am

It might be worth pointing out that whether a drug is legal or not has absolutely no impact on how dangerous or addictive it is.

Clinically speaking, the two most dangerous addictions in terms of widthdrawal and physical symptoms are alcohol and benzos (e.g. valium etc).

sbsquarepants · 19-11-2010 11:48am

Terry wrote: »

I'm far from naive when it comes to drugs.
I'm an addict. I know exactly what it's like to be addicted to drugs. Mind you, they're all legal.

No offence but that's a bit of a contradiction in terms, you may not be naive now, but in my opinion you had to be to get addicted in the first place. The legality is neither here nor there, your liver and kidneys don't know anything about the law.

You come across as one of those who subscribes to the theory put forth in South Park's 'Bloody Mary' episode. That is, it's all about moderation. That's complete and utter crap.

I disagree it is all about moderation to a certain extent, and knowledge is absolutely key. Truthfull media reporting would go a long way, people hear things they know to be rubbish on tv etc and so mistakenly believe that everything they've heard is rubbish. 1st time addiction is an idiotic concept and leads naive people to believe dangerously addictive substances like meth in this example can be taken lightly. Newspapers and tv etc should tell the truth about these things, not sensationalist bulls'hit. It's in everybodies interest. More recently certain websites (i don't think i can name them here) must have saved thousands of people from addiction, overdoses etc, they are invaluable if you ask me.

I didn't set out to become addicted to anything. These drugs just got the better of me over a long period of time. The only one I ever took for pleasure was alcohol. Even with that, I can go without for a few days. The others are far more insidious, and hit you over a longer period of time.

This is my entire point, it didn't just happen overnight, there had to be warning signs which you either missed ( ie. naivety or disinformation) or ignored for whatever reason personal to yourself. You say you never set out to be an addict, which is probably true in almost all cases, but the difference is i set out specifically not to be an addict, i mean absolutely determined to never become an addict. Also you had some sort of underlying problems which luckily for me i didn't, every drug i took, i took purely for pleasure. I'm sure that helped me stay addiction free too.

Wompa1 · 19-11-2010 12:02pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Also you had some sort of underlying problems which luckily for me i didn't, every drug i took, i took purely for pleasure. I'm sure that helped me stay addiction free too.

That's a pretty dumb statement in fairness. You don't think people become addicted when they just do drugs for fun?

sbsquarepants · 19-11-2010 12:55pm

I think it's fairly obvious that if someone is taking any drug (legal or illegal, prescription or back alley) to escape something in their lives that they don't like, they are more likely to become addicted to it. When the effect wears off and the problem is still there, it's more likely that they will repeat than if they were just having a laugh. What's dumb about that?

brendansmith · 21-11-2010 8:00pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

What's dumb about that?

Nothing, I completely agree

BogMonkey · 22-11-2010 9:21pm

Stench Blossoms wrote: »

Maybe that's why the government brought in the restrictions against buying Nurophen Plus/Solphadine? Both of them have codine in them. Could be preparing themselves.

Whats codeine got to do with crystal meth?

SteoL · 25-11-2011 3:29pm

brendansmith wrote: »

deathrider wrote: »

Could you tell a little about it. Form, what kinda high, the generals effects of it. Outside of the name, I n=know nothing about.

Well from what ive seen in documentary etc it comes in a small quantity of crystal looking powderish stuff and you smoke it in a glass pipe.

Its supposed to be way more potent than heroin and also way more addictive. The first hit is a flood of endorfins?!? to the brain and any subsequent hits never get back to that level of high but those who become addicted (nearly all who try it) are constantly chasing the initial high.

It makes users believ that there are bugs under their skin so they can spend hours trying to dig them out with their finger nails leaving scars and such.
It dried out your mouth and stop syliva forming so your teeth rot.

It makes people completely lose the run of themselves and they rob stuff to support the habit and shoot at police when they start chasing them etc.

It seems to be the most destructive thing imaginable to safe, sane society and its effects are spreading all over the states, oz, nz and elsewhere I would imagine.

You were watching "Ice Age" before posting this weren't you?

Itsdacraic · 25-11-2011 3:32pm

SteoL wrote: »

You were watching "Ice Age" before posting this weren't you?

And what were you watching? "Back To The Future"?

Leftist · 25-11-2011 3:34pm

The effects of crystal meth are exaggerated. Heroin is far more destructive.

Dudess · 25-11-2011 3:42pm

I know it's only one documentary - but did you see the Louis Theroux one about the town addicted to it? Seems as bad as, if not worse than, heroin.

Btw, why are zombie bumped threads often from exactly a year before...? Same with the women in nightclubs one...

Crazy Horse 6 · 25-11-2011 3:46pm

Dudess wrote: »

I know it's only one documentary - but did you see the Louis Theroux one about the town addicted to it? Seems as bad as, if not worse than, heroin.

Btw, why are zombie bumped threads often from exactly a year before...? Same with the women in nightclubs one...

Link?

knird evol · 25-11-2011 3:47pm

Leftist wrote: »

The effects of crystal meth are exaggerated. Heroin is far more destructive.

That's some bad ****

Interesting fact - Adolf Hitler was a meth addict Fuher is a Junkie

SteoL · 25-11-2011 4:34pm

Itsdacraic wrote: »

SteoL wrote: »

You were watching "Ice Age" before posting this weren't you?

And what were you watching? "Back To The Future"?

Haha. Was googling away and this thread came up. Didn't Realise it a year old or that I posted in it a year ago.

Deus Ex Machina · 25-11-2011 4:57pm

I have tried Meth twice two summers ago. Smoked it on both occasions. The effects for me included an extraordinary sense of tranquility, as well as ferocious powers concentration and mental clarity. In some ways the sensation is something along the lines of a perfect state of mind. I played the piano for about 7 hours straight and stayed up all night. The come down was inverse, but probably more intense.

It is a highly addictive drug obviously, but these effects are multiplied by the fact that most of those who try it are predisposed to drug abuse by virtue of their position in life. I don't think I would allow myself use it regularly because it is incredibly deleterious to one's health, be it mental or physical.

RichieC · 25-11-2011 5:00pm

Middle class crack.

Crystal meth

Comments