A Nation of Addicts and bad attitude toward it

Stonedpilot

Are we a nation of addicts in this country?.
I ask because many people I've met are on something and have a compulsion to take it or are addicted to something. From weed to alcohol to heroin to benzo's to xanax to sleeping pills to painkillers to porn to gaming addictions to gambling to internet it seems Ireland is one small island with a big addiction problem.

One thing I can't stand is the hypocrisy of some people whom are addicts. For example addicts judging others are vulgarly dismissing them as 'junkies'. How many times have you listened to some elderly woman on Joe Duffy berate heroin addicts only to be addicted to over the counter medication like Solpadeine herself or abusing prescriptions she's on. (seen people abuse prescription drugs, just as bad if not worse than illegal)

Former housemate of mine was good friends with a Garda and as sound as he was he clearly was a drug addict. Always needing more and buying more and having phenomenal craving for his drug of choice yet judging the young lads he'd bust with 1 gram of weed of judging those he'd arrest whom are stoned or high on whatever. Of course he'd recount these stories off his face on illegal drugs late at night!. The irony. (In a way felt sorry for him as he lived in the pocket of a rather manipulative/smarter dealer.)

Just think the attitudes people have to addiction are awful considering it's so incredibly commonplace. Often remember Gerry Ryan or people on his show having a moan about addicts on the Quays etc only for him to be one himself!. A classic example of a addict not facing the truth and physiologically projecting.

Totally sober people in Ireland seem to be in the tiny minority. No drink no drugs ever. No self indulgent/destructive behavior at all.
(Know a guy whom has a good job as a librarian but he wouldn't take prescribed painkillers after injuring his leg badly as he use to be a alcoholic and heroin addict and was afraid to get addicted to the prescribed painkillers.) That level of devotion I mean in sobriety.

I think there is a lot to learn from recovered addicts whom are completely sober (of ALL substances for years). They grow mentally emotionally and spiritually and mature. Lose their judgement and become more giving so to speak. Guess they humbled themselves and learned.

The flying mouse

That's why we have that party AAA ?

ED E

The irony of your username.

DrumSteve

There are a lot of strawmen in that post.

The Backwards Man

Might as well face it

The flying mouse

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Are we a nation of addicts in this country?.
I ask because many people I've met are on something and have a compulsion to take it or are addicted to something. From weed to alcohol to heroin to benzo's to xanax to sleeping pills to painkillers to porn to gaming addictions to gambling to internet it seems Ireland is one small island with a big addiction problem.

One thing I can't stand is the hypocrisy of some people whom are addicts. For example addicts judging others are vulgarly dismissing them as 'junkies'. How many times have you listened to some elderly woman on Joe Duffy berate heroin addicts only to be addicted to over the counter medication like Solpadeine herself or abusing prescriptions she's on. (seen people abuse prescription drugs, just as bad if not worse than illegal)

Former housemate of mine was good friends with a Garda and as sound as he was he clearly was a drug addict. Always needing more and buying more and having phenomenal craving for his drug of choice yet judging the young lads he'd bust with 1 gram of weed of judging those he'd arrest whom are stoned or high on whatever. Of course he'd recount these stories off his face on illegal drugs late at night!. The irony. (In a way felt sorry for him as he lived in the pocket of a rather manipulative/smarter dealer.)

Just think the attitudes people have to addiction are awful considering it's so incredibly commonplace. Often remember Gerry Ryan or people on his show having a moan about addicts on the Quays etc only for him to be one himself!. A classic example of a addict not facing the truth and physiologically projecting.

Totally sober people in Ireland seem to be in the tiny minority. No drink no drugs ever. No self indulgent/destructive behavior at all.
(Know a guy whom has a good job as a librarian but he wouldn't take prescribed painkillers after injuring his leg badly as he use to be a alcoholic and heroin addict and was afraid to get addicted to the prescribed painkillers.) That level of devotion I mean in sobriety.

I think there is a lot to learn from recovered addicts whom are completely sober (of ALL substances for years). They grow mentally emotionally and spiritually and mature. Lose their judgement and become more giving so to speak. Guess they humbled themselves and learned.

What you want to know ?

ScumLord

Are you by any chance calling anyone who uses any drug an addict? You don't seem to have a cut off for recreational use.

Maybe having a little bit of an addiction isn't a bad thing? It only really seems to be a problem if you're poor and can't afford the drugs.

Life is for living, drugs are an experience, and elevating experience to some. I honestly don't think the human race would be were it is today without the influence of drugs.

Stonedpilot

ED E wrote: »

The irony of your username.

Haha true, off of all that crap now. Living sober; easier said then done but be worth it me thinks.

Trent Houseboat

I was going to say that you lost me with the phrase "Growing mentally, emotionally and spiritually" but I don't think I was ever on board with you.
I don't listen to the radio though, which seems to be where a lot of you anger is derived. Perhaps you should avoid it too, who know the level of spiritual growth you might achieve.

feargale

ScumLord wrote: »

I honestly don't think the human race would be were it is today without the influence of drugs.

Indeed. It has been said that all medieval history can be explained by the fact that everybody was more or less permanently p1ssed.

Ferrari3600

The OP does have a point in saying that there are socially acceptable forms of addiction and less socially acceptable forms.

But heroin addicts are more likely to engage in violent crime so maybe the prejudice has validity to it.

MeatTwoVeg

Stonedpilot wrote: »

How many times have you listened to some elderly woman on Joe Duffy berate heroin addicts only to be addicted to over the counter medication like Solpadeine herself or abusing prescriptions she's on..

No times.

seamus

Stonedpilot wrote: »

I think there is a lot to learn from recovered addicts whom are completely sober (of ALL substances for years). They grow mentally emotionally and spiritually and mature. Lose their judgement and become more giving so to speak. Guess they humbled themselves and learned.

Often those with the worst attitudes to addicts are former addicts.

Ask any smoker and they'll tell you there's often nobody more condescending than an ex-smoker.

In fact, the smug attitude above is often at the root of it - a belief that having beaten the addiction has "grown" them into a better human being. From where they look down upon addicts.

Anyway, for the most part your assertion that most people are addicted to something is flawed because you're lumping any old nonsense like "internet" addiction into the same class as actual chemical dependencies like heroin.

Next you'll be wittering on about people having to shed themselves of worldly desire or something.

Pat Mustard

Stonedpilot wrote: »

I think there is a lot to learn from recovered addicts whom are completely sober (of ALL substances for years). They grow mentally emotionally and spiritually and mature. Lose their judgement and become more giving so to speak. Guess they humbled themselves and learned.

I'll drink to that

diomed

Stonedpilot
Ryanair or Aer Lingus?

caff

Ferrari3600 wrote: »

The OP does have a point in saying that there are socially acceptable forms of addiction and less socially acceptable forms.

But heroin addicts are more likely to engage in violent crime so maybe the prejudice has validity to it.

The violence isn't due to the drug its the money for the drug. Give it to them on a medical card eliminate the crime then treat the addiction

Didas

Stonedpilot wrote: »

I think there is a lot to learn from recovered addicts whom are completely sober (of ALL substances for years). They grow mentally emotionally and spiritually and mature. Lose their judgement and become more giving so to speak. Guess they humbled themselves and learned.

I'll inject to that...

seamus

seamus wrote: »

............

Ask any smoker and they'll tell you there's often nobody more condescending than an ex-smoker.................

I think I remember someone I know who went off the cigarettes and onto e cigs or the liquid yokes remarking how smoking is such a stupid habit since the alternatives became available. I don't even smoke but I found it condescending.

He's a fat pr1ck too, one of these muppets who tells you his arms are killing him after a gym session (twice a year gym session).......... if he ever lost 12 stone I could see him being condescending to fat pr1cks too.

Ferrari3600

caff wrote: »

The violence isn't due to the drug its the money for the drug. Give it to them on a medical card eliminate the crime then treat the addiction

That probably is the most rational solution right enough.

CaptainR

Its a very simplistic argument that OP is trying to make. Its assuming that all things that are addictive are equally bad.

I think there's a small bit of difference in an old lady who's addicted to solpadeine or other pain killing drugs (let's be honest a lot of older people do actually suffer from pain) and someone out of their head on heroin. When was the last time an old woman addicted painkillers mugged someone?

fuzzydunlop85

Ferrari3600 wrote: »

The OP does have a point in saying that there are socially acceptable forms of addiction and less socially acceptable forms.

But heroin addicts are more likely to engage in violent crime so maybe the prejudice has validity to it.

What are you basing this on? Most heroin addicts I see are so strung out they would be blown over blown over be a stiff breeze, it would be the boozed up /coked up lads I would be more wary about. Edit - Missed the first part of your post.

Ted111

DrumSteve wrote: »

There are a lot of strawmen in that post.

Are you saying he is addicted to them.

ScumLord

feargale wrote: »

Indeed. It has been said that all medieval history can be explained by the fact that everybody was more or less permanently p1ssed.

The whole of early human history is the same. When they find early Jewish religious sites the whole place is littered with drug paraphernalia and trace amounts of all sorts of drugs. It seems just as likely to me that most religions started out with drug use because most tribal groups saw drugs as the doorway to communing with god, the after life, the universe, whatever you want to call it. Organised religion sought to block that doorway so that people had to go through them for enlightenment.

It's funny to think that puritan religions today are probably founded on the musings on people out of their mind on drugs.

Ferrari3600 wrote: »

The OP does have a point in saying that there are socially acceptable forms of addiction and less socially acceptable forms.

But heroin addicts are more likely to engage in violent crime so maybe the prejudice has validity to it.

They turn to crime to feed their addiction. The UK ran a program were they gave heroin to people and they had a completely different lifestyle to those that had to hussle for their drugs. One woman gave up prostitution, she only did it for heroin, another man held down a job supporting his family. When they stopped the program those people were dead inside of two years.

Drugs aren't so much the problem, it's how we deal with the people who use drugs that really affects people.

CaptainR

fuzzydunlop85 wrote: »

What are you basing this on? Most heroin addicts I see are so strung out they would be blown over blown over be a stiff breeze, it would be the boozed up /coked up lads I would be more wary about. Edit - Missed the first part of your post.

That's when they're high. When they're not they need money and obviously they don't work so they steal it.

The flying mouse

I am an addict, well my main drug was alcohol, but throw in cocaine & ecstasy plus any other upper drug & I took it, Clean nearly eight years now, Anyway I wouldn't look down on anyone else nor judge them ,I do work & help & support where I can, if I can help, as I am only human & have human flaws like us all.

I have certainly grown in spiritually, mentally & happiness in my life since I stopped self abusing. All my life has improved in every way, there is not one downside to me stopping & I have not yet met one person who like me was an addict who has regretted it.

Don't really know what your question is op ?

Working class heroes

ScumLord wrote: »

Are you by any chance calling anyone who uses any drug an addict? You don't seem to have a cut off for recreational use.

Maybe having a little bit of an addiction isn't a bad thing? It only really seems to be a problem if you're poor and can't afford the drugs.

Life is for living, drugs are an experience, and elevating experience to some. I honestly don't think the human race would be were it is today without the influence of drugs.

A little bit of addiction? You are either addicted or you aren't. You'd have to be on drugs to think otherwise.
Oh and "drugs are an experience" good god!

ScumLord

Working class heroes wrote: »

A little bit of addiction? You are either addicted or you aren't. You'd have to be on drugs to think otherwise.
Oh and "drugs are an experience" good god!

So people who drink alcohol are either addicts or tea totallers?

If drugs aren't an experience what are they? There are thousands of artworks and even scientific breakthroughs made under the influence of some drug or another. Most ages of enlightenment also included drug use. Hell even most music scenes we know today are linked to a specific drug.

Ted111

You could say that all addicts are addicted to dopamine. Because whatever substance or habit they are engaged in causes the release of the 'reward' chemical in the brain.
This may not be entirely factual but it sounds clever.

andekwarhola

Does addiction to pontification count?

Ferrari3600

Working class heroes wrote: »

A little bit of addiction? You are either addicted or you aren't. You'd have to be on drugs to think otherwise.
Oh and "drugs are an experience" good god!

You are vastly oversimplifying.

People who drink coffee during the week at work but not at weekends can get mild withdrawal effects for example (headaches).

Working class heroes

ScumLord wrote: »

So people who drink alcohol are either addicts or tea totallers?

If drugs aren't an experience what are they? There are thousands of artworks and even scientific breakthroughs made under the influence of some drug or another. Most ages of enlightenment also included drug use. Hell even most music scenes we know today are linked to a specific drug.

No, I never said that I was questioning your nonsensical "a little bit addicted"comment.
You seem to be glamorising drugs. You seem to be suggesting we would still be in the Stone Age if it weren't for ug and og getting stoned. Stop glamorising drugs. Artistic and scientific development was achieved in spite of not because of the influence of drugs.

Working class heroes

Ferrari3600 wrote: »

You are vastly oversimplifying.

People who drink coffee during the week at work but not at weekends can get mild withdrawal effects for example (headaches).

Well they are addicted to caffeine then.

ScumLord

Working class heroes wrote: »

No, I never said that I was questioning your nonsensical "a little bit addicted"comment.
You seem to be glamorising drugs.

You seem to be having a hysterical reaction to a comment. A little bit addicted is my way of saying recreational use.

You seem to be suggesting we would still be in the Stone Age if it weren't for ug and og getting stoned. Stop glamorising drugs. Artistic and scientific development was achieved in spite of not because of the influence of drugs.

I'm not glamorising drugs, you're being ridiculous.

I'm not suggesting we would still be in the stone age without drugs. Other more educated people suggested it based on the evidence of drug use down the ages. Early religions and current tribal religions use drugs heavily, they created sites that intensified the experience. If the people making art and scientific breakthroughs say drugs helped them, then who are you to argue with them? Art and drugs are and have always been linked together whether you like it or not.

Working class heroes

ScumLord wrote: »

You seem to be having a hysterical reaction to a comment. A little bit addicted is my way of saying recreational use.

I'm not glamorising drugs, you're being ridiculous.

I'm not suggesting we would still be in the stone age without drugs. Other more educated people suggested it based on the evidence of drug use down the ages. Early religions and current tribal religions use drugs heavily, they created sites that intensified the experience. If the people making art and scientific breakthroughs say drugs helped them, then who are you to argue with them? Art and drugs are and have always been linked together whether you like it or not.

Fair enough recreational use it is then.
I'll take your word on the religion thing.
Scientific breakthrough? Well if they said it(I doubt they did) fair enough.
Look at all the artists we have lost to substance abuse. Imagine what could have been. Overall I think drugs have been a significant negative on "The Arts" we have lost more than we gained, imo.

Ferrari3600

Working class heroes wrote: »

Look at all the artists we have lost to substance abuse. Imagine what could have been. Overall I think drugs have been a significant negative on "The Arts" we have lost more than we gained, imo.

Agreed here.

Maximus Alexander

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Might as well face it

You're addicted to love?

RDM_83 again

ScumLord wrote: »

So people who drink alcohol are either addicts or tea totallers?

If drugs aren't an experience what are they? There are thousands of artworks and even scientific breakthroughs made under the influence of some drug or another. Most ages of enlightenment also included drug use. Hell even most music scenes we know today are linked to a specific drug.

What scientific breakthroughs have been made because of the influence of drugs specifically the "enlightening" ones?
Historically/archaeologically I would say alcohol might be one but alcohol isn't like any other drugs AFAIK, its a source of calories, its a preservative, it makes water safe.
In more modern times maybe "uppers" have had an influence in terms of productivity and war but nobody does a ton of amphetamines and has an enlightening experience, it simply keeps you buzzed and going for 20 hours straight it doesnt change your thinking at all in my experience.

In terms of art I think we could make as good an argument about the influence of mental illness as we can drugs.

harry Bailey esq

ED E wrote: »

The irony of your username.

Starts lots of threads too,but kneemos he certainly is not.For the record junkies don't bother me,ive grown up around them all my life and still consider old friends who ended up on the gear old friends.Thats just a product of geography for you mind,if you didnt see junkies everyday they'd probably be a problem for you.As for stonedpilots op,(are we a nation of addicts)its a bit of a silly ask,for me at least.With all bases covered,everyone is an addict of some kind,just the same as everyone else in the world.

ScumLord

Working class heroes wrote: »

Look at all the artists we have lost to substance abuse. Imagine what could have been. Overall I think drugs have been a significant negative on "The Arts" we have lost more than we gained, imo.

It could be argued that they wouldn't have produced the same quality of work without the drugs, and we wouldn't have heard of them so would have lost nothing. Art is often about getting incite into another persons perception. Drugs alter perception, so I don't understand why people would find it unusual that drugs and art go hand in hand.

Now obviously I'm not saying drugs are a requirement for making great art, but in the right mind they can open up new avenues of thought that they wouldn't have experienced without the drug.

In fact I'd say that abusing drugs diminishes that effect, it makes it mundane and tips the balance in favour of fantasy rather than a merging of reality and the human brain's ability to image pretty much anything.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

What scientific breakthroughs have been made because of the influence of drugs specifically the "enlightening" ones?

Francis Crick came up with the double Helix while on an LSD trip.

http://www.cracked.com/article_16532_the-5-greatest-things-ever-accomplished-while-high.html

The psychedelics can be used as a tool, it can turn your mind into a controllable simulator where your experience collides with a world where anything is possible. It does require education to work. If you know nothing going in you'll come out just as stupid. But it highlights the fact your perception of reality is very narrow, and in reality it is. Your eyes only see a small spectrum of light, your ears only hear a certain range of sound and your brain acts like a filter letting you ignore things that it deems unimportant to your survival. Everyone has experience times when something might be right in front of their face yet somehow they didn't notice it there, that's because your internal perception of reality is basically what your brain imagines the outside world is like based on some flimsy input. Drugs allow you to turn those filters off, everything you brain has deemed unimportant up to now shares the same importance as anything else.

RDM_83 again

The Double Helix/LSD thing is bullsh+t

https://www.reddit.com/r/LSD/comments/2b0lek/franics_crick_was_high_on_lsd_when_he_discovered/

http://realitysandwich.com/314873/francis-crick-dna-lsd/

Art I can buy the influence of drugs on, science and human advancement I can't (apart from maybe amphetamines which most people don't really think about when they talk about the positive impacts of drugs)

Working class heroes

ScumLord wrote: »

It could be argued that they wouldn't have produced the same quality of work without the drugs, and we wouldn't have heard of them so would have lost nothing. Art is often about getting incite into another persons perception. Drugs alter perception, so I don't understand why people would find it unusual that drugs and art go hand in hand.

Now obviously I'm not saying drugs are a requirement for making great art, but in the right mind they can open up new avenues of thought that they wouldn't have experienced without the drug.

In fact I'd say that abusing drugs diminishes that effect, it makes it mundane and tips the balance in favour of fantasy rather than a merging of reality and the human brain's ability to image pretty much anything.



Francis Crick came up with the double Helix while on an LSD trip.

http://www.cracked.com/article_16532_the-5-greatest-things-ever-accomplished-while-high.html

The psychedelics can be used as a tool, it can turn your mind into a controllable simulator where your experience collides with a world where anything is possible. It does require education to work. If you know nothing going in you'll come out just as stupid. But it highlights the fact your perception of reality is very narrow, and in reality it is. Your eyes only see a small spectrum of light, your ears only hear a certain range of sound and your brain acts like a filter letting you ignore things that it deems unimportant to your survival. Everyone has experience times when something might be right in front of their face yet somehow they didn't notice it there, that's because your internal perception of reality is basically what your brain imagines the outside world is like based on some flimsy input. Drugs allow you to turn those filters off, everything you brain has deemed unimportant up to now shares the same importance as anything else.

And you called me ridiculous. If you believe all this nonsense.....well I'll leave it with so.

laugh

All mad for tea father.

ScumLord

RDM_83 again wrote: »

The Double Helix/LSD thing is bullsh+t

https://www.reddit.com/r/LSD/comments/2b0lek/franics_crick_was_high_on_lsd_when_he_discovered/

http://realitysandwich.com/314873/francis-crick-dna-lsd/

Art I can buy the influence of drugs on, science and human advancement I can't (apart from maybe amphetamines which most people don't really think about when they talk about the positive impacts of drugs)

It says LSD wasn't invented by the time he came up with the double helix, he was still a drug user.

Here's a list of some more influential people that have used drugs.

http://www.businessinsider.com/scientists-and-geniuses-who-used-drugs-2013-8?IR=T

Although this one also starts with Crick one, but goes on to list people like Bill gates.

The thing you have to remember is that drugs only became illegal in the last century. Before that anyone could use any drug they could get they're hands on, drugs like cocaine were prescribed for the common cold.

When it comes to any historical figure, unless they expressly state they don't use any drugs, it's very possible they used drugs. Stories and legends that in any way mention magic or demons could just as easily be descriptions of a psychedelic trip, especially when some ancient cultures wouldn't have made a distinction between reality and what they saw on trips.

We have an unhealthy relationship with drugs now because of religious puritans imposing their moral code onto people. They changed the relationship from using drugs to discover yourself under the supervision of an experienced elder, into addiction, stigma, hate and violence.

Stonedpilot

Ferrari3600 wrote: »

Agreed here.

Guess they didn't know how to moderate.

Ferrari3600

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sE4OG-TRTQ&list=RD2sE4OG-TRTQ#t=0

JupiterKid

LSD was discovered/synthesised in 1943 in Switzerland by Albert Hoffman. Crick and Watson unravelled the double helix structure of DNA in 1953, 10 years later. But LSD as a widely available recreational drug didn't happen until the mid 1960s.

Anywho, Crick and Watson owe their discovery hugely to a relatively obscure woman scientist who took X-ray microscope images of DNA. It's highly unlikely the pair were tripping on acid when they made their historic discovery.

darkpagandeath

ScumLord wrote: »

Are you by any chance calling anyone who uses any drug an addict? You don't seem to have a cut off for recreational use.

Maybe having a little bit of an addiction isn't a bad thing? It only really seems to be a problem if you're poor and can't afford the drugs.

Life is for living, drugs are an experience, and elevating experience to some. I honestly don't think the human race would be were it is today without the influence of drugs.

Beer built civilisation.

hatrickpatrick

To be fair, the word "junkie" usually doesn't refer simply to addicts, it refers to addicts who engage in nuisance making. Big difference. The person who gets blazed and lies out on a seat on the Liffey boardwalk minding their own business is a very different kettle of fish to the person who gets blazed and then hurls totally unprovoked abuse (What da fuq are yewwwwwww lookin' ah?!) at anyone who walks past. The former is an addict, the latter is a junkie.

That's how I've always understood it anyway.

Unfortunately, in Dublin, the venn diagram of addicts and scumbags has a large area of intersection, which is why a lot of non-scumbag addicts get unfairly judged. I agree that this is moronic and prejudiced, but I personally lay the blame for that on our judiciary for tolerating such public harassment and general bullsh!t when it comes up in court.

Wanderer78

hatrickpatrick wrote:

Unfortunately, in Dublin, the venn diagram of addicts and scumbags has a large area of intersection, which is why a lot of non-scumbag addicts get unfairly judged. I agree that this is moronic and prejudiced, but I personally lay the blame for that on our judiciary for tolerating such public harassment and general bullsh!t when it comes up in court.

It's a lot more complicated than that, yes we have a fairly serious problem with mental health issues and its subsequent close brother, I.e. addiction problems, in this country. Sadly these issues are further compounded by our health and judiciary services, badly dealing with these issues, these services are seriously under funded and under resourced in trying to deal with these issues. In many cases it's just a merry go round for those afflicted with these issues

The J Stands for Jay

Ferrari3600 wrote: »

You are vastly oversimplifying.

People who drink coffee during the week at work but not at weekends can get mild withdrawal effects for example (headaches).

If people stopped abusing coffee, the world would be a better place. Think of all the third world suffering that would stop and the increase in productivity in the first world.

Stonedpilot

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

To be fair, the word "junkie" usually doesn't refer simply to addicts, it refers to addicts who engage in nuisance making. Big difference. The person who gets blazed and lies out on a seat on the Liffey boardwalk minding their own business is a very different kettle of fish to the person who gets blazed and then hurls totally unprovoked abuse (What da fuq are yewwwwwww lookin' ah?!) at anyone who walks past. The former is an addict, the latter is a junkie.

That's how I've always understood it anyway.

Unfortunately, in Dublin, the venn diagram of addicts and scumbags has a large area of intersection, which is why a lot of non-scumbag addicts get unfairly judged. I agree that this is moronic and prejudiced, but I personally lay the blame for that on our judiciary for tolerating such public harassment and general bullsh!t when it comes up in court.

OK so a junkie deliberately upsets people?. How does that help them though labelling them, just say addict. The term junkie is awful, like a sub human or something. Always felt those who use this term have notions of themselves as it's such a dismissive term and should be gotten rid off.