"Hard" Drugs

[Pong Messiah]

In my late teens, a friends who had smoked teh crack a few times stopped abruptly, adamantly. This was curious, as he'd really loved the first couple of experiences, so I asked him "Why? Didn't like you like it anymore?"

 

His reply surprised me: "No, I liked it too much. Don't remember what we did the night before, and when I woke up the next day [the next hit] was all I could think about. I'm done."

 

The addiction runs strong in my family, so I took him tapping out as a sign I should probably stay far, far away from the crack pipe. I had always been eager to try, but if somebody I looked up to was scared he was getting hooked after only three of four nights, it was probably a really bad idea for me. But now I kinda regret that I've never smoked it. Or shot up. What, exactly, did I miss out on?

 

I've always viewed "hard drugs" as the kinda stuff that comes with the chance of a strong physiological addiction -- stuff that feels great, but not only affects you negatively, but has a high chance of affecting those around you in a bad way, too. You may define it differently.

 

How do you define "hard drugs." Do you think they are really that bad? Do you differentiate between alcohol and "soft drugs" and "hard drugs?" Should they be treated differently by society and the law?

[Odine]

Drugs are pretty much one in the same. People seem to make distinctions between "hard" and "soft" by the possible consequences of certain drug taking. In truth, a chronic alcoholic is in just as bad a place as the crack addict. Both (substances, but the people will too) will wind up killing you in one way or other. The "hardest" drug I ever did was crystal meth. And I smashed that with gusto for about 6 months. But that was pretty much the absolute limit to what I could take, and as such quit it and have never looked back. If I wasn't so reflective by nature, I would have been a casualty to a certain extent. Certain drugs also don't turn people into violent aggressive ***holes, so for that reason people probably don't equate MDMA for example in the same "hard" ballpark as crack or meth or even cocaine.

 

That said, "softer" "natural" drugs can have extremely bad consequences as well. The permanent psychological damage that can come from excessive pot smoking scares the shit out of me. I never smoke weed because of it. I have too many family members who are now socially retarded because of it.

 

Hallucinogens fall in this category for me. I never want to take mushrooms or acid again cause the possible consequences I'm not prepared to risk anymore. Being in a mental ward because the way you think no longer fits with how your "supposed to" and you have permanent drug psychosis is scarier to me than overdosing on heroin. (That is something I also have swarn myself not to try). However personally id rather do a gram of MD or speed than sit around smoking weed. At least you get stuff done that way.

 

So in answer to your question, who knows? I suspect the legality of defining "hard" drugs and drug classification involves what the government can tax, and how many people are directly killed because of x substance, and what other consequences come from taking certain drugs and to what regularity they occur. If that makes sense.

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

For good or bad, I do classify recreational (and illegal) drugs as hard and soft. We classify alcohol the same way, hard liquor and beer/wine, so to me it makes sense to distinguish weed from crack.

 

I think one only need to look to inner cities in the US and south of the US border (not just Mexico, but Central and South America) to see what happens to a society, when hard drugs like coke, heroin, meth, etc, while in many of those countries may be officially illegal, are so prevalent they might as well be legal, to see the destruction they cause both personally and socially, due to addiction. In central and South America, you can often see 10 year old kids hooked on coke because it is so easy to get. And that is not getting into the problems of gangs and cartels. Then, you can look to the Opium Wars, and what that did to China. Realistically, yeah I think the US is fighting a losing battle with the war on drugs, but I don't think it's something that the US should stop fighting.

 

Maybe my reasoning is a bit arbitrary, but I think any drug that can get you hooked within a handful of tries should not be legal. Alcoholism aside, alcohol literally has been part of the human diet in most cultures in some form for thousands of years, so I have no problem with it being around. And one can argue certain drugs, like weed have been around for centuries, as well. Yes, both substances can cause addiction, but I think that their effects are relatively week, and ability to cause addiction compared to hard drugs are not nearly as great for most people. Conversely, hard drugs are a relatively new invention, only coming into existence in the 19th or 20th century, and are something the human body has no chance against, when it comes to addiction.

[Odine]

Addiction is a mental illness as much as it is a chemical thing. Sure, chemicals can be addictive at a physical level... Opiates for example... But I'm a firm believer in addiction also being a mental illness. If you're the type of person to get addicted to one thing, chances are you'll replace that addiction with something else at some point.

[monkeygirl]

Personally-anything herbal or in its natural form isn't a hard drug for me. Anything pharmaceutical or altered is.

 

Also, disagree with Ondine's above...I believe addiction to be a physical dependence and dependence on a drug that lacks additive properties to be a mental issue.

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

Addiction is a mental illness as much as it is a chemical thing. Sure, chemicals can be addictive at a physical level... Opiates for example... But I'm a firm believer in addiction also being a mental illness. If you're the type of person to get addicted to one thing, chances are you'll replace that addiction with something else at some point.

Oh I agree, addiction is a mental thing AND ALSO can be a physical dependence. The term addiction just means a dependency on a substance, and there are multiple causes for dependency. For example, people who say weed isn't addictive are fooling themselves, because it can be mentally addictive for a lot of people. Same with alcohol. Also, people can be addicted to adrenaline.

 

All I am saying is there needs to be a line where at some point where something is too physically or chemically addictive to be legal, and for me, that line is the "hard drugs."

[Destiny Skywalker]

Basically what Odine said. I also have family members who are barely functional thanks to weed, which I don't consider all that terrible but I would never do it myself because of what I've seen.

 

My husband has a physical dependency on caffeine. It's not really problematic except for when he skips a day and then he has debilitating headaches. I drink just as much coffee as he does (I limit myself to about 16 oz a day), but I don't have any issues with withdrawal symptoms. However, right now, in the midst of a baby that's sleeping like crap, I basically need it to be functional most mornings, even on weekends (baby still sleeps like crap on Friday and Saturday night and is up at 5 AM every day). My husband tries to skip it on weekends because he doesn't need it, but then he gets a headache and is a grouch until I make him drink some green tea. He doesn't like that he's "addicted" but he's not going to cut it out completely because we enjoy coffee and tea quite a bit, so he needs to give himself just a little bit and he's fine. In the grand scheme of things, headaches, not so bad. Non-functional drunk, bad. He also sometimes gets hangovers from as little as two beers in a night. Sucks to be him! Everyone is different in how their brain chemistry works, their tolerance, and how their body reacts. Unfortunately, it's too hard to judge and so one-size fits all laws are about as good as we can do.

[Odine]

Word.

 

Caffeine can be a gnarly high. It makes me super grumpy/ aggressive in the afternoon slump if I've had too much.

 

Interestingly, it would take about 80 shots in quick succession of espresso (at 20g a shot) to have a fatal reaction, that is a lethal overdose. But you'd be puking your guts out well before that at about 20-25 shots.

[Darth Krawlie]

I can rarely drive by our local Starbucks anymore because the drive thru line blocks traffic on a residential street. At virtually any time of day, on any day of the week. The caffeine addiction in this country is ridiculous.

[Pong Messiah]

Caffeine can be a gnarly high. It makes me super grumpy/ aggressive in the afternoon slump if I've had too much.

Yeah, very true.

 

More than once, I've had a major afternoon freakout over really minor stuff going wrong, only to realize an hour or two later "Oh... I'm acting ridiculous 'cause I'm amped up on 5 gallons of caffeine."

 

I also agree about psychological addiction being very real with marijuana. It's not nearly as common as the D.A.R.E. morons would have you believe, but there are people out there who literally have trouble getting out of bed in the morning without some o dat sweet, sweet THC -- ofc, this is like 2 people I've known in my entire life. The vast majority of people I know, even if they smoke a lot tend to grow out of it and cut back or quit as they mature.

 

As far as "hard" drugs -- I think the alcohol comparisons are kinda silly, since such a large percentage of the population drinks and is not psychologically or physically dependent. Of course people can wig out and make terrible choices while drinking, and it can be incredibly destructive when misused... and if you become physically dependent on alcohol, it can be harder on your system to detox than just about anything.

 

If cocaine, heroin, etc... were less likely to lead to addiction and our culture adapted to the point of normalizing them and providing support, they'd be less damaging. I hate tweakers too much to ever dream of a meth-supportive culture, though.

 

I'd like to see all drug use decriminalized, but I don't know if I'd want all drugs entirely legal, either.

[Pong Messiah]

I can rarely drive by our local Starbucks anymore because the drive thru line blocks traffic on a residential street. At virtually any time of day, on any day of the week. The caffeine addiction in this country is ridiculous.

A huge portion of the sales are from sweet drinks, especially in the winter; I'd bet a lot of the people in line right now are getting Gingerbread Lattes or Peppermint Mochas. It's sugar addiction, too.

[Ms. Spam]

My high school years affected my thoughts on drugs and alcohol quite a bit.

 

My Mom is a fall down on her ass functional alcoholic. She's been that way all her life. Both my younger sister and brother have diseases that can be traced to birth defects from tranquilizers and wine my mom ingested when she was pregnant with them. She needs alcohol but it is killing her. He stomach lining is gone now so eating is out of the question. Her nourishment is from Ensures now. It's kind of scary and yet my grandma, brother and sister say she's not an alcoholic and everything is normal. I feel it is too late even though I railed against the drinking ever since I was in middle school wanting to get her help and pouring endless bottles of wine out.

 

My step-sister Cindy was addicted to harder stuff. She quit when she got pregnant and I'm pretty sure she craves that high every day. But she won't because she loves her kids. She does have a new addiction to replace it and does drink quite a bit. She used to smoke. I think addictions can be replaced.

 

Because of my childhood I didn't even drink until I was in my thirties but I can go weeks without wanting a drink. I dunno. I think maybe genetics play a part because you have to be disposed to want the addiction. Since I am adopted I don't really find I crave stuff or need it. I think harder drugs like Tami's definition are designed to encourage and foster the need or want to fuel an additive behavior exist. Just like cigarettes.

[Pong Messiah]

I think addictions can be replaced.

Absolutely.

 

It is not uncommon to see an addictive personality pick up a strange new hobby and run with it, almost obsessively.

 

You can also get "high on G_d;" the ritual and stability and rules have helped a lot of people swap out one addiction for another. I don't like it, but if somebody is at rock bottom, it's an acceptable lesser of two evils scenario -- would I rather be driving in front of some nutty born again, or a sleepy, slobbering drunk?

 

I think maybe genetics play a part because you have to be disposed to want the addiction.

They play a very big part. Not that you necessarily will become addicted to alcohol just because your mom or dad is an alcoholic, but it definitely ups your odds. I haven't read about this for awhile, but iirc, 50% of your susceptibility to addiction can be traced to your genes (note: genes, not gene; there is no "addiction gene.").

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

^^^ Yeah, and not just being addicted to Jesus, or drugs. I know a few people who are addicted to adrenaline, and are always doing really dangerous stuff like doing extreme mountain biking (not just exercise, like zooming 50MPH+ through rock and trees, sometimes off trail), skydiving, base jumping, rappelling, etc. I think many of us have done a little bit of any or all of that at some point, but these friends of mine do it on a constant basis, and continually push the envelope. I think for some people stuff like that flips a switch, and they literally get high off it.

[Evolence]

Hard and soft drugs are artificial distinctions. The difference is really just a matter of dose, and often means of ingestion. You can safely take therapeutic doses of cocaine orally (as brewed in coca tea) and be in a very different place than smoking rocks. Now you can argue about "natural" versus "synthetic" but it's all bullshit-- it is ALL chemicals at the end of the day.

 

I've been around the block more times than I care to remember. I've tried pretty much everything I could get my hands on. There was a time when you could put a mirror with some mystery powder on it and tell me to smoke or snort it, and I would without even asking what it was or how much to take. I don't know if I would say that I have no regrets-- but that's pretty close to how I feel. It would be easy to feel remorseful about some of the pain it caused over the years, but it also got me to where I am today. For better or worse. So without substances, I wouldn't be in a position to reflect on whether or not they were good or bad for me. I would say that at the end, they were a drain on my life and a net negative. No doubt. But I also believe that there is no such thing as bad knowledge. I CRAVED knowing the limits of my mind and sanity. To understand what it feels like to have every ounce of dopamine or serotonin dumped in my brain all at once. I'm not sure if that is useful knowledge; in the end, it makes "normal" living a little more boring by comparison. But it's still knowledge. As crazy as it sounds, I also wanted to know what addiction was like-- that wasn't a fun lesson to be dealt. C'est la vie.

[The Kurgan]

I personally saw a lot of "God" and quasi religious addictions in my years in Alcoholics Anonymous. What Pong said about the lesser of two evils is bang on in a lot of cases - A.A did wonders for me in the first few years after I sobered up. But as time went on, I saw more and more stuff I didn't like. Newcomers being taken advantage of and being given really bad advice. A lot of them foster a kind of "addiction" to the program, mainly by indoctrinating new comers with the idea that they're sick and fundamentally flawed in their thinking, even with years of sobriety. I got out after being estranged from my immediate family for a few months at my sponsor's advice.

[Ms. Spam]

Oh boy yeah. AA and it's sister program Alanon is nothing put a replacement for addictions people are getting away from. I too saw stuff in both that made me wonder, wth?

[Darth Krawlie]

 

I can rarely drive by our local Starbucks anymore because the drive thru line blocks traffic on a residential street. At virtually any time of day, on any day of the week. The caffeine addiction in this country is ridiculous.

A huge portion of the sales are from sweet drinks, especially in the winter; I'd bet a lot of the people in line right now are getting Gingerbread Lattes or Peppermint Mochas. It's sugar addiction, too.

 

I'm sure you're right. Either way, I can't stand the smell of coffee to the point that I usually wait in the car if Katie wants to go in. And the drive thru people are so unnecessarily, annoyingly perky I can't help but be a sarcastic asshole anytime I have to drive thru for her.

[monkeygirl]

The term addiction just means a dependency on a substance, and there are multiple causes for dependency.

Actually, it doesn't. This may be how you define it-and obviously that's fine, but dictionary definition and the definition used by professionals is that addiction is about NEED, not just unbridled desire, and the only cause of dependency is physical-you body no longer functions normally without the substance. Many people play loose with it, saying they're addicted to a certain food or kitties, but addiction has a very narrow definition.

 

My husband has a physical dependency on caffeine. It's not really problematic except for when he skips a day and then he has debilitating headaches.

THAT is addiction.

[Pong Messiah]

Starbucks is annoying in general. In defense of the Starbucks employees, I'm sure they are required to ask you "How is your day going?" or "What are you doing with your weekend?" or any of that other small talk.

 

The first few times it happened, I was (in my head) like "WTF? I am only here because I left my thermos at home/am on a drink run for the office. I just waited 7 minutes in line for something I don't even want. Don't talk to me like you know me, bitch!" But the same perky questions seem to pop up regardless of who is working, so I'm sure it's a corporate requirement. They probably hate it more than you do.

[Darth Krawlie]

No. They don't.

[Pong Messiah]

Sometimes I forget how deeply you can hate.

 

My apologies.

[Odine]

 

Caffeine can be a gnarly high. It makes me super grumpy/ aggressive in the afternoon slump if I've had too much.

Yeah, very true.

 

More than once, I've had a major afternoon freakout over really minor stuff going wrong, only to realize an hour or two later "Oh... I'm acting ridiculous 'cause I'm amped up on 5 gallons of caffeine."

 

I also agree about psychological addiction being very real with marijuana. It's not nearly as common as the D.A.R.E. morons would have you believe, but there are people out there who literally have trouble getting out of bed in the morning without some o dat sweet, sweet THC -- ofc, this is like 2 people I've known in my entire life. The vast majority of people I know, even if they smoke a lot tend to grow out of it and cut back or quit as they mature.

 

As far as "hard" drugs -- I think the alcohol comparisons are kinda silly, since such a large percentage of the population drinks and is not psychologically or physically dependent. Of course people can wig out and make terrible choices while drinking, and it can be incredibly destructive when misused... and if you become physically dependent on alcohol, it can be harder on your system to detox than just about anything.

 

If cocaine, heroin, etc... were less likely to lead to addiction and our culture adapted to the point of normalizing them and providing support, they'd be less damaging. I hate tweakers too much to ever dream of a meth-supportive culture, though.

 

I'd like to see all drug use decriminalized, but I don't know if I'd want all drugs entirely legal, either.

But that's kind of my point too... People who take crack and heroin are by nature generally people with addict personality types. Everyone else is generally to scared to try, because of the information and the illegality. Were heroin and such legalised or decriminalised sure, we'd still have the addicts and crazies doing it, but regular people might as well without turning into maniac junkies. I dunno, but perhaps the legal status of hard drugs is part of the reason why the statistics read that mostly crazies and junkies do them. Because regular people won't go near them, because they are illegal and people are scared of them? Just thoughts

[Pong Messiah]

The fear + legality thing is definitely real. While some people find illegal drugs more compelling because they are forbidden, there are a lot more people who follow rules.

 

I'm not sure about the "are by nature generally people with addict personality types" thing. I know from family history that I am statistically more susceptible to addiction than the average person, and I know I have an addictive personality. The fear that I'd enjoy certain illegal addictive drugs just a little too much is exactly why I didn't experiment with them, despite my curiosity. Maybe it works in reverse for other people, but it was definitely not the case with me. I do think you are right that people wouldn't be turning into maniac junkies if heroin were legalized today, though.

[monkeygirl]

People who take crack and heroin are by nature generally people with addict personality types.

 

??? Source for this odd supposition?

 

 

 

perhaps the legal status of hard drugs is part of the reason why the statistics read that mostly crazies and junkies do them. Because regular people won't go near them, because they are illegal and people are scared of them?

 

There may be some of this, sure, but I think you're blurring "legal" with "available to anyone". Morphine is legal, yet people aren't using it en masse. Legal just means it's not illegal. Depending on the schedule a drug is in, it may mean it's actually tougher to get your hands on because it's controlled.