|
Post by swannie on May 4, 2013 7:50:08 GMT
Oh it's ok ... there are a cocktail of suspects for the memory loss tbh .. but the MJ was the long standing battle one that lasted over 20 yrs, I would get off it and then a few months later think 'Oh one won't hurt', but with my personality type one is never one and so a few months later I'd be back to trying to wean myself off the damn stuff and all the physical and emotional havoc that causes. I love working with addictions because I reckon I've had most of them apart from alcohol, I left that one to the rest of my family. Ha!
It's an OCD really isn't it. Or OCD is an addiction, depending on how you look at it. In the alcohol rehab clinics they assess whether someone is physically addicted or psychologically addicted, it is recognised that both are as valid as each other. Same with MJ. I am also finding it interesting to compare this thread with the obesity thread too and people's attitudes to that particular addiction.
|
|
|
Post by Stumour on May 4, 2013 8:33:14 GMT
Everyone needs an addiction. Just that some are safer than others.
Best way to cope with an addiction is find one that'll not kill ye as quick. Just ask Vincent Furnier. He wrote "Poison" about his alcohol addiction... now he's addicted to golf.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2013 11:03:51 GMT
Edit to add: Omg - I wrote a whole chapter! Hmmm.... Well, I'm addicted to earl grey tea. Really...I get irritable when I don't have any for a while. I used to also be addicted to sugary carbs. And if I had a little, I'd want more...and more...And for years I was addicted to tobacco, on and off...years on, years off. That is another extremely strong drug - I think probably the most addictive of all - but finally thankfully it quit me about 6 years ago. And then my asthma began. I'm also addicted to online relaxing and playing through writing. I know this. It is obvious after years now, starting in 2007 in the pond the first time...took a break when I had one of those mini 4 month 'change one's whole life' and then change it all back again crazy connections from the pond....but when I returned to post there I stayed once I found the poetry corner....then that other site for a year as well, then a break from that one also for a year before returning with a vengeance that led to here. I'm also addicted to spirituality - and creativity - dance and music - and people - and nature - and animals .... I get irritable and moody and down and stressed when I am missing any of these things for long. And I'm addicted these days again to my drug of choice. It has been interesting the last 40 years since first trying it (and it did nothing till the third try - it's like that with all drugs and me)....and then it has been on and off in my life... for years tiny bits mixed with tobacco and rolling my own in England...again on and off... months on, months off....not me trying to alter anything, just watching it come and go naturally. As I got older I discovered something really very cool. I was happiest and really the most energized and balanced most of the time totally straight. And yet, like swannie mentioned about a friend of her's...I also have seen the times I've been much more chilled out and less ocd, less intense, less sensitive enough to stay calmer and more grounded and relaxed when I had tiny amounts of this in my system. And because so many of my generation here carried on using it socially and privately, it continued to this day to be part of my social life, family get-togethers discreetly, parties, etc. But I also have experienced what it can do to me when it's not in balance....when I'm not in balance. It's a very strong drug - a very strong herb, even the milder varieties in my system (hence just one puff) can take me right out there and I not want to come back. They say we crave what we are addicted to.... so I would say, over these 40 years, and the frequency of when I've reached for it to start my day, or end it, from when i'd reach for it to get me to stop doing things and get down on the floor and just play with and be with the baby... to the times I went off into the ether and got really high (still on miniscule amounts) when I was stoned on my own and hung out there for awhile - really overflowing with connecting with the one'ness...like you do with strong meditations and rituals in a group of like-minded people. But it was this herb that helped me do that on my own - that opened that gateway so easily for me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2013 4:19:18 GMT
Onnnnnn the other hand .... Someone I know has just stopped smoking the stuff and has turned into a rude twat and nobody likes him now ... turns out the puff was hiding what an arrogant plonker he really was. So some people definitely need the stuff to be deemed fit for public consumption. my mother always told me that some people should be required to smoke pot. <------ she would say this while smoking a joint. she was 1 of those people. I have a couple of friends that like to get really stoned and I wind up getting ridiculously stoned cos they smoke a lot stronger stuff then I am used to I think. personally I like the mild high, I don't like to go overboard. it makes me useless if I do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2013 8:13:43 GMT
The media here was recently abuzz (sorry...couldn't help myself) with the story of an RCMP officer (with a medical licence for marijuana to treat PTSD) who wanted to smoke in uniform. Not surprisingly, his employer was unimpressed. He was suspended, his precious red surge confiscated, and (just for good measure) he was tasered. Curiously, this story, which for two weeks led the national news, suddenly disappeared. No follow-up...nothing...nada...like it never happened. While there was abundant discussion as to whether or not he should have been allowed to smoke on the job (op-eds, phone-in shows etc.) as is so often the case, the obvious question was never asked. Even in a medium with a seemingly infinite capacity for hypocrisy, it couldn't be asked if he would be able to smoke pot while busting people for smoking pot. This inescapable question leads into my central point.
Bigger than oil (and exceeded only by the borrowing and lending of money itself) the production and sale of pharmaceuticals is the second largest economic enterprise in existence. The idea that there could conceivably be a "war on drugs" is an absurdity of the highest order. At the nucleus of this utterly failed idea, is the specious belief in a difference between legal and illegal drugs. This notion is easily punctured by rudimentary logic. Popular among the demographic most opposed to the legalization of marijuana, are codeine based pain killers, prescribed for a myriad of conditions. On the pharmacy shelf, these are perfectly legal. However, should a nefarious employee sneak some out and sell them on the street, they immediately become illegal. Yet in either case the drug itself maintains the identical chemical composition. This is to say, it is in no way altered. So is the aforementioned distinction (between good and bad, legal and illegal drugs) without merit.
The true nature of the objection isn't to the drugs, but rather to those who violate the medical institution's monopoly on their prescription. This ability to manipulate public opinion against self medication (to the benefit of big pharma) is a remarkable accomplishment of modern propaganda. And underpinning it, is a defective moral argument. Were I to break my wrist, no one would object to my taking (properly prescribed) codeine. However, if the pain is psychic rather than physical, legions of misguided moralists rail against the practice of self-medication. Why one is exempt from the former kind of pain, yet must endure the latter, is never articulated.
On this New Years Eve, the media will once again relentlessly propagate a fraudulent distinction. In the name of social responsibility, the public will be reminded not to drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Sanctified by tradition, good corporate citizens will continue to allow the licenced sale of the former (inarguably a drug, and arguably the most harmful) to any adult, while admonishing, stigmatizing and criminalizing those who chose to use the organic herb. Sadly, this irrational prejudice has honest racist origins. Even during the brief period of North American prohibition, the (white) moonshiner was a counter-culture hero. Conversely, the(nearly half centaury old) refrain to "Legalize it" has a decidedly darker tone. Put plainly, white man's drugs good...black man's drugs bad. Such is the pedigree of the war on drugs, which rages unabated in a world of unreason.
|
|
|
Post by cobtact on Jan 1, 2014 13:28:51 GMT
I found what you wrote ^^^ articulate and hence very appealing...2 nihs up
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2014 14:37:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by swannie on Jan 1, 2014 20:53:06 GMT
Great post Knight. And thank you for the links Grey. I'm still on the fence because I have seen (and been) what too much of the stuff can do, so I can't honestly and congruently tell anyone that I know it's safe stuff. Also while we're legalising weed can we legalise the marching powder too? I'm not sure where it stops. Do we just legalise everything? Maybe that's what we should do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2014 23:21:44 GMT
Swannie wrote: "Also while we're legalising weed can we legalise the marching powder too? I'm not sure where it stops. Do we just legalise everything? Maybe that's what we should do."
A most unwelcome candidate for the last US Republican presidential nomination, Dr Ron Paul (a medical doctor) shocked everyone with precisely that argument. While I wouldn't want to leave the impression that I concurred with all, or even most of his policies, several (especially those pertaining to foreign policy) presented with a weight of reason which automatically precluded their consideration. In one nationally televised debate he asked the assembled, "If heroin were suddenly legalized tomorrow, would you run out and try it?" Moreover, the longstanding conviction that legal prohibition is a successful deterrent against drug use, and the converse assumption that legalization would necessarily increase it...is deficient.
If the legal basis for prohibition is human health, tobacco and alcohol must immediately be criminalized. Of course (owing to economic considerations/tax revenues) this isn't going to happen. Therefore, such a pretense should be abandoned. Those who would object in the name of public safety, are invited to view the film "13 Days in October." Although admittedly not a documentary,one can't help but be struck by the amount of alcohol being consumed (on the job) by the president and his closest advisors, during what is now known as "the Cuban missile crisis." If minimum wage labourers are required to submit to random drug testing, I would allow that an exponentially greater obligation is incurred by those who hold high political office. And, that under no circumstance should those who hold the nuclear launch codes be drinking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2014 0:12:09 GMT
I quite agree with the notion that for the most part people are gonna do as they please. Penalty of law is almost a laughable deterrent and a monstrous cash cow that could be done away with, while at the same time government could be drawing a massive income from the industry. (I know I wouldn't mind a wee bit smaller hand in my pocket)
|
|
|
Post by Stumour on Jan 2, 2014 1:16:28 GMT
savin up for a ticket to Colorado....
|
|
|
Post by swannie on Jan 2, 2014 7:13:18 GMT
Britain's drinking culture is a good argument against legislation of any other drugs. Gawwwd. it's a major problem here.
If all drugs were legalised how would that change society?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2014 12:46:29 GMT
My guess is that it would yield similar results to those resulting from repealing prohibition. A massive cash cow that's producing for individuals of varying degrees of immorality would be slain.
And as far as altering behavioral trends is concerned, just like has already been states, prohibitive legislation is ineffective, and for the most part people will or won't partake in various indulgences, whether or not it's taboo. (alcohol has been legal again for a long time, yet we're far from "everybody is a drunk")
|
|
|
Post by swannie on Jan 2, 2014 18:06:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by manny on Jan 4, 2014 4:23:51 GMT
First, to Knight...I applaud your informative presentation, well done with highly valid points.
Secondly, addiction doesn't come in the substance, it comes in the people using it. Having been an addiction counsellor, I have seen first hand, the devastation it causes. Addiction doesn't discriminate, it doesn't care if you are white or black, young or old, male or female, wealthy or poor.
It is my belief that, whether a drug is legal or illegal, won't alter the culture of using said chemical. It is the mental, hence phsycological makeup of each individual concerned. WHO [World Health Organization] of the United Nations has done studies on genetic connections in addictive personalities. While I don't defend these studies, I can't immediately dismiss them either.
Now, I won't even get into the "propaganda aspect" that we all know exists. I could write a book on that alone. My focus is more on the healing aspect of the people addicted. One of the things I found fascinating, is that most addicts, were just as addicted to the lifestyle, as they were the substance. The lifestyle alone, had such a grip on the addict, that it was almost as hard to break. Changing their view of lifestyle change was a long process.
We are all familiar with AA, which exists for the alcoholic. There is also a program called NA, for the addict. Both programs are quite helpful to many, but not all, simply because they are based on a higher power and mention God. Not all addicts or alcoholics are of a spiritual nature.
Those who want to escape reality, will find a way to do so. That will never change. And, as some have mentioned, we are all addicted to something, whether it be coffee, food, sex, or behavioral attitudes. I once attended a meeting of "emotions anonymous", and found it absolutely fascinating and enlightening.
I try not to involve myself in the "politics" of addiction and treatment, as that enrages me beyond belief. There is no singular approach to the treatment, as some would have you believe. Each person has a unique fingerprint, if you will, and thus, a totally unique individual story, lending to a unique approach to that individual's treatment . The end goal is the same, but the approach is as individual as the person you are working with.
|
|