Javacrucian: He is right. But the WOD isn't about keeping drugs off street, it's about CONTROL.

FTFTB: "I'd like to have every gentleman and lady in this room commit themselves to get our government to legalize drugs. So they have to get it through a doctor, not just some gangsters that sell it under the table."

He seems to be directly covering your "but" (so to speak) so I'm not really sure why you seem to think you are qualifying or correcting Tony Bennett's remark...

hurdboy: Bingo. The legalize weed folks don't quite get it when I say I support legalizing drugs, but that I'm against legalizing just weed. "Wait, wut? You're harshin' my buzz, bro."

So you would vote against the legalization of weed on the grounds that you also want the rest of them legal?

As opposed to being intelligent and voting for the legalization of weed, letting people see the money savings, revenue, reduction in cartel power, how many of their friends use it and don't turn into drug zombies like the commercial propaganda says, and THEN a few years later getting more drugs legalized?

I guess I'm with the "wait, wut" crowd on this one.

So, you guys think that someone would go to the doctor to get drugs when they could just buy them off the street if available? Since addiction is considered a "disease" now days, would insurance be required to pay for the drugs if a doctor prescribes it to the addict? Just wondering what your take on that aspect of it would be.

While I agree with Tony's sentiment that drugs should be legalized (Legislating personal morality does not, and will never be feasible), Winehouse drank herself to death, Jackson's drugs were provided by a doctor, and Whitney drank too much and likely had prescriptions for her pills. All that stuff was already legal.

His argument that getting drugs through a doctor is safer is bull because as we've seen with Michael Jackson, Heath Ledger, and now Whitney Houston, doctors are sometimes far worse than your neighborhood dealer.

Bigdogdaddy: So, you guys think that someone would go to the doctor to get drugs when they could just buy them off the street if available? Since addiction is considered a "disease" now days, would insurance be required to pay for the drugs if a doctor prescribes it to the addict? Just wondering what your take on that aspect of it would be.

With weed, at least, the same rules as booze. No prescription, sell them at liquor stores next to the cigarettes, and you can't drive when you're under the influence.

I'm sure cigarette factories are just waiting to start rolling out packs of Marlboro 420s.

I appreciate Bennett's remark, though I can see how some would think it was an inappropriate time to make it... tying it to Houston's death and all.

However, I'm for legalizing pot and decriminalizing everything else but dealing. I think the death of Whitney Houston and the deaths of countless other celebrities provide the perfect example of why legalizing crack, coke, meth, heroin, etc., even under a doctor's supervision, would not accomplish much of anything in deterring the damage they cause.

If wealthy celebrities can't "use" without going into a death spiral, what chance does some $40k/yr Joe Schmoe in flyover country have? Those sorts of drugs just take control of you, even anecdotal stories about the rare people who can use and maintain are, in their remarkableness, indicative of how typically destructive they are.

Celebrities can afford a lifetime supply of drugs, support staff and assistants, and could even hire drug coaches to monitor their usage, and even they fall apart and destroy their lives and often take quite a chunk out of the lives of those around them. It would be no different with the supervision of an MD... as soon as a Dr. started restricting supply, a junkie would just buy from street dealers. We have prescription medication addicts right now that demonstrate that a doctor's oversight doesn't do much to prevent or rein in addiction.

I just don't see any value in making that an even easier path to get on. At the end of the day, we're still a society, and we reserve the right to outlaw certain things that are extremely deleterious to society as a whole.

Absolutely decriminalize usage. Nobody should go to jail for using, but legalizing meth or crack? I can't see any good accomplished by that.

Bigdogdaddy: So, you guys think that someone would go to the doctor to get drugs when they could just buy them off the street if available? Since addiction is considered a "disease" now days, would insurance be required to pay for the drugs if a doctor prescribes it to the addict? Just wondering what your take on that aspect of it would be.

I think that might work. In my state insurance has to cover rehab, so it seems to follow. Also, with monies redirected from the WOD, and a new market incentive to address rehab and prevention, we might lessen some suffering and make these programs more effective.

stoli n coke: Bigdogdaddy: So, you guys think that someone would go to the doctor to get drugs when they could just buy them off the street if available? Since addiction is considered a "disease" now days, would insurance be required to pay for the drugs if a doctor prescribes it to the addict? Just wondering what your take on that aspect of it would be.

With weed, at least, the same rules as booze. No prescription, sell them at liquor stores next to the cigarettes, and you can't drive when you're under the influence.

I'm sure cigarette factories are just waiting to start rolling out packs of Marlboro 420s.

My concern is where does it end? Most addicts are addicts because they can't control themselves, nor do they want to. Those that do will seek rehab at least. The ones that won't seek help, don't want help. I know, because I have a brother that is hooked on pain killers and mostly he takes them because he likes to get high.

I am all for decriminalization, however not for total legalization.

theknuckler_33: I think some people just thought that it wasn't really the time to make the 'call to arms' for the pro-legalization cause.

I don't think one can argue with any honesty, that the day of a tragedy is an inappropriate day to address the root cause of the tragedy. In fact, I think the only people who would put that idea forward are people who are trying to maintain the status quo.

technicolor-misfit: I appreciate Bennett's remark, though I can see how some would think it was an inappropriate time to make it... tying it to Houston's death and all.

However, I'm for legalizing pot and decriminalizing everything else but dealing. I think the death of Whitney Houston and the deaths of countless other celebrities provide the perfect example of why legalizing crack, coke, meth, heroin, etc., even under a doctor's supervision, would not accomplish much of anything in deterring the damage they cause.

If wealthy celebrities can't "use" without going into a death spiral, what chance does some $40k/yr Joe Schmoe in flyover country have? Those sorts of drugs just take control of you, even anecdotal stories about the rare people who can use and maintain are, in their remarkableness, indicative of how typically destructive they are.

Celebrities can afford a lifetime supply of drugs, support staff and assistants, and could even hire drug coaches to monitor their usage, and even they fall apart and destroy their lives and often take quite a chunk out of the lives of those around them. It would be no different with the supervision of an MD... as soon as a Dr. started restricting supply, a junkie would just buy from street dealers. We have prescription medication addicts right now that demonstrate that a doctor's oversight doesn't do much to prevent or rein in addiction.

I just don't see any value in making that an even easier path to get on. At the end of the day, we're still a society, and we reserve the right to outlaw certain things that are extremely deleterious to society as a whole.

Absolutely decriminalize usage. Nobody should go to jail for using, but legalizing meth or crack? I can't see any good accomplished by that.

Meth was legal and prescribed for various conditions up through the 1960s. It even had FDA approval. It wasn't considered something dangerous until biker gangs started using heavily.

Funny thing is, back then, there weren't as many images of strung out meth freaks with rotting teeth, so maybe the factory produced stuff is a little less dangerous than the stuff that rednecks are brewing up in their toolsheds.(Kind of like how a bottle of Jack is probably less dangerous for you than a bottle of bathtub gin.)


As for your argument that,"If it can kill celebrity addicts, what chance does a regular person have?," You answered your own question later in your post. They die often because they have a lifetime supply available on demand. In Nikki SIxx's autobiography, he wrote about how easy it was for him to blow a thousand dollars a day on heroin and coke, and if he ran out, he could get more delivered to his house in an hour. For the Whitneys and Winehouses of the world, getting dope was like ordering a pizza.

I'm sure your hypothetical 40k a year Joe Schmo doesn't have that luxury, so they have to make their supplies last as long as they can until they can afford more.

technicolor-misfit: I appreciate Bennett's remark, though I can see how some would think it was an inappropriate time to make it... tying it to Houston's death and all.

However, I'm for legalizing pot and decriminalizing everything else but dealing. I think the death of Whitney Houston and the deaths of countless other celebrities provide the perfect example of why legalizing crack, coke, meth, heroin, etc., even under a doctor's supervision, would not accomplish much of anything in deterring the damage they cause.

If wealthy celebrities can't "use" without going into a death spiral, what chance does some $40k/yr Joe Schmoe in flyover country have? Those sorts of drugs just take control of you, even anecdotal stories about the rare people who can use and maintain are, in their remarkableness, indicative of how typically destructive they are.

Celebrities can afford a lifetime supply of drugs, support staff and assistants, and could even hire drug coaches to monitor their usage, and even they fall apart and destroy their lives and often take quite a chunk out of the lives of those around them. It would be no different with the supervision of an MD... as soon as a Dr. started restricting supply, a junkie would just buy from street dealers. We have prescription medication addicts right now that demonstrate that a doctor's oversight doesn't do much to prevent or rein in addiction.

I just don't see any value in making that an even easier path to get on. At the end of the day, we're still a society, and we reserve the right to outlaw certain things that are extremely deleterious to society as a whole.

Absolutely decriminalize usage. Nobody should go to jail for using, but legalizing meth or crack? I can't see any good accomplished by that.

I don't know the answer to whether more people would use drugs, or whether drugs would be harsher or less harsh if they hadn't been prohibited to begin with (but using the bathtub gin analogue from Prohibition, one could make a strong case that meth and crack would not be nearly as prevelant, and might not even exist).

That's not why I want to end the drug war. I want to end it for many other reasons, including the fact that the drug war makes it nearly impossible to answer the questions I just posed, or to have an honest discussion about the ones you posed. Simply raising the question gets you shouted down in most circumstances. And you can't very well have true clinical tests on the effects of pot if it's illegal to begin with.

But more than that, the drug war itself causes tremendous damage; I would argue more damage than the drugs themselves. We spend hundreds of billions per year waging a war on our own people. It creates an entire class of criminals simply by definition, but it also puts many people in a situation where they're committing real crimes because they now have no legal recourse for issues. If someone rips me off on a drug deal, I can't sue him so my response is probably going to be some sort of crime. You also get people in a situation where they overreact and escalate things because they're trying to escape being caught and/or punished for the initial "crime". It has resulted in granting police far more powers than we could have imagined just 50 years ago, along with a corresponding increase in corruption and decrease in the public's respect for law enforcement.

The war on drugs is a cancer whose rotten effects have spread to nearly every aspect of American politics, business and daily life. It's not enough to simply tone it down or tweak it around the edges, its effects are so insidious and there are now so many who have a vested interest in perpetuating the war itself. It must be completely dismantled before we can try a new approach.

PC LOAD LETTER: So how would legalizing drugs have kept Michael, Amy or Whitney alive?

I dunno, but they certainly wouldn't be any deader.

stoli n coke: While I agree with Tony's sentiment that drugs should be legalized (Legislating personal morality does not, and will never be feasible), Winehouse drank herself to death, Jackson's drugs were provided by a doctor, and Whitney drank too much and likely had prescriptions for her pills. All that stuff was already legal.

His argument that getting drugs through a doctor is safer is bull because as we've seen with Michael Jackson, Heath Ledger, and now Whitney Houston, doctors are sometimes far worse than your neighborhood dealer.

Yeah, that was my problem with his statement too. Docs are human too, and if they can make money off prescription drugs (both from Pharma and the patient), then they will. I really think taking the money out of healthcare by making it completely socialized would do a lot to stop this sort of thing.

Bigdogdaddy: Most addicts are addicts because they can't control themselves, nor do they want to.

This is completely false.

Bigdogdaddy: stoli n coke: Bigdogdaddy: So, you guys think that someone would go to the doctor to get drugs when they could just buy them off the street if available? Since addiction is considered a "disease" now days, would insurance be required to pay for the drugs if a doctor prescribes it to the addict? Just wondering what your take on that aspect of it would be.

With weed, at least, the same rules as booze. No prescription, sell them at liquor stores next to the cigarettes, and you can't drive when you're under the influence.

I'm sure cigarette factories are just waiting to start rolling out packs of Marlboro 420s.

My concern is where does it end? Most addicts are addicts because they can't control themselves, nor do they want to. Those that do will seek rehab at least. The ones that won't seek help, don't want help. I know, because I have a brother that is hooked on pain killers and mostly he takes them because he likes to get high.

I am all for decriminalization, however not for total legalization.

Sorry to hear about your brother, hope he gets better.

I've dealt with a few addicts in my life (old radio partner was hooked on xanax and various other prescriptions,and an old neighbor was recovering from a coke habit), and one thing I've learned is the ultimate fate of an addict is up to the addict themself. Whether it's drinking or whatever drug you can think of, if they do not want to get help, all the AA meetings, rehab stays, and drug laws in the world aren't going to help them.The key to getting clean always has been and always will be the desire to do so.

But at the same time, just because I know someone who drank themself to death, I don't think I should be legally prohibited from buying a bottle this weekend if I want.

The War on Drugs failed for the same reasons prohibition failed. Ultimately, some people want the freedom to self-destruct. I think it's more useful now to focus laws on when their self-destruction bleeds over into other peoples lives.

Bigdogdaddy: My concern is where does it end? Most addicts are addicts because they can't control themselves, nor do they want to.

Just a heads up, there are a lot of investigators who do not agree with you. First, addicts can control themselves if the appropriate intervention is used. Second, addiction is a disease.

From a social point of view, here is an organization that has been turning around addicts lives for over 40 years. Link (new window)

From a scientific point of view, the target of many of these drugs are GPCR. Even one use can desensitize these receptors, making the body's usual levels ineffective. Scary, don't you think?

It's equivalent to saying, "polio victims were not able to control their disease, nor did they want to."

Smackledorfer: As opposed to being intelligent and voting for the legalization of weed, letting people see the money savings, revenue, reduction in cartel power, how many of their friends use it and don't turn into drug zombies like the commercial propaganda says, and THEN a few years later getting more drugs legalized?

Serious criticism: you're applying "slippery slope" logic to a policy problem. That generally doesn't work.

My actual first reaction: So, you're saying the Marijuana is some sort of "gateway drug" where legalization is concerned?

Smackledorfer: hurdboy: Bingo. The legalize weed folks don't quite get it when I say I support legalizing drugs, but that I'm against legalizing just weed. "Wait, wut? You're harshin' my buzz, bro."

So you would vote against the legalization of weed on the grounds that you also want the rest of them legal?

As opposed to being intelligent and voting for the legalization of weed, letting people see the money savings, revenue, reduction in cartel power, how many of their friends use it and don't turn into drug zombies like the commercial propaganda says, and THEN a few years later getting more drugs legalized?

I guess I'm with the "wait, wut" crowd on this one.

Yeah, me, too.
No gays allowed in military ------> Don't Ask Don't Tell -------> Gays in the military
No universal healthcare -------> Medicare/Medicaid-------->Obamacare --------->Universal Healthcare
War on Drugs ---------> Medical marijuana/personal use laws----> Legal pot -----> Other legalized drugs

RussianPooper: FTFA: "I'd like to have every gentleman and lady in this room commit themselves to get our government to legalize drugs. So they have to get it through a doctor, not just some gangsters that sell it under the table."

Making it legal, but requiring purchase from a doctor, won't keep people from selling it illegally. Does anyone really want a prescription for crack on their medical record?

If you can get cocaine legally prescribed, why would you need crack?

PC LOAD LETTER: So how would legalizing drugs have kept Michael, Amy or Whitney alive? I mean is it really "well if they had real drugs, they would not have done the thing that killed them"? Really? Like they wouldn't have died just the same way on other drugs if they were only allowed to use them? This is a bad argument, and I am for legalizing most drugs.

Ten years after decriminalization Portugal has seen its number of problematic drug addicts drop by 50% (new window)

RoyBatty: Can we start by legalizing marijuana, or do we have to legalize everything?

Maybe we can start by assuring that birth control is available and that any organization which intends to deny its use to women is given full RICO.

Next, we understand several ways how to treat alcoholism. Implement these approaches and determine the most effective on a large (nationwide) scale. Then, legalize the other drugs.

Mrbogey: Addictions aren't stigmatizing because of prohibition. The author is assuming incorrectly.

This.

I don't care if your drug of choice is tylenol, alcohol, marijuana, or cocaine, if you're a drug addict who has to "use" just to feel normal every day, you're about the lowest form there is. You've let a chemical override your humanity.

Shaggy_C: if you're a drug addict who has to "use" just to feel normal every day, you're about the lowest form there is. You've let a chemical override your humanity.

Who said anything about feeling normal?

Delay: Bigdogdaddy: My concern is where does it end? Most addicts are addicts because they can't control themselves, nor do they want to.

Just a heads up, there are a lot of investigators who do not agree with you. First, addicts can control themselves if the appropriate intervention is used. Second, addiction is a disease.

From a social point of view, here is an organization that has been turning around addicts lives for over 40 years. Link (new window)

From a scientific point of view, the target of many of these drugs are GPCR. Even one use can desensitize these receptors, making the body's usual levels ineffective. Scary, don't you think?

It's equivalent to saying, "polio victims were not able to control their disease, nor did they want to."

But respectfully, there is not one polio victim who would not give everything they have to turn their disease around. I know that most addicts do not give a crap about their lives or they wouldn't be in the self destruct mode. I'm not talking about the ones who have tried to get help, I'm talking about the ones who will not get help till they are totally down and then they get back up just to fall back into their former lives.

I suppose the answer is, there is no answer.

Bigdogdaddy: I know that most addicts do not give a crap about their lives or they wouldn't be in the self destruct mode.

That's a disease symptom. Treat the underlying disease and the symptoms go away.

theknuckler_33: Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 'root cause of the tragedy' is not officially known. Despite the fact that Houston's past drug abuse is well known, jumping to that conclusion about her death without an autopsy report can be seen as disrespectful.

Yeah, it's not 100% known, but let's face it, the chances are very good that her death was drug related. I don't see how making a prediction based on facts and patterns is disrespectful.

theknuckler_33: I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to attribute a desire to maintain the status quo to people who think Bennett poorly timed his comments.

Not all of them, some people would just like to pretend they were such good friends with Whitney that they're now personally hurt. You know.... delusional people. Other than that, yeah, it's people who don't want this event to be used to highlight the fact that the war on drugs is ultimately responsible for the deaths of cops, dealers, users, and innocents. With untold billions being poured into the war on drugs, the fact that there are elements in the media with the intention of preserving the status quo is certain.

stoli n coke: technicolor-misfit: I appreciate Bennett's remark, though I can see how some would think it was an inappropriate time to make it... tying it to Houston's death and all.

However, I'm for legalizing pot and decriminalizing everything else but dealing. I think the death of Whitney Houston and the deaths of countless other celebrities provide the perfect example of why legalizing crack, coke, meth, heroin, etc., even under a doctor's supervision, would not accomplish much of anything in deterring the damage they cause.

If wealthy celebrities can't "use" without going into a death spiral, what chance does some $40k/yr Joe Schmoe in flyover country have? Those sorts of drugs just take control of you, even anecdotal stories about the rare people who can use and maintain are, in their remarkableness, indicative of how typically destructive they are.

Celebrities can afford a lifetime supply of drugs, support staff and assistants, and could even hire drug coaches to monitor their usage, and even they fall apart and destroy their lives and often take quite a chunk out of the lives of those around them. It would be no different with the supervision of an MD... as soon as a Dr. started restricting supply, a junkie would just buy from street dealers. We have prescription medication addicts right now that demonstrate that a doctor's oversight doesn't do much to prevent or rein in addiction.

I just don't see any value in making that an even easier path to get on. At the end of the day, we're still a society, and we reserve the right to outlaw certain things that are extremely deleterious to society as a whole.

Absolutely decriminalize usage. Nobody should go to jail for using, but legalizing meth or crack? I can't see any good accomplished by that.

Meth was legal and prescribed for various conditions up through the 1960s. It even had FDA approval. It wasn't considered something dangerous until biker gangs started using heavily.

Funny thing is, back then, there weren't as man ...


I don't find it believable that recreational drug users will turn away from high-octane biker meth in favor of "stepped on" pharmaceutical meth. If they just wanted a stimulant, they'd be buying Ritalin. They WANT to be wired to the eyeballs.

And as for the point about Joe Schmoe keeping control by having to budget for their addiction, it's a nice thought, but we already see that that doesn't happen... I mean maybe for a time, but as their dependency and tolerance rises, they just resort to "by hook or by crook" methods to keep their usage on pace with the addiction.

Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: technicolor-misfit: I appreciate Bennett's remark, though I can see how some would think it was an inappropriate time to make it... tying it to Houston's death and all.

However, I'm for legalizing pot and decriminalizing everything else but dealing. I think the death of Whitney Houston and the deaths of countless other celebrities provide the perfect example of why legalizing crack, coke, meth, heroin, etc., even under a doctor's supervision, would not accomplish much of anything in deterring the damage they cause.

If wealthy celebrities can't "use" without going into a death spiral, what chance does some $40k/yr Joe Schmoe in flyover country have? Those sorts of drugs just take control of you, even anecdotal stories about the rare people who can use and maintain are, in their remarkableness, indicative of how typically destructive they are.

Celebrities can afford a lifetime supply of drugs, support staff and assistants, and could even hire drug coaches to monitor their usage, and even they fall apart and destroy their lives and often take quite a chunk out of the lives of those around them. It would be no different with the supervision of an MD... as soon as a Dr. started restricting supply, a junkie would just buy from street dealers. We have prescription medication addicts right now that demonstrate that a doctor's oversight doesn't do much to prevent or rein in addiction.

I just don't see any value in making that an even easier path to get on. At the end of the day, we're still a society, and we reserve the right to outlaw certain things that are extremely deleterious to society as a whole.

Absolutely decriminalize usage. Nobody should go to jail for using, but legalizing meth or crack? I can't see any good accomplished by that.

I don't know the answer to whether more people would use drugs, or whether drugs would be harsher or less harsh if they hadn't been prohibited to begin with (but using the bathtub gin analogue from Prohibition, one could make a str ...


Well, as I said... I do fully support decriminalization of users. That alone does away with many of the "war on our own citizens" concerns. I believe there's a middle ground between throwing otherwise law-abiding users into the hoosegow with rapists and selling crack at your neighborhood Walgreens.

Bigdogdaddy: But respectfully, there is not one polio victim who would not give everything they have to turn their disease around. I know that most addicts do not give a crap about their lives or they wouldn't be in the self destruct mode. I'm not talking about the ones who have tried to get help, I'm talking about the ones who will not get help till they are totally down and then they get back up just to fall back into their former lives.

I suppose the answer is, there is no answer.

The answer is that attitudes towards addiction such as you have shown in this thread only end up feeding other people's addictions rather than solving anything. Addicts don't choose to be addicts any more than people with polio choose to have polio. You may know an addict but you know nothing about addiction while claiming that you do. I feel terrible for your brother but I can tell you this - you're probably making his addiction worse given your attitude in this thread. That was a major point in TFA, that addicts are not at all helped by the fact that the general population makes them feel ashamed of their addiction. Addiction means a loss of control - not a choice to lose control, but having control over your life hijacked by an outside source - and your desire to shame people for losing that control or at least minimize their efforts to regain control makes them feel like their efforts to regain control are useless and that they should just give in.

.I don't find it believable that recreational drug users will turn away from high-octane biker meth in favor of "stepped on" pharmaceutical meth

If it's anything like pharma-grade cocaine, i'd say you'd be wrong. Junkies believe that stuff is flat out mythic.

I struggle with an opiate addiction every single day of my life, and I agree completely with what Mr. Bennett has said. I'm a 24 y/o white girl with scoliosis, BPD, major depressive, & generalized anxiety disorder. At first, it was just getting my xanax and percocet/roxicet from the doctor and it was great...when I only needed 2 pills a day (*btw, this is after having gone through at least 12 different anti-depressants and a few other anti anxiety medications, so yes, I've been seeking a solution to this for some time now). But once my body grew a tolerance, the doctors immediately wanted to pull me off of the ONLY medications that made me feel like I could get up and face the day with courage and strength and they haven't been willing to up my dosage to meet my needs.

So, like most addicts and those suffering the same thing(s), I started getting it elsewhere. And I absolutely hate that I have had to entrench myself into a lifestyle and "undesirable element" of life in order to get the things that I need. Yes, ok, I know...everyone can argue that addicts are just selfish people with poor coping mechanisms and that may be true to a certain degree (at least for me, anyhow), but until I find a combination of medications/therapies/treatments/etc, that work better for me than what I have been using and have been being used for CENTURIES, then I will continue to fight for my clean and legal access to my MEDICINES.

I cannot stress enough how many dangerous situations I have been thrust into in my quest for drugs...or how many terrible things I've had to say or do to ensure that I have something waiting for me when I wake up so that I don't get sick and wind up in bed all day, hoping and waiting for something to get to me. Like a lot of people on the big H, I didn't start out this way; it seemed like a very natural progression from the pills. You spend $20-$40 buying a SINGLE Roxi 30 or Oxy 40, 80, whatever and then suddenly, someone's like "you know, you can snort dope...and it's only $10 a bag and you'd only need one or two" and it's like holy shiat, I could've been saving HOW MUCH money? And at first, it's not that bad...hell, I was snorting my pills sometimes, what's the big deal? I'm not shooting up, there are no burnt up spoons laying around my house...and not just that, but when I wasn't THAT dependent on it, it didn't kill me to wait an hour or two for P or J or B (or whatever random letter or word these guys have adopted as their name) and they KNEW I wasn't strung out. But the second they see or know that you are, they pounce like tigers and suddenly, prices get jacked, they have you waiting around so that by the time they do get there, you don't biatch that he shorted you one or two, or, my favorite, they'll start propositioning you for sex, which, with much shame and regret, I have to admit that I have actually taken them up on.

And believe me, it disgusts me. I hate myself. I hate who I've become. But ANYTHING beats going without; being unable to perform even the simplest of tasks, depressed to the point of not moving for days at a time, not eating or drinking anything for DAYS at a time, bag hygienic habits, and the constant nausea, just to name some of what I go through. I've been so desperate to avoid that feeling that I have done a LOT of things that I never ever in a million years dreamed I would have done; stealing from my mom, my sister, my boyfriend, hell my GRANDFATHER and this is a man who has BEEN an addict, who KNOWS what it's like and who has ALWAYS looked out for me...to the point of actually giving me money so that I can get something and actually helping me fix when I was too shaky, sweaty, or sick to inject myself.

I don't mean to go on and on and I am certainly not looking for anyone's pity or sympathy...but I just wanted to voice what it is that I feel and go through so that maybe someone without an understanding of what Mr. Bennett is saying can possibly relate and come out of this with an understanding.

I was a gifted student. I had popular, I had friends, I got straight farking A's in high school. It was in my 2nd year of college that addiction and mental illness really hit me like a train (and that is not an uncommon occurrence...BOTH diseases tend to present most strongly in early adulthood). But I was your typical All American blond haired, green eyed, preppy white girl. And in the course of 5 years, I feel like I have fallen to ghetto, white trash, junkie whore. It's hard to look at yourself with the same esteem and respect that you once had when you know the things you've done just to feel right, or "get high", and yes, I do feel stigmatized as a criminal and as a lesser member of society because of the restrictions and laws that are in place right now.

The rehabs operating right now are a joke; at least 90% of patients will fall right back into old habits. And it's because they're running the places all the same way; this 12 step shiat doesn't work for everyone. I'm not religious, I can't surrender myself to a higher power I don't believe in. Not just that, but it's just behavioral therapy. I have been ingesting chemicals into my body for years...it's certainly a medical issue and I am going to need more than just talking and pep talks to ever overcome this addiction.

RoyBatty: seapig: I struggle with an opiate addiction every single day of my life,...


Wow. Thank you for writing that. Best wishes to you as well.

This. Thanks and best wishes seapig, it took a lot of guts to write that, even in an anonymous post.

seapig: And believe me, it disgusts me. I hate myself. I hate who I've become.

I have talked to folks with Multiple Sclerosis who say the exact same thing. Word for word. Just like an MS patient, you have disease, maybe more than one. You need a proper diagnosis and treatment. You are not required to go through 12 step programs. Some folks benefit, others don't.

Since you have not, check out the Delancey Street link I posted upthread. Check out http://clinicaltrials.gov/.

Thanks for taking the time to post. From what you have written it might pay to check out a surrogate opiate therapy. It may fit your needs. All the best.