A Meth Addict Gets Sober in Orange County Community Court(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
A Meth Addict Gets Sober in Orange County Community Court
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/using-against-my-will/486203/?single_page=true
91 comments
Sort of a minor point but I wonder though if the quote meant prison rather than jail. Anecdotally I've heard that it is hard to get drugs in jail, but very easy in prison. This makes sense because people in jail are there for short stints and thus don't have time to make the connections required for a clandestine black market. A lot of people use the terms jail and prison interchangably, though they are technically different in the USA.
That is interesting. What is the distinction? Jail is usually a holding area while prison is for serving a sentence?
Yes, that's pretty much it. http://www.diffen.com/difference/Jail_vs_Prison
The equivalent of your jail in my country (Fiji) is Remand Prison: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remand_(detention)
Probably wouldn't make a difference. The guard searching the other one, would probably be in on it.
I agree with them. If LA county sheriff's deputies didn't smuggle cellphones in, how else would an undercover FBI agent get a phone to the FBI's witness that was being hidden in the jail by Sheriff Lee Baca?
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-sheriff-jail-sca...
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-sheriff-jail-sca...
You have got to love America. The prison industry fleeces the inmates and their families as it is!
This prison union sounds more like organised crime, and what a big crime 'family', surely deserved of some RICO trial?
This prison union sounds more like organised crime, and what a big crime 'family', surely deserved of some RICO trial?
There is tremendous irony given the prison lobby for 3 strikes laws.
Interesting insight into what addiction is really like. That mentality of 'I could relapse tomorrow' even after four years is very telling. Good on the guy for four years clean. He obviously wants it, and he's got the willpower to keep it together now that he's hit rock bottom. Glad his life is back on track.
I'm four years clean from heroin after six years of addiction (from 16 years old) this August, and he's completely right. I also volunteer, because I feel that giving back and helping those to follow a better path keeps me grounded and sober. Addiction is probably the most selfish thing in the world, at least in terms of how you begin to think and act, so it makes some karmic sense that selfless acts can help you beat it, in my mind at least. Great article!
Given your experience, I am curious about your opinions on legalization of drugs. (Applying a Netherlands or Portugal model to the US)
Fun fact: Neither Portugal nor the Netherlands "legalized drugs." Portugal decriminalized personal use. The Netherlands never decriminalized any drugs, not even marijuana. Rather, it adopted an official policy of non-prosecution under certain conditions. In fact, marijuana may be more "legalized" in many U.S. states than it is in the Netherlands. E.g. the legal possession limits are higher in states like Colorado, and growing is less restricted.
And of course, in both countries, anything beyond small-scale growing and sale of marijuana (much less the production and sale of what they call "hard drugs") remains illegal and subject to active prosecution.
And of course, in both countries, anything beyond small-scale growing and sale of marijuana (much less the production and sale of what they call "hard drugs") remains illegal and subject to active prosecution.
The Netherlands never decriminalized any drugs, not even marijuana. Rather, it adopted an official policy of non-prosecution under certain conditions.
"Non-prosecution under certain conditions" is what decriminalization is generally understood to mean.
"Non-prosecution under certain conditions" is what decriminalization is generally understood to mean.
Sufficiently advanced non-prosecution is indistinguishable from legality.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought we differ in severity. Instead of 3 strikes laws and extended jail terms, doesn't Portugal for treatment? (I'm happy to admit I may be wrong here)
We do. But Portugal also has far less severe sentences for murder: maximum 25 years.[1] But it would be inaccurate to say that Portugal has "legalized" murder.
Portugal has decriminalized possession, and the Netherlands has a policy of non-prosecution for possession. But even in the U.S. mere possession is rarely punished with prison time (much less extended sentences and 3-strikes penalties): http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/america-tonight/ame.... And when it comes to things other than possession, the Netherlands does prosecute. The Netherlands conducts about 5,000 marijuana raids every year: http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/america-tonight/ame....
I'm not being merely pedantic. In my opinion, pointing out that Portugal and the Netherlands "legalized drugs" isn't just technically inaccurate, it's a red herring. The real problem is our law enforcement's over-the-top militarism and brutal penalties across-the-board. Law enforcement in the Netherlands doesn't choke people to death for selling untaxed cigarettes--that doesn't mean the problem in the U.S. is that selling untaxed cigarettes is illegal. The real story isn't that Portugal has decriminalized drug possession and why can't we be like that.[1] It's that Portugal rarely even enforces prison sentences under 5 years! Why can't we be like that?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(Portuguese_law)
Portugal has decriminalized possession, and the Netherlands has a policy of non-prosecution for possession. But even in the U.S. mere possession is rarely punished with prison time (much less extended sentences and 3-strikes penalties): http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/america-tonight/ame.... And when it comes to things other than possession, the Netherlands does prosecute. The Netherlands conducts about 5,000 marijuana raids every year: http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/america-tonight/ame....
I'm not being merely pedantic. In my opinion, pointing out that Portugal and the Netherlands "legalized drugs" isn't just technically inaccurate, it's a red herring. The real problem is our law enforcement's over-the-top militarism and brutal penalties across-the-board. Law enforcement in the Netherlands doesn't choke people to death for selling untaxed cigarettes--that doesn't mean the problem in the U.S. is that selling untaxed cigarettes is illegal. The real story isn't that Portugal has decriminalized drug possession and why can't we be like that.[1] It's that Portugal rarely even enforces prison sentences under 5 years! Why can't we be like that?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(Portuguese_law)
Good points. I guess I also looked at it as "penalize addiction" versus "treat addiction". Again, I'm not 100% up on the facts, so thank you for sharing. The issue is broader than just drugs - it's also warped incentives that encourage "tough on crime" initiatives to go haywire.
I've seen you make this comment before, why the vigilance?
I'm going to guess it's due to repeated inaccurate characterizations of those countries' drug laws (or purported lack thereof).
When there's a thing that "everybody knows", but that thing is wrong, it's hard not to continue to correct it every time you see it misreported.
Again, this is my guess, I'm not rayiner.
When there's a thing that "everybody knows", but that thing is wrong, it's hard not to continue to correct it every time you see it misreported.
Again, this is my guess, I'm not rayiner.
Meth and heroin are what the average person considers 'drugs' when speaking about addiction, but alcohol, which is romanticized, and at times suggested as part of a healthy diet, is probably the most subtly destructive of all given how pervasive it is in our modern society.
Imagine if meth and heroin, instead of being portrayed as taboo, and dark, were portrayed the same way drinking is in sophomoric college comedies as a cool, silly thing to do, and 'everybody does it'.
You don't necessarily see these contrasts until you have been sober many years, and open your eyes and look around you.
Imagine if meth and heroin, instead of being portrayed as taboo, and dark, were portrayed the same way drinking is in sophomoric college comedies as a cool, silly thing to do, and 'everybody does it'.
You don't necessarily see these contrasts until you have been sober many years, and open your eyes and look around you.
It's not about portrayal, it's about actual physiology.
The percentage of alcohol users (ie almost everybody) who become alcoholic is quite low. The percentage of heroin or meth users who become heroin or meth addicts is very high indeed.
Alcohol still of course does plenty of damage, unsurprisingly since it's the only such substance which the majority of the population consumes. Maybe the world would be a slightly better place if we hadn't started drinking booze all those thousands of years ago. But I don't buy the idea that because we accept one particular form of stupid behaviour that we should tolerate all the others... any more than I buy the idea that just because I tolerate my unemployed brother living in my apartment that I should open the doors to let everyone else live there too.
The percentage of alcohol users (ie almost everybody) who become alcoholic is quite low. The percentage of heroin or meth users who become heroin or meth addicts is very high indeed.
Alcohol still of course does plenty of damage, unsurprisingly since it's the only such substance which the majority of the population consumes. Maybe the world would be a slightly better place if we hadn't started drinking booze all those thousands of years ago. But I don't buy the idea that because we accept one particular form of stupid behaviour that we should tolerate all the others... any more than I buy the idea that just because I tolerate my unemployed brother living in my apartment that I should open the doors to let everyone else live there too.
>The percentage of alcohol users (ie almost everybody) who become alcoholic is quite low. The percentage of heroin or meth users who become heroin or meth addicts is very high indeed.
Do you have a source for this? Every study I've seen shows addiction rates among users in the 10-15% range for all three.
Do you have a source for this? Every study I've seen shows addiction rates among users in the 10-15% range for all three.
It is difficult to look at "% of users who become addicts" in a vacuum, since it's a population selected for willingness to take illegal drugs and hang out with the sorts of people with access to them.
I think it is because society tolerates alcohol abuse more, and the delineator between alcoholic and non-alcoholic is biased.
See my other comments in this thread. People openly admit to their peers being hungover when showing up to work, or bragging about their crazy, drunk weekend. There's a lot of denial about alcohol's impact on society, and what constitutes an alcoholic when it is legal, and widely accepted. Just substitute heroin or meth for some of the things people say about their alcoholic adventures, and you will see this very clearly.
See my other comments in this thread. People openly admit to their peers being hungover when showing up to work, or bragging about their crazy, drunk weekend. There's a lot of denial about alcohol's impact on society, and what constitutes an alcoholic when it is legal, and widely accepted. Just substitute heroin or meth for some of the things people say about their alcoholic adventures, and you will see this very clearly.
I heard it was around 10% for heroin users. No idea what the numbers for alcohol are. I imagine social circumstances play at least as large a role as the actual drugs.
Alcohol is devastating to the body, over many years. A year of meth, oh my. Drugs do damage. Sugar has consequences, but the consequences of sugar aren't the same as cigarettes, and cigarettes aren't the same as heroin.
You're not wrong. just about everything will kill you in excess. Alcohol will kill you faster than steak. Some things are much much easier to consume to excess. And that difficulty varies by person.
You're not wrong. just about everything will kill you in excess. Alcohol will kill you faster than steak. Some things are much much easier to consume to excess. And that difficulty varies by person.
I've seen people drink themselves over the course of a year into a state of health similar to what you allude to with "a year of meth, oh my". I've also known meth users who were highly functional and used it for years with no significant health issues. All in all, I'd say they're about equal.
I don't doubt your personal experience. Statistically, your friends are outliers.
Where do you get statistics on occasional/light illegal drug users who have no contact with law enforcement or mental health researchers? People with jobs and families have a lot more to lose by admitting to the wrong person that they sniffed $50 of coke at a party last weekend than by admitting they chugged $50 of booze and almost choked on their own vomit (for example).
Great points, and much more succinct than mine below.
I think your point is exactly what I mean about romanticizing alcohol. People practically brag about how hungover they are, or how much they drank. Shared misery.
I think your point is exactly what I mean about romanticizing alcohol. People practically brag about how hungover they are, or how much they drank. Shared misery.
Heroin is an opiate, and opiates do almost zero damage to the body. I know meth and heroin have culturally maintained their status as horrific amoungst young people despite the drug war's campaign of misinformation, and opiate addiction is a horrific thing, but clearly these drugs are not what you think they are.
Whilst this is largely true, there are plenty of opportunities for harm from contaminated or adulterated drugs, blood-bourne disease from needle sharing, and all manner of peripheral damage from poor injection technique or inappropriate routes of administration. And, of course, the ever-present risk of overdose due to wildly varying purity.
Of course, almost all of those things apply to other drugs when injected as well, but there is some evidence to suggest long-term use, even medically, can lead to Opioid Induced Hyperalgesia[1], which is definitely not harmless.
I'm not disagreeing with you entirely, but I wouldn't paint quite such a rosy picture.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid-induced_hyperalgesia
Of course, almost all of those things apply to other drugs when injected as well, but there is some evidence to suggest long-term use, even medically, can lead to Opioid Induced Hyperalgesia[1], which is definitely not harmless.
I'm not disagreeing with you entirely, but I wouldn't paint quite such a rosy picture.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid-induced_hyperalgesia
Regarding your first paragraph, almost every hazard you mention is a consequence of prohibition, not an innate hazard of opiates themselves.
Illegal drugs get adulterated due to black market actors looking to pad their margins. Needles get shared because they're not legal to buy OTC. Poor injection technique and inappropriate routes of administration occur (in part) due to the desire to hide drug use. Those two items would probably be lessened if addicts had the same access to education that diabetics do.
And wildly varying purity is not something you find in drugs bought from a pharmacy, but is found from sellers operating in the shadows.
Cigarettes and alcohol do not suffer from these things, because they're legal and regulated.
Illegal drugs get adulterated due to black market actors looking to pad their margins. Needles get shared because they're not legal to buy OTC. Poor injection technique and inappropriate routes of administration occur (in part) due to the desire to hide drug use. Those two items would probably be lessened if addicts had the same access to education that diabetics do.
And wildly varying purity is not something you find in drugs bought from a pharmacy, but is found from sellers operating in the shadows.
Cigarettes and alcohol do not suffer from these things, because they're legal and regulated.
> Regarding your first paragraph, almost every hazard you mention is a consequence of prohibition, not an innate hazard of opiates themselves.
> Illegal drugs get adulterated due to black market actors looking to pad their margins.
There was a group that offered free purity checks for MDMA (ecstasy) around 1999-2000 and they performed the service at raves. They announced that they would appear at a party I went to in the Midwest, but didn't operate because the police announced that the group would be arrested on site if they ran any tests. A warehouse of people took unknown substances without a basic safety net because the cops weren't willing to concede that this would have been a public service that might actually do some good.
I stopped taking ecstasy about a year later because the increasing impurities made us feel awful the following day, but not before taking many doses that had who knows what in them. As such, while I am somewhat moderate in my stance on decrimianization, I also believe that the authorities are largely responsible for the mess that drug use can create.
There was a group that offered free purity checks for MDMA (ecstasy) around 1999-2000 and they performed the service at raves. They announced that they would appear at a party I went to in the Midwest, but didn't operate because the police announced that the group would be arrested on site if they ran any tests. A warehouse of people took unknown substances without a basic safety net because the cops weren't willing to concede that this would have been a public service that might actually do some good.
I stopped taking ecstasy about a year later because the increasing impurities made us feel awful the following day, but not before taking many doses that had who knows what in them. As such, while I am somewhat moderate in my stance on decrimianization, I also believe that the authorities are largely responsible for the mess that drug use can create.
> Needles get shared because they're not legal to buy OTC
-_-
Seriously, fuck this bullshit. Syringes with needles and isopropyl alcohol not being sold without prescription. I'd laugh if it wasn't so sad.
I complain about anti-depressants and some other drugs not being available OTC, but this... just why...
-_-
Seriously, fuck this bullshit. Syringes with needles and isopropyl alcohol not being sold without prescription. I'd laugh if it wasn't so sad.
I complain about anti-depressants and some other drugs not being available OTC, but this... just why...
This is me being naive I guess, but isn't anti-depressant withdrawal super dangerous mentally? Not sure I'd want that to be OTC if that's the actual case.
Yes it is, but imo it's also a reason for it being OTC - you get diagnosed by a doctor, you go get what you're prescribed (without that piece of (e)paper).
If you can't get a prescription, or if you move, you're gonna have some bad time...
Then again, I think people should be able to get what they want, but that's clearly stupid if applied to the average...
If you can't get a prescription, or if you move, you're gonna have some bad time...
Then again, I think people should be able to get what they want, but that's clearly stupid if applied to the average...
> opiates do almost zero damage to the body
People overdose on opiates and die.
People overdose on opiates and die.
They also do that with acetaminophen awfully lot.
Yes, maybe in one focus they are outliers, but the assumptions and parameters of the statistic should be qualified before dismissing the true harm alcohol causes. It's like the 'how would you like to die' game, slow or fast.
A DUI can be fatal on your first drunk at any age. I know personally of a college roommates brother, who was a straight A student, and got drunk for the third time in his life, and wound up killing somebody with his car. He went away for manslaughter. I'd say the side-effect there was pretty 'oh boy' for him and the victim. Think of how many people you may have seen go into a car after a few drinks, and how many of them actually got pulled over or fined for DUI. A lot of people drive under the influence and fly below the radar of the statistics. I have acquaintances and business associates who have been doing it for years.
Heroin and meth are stigmatized, and not a industrially-produced, government-controlled product like alcohol. They are almost always impure with other deleterious ingredients. Pure heroin used to be released on purpose in my old neighborhood in the 70s and 80s under somebody's 'brand' to hype sales of their 'product' for a few weeks even at the expense of a few overdoses.
Alcohol is under government regulation per % of alcohol per type of beverage, health inspections, and additives. People have a casual drink at lunch, but you don't see somebody whip out a needle at a casual business lunch, so meth and heroin tend to be relegated to dark alleys, loners at home, parties, etc...
The typical photo of a toothless, emaciated person comes from the side-effects of societal stigmatization, remaining in the shadow of crime, and less acceptance for that type of substance. There are plenty accounts of functional heroin addicts, and I knew/know a few personally. Their colleagues would never know. They eat right, go to work, and just use weekly and sometimes daily.
There are 17 times as many alcoholics as meth addicts per a 2012 study [1]. And alcohol kills slowly. Even the healthiest person who has 3 or more drinks a day is putting mileage on their body, the liver in particular, not to mention the mental effects. Choose your poison - one's government and socially embraced, the other(s) are associated with criminals and 'addicts'.
For a quick, non-academic feel of what I am trying to convey, watch and compare 'Requiem for A Dream' with any of the 'Hangover' movies. Can you find a meth/heroin movie like the 'Hangover' movies? A comedy that a broad range of people view and laugh at. Why not? The movie has what, 2 sequels already?
[1] https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/meth...
A DUI can be fatal on your first drunk at any age. I know personally of a college roommates brother, who was a straight A student, and got drunk for the third time in his life, and wound up killing somebody with his car. He went away for manslaughter. I'd say the side-effect there was pretty 'oh boy' for him and the victim. Think of how many people you may have seen go into a car after a few drinks, and how many of them actually got pulled over or fined for DUI. A lot of people drive under the influence and fly below the radar of the statistics. I have acquaintances and business associates who have been doing it for years.
Heroin and meth are stigmatized, and not a industrially-produced, government-controlled product like alcohol. They are almost always impure with other deleterious ingredients. Pure heroin used to be released on purpose in my old neighborhood in the 70s and 80s under somebody's 'brand' to hype sales of their 'product' for a few weeks even at the expense of a few overdoses.
Alcohol is under government regulation per % of alcohol per type of beverage, health inspections, and additives. People have a casual drink at lunch, but you don't see somebody whip out a needle at a casual business lunch, so meth and heroin tend to be relegated to dark alleys, loners at home, parties, etc...
The typical photo of a toothless, emaciated person comes from the side-effects of societal stigmatization, remaining in the shadow of crime, and less acceptance for that type of substance. There are plenty accounts of functional heroin addicts, and I knew/know a few personally. Their colleagues would never know. They eat right, go to work, and just use weekly and sometimes daily.
There are 17 times as many alcoholics as meth addicts per a 2012 study [1]. And alcohol kills slowly. Even the healthiest person who has 3 or more drinks a day is putting mileage on their body, the liver in particular, not to mention the mental effects. Choose your poison - one's government and socially embraced, the other(s) are associated with criminals and 'addicts'.
For a quick, non-academic feel of what I am trying to convey, watch and compare 'Requiem for A Dream' with any of the 'Hangover' movies. Can you find a meth/heroin movie like the 'Hangover' movies? A comedy that a broad range of people view and laugh at. Why not? The movie has what, 2 sequels already?
[1] https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/meth...
During the 80's and the early 90's, the city of Zurich (Switzerland) had an area where the use of hard drugs was legal. Eventually, in '91, the area was closed because the consequences were disastrous. See for instance: http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/extern/storytelling/needletrauma...
I'm not saying that the use of alcohol is harmless, and surely there will be people who can have an almost normal life while using hard drugs, but the stigma that hard drugs have is not coming out of nowhere.
I'm not saying that the use of alcohol is harmless, and surely there will be people who can have an almost normal life while using hard drugs, but the stigma that hard drugs have is not coming out of nowhere.
>Can you find a meth/heroin movie like the 'Hangover' movies?
Well, there is Trainspotting, but that's a much darker form of comedy...
Well, there is Trainspotting, but that's a much darker form of comedy...
You are not wrong in your assessment of some of the unfairness of the stigmatization, but alcohol does have some advantages that led to this position.
A) It's "more than just a drug", it's a food. It's actually a food that can taste quite good to be honest. Many other things (especially synthetics) in contrast taste very nasty (usually very bitter).
B) Alcohol has a pretty good dose-response curve. In contrast, dose-response issues are a problem with most synthetics and even injection oriented drugs like heroin -- it is usually "all at once" being difficult to dose any other way. As a result, it is more difficult to build up to a desired level of effect without going overboard.
The stimulant of choice in most of the world is not meth, it is either coffee or tea. These have similar advantages that alcohol does (moreso actually since neither are as damaging or addictive). Consequently, coffee or tea is actually far more socially integrated, and less regulated than alcohol!
I have heard of people using synthetic stimulants in a kind of similar way one would have a few beers at a party (eg as a pep up, to get through a cram or all nighter etc.), but usually when I hear about that it's something like Adderall (aka government regulated, mg clearly stated, etc. amphetamine). Using such off-label is the same sort of illegal in a way, but it seems to have far less social stigma.
Meth has medical uses at lower dose, but stimulant abuse (which due to stuff like Adderall is probably the main case for meth) is all about the "euphoric" dose. That dose is less like someone is having a few beers at a party and more like going for an entire fifth of hard liquor in short order. At that level, damage occurs for any drug pretty fast.
But certainly, there's some additional social / class issues that exaggerate the impact of many recreational chemicals in people's minds. Cannabis after all has a pretty good dose/response curve, and is not terribly offensive in taste, yet for a long time it had a huge stigma as well.
A) It's "more than just a drug", it's a food. It's actually a food that can taste quite good to be honest. Many other things (especially synthetics) in contrast taste very nasty (usually very bitter).
B) Alcohol has a pretty good dose-response curve. In contrast, dose-response issues are a problem with most synthetics and even injection oriented drugs like heroin -- it is usually "all at once" being difficult to dose any other way. As a result, it is more difficult to build up to a desired level of effect without going overboard.
The stimulant of choice in most of the world is not meth, it is either coffee or tea. These have similar advantages that alcohol does (moreso actually since neither are as damaging or addictive). Consequently, coffee or tea is actually far more socially integrated, and less regulated than alcohol!
I have heard of people using synthetic stimulants in a kind of similar way one would have a few beers at a party (eg as a pep up, to get through a cram or all nighter etc.), but usually when I hear about that it's something like Adderall (aka government regulated, mg clearly stated, etc. amphetamine). Using such off-label is the same sort of illegal in a way, but it seems to have far less social stigma.
Meth has medical uses at lower dose, but stimulant abuse (which due to stuff like Adderall is probably the main case for meth) is all about the "euphoric" dose. That dose is less like someone is having a few beers at a party and more like going for an entire fifth of hard liquor in short order. At that level, damage occurs for any drug pretty fast.
But certainly, there's some additional social / class issues that exaggerate the impact of many recreational chemicals in people's minds. Cannabis after all has a pretty good dose/response curve, and is not terribly offensive in taste, yet for a long time it had a huge stigma as well.
Taste is very subjective, and sometimes acquired. Most children do spit-takes upon a first sip of whiskey or beer, so alcohol being tasty is debatable.
The drug effects of alcohol certainly seem to be a large part of it given how few non-alcoholic beers sell, although kombucha has very low alcohol and is popular amongst healthy eaters.
I don't ever view beer as "more than just a drug, it's a food", since those are empty calories, and the damage done by drinking just 3 or 4 drinks at a time is not worth it for me.
The body tries to rid itself of alcohol as fast as it can. Surprisingly, the blood alcohol level of somebody who has 1 2oz. shot of whiskey each hour for 4 hours (8 ounces) is around 0.10%, and if you drink it all at once it is 0.15%, so even drinking over a longer time isn't 'the right way to drink' as some profess.
Ask yourself when was the last time you went out for a social occasion and drank 4 or more sodas in an hour, or 12 to 20 on a weekend night out? Or substitute orange juice, milk or even water into that thought experiment.
The body cannot keep up with the alcohol dosing. Over time, the liver becomes more and more damaged and cannot as efficiently handle it, but unlike a car filter, you can't get your filters changed that often. The damage is accumulative. It cascades from a failing liver, stomach and other tissues over time like cancer.
When studies or people claim the benefits of 1 to 2 drinks of wine per day, I always wonder why there isn't such a push for other healthier options of lower alcoholic fermented foods. Or simply eating grapes, or drinking an occassional grape juice.
Maybe it's my age or sober bias, but I find that I have wandered away from watering holes, and watching people get drunk, or laughing at things that just aren't funny to me unless you're intoxicated. As a side-effect, I have more money and sober time to enjoy the things in life I like like skating, swimming, climbing and reading.
The drug effects of alcohol certainly seem to be a large part of it given how few non-alcoholic beers sell, although kombucha has very low alcohol and is popular amongst healthy eaters.
I don't ever view beer as "more than just a drug, it's a food", since those are empty calories, and the damage done by drinking just 3 or 4 drinks at a time is not worth it for me.
The body tries to rid itself of alcohol as fast as it can. Surprisingly, the blood alcohol level of somebody who has 1 2oz. shot of whiskey each hour for 4 hours (8 ounces) is around 0.10%, and if you drink it all at once it is 0.15%, so even drinking over a longer time isn't 'the right way to drink' as some profess.
Ask yourself when was the last time you went out for a social occasion and drank 4 or more sodas in an hour, or 12 to 20 on a weekend night out? Or substitute orange juice, milk or even water into that thought experiment.
The body cannot keep up with the alcohol dosing. Over time, the liver becomes more and more damaged and cannot as efficiently handle it, but unlike a car filter, you can't get your filters changed that often. The damage is accumulative. It cascades from a failing liver, stomach and other tissues over time like cancer.
When studies or people claim the benefits of 1 to 2 drinks of wine per day, I always wonder why there isn't such a push for other healthier options of lower alcoholic fermented foods. Or simply eating grapes, or drinking an occassional grape juice.
Maybe it's my age or sober bias, but I find that I have wandered away from watering holes, and watching people get drunk, or laughing at things that just aren't funny to me unless you're intoxicated. As a side-effect, I have more money and sober time to enjoy the things in life I like like skating, swimming, climbing and reading.
Right, I understand the personal opinion. I'm just explaining why I feel alcohol has less stigma (aside from obvious historical class / race bias) and probably always will.
By "more than just a drug, it's a food", I mean in usage. It's made with food. People cook with alcoholic beverages all the time. A large part of some alcohol culture is pairing alcoholic beverages with food. When cooking with alcohol, a large percentage of the intoxicant is boiled away, so there is something to the flavor contribution as well. It makes sense given that it's a fermented food. (I do feel it is somewhat acquired, but a lot of foods are to be honest.)
Some people do binge on 4 or more sodas at a time. Some American stores sell 100-128 oz to-go soda containers after all. :) Even the "smaller" 7-11 Double Big Gulp, at 64 ounces, is over 5 standard serving (12 ounce) soda cans. Account less for ice, but still I bet it's over 4. Soda binging may not quite be as bad for your health as ethanol binging, but it's not exactly healthy either. On the other hand, there's nothing really wrong with a standard size soda every now and then. It is "empty calories" (like ethanol) but there's room for treats in life.
Many alcohol watering holes aren't exactly dens of moderation (4 drinks in a night really isn't). I am personally wonder if the "benefits of 1 to 2 drinks" is more the benefits of a moderate lifestyle in all aspects of life.
By "more than just a drug, it's a food", I mean in usage. It's made with food. People cook with alcoholic beverages all the time. A large part of some alcohol culture is pairing alcoholic beverages with food. When cooking with alcohol, a large percentage of the intoxicant is boiled away, so there is something to the flavor contribution as well. It makes sense given that it's a fermented food. (I do feel it is somewhat acquired, but a lot of foods are to be honest.)
Some people do binge on 4 or more sodas at a time. Some American stores sell 100-128 oz to-go soda containers after all. :) Even the "smaller" 7-11 Double Big Gulp, at 64 ounces, is over 5 standard serving (12 ounce) soda cans. Account less for ice, but still I bet it's over 4. Soda binging may not quite be as bad for your health as ethanol binging, but it's not exactly healthy either. On the other hand, there's nothing really wrong with a standard size soda every now and then. It is "empty calories" (like ethanol) but there's room for treats in life.
Many alcohol watering holes aren't exactly dens of moderation (4 drinks in a night really isn't). I am personally wonder if the "benefits of 1 to 2 drinks" is more the benefits of a moderate lifestyle in all aspects of life.
My city has a reputation as having a heroin problem. I see a lot more alcoholics out on the street than heroin addicts.
[deleted]
There are routinely articles in the Australian media about a glass of red wine a day being good for your health, likewise with chocolate, etc.
Often, if you dig into the sources these types of articles you find incredibly specific research which has very little to with what the fluff piece is gushing positively about... and which is paid for by the industry it's not-so-subtly promoting. Often the industry backers have even done the study themselves, had their researchers write it up, and paid(!) some researcher at a publicly funded institution to add their (the researcher's) name to it and submit it to a journal. Rarely is it in any way clear that the study has actually been performed by industry groups/researchers with vested interests.
This is one of the (many) reasons you should be very skeptical of any of the "X is good for you!" type articles.
This is one of the (many) reasons you should be very skeptical of any of the "X is good for you!" type articles.
He could also take drugs tomorrow and stop the next day. Us addicts seemingly think of relapsing as something that happens to you, like if you're walking down the street and fall into a manhole. But you're not powerless, it's just a self-fulfilling prophecy. It'll take at least weeks of continued use to get addicted again (that's for opioids, amphetamines are not addictive in that way.) Then again, it's never enough to just do it once as you want to be on the drug forever. This is why it's easy to continue using again, but it's also possible to stop.
EDIT To clarify: I'm not condoning relapsing, I only want people to know that all hope is not lost if you made the decision to use again. I'm also not saying that it will be easy to stop again, just that it's going to be easier than you think.
EDIT To clarify: I'm not condoning relapsing, I only want people to know that all hope is not lost if you made the decision to use again. I'm also not saying that it will be easy to stop again, just that it's going to be easier than you think.
Downvoted. Addiction is powerful and the false belief that you can "just dabble" is what causes a lot of relapse. It is a common excuse/justification for people during a relpse.
If you are speaking this way from a personal perspective you should take the resumption of addictive behavior seriously and consider getting help.
Flippant attitude toward relapse is not a good attitude for someone who wants to stay clean.
If you are speaking this way from a personal perspective you should take the resumption of addictive behavior seriously and consider getting help.
Flippant attitude toward relapse is not a good attitude for someone who wants to stay clean.
Good friends of mine died from walking into a relapse, I don't take it lightly at all. Relapses are so common it's dangerous to tell people all is lost if they use just one more time.
Personally I've been clean for years, but what saved me was getting back into work so that I had something to occupy my time. It's easier to drop the tin foil when you have work and responsibilities in the morning.
Personally I've been clean for years, but what saved me was getting back into work so that I had something to occupy my time. It's easier to drop the tin foil when you have work and responsibilities in the morning.
> It'll take at least weeks of continued use to get addicted again...
Maybe that's your experience, and maybe it's some other people's too, but to offer this as a blanket truth is not merely wrong, but actively dangerous.
Maybe that's your experience, and maybe it's some other people's too, but to offer this as a blanket truth is not merely wrong, but actively dangerous.
> It'll take at least weeks of continued use to get addicted again
False. Psychological addiction isn't physical addiction and is arguably exactly the kind of addiction that brings an addict to use after an extended period of sobriety.
This is also inaccurate w/r/t opioids and benzodiazepines. Each time you withdraw, become dependent and withdraw from opioids the length and amount of use needed to induce withdrawals is lessened. Using twice in a period of three days is enough to trigger withdrawals after kicking multiple times.
After being heavily dependent on benzodiazepines or alcohol and withdrawing, subsequent use can induce a phenomenon called kindling[0]. A week, a weekend binge, or one night of drinking might be enough to trigger withdrawal symptoms. One dose of a benzodiazepine can be enough to trigger withdrawal after being heavily dependent.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kindling_(sedative-hypnotic_wi...
False. Psychological addiction isn't physical addiction and is arguably exactly the kind of addiction that brings an addict to use after an extended period of sobriety.
This is also inaccurate w/r/t opioids and benzodiazepines. Each time you withdraw, become dependent and withdraw from opioids the length and amount of use needed to induce withdrawals is lessened. Using twice in a period of three days is enough to trigger withdrawals after kicking multiple times.
After being heavily dependent on benzodiazepines or alcohol and withdrawing, subsequent use can induce a phenomenon called kindling[0]. A week, a weekend binge, or one night of drinking might be enough to trigger withdrawal symptoms. One dose of a benzodiazepine can be enough to trigger withdrawal after being heavily dependent.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kindling_(sedative-hypnotic_wi...
You're right, using twice in three days is enough, but it doesn't move you back to start.
The withdrawals are much lighter compared to what they will be in weeks, or months. Often the withdrawals can be over the next day! So if you have found yourself relapsing, and think that any control over your own actions has vanished overnight? You're wrong! But that's what many actually seem to believe.
Edit: I'd do almost anything to avoid going into full on withdrawal, so I guess I don't mean literal control, but feeling powerless. This reply does not consider benzo, I consider that en even much more dangerous drug for those seriously addicted to it.
The withdrawals are much lighter compared to what they will be in weeks, or months. Often the withdrawals can be over the next day! So if you have found yourself relapsing, and think that any control over your own actions has vanished overnight? You're wrong! But that's what many actually seem to believe.
Edit: I'd do almost anything to avoid going into full on withdrawal, so I guess I don't mean literal control, but feeling powerless. This reply does not consider benzo, I consider that en even much more dangerous drug for those seriously addicted to it.
It's what many have seen happen again and again, and it's what many have experienced themselves.
I understand what you're trying to do here, and you're not wrong. It's rather more about context and how this works in reality.
Your perspective is correct, in that seeing a relapse as a complete failure can actually make it worse. You're right that the best mindset is to get up again, remember that whatever has been accomplished is not lost at all, deal with minor withdrawal, and get back on the horse (or wagon, I guess).
But the perspective of others here is also correct. One of the most common causes of relapse is thinking 'I can handle it now', is moderation, is forgetting the difficulties and struggles of quitting, forgetting the weeks, months or years lost to continuously failed 'moderation', and taking for granted the positive things that happened since quitting.
To someone who is 'clean', it is absolutely disastrous to think that a relapse is not very dangerous. Because the mind wants excuses to indulge again, and even the tiniest thought that this can be possible without potentially a complete reversion to an earlier situation can be enough of an excuse.
But to someone who just relapsed your message is probably very valuable. I think most people here would agree with that.
The thing is, the number of people around who need to hear that a relapse should scare the living crap out of them is almost guaranteed to be much higher than the number of people who need to hear that it's not the end of the world.
Before relapsing, not relapsing is 100% the correct advice. After relapsing, your message might or might not help. I've experienced many situations where no approach helped after a relapse other than, well, waiting and hoping.
And that's why I think people disagree so strongly. Not because you're wrong, but because your statements, in practice, can be harmful to people reading them.
I understand what you're trying to do here, and you're not wrong. It's rather more about context and how this works in reality.
Your perspective is correct, in that seeing a relapse as a complete failure can actually make it worse. You're right that the best mindset is to get up again, remember that whatever has been accomplished is not lost at all, deal with minor withdrawal, and get back on the horse (or wagon, I guess).
But the perspective of others here is also correct. One of the most common causes of relapse is thinking 'I can handle it now', is moderation, is forgetting the difficulties and struggles of quitting, forgetting the weeks, months or years lost to continuously failed 'moderation', and taking for granted the positive things that happened since quitting.
To someone who is 'clean', it is absolutely disastrous to think that a relapse is not very dangerous. Because the mind wants excuses to indulge again, and even the tiniest thought that this can be possible without potentially a complete reversion to an earlier situation can be enough of an excuse.
But to someone who just relapsed your message is probably very valuable. I think most people here would agree with that.
The thing is, the number of people around who need to hear that a relapse should scare the living crap out of them is almost guaranteed to be much higher than the number of people who need to hear that it's not the end of the world.
Before relapsing, not relapsing is 100% the correct advice. After relapsing, your message might or might not help. I've experienced many situations where no approach helped after a relapse other than, well, waiting and hoping.
And that's why I think people disagree so strongly. Not because you're wrong, but because your statements, in practice, can be harmful to people reading them.
> So if you have found yourself relapsing, and think that any control over your own actions has vanished overnight?
No one in this thread is claiming this and I certainly am not.
If your frame of mind, attitude and inclination have shifted so far from what 'makes sense', i.e. staying sober after proving that you're incapable of using without losing control, then pretending it isn't a big deal to use once isn't helpful. It is detrimental. An addict's mind will want to find any excuse to minimize away the problems of using, and if you're at the point where you've willingly used once, you've already started going down that rabbit hole.
> I'd do almost anything to avoid going into full on withdrawal
So would a lot of people. The best way to avoid going through withdrawals after using is to keep on using, hence why a relapse is a problem.
No one in this thread is claiming this and I certainly am not.
If your frame of mind, attitude and inclination have shifted so far from what 'makes sense', i.e. staying sober after proving that you're incapable of using without losing control, then pretending it isn't a big deal to use once isn't helpful. It is detrimental. An addict's mind will want to find any excuse to minimize away the problems of using, and if you're at the point where you've willingly used once, you've already started going down that rabbit hole.
> I'd do almost anything to avoid going into full on withdrawal
So would a lot of people. The best way to avoid going through withdrawals after using is to keep on using, hence why a relapse is a problem.
https://www.ted.com/talks/johann_hari_everything_you_think_y...
Watch this and see if you still think the same way.
Watch this and see if you still think the same way.
I think this kind of defines the line between an addict and a user, doesn't it? If you're an addict, you can't just 'take it or leave it', or 'just stop'.
Pretty much. Or rather, if you can't just take it or leave it, you're an addict. I was addicted to nicotine for decades. I had very little willpower about not having another cigarette. It took years to really stop, to stop relapsing.
It may be that the mechanisms of addiction for meth/amphetamines, gambling, smoking etc is different from opioids, as I could to loads of the first, without ever having trouble stopping (just slept for a few days), while some of my friends had addictive behavior. It puzzled me, so maybe it truly is more difficult when relapsing on those.
After going through opiate withdrawals, I found quitting smoking rather pleasant in comparison. It's really not a ride you wish to take again.
After going through opiate withdrawals, I found quitting smoking rather pleasant in comparison. It's really not a ride you wish to take again.
Right, the main symptoms of nicotine withdrawal are nervousness and anxiety. I've also been addicted to diazepam, and that was similar, but more intense. I gather that symptoms of opiate withdrawal can be extremely unpleasant. I've had a few small tastes of that, after overusing oxycodone (and diazepam) for back pain. I'd never want to experience the real thing.
I've also done lots of amphetamines and cocaine, and never felt like I was getting addicted. Maybe there's a genetic component.
I've also done lots of amphetamines and cocaine, and never felt like I was getting addicted. Maybe there's a genetic component.
For me, alcohol was harder physically and harder to stop.
In all honesty, the fact that he had been an upright taxpaying citizen to begin with... good job, house, car, friends etc., was an excellent incentive to break the habit.
My stepbrother is in his late 30's, has 5 illegitimate kids, no job, no car, and has never held a driver's license. Oh and he's a heroin addict and all his friends are meth heads. Why doesn't he quit? He's lived in the same house virtually his entire life, in and out of jail and prison, and his dad essentially allows him to live there as a daily fuckup.
DeLancey Street is an excellent court appointed 2yr alternative to the courts themselves. You can also just walk or drive in right off the street if you have the balls. Problem is you have to willingly enter it (the hard part), have no outstanding tickets/court appointments, and show up sober. Even so, I've seen guys with 4 years under their belt, walk out the door and OD within a week.
It really boils down to the individul themselves and the choices they make. Guys with 30+ years of addiction do not normally survive it. It just eats them alive, if not slowly.
My sister has a very bad drug problem. At this point we want her to go to jail, as it might help her want to get better. Sadly, as this guy said, it is very easy to get high in jail.
Jail/prison is the absolute worst place you can send a drug addict to. If anything it usually makes things much, much worse.
Sadly I don't have any solutions to your problems, only the advice to keep fighting for her and to treat her with compassion. If she's addicted to opioids you could consider buprenorphine.
Sadly I don't have any solutions to your problems, only the advice to keep fighting for her and to treat her with compassion. If she's addicted to opioids you could consider buprenorphine.
No offense, but you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. We'd rather see her go to jail, than be dead. Which is a likely path for her.
I'm not offended. I know nothing about your situation specifically, but I understand that you just want to help her. Common advice given to my parents were to give up, there's nothing you can do, but they never did give up and I'm very thankful for that. I never went to prison, but I've met many who did.
Maybe with a good facility it could be helpful, but most prisons are horrible environments with easy access to drugs. Addicts also die in prison, but maybe more common after being released for the difference in tolerance. Many are rejoining society with a massive prison drug debt, continuing the cycle.
Maybe with a good facility it could be helpful, but most prisons are horrible environments with easy access to drugs. Addicts also die in prison, but maybe more common after being released for the difference in tolerance. Many are rejoining society with a massive prison drug debt, continuing the cycle.
Sending her to jail, depending on how it plays out, may disqualify her from student financial aid, government jobs, pretty much any job with an element of trust involved, housing, foreign travel. To keep her alive, you burn many bridges that could have led to a life worth living. More likely than death, jail is what will eventually happen on its own if you fail to help her, and then she will carry that stigma forever (on top of being an addict).
I have no love of the American penal system or the drug war. That said:
A) You're right about the Draconian consequences of a jail sentence, and you also forgot to include the loss of her right to vote. However, I'd also like to point out that death will similarly disqualify his sister from student financial aid, government jobs, pretty much any job with an element of trust involved, housing, foreign travel. It might also disqualify her from voting, though there's always some reports each election cycle to the contrary.
B) My brother in law did go to prison for a useless drug offence that was a complete waste of everyone's time, thought it did make the police departments numbers look a bit better in their annual report. All of those bridges that you spoke of have been burned for him. As I understood your argument, you believe that his life is no longer worth living? Should I go ahead and euthanise him while I'm in town next Thanksgiving?
I hate the prison system. I hate the drug war. They are both broken on every level and future generations will judge us for how vilely we've handled this situation. However, I also have the perspective to know that there are people for whom there are worse fates than a life with a felony conviction on her record. They aren't common, and my brother in law wasn't one of them, but I accept the possibility that kilroy's sister might be one. It's certainly unlikely, but it's possible, and kilroy know the facts in the case better than I do.
Edit1: Fixed some language
A) You're right about the Draconian consequences of a jail sentence, and you also forgot to include the loss of her right to vote. However, I'd also like to point out that death will similarly disqualify his sister from student financial aid, government jobs, pretty much any job with an element of trust involved, housing, foreign travel. It might also disqualify her from voting, though there's always some reports each election cycle to the contrary.
B) My brother in law did go to prison for a useless drug offence that was a complete waste of everyone's time, thought it did make the police departments numbers look a bit better in their annual report. All of those bridges that you spoke of have been burned for him. As I understood your argument, you believe that his life is no longer worth living? Should I go ahead and euthanise him while I'm in town next Thanksgiving?
I hate the prison system. I hate the drug war. They are both broken on every level and future generations will judge us for how vilely we've handled this situation. However, I also have the perspective to know that there are people for whom there are worse fates than a life with a felony conviction on her record. They aren't common, and my brother in law wasn't one of them, but I accept the possibility that kilroy's sister might be one. It's certainly unlikely, but it's possible, and kilroy know the facts in the case better than I do.
Edit1: Fixed some language
Hmm, it sounds like you're disagreeing, but I basically agree with everything you said.
> As I understood your argument, you believe that his life is no longer worth living? Should I go ahead and euthanise him while I'm in town next Thanksgiving?
That's not up to you or me. You'll have to ask him. Or just observe whether he seems to have found his spark among the options that are still available. I'm definitely not saying a criminal record makes it impossible to find and pursue a passion in life - only that when someone is in a self-destructive pattern, "helping" by dishing out punishment and cutting off avenues of growth is not sensible at all. Now occasionally someone is literally on the verge of suicide, and confinement might get them through it, but it's only borrowed time if they'll be in a worse place after release.
> As I understood your argument, you believe that his life is no longer worth living? Should I go ahead and euthanise him while I'm in town next Thanksgiving?
That's not up to you or me. You'll have to ask him. Or just observe whether he seems to have found his spark among the options that are still available. I'm definitely not saying a criminal record makes it impossible to find and pursue a passion in life - only that when someone is in a self-destructive pattern, "helping" by dishing out punishment and cutting off avenues of growth is not sensible at all. Now occasionally someone is literally on the verge of suicide, and confinement might get them through it, but it's only borrowed time if they'll be in a worse place after release.
Not dying is orders of magnitude more important than keeping eligible for student loans or government jobs you could theoretically someday get.
Also if an addict's perception of a life 'worth living' depends on external things, like yours does, the addict is highly likely to just go back to addiction anyway. Life is worth living without student loans or government jobs or travelling -- or similarly, drugs -- and much of overcoming addiction is learning to recognize that.
Also if an addict's perception of a life 'worth living' depends on external things, like yours does, the addict is highly likely to just go back to addiction anyway. Life is worth living without student loans or government jobs or travelling -- or similarly, drugs -- and much of overcoming addiction is learning to recognize that.
haha kilroy, you can't say "No offense" and then proceed with "you don't know what the fuck you are talking about" obviously offense was intended, literally how could you express the idea that someone hasn't considered all possibilities in a more offensive way?
Honestly, I understand his frustration. People will tell you that you're wrong, that you're heartless, etc. when you express that you'd like it if one of your family members went to jail. Like you don't care about them and haven't considered the potential consequences of such a serious thing. I know multiple people who have gotten clean in jail. And I know that for at least a few, they were a serious threat to themselves and others.
Attitudes like the gps are not always right, but are pretty much the only opinions I hear expressed.
Attitudes like the gps are not always right, but are pretty much the only opinions I hear expressed.
It's very likely that it would be easier for her to kill herself with illegal drugs in jail than outside of jail.
Have you considered her thoughts on the matter? She may find she'd rather be dead than endure withdrawal in jail. Nevermind being a female in jail.
No offense, but you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
No offense, but you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
Have you been to jail? I wouldn't be so quick to dictate what's best for someone else. It's a fucked up place.
Maybe he thinks his best considering not only his sister, but also the people his sister is affecting.
And the intersection of these two things. Coming to terms with things you've done to other people is an extremely difficult thing that adds to an addict's sunk cost.
[deleted]
To me it sounds pretty much like the court sent him to Narcotics Anonymous and he got clean there. The sober living house had him pee in a cup to verify he was staying clean and that's about it.
The article has a link to another article that's more focused on the notion of a "drug court" [1] itself. I hadn't heard of the term either, but from the sound of it, the drug court runs / oversees a highly-structured program that's focused on addicts and that takes place outside of a prison. So it sounds like it's more than just "go to a sober living house, and let them enforce rules" and more of a probation-like situation.
[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/helping-...
[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/helping-...
This is because the California Correctional Officers Association strongly opposes searches of guards.[1]
[1] http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/04/local/la-me-prison-g...