More on NAOMI (Legal Heroin in Canada)

[Duckfeet]

I'd posted a few times on this. I'd heard about this program from Nick, I think, and actually did try to get into it, and it seemed like I qualified, but had to live close to legal injection room in Vancouver, so I flew up there with some money to get a place, but was turned away in Vancouver Airport for felonies...
Still of interest to me, tho, and any other hopeless incorrigible heroin addicts out there might find it interesting...or heartbreaking...depending on where you sit, I guess...
It's not going to happen here, I don't think, maybe never...

You can always plug in NAOMI and heroin, if yer interested, but this seemed a fairly recent article, also talking a bit about dilaudids, which control group seemed about as successful as heroin...methadone of course, came in way last...

http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=61b3e41f-f691-402b-b16d-a3f797860b11

[InfectedMushroom]

Good read, i just wish our gov't would be more open about wanting to help addicts. At least the article shows that real help works, not just locking people up.

[Duckfeet]

I know: I try not to get bitter about it, stay cheeful, be glad I'm off opys...for the moment...but it's difficult for me not to see how I lost everything, time and time again, and have been imprisoned and persecuted when, maybe 30 years ago, it might have been different if we had had the simple compassion for heroin addicts that other countries are finally providing, even tho in limited doses...if I get that bad again, where I find myself back in the heroin cauldron, I hope I have enough presence of mind to fly to england, or somewhere in europe where I might find some help, as hear, it will just mean life in prison if I get nailed again...

NAOMI is a good start, but it too is being fought, by conservatives up in Canada...and other than Ron Paul, no politician I have heard says anything even remotely understanding or our dilemma


Good read, i just wish our gov't would be more open about wanting to help addicts. At least the article shows that real help works, not just locking people up.

[EleusisII]

Yeah, NAOMI is probably a gonner. I don't see it existing in five years, with all the effort that people are putting into shutting it down.

Anyways, DF, it's a big fucking border man. You can pretty much walk across it at any point as long as you avoid the Buffalo/Windsor area and Vancouver.
If you really want to give it a shot, I wouldn't let something like the bordercontrol hold me back, you know?

[Opiyum]

Always makes me happy to read up on this place. I wonder if they have a monthly newsletter.
Contrary to what Eleusis is saying I think that if NAOMI has lasted this long then I think it is going to be in it for the long haul. Especially if they continue to be successful. It will take a real hard case to shut it down as far as I can tell.

Hey DuckFeet, I thought that the clinic turned you down because of felonies or did I misread a post of yours and it was the border that sent you packing?

[bronyraur]

Always makes me happy to read up on this place. I wonder if they have a monthly newsletter.
Contrary to what Eleusis is saying I think that if NAOMI has lasted this long then I think it is going to be in it for the long haul. Especially if they continue to be successful. It will take a real hard case to shut it down as far as I can tell.

Hey DuckFeet, I thought that the clinic turned you down because of felonies or did I misread a post of yours and it was the border that sent you packing?

If I recall correctly, Duck was turned away by the Canadian Border Patrol/Customs at the airport.

[Naomi]

Participants had to have been through treatment unsuccessfully twice; the mean age was 40 and they were pretty much considered impossible to treat.

ah this is what makes me fucking furious! you have to go through a lifetime of misery, dispair, illness to get what would irridicate all that in the first place: a proper heroin substitute. you have to get a lengthy criminal record, be in and out of jail, rack up numerous failed treatment programmes on things like methadone & subutex, degrade yourself; commonly via prostitutition & begging, subject yourself to risky administration practises that expose you to HEP C & HIV, you have to watch your health go down the pan, perhaps contract DVT. AND THIS IS WITHOUT EVEN MENTIONING THE KNOCK-ON EFFECT IT HAS ON FAMILY & FRIENDS! very few can become productive members of society, its almost impossible to hold down a job. so you get little contribution to society and they become the "scroungers" people moan about, that sit on their arse claiming benefits.

Basically, you have to become a lost cause, you have to prove to the very people that are helping you that you are a LOST CAUSE. The irony is you have to prove that you cannot be helped to claim the thing that is supposed to help you.
Fine, if society wants to keep on paying rediculous amounts of money to keep up the war on drugs that is a war that can never be won, fine. if they dont mind paying for methadone that people just use as a safety net. ok. carry on. If they don't mind people taking up hospital beds for things like Ulcers and DVT, pnuemonia due to the fact personal care is low then ok. Thats one less for your Auntie Mabel, but just don't complain about it if you sit by and do nothing. Methadone is ok but an actual injectable opiate? Christ, no! That would be too pleasurable, right? We all seriously need to pull our fingers out because otherwise this ignorance is going to further destroy our society. We have people talking about anti-terrorists but as long as we are forced to buy heroin illegally, we are funding the sex trade, the illegal arms trade... we are funding terrorism and people would rather that happen than give what they see is the "GREEN LIGHT" or THUMBS UP to drug taking and heroin addiction.

[/rant over] sorry, went off on one there. and i only came in here to see what NAOMI stood for.

[Opiyum]

I'm not sure on this so don't bite my head off but I think there is a reason for this.
I think the people in charge of creating this see that this is a model that could become the standard some day and in order to do it right they want to show that this program works with the worst of them out there. Hopefully they are keeping meticulous records and doing everything by the books.
That and giving teenagers (even young adults in their early twenties) heroin and the likes for an addiction they just acquired a few years ago that isn't severe might not sit well with a lot of people. Personally it wouldn't sit well with me.
It's a difficult thing to draw lines and if you don't draw any at all sometimes that's far worse then going the other direction with it.
For instance. Is it the best option to treat someone with a relatively newly found heroin addiction with a steady supply of their DOC or maybe... Would it be good to try and get back to his or her life without it? Just to see if a life without heroin is as bad as it can seem when caught up in a serious binge. Someone new to this game needs to be reminded of what sobriety is, at least once, before submitting to something like this. Because for a lot of people, whether they have a steady supply with or without the hassle, life can and will be better without drugs. This is the cold hard truth for many of us, barring people with chronic pain of course and no I don't think I'm projecting here. I'm just being honest.
To me the requirements makes sense.
For now they do at least.
The better part of me thinks that I would have had a better life if at forty I didn't need a program like NAOMI to "save" me. I don't want to need to be saved. Currently I have a handle on my addiction and have for a few years now but that's only because of Suboxone. Who knows what's around the corner for me.
This all comes from the stories I have heard from all the older junkies I know. Junkies in the forties through their sixties who have shared their heartache with me. Now I don't judge these guys and if that's how I end up then so be it. I'd be okay with that....Maybe not okay but I know I can make do. I always make do.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for NAOMI and other projects like this one.
And to sum up everything I just said in short
NAOMI represents a compassionate way of dealing with our kind. Sometimes, earlier on in a junkies life, tough love is worth a shot. Not the kind were you kick your son out on the street and not the kind that forces religion on people but the kind that is one on one, man to man. The kind that involves personal accountability and responsibility. Most importantly love (would you like some wine with all this cheese). So often people forget about the love aspect of the term tough love.
That's my piece. That's why I have loved NAOMI from the first time I heard of it.

[Narkotikon]

Does anyone know what (if any) provisions they made for the addicts after the study ended? I mean, I would think it wouldn't be good to keep an addict maintained on Heroin or Dilaudid or even Methadone for a year, then just suddenly cut them off without expecting them to go on another binge / relapse / whatever.

What I mean is, was this purely a study, or was it a study with also some sort of protocol to help the addict once the study ended?

I mean, did they switch the Heroin / Dilaudid addicts over to methadone when the study ended? I suppose it would be the addict's choice to participate in the switchover, but I would rather have them do that than just cut them off and say good bye. I would think switching the Heroin and Dilaudid maintained addicts over to methadone would be the most humane thing to do, especially since methadone is at least available for maintenance there, whereas Heroin wouldn't be, and Dilaudid would be an off-label use and possibly not permitted for maintenance outside of studies.

Naomi: I just noticed that your name is the same for NAOMI (North American Opiate Maintenance Initiative, or whatever it is). Was that intentional or just a coincidence.

[Duckfeet]

No, the clinic, or at least the NAOMI rep I talked to said that felones/methadone failure/ all that, was a *plus*, as it showed I wasn't some kid trying to get a free buzz...and they also didn't seem to have any resident requirements, or at least nothing I couldn't get around...6 months in area or something...

No, I was stopped at the Vancouver immigration, in Vancouver airport, after I filled out that little paper asking if I had any felonies, and believe me: Canada has the most comprehensive database of U.S. convictions *and* arrests I've ever bumped into...some states don't catch that at all on me...

And several people have told me since I should have just driven up there...the problem is now, I'd be in *serious* trouble if I tried to get in, as I was expelled, as some kind of undesirable alien, or something...I had to waive my right, in xchange for my freedom, and some kind of written promise, not to try to sneak back in...

It's o.k, I'm doing good now, it's just something I was hopeful about, once...



Always makes me happy to read up on this place. I wonder if they have a monthly newsletter.
Contrary to what Eleusis is saying I think that if NAOMI has lasted this long then I think it is going to be in it for the long haul. Especially if they continue to be successful. It will take a real hard case to shut it down as far as I can tell.

Hey DuckFeet, I thought that the clinic turned you down because of felonies or did I misread a post of yours and it was the border that sent you packing?

[Duckfeet]

I'm working from memory, but I think what happened was that--naturally- they filed the same suit that *any* succesful drug clinical trials files--if they are succesful--to allow the patients *taking* the drugs to stay on them...

now, if this were cancer or diabetes--and they had this kind of success--everybody would be in favor of it...

but nobody cares about us junkies, man, and I don't know the outcome, but it's being fought, or has been fought, as it seems cruel and inhuman to force these people who did *well* on injectable heroin--or dilaudids--back into the hell we know too well...

It's just more moralizing from people who haven't a clue...meanspirited is what it is...


Does anyone know what (if any) provisions they made for the addicts after the study ended? I mean, I would think it wouldn't be good to keep an addict maintained on Heroin or Dilaudid or even Methadone for a year, then just suddenly cut them off without expecting them to go on another binge / relapse / whatever.

What I mean is, was this purely a study, or was it a study with also some sort of protocol to help the addict once the study ended?

I mean, did they switch the Heroin / Dilaudid addicts over to methadone when the study ended? I suppose it would be the addict's choice to participate in the switchover, but I would rather have them do that than just cut them off and say good bye. I would think switching the Heroin and Dilaudid maintained addicts over to methadone would be the most humane thing to do, especially since methadone is at least available for maintenance there, whereas Heroin wouldn't be, and Dilaudid would be an off-label use and possibly not permitted for maintenance outside of studies.

Naomi: I just noticed that your name is the same for NAOMI (North American Opiate Maintenance Initiative, or whatever it is). Was that intentional or just a coincidence.

[nick]

As far as I know,there is NO follow up treatment for anyone on the NAOMI trial.NO matter how successful no one will continue on scripts based on NAOMI.

I believe three of the NAOMI "clients" are in the middle of legal action which would force their continued scripts.



Oh and the reason diamorphine prescribers tend to write for end of the line junkies is basic harm reduction.,in that any treatment system sees eventual abstinence to be the ultimate goal and if you think methadone is hard to get off...........think how hard free h is to quit.

Doesn't always work out that way,I was 22-23 and had never been to rehab or jail when I got rxed.

[Naomi]

Does anyone know what (if any) provisions they made for the addicts after the study ended? I mean, I would think it wouldn't be good to keep an addict maintained on Heroin or Dilaudid or even Methadone for a year, then just suddenly cut them off without expecting them to go on another binge / relapse / whatever.
................

Naomi: I just noticed that your name is the same for NAOMI (North American Opiate Maintenance Initiative, or whatever it is). Was that intentional or just a coincidence.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3592877.stm

One patient, a 45-year-old woman, threw herself off a tower block two days after being penalised by having her prescription withdrawn, Erin says.

i know this article is based on english experiences but having read that, it certainly concerned me how the people on this programme would be dealt with if either they endured the same treatment or the programme abruptly ended. scary.

A pure coincidence. My name is Naomi L Cave. I must say, the reason i got drawn to the thread was because i thought i had posted something (while intoxicated on liquor) and forgotten about it. at first glance anyway.

That article above is pretty interesting, thats the editor of BLACK POPPY magazine. i know it will be hard to get off free H, but no harder than to get off methadone. baring in mind that on methadone, a lot of people use on top anyway. take the heroin demand away from street dealers and i think its better for everyone, unless your gear script got abruptly stopped! i dont think anybody on NHS heroin would go and top up their supply with street gear. i dont think they would top it up with crack. most people i know done snowballs because they had such a tolerance to gear they got no joy out of it, and the crack gave them it. as long as they didnt have a problem, they would be on a better road to stablisation. i never tried crack until last summer, having been a junkie for years. thats because i was bored as fuck with my hits and people told me it was the best way to perk them up. they said "why spend all that money to be JUST well? crush in some dub" and i did. pffffffft. mistako if ever i made one.

[EleusisII]

Always makes me happy to read up on this place. I wonder if they have a monthly newsletter.
Contrary to what Eleusis is saying I think that if NAOMI has lasted this long then I think it is going to be in it for the long haul. Especially if they continue to be successful.

Oh, I don't doubt that they've been succesful. But the federal government keeps making then jump through all sorts of hoops, and making new "reviews" of the program. I don't know if you're familiar with Canadian politics, but I believe that there's even local opposition to it now.

The Winterolympics are coming to Vancouver, you know. Can't have a bunch of junkies ruin that, now can we?

[Narkotikon]

Thanks for the link, Naomi. I read it, and I also agree. I wish to God they'd allow something like this in the States. It wouldn't even have to be Heroin maintenance. I would be just as happy with morphine maintenance. I seriously doubt that will happen anytime soon though, and I doubt Heroin MT would happen at all. There's just too much of a stigma associated with it here, and probably there (where you are) too.

I was reading those comments left by people. Some are just outright mean. One was saying her sister has asthma since childhood, and the NHS won't pay for that, but will for heroin. I find that hard to believe that they won't pay for her sister's asthma. I mean, I don't know a lot about the NHS, but I would think they'd pay for something like asthma. I think it's great that your country is willing to help addicts like this. I think I'd be like Nick, though, and choose morphine over diamorphine, just because I like it just as well and it lasts a little bit longer. But at least you have the option, you know? Addicts here either get nothing, or methadone (which I think is a shitty option for some) or bupe if that works for them and if they have the money to pay for it. I really really do wish there'd be some kind of government program for this here. I don't understand how people can't see how giving something to make them function, so they can take care of themselves, get a job, pay taxes, etc., wouldn't help society.

I think most of those people are still stuck on the "it's a moral disease and they did it to themselves." They need to get over that. Yes, the addict tried the drug and got hooked, but so they're just supposed to suffer because of that? I mean, addiction is not a moral issue. It can make the person do bad things to fund their habit, but that doesn't mean they're a bad person. It just means they're an addict and need help. I'm really sick and tired of the stigma and innacurate information associated with opiates. I just feel like if people want to complain, they should at least be informed about it. What gives a person a right to bitch about something I do if they don't even understand what it is I do or why I do it? I'm really not interested in hearing people's bullshit, because they don't have to live it.

Anyway, enough ranting, I'm really glad you posted this link. I think it's great. It makes me want to move to the UK just so I could do this, although I doubt that would work out. I'm just glad that your country isn't being intimidated by other countries (i.e., the US) to stop this. I mean, what right does the US have to tell other countries what to do? I hate American arrogance. Anyway, thanks.

[Duckfeet]

Hell, just for the record: I'd be glad if they'd even allow injectable *methadone* here...or at least dialudid...but I don't see it happening....every time it's been done--heroin maintenance--it's been successful, and in England, they've even had chiefs of police in favor of it...as they *know* what we do if we can't get what we desperately need....it's just fucking cruel, is what it is...Canada is close to the U.S., and that's hopeful for us...but I know how we put the hammer on Mexico when *they* tried to make it legal for possession of small quantities of heroin...but I think San Francisco got their injection room legalized...and that's what began all this in Vancouver, so I guess there's some hope...

I had to register as a narcotics addict--and back then, that meant *heroin*--in 1979 in California, to allow me out of prison...and in a humane country, they would have encouraged me to get on heroin maintenance...the same way they have always encouraged, hell, almost *forced* me, to get on methadone maintenance...but methadone to me is not life...

[farmpkm]

...and other than Ron Paul, no politician I have heard says anything even remotely understanding or our dilemma

I don't know much about Ron Paul, but I'm curious if there are any serious articles/books/speeches about "our dilemma" out there on the net. I'm sure there are, but everything I've found seems to take an extreme position for one side or the other. Obviously many of the people here have been arrested and held for at least a short amount of time, and you don't need me to tell you that there is something seriously wrong with stripping someone of their freedom for ingesting drugs... but I can't help but laugh when someone tells me that blanket decriminalization is a good idea. If I could walk into any pharmacy and buy heroin or oxycodone my life as I know it would be over. The fact that obtaining my drugs of choice is expensive, dangerous, and -- on some days -- simply impossible might be all that is keeping me afloat. Imagine what your town would be like if the corner store sole coke?? On the other hand I wonder how much time I would have for other things if I didn't spend 18 hours a day thinking about finding my next hit. I've got some serious mixed feelings on this.

Anyway, my question is if anyone has seen someone address this problem without over-simplifying it in the normal "lock them up" or "legalize it all" fashion.

[Narkotikon]

Anyway, my question is if anyone has seen someone address this problem without over-simplifying it in the normal "lock them up" or "legalize it all" fashion.

Well, I can't give any sources for speaches or anything, but I can say I don't think all drugs should be legalized. I mean, I don't think crystal meth should be legal. I think it has it's uses in medicine, maybe for extreme ADD or something like that, but I don't think anyone over 18 should just be allowed to walk into any pharmacy and buy it. Meth is horrible on the body, and it usually makes long-term users paranoid and messes with their mind.

I'm sure it sounds hypocritical for me to say this, but I do think some or all opiates should be legal. I'm sure part of it is because I'm an opiate addict, and that's my drug of choice, but I also believe it because opiates aren't damaging to the body. Yes, they affect the brain and downregulate receptors and stuff, but that--to me--is just more cause for legalization. I view it like insulin, which is the analogy methadone clinics use all the time. When you become addicted to opiates, it's not only psychological, it's physical. You literally need the opiate to not be sick, and how can you function if you're sick? You just can't. I know that people can get off of opiates and other drugs, because people have done it. It's not impossible, but I think it's extremely hard. I mean, it's not like you just wake up one day and decide I'm not going to do this anymore and just magically stop. It doesn't work that way. So, I sort of view it as a medication when you're physically dependent. You just need it to function.

I also think that these opiates should be legal or available to addicts who are physically dependent on opiates. For instance, I don't think that someone who has never done opiates before should just be able to walk into any pharmacy and get injectible morphine or whatever. I do think it would make life a lot easier for those who are already dependent on it. I mean, sometimes people can make themselves diabetic from poor diet. It's not purely genetic either. So, why is it that diabetics are guaranteed insulin, and opiate addicts aren't guaranteed methadone or morphine or whatever? I mean, both people need them to function. And if you use the "well, drug addicts did it to themselves" mentality, so did some diabetics from years of bad food choices and diet.

I just think that rather than spending millions and billions of dollars on a drug war that will never be won, I think that money should be and would be better spent on drug prevention and education in the first place, and then some set aside for treatment or providing legal access to pharm-grade opiates to the opiate addicts who are already fucked, whether you want to believe they did it to themselves or not. I mean, when you have a constant access to clean, pharmaceutical opiates, illicit drug use drops, crime drops, people begin to function like ordinary citizens again. The need for a black market dries up, and crime associated with that market lessens. That's just how I feel. I don't feel like if opiates were available to addicts legally that the world would end. Addiction isn't a moral dilemma.

Sure, we have methadone and bupe (if you have the money and if it works for you), but those don't always work for people. I don't do very well on methadone. I have a lot of nasty side effects with it. I find it very sedating. I do do well on bupe / Subs, but it's so fucking expensive. So, I'm kind of fucked. I do also do very well on morphine. It doesn't make me overly sedated at appropriate doses, it takes away the craving and allows me to focus on normal life, rather than drugs. But, for some reason, that's not allowed here. I find it maddening.

I just think that people should be allowed choices. Not everyone falls into the methadone or bupe or sobriety box. And what about people who just don't want to quit. I mean, whether the authorities want to admit it or not, opiates do work extremely well for emotional pain. I'm sure a lot of people use for that reason. I, like most addicts, don't have very good coping skills. I just don't. I admit it, I use to deal with things, but I also use because I"m addicted. So why should someone who's already addicted have to suffer? I just don't understand it. If they don't want to legalize the drugs for all, which is fine in my mind, they should at least allow more choices for maintenance. I would jump all over the chance for morphine maintenance, IV or not. I would be perfectly happy with getting scripted 100mg of oral morphine t.i.d. or q.i.d., but of course that's out of the question. I just don't get it.

I also sort of feel this way about other things, like pot. Pot isn't nearly as dangerous as alcohol, yet it's a schedule I drug, despite the fact that it might have medicinal uses in some cases, like cancer or AIDS patients for nausea / appetite, and for glaucoma.

In short, I don't feel like all drugs should be legalized, and I don't feel like all drugs are good for the body. I just think that if you're already addicted, it makes more sense to allow the addicts who are already addicted to be able to function by giving them more options for maintenance, and to end the moral issue with addiction. Addiction isn't a moral issue. It doesn't mean you're a bad person. I feel like the money should be spent on prevention and education and better maintenance / treatment options, rather than fighting a war that can't be won. I mean, they can threaten and intimidate addicts all they want, but the lure of addiction is stronger than any threat. An addict is going to get what they need / want at whatever the cost in most cases. Doesn't it make more sense economically and in social terms to just give them what they need, and fight the start of addiction in the first place by ending stereotypes and misinformation with better education and maintenance / treatment options? Prevention is the key, not punishments.

[Duckfeet]

For me it doesn't begin w/the *solution* (legalization, etc...) but with being honest about the problem...We have tried and *failed* at the "war on drugs." (As Narkotikon said)...so we start with that, as England, and many parts of Europe have been doing...Then start with decriminalization, and finally legalization of drugs...this sounds *way* too simplistic...but has anything else worked at all? No! It has made the problem worse...and everybody--including me--balks at the logistics of providing crack and methamphetamine on demand...O.K., make us all register as narcotics addicts, like most places do, let young people see how "cool" we look, standing in line for our doses...

This would end the destruction of South, Central, and now North American countries south of us who have no defense against the cartels and murderous gangs...it would have given me a life...rather than an interesting story...and it would allow people--like they do with alcohol, which is legal, to face their problems in a serious manner, since *availability* affects so much of our decisions on this stuff...I *know* if I want to drink alcohol, all I have to do is walk about fifty yards to the store...so I finally *faced* the fact I was alcoholic, and did something about it, and I'm still sober...

Opiates, when they pop up--like dilaudids or good heroin has--affect me differently, since I *know* I might not be able to get them again, anytime soon...

Again: the drug war has failed miserably...begin with honesty about that...the rest is just details...

[Narkotikon]

^^^^^^^ Yeah, I agree with that Duckfeet. The start is just being honest that you can't make addicts change if they don't want to, and that the war on drugs is a failure, because nothing--not even laws--can prevent addicts from doing drugs, especially if you have a physical dependency on them.

I have absolutely no problem with registering as a known narcotics addicts, and standing in line at a clinic each day for a maintenance dose of morphine, or hydromorphone, or heroin, or whatever. Why, in some people's minds, methadone is okay but those aren't, I will never understand. People act like if you were to give addicts the drugs, then all hell would break loose. They already do that in some countries, as you mentioned. Is their society in shambles? No. The US isn't really any different in terms of societal structure or culture than the UK or most European countries, yet we think all hell would break loose here. I don't get it.

I also don't think just anyone should be able to get the drugs, but if you're already addicted? I don't see the harm in that. If anything, I think it's more harmful to "not" give them the drugs, because look at society and how prohibition has made things. For instance, I don't think an 18 year old kid who's never tried a drug before should be able to walk into Walgreens and buy injectible morphine. I do, however, think someone like you, or I, or any other addict who has been physically dependent for a while and has tried and failed at quitting be able to get legal access to the drug of dependence. I'm not proposing mass drug legalization, I guess just more treatment options (i.e., maintenance with a wider variety of opiates).

I also believe in what you're saying about drugs being legal. In some ways I think it would be worse for an alcoholic because it's legal and readily available. I think it would be harder to quit on some levels. I think it would make a person have to look long and hard at themselves. I think if you keep thinks like heroin or morphine or opium or hydromorphone, or oxycodone, or fentanyl, or whatever illegal, then the addict tends to keep it secret for as long as possible, and that helps to prolong the problem. There's just such a stigma with opiates. I don't know why. Well, I do know why, because as soon as you say opiates people think IV. But that's just stupid. This is what I mean. Don't spend the tax money on a war you can't win, spend it on education and prevention and better treatment / maintenance options.

[Duckfeet]

Right ^^^ ...and also, I've always felt, that much of the outlaw appeal of drugs to young people might be lessened or eliminated if they saw the hassles and all the boring looking people waiting of their fix...but now, between the Beat Generation, and the Hippies and Gangstah Rap...it seems like such a cool thing to do, especially if you are in a fucked up familiy, or war, or just hate life...drugs were "instant outlaw" when I was going to school, and kids who didn't otherwise fit in, often turned to drugs...like cigarettes, pot, sniffing glue, etc...just to fit in *somewhere*...and again: it's time to try something else, as our criminalization of drug use, has increased our prison population tenfold, have made the cops babysitters of dope fiends, rather than tracking down rapists, robbers, and murderers, and just about destroyed Colombia and Mexico, and so many other Latin American and Caribbean countries...

And the war has yet to accomplish anything except increase the bank accounts of the bad guys...The drug czar played by Michael Douglas finally got it right when he realized his own daughter was a crack whore:
"How can you declare war on your own family?"

My young cousin and his wife died of AIDs...Picked up by her ex-husband's heroin use? No! Heroin doesn't cause HIV...sharing *needles* causes it....since our inhumane system won't even provide legal access to syringes, even tho it has been *proven* time and time again this reduces HIV and HEP...

Ah shit, it's so fucking wrong...

[Narkotikon]

^^^^^^^ I totally agree, Duck. Yes, the lure of drugs because of romanticising it or to fit in should be ended. I think that's another way education would work. It's easy to romanticise Heroin when you hear Kurt Cobain did it, and other people wrote songs about it, and stuff like that. It's quite another to actually see heorin or opiate addicts in line at a methadone clinic. And heroin chic in fashion. Yes, I like it, but I'll be the first to say that that ain't how heroin addicts look. Tell me one heroin addict who can afford a Channel dress, and look good? Sorry, that was a joke, but you get my point.

And the whole "heroin causes HIV / HEP" thing really pisses me off. You're right, it's dirty needles, and it's better for society and addicts to make clean needles illegal and innaccessible? I don't get that.

I also think that cops and LE should spend time tracking down real criminals, not drug addicts. I can sort of see them tracking down dealers, because there is crime involved with dealers sometimes, but why should they bother a simple user? I don't get that.

[Duckfeet]

Yes...but sadly, as we keep finding out--and then forgetting again--it's much easier to get *into* a war...than to get out of one...and as badly as we've done in the last few wars...you would think the politicians would at least find another metaphor than "war on drugs." Fuck, we haven't won a war, really, in a generation or two...including the stupid "war on drugs...." But now there is so much fucking money---and lives lost--in this 'war' that I can't see how any pol would be brave enough to end it...this isn't throwing "bad money after good," either...this is throwing "worse money after bad..."

[InfectedMushroom]

The "war on drugs" will never be won. Just wasting billions upon billions of dollars that could be used to educate the public on drugs and help those already addicted. The USA is too damn proud to ever do anything like that though...when they could go bust some teen smoking a joint and feel good about themselves.

[Raz]

The shitstyem just veiws junkies as cannon fodder.....Another example of the shitstyem keeping the system self perpetuating.....

No one really gives a fuck...So what if a few junkies get hep /aids....No one gives a shit......One fing some guys gotta wake up to, is; the man dont really give a fuck....Either get wiv the programme or suffer the wrath of the shitstyem......

Basically its all economics....Its all down to wonga....If you aint got no wonga then ya just dont matter and you'll never have a voice....Society is basically imprinted, hard wired to veiw every fuckin junkie as low life scum.No point in even considering them kinda people.....

You guys in America have to put up wiv all that bible bashing shit and as long as ya got them fucking wankers preaching on ya TV's, your country will never change....They believe they have some divine mission, just like the muslims....

Man the only way junkies are gonna get any kinda freedom is to have some benevolent fucker buy an independant island and we can all build a new world.....Coz dis one aint changing in my lifetime...

[Duckfeet]

Too bad the world has gotten so small...before I was born u could still lite out for new territory...now, brave new world run by corporations...nowhere to run...guys used to could get on sailboats, learn to use a sextant, and head out, see what other parts were like...now, it all seems to get more and more the same...and the more repressive/religious ideas seem to prevail...

but there will always be pockets of anarchy...and they've yet to find a way--other than drugs like Haldol--to imprison a man's soul...

[Naomi]

i have always taken for granted the fact that here in cambridge england uk i have access to free clean syringes, or even at least they just cost £2.09 for 10 x 1mls from some pharmacies. i think its a travesty that in america they arent readily available and that, isnt it illegal to carry drugs paraphenalia (hypos) in some states? this is just increasing risky behaviour.

i used to believe that all this was my fault and yes i chose to take heroin but i am absolutely furious they put me in a methadone programme at 16 which required me to go everyday between 8:45-12.45 midday along with the other hundred at least people that were on it too, all of which were a lot older. i would try and stick to my methadone, then as the day progressed i would slip back into using gear and since i hadnt been planning to use, i wouldnt have any pins on me (they recommended that temptation was going to be hard to beat if i carried my hit kit around) so when i had scored, i had no choice but to use somebody elses if i didnt have one clean. same goes for spoon & filter if i couldnt use a pop can i had found and there were no filters spare (i would just pick these off the floor, the filters, and cans from the bin- hygenic!). the fact we have to buy our gear illegally just promotes all kinds of unhealthy, risky behaviours and while yes, it is my fault i took it, i begged them that methadone wasnt working for me. begged. but they said there was nothing else they can do. 5 years of dabbling with prostitution to support my illegal habit on the side of the methadone programme that was suposedly a success (why would they keep me on it if it wasnt?) and they still wouldnt give me injectable methadone amps or diamorphine hydrachloride. what more could i have done and gone through to prove to them my habit was serious? honestly, they give you a little bit of green liquid or a pill each morning and they expect that to change your life... without any counselling or anything and still with 24 hours of nothing to do on your hands. its stupid.
its my fault, i dont blame what i done on anyone but they failed me big time, just like they do so many. i have been one month clean today and soon i have to go have a blood test to see if i have anything. who knows, its probably hep c but could be worse. then i will be paying a lifetime, or perhaps even paying with my life, for going through a fucking bad time where i used heroin to cope. but like you say, we are nothing but scum. its inbuilt in society. until its their kids. then they can go whistle, as it dawns on them nobody is ever going to listen and try to change things until they know what its like and by then its too late. youre just seen as a bereaved family member trying to do something "positive" as "you wouldnt want anyone to go through what we did". then its too late.

[Duckfeet]

Excellent heartfelt post, Naomi...and the whole situation is just so so sad...we can't win at times, for loosing it seems...I'm clean too, now, a few weeks, and that's cool...but when I think of all I've lost, and all the people who loved me that I hurt, sometimes it's almost unbearable...my only comfort, at times, is that I'm not the only one.

We pay and pay and pay...

Best wishes on the blood test.


i have always taken for granted the fact that here in cambridge england uk i have access to free clean syringes, or even at least they just cost £2.09 for 10 x 1mls from some pharmacies. i think its a travesty that in america they arent readily available and that, isnt it illegal to carry drugs paraphenalia (hypos) in some states? this is just increasing risky behaviour.

i used to believe that all this was my fault and yes i chose to take heroin but i am absolutely furious they put me in a methadone programme at 16 which required me to go everyday between 8:45-12.45 midday along with the other hundred at least people that were on it too, all of which were a lot older. i would try and stick to my methadone, then as the day progressed i would slip back into using gear and since i hadnt been planning to use, i wouldnt have any pins on me (they recommended that temptation was going to be hard to beat if i carried my hit kit around) so when i had scored, i had no choice but to use somebody elses if i didnt have one clean. same goes for spoon & filter if i couldnt use a pop can i had found and there were no filters spare (i would just pick these off the floor, the filters, and cans from the bin- hygenic!). the fact we have to buy our gear illegally just promotes all kinds of unhealthy, risky behaviours and while yes, it is my fault i took it, i begged them that methadone wasnt working for me. begged. but they said there was nothing else they can do. 5 years of dabbling with prostitution to support my illegal habit on the side of the methadone programme that was suposedly a success (why would they keep me on it if it wasnt?) and they still wouldnt give me injectable methadone amps or diamorphine hydrachloride. what more could i have done and gone through to prove to them my habit was serious? honestly, they give you a little bit of green liquid or a pill each morning and they expect that to change your life... without any counselling or anything and still with 24 hours of nothing to do on your hands. its stupid.
its my fault, i dont blame what i done on anyone but they failed me big time, just like they do so many. i have been one month clean today and soon i have to go have a blood test to see if i have anything. who knows, its probably hep c but could be worse. then i will be paying a lifetime, or perhaps even paying with my life, for going through a fucking bad time where i used heroin to cope. but like you say, we are nothing but scum. its inbuilt in society. until its their kids. then they can go whistle, as it dawns on them nobody is ever going to listen and try to change things until they know what its like and by then its too late. youre just seen as a bereaved family member trying to do something "positive" as "you wouldnt want anyone to go through what we did". then its too late.

[InfectedMushroom]

I understand very well naomi..it's such a sad state of affairs that people have to go to such extremes since the gov't is so damn crazy about people using drugs instead of providing a safe way to keep diseases at a minimum. I hope everything comes back ok for you though, let us know but know you got support here for you no matter what happens.

[Narkotikon]

Has anyone else been bothered or irritated with the terms "clean" and "dirty" to differentiate between people who don't use and those who do? I mean, I use drugs. Why am I dirty? I sometimes don't use drugs (usually when I'm out and sick in w/d), but does that make me any "cleaner?" I mean, I'm still an addict, even though I may not be using that day. It's like as soon as you put the drug in you, you turn into that kid from Charlie Brown and Peanuts who has a dust cloud around him. And as soon as you're off the drugs again, even though you really don't want to be and are fucking craving, you're all of a sudden "clean" again?

That's just always fucking bothered me. I think it's one way in which people assert addiction as a moral disease. If you use, you must be amoral and dirty. If you don't use, you must be moral and clean. I know of some damned amoral non-users, let me tell you. They're way more dirty than I would or could ever be.

Everytime a medical "professional" has said that to me, like "are you clean?" "how long have you been clean?" "why don't you want to be clean?" I swear I just want to fucking punch their lights out.

JUST BECAUSE I'M AN ADDICT DOES NOT MEAN I'M A BAD PERSON! IT DOES NOT MEAN I'M AMORAL! IT DOES NOT MEAN I'M DIRTY!

Oh, by the way, very good post Naomi.

[Duckfeet]

The term 'clean" like 'using' and 'picking up' are NA terms...I don't much like'em either, for the same reasons...but I also *use* them on here, since that way people know what I'm talking about..."sober" the AA term--to me--means no alcohol...and usually I'll just say--if someone asks--"that I'm not doing dope today...

Never in my junky career had I ever heard the term 'clean' (off dope) on the streets, as nobody I know ever mentioned NA, or used their vocabulary...and 'AA' was for old drunks...so...

Now, tho, things have changed, what w/judges and treatment centers and stuff, so that the term "clean *and* sober" began to find it's way into our vocabulary...it's the nature of the world, no biggee...I just try to flow w/whatever vocbulary is around...I've seen heroin itself go thru all kinds of name changes...particularly after cocaine got popular and on the streets...

Me, I was just using the term to show a little solidarity w/Naomi, who seems to be going thru a tough time lately..."don't mean nothin" :)

Has anyone else been bothered or irritated with the terms "clean" and "dirty" to differentiate between people who don't use and those who do? I mean, I use drugs. Why am I dirty? I sometimes don't use drugs (usually when I'm out and sick in w/d), but does that make me any "cleaner?" I mean, I'm still an addict, even though I may not be using that day. It's like as soon as you put the drug in you, you turn into that kid from Charlie Brown and Peanuts who has a dust cloud around him. And as soon as you're off the drugs again, even though you really don't want to be and are fucking craving, you're all of a sudden "clean" again?

That's just always fucking bothered me. I think it's one way in which people assert addiction as a moral disease. If you use, you must be amoral and dirty. If you don't use, you must be moral and clean. I know of some damned amoral non-users, let me tell you. They're way more dirty than I would or could ever be.

Everytime a medical "professional" has said that to me, like "are you clean?" "how long have you been clean?" "why don't you want to be clean?" I swear I just want to fucking punch their lights out.

JUST BECAUSE I'M AN ADDICT DOES NOT MEAN I'M A BAD PERSON! IT DOES NOT MEAN I'M AMORAL! IT DOES NOT MEAN I'M DIRTY!

Oh, by the way, very good post Naomi.

[Narkotikon]

That's a good explanation for why it's used. I wasn't meaning you personally. I was reading Naomi's post, and the clean / dirty thing really struck a cord with me. For instance, she was talking about having to sort of prove her addiction to the authorities to get the help she needed. In my mind, it was sort of like trying to prove how low you'd go, or how dirty you'd become to them. It's like they don't merit help unless you're the absolutely lowest form of life, which I don't agree with at all. But you're right, I think "clean" and "dirty" are more commonly used today. I don't particularly like it though. One time, I asked a social worker whom I was dealing with in rehab to please not use those terms. She got offended, like she could not in any part of her mind believe why I would ask that. Um, maybe because I'm not a bad person bitch? Maybe because I don't want you degrading me by comparing me to your so-called perfection? I don't know, those terms have always just really bothered me, because it's so obvious what they really mean: "good" and "bad."

[Duckfeet]

Oh, I know...and agree...and I lived thru the great obsession w/terminology, that began w/the notion that people's self-esteem came from the vocabulary used around them, rather than by their own accomplishments or failures...

This had good beginnings, in the fact that we were taught to quit using cruel terms for gay people or blacks or disabled...but quickly spread to garbage-men, teachers, and bad conduct (now 'sick') and just plain fucked up behavior, all of a sudden got all kinds of new names...

Everything became a disease, nobody was stupid or bad anymore, and even in my idiotic computer class, the teacher always said he wanted to "share" someting with us, when talking, and that word "share" became another nauseating concept to me...along w/the expansion of the "disease concept" into just about every area...providing all kinds of new employment for psychologists and counselors who would otherwise be in the workforce w/everybody else...

So I've probably said enough, but whether it's terms like "clean" or "I'm not a bad person, I have disease..." stuff that drives me up a wall...I always want to say..."Maybe you *are* a bad person, fucker..."

It'd be really funny, if it weren't so sad...I go to an AA meeting where every person in there is absolutely convinced they "have a disease..." and right outside we have two destitute, obviously psychotic people who are homeless, hopeless and destitute...and at one time, maybe they would have gotten more attention and help...but with all the proliferation of the new diseases, these people now get lost in the shuffle...

Rant over...




That's a good explanation for why it's used. I wasn't meaning you personally. I was reading Naomi's post, and the clean / dirty thing really struck a cord with me. For instance, she was talking about having to sort of prove her addiction to the authorities to get the help she needed. In my mind, it was sort of like trying to prove how low you'd go, or how dirty you'd become to them. It's like they don't merit help unless you're the absolutely lowest form of life, which I don't agree with at all. But you're right, I think "clean" and "dirty" are more commonly used today. I don't particularly like it though. One time, I asked a social worker whom I was dealing with in rehab to please not use those terms. She got offended, like she could not in any part of her mind believe why I would ask that. Um, maybe because I'm not a bad person bitch? Maybe because I don't want you degrading me by comparing me to your so-called perfection? I don't know, those terms have always just really bothered me, because it's so obvious what they really mean: "good" and "bad."

[pain-pateint]

Nick --

You write in pertinent part: " Doesn't always work out that way,I was 22-23 and had never been to rehab or jail when I got rxed."

If I read that correctly, it is consistent with what I hear from many European drug reformers I speak with. That is, if harm reduction -- as opposed to abstinence -- is offered EARLY ON to people with habits, the drugs don't become the center of their life because there is no struggle to get them. Thus, it's easier to keep a job, have stable relationships, enjoy good nutrition, etc. -- in short, all the things that promote health and make it less likely drug related complications will occur and more likely that eventually the patient will taper down their dose.......or, if they don't, at least they will stay on a stable dose with no contaminants, not unlike a diabetic such as myself. I am healthier because I use needles (for insulin) and as long as I take my shots as directed, my life span will be close to normal.

I am enjoying a "pipe dream" or is what I hear from my Euro-colleagues how it is for you?

[pain-pateint]

Wonga???? WTF!!!:):) TFF!!;););) I Googled "Wonga" and got, inter alia, "cash on demand" [https://www.wonga.com/homepage.aspx].

I would love to hear more about the etymology of such an onomatopoetic term.........

My wonga's in a my wallet....the alliteration is, well....priceless!

[Narkotikon]

Oh, I know...and agree...and I lived thru the great obsession w/terminology, that began w/the notion that people's self-esteem came from the vocabulary used around them, rather than by their own accomplishments or failures...

This had good beginnings, in the fact that we were taught to quit using cruel terms for gay people or blacks or disabled...but quickly spread to garbage-men, teachers, and bad conduct (now 'sick') and just plain fucked up behavior, all of a sudden got all kinds of new names...

Everything became a disease, nobody was stupid or bad anymore, and even in my idiotic computer class, the teacher always said he wanted to "share" someting with us, when talking, and that word "share" became another nauseating concept to me...along w/the expansion of the "disease concept" into just about every area...providing all kinds of new employment for psychologists and counselors who would otherwise be in the workforce w/everybody else...

So I've probably said enough, but whether it's terms like "clean" or "I'm not a bad person, I have disease..." stuff that drives me up a wall...I always want to say..."Maybe you *are* a bad person, fucker..."

It'd be really funny, if it weren't so sad...I go to an AA meeting where every person in there is absolutely convinced they "have a disease..." and right outside we have two destitute, obviously psychotic people who are homeless, hopeless and destitute...and at one time, maybe they would have gotten more attention and help...but with all the proliferation of the new diseases, these people now get lost in the shuffle...

Rant over...

Yeah, I think that some drug addicts probably are bad people, but I don't think it's necessarily because they're drug addicts. I just think they were probably bad people and bitches before they even tried drugs. I also don't think that believing in the disease concept or not has anything to do with it. I mean, even if someone doesn't believe in the disease of addiction, I still don't think they're bad people. In other words, I don't think the disease concept has anything to do with the moral "issue" of addiction and the "clean" / "dirty" thing.

I really don't care about other addicts or just people in general using the terms. What I care about is when people use them to make some kind of distinction between them and me. Like "I'm clean and therefore good / moral" and "you're dirty and therefore bad / amoral." I think that's bullshit. The social worker I was talking about was like that. She was very obviously against drugs because it was some "moral" thing to her, and I asked her to stop doing that, and she got pissed off. I don't think people like that have any business being in the "helping" professions, because they often can not separate their own beliefs from their jobs. They don't view it with unjaded eyes.

I personally believe in the disease concept, not because I use / think it's a cop out, but because of what I know about drugs. Drugs alter your neurochemistry, and therefore create semi-permanent (or even permanent in some cases) imbalances. They downregulate receptors, and alter the person's mood when not on the drugs. Now, I guess it could be used as a cop out if you realize this and decide to not do anything about it, like "oh, I have a disease, but choose to think I can't do anything about it." I don't buy that. I think there are things you can do. Just because you believe in the disease concept doesn't meant you're looking for a cop-out, it's what you do after you realize that. I mean, you can have a disease and do something about it, or not do something about it. I don't see how realizing you have a disease and doing something about it is a cop-out. You're trying to get better.

I also think it's a disease because I think people are predisposed to like certain things. I mean, everyone's neurochemistry is different. I think that's partly genetic. I mean, say someone is lacking in norepinephrine, and then they try meth, and they really like it, and feel "normal" for the first time and happy. Then I think it's more likely that they'll become addicted to it because they're trying to compensate for their natural imbalance. I don't think they intentionally try to become addicted, I just think it happens. Same way with opiates, or weed, or whatever. Everyone who is addicted is probably lacking in something, and their drug of choice just happens to compensate for that and makes them feel normal, and they become addicted because they like feeling normal. I mean, who wouldn't want to be "normal."

I also think drugs are addicting and it's a disease because drugs alter the "pleasure" or "reward" pathways. The more you take them, the more pleasurable it is, and your brain learns to associate the drug with immediate reward and pleasure. So your brain begins to crave that drug because it wants to feel good. It's a physical change and therefore a disease.

No one else has to believe this of course. I also think willpower or being determined to stop has something to do with it. I mean, you have to want to quit. It's not like you just wake up one day and quit. It's a struggle each day to stay sober I'm sure. It's not like it goes away overnight.

I personally just view it as a disease, because it involves chemical processes in the brain / body. That's what a disease is. Whether it's self-created or inherent, because it's genetic and therefore accidental because the person just happened to try that drug and got hooked, I guess is up for debate.

The only time I get angry is when people who don't view it as a disease get pissy and say it's just a cop out to people who do think it's a disease. Well, yes, you can say that if the person who does believe in the disease concept doesn't do anything about it. But how in the hell is it a cop out if they realize they have a disease and "try" to do something about it? It's not.

I also personally like the disease concept because it gets rid of all that morality garbage. I mean, addiction isn't a moral / spiritual crisis. I'm sure there are some bad drug addicts, but I'm sure there are some who aren't. I mean, I don't feel like I'm a bad person just because I use drugs. I don't steal, rob, rape, kill, murder. How am I a bad person? I feel like I'm compassionate, thoughtful, honest, loyal, kind. I don't consider myself a bad person. I think addictions can cause people to do bad things to support their habits, but that doesn't mean they're inherently bad people. It just means they're addicts and desperate. I mean, when I say bad people, I mean people who don't regret it or feel sorry for it. Someone who murders someone and doesn't feel remorse I call a bad person. Someone who is addicted and murders someone for drug money I think did a horrible thing, and I think they should pay for their crime, but if they're remorseful, I don't call them a bad person.

[Duckfeet]

You're in good company, Narkotikon: I know most people see it that way, as a disease, and it doesn't bother me, as most of my friends on here, in life, see it that way...and I agree, after re-reading your posts, that maybe we were talking about two different things, when we were discussing the term "clean": i was opposed to it simply because I dislike all the new vocabulary, while I think you saw it was someone being a bit patronizing, or "holier than thou...

As far as "disease concept" goes...I guess it depends of the motives of the person claiming medical status for their affliction...to me it's a bit of a metaphor for something else....if it can't be identified in a corpse, from a pathological standpoint...how can it be a disease???

But I've fought this one up and down more than once...helps me *not* to see it as a disease...some are helped *seeing* it as a disease...much arguments on both sides of this...

[poonwhalla]

I see it as one thing and what the fuck ever people want to think that is there problem. Here is how I see it. people who want to get high will, the others will not or fuck the others over until they find tranquility. This rock will spin around long after us Can't we all just get along?? Are you human? You are dirty by nature. How do you live your life? It's up to you . You know what is moral and right so fucking live it I am sick of hearing of cop out's. No sugar coating here. Most people I come across should be dead IMHO not most of youys but dats because i love yous... Love poon

[Narkotikon]

I wasn't really trying to argue with you. I was more or less just trying to explain my viewpoint on it. I think sometimes when I post responses like this, people interpret it as me being a smartass, or me trying to be difficult. That's not the case at all. I really have no problems with you or anyone else here except one person, and I think you all know who that is. I mean, if people think I'm being difficult, I'd rather them just come out and say it, so it's at least clear. Intonation and things like that to convey a person's mood aren't available on the internet, so I try to convey that with language. If I were mad, or upset, or angry, or trying to be confrontational, I would make it known. For instance, when I had that argument with Kilobyte about buccall v. smoked Fentanyl, I was clearly being aggressive. If I mean to be aggressive, it's usually obvious, either through colorful language (frequent use of the word "fuck" e.g.) or something like that. Also, that thread I made recently about my sister was me being mad. Everything else I write should be interpreted as being neutral or friendly. Sometimes I'll joke, and use one of the smileys to make that known, but most other times it's just neutral.

I'm not sure if you were interpreting my response as being difficult, but again I wasn't sure. It's hard for me to judge people's character on here. I thought maybe you were being difficult in response to your assumption that I was being difficult. I don't know how else to explain it. I do know that all of this kind of stuff makes me like Opiophile less. It's just not as fun as I thought it was when I first joined. I don't hate it, but I also don't love it like I used too. It's kind of sad I think. I sometimes think people view me as being too sensitive. I don't see that as being true. The only thing that really pisses me off is when people are clearly disrespectful to me and my ideas. I don't think people have to think like me. But I do expect people to respect me. But under no circumstances should anyone tip toe around me or anything like that. That's not what I want. And because sometimes I feel people feel as though I'm "sensitive" it makes me even more sensitive to their language. So, whereas this was--like you said--a simple misunderstanding of concepts (you were meaning use of terminology as a fad; whereas I was meaning it as an act of degradation), I thought maybe you were thinking I was attacking your beliefs or trying to be an ass. That wasn't the case at all.

I do know that I'm just sick of having to explain myself. Not really to you in particular, just in general. On some days I feel like everything I write is misunderstood. I try to be as plain and as straight-forward about it as possible. I'm not trying to belittle anyone, or put anyone down, or trying to imply I'm better in any way, which is what I think maybe some people think. The only cardinal rule I care about is the no asshole rule. I simply don't want to be disrespected, but that doesn't mean I'm "sensitive." It just means I'm like any other human. I mean, people can disagree all they want, I don't really care. But, if I happen to write something that one disagrees with, they don't have to call it stupid. I think that maybe this whole "sensitive" thing got started when Shelley and I were having our arguments. I don't know. I don't remember being called sensitive when I was on Opiophile before. I don't remember feeling like people thought I was either. Maybe it's because I'm not high like you all (or most of you all) anymore. I don't know. I do know that I don't like disrespect, and that's what that whole thing with Shelley was about. I wasn't saying she couldn't think differently, I was saying she should have some fucking manners. No, I don't expect everyone to be like Emily Post or Amy Vanderbilt and be Miss Perfect Manners, but I do expect common decency, and I felt like she was just brandishing an "I'm going to say whatever the hell I want without any regard to anyone's feelings whatsoever" mentality. I think she goes out of her way to post contradictory stuff to intentionally piss people off. I feel as though she intentionally tries to make problems by questioning other people's beliefs, yet she won't even really explain her off-the-wall beliefs. Again, I don't care what she believes, but have common decency, don't be a troll causing problems, and don't be so arrogant as to question others' beliefs when you won't even explain your own. I don't see how that does not go against the "no assholery" rule. I'm sure I'll take flak for it, but I feel as though she's been given several chances, and should just be banned. And I'll also say I'm frankly glad she doesn't post as much anymore. I had to say something about it, and because I did I feel like people think I'm sensitive. I think that's how this all got started.

But, to make it perfectly clear. I don't dislike most people here. I enjoy coming here, just not as much, but I pretty much explained why. When I post, I'm not usually trying to be difficult. And if I am, I feel like I'm very clear about it, usually peppered with the word "fuck" several times. This is not one of those times. This is just a simple explanation / clarification. I am not trying to piss people off, but I will stand up for myself and demand respect. Again, I'm not saying you were trying to disrespect me because, honestly, I don't know what you thought--I thought maybe you were and maybe you weren't, depending on what you thought my intentions were. I'm just saying in general that is my belief. I think everyone should do and say as they please, as long as it's respectful.

[Duckfeet]

I think a lot has to do w/other areas of our lives...I'm constantly surrounded by people chasing pensions. And I could give a shit less if they chase the pension...but they also want to believe their own bullshit, so they don't feel like hypocrites or something...and most veterans and homeless people know there is a good little pension if u can convince the shrinks, etc., that u have a "disease." And you have to remember, back in the nineties anyway, you could still get a pretty good pension--ssd--for having the "disease of addiction..."

Then all the *non* combatant Vietnam Veterans realized that they could get a *super* good pension if they could convince a shrink they had ptsd...or had been sexually harassed by someone in the military...or now adhd or whatever the fuck they call it...and this is kind of an open secret now among people in the military who are anywhere *near* combat, or who are sexually insecure and feel they are being preyed upon...around $2500 a month, so, if you are, say, in Iraq, and even a *little* close to where the real fighting is going on, well, u see a shrink when u get home, tell him u "are having nightmares, are hyper-vigilant, etc...and *bingo* you are set for life...so now, when they say how more and more veterans are traumatized by war...I kind of wonder...when there was no money in it, only a few people were all that traumatized...now it's turning out that people on ships offshore are claiming they are traumatized...shit....steals the glory from the real ground-pounding infantry and marines who actually fight the fights...and are usually to proud to chase the pensions....it's the REMFS(Rear Echelon Maintenance Fuckers) who go after the bucks...

Or--male or female--tell the shrink you were sexually harassed by your 1st sergeant, and are traumatized by the event: same thing, huge pension for life....

I'm not saying some people really *aren't* all fucked up by events that happened to them...but now there is a whole industry surrounding PTSD and Addiction, that I think occasionally it's good to show a little scepticism about...once there is good money floating around, I tend to get really cynical....

But most of these people are just basically fucked up by life, but there's a whole financial culture now surrounding this diseases concept, and *that's* probably the main reason I oppose it...since people seem to have trouble admitting they just want to feel better about themsevles and get some free cash to boot...

My anger--naturally--is towards people who want to steal valor, pretend they were brave when they weren't brave, and my compassion now is for the *truly* mentally ill, who get bypassed so all the rest of these lames can get their payday...and since there is *also* money for people who *work* in these various fields, the bullshit gets propagated more and more...ahhh, pet peeve...

[Narkotikon]

Yeah, I can see why that would make you angry. But, I guess I don't understand how it effects you or other veterans personally if some other "lesser" veterans get in on the action too. I mean, from how I understand it, it's like you wouldn't be mad if they would just admit that they were basically trying to steal the money and lie about fake conditions, but since they aren't admitting it you are mad at them. I don't think that makes much sense. I think this is kind of an all or nothing thing. You're either mad at all people / veterans who do this, or you're not. I don't think a person's personal beliefs about their "fucked-upness" has anything to do with it. I mean, you never really know. People can say PTSD doesn't exist, and that people who cry rape are just trying to whine and scam money, but how do you really know? What if they're not lieing. How do you determine that? And, really, it seems to me that if one is lieing, then everyone feels they have the right to criticize any and everyone who even remotely is similar, yet not lieing. So, if Person A is claiming PTSD, just like Persons B, C, D, E, F, G, etc., yet the only person who is truly lieing is Person A, and the others are genuine, is it right to belittle or say the other cases aren't real?

That's how I sort of view this whole thing. Just because some person or minority of bad people (yes, I would call the liars bad people) is lying, doesn't mean everyone else is. When people say, "oh, PTSD, mental disorders, etc., are all fake," I want to scream. I personally feel like they're either 1.) bitches or assholes, 2.) they've personally known someone who has claimed a disorder, yet really didn't have it, only to get the payday. Same with addiction. I sometimes wonder if people who don't like the disease concept, or who don't believe in it, have been around one or more people who claim the "disease" as a cop-out. Like "oh, I'm just an addict, I can't ever get better, I have a disease." Yeah, that's bullshit. You can get better, you can do things, but you've got to do them. But, that doesn't make me think it's any less a disease when a few people do that.

I guess the point is that people and people's conditions should be taken on a case-by-case basis, and that people who make brash quick judgments about this kind of thing piss me off, because I think they're either intentionally or unintentionally trying to be "saviors" / rude / whatever. It's like who made that person grand poobah of telling people what they can and can't have. What does it matter to them anyway? And if it annoys them, does that give them the right to be rude / an ass / a bitch about it, because that annoys the hell out of me? And if they don't care about that, does that mean that their feelings / ideas / beliefs are any more important than mine? Because that's how it comes across to me.

That's how I view this whole disease concept. So what if people think it's a disease, that still doesn't mean it's a cop out. It's only a cop out if you let it be one. And, I do think there might be some scientific ways to confirm a change in the brain caused by drugs. I mean, CAT scans and MRI's and things like that of "normal" brains compared to addicts' brains can show differences. I guess the only thing up for debate there is "what is normal" because I'm sure all brains are different. I mean, I do think there are some normalities between people, but then there are differences. It would be interesting to see an adult non-drug user's scans and them take the same scans again if they became addicted to see if there are any differences. So, I do think things like that would be possible, but I'd think it would be very difficult to just happen to scan a non-addict adult, then happen to run into them later, and them happen to be a drug addict whom you could scan. And you can't really have a study like that because no one is going to fund a study that purposefully turns a person into an addict. So I guess that's up in the air, but I think it could be done (if it's already not been, which I'm not sure about).

[Duckfeet]

I guess it's cuz I've been in psyche wards hearing the hustle going on, u know, and had to sit thru endless "groups" listening to people claim how traumatized they are, etc...and like anything, we make judgement calls on people's sincerity...in life, on *here*...that's the way it is...

I've been in war, I know *immediately* when someone was "in the shit" or not--it's so fucking rare...Believe me, you *know*...and also, u have to remember, I go to AA daily, and so I hear it steadily...just gets old...but your question is actually the best one: why should I give a shit?

Again, it's *not* that they (whoever 'they' are) are scamming pensions that bugs me...it's that they want to convince people like me that their pension pursuits are legitimate...and that bothers the shit out of me...it's my life, I only have so much time allocated me...don't really want to spend too much of it listening to crap like that, any more than I want to get preached at...

Again: we see it differently, no sweat: I think the whole "Diseasing of America" (book title) is just mostly more whimpering, over-fed, western decadence...most people would die and crawl across fire to have our problems...thro a few bullets, bombs, and hunger our way, and see just how "sick" we are: we'd be scampering our sick asses towards guns, food, and shelter and get over our little ideas quick enough...

So, sorry, but yah gotta put me w/Shelley on this one...and in a minority on Opy, I know...

Speaking *specifically* about opiate addiction--my curse--there are huge, endless arguments pro and con...I know yer pretty savvy, and pretty persuasive, and I like your posts, even when I don't agree with them...but this is one I try to be nice about, but don't buy, generally...

[Narkotikon]

Yeah, again, I was just trying to explain. I wasn't trying to argue. I don't think you're like Shelley. I mean, I think you sometimes believe the way she does, but I think there's a HUGE difference in how you act. I wasn't trying to discredit your beliefs or put you down in any way. I was just trying to explain my thoughts on this. God, I feel like we're fighting, and that's not my intention at all. This really is what makes me not like Opiophile. I feel like I have to explain everything, because if I don't people think I'm "preaching" or "trying to say their beliefs are wrong." That's what that whole spiel up above was about, two or so posts ago. I'm not saying I'm better, or anything like that at all. I was simply explaining.

I don't know if it's just my perceptions of people, or what, but I do sometimes think that people think I'm trying to do that, when I'm not, and then I have to explain and apologize, and I'm just sick to death of it. I feel like every time I write something it needs to have footnotes attached or something, when I already think it's perfectly clear. Everything I write it neutral. I'm not trying to be a dick, and if I was I feel like it would be obvious. I don't see how this is one of those times. This whole thing got started when I said I was bothered by the whole "clean" / "dirty" thing. I didn't even read what you had written initially (in response to Naomi's post) about that to be honest. I wrote it because 1.) I've always hated that because I think it's some people's (mainly non-users) attempts at saying they're better than me; and 2.) because I read Naomi's post about having to "prove" her addiction to the authorities to get the help she needed, and that just struck a cord with me and reminded me about the clean / dirty thing. It had nothing to do with what you wrote in response to her post.

Then after I wrote that, you posted something about the clean / dirty thing, and it made me think that you thought I was attacking you, when I wasn't. I don't care if you or anyone else on here uses those terms. The only time I don't like it is when it's obvious the person is using them to try to say they're better in some way. I don't think that's what you were doing. I guess this is sort of paranoid, but that's what I thought you thought, and then I replied, and you replied, and here we are. What I write in any post isn't meant to be derogatory. If in the rare chance it is, which is few and far between, then I'm pretty clear about how I feel about that person, and say so generally with very emotive language and the word "fuck" peppered throughout.

I don't do the whole "frienemies" thing, where you hide insults and jabs in polite ways. I don't like that, and I don't do that, although I think some people think I do, but I don't. If I don't like someone, I will tell them. All I know is I'm sick to death of explaining things like this. It makes me almost want to contact Brony and say "disconnect my account, because I'm sick of this place." Opiophile used to be so much fun. I wish it would get back to that.

[nick]

I guess it's cuz I've been in psyche wards hearing the hustle going on, u know, and had to sit thru endless "groups" listening to people claim how traumatized they are, etc...and like anything, we make judgement calls on people's sincerity...in life, on *here*...that's the way it is...

I've been in war, I know *immediately* when someone was "in the shit" or not--it's so fucking rare...Believe me, you *know*...and also, u have to remember, I go to AA daily, and so I hear it steadily...just gets old...but your question is actually the best one: why should I give a shit?

Again, it's *not* that they (whoever 'they' are) are scamming pensions that bugs me...it's that they want to convince people like me that their pension pursuits are legitimate...and that bothers the shit out of me...it's my life, I only have so much time allocated me...don't really want to spend too much of it listening to crap like that, any more than I want to get preached at...

Again: we see it differently, no sweat: I think the whole "Diseasing of America" (book title) is just mostly more whimpering, over-fed, western decadence...most people would die and crawl across fire to have our problems...thro a few bullets, bombs, and hunger our way, and see just how "sick" we are: we'd be scampering our sick asses towards guns, food, and shelter and get over our little ideas quick enough...

So, sorry, but yah gotta put me w/Shelley on this one...and in a minority on Opy, I know...

Speaking *specifically* about opiate addiction--my curse--there are huge, endless arguments pro and con...I know yer pretty savvy, and pretty persuasive, and I like your posts, even when I don't agree with them...but this is one I try to be nice about, but don't buy, generally...

Bro,just because some one fakes an illness it doesn't mean that they aren't genuinely sick.Think of it as Hamlet syndrome.

[Duckfeet]

My friend: I understand you, and I never saw this as an argument...I really do think it's just a tough time for people, for many of us...(not just the holidays): I've been reading your posts: they are thoughtful and thorough, and always make me think, and reevaluate...and I feel *safe* throwing out my more controversial ideas, because I know you do put some thought and obvious knowledge into what you post...normally I wouldn't even put this stuff down, as they are old opy arguments/discussions which have beat to death...but again, I'm always curious about what you have to say about the matter...and that's the reason I posted...

I'll go out on a limb here, and tell you that it seems you are just going thru a tough time, between family and a few other things, and I know I can't *help* but bring my passions and troubled soul to opy, and yeah, we come off sometimes like arguing, but I've felt that you are asset to this place, and--like all of us--just sorting life, opiates, family, opiophile...out...this was *not* meant in a patronizing way, but just a gentle opinion of an older opiate addict who comes from an often wretched family life, but who thinks and feels and wants probably the same thing we all do: kindness from my fellows, understanding, love, and a bit of happiness once in a while...be not ttroubled by any of this, and peace be upon thee...

Yeah, again, I was just trying to explain. I wasn't trying to argue.

<snip>

Opiophile used to be so much fun. I wish it would get back to that.

[Duckfeet]

Sure, but that sounds a little bit too much like counseling 101, where even *reasonable* opposition to the latest disease/theory means you've got it...a little too circular and self-serving for me..and believe me, this one has been layed on me myself, a shrink once telling me: one of the classic symptoms of ptsd is the denial it exists...

And I never thought Hamlet was all that sick...he just *dithered* a lot and fell into graves...we just like Hamlet cuz he was one of us...just to the manor born...

Shakespeare does rock, tho, every time I get--or hear--some really cool idea...it turns out he had it first....

Bro,just because some one fakes an illness it doesn't mean that they aren't genuinely sick.Think of it as Hamlet syndrome.

[nick]

Sure, but that sounds a little bit too much like counseling 101, where even *reasonable* opposition to the latest disease/theory means you've got it...a little too circular and self-serving for me..and believe me, this one has been layed on me myself, a shrink once telling me: one of the classic symptoms of ptsd is the denial it exists...

And I never thought Hamlet was all that sick...he just *dithered* a lot and fell into graves...we just like Hamlet cuz he was one of us...just to the manor born...

Shakespeare does rock, tho, every time I get--or hear--some really cool idea...it turns out he had it first....


Hell,even counselling 101 is right occasionally,but I was refering to someone faking ptsd who may have another,deeper problem.
In general,I agree with you about the disease concept and all the rest of today's medical nomenclature,which is just a means for the medical community to control their patients by controlling the language of treatment.

Oh and Shakespeare does indeed rock.

[Duckfeet]

You're right, Nick, and I had actually realized that last night, that what you were saying was different, that the people who are "faking it" might have other more serious problems...and I do agree, occasionally this does happen, and lets face it: these are tough times, and everybody--not wealthy is looking for financial help...I think that one is just a pet peeve w/me...and I get a pension, so it might be just a bit of not wanting to face up to my own willingness to "scam the system" if necessary...



Hell,even counselling 101 is right occasionally,but I was refering to someone faking ptsd who may have another,deeper problem.
In general,I agree with you about the disease concept and all the rest of today's medical nomenclature,which is just a means for the medical community to control their patients by controlling the language of treatment.

Oh and Shakespeare does indeed rock.