Have Heroin Users been Villainized?

by Peter McWilliams Physicians referred to morphine as G.O.M. or "God's Own Medicine." With the introduction of the hypodermic syringe in the mid-1800s, the effects of injecting morphine were discovered. The Civil War was an ideal laboratory to experiment with morphine's injectable anesthetic and painkilling qualities. The doctors went a little overboard: many soldiers returned from the war addicted to morphine. For quite some time, morphine addiction was known as the "soldier's disease." Nevertheless, by 1880, physicians recommended G.O.M. for fifty-four "diseases" including anemia, insanity, and nymphomania. The addictive quality of morphine, however, did not concern doctors. Although many people needed the drug daily, as long as they were able to get the drug, morphine addicts functioned normally in society. Most addictions are only troublesome when the addictive substance is taken away. As a culture today, we are addicted to—among many other things—electricity, packaged foods, television, and automobiles. As long as these are readily available, we don't notice our addiction. If one—or all—were taken away, we would immediately exhibit the classic symptoms of addictive withdrawal. Dr. William Stewart Halsted is widely recognized as "the father of modern surgery" and was one of the four founders of Johns Hopkins Medical Center. Dr. Halsted died at the age of 70, having revolutionized surgery (the sterile operating room was one of his many contributions). He enjoyed a thirty-two-year marriage, good health, and the admiration of his peers. However, Sir William Osler's "Secret History" of the medical center, made public in 1969, revealed that Dr. Halsted had been addicted to morphine until the end of his life. Dr. Osler, another of the founders of Johns Hopkins, wrote, He had never been able to reduce the amount to less than three grains [180 milligrams] daily; on this he could do his work comfortably, and maintain his excellent physical vigor. ~~~ makes me wonder how bad off some people would be if they were to outlaw coffee 'for the public good' ;0) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ no needles fer me buster. It's smoky glassware all the way! __________________ Creation is a drug I can't do without. CECIL B. DEMILLE __________________ villainized? never! i depend on these people for a source of income! oh wait...that's just a game... ProMinx __________________ What's your point? Growing up in the sixties when every conceivable drug was fashionable, people who injected heroin into their bodies were considered the biggest losers that ever existed. Talk about instant addiction!! These people would do anything for a "fix": lie, cheat, steal, murder, prostitute themselves. I knew a few and yes they were victims and they victimized everyone that they knew!If anyone ever thinks that this drug has no SERIOUS consequences, they are in for a RUDE DEADLY awakening/ __________________ Fake tit's suck And the nude banner's are back __________________ Quote: Originally posted by johnnymk What's your point? Growing up in the sixties when every conceivable drug was fashionable, people who injected heroin into their bodies were considered the biggest losers that ever existed. Talk about instant addiction!! These people would do anything for a "fix": lie, cheat, steal, murder, prostitute themselves. I knew a few and yes they were victims and they victimized everyone that they knew!If anyone ever thinks that this drug has no SERIOUS consequences, they are in for a RUDE DEADLY awakening/ The point, as I see it, is that if drugs were legal, they would be cheap and accessible. Addicts wouldn't have criminal records preventing them from getting decent work. Junkies wouldn't have to lie, cheat, steal, or murder (and if they want to prostitute themselves that's their business). If research shows that barring these restrictions, junkies were able to maintain and function normally within society and not behave in an otherwise criminal manner, you have to wonder: becoming an addict may be stupid, but is it criminal? And what makes it any more criminal than cigarettes, alcohol, or caffeine? Yeah, fake tits do suck, compared to real tits. But I ain't about to shove them out of my face either __________________ Well, let me ask you this: do we allow people to come to work and smoke/be drunk? While it may be a question of popularity, it's still a substance that, yup, you guessed it, affects work ability. And to argue that being under the influence of heroin is even comparable to being under the influence of alcohol is nuts. __________________ heroine has some massive consequences; it is one of the few drugs that actually causes physical pain when you are not taking it. Do not get hooked on this stuff. The only positive use for heroine is beating up people you don't like and then injecting them with it and leaving a little near them with a note saying what it is. That way...they're hooked and probably will be for a very long time (the leaving a little part is optional, but makes it more successful in my experience)... ProMinx __________________ Quote: Originally posted by pennypinch Well, let me ask you this: do we allow people to come to work and smoke/be drunk? While it may be a question of popularity, it's still a substance that, yup, you guessed it, affects work ability. If a person is intoxicated and can't function at his job, then he should be fired (or at least strongly reprimanded and referred to treatment). He should not be sent to jail, however. Quote: And to argue that being under the influence of heroin is even comparable to being under the influence of alcohol is nuts. Yeah, when a heroin addict gets high it allows him to function normally. It is only intoxicating when a user starts using the drug. By the time he's a full addict, shooting up just makes him function like a sober person, and he never gets to feel that high again (unless he quits for some time and returns to the drug). This is one of the cruelest tricks of the drug, but you'd know this if you ever bothered to do real research, or (*gasp*) talk to a real live junky, instead of just regurgitating what you learned from the propaganda feed in your living room. Whereas an alcoholic who drinks throughout the day may be able to tolerate it to some degree, but will certainly have his performance affected for the worse to some degree. Besides, I never tried to say the intoxicating effects of the two drugs were comparable. I said that the moral dilemna of whether it is ethical, unethical, or criminal to put a drug in your body for performance or pleasure is the same regardless of the extent of intoxication produced. The thrust of the above article points to research that concludes junkies whose addictions are not criminalized function fairly adequately in a law abiding manner in society. So why should they be treated different from alcoholics? __________________ Quote: Originally posted by ProMinx heroine has some massive consequences; it is one of the few drugs that actually causes physical pain when you are not taking it. Do not get hooked on this stuff. The only positive use for heroine is beating up people you don't like and then injecting them with it and leaving a little near them with a note saying what it is. That way...they're hooked and probably will be for a very long time (the leaving a little part is optional, but makes it more successful in my experience)... ProMinx Your experience? Oh yeah, I bet you perform this little trick all the time. This kind of ignorance really depresses me Do you really think you can get hooked by doing ONE SHOT of heroin? It ain't cocaine or cigarettes, buddy. Getting addicted to heroin is like becoming an alcoholic. It takes an extended period of time of regular use to get hooked. The biggest problem with drugs in America is the lack of useful accurate information and the sea of bogus propaganda and misinformation you have to wade through to find any of it. Your statement betrays the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about. Please stop adding to the problem, and educate yourself before you spread any more fallacies. __________________ Quote: Originally posted by ProMinx heroine has some massive consequences; it is one of the few drugs that actually causes physical pain when you are not taking it. Do not get hooked on this stuff. The only positive use for heroine is beating up people you don't like and then injecting them with it and leaving a little near them with a note saying what it is. That way...they're hooked and probably will be for a very long time (the leaving a little part is optional, but makes it more successful in my experience)... ProMinx I think you are referring to heroin and not Xena: Warrior Princess. __________________ Quote: Originally posted by zenbooty If a person is intoxicated and can't function at his job, then he should be fired (or at least strongly reprimanded and referred to treatment). He should not be sent to jail, however. Yeah, when a heroin addict gets high it allows him to function normally. It is only intoxicating when a user starts using the drug. By the time he's a full addict, shooting up just makes him function like a sober person, and he never gets to feel that high again (unless he quits for some time and returns to the drug). This is one of the cruelest tricks of the drug, but you'd know this if you ever bothered to do real research, or (*gasp*) talk to a real live junky, instead of just regurgitating what you learned from the propaganda feed in your living room. Whereas an alcoholic who drinks throughout the day may be able to tolerate it to some degree, but will certainly have his performance affected for the worse to some degree. Besides, I never tried to say the intoxicating effects of the two drugs were comparable. I said that the moral dilemna of whether it is ethical, unethical, or criminal to put a drug in your body for performance or pleasure is the same regardless of the extent of intoxication produced. The thrust of the above article points to research that concludes junkies whose addictions are not criminalized function fairly adequately in a law abiding manner in society. So why should they be treated different from alcoholics? Assuming you have your facts straight, we DO criminalize all sorts of other "intoxicants". Ever hear of public drunkeness? Alcoholics are thrown in the can all the time, so why heroin addicts should enjoy dissimilar treatment is beyond me. Further, I'll agree that the height of heroin intoxication is relatively benign; it is the low that is socially corrosive, and to think that legalization of heroin use will correct that is to misunderstand the crux of the problem. It is not a monetary issue, which is what most drug legalization theorists rely upon. No matter how legal heroin is, it will still have a price. That price will not allow one to procure as much supply as one wants or, worse, needs. In fact, the supply would probably be subject to some sort of government regulation, just as alcohol and tabacco are now, further increasing the cost. So am I to believe that legal, costly heroin is a safe prospect? Don't make me laugh. __________________ Quote: Originally posted by zenbooty This is one of the cruelest tricks of the drug, but you'd know this if you ever bothered to do real research, or (*gasp*) talk to a real live junky, instead of just regurgitating what you learned from the propaganda feed in your living room. Oh, and I didn't thank you profusely for giving us access to your omniscience. We are truly blessed to be in the electronic presence of "the truth". __________________ Quote: Originally posted by ProMinx The only positive use for heroine is beating up people you don't like and then injecting them with it and leaving a little near them with a note saying what it is. OK, enough of the wacky weed for you, young Prominx... __________________ Quote: Originally posted by pennypinch Assuming you have your facts straight, we DO criminalize all sorts of other "intoxicants". excuse me penny, but if U think that present US drug 'policy' has any basis in rationality I have a surplus FEMA bunker I'd like to sell U. Alcohol is probably the single most destructive drug around and the easiest one to get. Opiates, which could be grown at low cost if legally permitted, pretty much leave U to zonked out to bug anyone. If U ask me the drug policy makers in his country are just obssessed with spreading pain rather than alleviating it and it makes me want to __________________ Quote: Originally posted by renots Quote: Originally posted by pennypinch Assuming you have your facts straight, we DO criminalize all sorts of other "intoxicants". excuse me penny, but if U think that present US drug 'policy' has any basis in rationality I have a surplus FEMA bunker I'd like to sell U. Alcohol is probably the single most destructive drug around and the easiest one to get. Opiates, which could be grown at low cost if legally permitted, pretty much leave U to zonked out to bug anyone. If U ask me the drug policy makers in his country are just obssessed with spreading pain rather than alleviating it and it makes me want to Hey, I'm not defending the letter of the law, I'm defending the core of it, which (I assume) says that there are chemicals which, when taken by some individuals, have a negative impact on others that do not take it. Just because there are some (the wacky weed comes immediately to mind) that do not fit this profile, I contend that heroin is very much unlike alcohol or mara-ja-wana. Like I've said above, being on it probably renders someone quite useless, and while they should't be allowed to hold a job while intoxicated, they are largely harmless. It is when they are not intoxicated that seperates that drug from others mentioned. Damn, I've already written then, I'm not re-typing it because you're too lazy to read... __________________ Quote: Originally posted by pennypinch Assuming you have your facts straight, we DO criminalize all sorts of other "intoxicants". Ever hear of public drunkeness? Alcoholics are thrown in the can all the time, so why heroin addicts should enjoy dissimilar treatment is beyond me. To prevent this discussion from getting too far off point, I'll put aside the argument that public drunkenness laws are primarily an excuse for sweeping unsightly homeless people off city streets. Even so, arresting someone for public drunkenness is not arresting them for being an alcoholic. If a junkie, while high, disturbs the peace, harasses others, and breaks the law, then fine, toss him in the clink. But don't imprison him just for being a drug addict, just like we wouldn't imprison someone for just being an alcoholic. Assuming that being an addict means that you will most certainly break the law, so lets just toss you in prison now and get it over with is not just unethical, but flies in the face of the evidence that the above article purports. Quote: Further, I'll agree that the height of heroin intoxication is relatively benign; it is the low that is socially corrosive, and to think that legalization of heroin use will correct that is to misunderstand the crux of the problem. It is not a monetary issue, which is what most drug legalization theorists rely upon. No matter how legal heroin is, it will still have a price. That price will not allow one to procure as much supply as one wants or, worse, needs. In fact, the supply would probably be subject to some sort of government regulation, just as alcohol and tabacco are now, further increasing the cost. I disagree. If this were the case, how come we don't see alcoholics killing for beer money or cigarettes? If heroin were legalized, everyone and their mother would want to get in on action. Supply would go through the roof, and prices would fall. Even the most hardcore addict's body can only process so much of the drug in a day. This idea of need spiraling upward without bound, always overtaking one's ability to pay no matter what the price is a line of logic I just can't accept at face value. Quote: So am I to believe that legal, costly heroin is a safe prospect? Don't make me laugh. Heroin WAS legal once, not too too long ago. I don't remember the history books ever talking about dark times when addicts terrorized the general public. __________________ Quote: Originally posted by pennypinch Quote: Originally posted by zenbooty This is one of the cruelest tricks of the drug, but you'd know this if you ever bothered to do real research, or (*gasp*) talk to a real live junky, instead of just regurgitating what you learned from the propaganda feed in your living room. Oh, and I didn't thank you profusely for giving us access to your omniscience. We are truly blessed to be in the electronic presence of "the truth". Damn Straight. About time you noticed, too. __________________ Quote: Originally posted by zenbooty I disagree. If this were the case, how come we don't see alcoholics killing for beer money or cigarettes? If heroin were legalized, everyone and their mother would want to get in on action. Supply would go through the roof, and prices would fall. Even the most hardcore addict's body can only process so much of the drug in a day. This idea of need spiraling upward without bound, always overtaking one's ability to pay no matter what the price is a line of logic I just can't accept at face value. [/b] Which totally ignores the fact that heroin addicts will have almost no source of income. Look, no matter how normal a person who's high on heroin may appear (a phenomenon I have yet to witness), he or she will still need to shoot up while at work. That is to say nothing of the degradation of physical appearance that would be a bit of a giveaway, if the needlepoints aren't enough. Coming to work high is, in most companies, grounds for dismissal. You've already acceded that being high is the sober end of the continuum; the corrollery, then, is that not being high is for the addict to act abnormally. So the addict faces this dilemma: either be off drugs during working hours, and therefore be a jonesing, uesless lump, or be high at work, shooting up as needed...I don't need to finish that sentence. To change that would be expecting a radical cultural shift (i.e., allowing intravenous drugs in the workplace, something I don't really see happening anytime soon). No matter how cheaply this stuff can be produced (and I guarantee you there'll be hoops to jump through put in place by the government), addicts would have no source of revenue to pay that decreased price, therefore starting the cycle of theft and depravity we are so familiar with today. Add to that that it is pretty goddamn difficult to DIE by tobacco, alcohol, or marajuana overdose relative to a heroin overdose, and you have a pretty much, forget uphill, vertical battle for legalization. __________________ alot of heroin addicts have money to burn[like some supermodels]; most aren't on the street __________________ I remember that a person had just about a 7 year life expectancy back in the sixties once thay started shooting heroin into their veins. The people I knew back then..... I really don't know if they are still alive...And drug rehabilitation: Forget it... It wasn't possible back then and I seriously doubt that it exists today for them Mavi forum