Evil Inky Posted August 19, 2011 Report Share Posted August 19, 2011 Bottom line, it may be going to hell and back countless times, it may be one hell of a fight, but no-one that I have ever heard of has suffered lasting health damage or death from the withdrawal symptoms of an addictive substance. Alcohol withdrawal can lead to brain damage and death. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_withdrawal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fjool Posted August 19, 2011 Report Share Posted August 19, 2011 Drugs are bad, m'kay? Modified ecstasy 'attacks blood cancers' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OP8S Posted August 19, 2011 Report Share Posted August 19, 2011 The same can be said for abrupt withdrawls from benzodiazepienes & the less commonly used barbituate drugs that preceeded them. To my knowledge this is not a thread about the effects of withdrawls to any substances, it is as I said before " Should drugs be legal ? ". There are a lot of substances available to the public perfectly legally which if not used in the correct manner can lead to the users untimely death. Alcohol & paracetamol being only a small example of this. Nearly all drugs which people take for pleasure or for any other personal reasons have the potential to create addiction physical or psychological. If they are pharmacuetically produced, pass stringent quality controls as any other medicine does & are then provided to the user by a qualified medical professional under strict regulation, then the harm to the user is minimalised, with the added bonus of any harm that they may cause to society. The policing of the prohabition of these substances cost our country billions & have done year after year with absolutely no effect on the trade. The criminal organisations are like any other industry & have perfected the art of importation, lowering the quality when supplies are low or increasing the quality should they need to drum up trade. They allow for at least one "batch" of whatever substance it is to be confiscated ( by information supplied...very probably by themselves ) so that while the officials are busy dealing with that one the other two batches arrive at their destination, in turn leaving them with a very healthy profit. These people that are involved in the trade are not hapless addicts just taking a chance. The person that is caught with the batch maybe, but the people that are in control of what they see as purely business are extrememly clever & devious businessmen, who will not be substance users at all. The substance that they crave is the huge profits derived from this business endevaour. Mr. Paul Hayes of the NTA in one of their latest press releases states that... " simple questions require simple solutions ". It doesn't take a genius to come to the conclusion that if all the billlions of pounds that have been spent on prohabition of this " war against drugs " , that will never be won judging by the dismal failure of the increase in problematic illicit drug-users yearly since the 1971 Act was passed were to be diverted into the prescribing of addictive substances via the NHS or a similar umbrella organisation then not only would our country make huge savings, but their would in turn be a reduction in petty theft, knife crime & the criminal organisations would divert their interests elsewhere. So again we need to ask ourselves " why ? ". Why does the UK Gov. pay no heed to the success's of our European cousins on this matter. Why do they insist on wasting valuable police man-hours fighting a battle that so obviously we are losing. Why do they continue to ignore the experts in the field that they themselves hired. Why do they continue to demonise certain substances in the redtop papers while at the same time expect the majority of the population to carry on using alcohol when the cost to society is so high. Why will they not answer any of these questions without doing what we have come to expect of our showbiz style politicians & divert our questions onto a completely different matter altogether. If you care (?) then write them a letter, though not an email. They are by law required to reply if it is a letter ( or get one of there serfs to do so ), emails they are not required to answer. Especially if they feel the topic a bit uncomfortable to answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggytrousers Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 just to note, benzodiazepiene withdrawal can indeed lead to death. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unlinkedstudent Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 just to note, benzodiazepiene withdrawal can indeed lead to death. So can nicotine withdrawal and anyone around me having ciggies and refusing to hand them over to me. Apparently, one look from me can kill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fjool Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 From http://www.shetlink.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=187081: That may be an exaggeration but it is right to frighten people about taking illegal drugs of any kind.The problem with this approach is that the genuinely worthwhile messages then get lost amongst this kind of hysterical bleating. How to emphasise the seriousness of heroin addiction when the volume is already cranked up to eleven over relatively harmless substances? And what scope for genuine education when misinformation is peddled at every turn? No. Far better is to be honest. You consider the smoking of cannabis to be acceptable, perhaps? You would be ok for someone to get behind the wheel of a car when they are high on cannabis?Of course there are shades of drugs just as there is with alcohol where a pint of spirits is far worse than a pint of strong lager. However, I don't condone any drugs where they are deemed to be illegal; be it cannabis, heroin or cocaine. All are addictive and dangerous and there is always the danger that a cannabis smoker may want to "upgrade" to "something stronger". If you start preaching that cannabis is ok when compared to heroin then it gives out the completely wrong message. My thoughts, anyway. Personally, I do consider the smoking of cannabis to be acceptable (within certain constraints), yes. If someone wants to smoke cannabis, then why not let them? Indeed, compared to alcohol it is the lesser of two evils. Only my opinion, of course. I don't think it should be illegal and have said so many times in this and other threads. However, to suggest that I consider driving under the influence to be acceptable because of this stance is disingenuous and ridiculous. Do you consider drink driving acceptable because alcohol is legal? Quite. The addictive/dangerous-therefore-illegal argument is flawed and falls down right at the first hurdle: alcohol. Alcohol is both these things, but is legal. The legality of a substance demonstrably has no bearing on it's safety or otherwise. These are the very same mixed messages that you allude to. The sooner we get away from this idea that somehow the law bears any reflection on the danger of particular substances (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/31_07_06_drugsreport.pdf), the sooner we can get down to providing accurate and responsible information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted September 25, 2011 Report Share Posted September 25, 2011 Lifted from the events page on this server...... Organizer: CADSS ( CADSS )Notes: THE EVENT: An exhibition of writings and images exploring the meaning of ‘Recovery’ to CADSS service users WHERE: Isleburgh Community Centre, Lerwick, Ground and Middle Floors WHEN: 1st - 30th September 2011 – ExhibitionThe Scottish Recovery Consortium has 5 key messages around recovery. These are: Recovery is a journey towards a stable and fulfilling life People can and do recover from drug problems and addiction Recovery is a reality Recovery is a belief that things can get better and that you are right to be hopeful for the future Recovery is contagious People can and do recover from drug and alcohol dependency. Each year between 54-60% of people discharged from CADSS core services have successfully reached their goal of becoming problem drug and alcohol free. Or, to put it another way, more people stop using drugs and/or alcohol problematically than continue doing so.We at CADSS are also aware that some people choose not to use CADSS services to become drug and alcohol free; these people may choose to use one of our partner agencies for support or to rely on the invaluable support offered by family. Whether these people are using professional or personal support to overcome their substance misuse problems, these folk are often quietly and determinedly walking that road towards Recovery. For the past 9 months CADSS service users have been using the Day Programme, to write, craft or paint what Recovery means to them. They now invite you to share in that journey. A chance for folk to see over the wall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OP8S Posted October 2, 2011 Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 I'm sure that it's a grand display that CADDS have put on & very probably well worth a look for anybody with no real experience of problematic drink / drug use. I wonder if CADDS will be relying on the coalitions new " payment by results " policy, which has already started to be implemented by several privately run " charitable " organisations on the mainland. Payment by results, is exactly what it means. The DSP gets paid by the Gov. for every person that is " recovered " & off their books. This has already started a worrying scenario where people who have been prescribed substitute medications are currently being put under pressure to reduce & give up their medication. The complaint's about these charitable organisations grow in number everyday & folk who once led prosperous lifes find that without their substitute medication they soon re-lapse. Some anyway. I know of one person in Shetland who gave in to such pressure & now says he stops short of the pharmacy that used to dispense his medication ( which provided him with stability ) only to enter the liquid pharmacy known as the off-license daily, where he now collects his alternative substance. Maybe " payment by results " is not how CADDS is funded. I certainly hope not for any of their clients. As far as I can see by reading the coalitions new policies are very open to abuse by some of these privately run charitable organisations. The United Nations advises it's member countries that " encouraged reductions " are rarely successful & that the user should feel in control of their own treatment. Should they wish to reduce themselves & live a life of abstinence all well & good. But with the creation of these charitable DSPs & payment by results then the bottom line comes down to how many people can be encouraged to give up their treatment due to pressure from drugs-workers, whether they feel ready for it themselves or not.As usual it becomes a financial matter rather than what may be best for the client. Why should I stop taking a medication that I have lived a prosperous life while on it ? I have a full-time job, a mortgage , 3 kids & a wife to think about. All thanks to being prescribed a legal medication for my addiction. Should I relapse then I have everything to lose & nothing to gain. You can say that I'm a tad cynical maybe, but is this the tip of the ice-berg as far as NHS re-structuring Cameron style ? Which area of healthcare will be next I wonder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unlinkedstudent Posted October 3, 2011 Report Share Posted October 3, 2011 ^ Even at this time in the morning I'm surprised you haven't sussed that the medical model the NHS follow is to achieve the norm and not the social model; you ain't telling me you haven't realised that yet then? Must go, brain cells crying out for the paid-for-out-me-own-pocket-fix* of at least 5 nicotine cigarettes to achieve optimum thinking levels, not forgetting, of course, at least a pint of freshly brewed decent Costa Rican filtered coffee. Edit: * Oops, I didn't pay for them, I relocated them from Ghostrider's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dratsy Posted October 3, 2011 Report Share Posted October 3, 2011 jesus h i like a drink so why are you not paying for it op8s. I want to sit a drink all day so give me alchohol and money to keep me topped off whenever i want it. Or maybe i should put the needs of my family before my own like any right thinking parent would and stop pleepsin about how everyone else needs to fund my adiction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oncomm Posted October 3, 2011 Report Share Posted October 3, 2011 In my opinion the answer to this is quite simple, "dont be so bloody stupid" of course it shouldn't be legalised. Unless under some prescription scheme for pain relief etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fjool Posted October 3, 2011 Report Share Posted October 3, 2011 of course it shouldn't be legalisedWhat is 'it', specifically? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oncomm Posted October 3, 2011 Report Share Posted October 3, 2011 of course it shouldn't be legalisedWhat is 'it', specifically? illegal drugs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Inky Posted October 3, 2011 Report Share Posted October 3, 2011 What is 'it', specifically?Wikipedia states that "Information technology (IT) is the acquisition, processing, storage and dissemination of vocal, pictorial, textual and numerical information by a microelectronics-based combination of computing and telecommunications." Hope this helps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unlinkedstudent Posted October 3, 2011 Report Share Posted October 3, 2011 What is 'it', specifically?Wikipedia states that "Information technology (IT) is the acquisition, processing, storage and dissemination of vocal, pictorial, textual and numerical information by a microelectronics-based combination of computing and telecommunications." Hope this helps. Surely Faith No More Epic meant summat else? (bottom of page) http://www.shetlink.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=86&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=775 Me never knew they were singing about a blooming computer! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.