That said, I think arguing abstinence with something as vague and broad as 'drugs' can and often does backfire in the same way it does with something as vague and broad as 'sex'.
I've known more than a few people who, having been taught to abstain from both (the former in general, the latter until marriage), ended up engaging with both in an extremely irresponsible way and with unpleasant consequences.
Learning how to responsibly engage in different kinds of 'sexual activity' makes it easier, not harder, to prevent something like unwanted pregnancy. I'd say it's the same with drugs.
That said, I can understand where you're coming from and it's also good for people to hear stern warnings at times. Even in my surroundings, where 'drugs' are pretty normalized, their status is still enough in the area of prohibition that erring on the side of not partaking might be the better approach.
Adderall is absolutely not meth, and pretending otherwise is dangerous.
> methamphetamine and d-amphetamine produced similar effects on the majority of physiological and behavioral measures. Both drugs enhanced ratings of euphoria and mood, increased cardiovascular activity, and improved psychomotor performance. Methamphetamine did, however, engender greater effects on some measures (e.g., heart rate and ratings of ‘high’).
and
> methamphetamine and d-amphetamine (50 mg/70 kg) similarly increased drug self-administration; regardless of amphetamine, participants chose approximately 47–50% drug. This is consistent with results from the preclinical literature indicating that rats and rhesus monkeys self-administer both amphetamines at equivalent rates
Furthermore, your science is not quite correct. Amphetamines are a synthetic derivative of phenylethylamine (found in chocolate, cheese, and wine) that adds a methyl group, which allows it to persist in the bloodstream and therefore cross the blood-brain barrier. Methamphetamine adds another methyl group [1][2], which allows it to survive in the blood longer, cross the BBB more easily, and also makes it significantly more neurotoxic [3] because it even harder for the body to break down. Are there differences? Yes. Are they significant? As someone that has experimented with both substances, I found them far more similar than the media would have you believe.
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3475187/
[1] https://methoide.fcm.arizona.edu/infocenter/index.cfm?stid=1...
[2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229653571_Speed_Ecs...
[3] https://www.quora.com/What-role-does-the-methyl-group-in-met...
For what I know, methamphetamine causes negative long term effects whereas regular misc amphetamines (generic adderall) don’t if you aren’t overdosing or abusing it.
Wait, Adderall doesn't cross the blood-brain barrier? Then how does it work?
Decriminalization to allow people to get help may be a way to help address some of the issues.
It's sub-optimal to compare an adderal prescription to street meth -- they're taken for entirely different reasons and they have entirely different effects.
I had some amazing times with MDMA, with LSD, with mushrooms, amphetamine, 2-C drugs, tryptamines and all sorts of other interesting things, wonderful experiences that created and deepened personal bonds, euphoric states I'd never have known otherwise. Yes there were one or two bad times, it's not 100% rosy.
I never got addicted, and getting 'out' was trivial, and I don't believe my experience is unique or even that unusual.
Meth, I never tried because I knew the risks. I really don't find talking about 'drugs' all that useful
Additionally, this is especially important when people formerly advocated something they later realize is wrong. In these cases I believe they have an obligation to correct the record.
I tried coke, heroin and meth once each. Coke was a huge let down, and I've had no interest in trying that again. Meth, on the other hand -was eye-opening. I knew from my experience that if I did it again, I would end up overdosing on it very quickly -so I never did.
I'm far from a health nut or religious freak. I drank like a fish for decades, did pot, did LSD. Booze was hard enough (pot and LSD both reached a point where they were no longer fun, so I no longer did them) to quit, I'm glad that was the only thing that stuck.
So yeah ...I'm glad -and lucky, that I had the experiences with the hard stuff that I had. When meth got common it held zero temptation for me, ditto for coke and heroin.
It helps that I have always been poor as dirt and knew that I wouldn't be able to have regular access to any of that, either.
(that made it sound like I use meth, I do not.)
You don't have that attribute, from what you described, and that's all there is to it.
- what helped you break the addiction (but your friends didn't have)?
- demographics? (age when started, location, socio-economic class, race, etc.?)
- what % of US school-kids do you think will try Meth?
Does that make sense? Because otherwise, you're calling me an idiot/someone incapable of sharing his experience. And that's not nice, is it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-body_experience
But it seems your interpretation (that OBE == religious experience) was actually what they meant and my interpretation was not, based on this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19588813
So, sorry for my misinterpretation.
Pushing them on this topic is mean because it's such a big deal to them, and it's counterproductive because you'll never be able to prove it to them. Even if you say something like "go through some sleep deprivation and see if you hallucinate" and then they do, you won't have proven that their previous experience was a hallucination. Instead, all you'll be doing is telling them that things they hold very deeply are all stupid, and never changing their mind. There is no positive effect from this, it's all just negative.
- Internet news / information, including this website has a worse effect on my life than anything else. I can't get anything done right now, but if I were on dope I would still be doing something productive simultaneously. My internet usage can get to the point of refreshing the same 10 webpages for an hour, etc. No acutely deadly potential, but it happens literally all day.
- Video games. More so when I was younger. You can imagine.
- "Working" -- Has led to loss of friends, relationships, health, personal growth and making money!! Just like sex, this is not about all work but about inappropriate patterns of work.
- Certain types of sex and romance, e.g. the type where one doesn't want to see the person again or ever be seen with them in public. Mostly just lost sleep and self-worth, but very often.
- Stimulants -- Sleeping, relaxing, and zoning out are really nice, much nicer than being on speed all the time. But they enable the "working addiction" to a much unhealthier degree than it could get by itself. My "I must bang out a project over consecutive 100-hour days until it's complete to my standards" is the equivalent of your "parties that turned into a week", kind of. Less bad than low quality sex because it's less frequent. Changes in my work habits could make it worse, though.
- Heroin et al -- Pooping, eating, sleeping, having sex are really nice. Being on dope all the time, or even a lot of the time, isn't nearly as nice. On the other hand it has been very attractive to me in times of romantic upheaval due to the no sex drive thing, but it's more "luxuriating in depression" and sex eventually regains its old place in the desire hierarchy.
- Other drugs -- Not really on the list. Sometimes I will use them but it is always kind of a chore.
Having some experience with "addiction to hard drugs" is nice because it provides a model system for the less clear-cut types of addiction. However, there seems to be an inflection point at which the pros of a balanced life no longer outweigh the cons of an addicted life and it can be tricky to learn how to navigate around that point. Most people I know who love drugs in moderation have always been doing pretty well for themselves in a material sense, anyway.
Finally, to fill out the list, here are a few other addictions that have totally wrecked the lives of people I know, but which pose no danger to "normal people".
- Gambling
- Exercising
- "Controlling" one's own diet and physical appearence
- Feeling anger
- Going fast in cars and motorcycles
The biggest problem I have with those promulgating experiences with these kinds of "high"/"low" drugs is that nobody can answer: "If it is every bit as awesome as you say it is, how does that improve my life?"
I know more than few people who say: "Yeah, cocaine really is that awesome. I can't even hope to stop myself, so I simply cannot be around it."
For those with a reason (like extreme physical pain), sure. But, to my mind, for normal people, there seems to be no upside to even trying a drug with that mechanism.
Do you think anything anyone had said to you might have prevented you trying it? I’d like to know the words that might stop kids even giving a try once.
If you lie to kids about what drugs are like, they’ll never believe anything you say about them.
The reality is that drugs a lot of fun and can improve your life in the short term. People wouldn’t use them if they didn’t. It’s not like you use meth and start looking for black helicopters out your window and you’re horribly dependent. You’re likely to have a great weekend listening to music with cool people and staying up all night talking and then you feel fine in the morning.
Drug dealers are not dangerous criminals and people that use drugs can be really fun to hang out with.
The thing is that gradually it gets less and less fun and most people just quit on their own. It’s only a small percentage that get hooked on any of these drugs (other than opiates) and most of them have extensive psychological and personal problems. Most people with happy childhoods and stable relationships don’t become junkies. Almost everybody I knew in the rave scene who became out of control addicts had histories of abuse and neglect from alcoholic or addict parents.
What it comes down to is this: don’t be an addict, model good behavior, love your kids, be honest with them, pay attention to them, don’t traumatize them with abuse, and it’s very unlikely they’re going to become addicts, even if they fall in with ‘the wrong crowd’.
It is concerning that these people have easy access to substances that cause further difficulties. I'd argue that these people are self medicating in a way that turns out to be a net negative.
I'm not entirely convinced I understand what should be done about any particular circumstance where someone(s) from an abusive background find themselves surrounded by meth users and then become a user themselves.
Just be honest about the risks of different drugs, rather than making a big deal out of drugs like cannabis or mdma that are not particularly harmful (and that there's a good chance they will know are not particularly harmful because all their friends are taking them).
Kids will listen to you because they respect your opinion, not because you say particular words. So make sure that your opinion is worthy of respect, and matches up with their experiences.
Down the line what helped me the most was advice from grown ups that I had a lot of respect for. It just felt different when someone was saying you have to stop and those people didn't necessarily have a way to know other than to look at you.
Your addictive broken personality is harming people who just like try thing.
and by reading up I mean get a basic understanding of neurochemistry, history of psychoactives and etheogens, how they devovled into vile substances like crack and meth and synth cannabinoids, bow thrice to Shulgin.
and then try.
at this point there would not be any unexpected detrimental effects.
I'm not sure even how this advice differs from a plain 'teach your kids to think' /
It's a bleak path to follow and unless a divine miracle happens to you, getting out is going to be very hard. In fact, many of my friends kept grinding it long after I had quit and changed up my life entirely.
For reference; I was addicted on a weekend-basis that sometimes turned into 3-4 day parties. This went on for 3 years at most maybe.