Drug habits

Which would you say comes first, the mental health issues then drug/alcohol abuse or visa versa?

As somebody who has lived with chronic depression and varying bouts of anxiety/paranoia for most of my life (I'm now mid-40's) but who has rarely been drunk and never touched drugs (cigarettes included) it would be good if you could explain your inexplicable link. As your statement stands it reads as if anyone with a substance abuse is mentally ill and anyone mentally ill is prone to substance abuse.
I'm sure that's not what you mean but it comes across as a bit of a generalisation.

For what it's worth, the reason I won't take mind-altering substances is because of my mental health issues i.e. I don't want that feeling of being out of control brought on artificially, I've a tenuous enough grasp of reality as it is!

Mental health is a very misunderstood subject and like the majority of conditions/illnesses it doesn't descriminate who it affects. Rich, poor, intelligent or not so intelligent it can attach itself to anybody with differing effects.

 

It isn't an argument, you just saying I've lost my mind. What are you arguing. I think it is harder to get them, you say that your experience tells you not. So I bowed to your superior experinience. What do you expect me to say, for heavens sake?

 

You don't need to be an expert to see the obvious, there was no control and old habits die hard. Once reliable mandatory testing is in those that still do will make one of two choices, give up or give in. otherwise they will get caught. It won't matter if the drugs are legal outside the industry.

 

The car analogy. I was explaining how a dangerous activity can be tolerated and regulated in order to make the overall outcome safer.

 

I think there is about £13bn in tax income from cigs.

 

Well, I didn't ignore it, I said it was stupid with no relevance - we need transport, we dont need heroin. Can you not read?

 

You completely brushed over it. How does it have no relevance? It's a valid example of how making something dangerous legal can be safer than it being illegal.

I'll use the same analogy with alcohol. During american prohibition, there were more speak-easys per km2 than there are bars today. Alcohol poisoning also doubled and led to a rise in a total disregard for the law. Plus gangsters came in and began to run the industry, just like what happens today with illegal drugs. It has been estimated that over 80% of mexican cartel profits come from drug sales, and over 50% of that being cannabis. That money is then used to kill people. That is not an effective drug control strategy.

 

As I said, personally I'll go with the expert in this case.

 

Bull. A first hand experience response from within my direct family, who laughed when I read it out.

 

Good question. But firstly let me correct myself. I meant inextricable not inexplicable. That's predictive text for you.

Secondly, I do believe there's a link between the two but mental health illnesses are wide ranging and therefore it would be a generalization unless I was to breakdown each and every illness and then try to support a link.

I would go as far to say that the majority of long term alcohol/drug users have experienced mental health issues to some degree but not all mental health sufferers have experienced drug/alcohol misuse. Does that make sense?

Best wishes in any recovery you have or are making.

 

It depends on the drugs but generally it's the mental health problems they can cause that is the problem itself, though related crime is a major factor too. Alcohol is different in that it has a major physical impact on the other organs, however alcoholics develop a tolerance which means they can still perform well mentally between bouts of depression and elation while serious drug addicts tend to be either up or down with no in between. There can also be permanent damage rendering the subject irrational and psychotic long before prolonged alcohol abuse can manage it.

Thought processes on a come-down can become a downward spiral and unchecked they will inevitably lead to a mental breakdown. This happened to my brother well before he got onto the hard stuff, and yes his high intelligence was contributory and they do say it's a fine line. I am no expert but because of Malcolm I had many a conversation with several of them then and since.

 

You car analogy is, as I said, totally stupid. You may find that if there were no cars at all, then the roads would be even safer! It is totally irrelevant as we need methods of transport and so we have to do the best we can and make rules to make transport safer. But we dont need Heroin, Cocaine or cannabis, to make this country run. So why legalise something that we know only harms and does no good, with the very odd exception.

So we come to your second analogy, which at least IS relevant. What they did in the States was ban alcohol after 100's of years of using it as a means of entertainment, etc. Something was there, in the culture, for everybody, then suddenly taken away. That is completely different from just keeping the current illegal drugs, illegal. Most of us havn't got into a drug taking culture and most of us dont want to be part of it. Hard drugs are far more addictive than alcohol, although I know there are many degrees of this, but they are more potentially dangerous. There are many middle aged and elderly people who have been drinking all our lives, with no particular problem. Can you say that would be the case if we had been taking those drugs that are illegal, for our whole lives?

By the way Norway, which used to ban alcohol in public places, except in a very few bars. In Oslo, when I was there is the 70's there were about 3 bars. They had a massive alcoholic problem as everyone drunk at home instead, away from the limiting affect of "public image" that they would portrayi in public. That is what you are suggesting for drugs?

 

Maybe that's a blinkered view on my part, but I am fully confident that this would correctly reflect the breakdown of responses in the TV area.

Why are you and your family member not working anyway?? Bloody low lifes.

 

I made a 5hit load of money working on engineering projects around the world and am now semi retired. I do some consultancy every few months which keeps me from boredom. I have a great life thanks.

 

Thank you for your best wishes.

I agree with your second point - it having to be a generalisation due to time and space on a forum - and that's what touched a nerve with regards to mental health.
I personally don't like M/H being overly generalised because it's easy to tar people with a problem as an all encompassing mental illness.
It isn't that simple and that's my rallying point I guess. No argument, just raising a flag so to speak.

Not sure I agree totally with the bit in bold but, again, it's an opinion on mental health I don't hold with and as this thread is about drugs (& alcohol) it's probably best left to another time.

In reply to Godfather; fair enough, that makes a lot of sense and I could only really offer an opinion on the mental health aspects but as I said above, this isn't really the thread to do so.

 

Why do you feel it necessary to comment upon the personal life of the person in order to justify your own argument?

 

I think your situation is relevant to the debate in as much as you are keen to stay away from all drugs - showing real strength of character. The problem with legalising all drugs is that there are many people, that are not as strong as you, who will feel that they can tackle their own depression or anxiety symptoms through the use of unprescribed drugs, including the ones that may be made legal, if the likes of Hectic gets his way. We already see this with alcohol and leglised drugs will just provide more options. Anyway, best wishes!

 

Insofar that you riled me by stating my views are bull, I apologise for confusing you with another forum member.

I was called a low life and thought it was you, was looking for a bit of retribution.

 

Would not surprise me at today's prices ... my first packet cost two and six (12½p).

I'd say the government owes me big time!

 

What's the source for that please? I'd be interested to read it.

 

My apologies, I try not to ever personally insult and if I went too far I take it back

 

Good discussion so far. I understand it might be a sensitive topic and people are entitled to their opinions so please refrain from insults and name calling.

cheers.
:cool1::drinking:

 

zz ask yourself the question. Do you think the legality of a substance is going to affect people's decision to use it? I am of the opinion that in the vast majority of cases that answer is no, and if we want to adequately protect people from the harm of substance abuse, then regulation is the best answer.

It has been said in this thread about how the new regulations on public smoking/tax increases have massively reduced the number of people who smoke cigarettes. That is a real victory, and could be replicated through regulation of the drugs market.

I don't want criminals capitalising on a market worth billions, when they have no concern for what happens to the end user.

Heroin is naturally white, it is only brown because of the extra things put in it. Addicts are primary concerns with regards to HIV/AIDS due to needle sharing. The average purity of cocaine seized on Britain's streets is less than 20%. You are just as likely to buy an ecstasy pill off a dealer as you are a counterfeit that contains dangerous mixtures of amphetamines and chemical stabilizers. The largest cash crop in the world is cannabis, and all the money is going to organised crime.

The earliest writings in the world are about being intoxicated, and it is a part of our nature that we desire intoxication. We have to recognise that people are going to use drugs no matter what, and how to minimise the risks not just for the user, but for society at large.

 

All of that and there's also a question of choice.
BUT people need the dangers clearly spelled out to them BEFORE making such choices and that includes how it will affect their future. I don't just mean a chat with the teacher, especially as half of them seem to be spliffheads themselves (in my day anyway).

 

my argument against taking drugs - why would you put something into your body which was mixed and prepared by a criminal? Even if cocaine, heroin or ecstasy in their pure form were harmless, the drugs you buy are a mishmash of who knows what. The people who are in the industry are ruthless and care not a jot for the welfare of their customers.

To buy their stuff and put it into your body is stupid in my opinion.

 

I refuse to use hard drugs, partly because of this, but mainly because they ruin you.

I have only ever bought soft drugs when I've know the person who's grown them. To buy off a stranger and then ingest it is, as you say, pure idiocy.

 

Agreed ... A single diclofenac almost killed me and now I'm not even allowed an aspirin. No chance I'd touch any illegals.

 

If you were serious about embarking into politics then you've probably just blown it .... ZZ will grass you up (no pun intended)

 

Personally, yes I believe that many people are put off by it being illegal. Of course, once taken that step into hard drugs, then the legality becomes less of any issue for many. Despite what many loud voices say and think, the vast majority of this population, I believe, accept that if the authorities say something is dangerous and there are Laws to prevent it, then the majority will comply. But not always of course. When the MMR situation came to light, with the backing of that stupid cow on GMTV, Fiona Philips, many people disbelieved the government experts and didn't give their kids the MMR jab and are suffering the consequences, but in general expert medical opinion is accepted and Laws back that up.

But, if you are so sure that Laws do not stop people taking the hard drugs, then why change the Law? Being able to get your hands on "purer drugs" doesn't help me understand your argument, as it is the stronger "purer" booze that causes most problems now, so why would stronger drugs solve the problem. Yes, there will be less accidents due to the crap in the drugs, but more overdoses, surely, becasue of it's strength? Anyway, regulation hasn't stopped dangerous conterfeit booze being sold, or conterfeit cigs, why should they stop dodgy drugs being sold? New drugs are being brought to the market all gthe time. How can new drugs be regulated, before they even become obvious to the authorities?

But with the knowledge of chemicals, the internet, etc, the combinations that can be easily manufactured now, how on earth is the authorities going to regulate them all? Deciding limits on each? Etc, Etc. It takes them about 10 years to pass a cancer drug for people that are dying without it, how are they going to regulate new drugs that can be given to people who are perfectly healthy? If they get it wrong, will they be sued?

Yes, we may all want the occasional 'high" but Laws are there, on this occasion to help us.

 

I couldn't care less what drugs he takes. Just so long as he doesn't do anything to encourage others to do the same, push them, or land us with a big tax bill to look after him for years!

 

It seems to be working in Holland, don't you think they might tell us?

 

But he wants it legalised, so this wouldn't apply!

 

Holland have started to toughen up the Laws with regard to Cannabis and they also have very strict hard drug laws.

 

I should imagine some offences might stand, uncontrolled production being the major one.

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting a free for all. Besides once you have driven out the dealers and cut the supply lines it makes it much easier to tighten up later. (and easier to ween the kids off the super strength mon9 weed).

Ciggies and booze is taxed to hell but you couldn't do the same for the drugs or it will still be worthwhile for the dealers. Similarly there would need to be an amnesty so that addicts are not scared to use official sources ... but that's very difficult under today's policing practices I guess.