# Right wing pill popper...........



## gr81 (Oct 12, 2003)

I am just droppin this thread to gloat over that right wing, hipocritical, double standard having, lying ass Rush Limbaugh who has admitted to having a pain pill problem after the National Inquirer released the story a few weeks ago. This bastard has prtrayed the holier than thou attitude for decades and I remember certain instances, like when Jerry Garcia and Kurt Cobain died and he questioned their contributions, saying they were just worthless junkies! He often commented on "the drugged out hippies" that wer poisining this nation, and it turns out that bastard pops OC and Hydrocodone by the thousands. HA ha ha you bitch. Maybe now people will realize that you aren't as high as you have lead on. The thing is probably no one would care if he was just honest with people about what type of person he was. F'n Hipocrit! I'm out


----------



## firestorm (Oct 12, 2003)

Yeaaaa, take that Rush!!!!


----------



## TheGreatSatan (Oct 13, 2003)

Shut up!!

Rush is addicted to prescription meds.  They're far different from weed or coke or the other crap those junkies are on.  He was in pain and got hooked on what made him feel better.  Besides, did you see how much thinner he is?  A bodybuilding forum should at least respect that fact.





P.S. Fuck the liberals.


----------



## BUSTINOUT (Oct 13, 2003)

Don't forget to mention the Kennedy's. Biggest slimebags of all time. They don't admit to anything, they just pay to have it burried.


----------



## TheGreatSatan (Oct 13, 2003)

i.e. Ted Kennedy.  Didn't he kill some chick?


----------



## gr81 (Oct 13, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by TheGreatSatan *_
> Shut up!!
> 
> Rush is addicted to prescription meds.  They're far different from weed or coke or the other crap those junkies are on.  He was in pain and got hooked on what made him feel better.  Besides, did you see how much thinner he is?  A bodybuilding forum should at least respect that fact.
> ...




Hey man, I am not against him poppin pain pills, that would be hipocritical of me. Personally I see why he likes the OC, I like them alot too, it is the fact that he lied about it and made himself out to be this great high and mighty person. Have you heard some of teh comments he has made about "the hippe junkies of this country". he has bad mouthed drug users since day one, casting a very judgemental view upon them, only it turns out that he is one of them! I will be the last person to judge someone using drugs, just be honest sbout who you are and dont' bash others like he has, that makes him a bitch ass mo fo in my book!


----------



## LazyByNature (Oct 13, 2003)

The question is whether or not he got the pills illegally.   If his doctor wrote the perscription for every pill he took, then there is no problem.   There aren't many cartells in South America smuggling OC into the country and selling it on the street.  Of course if he mugged/robbed/killed people to get the money for those pills then there's a problem.

Personally, I think that drugs should be legal, sold in government stores, and taxed out the a-hole.   Probably still be cheaper than on the black market, we could get some tax money off of them, and most of the crime associated with drugs would disappear.  Now I wouldn't (and don't) take drugs.  Hell, I don't even drink alcohol anymore, but the coffee is hard to give up.


----------



## ZECH (Oct 13, 2003)

He never lied about it that I know of. He has even checked himself into rehab twice before. That sounds like admittance to me. And he did get hooked on pain killers due to having spinal surgery. Quite different than recreational drugs.


----------



## Mudge (Oct 13, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by TheGreatSatan *_
> They're far different from weed or coke or the other crap those junkies are on.



I agree that there is a difference, he wasn't a recreational user that got hooked. Sometimes though those that point the finger are guilty of the same crime they critisize, we all know that, "he who smelt it dealt it" and so on.


----------



## Flex (Oct 13, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by TheGreatSatan *_
> Shut up!!
> 
> Rush is addicted to prescription meds.  They're far different from weed or coke or the other crap those junkies are on.  He was in pain and got hooked on what made him feel better.  Besides, did you see how much thinner he is?  A bodybuilding forum should at least respect that fact.
> ...




Actually, They are not different than other drugs these "junkies" are on.  Yes, he originally took them for pain relief of spinal injuries, cuz they made him "feel better".  But he didnt need to take them by the boatload like he did. that's bullshit if you believe that.   You're only justifying his excuse, but saying they're "far different from other crap junkies get hooked on".  Actually, they're not that different.  He took, he abused!  Just because they're prescription meds and legal by U.S. standards then they're ok to get addicted to? 

 So is a perfectly successful man with a good job, a good wife, and kids who becomes an alcoholic, is he a junky? Alcohol is legal, Shit, you can buy alcohol anywhere! What about cigarettes? People CHOOSE to smoke those, even though they're killing themselves, and those are LEGAL to.  No, its not ok to become addicted, just like to the prescr. meds.  

Great satan you're a black pot calling the kettle black, or as me and buddies like to say "you're a midget callin' a dwarf short"


----------



## gr81 (Oct 13, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by LazyByNature *_
> The question is whether or not he got the pills illegally.   If his doctor wrote the perscription for every pill he took, then there is no problem.   There aren't many cartells in South America smuggling OC into the country and selling it on the street.





Good post Flex! LBN, you must be joking right, you obviously don't have your ear to the streets man. One of my best friends clocks that shit by the boatload. OC is EVERYWHERE and teh shit sells like hotcakes. I could get you a box of the liquid OC by the box and pills by the thousands just like that, easy as fuck! There is a huge demand on teh black market for pain pills, especially the OC. OC is everybit as much a drug as anything else, if you are an addict, you are an addict. I know guys that have to take160mgs a day atleast, does that not make them an addict b/c it isn't coke or weed? fuck no. There is NO difference from pain pils than any other drug, believe that. If you have an addictive personality trhen your addiction can manifest through anything, pain pills just as much as anything else. I have been on the frontlines and I have seen some bad shit happen with pain pills. It is stupid to think that it is less of a problem b/c they are prescription or something like that.


----------



## ZECH (Oct 13, 2003)

No one is saying that it is not as much of a drug as another. But the way they became dependant on it to me is the difference. On rec drugs, it is a choice you make to take them. On pain killers, it is out of necessity.


----------



## gr81 (Oct 13, 2003)

not necessarily, I know plenty of guys that just started taking OC because it is an opied(sp) and you get high off the shit. besides does tha make it better how the person became addicted? the fatc of teh matter is it is an addiction and it needs to be dealed with. It makes no difference how they became addicted. An addict's drug of chioce can be anything, if a person is an addict then it could've been the pain pills he was prescribed but if not those, then it would've been something else along the line. How is just semantics.


----------



## gr81 (Oct 13, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> No one is saying that it is not as much of a drug as another. But the way they became dependant on it to me is the difference. On rec drugs, it is a choice you make to take them. On pain killers, it is out of necessity.




^^


> _*Originally posted by TheGreatSatan *_
> They're far different from weed or coke or the other crap those junkies are on.


----------



## ZECH (Oct 13, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by gr81 *_
> not necessarily, I know plenty of guys that just started taking OC because it is an opied(sp) and you get high off the shit. besides does tha make it better how the person became addicted? the fatc of teh matter is it is an addiction and it needs to be dealed with. It makes no difference how they became addicted. An addict's drug of chioce can be anything, if a person is an addict then it could've been the pain pills he was prescribed but if not those, then it would've been something else along the line. How is just semantics.


If they take them for no reason, that is different. And it is true they are very addictive. I know a lady that is hooked on pain killers. She sleeps all day because she can not get up. She thinks it is from the pain in her back when really it is the drugs. Sad. But saying if it was not pain killers it would be something else, is very inaccurate.


----------



## gr81 (Oct 13, 2003)

not it isn't innaccurate at all. I have done extensive research over the years on addiction, I know what I am talkin about. Pain pills are not physically addictive the way that cigarettes are. the reason peole become an addict is b/c it is genetic, whether you act out that addiction depends on some things but you either are or you are not an addict. Do you think that gambling is really addictive, no people who are addicts focus their addiction on that, or whatever else they focus on. Often times when an addict quits, lets say drinkin b/c he was having a problem, and he seeked no treatment for it, his addiction would move to something else, even though alcohol was his original addiction I guarantee it. trust me, that is the way addiction works.


----------



## ZECH (Oct 13, 2003)

You're full of shit! I could be an alcoholic if I wanted to be. It's that I CHOOSE not to be! That genetic BS is an excuse for people!!


----------



## gr81 (Oct 13, 2003)

alright man, I just made it up to impress you. addiction is really not genetic, its a choice. you are an idiot if that is wehat you thikn. how about some facts to back up your claims. I have been in recovery before, I have studied the subject intensily for years, I have spoke with proffessionals, I have listened to addiction madicine specialists, I think I know what I am talkin about. I am not even going to argue b/c it is pointless to argue with someone who knows nothing on the subject.  that is the stupidest thing you could say, genetics is an excuse. I tell you what man, why don't you go and do some research before you say things ike that, in fact if you can find some valid info to back yourself up and disprove my info, I will mail you 100 dollars just like that, I dare you to prove me wrong, I dare you DG. You are wrong. you go ahead and say that shit to any addiction specialist and they will laugh in your face.


----------



## Flex (Oct 13, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> You're full of shit! I could be an alcoholic if I wanted to be. It's that I CHOOSE not to be! That genetic BS is an excuse for people!!



gr81 is def right in this case dg. why do you think people say to be "wary" of drinking  if there is alcohol problems in your family? My grandfather was an alcholic, not to the extreme, but you know what i mean. my father drinks alot, i think he's borderline. in h.s. and my first few years of college, i partied like an  animal. now, i choose to not drink that much because i dont want to be like that. 

I see where you're coming from though. I, just like you, believe in the beginning it is someones choice to start drinking or smoking cigarettes or whatever your vice is.  But once it has a hold on you, man you just can't stop. its not that you don't want to, of course an alcholic doesnt want to be addicted to alcohol, or a crackhead to crack, but its not thier choice.  My buddy's good friend got addicted to coke, at first it was recreational. then it got worse, he lost his job, his family and ended up killing himself.  

If shit were that easy, there wouldnt be people addicted to painkililers, or crack, or heroin, one day they'd just say, shit, i dont wanna do this anymore. but its not like that man.


----------



## ZECH (Oct 13, 2003)

Oh I guess it's the same as saying gay people are gay because of their genetics. Give me a damn brake! You are only, what 22 years old? You don't know crap yet. You haven't even began to live or learn. You only know what other people have told you!

And Flex "alcholic, not to the extreme" what is that?? Either you are or your not!! 

Hell I had already grown up when you two were born. I have seen much more than you two. I see it everday as a police officer. I work in a drug swat unit. I know what drugs do and I know the addiction properties of drugs.


----------



## Flex (Oct 13, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> Oh I guess it's the same as saying gay people are gay because of their genetics. Give me a damn brake! You are only, what 22 years old? You don't know crap yet. You haven't even began to live or learn. You only know what other people have told you!
> 
> And Flex "alcholic, not to the extreme" what is that?? Either you are or your not!!
> ...



Oh, cuz you're a cop, you MUST know everything. And to say because you're older you know more, au contraire mon frere.  Thats the most b.s. statement i've ever heard.  

Like everything, there are different degrees dg. By "not to the extreme", i meant he didnt wake up every morning and crack a beer or slug vodka. but he did abuse it. Cuz someone doesnt spend every waking second drinking they can't be an alcoholic?

you are honestly going to say that addiction is not physical just as much as mental? why do recovering heroin addicts who go cold turkey have a week or so of absolute "hell"? is that because its all mental, like you suggest? 

Bottom line man, if it were mental, like you say, there would be no addiction problems in the world. Addictive gamblers would stop BEFORE they lost their life savings. Alcoholics would stop BEFORE they lost their family and job. Heroin addicts would stop BEFORE they overdosed and died.

I don't get it either man, but bottom line you gotta realize they do not choose to be addicted.


----------



## Tboy (Oct 13, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> You are only, what 22 years old? You don't know crap yet.



Now wait a dang minute here!  When I was 22 I knew everything. But now it seems that I have forgotten most of it  

That being said:

I do believe what Rush did was wrong.  No way around it.  But I do see him as being different than the common drug user.


----------



## ZECH (Oct 13, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Tboy *_
> Now wait a dang minute here!  When I was 22 I knew everything.


So did I. Now I realize I didn't know jack!


----------



## Flex (Oct 13, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Tboy *_
> Now wait a dang minute here!  When I was 22 I knew everything. But now it seems that I have forgotten most of it
> 
> That being said:
> ...



what gr was saying though man was that he used to be so critical of all the "druggies" back in teh day, now he realizes he aint so perfect after all.

i think its a question of how people take everything for granted and just judge based on b.s.

in other words, Rush judged people cuz he didnt know what they went through. he thought they were just fuckup druggies you know? 

you think Magic Johnson gave a fuck about HIV before he got it? Or Michael Jordan worried about gambling before he started? 

People are quick to criticize, adn only realize what people go through once it happens to them.....


----------



## ZECH (Oct 13, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Flex *_
> Oh, cuz you're a cop, you MUST know everything. And to say because you're older you know more


Certainly not, but I think my training has learned me a ton! And yes age does play a factor in life. I think anyone close to my age will tell you that!


----------



## Flex (Oct 13, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> Certainly not, but I think my training has learned me a ton! And yes age does play a factor in life. I think anyone close to my age will tell you that!



has learned you a lot?...taught....(just breaking your balls)

well, maybe age does mean the opportunity to learn more, but you can't say you know more, that's a b.s. statement.


----------



## gr81 (Oct 13, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> Oh I guess it's the same as saying gay people are gay because of their genetics. Give me a damn brake! You are only, what 22 years old? You don't know crap yet. You haven't even began to live or learn. You only know what other people have told you!
> 
> And Flex "alcholic, not to the extreme" what is that?? Either you are or your not!!
> ...




Hey Flex, its all good, this argument is done b/c DG proved his intelligence level with statements like this one here. that is the most flawed argument I have seen yet, you have NO FACTS to back you up and continue to argue with people who have studied addiction. Being Gay has nothing to do with being an addict, flawed argument, and being older has NO direct correlation to knowing more about a subject, researching the subject does. As a matter of fact DG alcoholism does have different stages, therefore the statement "you are or your not" is not an accurate statement. You know nothing about addiction and once again I challebge you to post some valid facts backing your claims, if you can't do that then shut your mouth and maybe you will save yourself some embarrassment. you got nothing to contribute to this convo but a biased, uninformed opinion. prove me wrong


----------



## gr81 (Oct 13, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> Certainly not, but I think my training has learned me a ton! And yes age does play a factor in life. I think anyone close to my age will tell you that!




old age means nothing, its what you have done in that time, and you acting like your opinion is more important b/c you are older shows your ignorance and lack of logic! Training has nothing to do with the topic at hand either.


----------



## Mudge (Oct 13, 2003)

For the most part I agree that age is nothing but a number, but statistically speaking age is the gauranteed way to get life experience.


----------



## ZECH (Oct 13, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by gr81 *_
> Hey Flex, its all good, this argument is done b/c DG proved his intelligence level with statements like this one here. that is the most flawed argument I have seen yet, you have NO FACTS to back you up and continue to argue with people who have studied addiction. Being Gay has nothing to do with being an addict, flawed argument, and being older has NO direct correlation to knowing more about a subject, researching the subject does. As a matter of fact DG alcoholism does have different stages, therefore the statement "you are or your not" is not an accurate statement. You know nothing about addiction and once again I challebge you to post some valid facts backing your claims, if you can't do that then shut your mouth and maybe you will save yourself some embarrassment. you got nothing to contribute to this convo but a biased, uninformed opinion. prove me wrong


What do you want me to prove? Pull up something oon paper that means nothing? And you say my statements are flawed. I see nothing where you prove that yours is correct. All I see is your liberal ideas showing through. And I'm biased? Just because I disagree with you?  I am not embarrassed to tell my opinions and thoughts. If you disagree, so be it. So, tell me one thing. When I bust a crack addict how does he make it in jail without it? Cause he had to. Just because you can't, your looking for an excuse and say it's genetic? You're a pitiful excuse for a human being!


----------



## gr81 (Oct 13, 2003)

whatever man, you know shit about addiction and for you to say that you do is foolish. I want you to prove what you claim. And yes you are biased, we all are. Everyones opinion is subjective, you can't argue that. So how can you say that addiction isn't genetic? It IS and there are facts upon facts out there to prove it. You on the other hand, have no proof. Me being liberal has NOTHING do do with the fact that there is an addiction gene. So far you have brought up in the argument teh fact that I am liberal, thet fact that you are a cop and you know more b/c you are older, and that you have trained for a while. None of those have any correlation to your argument, NONE. I say you have to prove something b/c you are the one making unsubstantiated claims, You have no idea what kind of person I am so for you to say that I am a pitiful excuse for a human means nothing. You just don't like what I am saying and you resort to shit like that. You are a mental midget and you have proved it with this thread.


----------



## ZECH (Oct 13, 2003)

Hey, I just speak the truth!


----------



## ZECH (Oct 13, 2003)

I guess your total lack of respect for women you have displayed on here is genetic too, huh?


----------



## gr81 (Oct 13, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> Hey, I just speak the truth!




prove it. tha fact is you can't prove shit, you have no valid info to back up your claims do you??


----------



## gr81 (Oct 13, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> I guess your total lack of respect for women you have displayed on here is genetic too, huh?




Yeah and this right here really shows that maturity that you talked about earlier right. You have no idea how I treat women do you, and this has nothing to do with the topic at hand, it is just a feable attempt to insult me, eral mature DG.


----------



## gr81 (Oct 13, 2003)

by the way DG, since you know it all, I am sure that you know this. Based on present understanding of addiction, the very definition of disease assumes a presence of some genetic predisposition. The disease of addiction is defined as a genetic/biological disorder in which there is progressive use or preoccupation with a substance in the face of at-risk consequences.


----------



## gr81 (Oct 13, 2003)

Hey DG, this is directly fro the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse's web page:

Q #3:   Is alcoholism inherited?
Research shows that the risk for developing alcoholism does indeed run in families. The genes a person inherits partially explain this pattern, but lifestyle is also a factor. Currently, researchers are working to discover the actual genes that put people at risk for alcoholism. Your friends, the amount of stress in your life, and how readily available alcohol is also are factors that may increase your risk for alcoholism


----------



## Flex (Oct 13, 2003)

Gr, don't waste your time bro. some people are too close minded to consider anything except their own opinions, as evident all over this forum. 

Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion, you can't change that, that's one of the great freedom's of the U.S.A.. 

But they don't realize that opinion is different than fact you know? Since they don't understand the difference, they don't understand the difference between argueing FACT (for example: Water is composed of 2 atoms of hydrogen and 1 oxygen atom) and OPINION (i think the Red Sox are the best team in baseball).  There is a difference people!

opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.....


----------



## gr81 (Oct 13, 2003)

Here are a few more exerts, mind you, from this gov. accredited AMA based agency, the NIAAA addressing your remarks DG:

Alcoholism is one of the most common and costly health problems in the United States. Substantial evidence from family, twin, and adoption studies suggests that genetic factors play a role both in normal patterns of alcohol use and in alcohol use disorders (i.e., alcohol abuse and dependence). It is estimated that approximately 50 to 60 percent of the variance in alcohol dependence can be attributed to genetic factors (McGue 1999). Researchers are currently attempting to identify the specific genes involved in patterns of alcohol use and alcohol dependence. These efforts are complicated by the complex nature of alcoholism and its development. Thus, although studies have convincingly demonstrated that genes play a role in the development of alcoholism, the same studies have also provided strong evidence for the importance of environmental factors. The genetic and environmental factors likely interact to result in disease development (for a more detailed discussion of those interactions, see the article in this issue by Heath and Nelson, pp. 193???201).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GENETIC INFLUENCES ON ALCOHOLISM RISK: A REVIEW OF ADOPTION AND TWIN STUDIES 

Adoption and twin studies have long been used to study the relative importance of genetic and environmental influences on the development of alcoholism. Dr. Andrew C. Heath recently completed a reanalysis of this large body of literature. His research confirms the existence of a significant genetic influence on alcoholism. Moreover, these genetic factors have remained remarkably consistent over time, whether the comparison is of U.S. male twins born in the 1920's or U.S. adoptees born in the 1940's, 1950's, and 1960's; or whether the study is of Swedish female adoptees born from 1930 to 1949 or Swedish female twins born as late as 1967. Dr. Heath summarizes the findings from his reanalysis of twin and adoption data and discusses the possible limitations of these studies. (pp. 166-171) 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

ALCOHOL'S EFFECTS ON GENE EXPRESSION 

Not only does a person's genetic makeup help determine his or her response to alcohol consumption, alcohol, in turn, can alter the expression of certain genes. Scientists have developed several methods to isolate and identify such alcohol-regulated genes. Dr. Michael F. Miles examines a few of these techniques and the genes scientists have helped to identify. These genes, which are involved in a variety of physiological functions, such as cellular communication, could play a pivotal role in the brain's adaptation to alcohol. Further study will enable scientists to better understand the mechanisms through which alcohol might modify the expression of these genes. (pp. 237-243)
--------------------------------------------------------------
GENE VARIABILITY AND VULNERABILITY TO ALCOHOLISM

Variability within genes may explain why so many differences in alcoholism exist between individuals and among populations. Researchers studying this phenomenon have focused on genes that may affect both the way the body metabolizes alcohol and the way the brain responds to alcohol, thereby increasing or decreasing the likelihood of addiction. Mr. John J. Doria reports on how gene variants may ultimately be used as markers of alcoholism vulnerability and as guides to help match patients to the most appropriate alcoholism therapies.


----------



## gr81 (Oct 13, 2003)

So DG, with the amount of info I just dropped on you are you man enough do admit you were wrong?? or do you want me to post even more shit??


----------



## Flex (Oct 13, 2003)

gr, their are 2 types of people who don't understand the diff. b/w fact and opinion.

1. they are too dumb to realize the difference

2. they are too proud too admit their wrong


----------



## ZECH (Oct 14, 2003)

http://www.webspawner.com/users/twobittstim/index.html


----------



## LazyByNature (Oct 14, 2003)

Everybody needs to calm down a little bit.  Gr, your articles above have a lot of words like "may", "suggest", "could", "play a role", etc...   It rehashes the old arguement of nature vs. nurture.   Kids growing up seeing their parents abusing drugs & alcohol usually see it as normal and accepted, just like in their family.   How often do you see a fat kids waddle over to skinny parents?  Almost never.   People have different for everything, being fat, thin, strong, weak, addicted, etc...  The final choice is up to the person.  That difficulty making the "good" choice is be different for different people.

Back to the orginal topic, like I said before if Rush got every pill through a legal perscription that his doctor wrote then there is no problem.   If he bought the pills illegally then there's a problem.


----------



## gr81 (Oct 14, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> http://www.webspawner.com/users/twobittstim/index.html




Too bad that is not even an accredited source DG, they have no scientific back up, no resources or anything to prove that isn't opinion. My sources were gov accredited agencies, as well as being accepted by the AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION as the top company for alcohol addiction. Yours were just some idiots opinion, show me valid factual information instead of specualtion, then we can talk. You have nothing, can't you just be a man and admit you were speaking on something which you don't know about?




> _*Originally posted by LazyByNature *_
> Everybody needs to calm down a little bit.  Gr, your articles above have a lot of words like "may", "suggest", "could", "play a role", etc...   It rehashes the old arguement of nature vs. nurture.



I never said it was 100% genetic, of course there are environmental factors that play into everything. It is a complicated issue with tons of info out there. I never said it was black and white, unlike DG. I am just posting info relevant to my point. There is always a mix of  nature/nurture into something like this.


----------



## Flex (Oct 14, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by LazyByNature *_
> Everybody needs to calm down a little bit.  Gr, your articles above have a lot of words like "may", "suggest", "could", "play a role", etc...   It rehashes the old arguement of nature vs. nurture.   Kids growing up seeing their parents abusing drugs & alcohol usually see it as normal and accepted, just like in their family.   How often do you see a fat kids waddle over to skinny parents?  Almost never.   People have different for everything, being fat, thin, strong, weak, addicted, etc...  The final choice is up to the person.  That difficulty making the "good" choice is be different for different people.
> 
> Back to the orginal topic, like I said before if Rush got every pill through a legal perscription that his doctor wrote then there is no problem.   If he bought the pills illegally then there's a problem.




Are you trying to be serious here dude? If he got every pill through a legal prescription than there is no problem? That's bullshit! Once you take a few for pain, the pain goes away, period.  You can't try to justify his addiction b/c its doctor prescribed.  Thats the biggest bunch of b.s. i've ever heard. Just like you said man, "the final choice is up to the person". After the bastard ate a few, he decided, shit, these things are great. Then he abused them.

And what a fuckin hypocrite like gr was talking about.  I read in teh paper today shit he said back in teh day that "addicts choose to be drug popping junkies. They should all be locked up in jail". That came out of his own mouth! Fuckin hypocrit! I don't see you suggesting to lock yourself up now do you (meaning Rush not you lazybynature)! Walk in someone else's shoes before you decide you can judge them you f**kin hypocrit.


----------



## gr81 (Oct 14, 2003)

*Hey DG, read this...*

the NIDA stands for *the National INstitute on Drug Abuse*, this is what a valid source looks like, not some 2 bit website with no accredibility. You probably won't read this but it is just another great article backing up MY claims.

By Dr. Alan I. Leshner, NIDA Director


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I talk with people - health professionals, legislators and policymakers, and the general public - I am struck by what we have come to call the "great disconnect," the large gap between the public's perception of drug abuse and addiction and the scientific facts. I believe that if we are to make real progress against this public health problem, we must bridge this great disconnect.

NIDA's goal is to increase the public's understanding of drug abuse and addiction. We need to take every opportunity to make the public aware of the research we have gathered over more than 25 years, which provides unequivocal evidence that drug addiction is a chronic, relapsing, and treatable illness. I am constantly amazed that despite this phenomenal scientific base, the public's views of drug abuse and addiction are often based on myths and long-held mistaken beliefs. Our challenge then is to find ways to use scientific evidence to clear up these widely held misconceptions. 

Through the years, many people have come to view drug abuse and addiction as strictly a social problem. They tend to characterize people who take drugs as morally weak or as having criminal tendencies. They believe that drug abusers and addicts should be able to stop taking drugs but are unwilling to change their behavior. These myths have fueled the great stigma that drug abuse and addiction have historically carried. This stigma affects not only those afflicted with drug-related problems, but their families, their communities, and the health care professionals who work with them.
Unfortunately, the repercussions from this type of thinking go further. Even though drug use is a widespread problem and is increasing among our youth, people question the need for treatment. Instead, the public would prefer to see tax dollars being used to build new jails rather than funding more drug abuse research, prevention, and treatment. But we in the health community know that incarceration without treatment and followup only continues the cycle of despair and does nothing to help the drug abuser return to a healthy, productive life.
Addiction does begin with drug abuse, when an individual makes a conscious choice to use drugs. And this is a preventable behavior. Results from NIDA-funded prevention research have shown that comprehensive prevention programs that involve the family, schools, communities, and the media are effective in reducing drug abuse. NIDA has launched a number of multifaceted public information programs to talk about drug abuse and how to prevent it. For example, NIDA is taking the lead role in the Department of Health and Human Services' Marijuana Use Prevention Initiative, providing scientifically based messages about the dangers of marijuana use to the public and, especially, the Nation's school systems. We need to keep sending the message that it is better not to start at all than to have to pick up the pieces of a shattered life if addiction occurs.
Unfortunately, some individuals will not heed this warning and will choose to abuse drugs. And, at some point, fundamental changes occur in the brains of drug abusers that turn drug abuse into addiction, a disease state that, at present, has no cure. Addiction is not simply a lot of drug use; it is a disease of the brain that is expressed through behavior and influenced by the social context in which it was developed.
How do we know that addiction changes the brain? Technological advances have allowed us to see images of the living human brain. With these scanning tools, we can look at how the brain functions under normal conditions and compare it with what happens to the brain during and after the time drugs are used.
Recent scientific research provides overwhelming evidence that not only do drugs interfere with normal brain functioning, creating powerful feelings of pleasure, but they also have long-term effects on brain metabolism and activity as well. What happens is that at some point, drugs change the way the abuser's brain is functioning. When that point is reached, it's as if a switch is thrown in the brain, thereby resulting in addiction. This modified brain may help explain why many addicts say they are unable to control their desire or craving for drugs.
One might ask where voluntary drug-taking behavior ends and the compulsive disease of addiction begins. And can't addicts talk themselves out of this craving?
The answer is "no." By definition, an addict suffers from compulsive, uncontrollable drug craving and use. Treatment is necessary and effective.
Treatment uses a variety of approaches to help patients deal with these cravings and possibly avoid relapse to drug use. NIDA research shows clearly that addiction is treatable. Through treatment that is tailored to individual needs, patients can learn to control their condition and live relatively normal lives. 
Treatment can have a profound effect not only on drug abusers, but on society as a whole by significantly improving social and psychological functioning, decreasing related criminality and violence, and reducing the spread of AIDS. It also dramatically reduces the costs to society of drug abuse. A comprehensive report by the Public Health Service found that the costs of drug abuse treatment were less than half those for incarceration. 
Drug abuse and addiction comprise a public health problem that affects many people and has wide-ranging social consequences. Understanding drug abuse and addiction from a public health and disease perspective allows people to think about them in a new light. Like so many other chronic diseases such as diabetes and asthma, drug addiction cannot be cured yet, but it can be managed with a good deal of success. 
Drug abuse and addiction are complex and have no easy solutions. Therefore, we have begun to form partnerships with others with a common interest in drug abuse to get the scientific message out. Early this year, NIDA staff met for the second time with representatives from more than 40 organizations in the scientific, practice, and advocacy communities that share our goal of changing the public's views of drug abuse and addiction. We continue to work together to craft the clearest messages and to develop the most effective vehicles to educate the American people about the disease of addiction. (See "Constituent Groups Join Forces With NIDA to Bridge the 'Great Disconnect'). But this is just the start.
We also have begun to hold meetings around the country with local coalitions, health professionals, and policymakers to address this great disconnect. In addition, we continue to sponsor events, such as this past summer's conference on marijuana use, to explain and disseminate the science.
Because of the wealth of scientific research that we have amassed, we have a tremendous opportunity to try to change the way in which the public sees and talks about drug abuse and addiction. Overcoming misconceptions and replacing ideology with scientific knowledge is our best hope for bridging the great disconnect and bringing the full power of science to bear on the problem of drug abuse and addiction. 
From NIDA NOTES, March/April, 1996


----------



## ZECH (Oct 15, 2003)

You continue to amaze me with the crap you pull up. Since you know it all, I guess we can just let you have the board!


----------



## LazyByNature (Oct 15, 2003)

When I say "no problem" it is in reference to legal issues and by no means releases Rush from any moral/ethical failings.  If he said that all drug users should go to jail while he was using, then he is a hypocrit and should be called on it.

I think that this thread has been beat to death.   I don't know Rush, never met him, never will, and he doesn't affect my life in any manner.   So, I don't really care what he does or says as long as he is not a elected official with the power to actually make laws (he does have the power to influence the weak minded).


----------



## ZECH (Oct 15, 2003)

I think you under rate Rush. Many conservative politicians are motivated by him and many liberals are constantly at arms with him on issues. His presence is highly felt!


----------



## Flex (Oct 15, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by LazyByNature *_
> When I say "no problem" it is in reference to legal issues and by no means releases Rush from any moral/ethical failings.  If he said that all drug users should go to jail while he was using, then he is a hypocrit and should be called on it.
> 
> I think that this thread has been beat to death.   I don't know Rush, never met him, never will, and he doesn't affect my life in any manner.   So, I don't really care what he does or says as long as he is not a elected official with the power to actually make laws (he does have the power to influence the weak minded).



i agree with you man, i care nothing about him. it's his life, and only b/c he's famous, its a big deal. if he weren't, and was just some average joe on the street that had a painkiller problem, people would forget about it as soon as they finished reading the paper. Just like Kobe. If he werent famous, people would read the paper and see that story, then forget about it when they put the paper down. But b/c they're in the spotlight, everyone and thier mother forms an opinion....  

Personally i could care less about Rush.....BUT, gr's whole point was that he is a hypocrit, plain and simple, and what a f*ckin hypocrit he is. Bottom line he went off saying how f*cked up druggies were and how they should be locked in jail because it is very easy to judge when you know nothing and havent walked in someone's shoes....well Rush, if it were up to you, have a good time in the pen.....


----------



## DFINEST (Oct 15, 2003)

I don't wish any ill consequences on anyone BUT
Rush should now take his own medicine....

I hope that he now realize that when you point a finger
at someone, there are FOUR fngers pointing back at you.

*************************************

Once a task you first begun,
Never finished until it???s done,
Be the labor great or small,
Do it well or not at all!
- Big Mama

The TOES you step on today...
May be connected to the A$$ you kiss tomorrow!
--Big Mama


----------



## Tboy (Oct 15, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by DFINEST *_
> 
> Rush should now take his own medicine....



That's what he's in trouble for now.


----------



## gr81 (Oct 15, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by LazyByNature *_
> I think that this thread has been beat to death.   I don't know Rush, never met him, never will, and he doesn't affect my life in any manner.   So, I don't really care what he does or says as long as he is not a elected official with the power to actually make laws (he does have the power to influence the weak minded).




I don't even give a shit about Rush anymore, I am not posting this info to make HIM look bad, I am posting it b/c DG needs to put his foot in his fuckin mouth. He said some BS, I proved him wrong. plain and simple. I really don't give a sgit what happens to Rush, I am not gonna judge someone b/c they take pain pills b/c I also take them whan I can. He just could've gone about it better, thats all.


----------



## cjrmack (Oct 15, 2003)

Bottom line is Rush has become what he supposedley despised. This is where the problem lies. When you chastise something and then you turn out to be deeply involved in it, you are a hypocrite. All you need to do is look up the word in the dictionary and you can figure out that Rush fits the description of a hypocrite.


----------



## ZECH (Oct 16, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by gr81 *_
> I am posting it b/c DG needs to put his foot in his fuckin mouth. He said some BS, I proved him wrong. plain and simple.


You wish. What I said is true. It's people like you that need to start taking responsibilty for your actions. You do something and get hooked and look for a damn excuse. It was your choice, you did it. You didn't have to. Quit looking for someone else to blame. It's your damn fault!


----------



## kbm8795 (Oct 16, 2003)

Whoa....this sure is an argument with some heat to it...who called the dawgs out? 

Hey, for what it's worth - the allegations contend that Rush, who has built a fortune and a career on insulting, attacking and trashing anyone who doesn't live up to his professed standards...was hittin' on his maid/housekeeper to buy him those pain pills - not exactly the kind of thing that happens when your Doc is writing a prescription. If he wasn't so rich and so famous for trashing every person who didn't have a maid to go out and buy their own drugs, it wouldn't make a damned bit of difference. 
To me, it's the manner in which he made his career that makes this a terrible situation with a man who has never shown an ounce of compassion for anyone else who might have a "problem." Anyone who has ever listened to his program would hear how easily he insults and belittles people he regards as beneath himself - and usually those who aren't as wealthy, aren't as educated, can't talk as fast, and don't believe completely in whatever falls out of his mouth at a given moment. 

As for the remarks using some gay examples of "nature vs. nurture"...well hell - I've never met any men who don't know what makes their peepee hard by the time they are 22....

Bein' older, I DO believe that time is a good friend of experience...but ya'll are also right that it is the kind of experience you bring into those years that makes the difference. Lots of people block stuff from seeping in all their lives...

This isn't the best comparison, but the whole Rush thang makes me think of those nasty "married" televangelists who spend hours a day reciting the bible and then get caught with a couple of hoes in their hotel rooms....and then think that a fast "forgiveness" should keep them from eating their words.


----------



## Flex (Oct 16, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by kbm8795 *_
> If he wasn't so rich and so famous for trashing every person who didn't have a maid to go out and buy their own drugs, it wouldn't make a damned bit of difference.
> To me, it's the manner in which he made his career that makes this a terrible situation with a man who has never shown an ounce of compassion for anyone else who might have a "problem." Anyone who has ever listened to his program would hear how easily he insults and belittles people he regards as beneath himself - and usually those who aren't as wealthy, aren't as educated, can't talk as fast, and don't believe completely in whatever falls out of his mouth at a given moment.




thank you! that's the point me and gr were getting at


----------



## gr81 (Oct 16, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> You wish. What I said is true. It's people like you that need to start taking responsibilty for your actions. You do something and get hooked and look for a damn excuse. It was your choice, you did it. You didn't have to. Quit looking for someone else to blame. It's your damn fault!





No it is not true, you can't prove a word of it. you are a fucking idiot to argue something when you don't know the facts. there is nothing worse than someone who bases his view point soley on emotion. Yes you are right, all addicts are just weak minded people, they want to continue on the path they are in. They should be more like you, right. whatever man. this thread just shows what kind of person you are, a shallowed minded person uncapable of swallowing his pride and admitting he doesn't know. But hey that is typical of a cop, I expected it. Get a clue DG and know the FACTS before you attempt to debate with me again.


----------



## ZECH (Oct 17, 2003)

Everyone on here knows you are a egotistical know it all punk!


----------



## gr81 (Oct 17, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> Everyone on here knows you are a egotistical know it all punk!




My personal character has nothing to do with the topic at hand so once again you prove that you are incapable of having an mature debate without getting side tracked with negative comments towards me. My ego has nothing to do with the fact that you are WRONG. But ooh cut me I bleed, you sure showed me didn't you. Checkj this out though, 1) I am man enough to admit when I am wrong about something, and 2) when I don't know shit about a topic I don't pretend I do to defend my emotional interests in it. that is how a fool argues. I have nothing left to say to you, b/c you obviously cannot have a rational debate without resorting to your slanderous filth every comment. You ain't got shit to say 'bout it neither.


----------



## ZECH (Oct 18, 2003)

Your grammer and spelling are terrible. Go back to school!


----------



## Flex (Oct 18, 2003)

Dg- why do you keep resorting to pathetic insults

Keep sticking to your opinion, cuz you obviously won't admit you're wrong. 

You try to argue your opinion against fact, then you have to show how absurd you are by continuing on with subpar (dg- this means below average) insults.
 (damn man, at least make them funny or something if you are gonna stoop to that level)

no wonder why i hate cops so much. i have only met a few good ones in my life that didn't ride high horses


----------



## gr81 (Oct 18, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> Your grammer and spelling are terrible. Go back to school!




Thats what you have to say to me, haha ha ha. You are pathetic. By the way I am in school pal, which by the way is more than I can say you chose to do with your life. Not only am I in school but I am going to be majoring in fields that would obviously be way over your head. We will see how much shit you have to say when I got my PhD and you are an overworked overopinionated old out of shape cop. Oh wait, soemof those are already true aren't they. Perhaps maybe it is you that needs to return to schoooling b/c in a class we actually base our arguments and debates on FACT, not opinions. In fact everyone with an age number above the double digits operates that way too DG. Grow up pal. God fobid teh police officer is wrong, that never happens!


----------



## Eggs (Oct 18, 2003)

Does anybody know what this conversation has to do with Rush Limbaugh?  Didnt think it had much to do with it.

As to the present conversation.  The RISK for alcoholism is possibly genetic.  I dont think it is necessarily a risk for alcoholism specifically, but risk for addiction in general.

However, because something is in your genes doesnt make it acceptable for the person with those genes to do.  I have a genetic tendency towards addiction.  I used to party alot and drink waaay too much.  I dont anymore.

Being at risk for an addiction is like being a kid in a candy store.  Your mom tells you not to steal the candy.  You want some candy so you do it anyways.  Or you have the self control and you dont.  I'm not sure exactly what the formula would be for the risk of acting on an addictive tendency... but it would definitely have to contain both the degree of genetic risk and the self control imposed by the subject.  One of those factors is genetic of course, the other psychological conditioning.  I'm sure there is lots more involved.  I wouldnt think it any less complex in being able to determine the chance of some one getting cancer.

However, I havent met anybody yet who wouldnt be capable of overcoming their genetic tendency towards addiction if they have the will power to do so.  Thats the general lacking factor in it, not that their genes compell them so much more than anybody else.

I've seen individuals with ADHD who wouldnt control any of their actions... performing life threatening acts, pulling guns on people without concern for the consequences, etc.  Yet after enough training (conditioning), their will power allowed them to overcome pretty much all of these prior traits they exhibited.

So either way, can we dispense with the name calling for now guys, its kinda tiresome dont you agree?


----------



## gr81 (Oct 18, 2003)

I didn' t say say that an addict can use his addiction gene as an excuse, no way. there are consequences for any action in life. To excuse that and blame it on a genetic presdisposition would be hiding from the truth. However you cannot deny that genetics DO play a huge role in the scheme of things. Nothing is purely black and white, especially this issue. I do agree EGGS, it is tiresome.


----------



## firestorm (Oct 18, 2003)

Hey G man how you doen my friend.  all good here.  Excellent workouts lately. Have to update my journal tomorrow night.


----------



## ZECH (Oct 19, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Flex *_
> Dg- why do you keep resorting to pathetic insults
> 
> Keep sticking to your opinion, cuz you obviously won't admit you're wrong.
> ...


Ok I apoligize for the insults. But no matter what I say, you two will not accept. So I'm still standing by my opinions. Believe what you want. I do not see this issue as funny..............why do I need to make it funny?


----------



## Flex (Oct 19, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> Your grammer and spelling are terrible. Go back to school!



Your grammer...>>> grammar you mean? ya gr, YOUR spelling is terrible.

Dg- you can have all the opinion you want on a subject. but that's not the point man. like i said before, there's a difference b/w OPINION (I think pizza is the best food) and FACT (Oil is thicker than water).

obviously nature (the environment) plays a part, i'm def not saying that. if an addictive prone person never comes into contact with alcohol, they won't become an alcoholic. BUT, if in their genes they do have the tendency towards addiction, and they exposed to alcohol, or any other addictive vice, chances are better than good that they'll become addicted, more than a person without that in their genes.

dg- argue your opinion all you want. i'm sick of arguing this shit with you. its obviously "your way" or the "highway", so its a waste of my time to continue on.


----------



## ZECH (Oct 19, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Flex *_
> i'm sick of arguing this with you.


Good! Your two liberal pov's are old~


----------



## Flex (Oct 19, 2003)

i don't even know the difference b/w liberal and conservative, and i dont give a fuck about them either. but i do know the diff. b/w opinion and fact.

pov's?


----------



## ZECH (Oct 19, 2003)

You got to be kidding? And you are trying to argue this? sheesh~ See this is my whole point!


----------



## gr81 (Oct 19, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> Good! Your two liberal pov's are old~




case in point. Being liberal has nothing to do with this. you sure busted out the big guns for this didn't you. ha ha ha. you have no point, and even if you did you have no info to back up your non point. I am done, you are going on ignore right now. I am sick of your tired responses that have nothing to do with anything.


----------



## firestorm (Oct 19, 2003)

gad damn  you guys are wildmen.  How come you all are fighting over this?  you all have a point and I see both sides. Calm down and act your ages.  fight nice.    I've heard that in "some" cases drugs addiction is genetic and or passed down.   The mother was a crack whore and the newborn was a junkie is one example of passing on addiction so with that example I could see how having the weakness to be an addictive person is possible.  I think some people just have that addictive personnality meaning that they just overdo everything.  Is that genetic?  I dunno  but a character trait for sure.   I know that you don't have to be born with some sort of an alcoholic gene to become one.  I'm from Irish background and my dad, uncles, Grand dad were all major drinkers and yet neither myself or any of my sisters are heavy drinkers if we drink at all.  I'm also saying that if alcholics run in your family it is "Possible" that when your born you may be succeptable to aloholism if you become a drinker.   This is just my opinion and I have zero facts to back them up.  Just my thoughts on the matter


----------



## Tboy (Oct 20, 2003)

A couple of points.... Not knocking on you FS, you just made a couple of things come to light.



> _*Originally posted by firestorm *_
> I've heard that in "some" cases drugs addiction is genetic and or passed down.   The mother was a crack whore and the newborn was a junkie is one example of passing on addiction so with that example I could see how having the weakness to be an addictive person is possible.



With that being said. 

How would I know that I was addicted to a particular drug?  I would have to wait my entire childhood life to go out and sample all the available narcotics to find out which one I have been predetermined to be addicted to.  This notion seems a bit foolish to say the least.

Another thing, people that do drugs tend to put themselves in situations that lend to the taking of them.  i.e. hanging out with the wrong crowds, keeping the wrong friends.  Then again there are people that who simply have the will and strength to ???just say no??? no matter what the situation is.  All others could be considered week minded vs. genetically programmed to be a alcohol or drug addict. True?



> I think some people just have that addictive personnality meaning that they just overdo everything.



Very interesting, I have a friend that was this way.  He always overdid (izzata word?) EVERYTHING.  This was a guy that was raised by a good middle class family, he never had a need for anything, yet he was always getting into trouble.  He went on to do this into his adult life.  He got into drugs and just about anything a person could get into.  



> Grand dad were all major drinkers and yet neither myself or any of my sisters are heavy drinkers if we drink at all.  I'm also saying that if alcholics run in your family it is "Possible" that when your born you may be succeptable to aloholism if you become a drinker.



I think this was the point DG was originally trying to make.  

It is a pretty well known fact that if your dad (or mom) is an alcoholic, you have a much better chance of becoming one than someone whose parents don???t drink.  Not because ???it???s in your blood??? but because you see him doing it and you are around it all the time..  You feel the affects of him doing it in your home.  

I have another friend whose dad is an alcoholic.  Many times when his dad gets drunk, he verbally abuses him.  He and his dad also go to bars and shoot pool all the time, needless to say they both drink a bit while shooting pool.  Putting himself in that position can very easily make him an alcoholic. The saying ???like father like son??? is very true here.


----------



## ZECH (Oct 20, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Tboy *_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Tboy (Oct 20, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> If it is genetic you can be hooked on anything.



If he believes this and has done all the research he says he has done, then he would know that each one creates different types of dependencies.  i.e. if you mother was a crack head, then your natural embedded addiction should be crack and you would never be satisfied with any other drug.  

But to me, once you were born then spent a minimum of 12-14 years drying out (growing up) by the time you were old enough to take them, you would be over the addiction.

At least in my opinion...


----------



## ZECH (Oct 20, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Tboy *_
> then he would know that each one creates different types of dependencies
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## firestorm (Oct 20, 2003)

No offense taken up there Tboy.  LIke I said I have no clue.  I'm just assuming everything.   I just think some people just have one of those addictive personnalities.  that is my final answer. hahahaha   I think having a weak personality and your environment also lead to being an abuser of either or both drugs or alcohol.     
Now take me for example,,,  Nobody in my family was a drug user or even knew what a steroid was back in the 80's  yet I started taking them and ABUSED the HELL out of them.   I was totally mentally dependant on them.  I'm not saying addicted but I will say dependant.


----------



## gr81 (Oct 20, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Tboy *_
> If he believes this and has done all the research he says he has done, then he would know that each one creates different types of dependencies.  i.e. if you mother was a crack head, then your natural embedded addiction should be crack and you would never be satisfied with any other drug.




Completely untrue, just b/c your predecesor used crack, that may mean that you will never go near it, perhaps you addiction is focused out on something else. It isn't so cut and dry.

You all are misinterpreting my point about genetics. OF COUSE a persons environment plays a huge role in whether you become an addict of something, I never said or implied that addiction is just simply luck of the draw. Some people can have the genetics and never live out that addiction, stressful times and extreme circumstances can help in bringing that out so maybe that person never went through times like that. Then there are others that do not have any genes for it but start using a drug that is physically addictive like cigarettes are, then they can become addicted b/c the cigarettes are PHYSICALLY addictive. Does that make sense to you? Genetics do play a huge role, take for example the people that get addicted to sex or gambling. Are these things PHYSICALLY addictive, absolutely not. But a person that has an addictive personality can become addicted to those things and the addiction is just as real and legit as addiction to a substance, addiction is addiction. Whether or not a person does the drug in the first place is all up to them, not genetics. People are not predisposed to absolutely become addicts with no say in it necessarily, but absolutely certain people are more likely to have that gene in them b/c of who they are, not there surroundings. It can be proven simply by looking at a percentages of races/addiction. It is a fact that if you are native american you are genetically more likely you are to become an alcoholic, as well as people of irish descent. 
The first thing they teach you in AA or any type of meeting is that a person is never recovered, you are always in the process of recovering because at any time an addict can put themselves right back in to the loop. A person that is an alcoholic is never to take another drink of boos, simply for the fact that it will kickstart their disease out of remmision, they can't even have one. Besides that, a person that was addicted to ALCOHOL cannot engage in ANY other types of substances b/c it is possible for them to focus their addiction into another drug. It isn't the Alcohol that is PHYSICALLY addicting, it is the person that is an addict. alcohol as a substance is not addictive to the average person, physically speaking. And when I say physically addicting, I mean forming actual withdrawl symptoms in the brain like you do with cigarettes. does this make sense to you all?


----------



## Eggs (Oct 20, 2003)

Good points gr81, just wanted to mention that sex and gambling probably are physically addictive.  Look at classical conditioning... a mouse pushes a lever to make a cookie drop out that tastes good.  I bet that mouse will push the heck out of that lever.

The same with people... sex isnt addictive because of an external source, but I think your bodies reaction is enough to condition you.  Ever tried to stop having sex?  Heh.. not happening easily once you start.

The same with gambling.  That rush you get when you're playing... your body undoubtedly releases something that can in fact be addictive.  I'm really not too sure what else is involved in that because I suck at pocker and gambling in general so stay away from it.  Read something about it a couple years ago that went in-depth about the affects it has on your body.


----------



## gr81 (Oct 21, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Eggs *_
> Good points gr81, just wanted to mention that sex and gambling probably are physically addictive.  Look at classical conditioning... a mouse pushes a lever to make a cookie drop out that tastes good.  I bet that mouse will push the heck out of that lever.




I see your point with the mouse but classical conditioning is far different than an addiction, it isn't fair to compare the two. As for your other point, yeah sex and gambling are great activities no doubt but your body does not NEED it, it doesn't go through withdrawals and you start to exhibit side affects when you don't get your fix, that is what I mean by physically addictive. Your body can still function properly even though you aren't having sex. It may be a drag and you really want it. Ya feel me. Physically addictive means everyone that experiences whatever it is, in this case gambling and sex, could become addicted which isnt the case. We all love sex but to be addicted to it is not a good thing necessarily. Charactaristics of an addiction are to ignore consequences and risk things important  in your life just to continue, most of us are not addicted to sex I would say. I wouldn't even want to be, I love it and all but damn. Anyways I thought I would just clarify the difference.


----------



## Tboy (Oct 21, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by gr81 *_
> Completely untrue, just b/c your predecesor used crack, that may mean that you will never go near it, perhaps you addiction is focused out on something else. It isn't so cut and dry.



I didn't say that I believed that we are predestined to be addicts if our parents were.  From the posts that I have read, this is your belief. 



> Then there are others that do not have any genes for it but start using a drug that is physically addictive like cigarettes are, then they can become addicted b/c the cigarettes are PHYSICALLY addictive.



I smoked for ten years.  I did not start because I was predetermined to do it.  I did because some of my friends were doing it.  I quite cold turkey after I found out my wife was having a baby.  





> take for example the people that get addicted to sex



 

btw it's not an addiction that I have.  It's a God given ambition. 



> It is a fact that if you are native american you are genetically more likely you are to become an alcoholic, as well as people of irish descent.



This is like saying black people are more likely to commit crimes or eat fried chicken and water melon.

While the crime part is true (based on actuall facts, not heresay) the water melon and chicken are steriotyping.  People that live certain lifestyles are more likely to be the things that lead to these statistics.  If you take them out of the element that produces the scenarios that are condusive to them doing what you say that they are predetermined to do....  They usually don't do it.  I.E  take the Indian off the reservation and away from the atmosphere that produces alcoholics and raise him away from that lifestyle and 9/10 times he won't be an alcholic.



A side note:

I think some of the others gripe with you was,  If youre not an expert in the field of which you are talking.... Don't try to play one on the internet.


----------



## ZECH (Oct 21, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by gr81 *_
> As for your other point, yeah sex and gambling are great activities no doubt but your body does not NEED it


Your body certainly does not need drugs either. I don't see your point.


----------



## gr81 (Oct 23, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> Your body certainly does not need drugs either. I don't see your point.




When you are physically addicted to a drug your body does indeed NEED it, that is that addiction is man.


----------



## gr81 (Oct 23, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Tboy *_
> I didn't say that I believed that we are predestined to be addicts if our parents were.  From the posts that I have read, this is your belief. *there is an addict gene in ourt DNA that factors in predetermination. *
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Eggs (Oct 23, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by gr81 *_
> I see your point with the mouse but classical conditioning is far different than an addiction, it isn't fair to compare the two.
> 
> *Its really not, but alot of the comparisons we are making in this thread arent.  I'd say there is more than a grain of truth in saying that conditioning has a good deal to do with addiction in many cases.*
> ...


----------



## gr81 (Oct 23, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Eggs *_go through withdrawals and you start to exhibit side affects when you don't get your fix, that is what I mean by physically addictive. Your body can still function properly even though you aren't having sex. It may be a drag and you really want it. Ya feel me.
> 
> Yes and no. If you asked a sex addict how well they function when they havent had any recently... I would tend to believe that their functioning was impaired. The same thing with gambling. The kind of person who will go into debt/blow his complete paycheck and leave his family starving might be inclined to say they cant function without it. Its not an external substance being taken into the body, but it does a decent job of using the body itself to screw up.



Yes I agree, the point I was trying to make was that the action of gambling in itself is not physically addictive, i.e. everyone who gambles doesn't run the rick of becoming addicted to it and the same with sex. This is opposed to something like cigarettes where anyone who smokes, regardless of genetic makeup runs the risk of addiction b/c the body can form a physical dependance. Of course those who are addicted to those actions like sex and gambling, they are real addictions just like any substance and they go through phases of addiction just like a substance, it is just as serious of a matter. I agree with most of the points you make eggs. It sounds like we are on the same page. Just clarifying what I was saying. Oh and thank you for debating this subject with me in a mature manner. Some people in this thread were not capable of that.


----------



## TheGreatSatan (Oct 24, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Flex *_i don't even know the difference b/w liberal and conservative, pov's?




If after 9/11 you wanted to get to know Islamics and their POV then you are a Liberal,  if you wanted to bomb the fuck out of them you're a conservative.


----------



## ZECH (Oct 24, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by TheGreatSatan *_
> If after 9/11 you wanted to get to know Islamics and their POV then you are a Liberal,  if you wanted to bomb the fuck out of them you're a conservative.


----------



## ZECH (Oct 24, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by gr81 *_
> I am not an expert, however I have extensive research time spent in the field of alcoholism and addiction, both real life experience and research experience so i do believe that I know more than teh average joe about it


Get off your high horse. I'm sure there are plenty here that know as much or more than you or I. I have spent almost 11 years of study on alcohol(drunk driving). We learn to recognize characteristics of people down to how they dress, walk, talk, act, smell, you name it. We know most of the time who is drunk before we even pull them! So I don't want to hear about you being an expert just based on what you've read. And the same goes with me for drugs. I can look at someone and tell if they are on drugs or a drug dealer 9 out of 10 times. It comes with experience.


----------



## Flex (Oct 24, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> Get off your high horse. I'm sure there are plenty here that know as much or more than you or I. I have spent almost 11 years of study on alcohol(drunk driving). We learn to recognize characteristics of people down to how they dress, walk, talk, act, smell, you name it. We know most of the time who is drunk before we even pull them! So I don't want to hear about you being an expert just based on what you've read. And the same goes with me for drugs. I can look at someone and tell if they are on drugs or a drug dealer 9 out of 10 times. It comes with experience.



I'm NOT saying this just to break your balls dg, but actually i have been in numberous situations where my friends have been driving drunk, had drugs on them and many situations just like that, and the cops had no idea. my buddies have gotten off scott free from dui and drug charges millions of times (not saying i condone what they do, just that they did get off). 

and no, you defintitely cannot look at someone and tell if they are a drug dealer 9 out of 10 times. drug dealers are everyday people man, not just dudes on street corners with raggedy clothes, or well dressed cubans living in mansions like Scarface. i know grown men and kids you wouldnt think in a million years sold drugs if you knew them personally. i know grown, responsible men, college kids, h.s. kids, SHIT, i know kids in middle school that sold drugs, athletes, TEACHERS, EVERYONE! Take that statement and apply it to woman in those situations as well. 

 there is NO WAY you, or anyone for that matter, can tell by looking at them. 


One quick story for ya............
me and a group of my buddies are walking down the road just off campus of the college i attend. we are walking toward this street where all the parties are held, which is blocked off by cops. the cops ask my buddy to "step aside" (he was carrying a backpack). i keep walking cuz i have drugs on me (keep in mind we smoked about 2 minutes ago in the woods). They search his bag (claiming somehow they can see beer cans). They find 4 beers and a glass bubbler, which they tell him they can arrest him for. They eventually let him go like 15 min later (after we are all freaking out cuz we know whats REALLY inside his backpack).

15min later we see him running up the street towards us "they didnt find it". little did the cops know, he had 4oz. of weed individually bagged up in plastic baggies AND a scale in the little pouch right under the main pouch, all neatly wrapped in a GAP shopping bag. 

You'll never take us alive haha


----------



## ZECH (Oct 24, 2003)

No, your right. You never will catch them all! That is why you have the training. To catch as many as you can. And one thing I have learned is this...................you may do something once or twice and get away with it. But if you keep doing it, sooner or later, you will get caught. And you are right about kids. I've caught people before transporting drugs by putting them in their 1 yr old kids clothes in the car seat! That is low! It's amazing what dogs can smell!!


----------



## Flex (Oct 24, 2003)

I agree with you though man, eventually you will get caught.  
i just don' think cops have any idea how MUCH "bad shit" goes on. everywhere i go man, drugs, weapons, drugs, violence, drugs......


----------



## Flex (Oct 24, 2003)

to kinda change the subject though, do you think the whole "anit drug-war" is working?

-the threat of arresting people for misdemeanor and letting them off with $150 fines for pot possession doesn't deter drugs and the million or so people who just bought, smoked and sold drugs 2 minutes earlier IMO. 

-i think the main reason kids drink underage in the U.S. is cuz they CAN'T. everywhere else in the world drinking is allowed (i went to Holland, could've drank in a bar at age 13), and kids find it to be no big deal.


----------



## ZECH (Oct 24, 2003)

Yeah you do too! There is just so much you can do! I see people all the time I would guarantee had drugs. But I had no reason to stop them. And thus it would probably be thrown out. A waste of my time. In a small town you know everyone and who does what.


----------



## ZECH (Oct 24, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Flex *_
> to kinda change the subject though, do you think the whole "anit drug-war" is working?
> 
> -arresting people for misdemeanor and letting them off with $150 fines for pot possession doesn't deter drugs IMO.
> ...


NO! You will never get rid of the drug problem. Too much money involved. It just keeps it under control. And most of the time here, there is not even a fine alot of the time. A slap on the wrist and a promise to show up on court day.


----------



## Flex (Oct 24, 2003)

ha dg, then what kinda person "looks" like they sell drugs. tell me man.......again, i've known kids throughout middle school, h.s., college, even teachers, parents, adults, atheletes, you name it man. and they are black, white, tall, short, fat, skinny, 

there is NO way you can tell by looking man, they look like your children, your friends, shit, they look like your family, they look like you and me.....


----------



## Flex (Oct 24, 2003)

Now that i think about it, one of my cousin's best friends, he's a cop, and HE sells drugs....

and tell me Ronnie Coleman, a former police officer, didnt get involved with illegal substances. he got his size from CellTech


----------



## ZECH (Oct 24, 2003)

I know anyone can sell or do drugs. It is how someone carries themselves, how they dress, how they act, who they associate with and so on. There are plenty of hints that give it away.


----------



## kbm8795 (Oct 24, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Flex *_
> 
> and no, you defintitely cannot look at someone and tell if they are a drug dealer 9 out of 10 times. drug dealers are everyday people man, not just dudes on street corners with raggedy clothes, or well dressed cubans living in mansions like Scarface. i know grown men and kids you wouldnt think in a million years sold drugs if you knew them personally. i know grown, responsible men, college kids, h.s. kids, SHIT, i know kids in middle school that sold drugs, athletes, TEACHERS, EVERYONE! Take that statement and apply it to woman in those situations as well.




....and don't forget the number of cops who've made a second job out of selling. 

I don't think the war on drugs is succeeding - and there are tons of reasons for that! One is that we are a drug-driven society - everything is dispensed in a bottle...everything chemically created to numb pain, etc.  The laws are complicated and full of loopholes, which creates even more suspicion and puts law enforcement in a worse public relations position. If you are rich and have doctor "friends" who can give you prescriptions, you aren't a criminal....just a rich person in "pain". 
Then there is the public image of law enforcement professionals - those who only try to enforce the law. This is a gross generalization, but my professional observations have been that there are two or three types of cops - those who joined the force really believing they can help serve and protect their community....and those who saw too many Dirty Harry movies and live for the rush of a movie chase scene come to life. Then there are those who have just become hardened after years of spending most of their time dealing with the worst elements of society - only to have the rest of society treat them with disrespect. 

What I don't like to see is how they have become symbols of the "enemy" to so many groups. And I'm not talking just about the drug abusers and criminals - just remember the anxiety you felt the last time you were driving normally and tailgated by a cop for a couple of miles.....or stopped for 30 minutes for a turning signal being out and felt like you were treated like a criminal.
They become the targets of that suspicion and frustration, even though people don't realize that the number of laws they are supposed to enforce grows constantly. It just seems to me that sometimes that can influence how they see the world around them, since their profession requires them to look for different things than most of us would normally observe...and yes, they are human and can make mistakes. 

It reminds me of a former co-worker who nearly lost her job - she worked a night shift and had small children, so her sleep time was sometimes scattered over the course of a day. She was driving to work one Saturday night...near midnight...and was stopped - she wasn't speeding, no lights out, etc. Since her eyes looked tired (and any cop will tell ya that if you are out late on a Saturday night, its likely you must be drinking), she was accused by the police of being on drugs, since they got nothing from an alcohol check. She was hauled off, put on suspension from her company (since she could come to work) and let go only after she was tested for drugs. The tests naturally turned out negative.

I don't know how police manage to stay on top of the number of laws on the books - and manage to find ways to maintain good community relations AND keep up their training to better identify violations. In many ways I think this is part of dealing with the drug problem - no one deals with the frustrations of law enforcement in getting to the core of the situation, and no one does a good job of gaining the public's trust in how serious this matter has become. And I'm not even beginning to go off on the ineffectiveness of the court system...LOL.


----------



## ZECH (Oct 24, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by kbm8795 *_
> Then there is the public image of law enforcement professionals - those who only try to enforce the law. This is a gross generalization, but my professional observations have been that there are two or three types of cops - those who joined the force really believing they can help serve and protect their community....and those who saw too many Dirty Harry movies and live for the rush of a movie chase scene come to life. Then there are those who have just become hardened after years of spending most of their time dealing with the worst elements of society - only to have the rest of society treat them with disrespect.


Maybe I'm all three. I first joined in Nov. 92 and went to rookie school at night for 6 months. I graduated and became sworn in June 93. I wanted to help my small community stay family oriented and a good place to raise my kids.
And honestly, I love nothing better than to get into a chase or fight!! And I also get sick and tired of dealing with scum of the earth people. It gets old trying to help people that don't care to help themselves. But that is part of the job.


----------



## Flex (Oct 24, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> I know anyone can sell or do drugs. It is how someone carries themselves, how they dress, how they act, who they associate with and so on. There are plenty of hints that give it away.



i still don't see what you're getting at dg. do they wear baggy clothes? are they black? do they listen to rap music? are they loud and bousterous or quiet and subdued? are there friends gangster looking?

There is no way you can tell man. trust me. from someone coming from the "other side" (me), i can tell you that. i know kids that look like the biggest gangbangers in the world, and they've never touched drugs in their lives. yet, i know kids that are in college, have jobs, and are very smart that sell coke, ecstacy, you name it. 

you're stereotyping a certian "type" of people, bottom line man, you can't possible tell someone sells drugs by looking at them and how they "carry themselves".


----------



## Crono1000 (Oct 24, 2003)

I don't know what this thread is about, I just wanted to interupt the nice looking 101 posts it had.  

all hail post number 102 mwahahahaha!


----------



## ZECH (Oct 24, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by Flex *_
> 
> you're stereotyping a certian "type" of people


Yep, we PROFILE!!


----------



## BUSTINOUT (Oct 24, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> Yep, we PROFILE!!


----------



## ZECH (Oct 24, 2003)

BO, I can always count on you for a good laugh!! Thanks.


----------



## gr81 (Oct 24, 2003)

First of all this thread has been taken and whored away from it original subject



> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> Get off your high horse. I'm sure there are plenty here that know as much or more than you or I. I have spent almost 11 years of study on alcohol(drunk driving). We learn to recognize characteristics of people down to how they dress, walk, talk, act, smell, you name it. We know most of the time who is drunk before we even pull them! So I don't want to hear about you being an expert just based on what you've read. And the same goes with me for drugs. I can look at someone and tell if they are on drugs or a drug dealer 9 out of 10 times. It comes with experience.



You are an idiot, what does recognizing that someone is drunk have anything to do with the addiction process??? nothing. All you see is the side fo things were the are acting out their addiction and being caught, that is only the half of it. I never said I am an expert but I know what I am talking about, I jave consulted with additction medicine specialists, and I have done the research and you combat that with,"well I pull drunks over so I know". big deal. You think you know about a certian type of people and what they do, that is BS. It is discrimination, it is stereotypical behavior to say the least, and it is degreding and unfair to our society to operate like this. That is what is wrong with the police department, case in point. Small man syndrome, that is all that is!


----------



## gr81 (Oct 24, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by dg806 *_
> Maybe I'm all three. I first joined in Nov. 92 and went to rookie school at night for 6 months. I graduated and became sworn in June 93. I wanted to help my small community stay family oriented and a good place to raise my kids.
> And honestly, I love nothing better than to get into a chase or fight!! And I also get sick and tired of dealing with scum of the earth people. It gets old trying to help people that don't care to help themselves. But that is part of the job.




What makes you any better than a person dealing drugs, that you label "scum". That is ridiculous. The Police ain't nothing but a gang, the gov is a gang so how can you talk negatively about a smaller less powerful gang like these people you are harrassing. Dealing with scum, give me a break. Almost every cop i have ever dealt with has been scum. What happenned to teh innocent until proven guiltiy huh?? that doesn't exists. you are right, you do typecast adn that is bullshit. I have been harrassed, pulled out of my car and cuffed, shoved around, all types of things just b/c YOU think I look like a person that might have some D on them. You are nothing but a group pf bullies with too much power, that power is abused. Put yourself in another person's situation and see how things are being run. You are not responsible enough to be a police officer with statemenst like that. You are supposed to be here to protect us, not running around harrassing the people that are paying your salary. Woman make so much better officers b/c for the most part they do not let their emotions dictate how they perform tyheir job. They stay resonable and logical, without trying to flex their power over us. Fuck the police, It is cops like you that make us hate the force, and people are either gonna take it, or they are gonna retaliate and not take this abuse. You may think that you have all this power and you can abuse it but be aware next time you pull someone over because there are lots of Mo fos that will blast a bitch ass cop coming up to their window. We didn't make it that way, y'all did. so have good dreams with that thought.


----------



## ZECH (Oct 25, 2003)

> _*Originally posted by gr81 *_
> What makes you any better than a person dealing drugs, that you label "scum". That is ridiculous. The Police ain't nothing but a gang, the gov is a gang so how can you talk negatively about a smaller less powerful gang like these people you are harrassing. Dealing with scum, give me a break. Almost every cop i have ever dealt with has been scum. What happenned to teh innocent until proven guiltiy huh?? that doesn't exists. you are right, you do typecast adn that is bullshit. I have been harrassed, pulled out of my car and cuffed, shoved around, all types of things just b/c YOU think I look like a person that might have some D on them. You are nothing but a group pf bullies with too much power, that power is abused. Put yourself in another person's situation and see how things are being run. You are not responsible enough to be a police officer with statemenst like that. You are supposed to be here to protect us, not running around harrassing the people that are paying your salary. Woman make so much better officers b/c for the most part they do not let their emotions dictate how they perform tyheir job. They stay resonable and logical, without trying to flex their power over us. Fuck the police, It is cops like you that make us hate the force, and people are either gonna take it, or they are gonna retaliate and not take this abuse. You may think that you have all this power and you can abuse it but be aware next time you pull someone over because there are lots of Mo fos that will blast a bitch ass cop coming up to their window. We didn't make it that way, y'all did. so have good dreams with that thought.


Sure is funny how the only ones that complain about it are the guilty ones! I have never been harrassed, not even my family or any one I know. What does that tell ya!


----------

