Joe Rogan and Pot

[Rob5589]

Sure. I get it. Good info but are you saying we don’t have drug attics that we need to now try to help get their lives back?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I believe what he is trying to say is that there is big money in rehabilitation. But you can't have rehabilitation without addiction.

For decades doctors prescribed narcotics for just about any reason. They were pushed into doing so by pharmaceutical companies. The narcs they were giving out so readily were touted as safe with a low rate of addiction. The pharmaceutical companies were even able to get medical providers to incorporate the "5th vital sign," the pain scale, which they came up with. My wife wrote a paper on it during nursing school.

Our medical director several years ago pushed us into handing out narcs to just about anyone with any kind of pain. That turned out to be a disaster on several levels within a few years.

What pharma and doctors have created is a society that for one, is unable to handle the most basic discomfort and two, that only narcotics help with pain. It's comedic to see how many people are "allergic" to all types of non narcotic pain relievers and/or "only Dilaudid works for me."

We now offer Buprenorphine to those interested in kicking the narc habit. It manages pain without the high and has naloxone which eliminates possible overdoses for approx 36 hours. It is a start to the rehabilitation process. During the training for the bupe our medical director said it takes the brain approximately 17 days of using narcs to attain a level of addiction. 17 days. It takes 2+ years to rewire the brain to relieve that addiction.

Long winded this morning, apologies

 

[MuleyFever]

Sure. I get it. Good info but are you saying we don’t have drug attics that we need to now try to help get their lives back?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You asked what all the new rehabs every where were about and I supplied some information on one factor of why they have popped up everywhere.

 

[Kilboars]

I believe what he is trying to say is that there is big money in rehabilitation. But you can't have rehabilitation without addiction.

For decades doctors prescribed narcotics for just about any reason. They were pushed into doing so by pharmaceutical companies. The narcs they were giving out so readily were touted as safe with a low rate of addiction. The pharmaceutical companies were even able to get medical providers to incorporate the "5th vital sign," the pain scale, which they came up with. My wife wrote a paper on it during nursing school.

Our medical director several years ago pushed us into handing out narcs to just about anyone with any kind of pain. That turned out to be a disaster on several levels within a few years.

What pharma and doctors have created is a society that for one, is unable to handle the most basic discomfort and two, that only narcotics help with pain. It's comedic to see how many people are "allergic" to all types of non narcotic pain relievers and/or "only Dilaudid works for me."

We now offer Buprenorphine to those interested in kicking the narc habit. It manages pain without the high and has naloxone which eliminates possible overdoses for approx 36 hours. It is a start to the rehabilitation process. During the training for the bupe our medical director said it takes the brain approximately 17 days of using narcs to attain a level of addiction. 17 days. It takes 2+ years to rewire the brain to relieve that addiction.

Long winded this morning, apologies

No, I got that and thanks for the inside info.

I’d now like to see a push to get people off all these drugs for that reason. Legal or not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SteveAndTheCrigBoys]

Sure. I get it. Good info but are you saying we don’t have drug attics that we need to now try to help get their lives back?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would like to know the location of this drug attic...asking for a friend

 

[danwattsmessick]

Yes. That or they deny any narcotic use. The usual excuse is "I was just really tired."

Which is usually followed up with "These aren't my pants, bro. I don't know who these belong to. They ain't mine though."

 

[Rob5589]

Which is usually followed up with "These aren't my pants, bro. I don't know who these belong to. They ain't mine though."

The best one I've heard;
"These aren't my drugs."
"Well, who's are they?"
"The Ninjas."

 

[Rob5589]

No, I got that and thanks for the inside info.

I’d now like to see a push to get people off all these drugs for that reason. Legal or not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is. It's not going to be easy. And it's not going to end anywhere in the near future.

 

[Kilboars]

There is. It's not going to be easy. And it's not going to end anywhere in the near future.

We really appreciate your service and stepping up and lending a hand to deal with these issues.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TheGDog]

Why not get on his case because he didn’t just leave the nine-to-smart person the

“ freak alone by an all to intrusive governance.. fueled buy a majority uneducated and emotionally-led citizenry... many of whom are indoctrinated in "magical thinking" which spurns their over-zealous holier-than-thou virtue-signalling.”

Don’t answer.

First of all, it's quite amusing you'd entertain the idea that you could possibly exert control over another persons 1A rights. Not very American sounding. (RE: - "Don't Answer")

RE: Dummies that want to abuse hard drugs? -> "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes." OR "Darwinism" if you prefer. I can draw a parallel to your gun rights. Just because some idiot psycho goes buck-nutty with a scary-looking firearm, does that mean we should take them away from YOU? It's the same deal. You must first recognize and acknowledge that fact. This other human is no more special than you. Correct? Who are they to decide what you can and can't do? (Sure, they might have more knowledge than you, but that's on you if you didn't do your due-diligence in terms of researching a substance that you were considering)

A similar argument could be made with meds. Now granted, I fully understand that SOME people can't handle their isht and go down a rabbit hole of usage. (Believe me, I have brothers who've made this point abundantly clear) And... I get that it's a problem that ends up affecting OUR pocketbooks. And that's certainly a problem. Just like looney-birds doing bad isht with AR's sometimes is. But it certainly doesn't mean that we should be handing over sole control of these meds to the governance. Just like we certainly shouldn't be handing over sole-control of YOUR firearms (in other words them being the only ones that have them) to the govt. Yes?

If we were truly given our 2A rights in the manner they were intended... yes... we all know there would be "an adjustment period" where dipsh*ts that don't think long-term would do foolish things and possibly manage to harm others before they themselves get taken out. Obviously I get that. However... I sincerely believe that if we had the necessary change in cultural belief and shift in terms of the citizenry embracing their 2A rights... I think you'd quickly see a shift in the behaviour of these jagoffs. Because.... just like if your dog ends up killing another dog, how by law that dog must be put down... it ends up removing those aggressive genes from the gene pool. Likewise... I assert that fairly quickly.... even the dummies left would start to figure out that since everyone around them could take them out if they acted a fool, that they'll start re-thinking their choices. Either that, or they'll be dead. Either way, problem solved. Not saying there wouldn't be some good people who might be casualties during "the adjustment period". I'm just saying that if you put your finger into a turned-on light socket.... for most folks... you'd only ever have to do that one darn time before you learn to never ever do that again. Likewise, the bad apples?... They're hard-heads lacking logic and reason who don't learn unless the consequences are extremely severe. And obviously, the threat of prison is not severe enough. Agreed? (Besides the fact that it has largely become the modern equivalent to legalized for-profit slavery.)

RE: Helping drug addicts get their lives back? Well... certainly there's some amount of moral/social obligation to *try*. But this BS of indefinitely trying... that's just dumb. It results in the good folks on here who are first-responders wasting time that could instead be used towards saving the lives of YOUR loved ones who contribute to society! Folks who give a damn and contribute to society rather than only take away from it, and I think there's certainly some argument to be made there. Perhaps a 3-strikes rule might be called for in that regard?

(NOTE: "drug attics" would be a bad idea for a place to store meds as it gets really hot up there in the crawlspace underneath a roof. Sorry, you set me up too easy for that one. )

And yes, duh, of course this post is a little off-the-rails in terms of diverging from the original topic. But needed to be mentioned nonetheless.

 

[Kilboars]

First of all, it's quite amusing you'd entertain the idea that you could possibly exert control over another persons 1A rights. Not very American sounding. (RE: - "Don't Answer")

RE: Dummies that want to abuse hard drugs? -> "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes." OR "Darwinism" if you prefer. I can draw a parallel to your gun rights. Just because some idiot psycho goes buck-nutty with a scary-looking firearm, does that mean we should take them away from YOU? It's the same deal. You must first recognize and acknowledge that fact. This other human is no more special than you. Correct? Who are they to decide what you can and can't do? (Sure, they might have more knowledge than you, but that's on you if you didn't do your due-diligence in terms of researching a substance that you were considering)

A similar argument could be made with meds. Now granted, I fully understand that SOME people can't handle their isht and go down a rabbit hole of usage. (Believe me, I have brothers who've made this point abundantly clear) And... I get that it's a problem that ends up affecting OUR pocketbooks. And that's certainly a problem. Just like looney-birds doing bad isht with AR's sometimes is. But it certainly doesn't mean that we should be handing over sole control of these meds to the governance. Just like we certainly shouldn't be handing over sole-control of YOUR firearms (in other words them being the only ones that have them) to the govt. Yes?

If we were truly given our 2A rights in the manner they were intended... yes... we all know there would be "an adjustment period" where dipsh*ts that don't think long-term would do foolish things and possibly manage to harm others before they themselves get taken out. Obviously I get that. However... I sincerely believe that if we had the necessary change in cultural belief and shift in terms of the citizenry embracing their 2A rights... I think you'd quickly see a shift in the behaviour of these jagoffs. Because.... just like if your dog ends up killing another dog, how by law that dog must be put down... it ends up removing those aggressive genes from the gene pool. Likewise... I assert that fairly quickly.... even the dummies left would start to figure out that since everyone around them could take them out if they acted a fool, that they'll start re-thinking their choices. Either that, or they'll be dead. Either way, problem solved. Not saying there wouldn't be some good people who might be casualties during "the adjustment period". I'm just saying that if you put your finger into a turned-on light socket.... for most folks... you'd only ever have to do that one darn time before you learn to never ever do that again. Likewise, the bad apples?... They're hard-heads lacking logic and reason who don't learn unless the consequences are extremely severe. And obviously, the threat of prison is not severe enough. Agreed? (Besides the fact that it has largely become the modern equivalent to legalized for-profit slavery.)

RE: Helping drug addicts get their lives back? Well... certainly there's some amount of moral/social obligation to *try*. But this BS of indefinitely trying... that's just dumb. It results in the good folks on here who are first-responders wasting time that could instead be used towards saving the lives of YOUR loved ones who contribute to society! Folks who give a damn and contribute to society rather than only take away from it, and I think there's certainly some argument to be made there. Perhaps a 3-strikes rule might be called for in that regard?

(NOTE: "drug attics" would be a bad idea for a place to store meds as it gets really hot up there in the crawlspace underneath a roof. Sorry, you set me up too easy for that one. )

And yes, duh, of course this post is a little off-the-rails in terms of diverging from the original topic. But needed to be mentioned nonetheless.

You feel better now?


Besides it’s a moot point. You’ve got your Democrat’s in control of the country now and I’m sure Biden will secure your vote for life by federally legalizing weed. So party on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CoStick]

The war on drugs and gun control efforts just cost money and accomplish nothing.

 

[gelton]

I would like to congratulate drugs for winning the war on drugs.

But when you had the CIA literally dealing cocaine and crack in the inner cities to fund the contras, what did you expect would be the outcome?

 

[TheGDog]

You feel better now?


Besides it’s a moot point. You’ve got your Democrat’s in control of the country now and I’m sure Biden will secure your vote for life by federally legalizing weed. So party on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do *I* feel better now?

I fail to see how my own personal feelings are of any relevance in this matter. There are only observations, and the truths we can tie into them via life-experiences and intuition about Human Nature. Hell, "feelings" are what got us all in this mess. The Dems seem to run almost entirely off feelings. I'm over-simplifying it, but not by much. And in this instance too (referring to drugs) Republicans also (at least publically) involve their feelings in the matter (even though we know they also partake behind closed doors) due to many of them having strong ties with Religion. And while I can appreciate what some of the positives that come with being raised that way are, there are some very annoying negatives that come with that as well unfortunately. Such as the inability to use logic and reason some times, and the inability to separate law and governance from indoctrinated belief systems.

P.S. WTF makes you think I vote Dem?

 

[Kilboars]

P.S. WTF makes you think I vote Dem?

Just a lucky guess.

You seem to like to generalize people and are proudful thinking you have all the answers and want to tell us all about them.

My point was simple. I try to put the welfare of others before my own wants and desires.

You want to make that into a 2nd amendment issue or suppressing your rights to wake and bake that’s on you.

Nuff said.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TheGDog]

I don't "have" all the answers... I look at the parameters of a problem and I "see" when applying logic and reason, being mindful to preserve personal freedoms, what are the best choices to pick from among which gain the desired net-effect outcome with the least-intrusive effect on rights and personal freedoms. And I do so being mindful about a certain level of personal responsibility that must be demanded of the individual. Nothing magical about that.

RE: "tell us all about them" - isn't that the point of having a discussion? Remember, the wise man can learn from even the fool.

 

[bsnedeker]

Just a lucky guess.

You seem to like to generalize people and are proudful thinking you have all the answers and want to tell us all about them.

My point was simple. I try to put the welfare of others before my own wants and desires.

You want to make that into a 2nd amendment issue or suppressing your rights to wake and bake that’s on you.

Nuff said.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lol...the guy saying that others should sacrifice their freedom for the safety and security of the rest of society accusing others of liberal thinking.

You can't make this stuff up folks!

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[4rcgoat]

I believe what he is trying to say is that there is big money in rehabilitation. But you can't have rehabilitation without addiction.

For decades doctors prescribed narcotics for just about any reason. They were pushed into doing so by pharmaceutical companies. The narcs they were giving out so readily were touted as safe with a low rate of addiction. The pharmaceutical companies were even able to get medical providers to incorporate the "5th vital sign," the pain scale, which they came up with. My wife wrote a paper on it during nursing school.

Our medical director several years ago pushed us into handing out narcs to just about anyone with any kind of pain. That turned out to be a disaster on several levels within a few years.

What pharma and doctors have created is a society that for one, is unable to handle the most basic discomfort and two, that only narcotics help with pain. It's comedic to see how many people are "allergic" to all types of non narcotic pain relievers and/or "only Dilaudid works for me."

We now offer Buprenorphine to those interested in kicking the narc habit. It manages pain without the high and has naloxone which eliminates possible overdoses for approx 36 hours. It is a start to the rehabilitation process. During the training for the bupe our medical director said it takes the brain approximately 17 days of using narcs to attain a level of addiction. 17 days. It takes 2+ years to rewire the brain to relieve that addiction.

Long winded this morning, apologies

Great info......pretty much sums up what i have suspected all along. There is no profit in a healthy society.

 

[Kilboars]

I don't "have" all the answers... I look at the parameters of a problem and I "see" when applying logic and reason, being mindful to preserve personal freedoms, what are the best choices to pick from among which gain the desired net-effect outcome with the least-intrusive effect on rights and personal freedoms. And I do so being mindful about a certain level of personal responsibility that must be demanded of the individual. Nothing magical about that.

RE: "tell us all about them" - isn't that the point of having a discussion? Remember, the wise man can learn from even the fool.

Ok, well I leave you to it.

I’m starting to get that Russian bot feel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kilboars]

Lol...the guy saying that others should sacrifice their freedom for the safety and security of the rest of society accusing others of liberal thinking.

You can't make this stuff up folks!

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Yeah. The key word is Thinking.

If that’s what you got it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rob5589]

RE: Helping drug addicts get their lives back? Well... certainly there's some amount of moral/social obligation to *try*. But this BS of indefinitely trying... that's just dumb. It results in the good folks on here who are first-responders wasting time that could instead be used towards saving the lives of YOUR loved ones who contribute to society! Folks who give a damn and contribute to society rather than only take away from it, and I think there's certainly some argument to be made there. Perhaps a 3-strikes rule might be called for in that regard?

I have read that some agencies do limit how many times they will narcan someone. And while it all sounds well and good, where is the line drawn? What about smokers? Obese people? People that won't care for themselves? Do tou place limits on how much care they receive? Unfortunately those are the caveats in a free society.