"Drugs are the curse of the land and turn women into prostitutes"

[U2Bama]

The following two articles are brought to you by methamphetamine:

Man chronicles his death by meth use
35-year-old made documentary to warn others off highly addictive drug

Associated Press

Updated: 6:29 p.m. CT March 27, 2007
ST. LOUIS - A former trucker whose documentary chronicled an agonizing descent as methamphetamine ravaged his body has died, optimistic to the end that his story would keep others from the highly addictive stimulant.

“He was extremely satisfied, wanting to do more in getting the word out and showing kids what meth harm does. We didn’t get to that point,” his father, Jack Bridges, said shortly after the 35-year-old died Monday at a hospital in Cape Girardeau.

“He didn’t want anyone to go through what he did,” his father said.

Shawn Bridges drew global attention last year for “No More Sunsets,” a 29-minute film shot by a former southern Illinois television videographer at Bridges’ request.

By his family’s account, Bridges already had died at least twice, his heart so damaged by years of using meth — a concoction that can include toxic chemicals such as battery acid, drain cleaner and fertilizer — that it stopped and had to be shocked back into beating.

The documentary shows Bridges mostly bedridden, his constant companions a catheter and feeding tube.

“I’d say he’s got a 34-year-old body on the outside with a 70-to 80-year-old man on the inside,” his father told The Associated Press last May.

Roughly 28,000 people sought treatment for meth addiction across the country in 1993, accounting for nearly 2 percent of admissions for drug-abuse care, according to the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

Just a decade later, the meth-related admissions numbered nearly 136,000 — more than 7 percent of the national total for drug-abuse treatment.

Haunted by brother's death
Family members have said Bridges had been haunted by the dreary day in 1976 when his younger brother Jason, barely a year old, died in a car wreck. Shawn was 4 and nowhere near the accident but still blamed himself, wanting to trade places with his dead sibling, his father said.

A lenient upbringing set Bridges on the road to becoming “a little monster,” his father said. “By 16, the kid was a high school dropout and partier.”

At 26, Bridges had a heart attack that his father blamed on meth’s ability to damage a chronic user’s heart and other internal organs. Bridges learned he had congestive heart failure. Twice, he tried to kill himself, according to family members.

During his final months in a hospital bed, Shawn’s words slurred to guttural sounds when he tried to talk. At times, he spit up blood, and his weight fell dangerously when he couldn’t keep food down. His father said Monday that Bridges developed a urinary tract infection shortly before he died.

“I don’t think people will forget what got him to this point,” said Chip Rossetti, who filmed the documentary. “But what he did with his condition is really the amazing thing.”

Rossetti said 500 to 600 copies of the documentary have been sold, some going as far as Australia. Bridges was also profiled on German television. Rossetti said Monday he plans a sequel, chronicling Bridge’s final year and testimonials by people touched by his awareness effort.

“We wanted to keep him with us a lot longer, but we appreciate God’s good grace,” Jack Bridges said after his son’s death. “We’ll still be trying to drive home the point that these drugs are poison, and that people using them are heading the same place Shawn has gone.”

James A. Finley / AP
Shawn Bridges rests in his bed in the living room of his father's house in Cape Girardeau, Mo., last year. Bridges, whose documentary about how methamphetamine ravaged his body drew global attention, died Monday.

And from my part of the country...

Alabama woman on horseback charged with DUI

4/4/2007, 6:41 p.m. CDT
The Associated Press

SYLVANIA, Ala. (AP) — A woman who went for a horseback ride through town at midnight and allegedly used the horse to ram a police car was charged with driving under the influence and drug offenses, police said Tuesday.

"Cars were passing by having to avoid it, and almost hitting the horse," said Police Chief Brad Gregg.

He said DUI charges can apply even when the vehicle has four legs instead of wheels.

Police in the northeast Alabama town received a call around midnight Saturday about someone riding a horse on a city street, Gregg said.

Officer John Seals found Melissa Byrum York, 40, of Henagar on horseback on a nearby road and attempted to stop her. Seals asked the woman repeatedly to get off the horse, but she kept trying to kick the animal to make it run, the chief said.

"She wouldn't stop. She kept riding the horse and going on," Gregg said.

After ramming the police car with the horse and riding away, the woman tried to jump off but caught her foot in a stirrup, Gregg said. The officer took the woman into custody and discovered that she had crystal methamphetamine, a small amount of marijuana, pills and a small pipe, the chief said.

York was charged with DUI for allegedly riding the horse under the influence of a controlled substance. She was also charged with drug possession, possession of drug paraphernalia, resisting arrest, assault, attempting to elude police and cruelty to animals.

Gregg said the horse, which belonged to York, "wasn't in the best of health, but it's still alive."

York was released from the DeKalb County Jail on $4,000 bond and was being transferred to the jail in Jackson County, where authorities had a warrant for her arrest on unrelated charges, Gregg said.

Jackson County officials said Tuesday that York had yet to be booked, and there were no records indicating whether she had a lawyer.

Ahhh, it's just meth though; people just wanting to have a little fun...

Yes, we really need to make this shit more easily available!

~U2Alabama

 

[indra]

The following two articles are brought to you by methamphetamine:

Yes, we really need to make this shit more easily available!

~U2Alabama

Legalised, regulated, and taxed, with the tax monies going to treatment, would indeed be better than the current "system." Legalisation isn't about making drugs easily accessible, it's simply understanding there is a demand for these drugs and given that demand it will be met. Much better it be met in a relatively safe (and yes I do know there really is no "safe" form of meth) manner, both for the user and for people unwittingly endangered by illicit meth labs.

 

[anitram]

The major problem I see with "legalization, regulation, etc." is that if the state is essentially sponsoring the distribution of drugs (for profit), what happens to secondary victims? For example, a parent who has children in their custody is legally allowed to purchase meth and get high out of their mind. Does the child now have a civil action against the state? Children have been successful in recovering from their mothers who were battered wives for a failure to leave the husband, because of the physical and/or emotional harm suffered. Why would this be any different?

 

[BVS]

The major problem I see with "legalization, regulation, etc." is that if the state is essentially sponsoring the distribution of drugs (for profit), what happens to secondary victims? For example, a parent who has children in their custody is legally allowed to purchase meth and get high out of their mind. Does the child now have a civil action against the state? Children have been successful in recovering from their mothers who were battered wives for a failure to leave the husband, because of the physical and/or emotional harm suffered. Why would this be any different?

Well how does it work with pain killers?

 

[BVS]

Ahhh, it's just meth though; people just wanting to have a little fun...

Yes, we really need to make this shit more easily available!

~U2Alabama

That's extremely sad. But I can also show you the downfall and demise of an alcoholic or a smoker, in the same manner.

 

[anitram]

Well how does it work with pain killers?

Pain killers are not prescribed for the purpose of maintaining somebody's chemical addiction. They have a legitimate medical purpose. If somebody becomes addicted to them, that is a secondary effect. But nobody is prescribing pain killers for the sake of furthering an addiction (even things like methadone have the purpose of weaning you off, not maintaining your addiction).

 

[BVS]

Pain killers are not prescribed for the purpose of maintaining somebody's chemical addiction. They have a legitimate medical purpose. If somebody becomes addicted to them, that is a secondary effect. But nobody is prescribing pain killers for the sake of furthering an addiction (even things like methadone have the purpose of weaning you off, not maintaining your addiction).

Well I understand that, but what stops someone from suing for the secondary effect?

 

[Vincent Vega]

In the US, or in any other country?

 

[BVS]

Well I'm just opening the question to anyone or anyplace...

 

[Vincent Vega]

Here they would have no chance.

First, it's common knowledge that painkillers can make addictive. So it's also your own responsibility.
Second, if the painkillers are available only on prescription the doctor will tell you about the risk. Additionally there will be a warning in the description.

If it's available without prescription there will be the warning, and for TV and radiospots or print there is a disclaimer mandatory.

So, you would not get a case before the court.

 

[U2Bama]

Legalised, regulated, and taxed, with the tax monies going to treatment, would indeed be better than the current "system." Legalisation isn't about making drugs easily accessible, it's simply understanding there is a demand for these drugs and given that demand it will be met. Much better it be met in a relatively safe (and yes I do know there really is no "safe" form of meth) manner, both for the user and for people unwittingly endangered by illicit meth labs.

Whether or not the purpose of legalization is to make harmful narcotics, opiates and chemical coctails more accessible is not entirely my point - it will make them more accessible, but also more acceptable, which will introduce them to larger numbers of curious people who will potentially get hooked, whereas they may have never tried them if illegal.

"Meth labs" are not the only danger associated with meth; you also have the societal risks that the users (not the manufacturers) pose to other people. anitram brought up a good point about the risk you are putting on the children of drug users; news accounts of crack users selling their kids or otherwise putting them in dangerous situations certainly won't go away by making crack more accessihble and acceptable.

~U2Alabama

 

[U2Bama]

Well I understand that, but what stops someone from suing for the secondary effect?

I agree with anitram on this...the painkillers serve a legitimate medical purpose; all of these other drugs we are talking about legalizing are not even for the purpose of sustaining someone's addicition; we are talking about legalizing them for simple recreational use, not any medical benefit. To introduce something else addictive (while we already have alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, etc.) just seems like the wrong direction to take.

That's extremely sad. But I can also show you the downfall and demise of an alcoholic or a smoker, in the same manner.

I'm sure you can; I can too. Remember, I agree with you on the whole tobacco issue and second hand smoke.

But why do we need to introduce more paths to addiction to mainstream retail society?



~U2Alabama

 

[BVS]

I agree with anitram on this...the painkillers serve a legitimate medical purpose; all of these other drugs we are talking about legalizing are not even for the purpose of sustaining someone's addicition; we are talking about legalizing them for simple recreational use, not any medical benefit.

Not entirely true; some do have medical benefits and some were even medical drugs to begin with, i.e. extasy

 

[A_Wanderer]

LSD

 

[anitram]

Well I understand that, but what stops someone from suing for the secondary effect?

Vincent Vega answered this already quite well. The manufacturers meet their duty and standard of care, therefore there is no suit.

I don't know that drug use should be criminalized (addicts need treatment, not jail) but I'm really not convinced that the state delivering drugs for profit and either maintaining addictions or starting them has any kind of social utility.

If it were up to me, smoking would be banned as well, so I'm an equal opportunity freedom-restricter.

 

[A_Wanderer]

You laugh but it isn't ironic.

I make a point of smoking on no smoking day, if I have to start taking oxycodone on principle...

 

[U2Bama]

Not entirely true; some do have medical benefits and some were even medical drugs to begin with, i.e. extasy

Would you not say that today, there are safer, non-addictive alternatives that can be just as effective? I do realize that X has been used in some psychoactive treatments, but even those cases have proven that the harmful effects can be unpredictable from person to person and its psychiatric and medical use are not widely accepted.

Nor is LSD widely accepted for any medical benefit, and its potency makes it even more unpredictable even in psychiatric trials.

~U2Alabama

 

[A_Wanderer]

How is it possible to even know the possibilities if controlled research is banned?

The war on drugs perpetuates myths about how dangerous drug use is, it uses fear to scare the shit out of people from when they are kids and stops them making informed choices about what they put into their bodies - which at one stage or another they will make, illegal or not and ignorance kills.

 

[U2Bama]

Well, are you talking about "controlled research" or mainstream medical use? Controlled research trials have been conducted; permission can be granted for those. But I have not seen any wide support of medical use as a follow up to any of those controlled research trials.

Is meth not really as dangerous as they say it is? Can LSD not be as potent as they say it is? Does it have the same, nomical effect on everyone?

Are people such as myself missing out by NOT trying them, either for medical or recreational use?

~U2Alabama

 

[A_Wanderer]

You are not going to use them anyway, it's not as if the only reason your not racing out to get high is because it's illegal.

It's freedom of choice one way or another, and I would stress that point much more with LSD than I would with methamphetamine.

 

[U2Bama]

But you ended your statement on the myths of the dangerous drugs by stating that "ignorance kills." How does not experimenting with drugs kill someone? Maybe, hopefully, I am missing your point...

~U2Alabama

 

[A_Wanderer]

You tell kids that if they touch drugs that they will die dishevelled junkies and that they always have to just say no then when they are in an environment where they start to use drugs (statistically they will) they may make really bad choices like mixing alcohol and downers or succuming to water intoxication.

Teens will experiment with drugs, sex and rock and roll (or rap) illegal or not; abstaining is 100% effective but only for the minority that actually manages to abstain. Harm minimisation, independent of legality, is critical.

As for the case study the problems that lead to drug abuse are bigger than just the high; that guy had a piss poor life to start off and was on a downward slope; self-destruction would have been fulfilled whatever way - if not by meth then heroin or alcohol.

 

[A_Wanderer]

To be shaken out of the ruts of ordinary perception, to be shown for a few timeless hours the outer and inner world, not as they appear to an animal obsessed with survival or to a human being obsessed with words and notions, but as they are apprehended, directly and unconditionally, by Mind at Large— this is an experience of inestimable value to everyone and especially to the intellectual - Adolus Huxley, The Doors of Perception

 

[U2Bama]

You tell kids that if they touch drugs that they will die dishevelled junkies and that they always have to just say no then when they are in an environment where they start to use drugs (statistically they will) they may make really bad choices like mixing alcohol and downers or succuming to water intoxication.

I know many people who were told of the dangers of drugs, and although they mave have taken up the use of alcohol in life, they still managed to turn down other drugs. I know others who merely experimented with other drugs, and I have known some who became habitual users of other drugs and have since experienced the harmful effects of those drugs. I do not see where legalization would eliminate any of this.

Teens will experiment with drugs, sex and rock and roll (or rap) illegal or not; abstaining is 100% effective but only for the minority that actually manages to abstain. Harm minimisation, independent of legality, is critical.

As for the case study the problems that lead to drug abuse are bigger than just the high; that guy had a piss poor life to start off and was on a downward slope; self-destruction would have been fulfilled whatever way - if not by meth then heroin or alcohol.

You're right that the problems that lead to drug abuse are bigger than the high - in some cases. I think the meth addict whose article I posted had been tormented by the death of his younger brother his while life; some people need a means of escape. I'm of the opinion that there are safer ways of dealing with people's psychological needs rather than becoming dependent on drugs.

Just as the problems that lead to drug abuse are bigger than the high, the harmful side effects that come from drug use are bigger than those that affect the user - those that affect a child or some stranger driving down the street can be much worse.

~U2Alabama

 

[BVS]

Would you not say that today, there are safer, non-addictive alternatives that can be just as effective? I do realize that X has been used in some psychoactive treatments, but even those cases have proven that the harmful effects can be unpredictable from person to person and its psychiatric and medical use are not widely accepted.

Nor is LSD widely accepted for any medical benefit, and its potency makes it even more unpredictable even in psychiatric trials.

~U2Alabama

Oh believe me, I'm the first to admit that there are many other methods to deal with ailments than pharmaceuticals, but it's part of life.

It's a double edged sword that probably deserves another thread. Yes there are companies profiting off patients misdiagnosis' and marketing towards that and what not. But the truth is, people would rather take a pill rather than deal with it the hard way.

But you also have to acknowledge that there are people who are "hardwired" to be addicts.

 

[BVS]

Is meth not really as dangerous as they say it is?

You keep mentioning meth, and you are right in doing so to a certain extent, it's a very dangerous drug.

But what you don't seem to get, is that meth is the moonshine of drugs. There is no regular recipe, there is no exact science, it's people in a basement making this shit.

Honestly meth, probably would never fit in this discussion because of this. Just like "moonshine" would never fit into the discusion of alcohol.

 

[A_Wanderer]

^ Actually if we are talking about prohibition the quality controls became non-existant and many died from drinking bathtub still poison.

 

[Vincent Vega]

bathtub still poison.

??

 

[A_Wanderer]

http://www.bathtubginstill.com/

 

[BonosSaint]

I remember when we got the drug training in school, long before the "just say no" program. The guy who did the training was great. He expected that people were going to experiment and basically he was concerned that we don't fuck it up. Don't do acid alone, at least the first time. Don't mix downers with alchohol. Alcohol with stimulants however didn't pose the same danger. How to talk somebody down. What to watch for. It neither turned me into a raving junkie nor a teetotaler. And because I didn't think he was lying to me, I paid attention to him.