All about drugs

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Fri Aug 23, 2002 4:25 pm

@Rob-Hin...PhD stands for Philosophy Doctor, I assume, although it's more commonly used as an abbreviation of 'Doctor of Philosophy'...Although the title is misleading. A PhD is a degree, just like an MA (Master of Arts), BA (batchellor of Arts), MSc (Master of Sciences) etc...

@Sleep, no, you are quite wrong

. Although I cannot claim great experience, drug dealers are all too keen to slip an unwary victim a substance, in the intention of having them become addicted, and thus be forced to feed their unwanted habit by buying from them

Anyway, here is IMHO a more interesting question -

Is one justified in oing bad things when under the influence of drugs...for instance, someone may commit an assault while under the influence of a hallucinogen. They did not mean to commit the crime, and will certainly not do it again, as it was not deliberate in the first place. So are they accountable? What is the difference between drug induced insanity and birth-defect or injury induced insanity? What about emotionally induced insanity?

This is off topic, so I'll edit it out if you want @Rob

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Fri Aug 23, 2002 4:55 pm

Originally posted by frogus
@Sleep, no, you are quite wrong . Although I cannot claim great experience, drug dealers are all too keen to slip an unwary victim a substance, in the intention of having them become addicted, and thus be forced to feed their unwanted habit by buying from them

It just occurs to me as a strange thing to do, if you have a product do you just give it away?

What kind of evidence do you have, i mean i haven't got any to support my ideas i was just wondering if you knew any facts over my hear say

You are very likely right, i was just wondering

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Fri Aug 23, 2002 5:03 pm

I'm sure I could dig up some examples if you want...I will do later on, but it is common knowledge. Of course noone would drop an E in someone's drink...but people are surreptitiously given heroin and other addictive drugs all the time...

It is similar to the way supermarkets give out Buy 2 get 1 Free offers. They are giving something away, but only on the knowledge that they are getting more money out of you than you want to give them, for more product than you want to buy...

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Fri Aug 23, 2002 5:09 pm

Originally posted by frogus
I'm sure I could dig up some examples if you want...I will do later on, but it is common knowledge. Of course noone would drop an E in someone's drink...but people are surreptitiously given heroin and other addictive drugs all the time... It is similar to the way supermarkets give out Buy 2 get 1 Free offers. They are giving something away, but only on the knowledge that they are getting more money out of you than you want to give them, for more product than you want to buy...

Oh indeed it is common knowledge i just wonder how true the common knowledge is. Don't get me wrong i am not going to sit in a pub with out a hand over my drink i just wonder how true it is.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Aug 23, 2002 5:11 pm

Originally posted by frogus
Is one justified in oing bad things when under the influence of drugs...for instance, someone may commit an assault while under the influence of a hallucinogen. They did not mean to commit the crime, and will certainly not do it again, as it was not deliberate in the first place. So are they accountable?

If they're not in control, they're not in control. They can't be held accountable under law (at least, in the US) for these actions. The guilty party, if any, and the means of dealing with the matter legally vary according to the cause of the crime.

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Fri Aug 23, 2002 5:13 pm

@Forgus&Sleep, I find it strange to slip things into peoples drinks... If they have no way to know what they have recived they have no chance to connect feelings with substances... It would imo make more sense to offer a free sample, but the efficiancy of that is perhaps debatable.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Fri Aug 23, 2002 5:19 pm

Originally posted by Dottie
@Forgus&Sleep, I find it strange to slip things into peoples drinks... If they have no way to know what they have recived they have no chance to connect feelings with substances... It would imo make more sense to offer a free sample, but the efficiancy of that is perhaps debatable.

That was my thinking *shrug* I don't exactly have a great knowledge of the subject. I have heard many stories of date rape, some ones that scare me more than a little, but i have never heard many cases of drug dealers slipping people drugs. Like i say though i am not exactly a pariah of the subject.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Fri Aug 23, 2002 5:24 pm

Originally posted by frogus
Is one justified in oing bad things when under the influence of drugs...for instance, someone may commit an assault while under the influence of a hallucinogen. They did not mean to commit the crime, and will certainly not do it again, as it was not deliberate in the first place. So are they accountable? What is the difference between drug induced insanity and birth-defect or injury induced insanity? What about emotionally induced insanity?

All kinds of psychotic-like states, whether they are induced by drugs, but birth defects or emotional stress, are viewed as not responsible for your actions here in Sweden. If it is suspected that a person committs a crime under such influences, a forensic psychiatric assessment is performed.

@Frogus & Sleep: Very few drugs are so immediately physically addictive so slipping into somebodies drink would be a point. Heroine would be such a drug, but heroine is not suitable for slipping into a drink. It has happened though that people slip drugs into drinks, in Sweden there are several documented cases, but not related to drug dealers trying to get new custumers addicted. One of the more upsetting cases here were people who produced pornmovies who would drug girls with Rohypnol and when the girls were totally whacked and semi-unconscious by the drug, bring them to a studio and film them in abusive situations.

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Fri Aug 23, 2002 5:45 pm

To shed a little more light on why drugs can MAKE someone do something they would normally never do.
Clinical Psych 101:

1.The individual is defined by their personality.
2.Personality is a balance of three separate but related factors, unique to each individual.

a.Id:the base, animal, instinctual, self (eat, sleep,reproduce, kill)
b.Ego:the gatekeeper which balances the Id(see above) with the Superego(see below) and acts as buffer against the emotional onslaught of daily life.
c.Superego:The learned morals, values, restraints, inhibitions, communal values.

4.By altering the balance of these three factors, the personality is effectively changed from its "normal" state,
5.See #1.(1.The individual is defined by their personality.)

Drugs change the sense of self by suppressing the Ego and Superego, and by exciting the Id. Thus there is quite a lot of truth to the old cliché "I was not myself last night".

I know it's a little on the clinical side, but you asked.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Fri Aug 23, 2002 6:05 pm

Originally posted by Scayde
1.The individual is defined by their personality.
2.Personality is a balance of three separate but related factors, unique to each individual.

a.Id:the base, animal, instinctual, self (eat, sleep,reproduce, kill)
b.Ego:the gatekeeper which balances the Id(see above) with the Superego(see below) and acts as buffer against the emotional onslaught of daily life.
c.Superego:The learned morals, values, restraints, inhibitions, communal values.

4.By altering the balance of these three factors, the personality is effectively changed from its "normal" state,
5.See #1.(1.The individual is defined by their personality.)

Drugs change the sense of self by suppressing the Ego and Superego, and by exciting the Id. Thus there is quite a lot of truth to the old cliché "I was not myself last night".

There are many different personality theories and models around, this one is the psychodynamic one, first formulated by Sigmund Freud in the beginning of the last century. Since then, much has happened in personality psycholog - no wonder, since Freud was the pioneer!

This model is one theoretical way of viewing how different drugs can induce disinhibiton of impulses. However, over the years, research has given little support to Freuds personality theory. Personally, I think Freuds structural model (id, ego, superego) has little to do with clinical and physiological reality, and modern, much more complex models offer far better explanations.

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Fri Aug 23, 2002 6:10 pm

Originally posted by Scayde
Drugs change the sense of self by suppressing the Ego and Superego, and by exciting the Id. Thus there is quite a lot of truth to the old cliché "I was not myself last night".

I know it's a little on the clinical side, but you asked.

Not at all clinical, to my reading...How exactly does a chemical process excite the Id? Is this a chemical phonomenon or a spiritual one?

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Fri Aug 23, 2002 6:13 pm

Originally posted by frogus
Not at all clinical, to my reading...How exactly does a chemical process excite the Id? Is this a chemical phonomenon or a spiritual one?

Frogus, you have the mind of a scientist...you know where to find me if you should change your mind regarding your future career...

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Fri Aug 23, 2002 7:02 pm

Not at all clinical, to my reading...How exactly does a chemical process excite the Id? Is this a chemical phonomenon or a spiritual one?

I would try to address this but it looks like CE may be a far better resource..I'm a little out of my field(cardiovascular) here, and bow to a superior authority.

CE, Thoroughly enjoyed the writing style of your post. It reads better than most of the text books I remember.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Fri Aug 23, 2002 7:05 pm

Originally posted by Scayde
I would try to adress this but it looks like CE may be a far better resource..I'm a little out of my field(cardiovascular) here, and bow to a superior autority.

CE, Thoroughly enjoyed the writing style of your post. It reads better than most of the text books I remember.

Thanks a lot Scayde, and welcome to SYM

We may try to make a common effort replying to Frogus question!

I know virtually nothing about cardiovascular, I'm in neuroscience...

Ode to a Grasshopper · Sun Aug 25, 2002 12:49 am

Originally posted by Mr Sleep

It just occurs to me as a strange thing to do, if you have a product do you just give it away?

What kind of evidence do you have, i mean i haven't got any to support my ideas i was just wondering if you knew any facts over my hear say You are very likely right, i was just wondering

Nice to see the definition between hard drugs and soft drugs has been made already.

Anyway, dealers sometimes 'lace' softer drugs (such as pot or magic mushrooms) with hard drugs in an attempt to get soft-drug users addicted to the heavy stuff. I have only ever tried laced pot once (laced with a substance known as angel dust), and it was a very strange experience. It was only my second time trying pot, and it wasn't unpleasant, but having no desire to try hard drugs I now make a point of being careful to avoid laced pot. Basically the way it works is after a while a regular smoker of laced pot will find themselves addicted to the substance it's laced with, and that pot alone no longer 'satisfies' them. They will then usually move onto the hard drugs.

I assume this discussion (if it continues) will include legal drugs such as caffeine, tobacco, and alcohol too?

Rob-hin · Post by **Rob-hin** » Sun Aug 25, 2002 5:16 am

Originally posted by frogus
[BThis is off topic, so I'll edit it out if you want @Rob [/b]

Everything about drugs goes.
This topic is not just for my question.

I assume this discussion (if it continues) will include legal drugs such as caffeine, tobacco, and alcohol too?

Fine by me.

BTW, marijuana is legal here in Holland. What does everybody think about that?

Ode to a Grasshopper · Sun Aug 25, 2002 6:35 am

Originally posted by Rob-hin

Fine by me.
BTW, marijuana is legal here in Holland. What does everybody think about that?

I think I wish I lived in Holland.

I truly believe it is just a matter of time before other countries (most notably the US, and then Australia and probably Britain will most likely conform to the US's lead) follow suit, and legalise marijuana. It will be a long time coming, I suspect, but given the widespread (if 'underground') tolerance for marijuana it is a case of 'when' rather than 'if'. It may come faster if the government (both US and Australian) stop the anti-marijuana propaganda campaign of misinformation that has been going on for decades, and educate people using the facts.
IIRC Holland has a far lower rate of cannabis use than the US, interesting, no?

However, the debate has been done before, so unless it arises again I shall leave things there.

Rob-hin · Post by **Rob-hin** » Sun Aug 25, 2002 12:46 pm

Originally posted by Ode to a Grasshopper

However, the debate has been done before, so unless it arises again I shall leave things there.

Ow, sorry.
Must have missed that one.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Sun Aug 25, 2002 12:51 pm

Originally posted by Rob-hin

Ow, sorry.
Must have missed that one.

I think Ode means that the debate on the legalisation of Marijuana has been done before, not drugs in general.

Ode to a Grasshopper · Mon Aug 26, 2002 12:32 am

Ooops...My bad.

Originally posted by Mr Sleep

I think Ode means that the debate on the legalisation of Marijuana has been done before, not drugs in general.

Sleepy's right, that was what I meant to say. Apologies if it wasn't very clear.
A general debate on drugs has been loosely skimmed around, but only when the debate on the legalisation of cannabis got sidetracked a little. So fire away @Rob.