I have read that before and I still find it intriguing. I know the rates are high with nursing as well.

I often think it has something to do with the work or work environment when there are such trends, and start working to figure out why or if anything relieves it.

Methadone withdrawal isn't fatal. No opioid has fatal withdrawal symptoms. Anyone that tells you that doesn't know what they're talking about or is actively lying to you. And frankly, it's a lot better that people use pharmaceuticals recreationally. They're of known purity and strength, which makes overdoses less likely, and for opioids, protects the user from long term effects. Most opioids are safe to use basically indefinitely and have few, if any, long term detrimental effects for your average person.

You can't make the claim that drug A is more or less addictive that drug B. Addiction has little to do with the substance used as far as is known and there is no way to measure addictiveness objectively.

Also, methadone is used because it's legal, politically safe, and has a long half-life. The long half-life is useful because the person using it doesn't need to dose as frequently and it lets politicians and addiction treatment professionals pat themselves on the back because they got the patient off of heroin.

> why hasn't the war on drugs taken on the opioid and benzo manufacturers?

Probably because it has little to do with what would actually be good for society, and more to do with filling the pockets of people who maliciously abuse moral rhetoric to their own advantage.

No, your argument is pretty offensive.

The difference between your example and drug policy, is that guard rails are there to prevent accidents. Same with laws on speeding (protects others from speeders). American drug policy doesn't prevent accidents, it restricts individual freedoms under the guise of protecting society.

My family has serious problems with alcoholism. As a result, I don't drink because it would be a very risky personal choice. Statistically I'd probably be dead before retirement. However, I don't have a problem with weed or LSD. They're fun and I know how to use them safely, so I do.

Why do we have guardrails for LSD? Works fine for me! Why do we have national guardrails for weed? It's legal in my state and works fine for me! And why in the world is alcohol legal? This is a toxic substance, it's seriously risky for me, and putting it out in the open could lead to bad decisions on my part. We should ban it!

No. We shouldn't ban alcohol. Nor weed or LSD. These aren't guardrails protecting us from the cliff. These law are baby fences, presuming that some government official needs to protect us from ourselves.

Apples and oranges. Drug use is a personal choice and the government has already indicated they're ok with people killing themselves with alcohol and tobacco.

I'm offended by your reasoning and lack of insight into the overall societal cost of having certain temptations kept out of your reach. This not just about getting high, it's about the crime, corruption and death that comes from this madness.

I'm guessing you are a relatively intelligent person - try thins thought experiment: Do you drink alcohol? Can you control your intake? Know anybody who does? Know anybody who is an alcoholic? Do you accept that most people who use it can enjoy it but there are some unfortunates who can't and that's just the price of the freedom to drink?

Now replace the word "alcohol" with "drugs". Because guess what? Alcohol is a drug too, except it's socially acceptable.

I'm not trying to be an asshole, but your original premise comes off as "sure, other people may be fucked by the system now, but it works pretty ok by me so I see no need to change it"

Your post just comes off as self-centered and ignorant to me. What world do you live in where people's lives aren't being destroyed MORE by these drug laws then using that drug legally would do? This is just a silly statement that honestly makes no sense. Portugal has legalized all drugs over a decade ago, and you know what happened? Reduction of addiction and people getting the help they need rather than dying alone from OD'ing. Do some research please, your analogy with guard rails is just ridiculous.

Uh... you can make your own roads without guard rails. But if I grow the wrong plants on my private property the government will do some really evil things to me. But they won't touch you for not adding guard rails to your private roads.

Are you comparing a militarized police force killing thousands of people and ruining the lives of millions created as an organized effort to oppress people of color and dissidents to a guardrail on the edge of a canyon?

Do you truly believe that you haven't tried controlled substances because they are hard to get?

And, do you believe you are law-abiding?

>My argument is not offensive, you simply chose to be offended

Although not personally offended myself, it is almost never appropriate to say this to somebody hurt by an action or comment you have made. Please respect the feelings and opinions of others, even when you find it difficult or nigh impossible (such as in this case) to relate to the perspective of the hurt party.

Parent comment was referring to LSD specifically. It’s not addictive.

But control of your body is your responsibility. I don't like being restricted in my life, because others can't control yourself. If someone takes those things in "hard times," that's not proper use and they're bring irresponsible.

In fact, you probably can control yourself (how is your record so far?), it's only a fear that you can't. I don't like being restricted in my life, because you're afraid you won't be able to control yourself.

Furthermore, the law has not eliminated drugs: If you run into hard times and seek something to self-destruct with, you can still easily find LSD or cocaine. It would just take you more effort because of the law.

So the law has put up a small barrier around you so you can get away with exercising less responsibility, making you weaker, yet your threat from the substances persists.

Meanwhile it has endangered me and millions of others in our quest for spiritual enlightenment. (I don't care about cocaine, only LSD). There are other ways to learn enlightenment of course, but in the meantime if we want LSD we run the risks of arrest in the act of purchasing, holding and consuming. We also risk poisoning because it comes from the black market. And we have to endure greater surveillance in our daily lives and at the borders. And we have to pay greater taxes for all the law enforcement and surveillance equipment.

While the benefits of millions of people attaining spiritual enlightenment are tremendous. There would be less fighting, less greed, less anxiety, more sharing, more volunteering and less fear. Having a connection to our spirit, environment and world means less waste, stress and pollution.

Imagine if 50% of the people in your life were as giving and kind and generous as your first-grade teacher. Don't let a vague fear of distant self-destruction control you. Just by posting and exchanging information on this forum, you're adding momentum to the process of cooperation on a grand scale. Don't restrict access to spiritual substances. Let the people who want to chill out, see the big picture and cooperate on a grand scale figure out how to do it.

Ah, I see. According to you, the world needs laws on the books to keep dunces from harming themselves in all the different ways possible. Ythl, I don't mean to scare you, but did you know you can die from drinking too much water? And can you believe there aren't yet any laws preventing this?! Scary, right?

Source: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/CHICO-Fraternity-pledg...

It's an argument for any policy that would reduce harm to drug users without causing additional, worse harm of its own. Decriminalization, as it's usually conceived, still sends billions of dollars flowing into underground markets and criminal subcultures.

I don't believe that is true. Do you have a citation for that claim?

E.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_Stat...

> Scholars estimate that consumption dropped to a low of about 60% of pre-prohibition levels around 1925, rising to almost 80% before the law was officially repealed.[citation needed] After the prohibition was implemented, alcohol continued to be consumed. However, how much compared to pre-Prohibition levels remains unclear. Studies examining the rates of cirrhosis deaths as a proxy for alcohol consumption estimated a decrease in consumption of 10–20%.[96][97][98] However, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism's studies show clear epidemiological evidence that "overall cirrhosis mortality rates declined precipitously with the introduction of Prohibition," despite widespread flouting of the law.[99] One study reviewing city-level drunkenness arrests came to a similar result.[100] And, yet another study examining "mortality, mental health and crime statistics" found that alcohol consumption fell, at first, to approximately 30 percent of its pre-Prohibition level; but, over the next several years, increased to about 60–70 percent of its pre-prohibition level.[101]