Question by Halsfield: Addiction – What is inherently wrong with it?
(I restarted this question because i laid the last question out sloppily and people were missing my point)

Question: What is wrong with being addicted to something? Everyone is addicted to something right now, but people seem to have this great fear and abhorrence for drug addiction without really explaining or knowing why it seems.

Definition: addiction is a state in which the body relies on a substance for normal functioning and develops physical dependence. When this substance is suddenly removed, it will cause withdrawal, a characteristic set of signs and symptoms

Substances i want to focus on:

Substances that do NO physical harm(opiates,can be taken for many many years by people without real physical harm). I am not talking about drugs like alcohol which destroy your liver, or cocaine that destroys your heart, or meth which destroys just about everything. Only those drugs which are addictive that can be taken long term without physical harm, or physical harm that can be avoided with simple things like vitamins or exercise. A non-opiate example of this would be Ambien (zolpidem) or valium(benzo class).

I do not want to talk about overdosing because it is easily avoided with responsible use and doctor supervision of dosage increase. people dying from overdose from streets drugs either had something cut into the main drug, got a much more potent drug, or were suicidal in which case we may as well make rope illegal. accidents of course happen but accidental deaths are not reasons to make things illegal or to ostracize people for doing a substance.

I am also not concerned with social problems caused by the illegal nature of drugs. Street gangs form because drugs are a money maker due to their scarcity which starts with them being made illegal, just as the mob rose up with prohibition of alcohol. Stealing for the drug is made unnecessary when the drug is cheaply available and easily obtained due to large scale production and distribution.

In addition i am not really concerned with things like beating your wife while under the influence because that is not the responsibility of the drug, that is the responsibility of the person. Alcohol doesnt make you attack someone, you chose to at a point. It can make you less afraid to take a violent action, but it cannot force you to and this is something the courts and i agree on.

One final note, i am also not talking about problems like driving under the influence and killing someone. that is not a problem of addiction but a problem of responsibility. there are plenty of people that drink alcohol that have never set foot in the driver’s seat under the influence and then there are people that readily try to drive home after drinking heavily. the problem was there before the substance ever was.

I am of course talking about a situation with drugs that does not currently exist (except in a few experimental towns/clinics) but i am talking about a situation that existed for millenia before the recent “war on drugs” made them illegal and created the black market, drug gangs, drug wars in many countries where they fight to control supply, and violence due to the need to steal to obtain the drug or money to obtain the drug. I am asking why the sudden change in perception where before morphine was just a helpful cough medicine/pain suppressant it is now demonized without it being inherently bad in any way and is in fact helpful in many ways.
Id just like to present a comparison of the “addiction” of food/water/sodium to the addiction of morphine.

all will sometimes make people do violent acts to get them if they run out or run low. all

will make people very irritable if you do not have enough or have run out and are suffering their different forms of withdrawal.

all the first 3 WILL be deadly if you do not have enough and morphine CAN be deadly if you are addicted heavily enough and stop cold turkey.

all fit the definition of addiction and yet the first 3 are perfectly accepted by society whereas morphine and other non-harmful addictive drugs are looked down on.

morphine has saved countless lives, including mine, by stopping diarrhea and easing intense pain that might otherwise cripple someone. morphine has made so many cancer and other chronic pain sufferers lives incredibly better, but if someone takes it for non- “medical” reasons they are shunned, arrested, thrown out of their families, etc.

Best answer:

Answer by Raqui
What is inherently wrong with it is the inability to say no even in the presence of the anticipation adverse consequences.

Answer by hope this helps
It is your right to be addicted to any drug you wish.

Most drugs that are illegal are because of the harm inflicted on
others while under their influence and the long term health
issues.
Many that use these drugs do not have health coverage and
become a burden on state and federal agencies to care for
them and cause the loss millions of dollars in tax payers funds
used for their care.

I can see your point of view even though I do not agree with it.
Its like those that say, “I shouldn’t be required to wear a
helmet when I ride my motorcycle!”

The reason for the helmet law was and is because when a
motorcyclist is in an accident, several agencies of the state
and hospital systems have to pay the bills for these motorists
that usually have no medical insurance.

Let me ask you this: If you were to have a seizure and be in a
hospital for 6 months due to your drug use, are you able to
pay your expenses or will your state, hospital system and the
taxpayers pay your expenses?

Everyone that complains seems to be focused only on their
rights and could care less about the millions of dollars being
wasted on their needless medical expenses that rob those
that really need the help because it drains the state and
hospital systems of the operational funds to help those who
are sick instead of those not smart enough to not use drugs
and screw their self up.

If you are going to screw yourself up using drugs, sign a wavier
so you can just die and get it over with. But you won’t. Because
after you screw yourself up, you demand and feel you are
owed the medical treatment that those that are sick may be
denied just because of your right to screw yourself up.

You made a conscious choice to put your life in danger. The
sick don’t have that option. And may not be able to get the
medical help they need because the medical system is
drained by those invoking their right to do as they please
even if robs others of their rights and medical treatments.

All of you say you are right until your drugs catch up with you.
Then its up to others to clean up after you and provide
thousands of dollars in funding which in most cases is
needless since you will just go back out and screw yourself
up invoking your rights again.

Those on drugs I have met aren’t able to understand what I
have said here. Anything that robs them of their right to do as
they please and removes their right to rob others of their rights
is unacceptable.

We will never agree on this subject. You feel my tax dollars are
to be used if you need them. I don’t feel my tax dollars should
be used for addicts. But fortunate for you, I don’t have a say
in it!

This is one of your statements:

I am asking why the sudden change in perception where before morphine was just a helpful cough medicine/pain suppressant it is now demonized without it being inherently bad in any way and is in fact helpful in many ways.

Morphine is not harmless unless in a small dose. It was used
as a pain suppressant but most people became addicted to it.
Morphine will shut your kidneys down if used on a regular basis.

USTC360 No26 Paul’s story — Our feature story today is about Paul Sanguesa’s remarkable journey of moving on from his past in abusing alcohol and drugs. We have a special guest with us …

Health after prison matters
Broadening the definition of health creates opportunities for wider involvement in the community by the foundation, as demonstrated Friday when it hosted a "Health Policy Conversation" at the Beechwood Hotel, touting one of its grant-funded programs …
Read more on Worcester Telegram

Jeremy Miller: Synthetic drug laws need expansion
It is important that we use a two-step approach to the problem of synthetic drug use in Minnesota by strengthening the definitions of synthetic drugs to allow law enforcement to do their job properly, but also by focusing on educating Minnesotans …
Read more on Winona Daily News

Australia: 'Zoe's law' prepares ground for US-style attacks on women's right …
Regardless of the lack of evidence that such abortions are taking place in Australia, this could only be an attempt to confuse and weaken the personhood definition and undermine abortion availability. In the case of “Zoe's law” it is argued that there …
Read more on Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal