Freethought & Rationalism Archive

lunachick · 03-17-2004, 02:45 PM

I was chatting with a friend of mine about drug abuse and addictions. I've had a few drug problems in my life - not at the moment, though; been clean for more than 10 years now

- but had a penchant in my younger days for some pretty heavy drug consumption, and I'm not talking "soft" drugs, either.

Anyway, I got to thinking about me in the womb - I was on drugs. My mother had endless problems staying pregnent with me (a miscarriage prior to me), and was placed on complusory bed rest for her entire pregnancy and given the appropriate drugs at the time (early 1960's) for her condition. I was born too early and born "blue", was immediately incubated, and given...drugs.

In my childhood years I was quite sickly, suffering from bronchitis often, and hayfever type allergies - drugs sorted that out.

At 10 I got a horse, and was outdoors active, which seemed to solve my bronchitis problems, but I still suffered terrible hayfever in the spring/summer and would take drugs for it. Other than hayfever, I was actually very healthy from adolescence on.

I still get mild fever, but not so often anymore - and the new generation antihistamines are not so 'heavy' as the old ones, which used to make me quite groggy.

So, my question is...did the fact that I have 'been on drugs' since in the womb act as a catalyst to my drug addictions later in life?

My sister, who was a healthy pregnancy and birth with no illnesses in her childhood, rarely had more than an aspirin has not had any drug abuse issues in her life at all. With me, it was like a moth to a flame.

Hyndis · 03-17-2004, 05:07 PM

I think this could be an illustration of evolution, or something similar.

Had it not been for drugs, you would probably not be here today, as the conditions for the existance of you were so poor, the odds of your unassisted survival were very low.

And then your sister didn't have any of these problems, and so she's just healthier overall.

But the point is that it took drugs to keep you alive, as you were too weak to have a good survival chance otherwise (miscarriage, stillborn, etc), and so it could be that you were a borderline "unfit" member of the human species.

Sounds harsh, I know, but a hundred years ago the odds would have been heavily against your survival. And even with modern medicine and good health, infant mortality still happens. I had twin brothers...briefly. They were stillborn after a full term and otherwise healthy pregnancy, so out of me and my siblings, we so far have only a 50% survival rate.

NearNihil Experience · 03-18-2004, 06:54 AM

Sounds like a case of the "government flu" to me. Our culture seems so dependent on substances to be happy, alive, breathing, horny, attentive, awake, asleep, etc...

Doctors just seem to wantto pump people full of chemicals for lack of better answers, or for lack of wanting to work a patient for the time necessary to cure them without too much medication.
I know every doctor I have been to has sent me away with perscriptions and perscriptions and perscriptions....
You know, one worked. The rest, usually did some sort of damage(I now have a permanet, but not severe nerve problem because of one) and psychotic episodes from another, and useless counterbalancing of one drug with two...

I don't think drugs were introduced to me at conception, but my mother was one of those constant dotting retards that drags their kids from doctor to doctor just to find something wrong...my problem with doctors, they would...even if nothing was really a problem. I had allergies...even to a few medicines...which I got perscribed for me a few times even after I had informed the DR. Morons.

You want to know whose dangerous, MD's handing out free samples of whatever to their friends and families, perscribing whatever they can to whoever they can, speeding through their day, faces a blur, lives condenced into a chart.

And there are the illegal drugs, the one's everyone wants because the medical benefits are minimal. Yeh, they are quite more dangerous because you really don't know what you might be getting....oh wait, same with prescriptions...because everyone's not a chemist.
"Prozac's not addictive, but you want to be happy, DON'T YOU?"
Diffrent kinds of addictions, instead of dealing with problems directly, hands off pill pushin'.

NOw, don't get me wrong. I am not saying all of this applies to everyone. Quite a few people seem to benefit form chemical therapy....but its being used like Ben-gay at Old Folks wrestling match. Antibiotics, anti-depressants, anti-inflamitories, anti-whatever. And, you may have been less likely to live without such intervention...or lived as comfortably. But I hear ya.

Lunachick, glad your off the hard stuff. In more direct answer to your question, I would agree that an environmental condition of drugs coming in, may condition your body to need a responce from foreign chemicals. I know this because I'm talking out of my ass

. Seriously, we've been conditioned to reject street drugs and treat them as a stark danger, but when it comes to it profit is the bottom line and danger lurks in there to...maybe a greater danger because of the complacency and lack of forsight. We now actually have levels of anti-depressants in city water supplies, anti-biotics are being aimed a viri(god, how dumb), and Viox going into everyone too lazy to use an ice pack.

Soma,soma,soma,soma,soma,soma,soma,soma,soma,soma. .........

Roland98 · 03-18-2004, 08:07 AM

Interesting thought. I was also drugged and fairly blue at birth, though I didn't take medicine as routinely during childhood as you did. And the only "non-medicinal" drugs I've used in adulthood are the occasional alcohol and cigarettes. I'll browse PubMed and see if I can dig up anything.

Edit: don't see anything on that subject specifically; most of the lit seems to be looking at ADHD kids and whether taking stimulants during childhood makes them more likely to use drugs as an adult. Literature is contradictory.

Pro:

Quote:

J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2004 Feb;45(2):195-211.

Young adult follow-up of hyperactive children: antisocial activities and drug use.

Barkley RA, Fischer M, Smallish L, Fletcher K.

Department of Health Professions, College of Health Professions, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston 29425, USA. [email protected]

BACKGROUND: Hyperactive/ADHD children are believed to be a greater risk for adolescent and young adult antisocial activity and drug use/abuse, particularly that subset having comorbid conduct problems/disorder. METHOD: We report on the lifetime antisocial activities and illegal drug use self-reported at young adult follow-up (mean age 20-21 years; 13+ year follow-up) for a large sample of hyperactive (H; N = 147) and community control (CC; N = 73) children. Parent reports of childhood hyperactivity and conduct problems at study entry, parent and self-reports of ADHD and conduct disorder at adolescence, and parent reports of ADHD at young adulthood are examined for their contribution to antisocial behavior and drug use at adulthood. RESULTS: More of the H group committed a variety of antisocial acts and had been arrested for doing so (corroborated through official arrest records) than did the CC group. The H group also committed a higher frequency of property theft, disorderly conduct, assault with fists, carrying a concealed weapon, and illegal drug possession, as well as more arrests. These activities reduced to two dimensions corresponding to predatory-overt and drug-related antisocial conduct. The H group differed from the CC group only on the latter dimension. Childhood, adolescent, and adult ADHD predicted higher drug-related activities, as did childhood conduct problems. The H group with conduct disorder (CD) reported greater use of most substances than did the H only or CC groups, who did not differ from each other. Severity of teen ADHD and especially lifetime CD predicted use of hard drugs while just lifetime CD predicted marijuana/LSD use. Teen drug use seemed to potentiate increased drug-related antisocial activities beyond the contribution made by teen CD. CONCLUSIONS: Hyperactive children are at greater risk for antisocial activities and arrests by young adulthood that appear to be principally associated with illegal drug possession, use, and sale. Those having CD, however, appear to engage in greater and more diverse substance use.

Con:

Quote:

J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol. 2003 Fall;13(3):273-82.

Does stimulant treatment place children at risk for adult substance abuse? A controlled, prospective follow-up study.

Mannuzza S, Klein RG, Moulton JL 3rd.

New York University Child Study Center, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York 10016, USA. [email protected]

The sensitization hypothesis posits a neuroadaptation model in which exposure to stimulants results in dopamine system alterations that, in turn, increase sensitivity to the reinforcing effects of the previously experienced drug. This study examines whether stimulant treatment in childhood confers increased risk for substance use and abuse in later life, as the model predicts. Children, ages 7-12 years, with developmental reading disorders but no other psychiatric diagnoses were randomly assigned to methylphenidate treatment (n = 43) or matching placebo (n = 66) for 12-18 weeks. At 16-year follow-up (mean age 26 years), 94% of probands and 129 normal comparisons were evaluated by trained clinicians who were blind to group and treatment status. There were no significant differences between groups on the prevalence of substance use disorder (abuse or dependence) for any of the seven drug categories studied. There were no significant group differences among substance abusers regarding age at onset, duration, or number of episodes of substance abuse and dependence. Significantly more normals (60%) than treated (46%) and untreated probands (41%) ever used stimulants in adolescence or adulthood. Findings from this randomized trial contradict the notion that stimulant treatment in childhood leads to substance use or abuse in later life. The sensitization hypothesis is not supported.

jacheatamobits · 03-19-2004, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by NearNihil Experience

Soma,soma,soma,soma,soma,soma,soma,soma,soma,soma. .........

thats funny, nearnihil, i just read a couple books about the drink of the gods (and they postulated soma was made from the Fly Agaric, and jesus was the leader of a mushroom cult)

anyway, i digress...

id just like to say a thing or two about Xanax...

i was prescribed Xanax AFTER i had told my shrink i was recovering from a bad dope habit, among other drugs.

not a good idea...

kind of silly to think that an addictive drug would solve a problem(s) that was inherantly caused by addictive drugs to begin with.

funny thing about benzo's... you dont remember alot if you take too much.

in sum...

drugs have been around since the dawn of time (SOMA) and they arent going away, but it seems many (if not all) mental illness is intertwined with drugs in one form or another.

let me just add that addiction is not a disease, and i would be willing to debate that fact anytime, anywhere.

i also dont think that anyone "needs" drugs as far as mental illness goes, anymore than they "need" electro-shock therapy, or a frontal lobotomy. i mean, talk about primative... WTF!

HaysooChreesto! · 03-19-2004, 12:12 PM

I think that drugs like Prozac and all it's cousins have done far more good than bad. These drugs aren't perfect and a small portion of the population reacts negatively to them. However, depression has become more treatable and I've read countless articles that these drugs have saved people's lives.

I myself took the Prozac road once and at first I was a lot happier. Then I realized that I wasn't getting upset about things I should get upset about so I stopped taking it. Besides, I was in my mid twenties at the time and I enjoyed being the horniest guy on the planet. I think that if it weren't for that side effect I may still be on the stuff.

I think environment has more to do with becoming an addict than anything else. If children are exposed to parents that drink frequently or partake in other illegal drugs then the child is more apt use those substances as well.
Or if a child doesn't get the attention they need they will seek and find it elsewhere.
The drug crowd will accept anybody. The only standard the troubled teen or drug using crowd cares about is if one is willing to hang out with them and do what they do. So a kid from a less than desirable home situation can find instant acceptance and friendship. And the bonds between angry, lonely, rebellious, and neglected kids develop fast and hard.

Of course there are cases where a child from a healthy and loving family goes astray but these are the exception.

03-17-2004, 02:45 PM	#1
lunachick Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: NZ Posts: 7,895	Drugs from Conception to Death I was chatting with a friend of mine about drug abuse and addictions. I've had a few drug problems in my life - not at the moment, though; been clean for more than 10 years now - but had a penchant in my younger days for some pretty heavy drug consumption, and I'm not talking "soft" drugs, either. Anyway, I got to thinking about me in the womb - I was on drugs. My mother had endless problems staying pregnent with me (a miscarriage prior to me), and was placed on complusory bed rest for her entire pregnancy and given the appropriate drugs at the time (early 1960's) for her condition. I was born too early and born "blue", was immediately incubated, and given...drugs. In my childhood years I was quite sickly, suffering from bronchitis often, and hayfever type allergies - drugs sorted that out. At 10 I got a horse, and was outdoors active, which seemed to solve my bronchitis problems, but I still suffered terrible hayfever in the spring/summer and would take drugs for it. Other than hayfever, I was actually very healthy from adolescence on. I still get mild fever, but not so often anymore - and the new generation antihistamines are not so 'heavy' as the old ones, which used to make me quite groggy. So, my question is...did the fact that I have 'been on drugs' since in the womb act as a catalyst to my drug addictions later in life? My sister, who was a healthy pregnancy and birth with no illnesses in her childhood, rarely had more than an aspirin has not had any drug abuse issues in her life at all. With me, it was like a moth to a flame.

03-18-2004, 06:54 AM	#3
NearNihil Experience Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Up Shit Creek Posts: 1,810	Sounds like a case of the "government flu" to me. Our culture seems so dependent on substances to be happy, alive, breathing, horny, attentive, awake, asleep, etc... Doctors just seem to wantto pump people full of chemicals for lack of better answers, or for lack of wanting to work a patient for the time necessary to cure them without too much medication. I know every doctor I have been to has sent me away with perscriptions and perscriptions and perscriptions.... You know, one worked. The rest, usually did some sort of damage(I now have a permanet, but not severe nerve problem because of one) and psychotic episodes from another, and useless counterbalancing of one drug with two... I don't think drugs were introduced to me at conception, but my mother was one of those constant dotting retards that drags their kids from doctor to doctor just to find something wrong...my problem with doctors, they would...even if nothing was really a problem. I had allergies...even to a few medicines...which I got perscribed for me a few times even after I had informed the DR. Morons. You want to know whose dangerous, MD's handing out free samples of whatever to their friends and families, perscribing whatever they can to whoever they can, speeding through their day, faces a blur, lives condenced into a chart. And there are the illegal drugs, the one's everyone wants because the medical benefits are minimal. Yeh, they are quite more dangerous because you really don't know what you might be getting....oh wait, same with prescriptions...because everyone's not a chemist. "Prozac's not addictive, but you want to be happy, DON'T YOU?" Diffrent kinds of addictions, instead of dealing with problems directly, hands off pill pushin'. NOw, don't get me wrong. I am not saying all of this applies to everyone. Quite a few people seem to benefit form chemical therapy....but its being used like Ben-gay at Old Folks wrestling match. Antibiotics, anti-depressants, anti-inflamitories, anti-whatever. And, you may have been less likely to live without such intervention...or lived as comfortably. But I hear ya. Lunachick, glad your off the hard stuff. In more direct answer to your question, I would agree that an environmental condition of drugs coming in, may condition your body to need a responce from foreign chemicals. I know this because I'm talking out of my ass. Seriously, we've been conditioned to reject street drugs and treat them as a stark danger, but when it comes to it profit is the bottom line and danger lurks in there to...maybe a greater danger because of the complacency and lack of forsight. We now actually have levels of anti-depressants in city water supplies, anti-biotics are being aimed a viri(god, how dumb), and Viox going into everyone too lazy to use an ice pack. Soma,soma,soma,soma,soma,soma,soma,soma,soma,soma. .........

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-17-2004, 05:07 PM	#2
Hyndis Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 6,588	I think this could be an illustration of evolution, or something similar. Had it not been for drugs, you would probably not be here today, as the conditions for the existance of you were so poor, the odds of your unassisted survival were very low. And then your sister didn't have any of these problems, and so she's just healthier overall. But the point is that it took drugs to keep you alive, as you were too weak to have a good survival chance otherwise (miscarriage, stillborn, etc), and so it could be that you were a borderline "unfit" member of the human species. Sounds harsh, I know, but a hundred years ago the odds would have been heavily against your survival. And even with modern medicine and good health, infant mortality still happens. I had twin brothers...briefly. They were stillborn after a full term and otherwise healthy pregnancy, so out of me and my siblings, we so far have only a 50% survival rate.

03-19-2004, 12:12 PM	#6
HaysooChreesto! Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: SoCal USA Posts: 7,737	I think that drugs like Prozac and all it's cousins have done far more good than bad. These drugs aren't perfect and a small portion of the population reacts negatively to them. However, depression has become more treatable and I've read countless articles that these drugs have saved people's lives. I myself took the Prozac road once and at first I was a lot happier. Then I realized that I wasn't getting upset about things I should get upset about so I stopped taking it. Besides, I was in my mid twenties at the time and I enjoyed being the horniest guy on the planet. I think that if it weren't for that side effect I may still be on the stuff. I think environment has more to do with becoming an addict than anything else. If children are exposed to parents that drink frequently or partake in other illegal drugs then the child is more apt use those substances as well. Or if a child doesn't get the attention they need they will seek and find it elsewhere. The drug crowd will accept anybody. The only standard the troubled teen or drug using crowd cares about is if one is willing to hang out with them and do what they do. So a kid from a less than desirable home situation can find instant acceptance and friendship. And the bonds between angry, lonely, rebellious, and neglected kids develop fast and hard. Of course there are cases where a child from a healthy and loving family goes astray but these are the exception.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.