Posted by alexandra_k on July 14, 2018, at 0:30:59
In reply to Re: Paul Jay, posted by sigismund on July 11, 2018, at 17:42:13
> I like opiates. (Perhaps I suffer from an endorphin deficiency?
Maybe. Or maybe you have lots of receptors for them, or something, so their presence is especially nice for you. I don't know.
I have tried opiates in several forms and I never really got them. I mean, I mostly felt like I wasn't high at all and would be 'I think I need some more because I'm just not feeling it' after having comperable amounts to others who felt it alright. Amphetamines really hit my pleasure centres, though. Amphetamines and mushrooms all together were quite the trip :) Ah, the good old days...
> the consequences of running out are such that I don't seek them out.
Right. I've sort of thought about getting up early in the morning to go mushroom hunting and I similarly have just decided that it isn't really worth it. The consequences of getting into trouble over it... It's just not worth it for me, anymore.
I'm glad I got the chance to have experimented with an awful lot of things in my lifetime, though. I think it makes me more resiliant / less corruptible now.
> What I do not understand about the US figures is the death rate. Given dependence and standardised doses opiates should not be causing this death rate. Therefore these users are not adequately maintained with stable tolerances (of course not), or the supply is very variable. Fentanyl in fake Rx opioids?
I don't know.
I suspect there is a lot of variability in supply / that doses are not standardised at all. For example, as supply dwindles suppliers bulk it out with contaminants and end users need to use more to get the same effect. Then a new shipment comes in and people start selling purer stuff which can lead to overdoses for end users.
There is a prepratory response with IV users of opiates, too. The body expects the drug as part of a standardised preparation / injection ritual and alterations to that process can result in overdoses. So if, for example, someone else prepares the needle for the person whereas they usaully did that themself, or if they rushed part of the process because someone was banging on the bathroom door.
I don't know why there is a particular epidemic for them now. Surprised to hear that. To hear those stats.
I've been studying a little public health, you see. And we learn about stats. Only the stats we learn about are different stats.
The trouble with NZ stats is I know a little something about how they are collected. For example, I know the unemployment rate only looks so low because they put security guards outside Work and Income doors to prevent people from entering the building to prevent people from applying for unemployment.
There was even something about how census data is altered by the government so it falls in line with administrative data. In other words, if more people say they are unemployed by census than by those who were registered as unemployed by local Work and Income offices they will choose to display the Work and Income office data.
It's not even worth the money it's not even printed on. It's a complete and utter sham.
I really don't see another way to view that.
What makes me think the actuary people will release actual stats? I think they probably release 'useful' stats for their purposes. They are probably interested to see what the up and coming hopefuls might make of what they have offered them to play with...
Would be my guess.
But it is interesting that someone is out and saying that things are objectively worse (mortality is falling) in the UK and USA. I hadn't heard that before.
poster:alexandra_k
thread:1099420
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20140225/msgs/1099562.html