Article on helmets in the metro today...

veronese68

I've tried really hard to derail this from the usual helmet debate and I'm very disappointed with some of you trying to have a sensible debate.
On the heroin issue. Wasn't it originally a morphine type painkiller? So, administered properly would given by a doctor to someone suffering really acute pain. Which when used in that way is non addictive. As with many things it's the abuse that's the problem.

EKE_38BPM

Veronese68 wrote:

I've tried really hard to derail this from the usual helmet debate and I'm very disappointed with some of you trying to have a sensible debate.
On the heroin issue. Wasn't it originally a morphine type painkiller? So, administered properly would given by a doctor to someone suffering really acute pain. Which when used in that way is non addictive. As with many things it's the abuse that's the problem.

My nephew had spinal surgery and was on morphine for about a week because of it. I asked him what the morphine was like and he said "It was PHUCKING brilliant." My nephew very rarely swears and is not a heroin addict. As far as I know.

Gussio

Derailing further, the live version of Lou Reed's "Heroin" on Rock and Roll Animal is a piece of rock genius. The moment when he walks onto stage 5mins into the intro playing his guitar, then the clamour from the crowd, is one of my all time favourite sounds. I once read it described as the audience reacting as if Jesus himself had stepped out from behind the curtain.

veronese68

Gussio wrote:

Derailing further, the live version of Lou Reed's "Heroin" on Rock and Roll Animal is a piece of rock genius. The moment when he walks onto stage 5mins into the intro playing his guitar, then the clamour from the crowd, is one of my all time favourite sounds. I once read it described as the audience reacting as if Jesus himself had stepped out from behind the curtain.

Excellent. I saw Lou Reed live at the Brixton academy about 20 years ago. One of the best gigs I've been to. Going to have to listen to some now, thank you.

Gussio

I am deeply envious that you saw him live. Listening to Transformer right now....another great album.

veronese68

Gussio wrote:

I am deeply envious that you saw him live. Listening to Transformer right now....another great album.

Indded, have it on vinyl. Finally got it on cd last year. Don't know why it took me so long.

rjsterry

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

I've tried really hard to derail this from the usual helmet debate and I'm very disappointed with some of you trying to have a sensible debate.
On the heroin issue. Wasn't it originally a morphine type painkiller? So, administered properly would given by a doctor to someone suffering really acute pain. Which when used in that way is non addictive. As with many things it's the abuse that's the problem.

My nephew had spinal surgery and was on morphine for about a week because of it. I asked him what the morphine was like and he said "It was PHUCKING brilliant." My nephew very rarely swears and is not a heroin addict. As far as I know.

Indeed. It's still very addictive - hence it's very restricted use, or where not giving it would be worse. Opiate use/abuse is as old as the hills. We had a war with China about it - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars - but evidence of cultivation of the opium poppy dates back to at least 4000BC and probably earlier.

daviesee

cooldad wrote:

daviesee wrote:

cooldad wrote:

I read on the internet that helmets actually cause more injuries than they prevent.

Must be true then :roll:
I am not saying that it is not true but that is a meaningless statement without links/proof.

There you go. In black and white

LOL! :P
Clever.

The planet is flat.

There's something else you read on t'internet. True?

DonDaddyD

[I think it should be noted that comparisons between the risks and dangers of heroin (long terms effects of heroin / short term effects of heroin) and peanut butter I think is silly.

I do not think what most have said thus far is silly.

DDD].

ETA: OK this post is a little long, but only because the subject interests me on a personal/professional level. I'm not looking for argument.

aeon wrote:

i took issue with the quote in the article, because for a proper scientician to straight out say 'heroin is very dangerous and should be banned' whilst arguing that people have the right to expose themselves to other dangers without regulation seemed kind of stupid. i was rather more careful in my post, saying that ' if it's pure heroin administered properly then the worst it can do is make you a bit constipated', and i stand by that. however...

I do not entirely disagree with this. As "administered properly" accounts for managing the addictive properties and other risks involved with the drug.

There are however clear risks and dangers inhernet in the drug, which is why there is so much control around it being administered.

Aeon wrote:

you may have seen a healthy heroin addict without noticing them; J. Krivanek, in Heroin: Myths and Reality notes a number of cases in suburban Australia where professionals (including doctors) maintained white-collar jobs and fairly heavy addictions for decades.

Mental wellbeing needs to be considered when discussing what is healthy. When it is then the notion of a "healthy addict" sounds like an oxymoron to me because an addicition is an illness.

A person being able to maintain a life and an addiction/illness does not mean that they are [completely] healthy. Many people who are mentally/physically unwell are capable of living a good quality of life. This does not mean they are inwardly healthy.

After all, nicotine is very addictive - more addictive than heroin, and more quickly, too, if i recall correctly.

Good point. Very good point. However the key difference is how both addictions work in the brain/body. And more importantly the differnce between the withdrawal symptoms of the two.

Heroin in the brain
Quit smoking questions 2 and 4

Generally speaking while giving up smoking is not easy, I would argue that nicotine withdrawal symptoms are comparitively benign compared to heroin withdrawal suptoms.

Aeon wrote:

it's probably worth pointing out that heroin withdrawal is rarely fatal, and therefore much less dangerous than e.g. alcohol withdrawal, which can & does kill alcohol addicts.

I do not know.

I am interested in seeing figures comparing number of those who have died from the symptoms of heroin withdrawal and those who have died from alchohol withdrawal. Or some form of comparative data.

i just wish the doctor who gave these quotes to the metro (or possibly the journalist who edited them) was a little bit more careful, because i've also worked with people with severe brain injuries, and i think the general public deserve a little bit more information and a little bit less rhetorical crap from people who are in a position of authority.

I don't disagree.

My personal view:

A large problem (not the only problem) with heroin is its addictive properties and the potential symptoms of the addiction itself.

bompington

Veronese68 wrote:

some of you trying to have a sensible debate.

Unusual for most of the recurring debates then...

Veronese68 wrote:

On the heroin issue. Wasn't it originally a morphine type painkiller? So, administered properly would given by a doctor to someone suffering really acute pain. Which when used in that way is non addictive. As with many things it's the abuse that's the problem.

If you've ever had diamorphine in hospital, that's the posh term for heroin. Codeine, which gets thrown around by the bucketload, is pretty similar and is another component of opium.

mybreakfastconsisted

DonDaddyD wrote:

claiming heroin is as harmful as peanut butter is probably one of your better ones as well. Tell you what tomorrow you have some heroin on toast. See how you get on.

It's not my quote:

In the words of a 1965 New York study by Dr Richard Brotman: "Medical knowledge has long since laid to rest the myth that opiates observably harm the body." Peanut butter, cream and sugar, for example, are all far more likely to damage the health of their users.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2001 ... alsciences

But it's less your ignorance on the matter, it's more your attacks on those who dare point out you're talking a load of old trousers, and claiming people are "mentally ill" if they disagree with you, in your posts that got deleted.

And talk of sorting things out in a car par? Seriously? How old are you?

DonDaddyD

Edit: not worth the bother, doesn't warrant a valid response.

Paul E

Usual sh!t I see, mature too.