The Never-Ending Story

Re: SR

..``What we do with this life, in the end, may not even amount to a whiff of smoke in the face of wind. A hundred years from now there will be no trace of what we do today, and in four billion years the earth shall be a cinder and the sun a red giant. Yet none of that should concern us; ours is only here and now...``

Such fatalism Dr. Rabbani...? Followed by shairi from Ghalib, who if I may, lived and died more than a 100 years ago.

Sorry friend, just couldn`t resist the dig.

Re: Ferozk and AS

Agree with much of what you say - there are many players in the current mess. Would love to comment specifically on many of the issues you`ve raised, but time is short, and patients many...will try to find time later.

Anita

`KANEEZ`: Thanks for sharing your story with us. I`m really glad you could rise above it all, especially in a society like ours, and lead yourself toward a `happy ending.`

FEROZE: It never ceases to fascinate me how many `readings` any social situation, `good` or `bad,` can be subjected to. There`s the cultural angle, the sociological angle, the moral (read religious) angle, the historical perspective, the economic one, and the all-encompassing nasty political filter. Sadly, the political one (injected to a large degree by the economics of the few) seems to be the one in control of everything else--the final arbiter, if you will. And you`re right, following the money trail can shed light on many of our questions.

--AS

Re: kaneez (#31)

Please forgive me for appearing to undermine your personal story. I`m glad that you are really who you say you are. I admire your spirit. Thank you for sharing your story. It reminded me of a friend from Lahore who went through similar experiences, but her end was abrupt. She is not among us any more.

Life is so short, fragile and, ultimately, meaningless that one wonders what all this is worth? In the greater scheme of things we are mere bubbles on the surf, inconsequential and transient. But as long as we are here, this is our only reality. What we do with this life, in the end, may not even amount to a whiff of smoke in the face of wind. A hundred years from now there will be no trace of what we do today, and in four billion years the earth shall be a cinder and the sun a red giant. Yet none of that should concern us; ours is only here and now.

A life lived in the past or for tomorrow is a thankless ritual, as meaningless as scooping water with a sieve. Yesterday is only a dream buried under the dust of time. Tomorrow is an illusion, a mere fantasy, a phantom forever elusive.

In the end we all return to dust. Our dreams, desires, sorrows and triumphs are all too transient, just flickers of a candle in eternal darkness. One must reach out and cease the moment, grab this shifting mirage with both hands, and share these fleeting joys with loved ones. Nothing else really matters.

Ultimately, there are no rights or wrongs. And if there are any, we cannot know them. We are left with axiomatic faith in the righteousness of our own convictions. Life may not have a purpose or meaning but we do have real aspirations and yearnings.

You seem to be one of those people who have the zest of life radiating from them. The lives you touch, no matter how slightly, are fortunate to have you alive and well. Once again, thank you very, very much for being alive and well to share your story.


Re: ALL

If you bear with me I`d like to quote one of Ghalib`s verses. It seems very apt here.

Unfortunately, poetry is an aspect of literature that remains stubbornly elusive to translation efforts. This is ever more so when the cultural underpinnings, imagery and idiom of the two languages is as vastly diverse as is the case between Urdu and English. Moreover, Mirza Ghalib is perhaps one of the most obtuse poets to translate. However, since many of you possess trans-cultural and bi-lingual insights I shall hazard an attempt, not to translate, but to elucidate the wisdom of the shaer.

``Husty kay fray-b ma mut aye-u Ghalib,
keh alam tumaam halqa-i-daam-i-khyaal ha.``

Glossary of key words (their meanings in this context)

Husty = reality, existence, the material world
fray-b = illusion, trick, deceit
alam tumaan= the whole world, the universe
halqa = domain or circle (of something)
khyaal = imagination, abstract concept

In the traditional poetic style soliloquy Ghalib reminds himself (and thus the world) to not fall in the trap of material reality as it is nothing more than mere illusion.

re: BG, AA, Annogul, Anita and Ferozk.

The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. I`m physically and mentally exhausted and cannot go on. There are several comments I`d like to make with each of you, but I must sleep now. You`ve all brought up very important questions that I am too far gone to even begin to think about coherently. Come to think of it, I probably messed up Ghalib`s shaer too. Shall get back tomorrow, i.e., if tomorrow ever comes. [: )

…SR

To SR, annogul and Anita Zaidi

There are too many vested interests involved to allow the legalisation of drugs. Whether it is a good idea or a bad one is immaterial. The criminalization of drug use and its users is a political ploy and will continue as long as it serves certain special interests.

If you really want to know why this issue will never be solved or approached in any meaningful manner, just follow the money! Find out who voted against it; who is extermely anti-drug and then find out who contributed to their political campaigns. Who controls the present market of ``legal additives`` and who gains to lose their market shares? Why was hemp made illegal in the United States and who gained by this decision? Find out where their business interests collide. Why is hemp an illegal substance and any use associated with it is outlawed? Lets forget for awhile the hows and the whats of the drug debate and instead lets ask the whys.

Who gains by allowing the problem to slide? Whose self-interests propagates the debate; who can influence legislation and who can pay for it? Just ask yourself, who gains the most by keeping drugs illegal in the market place?

Just follow the money....!

Re: SR

``..Today`s atmosphere is no different from the medieval witch-hunts. No one is prepared to speak about the drug issue in a rational manner because they will be declared as `witches` and burnt alive...``

Sohail,

Your belief in a vast medical and scientific conspiracy designed to hide important truths from the lay public never fails to amuse me. I suppose, to each their own blind spots :)

So why have none of the docs sanctimoniously condemned KR for drug use, and gone on an anti-drug tirade that you would have expected, given the `war on drugs`?

I suggest that it is because the origins of substance abuse and dependence are extremely complex. This is not a black and white issue and many confusing threads are interwoven together. I freely admit that not all mind-altering drugs are equal, but more importantly not all drug users are created equal. Where biological phenomenon are concerned, nothing happens to a 100% of people a 100% of the times. There are undoubtedly many people who can occasionally use psychoactive substances and not become dependent (will discuss variability in addiction among different classes of drugs later). On the other hand, there are a huge number of people who do become dependent, most often at a time when adult identities are just forming, risk-seeking behavior is at its peak, and future costs are being discounted at a furious rate i.e. these decisions are not made in the best of circumstances using ‘adult-type’ mature and responsible thinking. The decision to initiate substance abuse among adolescents holds true for even the ‘legal’ psychoactive substances - alcohol and nicotine, despite intensive education.

To re-explore the issue of neurotoxicity of psychoactive drugs, substance dependence (addiction) is not the only toxicity to consider - the mind-altering property of the drug itself is toxic, since it leads to impaired cognition and therefore increases the danger of violence/accidents involving self and others. Yes, it is true that LSD and Ecstasy have little addiction potential (hope the science police isn`t after me). Unlike cocaine, amphetamines, opoids, alcohol, and nicotine all of which without fail increase dopamine levels in the nucleus accumbens of the basal ganglia, producing the desired euphoric effect which leads to reinforcing behavior, and therefore dependence ( this reinforcing behavior can easily be reproduced in animals as low as rats), neither LSD, nor Ecstasy are reinforcing. On the contrary they exert their hallucinogenic effect by binding to serotonin receptors. This is a very soundly established and well-known fact among the medical community, but I can’t see why this should lead us to advocate widespread LSD and Ecstasy use by ‘those who can handle it’. The fact is (referred to in my earlier reply) that hallucinogens have unpredictable effects. Bad trips, and extreme anxiety and paranoia can occur even in people who do not have predisposed personalities (adolescents of course do not wear their personality traits on their faces, or even have remote insight into them when they start substance abuse). Bad trips can also happen among those who have previously had good trips. An additional complication is that hallucinogen use is often in combination with other drugs. Why, just today (I am not kidding), I had to give advice on the infectious disease risk to a young child whose mother and boyfriend while under the influence of heroin, cocaine, and ecstasy had tied him down, stuck needles in his palms, forcibly evacuated his rectum with some home-made device and made him eat his own feces.

Your advocacy for legalization of drugs left me somewhat confused. Are you talking about just marijuana, or about all mind-altering drugs? A good case can be made for legalizing marijuana, although equally persuasive arguments can be made against doing so (would love to discuss this further with you, once you make your stance clear). With the notion that keeping marijuana illegal, while allowing alcohol and tobacco to remain legal smacks of hypocrisy, I completely agree. Contrary to what you say, many in the medical community are for making marijuana legally available for its many therapeutic uses (there is an extensive literature on this, some even NIH sponsored - again, no conspiracy :). In fact, a derivative called Merinol is FDA licensed and widely used for treatment of nausea and vomiting in cancer patients.

This is not to say that marijuana is completely harmless - it just compares favorably with alcohol and nicotine for long-term side-effects and has much less addiction potential. Acute intoxication with marijuana leads to impaired cognition and reaction time, short-term memory loss, and learning disability. The symptoms last for several hours beyond the ‘high’ - creating problems with driving (marijuana is certainly involved in many fatal accidents), school performance etc - again the adolescents being the most vulnerable. Additionally, marijuana also appears to depress the immune system, produce chronic respiratory complaints in heavy users, and may increase the incidence of oral cancer.

Re: KR

Tragically, bipolar disorder and drug abuse potential seem to be inextricably linked in so many creative people. I thought you would appreciate the poem below, written by Dr. Ronald Kwon in memory of his mother, who had a particularly bad case of all.

DANCING WITH ANTIPODES

There is a terrible beauty
In knowing, sensing, and touching the infinite
At times, this made you crazy
At times, you transcended the mundane
And brought us with you.

The intensity in your dance
Was the artistic price you paid for your passion
Earned with sorrow, privation, and heartbreak
Yet glorious moments overcame it all
And you brought us with you.

Now you are gone, and our loss is immense-
I could not tell the dancer from the dance,
I miss your brightening glance
And the force of eternity flowing through you
Bearing the burden you brought us.
------

Keep the pseudonym, and keep writing...

Anita

Re: SR

Compelled to read your response on BG`s insistence that it is EXCELLENT. Which it is. Funny and sarcastic as well. Just one minor point, as you point out the mass propaganda machine at work with its ``drugs are bad`` mantra, I couldn`t help noticing how your own personal story of experimenting with LSD, and then moving on because life does, could very well be one narrative that the propaganda machine would like to offer to its willing indulgees. You know, like drugs are bad, and guess what, after a little while tripping and falling, you reach into another phase of life. And you don`t want it any more. I know you didn`t mean it this way, agar baath buri lagi, to please public mein zaleel mat keejiye ga)

SR,

Let me begin by saying that my earlier response to you was far from being a sneer or sarcastic or in any way meant as a slight of any kind. I was merely trying to be cute, and I guess it backfired (spotty track record...). In fact, I truly DO regard you as someone that occupies an altogether higher slot, intellect- and maturity-wise than even the best Chowkwallahs, let alone me. And I suspect a lot of the interactors and visitors here feel the same way (I`ve discussed this with at least one other Chowk regular). I started off the way I did because I know and accept this, and thought maybe I could dampen the repercussions of my `asking for it` so publicly by starting off with a disclaimer of sorts. Obviously, it didn`t work. As for a frontal assault from me, I`ve never been known for any kind of confrontational talents--verbal or physical (well, maybe physical: I could easily `take` my brothers and cousins at arm-wrestling, until, that is, the big `P` complete with changing voices and manly whiskers so treacherously and slyly took over...).

I`ll admit I was jumping a little ahead of myself when I said that I had come across more `sadder stories` than `recreational users.` To be exact, I have known 8 (eight) drug users in my life--five acquaintances and three friends. Of these, three are real together kind of people--sharp, in control, and beyond their `recreational drug-use` days. Two are fine and functional, but it looks like all the hashish, tthurra, and some other stuff have left their mark. Two others` lives were deeply affected, as were their families` (one of them, I think, is doing better now). The last one, a friend`s husband who was a heroine addict, blew his brains out.

There are two big issues with any kind of drug (legal or illegal) use: psychological dependence and control threshold. Depending on the personality of the drug user, the psychological dependency can vary; however, some studies indicate that type 1 and 3 of your classification cause a higher level of psychological dependence:

(1) Stimulants or `uppers` (caffeine, nicotine, amphetamine, cocaine, etc.)

(2) Depressants or `downers` (alcohol, barbiturates, opiates - i.e.

codeine, morphine, heroin, etc.)

(3) Hallucinogens or `psychedelics` (marijuana, LSD, etc.)

You referred to the second issue in one of your replies:

``Why is it that some people can stay within moderation and get away with use of all kinds of recreational drugs, yet others are hooked on the first go around? Unfortunately, some people are biologically more predisposed to addiction than others. It is important that we don`t rush to condemn individuals as `weak willed` or `immoral` because they succumb to substance addiction. Those of us who don`t have such a predisposition should refrain from a display of this `holier-than-thou` arrogance that we`ve seen in some replies.``

The establishement`s argument goes: Since there is a high probability of dependence (physical and psychological) and since we do not clearly know who can handle drugs and who can not, it is much safer to keep drugs illegal. If the counter-argument is that since tobacco and alcohol are legal, we should make all other drugs legal too, then this is a flawed argument. Logically speaking, we have made an error in making these substances (cigarettes and alcohol) legal and we are suffering the consequence. Why should we repeat the same error? On the other hand, if we really want to understand the problems caused by keeping these substances illegal and want to solve these problems, we should base our assessment on logical and rational arguments rather than providing anecdotal evidence or tangential issues (myself included).

``The simple fact remains that even if we left out nicotine addiction, well over 90 percent of all remaining drug addiction in the United States results from alcohol and prescription pharmaceutical agents. I`ve seen no one suggest that alcohol and prescription drugs (valium, barbiturates, opiates etc.) should be banned. Statistically speaking, the `war on drugs` is being waged against phantoms, while the real culprits are enriching Phillips Morris, Anhizer Busch and Smith Kline n` Beechum. ``

If one of your arguments here is that the war on drugs is being waged to divert our attention from one of the real culprits, ``the pharmaceutical industry,`` then here`s the counter-argument: If these drugs were legalized, the pharmaceuticals will be ready to sell heroine and cocaine under their own brand names and get even fatter.

There is also the issue of `soft` vs. `hard` drugs. The general feeling is that people usually start with soft drugs and them move on to hard drugs and therefore neither of these should be legalized. Holland has done some experiment with semi-legalization of soft drugs like marijuana and hashish. Their experiment shows that a controlled distribution of soft drugs does not cause any increase in the use of hard drugs. Switzerland did some experiments with hard drugs like cocaine and heroine. They allowed drug addicts to buy and use these drugs in a controlled environment within a well-defined area. That experiment, however, failed because the number of drug addicts increased over time and resulted in a lot of other problems e.g., prostitution, etc. The Swiss government stopped that program after considerable pressure from the conservative banking industry.

I`m not sure whether you propose legalization of all drugs or not. Personally, I`m not sure about this issue (I`d propose that if they were going to legalize, they wait till both my kids are past teenage). There are certainly strong arguments for both sides. However, I totally agree with you that honest, frank education on drugs would be preferable over treating it like a taboo subject.

re `kaneez`
great theme. your response brings the much needed closure and clarification. it certainly makes me happy that this experience has been positive for you. the fact that you recognize the positive is a testimony to your strength, resilience and optimism.

re SR
EXCELLENT, EXCELLENT, EXCELLENT!! your latest response to this article has to be one of the most instructive i have ever read. checked into chowk, after a horrible bout of the flu to read your commentary, which has certainly taught me a lot. thank you.

i have a question: do drugs react to people differently because of body chemistry? one of my relatives had tried every conceivable drug, including cigarettes, and did not get addicted to anything. (he could smoke all day if he wanted to or never; and usually it was never).

i never intended to break radio silence.this was (as someone picked up) more an attempt at catharsis than anything else, but the responses threw up some ideas i wished to respond to.

re saima, sr etc

the ending was indeed too pat and, i must admit, not totally accurate. one reason for this is that i cant reveal the actual ending without revealing my actual identity.and that is something i`m not ready to do, perhaps something i dont need to do. another reason is that the six months in which i actually `broke` cannot be captured in words,in my words that is.the third reason is that a lot of the events of that period are too bizarre to be believed.

re temporal

if not the shoulder, perhaps a nice cut of the hip? :)

re sr again,

no this was not meant to be a public service message. i was not trying to say `lookie what drugs did to the nice lady dontcha dare try it etc`. i have no desire to be an object of pity, i think the human being has the resilience of a bouncy ball, capable of sustaining serious injury and recovering if it has the motivation.thats a little closer to the moral of the story (if there must be a moral of the story)..dont give up, dont underestimate yourself, dont put yourself down etc (someone else will always be happy to do it for you :)but you must go back and examine what you`ve done and why you did it if you wish to grow. in a way i`m actually glad i had those experiences, i wouldn`t be who i am today without them. and i sort of like who i am, even if i dont wish to let you know who that is..assuming you`re interested :)

re aliya,

a therapist i saw for a brief period of time diagnosed bi-polar personality disorder.

it does indeed affect people in different ways, i had friends who did what i did and emerged unscathed.

re all,

thank you for reading this and responding, i was pleasantly surprised by the replies. what might (at some subconscuous level) been an attempt at self flagellation became an exercise in positive re-inforcement.

my story has a very happy ending,to date.

thanks again,.regards

`kaneez`

Re: Annogul (#26)

Anne bibi, mujh khaksaar say agar koi gustakhy ho gaye ho tu muafi daa dee jiya.

I feel a little unsettled not knowing what provoked your sneer? (``…Sohail-ji …someone INFINITELY wiser… mature… intelligent …``) You are politely sarcastic. I shudder to think what a malicious frontal assault would be from you. I never dare to find out. As for you personally, Anne, based on all that you posted on Chowk, I have nothing but respect and adoration. Yes, on this matter ours views diverge, perhaps because of our divergent perspectives.

I may have gone a bit far in assailing `ethical` (read: political) sensibilities with my seeming `promiscuity` about mind altering drugs. So politically incorrect it is today that any rational argument on this topic (if it even so much as suggests anything other than the `drugs are bad` mantra we`re hammered with through the mass propaganda machine), automatically falls on deaf ears. Nonetheless, it must be talked about without prejudice.

In today`s climate, where Henry Hyde is setting a new standard for `impeachable offenses` based on what spin one can give to a word or phrase, you`re certainly keeping abreast of the times by taking me to task for using one word, i.e. ``rewarding``. There were 800 other words in that post to which you seem indifferent. The main thrust of my comment was to counter the knee-jerk reflex mentality people have towards this issue. I wanted to point out that some replies reflected a pervasive societal ignorance and paranoia that often manifests itself in intolerance and bigotry. In that regard I took, as an example, one reader`s vociferous misinformation about LSD and countered his claim with what we know to be scientific facts. (More on this in response to Anita, below.)

Now before we talk about my use of the word `rewarding`, let`s examine one of your statements: (``America`s habit of politically charging certain issues to absurd and ludicrous levels… [then smoking example and your kids` school] …I can`t say that that bothers me at all. …it`s a little reassuring, this peculiar brand of `brainwashing.`…``)

It is very quaint when the vanguards of morality presume to take it upon themselves to create a fairy-tale world and then try to justify the ignorance on grounds that the plain truth is harmful to the preservation of virtues. I`m sorry, but I insist someone must tell Virginia that there is no Santa Claus.

A value system that require distortion of reality or concealment of facts for its upkeep is phony at best and runs the risk of being dismissed by the young, in their over-reaction, when they finally learn that they`ve been hoodwinked into believing crap-and-bull.

Drugs, like sex, are a subject that we must look squarely in the eyes and treat in a reasonable and balanced way when dealing with the young. If we shroud the issue in mystery and make statements of blanket condemnation we`re merely sweeping the matter under the rug. With this attitude we`re not `protecting` our young, we`re simply taking care of our own anxiety neurosis.

You mention that your concerns are about drug addiction, and not the `measured` and `responsible` use I was describing. (``…I`m describing an addiction as opposed to your proposal of controlled, measured use…``) Well, okay, you get no argument from me about the fact that addiction is harmful. I said so, with emphasis, in my post also. We have no disagreement about the ills of `addiction`.

However, this whole addiction issue has been blown out of all proportion. Fear mongers have succeeded in confounding the better part of many reasonable people`s judgement. They would have us believe that if anyone even touches a mind altering drug the next thing, inevitably, is full-blown addiction. Even a reasonable person like you makes sweeping statements such as: (``…mind-altering drugs are treacherously addictive; you don`t accept your addiction until you`re way past the point of no return…``).

Let me be very clear about this. In essence your statement is true, but it does not happen nearly as often as you imply. (``…I`ve come across many a character in my (short, m`shoom) lifetime, and personally, for every `controlled` recreational user, there are many more sadder stories…``)

I take exception to the implication that this nebulous addiction threat is pervasive and widespread. Unless you are talking about cigarette smokers I question your assertion. (Yes, nicotine is the MOST ADDICTIVE of popular `drugs`: more than ordinary cocaine and non-injected heroin, and even more than alcohol and, by the way, nicotine is the only drug in which `controlled` and `recreational` users are far outnumbered by addicts, as you correctly observed. Only crack cocaine and intravenously administered heroin rival nicotine in it addictive power - as measured by rates of relapse.)

Perhaps you are only talking about nicotine and alcohol. Both are highly dangerous and addictive, yet they remain socially accepted and legal. I dare say that for each real alcoholic you`ve come across, there are many more who use it in a controlled and recreational setting only. In other words, a few ``sadder stories`` for several casual and occasional drinkers. Hardly the picture you describe.

However, I have a nagging feeling that you were actually talking about marijuana, LSD, cocaine and heroin, etc. If that is the case, then I have a question.

Where have you ``come across many characters``, I`d be curious to ask? Is this a carefully tabulated compilation of ``sadder stories`` you actually came across, or is it mere hearsay?

Oops….pause…..

(…Ten minutes later…

Little Gabru gave out a yell of disapproval. It was just a diaper change. His mother is out getting groceries, so I`m baby-sitting. Any way, back to the topic.)


Please, Anne, don`t take this as an assault on your veracity. That is not the intention. I`m trying to point out something insidious. Many of us convince ourselves that we `know` certain `facts` simply because the so-called facts fit our subconscious prejudices. I mean really! Have you actually examined this in a dispassionate light?

The simple fact remains that even if we left out nicotine addiction, well over 90 percent of all remaining drug addiction in the United States results from alcohol and prescription pharmaceutical agents. I`ve seen no one suggest that alcohol and prescription drugs (valium, barbiturates, opiates etc.) should be banned. Statistically speaking, the `war on drugs` is being waged against phantoms, while the real culprits are enriching Phillips Morris, Anhizer Busch and Smith Kline n` Beechum.

Before going further it is relevant, at this point, to make a distinction between the various `drugs` and also define `addiction`.

There is a spectrum of drug intake behavior. From total abstinence at the beginning we see three stages, (1) use, (2) abuse, and (3) addiction. There is a huge difference between them. The occasional social drinker is a `user`, while the neighborhood bum is the `addict`.

Addiction is said to exist only if there is `dependence` on the drug as demonstrated by `withdrawal symptoms`. Also, in true addiction the `effective dose` of the drug (amount required to maintain a `high`) increases with time.

We`ve been restricting the use of the term ``drugs`` to mean only those acting on the central nervous system, popularly referred to as mind-altering drugs.

There are three main types of agents:

(1) Stimulants or `uppers` (caffeine, nicotine, amphetamine, cocaine, etc.)
(2) Depressants or `downers` (alcohol, barbiturates, opiates - i.e. codeine, morphine, heroin, etc.)
(3) Hallucinogens or `psychedelics` (marijuana, LSD, etc.)

Stimulants and depressants owe their recreational use potential primarily due to their `mood altering` properties. People use them, feel good for a while and then plunge back in the depths of their misery.

Hallucinogens, on the other hand, owe their appeal to their `perception altering` properties.

Now let`s go back to my use of the term `rewarding` which you found disturbing.

Although, I`ve personally used them all, at one time or another, I do not care for either stimulants or depressants. Their toll on the body, in the long run, does not justify their marginal `recreational benefit`. In my opinion they should be discouraged and their use curtailed as much as possible.

Hallucinogens, on the other hand, are the LEAST harmful (everything IS harmful to some extent, even sugar and salt, which most people take in abundance). And their potential recreational benefit is considerably greater.

Although I have gone beyond the stage where I freely experimented with hallucinogens, my life was surely enriched by my encounter with these agents. Some of my most fascinating spiritual experiences have been with LSD. I no longer use it because I`ve learnt and experienced all that `acid` had to offer and life has moved on. (I have often wondered what mushrooms grew on Mt Sinai when Moses went up it, and whether some variant of peyote is found in the hills of central Hijaz.)

It is however, noteworthy, that people prone to anxiety disorder should refrain from hallucinogens. Just as acrophobes should not skydive.

Re: Anita Zaidi (#28)

Huzur doctor sahiba, aap ki buhat zar`ra nazawi, kay app nay mujh neem-hakim key baat key ta`yeed kar di.

Yes, thank you for endorsing the gist of my argument. It superficially appears that you are contradicting what I wrote, but not really. You wrote, ``…I can`t let you get away with saying ``LSD is NOT neurotoxic by any stretch of the imagination...``

I stand corrected. You win this one and I must amend my statement to read as follows:

``…LSD is NOT neurotoxic in the normal sense of the term, however, if we S.T.R.E.T.C.H the imagination, and expand the meaning of the term, then it can be construed as such.`` As stated above anxiety prone people don`t handle hallucinogens well. Among Robert Cloninger`s Temprament traits (novelty seeking, harm avoiding, reward-dependent and persistent), the harm-avoiding types need not experiment.

I could not help but notice that you silently avoided my very next sentence, which was, ``It DOES NOT CAUSE ADDICTION nor does it cause schizophrenia.``

I realize that being an ordained priest in the holy church of US medicine you cannot publicly speak against the official dogma, but your silence did not fall of deaf ears. What you didn`t say was more meaningful than what you did.

I was wondering howcome intellectual giants from Harvard and Columbia who frequent this forum and are well versed in neurosciences and psychiatry, did not speak up to dispel the ignorance regarding the issue of drug use. No one, for insistence, jumped in to set the record straight when some people were spreading nonsensical, prejudiced misinformation. Then I remembered that, ah, there was a war going on and the hierarchy of the medical church has yielded to the warlords. (Surgeon-generals lose their jobs if they open their mouth to speak the truth about a hallucinogenic drug.) It is, thus left up to us neem-hakims to speak up.

Today`s atmosphere is no different from the medieval witch-hunts. No one is prepared to speak about the drug issue in a rational manner because they will be declared as `witches` and burnt alive.

I`m so glad you brought up the point about the ``cost to society``. Let`s look at that.

I`ll give you a different example to illustrate a point. Take the whole issue of teen pregnancy, illegitimate births, contraceptive use, etc.

There are those who totally oppose sex education and free availability of contraceptives. Their argument is that it promotes moral decline. Now, as a public health policy planner will you not look at the net impact of a policy? Restricting information and withholding contraceptives, you will hopefully argue, does not solve the moral problem, it only aggravates the consequences. You will insist on having preventive measures like early sex-education and proper use of contraception.

The situation with the whole drug war is no different. It is for this reason that I feel it is important to explore this question in public instead of making it a political taboo.

Almost six hundred thousands people in the US are doing time for non-violent `crimes` related to mainly marijunan use. At 50 thousand dollars a year in prisoner upkeep this is 30 Billion dollars down the drain that could go towards education and rehab. This does not include the loss of productivity which most of those people could have contributed. Add to that the cost of interdiction. It makes no sense.

Half a million people die each year due to tobacco use. The government spends billions subsidizing tobacco producers and then spends billions in anti-smoking education. This is crazy. Alcohol kills about seventy thousand people annually (not including alcohol related traffic fatalities). Marijuana kills ZERO people. Yet the first two are legal and the thrid is not. There is only one word for it: CRAZY.

As for my examples of scuba and skydiving, the only point was that if people chose to engage in the pursuit of unusual experiences then they have a fundamental right to do so provided they are properly regulated. In the present atmosphere drug use is fraught with confusion because of society`s irrational, ill informed and neurotic approach towards drugs. This is clearly the 20th century version of the Inquisition.

…SR

PS: Please forgive my tradiness, I have family visiting these days and I keep busy taking them around and such.

Re: Anita Zaidi post # 28

As to scuba diving and sky diving, the consequences of those acts are not limited to one`s self, but also includes the immediate family and close friends. Last summer one of my friends died while rock climbing and the ripple effects of his death were widely felt. It is the same with suicide victims who think that their acts do not effect anyone else, but themselves. They leave behind a legacy of pain, suffering and an emotional loss which haunts the survivors and never heals. Suicide is so awful, because there is no sense to it. I know a girl whose two older brothers commited suicides.

Death, by any defination, is tragic and it is more so when the victim died in the prime of his her life. Like the English poet John Donne once said: everyman`s death diminishes me, because I involved in mankind... no man is an island... therefore, do not send to ask for whom the bells toll, it tolls for thee!

Sohail,

I can`t let you get away with saying ``LSD is NOT neurotoxic by any stretch of the imagination...``

It depends on what the meaning of the word `neurotoxic` is. LSD can unpredicatably induce `bad trips` resulting in panic attacks in which individuals can be dangerous to themselves or others, obviously acting through its central nervous system effects. It also can induce prolonged psychosis, not just in individuals whose schizophrenia is under control, but in people who`ve never been diagnosed with the disorder.

Also, I take issue with your comparing the danger associated with doing CNS drugs, to that associated with driving, or sky diving, and concluding that the former is safer. This is a tough sell given that a significant proportion of traffic fatalities, and violent behavior are related to alcohol and/or drug use (by some estimates as many as half of all such events), and that sky or scuba diving are dangerous only to self, but have limited danger or cost to society.

Anita

I was amazed when I first read this. Shocked is a mild word. It would be honest to admit that I have never been addicted to any drug or harmful substance in my life-not even cigarettes or paracetamol or etc. However, to say one has never been addicted would be a lie. I think a majority of people have been addicted to chocolates, the wrong kinds of food, stupid self-defeating behavior, and even people. So, I can`t understand what is so `dreadful` about drug-abuse, apart from its tragic consequences.

Upon reading your article I was filled with the sense that some very deeply unsettling truth was being written about, however somewhere I can`t place where, one felt that the writer had left some things unsaid or covered them up. May be the ending was too pat?

Lastly, I would like to say that no matter what the probabilities of success, ONE HAS TO CARRY ON AND KEEP TRYING. Peoples` expectation or beliefs should not affect your search for happiness and sense of self-worth.

Even failure gives up after a while. One can`t quit the journey just because one fails-at drug addiction or whatever.

I found the title especially interesting. `The Never ending story` (Micheal Ende)is the title of one of my favorite books. Perhaps you have read it? Well an idea in the book is that we have to believe in the seemingly impossible just because everything would end if we did not dream/make believe.

Best of luck and my deepest respect for saying it like it is!

Re: SR

``The recreational use of mind-altering drugs, if practiced cautiously and in measured quantities, can be quite entertaining and rewarding. It is less dangerous than parajumping, scuba diving and even ordinary automobile driving. The use of these powerful substances, though, is not for the faint of heart.``

Sohail-ji, at the risk of coming off as a total fool by challenging a point coming from someone INFINITELY wiser, more mature, and more intelligent than I even dream to be, let me live on the edge and do just that: your statement is quite disturbing. Let me start off by addressing the point (not quoted here) about America`s habit of politically charging certain issues to absurd and ludicrous levels. Take smoking, for instance. It`s really getting to be irritatingly overbearing--to think that some states are considering banning smoking in any public area, including the outdoors! My kids sign pledges every year in school, promising they will never smoke. I can`t say that that bothers me at all. In fact, it`s a little reassuring, this peculiar brand of `brainwashing.`

Coming to your (above) quote, `entertaining` I can understand, but `rewarding?` Rewarding in what sense? Smoking is quite entertaining and it sure does gratify that nagging urge to take in some smoke; in that sense, I guess you could call it `rewarding,` but really, rewarding in the true sense of the word? I guess I`m describing an addiction as opposed to your proposal of controlled, measured use, which brings me to the next part of what you say. Who defines `recreational` or `cautiously` or `measured quantities?` Many hooked addicts (of anything) will tell you with a straight face that they can quit any time they want to. My point is that many mind-altering drugs are treacherously addictive; you don`t accept your addiction until you`re way past the point of no return. I`ve come across many a character in my (short, m`shoom) lifetime, and personally, for every `controlled` recreational user, there are many more sadder stories.

Even if doing drugs is `safer` than driving or diving or parajumping, here lies the crucial difference: driving, realistically, cannot be avoided; and diving and parajumping do not offer the easy enticements of (an apparently) safe, cozy, `stay-at-home` (usually with friends) environment, which doesn`t involve lunging out of a rickety plane thousands of feet above ground, or diving into dark, cold waters. All this after hours and hours of training. Of course there are the types who go for risking their lives for such drawn out and involved adventures, but I would imagine it`s way easier to just take a sniff and be `carried away` and let the stuff do all the work for you.

Re: Aliya post # 24

You are right. Amongst certain colleges, but specially in fraterities, drinking is a rite d`passage into college life. The greatest abuse of alcohol that I have seen is amongst the freshmen averaged age 18-19 years old and this is because they do not understand the social responsibility associated with drinking. In most cases, these young people are away from home for the first time and from the influences of their parents.

Also, most of the drinking in college is inspired by the social sub-culture and is done in order to be socially accepted into the predominant social life styles. Furthermore, most of the people who drink and later become alcoholics, also exhibt signs of inferiority and use the alcohol to project a false, but a popular personal.

The trick is to break away from the mold and that only happens. if you are luckly, in the junior year and one has to make an effort to break free. I knew a guy in college, who was into the popular scene and somehow he lost track of school and his life. He finally graduated with an undergraduate degree, but it took him 10 years to do so!

Alcohol is like a loaded weapon, if not handled properly, it can kill you!

I`ll try to answer a question raised by the author about what predisposes one to be more vulnerable to substance abuse/ dependence. One`s genes are extremely important, as shown in studies done on children of alcoholic parents who were adopted away at birth.

Also important is the presence of mental disorders esp. bipolar disorder and major depression, the person who suffers from them may try to get rid of the dark moods by using drugs/ alcohol ( making the mood much worse in the long run, but getting temporary relief) .

Some cultures (e.g certain colleges, ethnic groups etc.) encourage alcohol/ drug abuse.

Of course much more important than the `` why`` is ``how``, i.e how to keep oneself from picking up again.