3 ms·

It's not even factually true - 66% of the US population is on a prescription drug. The average citizen is a "drug seeker" of some type.

by realce 5y ago

jollybean 5y ago
First, even if your statement was correct, it would say nothing about the OP (or my) issues of selective sampling. Second, people who receive medicine for their ailments are not 'drug seekers' by any stretch of the imagination. People do not 'seek' blood thinners arbitrarily, people seek drugs which provide some kind of physical or psychoactive experience i.e. cocaine, opiods, thc. Very few prescription drugs fit that category.
- realce 5y ago
  I sincerely disagree with your somewhat puritanical definition of drug seeking. If someone seeks marijuana to relieve their misery, it's "arbitrary drug seeking behaviour" but if it's blood thinners, then you're just... not looking for drugs to provide a cure? That makes no sense. I certainly do seek out blood thinners, antidepressants, antibiotics, ect, if I am suffering from illnesses that they provide relief for. Nobody seeks out drugs "arbitrarily" whatsoever. You seem to think that people who use narcotics to address their pain aren't worthy of a medical definition that is reserved for people who obtain their medication from a pharma company. It's plain cognitive dissonance.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    It's 'cognitive dissonance' to contemplate those getting prescriptions for diabetes, cancer and chemo as 'drug seekers' who are in any way remotely similar to those buying illegal drugs, most of which are not purchased for therapeutic value.
    - realce 5y ago
      > most of which are not purchased for therapeutic value There's that puritanism again. Both classes of people are seeking relief, you can simply touch one class of illness but not the other. It's the human condition to seek relief, not some pharma company buzzword that segregates acceptable pharmaceutical use and unacceptable use. Your classification of narcotics users as plain hedonists - in no way empathizing with that user's need to have some form of relief from whatever is plaguing them - is the dissonance.

It's not even factually true - 66% of the US population is on a prescription drug. The average citizen is a "drug seeker" of some type.

by realce 5y ago

It's not even factually true - 66% of the US population is on a prescription drug. The average citizen is a "drug seeker" of some type.

jollybean 5y ago

First, even if your statement was correct, it would say nothing about the OP (or my) issues of selective sampling. Second, people who receive medicine for their ailments are not 'drug seekers' by any stretch of the imagination. People do not 'seek' blood thinners arbitrarily, people seek drugs which provide some kind of physical or psychoactive experience i.e. cocaine, opiods, thc. Very few prescription drugs fit that category.

realce 5y ago
I sincerely disagree with your somewhat puritanical definition of drug seeking. If someone seeks marijuana to relieve their misery, it's "arbitrary drug seeking behaviour" but if it's blood thinners, then you're just... not looking for drugs to provide a cure? That makes no sense. I certainly do seek out blood thinners, antidepressants, antibiotics, ect, if I am suffering from illnesses that they provide relief for. Nobody seeks out drugs "arbitrarily" whatsoever. You seem to think that people who use narcotics to address their pain aren't worthy of a medical definition that is reserved for people who obtain their medication from a pharma company. It's plain cognitive dissonance.
- jollybean 5y ago
  It's 'cognitive dissonance' to contemplate those getting prescriptions for diabetes, cancer and chemo as 'drug seekers' who are in any way remotely similar to those buying illegal drugs, most of which are not purchased for therapeutic value.
  - realce 5y ago
    > most of which are not purchased for therapeutic value There's that puritanism again. Both classes of people are seeking relief, you can simply touch one class of illness but not the other. It's the human condition to seek relief, not some pharma company buzzword that segregates acceptable pharmaceutical use and unacceptable use. Your classification of narcotics users as plain hedonists - in no way empathizing with that user's need to have some form of relief from whatever is plaguing them - is the dissonance.