4 ms·
I sincerely disagree with your somewhat puritanical definition of drug seeking. If someone seeks marijuana to relieve their misery, it's "arbitrary drug seekin
by 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 agoIt'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.