In 2004, the New York Times ran a story about how meth use eats away brain cells, headlining it this way: "This Is Your Brain on Meth: A 'Forest Fire' of Damage." In 2005, another Times piece about the rise in foster children taken from parents who use meth noted the "particularly potent and destructive nature" of the drug and claimed that "rehabilitation for methamphetamine often takes longer than it does for other drugs." And the authors of a 2002 study on the brain-robbing effects of meth warned, based on their data, that the "national campaign against drugs should incorporate information about the cognitive deficits associated with methamphetamine."
More
More
3 comments:
reminds me of the studied they do with food, eggs, milk, salt,and some others.
One year they come out and say this is bad for you. Don't use it or use it only a little bit because it is dangerous to your health.
A year or two later, they come out with another study not to worry. This stuff is fine. Eat all you want whenever you want.
Now they are doing it with drugs. Same scenario. One year bad. Year or two later, not so much.
Pot has been shown to help certain people with different ailments and diseases.
But those in government say oh no! It doesn't help anyone, it has no medicinal properties.
Meth is bad for you. It eats your brain, or whatever they claim at this point.
Then, later, oh no! Meth isn't really all that bad as was first thought. It does have medicinal properties and we use it to treat people with ADDH and Autism.
But after digging into the data as a whole, Hart and his colleagues revealed a much more hopeful picture. For one thing, he says, the lab studies on the short-term effects of meth show improvements in attention, memory, information processing and learning in users. That's not entirely surprising considering that some forms of amphetamine (DesOxyn, for example, which is pure pharmaceutical methamphetamine) are actually approved by the government to treat ADHD, and are sometimes misused by college students seeking better grades.
Seems to me, that the people who do the studies on food, terrorists, and drugs simply don't know they are doing, or at least not agreeing with each others findings.
This may seem like mixing apples with oranges, but it really isn't. The object it to determine if something is safe or if it is not.
They completely reverse themselves after time goes by. They have pharmaceutical grades of these drugs they use in people. But they don't want the general public to have access. Why?
Is it the powers that be do not wish the people to use these drugs as it may be an improvement in their lives? They might understand things a little better and could see through some of the 'education' that comes form their leaders?
They would most certainly not what that. They need control of the masses. These drugs may interfere with that.
The government attempts to stop a product from entering this country when this country itself, is the WORLD's largest consumer of the product.
And the cartels and whoever else like cartels, can launder their money in New York City when they finish selling what they brought here.
New York is one of the largest money-laundering centers of the WORLD.
I can't prove it but I think it is possible for some government agencies to be involved with this as well.
Well maybe I can prove it. Our military was bringing over drugs from Viet-Nam when we were at war with them. Big scandal about that if anyone would care to research it.
Drug use is a choice. Someone chooses to use them. Some choose them and then choose to stop choosing them.
For the addict drug use itself is a symptom of itself. He is addicted to the feeling he gets from his drug of choice. That 'feeling'is making something else inside of the addict feel better. And he likes that. And continues to use his drug to make that feeling make whatever is bothering him be better.
The addiction is whatever is inside him that makes him want to use his drug to get that feeling that will make the 'addiction' feel better.
I think in trying to help these addicts, you have to address the 'addiction' inside of himself FIRST. Identify that, treat that, and the need for the symptom, his drug, will be lessen or maybe no longer needed.
Withholding his drug only, without treating what's inside of him, will always fail. As evidenced in every city in this country.
The treatment of drug users, the laws concerning the drugs and users, and the general thinking about the users and their drugs, need to be completely re-thought and re-vamped to something that WILL work as opposed to what we have always had up to now.
The systems used up to now rarely works, wastes taxpayers monies, and causes people to die because they are being treated the correct way.
They may as well legalize it since they have no control over it.
Legal, they can control it. They will be in direct opposition to the cartels. We would fight the cartels with our laws, our product, our pricing of our product, and the occasional shootout I am sure would happen.
But, slowly at first, with more people buying our product instead of theirs, they lose money.
With them still being illegal to operate in this country, they will be sent to prison. Now they losing dealers. Less people to sell their product.
So now we have control over the drugs. Now we can concentrate on helping the users. Assuming we have not gotten greedy from all the money and want to keep them addicted to keep making money, much like the tobacco industry.
It would take years but once control is gained, we could orchestrate total reductions in all areas.
Something we have not been able to do for quite some time.
but if your stupid enough to do Meth to begin with its a mute point
Post a Comment