Touchy Subject
- Thread starter Sloopjohnbee
- Start date
- Status
That's a lot of bourbon per week to be washing down with beer, at least for me it is - I'm average height and weight 5 eight - not judging
Yes it may be a little excessive. Too much free time on my hands, I guess.
LOL, I wouldn't even know where to get something like that. I use it as an example of what a bad weight loss system that could be. I did that shit once over 46 years ago and can still remember the sting and feeling like some one had stuck a blow torch up my nose.
I have been watching Breaking Bad recently. I think I am channeling the lead star. One thing I don't do is mess with my meds. My care taker fills my pill box one a week. About a 1/4 cup of my coffee she asks if I have checked my sugar and done my blood pressure. She is great, I forget this all the time but she is on top of it. Today my Blood Pressure was 90 over 64 and I had not taken any of my blood pressure meds. I stopped taking my Lisiniprol as it was getting way too low. I naturally run low and even though I showed no bp issues my heart doctor told me to take this stuff as it makes the heart work much easier and puts less train on it. I couldn't take as much as he wanted as I would fall over trying to put a tee in the ground. Made my really dizzy.
Yes I am totally joking. I am too old (62) to ever know anyone with that stuff. Plus back in the day I hated speed of any type. I liked my booze especially really good champagne and Vodka. It was Grey Goose and
Veuve Clicquot and a good Tattinger. I do miss my champagne, but I am not tempting fates with all these meds.
40 years ago I did have a short affair with meth, as in a couple months use. Thankfully, I saw the downward trajectory quickly enough. I'm pretty sure I stopped before there was any permanent mznsvd.,gz, jfkscj dbdv.
Started drinking at 14, stopped at 23. I had a bad sobriety problem. It's been 24 years now and I don't miss it. I do get a runners high a few times a week though.
Meth 40 years ago? Were people using meth that long ago - speed maybe, but crystal?
I tried meth once some 45 years ago, not to get high but to cram for a final. Did the job keeping me up but the brain was pretty fuzzy come test time. Didn't like the effect of it much.
There has always been meth around. They called it crank back then. Crystal was the caviar. Bikers were big crank distributors. Supposedly it was smuggled in crankcases. The big game changer with meth was when the internet promulgated relatively easy recipes to make it at home. That was way after my flirtation. Actually, the internet itself was way after my flirtation.
I'm an alcoholic and an AA, and despite several ongoing disputes, find it a great method to attain long-term sobriety by virtue of the group and God.
They say AA is no bastion of mental health. New members are often torn up, and members of years aberrant. Incest and poverty are said to be the precursors of the underlying traumas.
It takes years of arduous work to change that which brought on the use of alcohol to temporarily turn off inner pain, and meanwhile there is the steady degradation of body and mind, and I don't believe it takes long for one's inner process to center in the limbic brain.
Once one crosses the line into addiction the only purpose in drinking is to get drunk, and to get drunk everyday. The urge to drink has become insatiable.
But if you really want sobriety, it's available.
If I can be of assistance in this matter, please contact me.
They say AA is no bastion of mental health. New members are often torn up, and members of years aberrant. Incest and poverty are said to be the precursors of the underlying traumas.
It takes years of arduous work to change that which brought on the use of alcohol to temporarily turn off inner pain, and meanwhile there is the steady degradation of body and mind, and I don't believe it takes long for one's inner process to center in the limbic brain.
Once one crosses the line into addiction the only purpose in drinking is to get drunk, and to get drunk everyday. The urge to drink has become insatiable.
But if you really want sobriety, it's available.
If I can be of assistance in this matter, please contact me.
They were a lifesaver for me in dealing with social anxiety. That unexpected condition crept up on me unawares and before I knew it I could barely function outside my own home. If I hadn't had diazepam I would either have been a shut in or been forced to consume large quantities of alcohol every time I wanted to leave the house.
that's not good - I understand the justification of medicine but diazepam is just another crutch - I hope you aren't dependent on those anymore
There's nothing specifically wrong with diazepam. You may look down on it and call it a crutch but I couldn't wait six months for therapy before I went to immigration to renew a visa or went food shopping for example, and diazepam was the most efficient solution. I was never dependent on the drug and I'm not now. I take it occasionally as CBT proved hilariously unsuccessful for me but my condition is nowhere near as bad as it once was thankfully.
I had doctors try to make me take anti depressants instead but the thought of dosing myself daily with a chemical my body didn't need made me feel quite sick to be honest. Not to mention the 70% chance of erectile dysfunction that they kindly omitted to tell me about at the hospital.
I don't find diazepam addictive although I am aware some people do. However, I can't agree with your opinion that benzodiazapines should be banned. That would be like banning alcohol because lots of people have issues with it, or even tobacco maybe?
Drugs work better for some, therapy for others. Research tells us the most effective treatment for most is some combination of the two, but just as people are individuals, their treatment plan should be tailored as such.
People will land all the way from one end of the drugs/therapy spectrum to other. For most it takes some work to figure out where. Just part of the deal.
People will land all the way from one end of the drugs/therapy spectrum to other. For most it takes some work to figure out where. Just part of the deal.
I have to disagree with you because benzo's are a different animal. Big pharma regulates drugs and under normal circustances regular people cannot mix up most pharma-drugs. I CAN grow tobacco, hemp, or produce alcohol relatively easily. YOU DON'T REALLY KNOW what is in those drugs - as you weren't even disclosed to the embarrassing fact of the E.D. you experienced. Further, I don't know where you are, and I don't know your status, BUT I know that nanny USA makes victims of people and I feel like you were one of them. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is one of those terms programmed on 'willing idiots': I had many members of my family who were this way. Those drugs killed my uncle and screwed up other members of my family, leaving a disgusting stench of ugly. I don't mean any ill will but if someone cannot leave their house without being on substances it's a sign of a worse underlying problem. I'm no saint.
Well said, and that applies to nearly all medical protocols for chronic disease IMO...yet the "medical establishment" persists, for the most part, in pushing a one size fits all approach. Some doctors are much better than others in this regard, but the standard is geared to a cookie-cutter approach under the pharmaceutical cartel.
I think you misunderstood me. I never suffered from ED, I refused the prescription for anti depressants on the basis I wasn't depressed. I then went home to research the drug they prescribed, noted the side effects and decided I had made the right decision. I'm in Thailand and pay to consult doctors here so I feel free to follow their advice or go my own way. I do understand that you have an intense dislike for benzos but in my case, they helped enormously. I was never incapable of leaving the house without medicating myself but when I was faced with the choice of having people stare at me because I shook while signing paperwork (think Nicholas Cage in Leaving Las Vegas) or taking a diazepam and avoiding that embarrassment, I chose the latter course of action. Being able to function normally again helped my confidence - I don't understand social anxiety but it's obviously all in the head because I never shook when alone - so I am glad they were available to me and that I had an understanding doctor. Diazepam was actually my choice of medication, not hers, but I don't want to go into details of why because we've already gone way off topic with these posts and I doubt anybody would be interested.
My main point is, I don't think you or anybody else should be calling for the banning of a pharmaceutical product just because some people have a problem with it. Also, I am not sure if you are confusing Cognitive Behavioural Therapy with Neuro-Linguistic Programming: the former is a recognised form of psychotherapy that has proved very successful in many cases, the latter is hocus pocus and shouldn't be masquerading as a medical treatment (IMHO).
I could grow hemp and tobacco and distil alcohol but I don't, and neither do most people who consume them - so we really don't know exactly what we're putting into our bodies a lot of the time. I believe in taking professional medical advice but I also strongly believe that I know my body and mind better than any medical professional, which is why I take my own reactions to medication into account at all times. I am very familiar with diazepam, the way it affects my body and mind and the after effects, and I decided it was the safest and most effective choice for me at the time, and still is at times.
I don't think we will agree on this subject but I just wanted to point out that I was very involved in deciding what treatment options to pursue and didn't go into it blindly. I'm also aware that my approach to medicine and medical advice (as in, not always listening to it) is not acceptable to some people but I'm fine with that.
(EDIT: I do know exactly what is in diazepam: C16H13ClN2O)
Last edited:
Actually, in the US certain classes of antidepressants have long been standard treatments for some forms of anxiety disorders.I think you misunderstood me. I never suffered from ED, I refused the prescription for anti depressants on the basis I wasn't depressed. I then went home to research the drug they prescribed, noted the side effects and decided I had made the right decision. I'm in Thailand and pay to consult doctors here so I feel free to follow their advice or go my own way. I do understand that you have an intense dislike for benzos but in my case, they helped enormously. I was never incapable of leaving the house without medicating myself but when I was faced with the choice of having people stare at me because I shook while signing paperwork (think Nicholas Cage in Leaving Las Vegas) or taking a diazepam and avoiding that embarrassment, I chose the latter course of action. Being able to function normally again helped my confidence - I don't understand social anxiety but it's obviously all in the head because I never shook when alone - so I am glad they were available to me and that I had an understanding doctor. Diazepam was actually my choice of medication, not hers, but I don't want to go into details of why because we've already gone way off topic with these posts and I doubt anybody would be interested.
My main point is, I don't think you or anybody else should be calling for the banning of a pharmaceutical product just because some people have a problem with it. Also, I am not sure if you are confusing Cognitive Behavioural Therapy with Neuro-Linguistic Programming: the former is a recognised form of psychotherapy that has proved very successful in many cases, the latter is hocus pocus and shouldn't be masquerading as a medical treatment (IMHO).
I could grow hemp and tobacco and distil alcohol but I don't, and neither do most people who consume them - so we really don't know exactly what we're putting into our bodies a lot of the time. I believe in taking professional medical advice but I also strongly believe that I know my body and mind better than any medical professional, which is why I take my own reactions to medication into account at all times. I am very familiar with diazepam, the way it affects my body and mind and the after effects, and I decided it was the safest and most effective choice for me at the time, and still is at times.
I don't think we will agree on this subject but I just wanted to point out that I was very involved in deciding what treatment options to pursue and didn't go into it blindly. I'm also aware that my approach to medicine and medical advice (as in, not always listening to it) is not acceptable to some people but I'm fine with that.
(EDIT: I do know exactly what is in diazepam: C16H13ClN2O)
Yes I know but they have to be taken for weeks before results are seen and, as I mentioned, have some very undesirable sided effects. In comparison, I can take 5mg of diazepam and feel the effects within 20 minutes, with peak plasma concentration achieved in around 2 hours I think. I never needed medication on a daily basis, only ever when facing certain situations that triggered my symptoms, so for that reason, I was against taking an anti depressant every day just to help me through situations that may only have occurred a couple of times a week. It's also impossible to tell whether you are improving at all if you use anti depressants in that way, since they can't be taken on an ad hoc basis. On a personal level, I remember a friend in the UK who was on a certain SSRI and he was just a shell of his former self. That put me off ever taking them to be honest.
I do get what you're saying though. They are commonly prescribed for certain anxiety disorders; I just believe they are overkill for my particular condition.
- Status