my girlfriend is doing cocaine.
Is she not sharing then?
January 3rd, 2006
Oh, you're dating Kate Moss too? Yeah, I kicked her out a long time ago, but she keeps calling me and begging me to take her back.
Assuming she's just doing a bit here and there, recreationally, I suggest you do some with her.
I'm with Cool Dad. If she's shovelling it up her nose like nobody's business, get her some help (rather than dumping her, which seems a little uncaring), but if she's just doing a little toot now and again to liven up an evening out, join in the fun!
Yes - maybe you'll be on here in a few weeks with 'Help were both addicted to cocaine' lol
In moderation it's generally not too bad -- I have a pop a couple of times a year, but I can take it or leave it. YMMV -- some people seem more susceptible to addiction than others, but I know dozens of people who use it maybe once a month and have no problems...
Have an intervention and get her help.
Sorry, but I don't buy the "recreational cocaine use is okay!" argument.
Get her help, and if she refuses, kick her to the curb.
>Sorry, but I don't buy the "recreational cocaine use is
No doubt a sound a reasoned opinion based solely upon government and/or religious propaganda.
>No doubt a sound a reasoned opinion based solely upon government and/or religious propaganda.
Instead of asking me to expound, you assume. Of course, this is ?off, so I don't exactly expect reasoned debate.
Do you know anyone who has ever been addicted to something like cocaine? Yes? No? Ever had a family member or friend commit suicide while they're all jacked up on drugs? Yes? No?
Come back to me when you have a fucking clue.
> Do you know anyone who has ever been addicted to something like cocaine? Yes? No?
> Ever had a family member or friend commit suicide while they're all jacked up on drugs? Yes? No?
There are plenty of people who will be OK and go on to lead normal lives, and there are plenty of people who will get addicted and end up dead or seriously worse off because of it.
The problem is differentiating between the two, which is nearly impossible to do before the fact.
> There are plenty of people who will be OK and go on to lead normal lives, and there are plenty of people who will get addicted and end up dead or seriously worse off because of it.
The problem is differentiating between the two, which is nearly impossible to do before the fact.
That may be so, but my experience with different people who use different types of drugs at different levels of intensity tells me that it has never done anybody any good. And it has never changed anybody's personality for the better (in the long term, not while they were on an 'everybody's best friend' coke run).
So would I have a relationship with a drug user. No. With some experience to back it up.
Just out of interest - does anyone actually know what is the %age level of cocaine users who suddenly develop that condition where they just keel over?
I'm not sure how close you and your girlfriend are but I feel the question should be what do you do to make her come out of it rather than just what do you do and if you should kick her out. The effort on your part to make her come out of it might make her do so.
Kicking her out may trigger a depression due to her use of cocaine which may lead into more use of cocaine which then leads to a worse depression, etc. I wouldn't recommend that.
Doing nothing will just mean you wait untill the depression sets in and well... go figure.
She needs your help even if she doesn't think so.
This is one of those "only the bad cases are obvious" situations; I've been a habitual drug user for many years, but unless you knew you'd probably never guess. A large proportion of my friends are likewise.
Sure, I know one or two people who've "gone bad", but it's a very small percentage, and providing you steer clear of the upper end of the adictiveness scale (heroin, crack, etc.) the risks are minimal. It's only the propogandising anti-drugs lobby that still hang on to the insane notion that using drugs once will ruin your life, and now that it's reckoned any 18-30 year olds who *don't* use drugs recreationally are in the minority  it should be fairly obvious that for most people it's not a problem.
Like the more socially accepted drugs -- alcohol in particular -- in moderation "hard drugs" are reasonably benign, but some people may react badly, become addicted, and ruin their lives. The only difference is that there's not so much pressure to demonise the acceptable drugs, so the fact that they're all addictive and have negative health effects is generally glossed over. (Nicotine is moving from the "acceptable" to "demonised" category, so is quite a good illustration of how it's largely arbitrary as to which drugs are "bad" and which are "good".)
The long and the short of it is that lots of people use drugs recreationally with no ill effects, but like everything there's a risk involved; believing the risks of drugs to be worse than, say, the risk of driving a car is almost certainly a direct result of the campaign of FUD spread by government. After all, I expect most people here know someone who's been seriously injured in a car accident, but I don't see anyone saying they wouldn't be in a relationship with someone who drives...
 Mostly pot, with occasional forays into LSD, coke, E, and speed.
 In the UK, and probably the rest of Europe.
Comparing cocaine use to driving a car isn't exactly a fair analogy. Sure there is a risk in driving, but to get where your going often the necessity and reward (you dont have to walk 100 miles) are worth the low risk. There is a higher risk of becoming addicted or doing bodily harm with using cocaine, a better analogy would be street racing your car. Sure many people enter races and never get hurt, but there is a very good chance that you'll get injured racing, and it's not a necessity, nor is socially acceptable. Addiction aside (i've known alcoholics and coke addicts, and i'd take an alcoholic over the coke head any day), assuming they were equal, one is socially acceptable and one is not. You can bring an alcoholic places, but being in a relationship with someone who has to go to the bathroom to party would be a serious thing to consider. Not to mention the risks involved in procuring it.
My longer, more drawn out answer to the drug thing (and Colm's accusation that my opinion is based on propaganda).
There are some substances which have a negative short- or long-term effect on people. This includes caffeine, alcohol, nicotine, marijuana, ecstasy, crack, heroin, etc. etc. Obviously, those drugs affect different people in different ways, but it's safe to say that something like caffeine is much less dangerous a substance than heroin.
When looking at the relative "badness" of a substance, one should be concerned with the effects of rare/occasional use, the effects of regular use, and how addictive it is, over a short and long period of time.
What you'll end up with is some sort of scale of badness, with drugs that do relatively little harm on one end, and drugs that can kill you in an instant on the other.
It is my _opinion_ (note my choice of words) that a government has a vested interest in protecting its people from substances that are past a certain threshold on the badness scale. Substances that can cause both bodily harm and addiction very rapidly over a large enough sample of people. If I have a fictional drug called Glob, and one dose of Glob is going to hook you and ruin your spleen within a couple months of use, I think the government has a strong case to prohibit the use of Glob.
Now, I'm not enough of an expert in drugs to be able to pinpoint where the aforementioned threshold should lie. I also readily acknowledge that some substances past that threshold may still be allowed because they have good lobbyists. I'm talking IdealWorld here, not RealWorld.
Although I have never used cocaine, I have lost a childhood friend and a cousin to its use. My perception is that cocaine is probably going to wind up on the prohibition side of the badness scale. Therefore, I don't condone its recreational use.
If that makes me a religious zealot or a Bush apologist, then so be it. I don't think it does, but I guess people are entitled to their own opinions.
Recreational use of mind altering substances (this includes alcohol, nicotene, and so on) is stupid and counter to intellect, no matter how you slice it. You can spin and spin, but what you are doing is introducing toxins to your body so that you can enjoy a sensation of impairment.
There's no good way to say that so that it doesn't sound stupid, and so that you don't sound like you're rationalizing.
Just accept that it's stupid, and if you enjoy it anyway, then good for you. Enjoy away. But don't argue that it isn't stupid.
>It is my _opinion_ (note my choice of words) that a
>government has a vested interest in protecting its people
>from substances that are past a certain threshold on the
>badness scale. Substances that can cause both bodily harm
>and addiction very rapidly over a large enough sample of
If this were true then the Government would *not* attempt to ban cannabis (which has killed nobody and nobody has ever been addicted to), but would ban cigarettes and alcohol (which together kill more than any other drug per year x 1000).
You've got to be kidding when you say no one has ever been addicted to cannabis. I'd call a lifestyle of work avoidance, petty theft, and constant cannabis use an addictive one.
And yes, this is a stereotype, but it became one because it's so commonplace. And yes this is from personal experience (not of using but of users).
Colm, I don't believe that if cigarettes and alcohol were introduced today they would be legal. They are slowly phasing out the legality of cigarettes ( 1. create social stigma 2. ban all public smoking 3. raise taxes on one pack to make them too expensive to buy 4. out and out ban them ) , they've tried banning alcohol. I think its pretty consistent. Marijuana doesn't kill, but it does have many of the concerns that cigarettes have, in addition to the fact that other people can get high unwillingly from being near it (ok this would take really close proximity in a unventilated area).
"You can spin and spin, but what you are doing is introducing toxins to your body so that you can enjoy a sensation of impairment."
In the case of ecstasy, sometimes the 'impairment' as you call it also comes with a free, temporary perspective shift that I've personally found to be valuable. I know people who have benefited greatly from sensible use.
Simon one day we're going to do ecstasy!!
>You've got to be kidding when you say no one has ever been
>addicted to cannabis.
For somebody who works in a hospital, your medical knowledge leaves something to be desired.
There's physically addictive and there's psychologically addictive, Colm. If the effect is the same, what difference does the cause make (except in treatment)?
I wouldn't claim _nobody_ has ever been addicted to cannabis, Colm. I think if you dared a hardcore stoner to stop smoking for a couple weeks, they wouldn't be able to. In fact, I know of people for whom this is the case.
Now, whether or not it belongs on the prohibition side of the theoretical badness scale... I dunno, because I haven't studied it. In fact, that's the dicey question for any of these substances. Does alcohol belong over there? Cigarettes? Ecstasy? I'm sure arguments could be made either way.
But don't say nobody can become addicted to cannabis, because that's plain not true.
Ecstasy is another one where people vastly overestimate the risks. Statistically, you're *extremely* unlikely to die from using it.
You're extremely unlikely to die from abrading your dick with a sanding block, too, but I don't go about doing THAT at parties either.
Isn't there a difference between chemically addictive (anyone can get hooked on it, and needs to be detoxed) and psychologically addicted (which may require an addictive personality and isn't really an "addiction" - like my "addiction" to Mountain Dew or some of the Everquest junkies)?
Sure there is Philo, but either one can be damaging.
Anyway, Mountain Dew, while not very healthy to drink all the time, isn't quite as active a substance as cannabis, alcohol, or other drugs.
Not really. Mountain Dew doesn't impart any psychological effects further reaching than maybe some moderately increased awareness.
Mountain Dew is probably more addictive, because I believe Caffine is chemically addictive but THC is not.
I believe it's been proven that cannabis is objectively better for you than tobacco. Cannabis is not cancerogenic, and nicotine is certainly physiologically addictive.
Admittedly cannabis has a much more expressed effect on a person - you certainly shouldn't drive after smoking a joint. Although a person smoking while driving is certainly a danger in the same way as a person talking on the phone.
January 3rd, 2006
"Cannabis is not cancerogenic"
You would be wrong... because it is MORE carcenogenic. Pretty much anything that is lit is though.
<<Recreational use of mind altering substances (this includes alcohol, nicotene, and so on) is stupid and counter to intellect, no matter how you slice it. You can spin and spin, but what you are doing is introducing toxins to your body so that you can enjoy a sensation of impairment.>>
isn't that a rather wide blanket statement? i thought that having one drink (wine or beer) a day was beneficial to your health.
i think the key issue here is that the OP doesn't do coke. i think it's difficult for two people with different principles in regards to drug use to find a middle ground.
"You would be wrong... because it is MORE carcenogenic. Pretty much anything that is lit is though."
Except that very few cigarette smokers smoke just four or five butts on Friday or Saturday night... ;)
>You would be wrong... because it is MORE carcenogenic.
>Pretty much anything that is lit is though.
Not only that, but 5 times more carcinogenic. But cigarette smokers tend to smoke at *least* 5 times more cigarettes than cannabis smokers smoke weed, so the net effect is that, on the whole, it's less carcinogenic.
"Except that very few cigarette smokers smoke just four or five butts on Friday or Saturday night... ;)"
True, but they also dont go to extraordinary lengths to hold in the smoke for extended periods or hotbox themselves hehe.
> You can spin and spin, but what you are doing
> is introducing toxins to your body so that you
> can enjoy a sensation of impairment.
You mean like smelling a flower?
> There's physically addictive and there's
> psychologically addictive,
So psychologically addiction doesn't involve any phsical means? Your brain is material.
* nearly fivefold greater increment in the blood carboxyhemoglobin level (for weed).
* threefold increase in the amount of tar inhaled
* retention in the respiratory tract of one third more inhaled tar
* approximately two-thirds larger puff volume, a one-third greater depth of inhalation, and a fourfold longer breath-holding time with marijuana than with tobacco
"Five times" was a rough estimate, but as far as I can make out, if you combine the increased amount of tar inhaled and increased retention + puff volume, then it probably aggregates to about 4-6.
Um, Colm, I'm going to have to uphold the BS call. The article you cite says that pot gives you 5 times more carbon-monoxide in the blood, and three times the tar of a cigarette.
There's no data that this corresponds to a "5-times higher cancer rate".
And since the point has been made that people smoke cigarettes much differently than they smoke pot, it seems even more unlikely that the CO and tar would give you 5 times the cancer rate. In other words, if you smoke 5 times more cigarettes (2 packs a day @ 20 per pack) than you smoke joints (3 to 5 on a weekend) then the cigarettes seem just as likely, if not more likely, to give you cancer than the weed.
But I wasn't aware of the higher tar of pot, and I thank you for the link.
Oops, rereading I find you said that thing about number of cigarettes already. Sorry.
I don't think you can aggregate like that. The different dynamics of smoking weed are already captured in the study. The worst we can conclude is:
*threefold increase in the amount of tar inhaled
*retention in the respiratory tract of one third more inhaled tar
(which is bad, as tar causes cancer!)
Regardles, that gets us to from 1/3 to 3x worse, assuming cancer rates are linear with tar retention or inhalation.
(which is not 5, but it's not good.)
3 times the tar would probably equal 3 times the carcinogenicity if the smoking habits of cannabis users and tobacco smokers were identical, but the cannabis users hold it in longer (so the tar has a greater effect) and take deeper breaths (ditto).
Ergo, it's probably more like 4-6 times more carcinogenic.
Bear in mind that this is a massively inexact estimate, but 5x is a reasonable guess based upon the data.
The 3 times effect ALREADY INCLUDES the different ways of smoking.
"We measured ... the amount of tar inhaled and deposited in the respiratory tract from ... marijuana cigarettes. As compared with smoking tobacco, smoking marijuana was associated with ... an approximately threefold increase in the amount of tar inhaled, and retention in the respiratory tract of one third more inhaled tar."
Geez, guys, the study was on CO and tar. You're taking that and running with it down BS highway when you extrapolate to carcinogenic effects.
For decades, cigarette manufacturers have been entirely denying the connection of smoking and cancer, and it's been difficult for the medical profession to make that connection.
And here you are in two sentences saying basically "everybody knows that it's the tar in cigarettes that causes the cancer, so it's three times the cancer risk for pot".
Next thing you know, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is going to seem proved to you guys.
And what part of "the smoke of similar quantities of marijuana and tobacco" did you not understand? Clearly the study had these people smoke a similar number of cigarettes and joints -- NOT the 'pack a day' versus 'a few on the weekend' we've been arguing.
And of course cigarettes are carcinogenic, and so probably weed is carcinogenic. But this "it's proved" and "3 times worse (or whatever)" BS you're handing out does not make that case, and lowers your credibility for your other claims.
This says that the tar is 50-70% more carcinogenic:
3 x 1.6 = 4.8
This says that 3 joints are roughly equivalent to 20, according to the British Heart Foundation:
20 / 3 = 6.7
This isn't an exact science, but it's not bullshit.
From the first article:
"Studies to date have not linked marijuana smoking with the lung, colon, rectal and other cancers associated with tobacco smoking, Melamede said. In addition, other studies have indicated compounds found in cannabis might even kill certain cancers, including lung, breast, prostate and skin, as well as leukemia and lymphoma, and a type of brain cancer called glioma."
You then quoted, out of context, a rebutting opinion that merely "implied" that marijuana would be carcinogenic because of its tar content.
I'd like to agree with you Colm. I don't want to advocate pot use, OR cigarette use. And I really appreciate your willingness to find these references. But certainly you can see where the "5 times more carcinogenic" statement would set off alarms, no?
You seem to be getting caught up on the little stuff Allan, Colm is saying it has 5 times the amount of carcinigans, he didn't say its 5 times more likely to give cancer. Almost anything that burns contains carcinogens, heck a well done steak can cause cancer supposedly. I don't think MJ is much worse then cigarettes and alcohol, and should be legalized. But you can't tell me there are no harmful effects or that its safer then cigarettes, because if you've known anyone that smokes weed daily, there is definitely some brain damage going on there. People may smoke 5 times less weed now, but what if it were made legal? People are smoking less cigarettes as the price rises, so would people then smoke more pot if the price fell?
I think the amount of harm pot causes is probably somewhere in between coffee and cigarettes. I wouldn't call it a harmless vice, but anything other than total legalization is crazy.
And with that, I think I deserve a joint :)
"I think the amount of harm pot causes is probably somewhere in between coffee and cigarettes. "
Oh sure, buy into the snack food lobby propoganda...thats what they want you to think.
Negative effects of coffee? Oh, don't even get me started. Caffeine deprivation headaches on the weekends, increased blood pressure, over-caffeinated tremors, it goes on and on. Well, actually, that's really about it.
That and the social costs of having those Starbucks everywhere. And Mark Warner's crazy asian lady. And people paying $2.00 a cup for overpriced coffee and then denying their children a good education.
Of course, I'm sure it has a few carcinogenic compounds in there somewhere, everything else seems to...
Okay, I see I'm too stressed out at this point to actually be funny, but I'm trying...
Oh? I thought it was funny. I'll give it a B. What's go you so stressed? Relax, have a cup of coffee.
My issue is not necessarily cocaine, although that doesn't make me feel comfortable. The biggest problem I have is that she has been lying to me about it. My thought is that the coke is turning her into someone I can't trust.
I'm from just outside of Portland, Oregon and a bunch of people I used to skateboard with in high school ended up turning into meth tweakers, so I'm not very fond of the "harder" drugs.
another problem I have is that somewhere in the chain of using somebody has to actually buy the cocaine. where I live now, that involves dealing with seriously shady, criminal people. maybe she is just getting it from a friend but how do I really know? how do I know that she's not buying herself? how do I know she hasn't used the house phone to call her dealer? how do I know her dealer doesn't already know where we live? how do I know her dealer hasn't been to my place? how do I know she hasn't been to her dealer's place?
my first girlfriend out of high school turned into a major cokehead for whatever reason. i'd go to her place and there would be a bunch of sketchy people over there. she would tell me that all she ever thought about was getting more coke. she'd lie to me all the time about using and was a horrible person to be around most of the time.
my problem with coke (aside from the effects of the drug) is that it seems to turn people into chronic liars. when I found out my current GF is using, my heart sank and I now I don't know which things she says are true or not. sorry if I'm a square but in the spectrum of illicit substances coke is on the "really bad" end in my view.
I'm with you there. Coke, crack, heroin, Crystal meth, they're just beyond acceptable.
As a thought experiment, substitute "my girlfriend is doing cocaine" with "my daughter is doing cocaine" and let me know if you still think "recreational" coke use is nothing to worry about.
"The biggest problem I have is that she has been lying to me about it."
Then it is a trust issue; the drug use is secondary. I would handle it exactly as though you dicovered that your girlfirend was "doing some other guy." Confront her, listen to the way she responds and try to determine if you can come to trust her again.
My tuppence-worth is that anyone I've ever known that hasn't known when to say "when" on any mind-altering chemical (legal or no) just becomes A.) Scary, B.) Annoying, C.) Boring. Granted, I also know people that can be any of the above stone cold sober, but at least there's not the baggage of shady dealings and wondering whether you'll get caught in the middle.
It sounds like you're managing to do well enough balancing the natural urge to care with the equally natural instinct for self-preservation. But it still has to be wrenching. Good luck to you both.
The big tragedy is that many substances that have (or had) valid theraputic applications have been removed from the pharmacopeia by bad policy.
But that's got nothing to do with your situation. A confession of pure (stupid) curiosity is way different to regular indulgence. If it's the latter and it continues to bother you, you'll be less likely to stay.
At least it's not your sister.
If she's lying to you about it, then it's a serious problem because you don't know what else she could be hiding from you - heroin, promiscuity, etc.. At this point, your health could be on the line.
And for all the "just because she's doing coke doesn't mean she's doing heroin and sleeping around" arguments that are about to crop up, it's the *lying* I'm talking about, not the drug abuse specifically.
As for the drug dealers, I've known a few and they're not people you want hanging around your house. Murderers, directly or indirectly, and generally unsavory characters. Fun at parties, but completely amoral.
"You don't understand - 'Cocaine' is what we named the dog!"
Sorry. Had to be said.
Late to the party, as usual, but man did Mat Hall's "I've been a habitual drug user for many years" make me go "That explains a lot..."
January 4th, 2006
Does your girlfriend know about your first girlfriend and that you don't approve of cocaine? If so, that can be the main reason for her to lie to you about it. Most people don't approve of such a practice but if you are known to be vehement about it people who are addicted would go to any length to cover it up from you. When addicted, people, even who are not smart otherwise, seem to have a lot of presence of mind and find a way through to get what they want.
My opinion is that the first step should be to make her feel comfortable to talk to you about it. If, say, some shady dealer tried to make a pass at her while supplying the stuff and she had a difficult time getting the stuff alone and leaving the place, she must be able to relate that to you. I know all this should be awful but I think that should be the first step and that'll at least give you reassurance that she was lying to you only when it was something to do with the drug. Even she talks frankly and not lying about anything else, it wouldn't be an easy task to make her give it up.