Opinions - Drug use versus Drug abuse

[stinky_plant]

Is there a difference between drug use and drug abuse? It's usually construed as abuse should the drug be illegal, regardless if it's once an hour or once a year. However, it would not be part of the present day vernacular to say that someone having two cups of coffee everyday is abusing caffeine.

[Nature Boy]

In practice, of course there is a difference between drug use and drug abuse e.g. having a glass of wine with a meal vs. downing a bottle of vodka in one gulp. But yes, your point is perfectly valid. Any illegal drug use is considered drug abuse by hard-line prohibitionists to further alienate their foes and kill off any chance of social acceptability.

[fnord]

if i was the type with blatant disregard for the justified laws our society has set in place and used drugs regardless of these laws, i would say the difference for me would be if my drug use interfered with my life or goals.

[stinky_plant]

http://www.drugabuse.gov/

on that page you don't see things like salvia, psilocybin or caffeine under the list of drugs of abuse. While the former two are both illegal, the latter is widely accepted, but despite this social acceptance, there is such a thing as caffeine psychosis and other health problems arising from "caffeine abuse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine#Overuse

A lot of college students "abuse" adderall, as in they take a 10-30mg extended release tablet once, maybe twice a semester for midterms or finals. Once or twice, and that's abuse, whereas those prescribed, albeit having a prescription often take it everyday and that would not be considered abuse. Yet having 10 cups of coffee over the course of a night would not be construed as caffeine abuse.

I also love how some drugs such as ibogaine are placed in schedule I, which makes you puke and have visions of crawling back in your mother's pussy.

[zera]

Abuse of course is a subjective term. All one really means when they talk about abuse is what they perceive to be a misuse. One man's abuse is another man's enlightenment. Many college students will drink six or more drinks four nights a week and this is seen as normal behavior by their peers. If my grandparents did the same thing their friends would without a doubt consider them alcoholics.

Swims usage of cannabis and psychedelics has been partially responsible for causing him to question religion and patriotism and embrace nihilism. Most people would say that this is a "negative personality shift" because they hold religion and patriotism in high regard and nihilism in a low regard. They would say that because of the what they perceive to be negative symptoms that swims drug use qualifies as abuse. However swim would have to disagree he thinks his world view is infinitely more realistic and enlightened.

Another example is something that economists call "rational addiction." That is even if one's drug use pattern qualifies as addiction, that may still be a positive choice for the person. A lot of the empirical evidence says that drug addiction is very frequently "utility maximizing," ie even if it creates addiction it is still making the persons life better. You can read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_addiction

[bcubed]

For some drugs (opiates come to mind) "use" vs. "abuse" makes some sort of nebulous sense, as analgesia (use) is a different intent than euphoria (abuse).

This breaks down for hallucinogens, however. These drugs are basically "made," if you will, for altering conscoiusness, so use and abuse really can't be differentiated. That's why, IMO, Iboga is schedule I: the mechanism by which it alleviates addiction and drug-seeking behavior is inseperable from the "high." The documented ability of Iboga (and hallucinogens in general) to produce positive outcomes is repressed because, if it were ever admitted that a drug-induced altered state could be a profoundly positive thing, that would be game, set, match for the prohibitionists. The people that might otherwise have been saved are effectively "collateral damage" in the drug war.

Sorry, this really frosts me...

Reputation Comments on this post:

some good points

[Psych0naut]

There is a big difference between drug use, and drug abuse. All drugs can be used, or abused, both legal, and illegal drugs. When a person has a prescription for amphetamines, and takes them daily, as instructed by the persons doctor, it's (medical) drug use. If the same person binges on his or her prescribed amphetamines, because of the euphoric effects, it's drug abuse, even though the person has a prescription for the drug. If I drink a beer because I like the taste of it, it's drug use, even though it don't get any effects from drinking only one beer. If I regularly gulp down a bottle of whiskey to supress some negative emotions, it's drug abuse, even though it's perfectly legal. The goverment's point of view, and a rational point of view regarding the difference of drug use, and drug abuse can be quite opposite of each other, but in the end, with common sense and ration thinking, anyone with a brain is able to distinguish the differences.

[bcubed]

Man, I'm gonna disagree w/ a mod here...

I take exception to the "it isn't abuse if it's on a doctor's orders" line. Not to delve too much into my personal background, but I've developed an atipathy towards that profession, and it seems that docs (at least in the US) hold a "demigod/high priest" station, and that somehow their blessing turns "drugs" into "medication" like some pharmacuetical eucharist...

Note that the demonization of drugs--and the profit potential from medications--is so great that they require two completely seperate lexicons: "addicts" become "hooked on drugs" and "suffer withdrawls"; "patients" "develop tolerance" and "experience rebound."

I've attended a few AA meetings, over the years, and the most offensive thing I heard there was a rep from their magazine say that Bill didn't slip or relapse with LSD (but I would if I did the same) because it was "prescribed"(?) by a doctor. I flat out told him: "So, what you're saying is that an MD has the power to alter the pharmacological effects of a substance--a power beyond that of other men. I'm supposed to make some prima donna with a white coat and a stethescope my higher power? Well [censored] that!"

If I regularly gulp down a bottle of whiskey to supress some negative emotions, it's drug abuse, even though it's perfectly legal.

Out of curiousity: If one drinks or drugs to excess with the expectation that such extremes will have the side effect of inspiring creative insight otherwise unobtainable, is that use, abuse, or both?

[Psych0naut]

Originally Posted by bcubed

Man, I'm gonna disagree w/ a mod here...

I take exception to the "it isn't abuse if it's on a doctor's orders" line. Not to delve too much into my personal background, but I've developed an atipathy towards that profession, and it seems that docs (at least in the US) hold a "demigod/high priest" station, and that somehow their blessing turns "drugs" into "medication" like some pharmacuetical eucharist...

Note that the demonization of drugs--and the profit potential from medications--is so great that they require two completely seperate lexicons: "addicts" become "hooked on drugs" and "suffer withdrawls"; "patients" "develop tolerance" and "experience rebound."

I've attended a few AA meetings, over the years, and the most offensive thing I heard there was a rep from their magazine say that Bill didn't slip or relapse with LSD (but I would if I did the same) because it was "prescribed"(?) by a doctor. I flat out told him: "So, what you're saying is that an MD has the power to alter the pharmacological effects of a substance--a power beyond that of other men. I'm supposed to make some prima donna with a white coat and a stethescope my higher power? Well [censored] that!"



Out of curiousity: If one drinks or drugs to excess with the expectation that such extremes will have the side effect of inspiring creative insight otherwise unobtainable, is that use, abuse, or both?

The US is the sole exception regarding doctors handing out opioid, benzodiazepine and amphetamine prescriptions. But regardless of this, I think my point of view even counts for the US, if a patient takes medication on the doctors orders, without the intent of euhporia or other effects, it's still not drug abuse. Only if the patient knowingly takes the drug because of these positive effects, and only in large doses, or often, would it be abuse. If the patient takes it unknowingly of it's euphoria(or stimulation/sedation)on doctors orders, it's just normal drug use.

I have a prescription for Rohynol(flunitrazepam), Dormicum(midazolam) and Dexedrine(dextro-amphetamine), but take these drugs solely for their medical effects, and I try to avoid taking both benzo's as much as possible. On the occasions I do take my Rohynol, I feel pretty euphoric, even though I only take it at the medical dose, and don't force myself to stay awake to enjoy the euphoria. Rather the opposite, I'm lying in my bed, waiting till I can finally fall asleep. Rohypnol is euphoric in therapeutic doses, and so when I take them because I can't sleep, I still know I'll be in for a good experience untill I fall asleep.

In reply to your question. I personally think, that if a person takes a drug deliberately in a dose he/she knows will cause the desired effect of creativity, but only does it on a rare occasion, it's drug use, not abuse. Psychedelics like psilocybe mushrooms and LSD often cause enhanced creativity in most people at their normal doses, just taking a normal dose of the drug would cause a large enhancement of their creativity. If the person would regularly take such a drug to enhance creativity, knowing that the person wouldn't be creative enough to think of new idea's, without the drug, than yes, it's drug abuse.

Ow, and there's nothing wrong with disagreeing with a mod, moderators are member of the forum as well, they just happen to keep certain parts of the forum in good shape, but they aren't above any other member

[Alfa]

The FDA describes all use of drugs outside of a legal medical framework as abuse. Off course there are exceptions, but you get the picture how the US government redefines words to their own need.
See: http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2001/501_drug.html
It is bizarre to read on the FDA site how ephedrine was cool to use for energy or weight loss, but not for euphoria. They sent out quite a few heavy handed warnings over time, to companies who promoted food supplements for recreational use.
http://www.fda.gov/cder/warn/warn2003.htm
See the street drug alternatives warnings.

[cganon]

If there is a feeling compelling you to take a substance then I believe that you are abusing that substance.

I think this is very true for a huge proportion of society that are truely compelled to drink alcohol in a social situation - a meal with friends for instance. I have been out with friends and decided I did not want to drink alcohol and the topic of conversation for half of the meal is - "go on, have a drink - you can have half can't you".

They have no feelings of guilt or thoghts of health implications (social acceptance) but they were certainly compelled to drink and persuade me to conform.

[stinky_plant]

" The FDA describes all use of drugs outside of a legal medical framework as abuse."

Afla raises a good point. Look at Rush Limbaugh, the archetypal fat-ass anti-drug Republican who got addicted to hardcore opiates. Sure, he initially had a legitmate reason to use opiates, I think he had some surgery or something. But as a contingency of the surgery, he got addicted to what was originally his "medication" and what would later be construed as an "abused drug". I'm not so much upset at Rush's "drug abuse" as I am his hypocricy, but I think the FDA and society at large should reevaluate its position.

It's been scientfically proven that THC and other marijuana chemicals are not physically addicting, ergo, no high potential for abuse as the government wishes the public to think with its placement in schedule I. Various schedule II opiates and stimulates are in fact physically addicting.

Granted, people can smoke pot everyday and perhaps get burned out a bit. But are they smoking it as a means of quelling a physical craving? No, most likely they are just rich trustafarians who are pissing away their college fund on lots of pot and getting sub par marks in school.

"The US is the sole exception regarding doctors handing out opioid, benzodiazepine and amphetamine prescriptions."

How is it different elsewhere psychonaut?

I'm curious though psychonaut, what about a person who is NOT prescribed amphetamines for ADD/ADHD, but takes them once or twice a semester to help study for midterms and/or finals? Like alfa mentioned, the FDA would consider this abuse and one would stand chance of prosecution if caught. But at least in my mind, this would not be abuse.

[Psych0naut]

Originally Posted by stinky_plant

" The FDA describes all use of drugs outside of a legal medical framework as abuse."

Afla raises a good point. Look at Rush Limbaugh, the archetypal fat-ass anti-drug Republican who got addicted to hardcore opiates. Sure, he initially had a legitmate reason to use opiates, I think he had some surgery or something. But as a contingency of the surgery, he got addicted to what was originally his "medication" and what would later be construed as an "abused drug". I'm not so much upset at Rush's "drug abuse" as I am his hypocricy, but I think the FDA and society at large should reevaluate its position.

It's been scientfically proven that THC and other marijuana chemicals are not physically addicting, ergo, no high potential for abuse as the government wishes the public to think with its placement in schedule I. Various schedule II opiates and stimulates are in fact physically addicting.

Granted, people can smoke pot everyday and perhaps get burned out a bit. But are they smoking it as a means of quelling a physical craving? No, most likely they are just rich trustafarians who are pissing away their college fund on lots of pot and getting sub par marks in school.

"The US is the sole exception regarding doctors handing out opioid, benzodiazepine and amphetamine prescriptions."

How is it different elsewhere psychonaut?

I'm curious though psychonaut, what about a person who is NOT prescribed amphetamines for ADD/ADHD, but takes them once or twice a semester to help study for midterms and/or finals? Like alfa mentioned, the FDA would consider this abuse and one would stand chance of prosecution if caught. But at least in my mind, this would not be abuse.

It's different elsewhere in the sense that one needs good proof ones needs strong medication like opioids or amphetamines, and benzo's are often second line treatment as well. In many countries, amphetamines for ADD/ADHD treatment is completely unknown, this goes for the whole of Europe. In most countries amphetamines aren't even legally available for prescription, and in the ones where they are legally prescribaple, they are only prescibred to serious sufferers of narcolepsy. SWIM is one of only few people in the Netherlands who gets dextro-amphetamine on prescription, the only one in his area, just one of 50.000 people. It is also impossible to get strong opioids like morphine, oxycodone or fentanyl by the means of doctor shopping. SWIM only knows one person who has a prescription for strong opioids(Fentanyl and oxycodone), but he has a very serious ailment, some majorly dislocated vertibrae in his back, for which he had more than a dozen surgery, and has been on pain medication for well over a decade. Unless you're dying, or you've been on weaker pain medication for several years, you won't get a prescription for any strong opioids, it's a general rule with no exceptions. I've had many surgeries as well, and have been in some of the worst pain you can imagine, but I never had anything stronger than paracetamol, not even when I had an excruciating inguinal hernia, which IV morphine would be standard pain treatment for, but no...

[stinky_plant]

Wow, SWIM's notion of Europe as "more liberal" than America SWIM thought it would be easy to get drugs. Sounds like it's more difficult. At SWIM's college, SWIM got codeine cough syrup for a cough that was quite swell. That's right, codeine syrup for a little cough. SWIM even went to get prescribed another malaria medication because SWIM did not know about the dangers of mefloquine, and SWIM's doctor even told SWIM that SWIM could sell, that's right, sell the mefloquine. SWIM's doctor even chuckled at the notion of someone illegally dealing malaria meds.

[Psych0naut]

^^^^ Western Europe is generally more liberal in other ways, but not with prescription medicine, that's horribly regulated in Europe

[I<3Salvia]

If you ask swim there is a large difference between drug use and drug abuse. Drug use leads to a beneficial result. Drug abuse leads to dependance. However, it shouldn't be the governments responsibility as to what we put in our bodies drug wise. With food, that's understandable as you don't know what you're eating, but with drugs you have a pretty good idea most of the time. We're not a whole bunch of mindless puppets, the government forgets that.

[Nature Boy]

Originally Posted by Psych0naut

^^^^ Western Europe is generally more liberal in other ways, but not with prescription medicine, that's horribly regulated in Europe

Although that's true, Europe (Ireland anyway) is quickly copying the US model. SWIM knows more and more people who are being prescribed things like ritalin and valium. It works for some of them, others abuse the shit out of their meds. Fancy a big snort of crushed concerta and a few D-10's?

[Rej]

If you look at Drug abuse from a medical perspective there is actual criteria that must be met for that diagnosis. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders fourth edition, Substance Abuse is defined as:
A maladaptive pattern of substance use leading to clinically significant impairment or distress, as manifested by one or more of the following occurring within a 12 month period:
1.

[Rej]

Oops, didn't work the way I wanted it to. To continue:
1. recurrent substance use resulting in a failure to fulfill a major role obligations at work, school, or home.
2. Recurrent substance use in situations in which it is physically hazardous
3. Recurrent substance related legal problems
4. Continued substance use despite having persistent or recurrent social or interpersonal problems caused or exacerbated by the effects of the substance.

There is additional criteria for substance dependence. This is what counselors use to determine if you can be treated for addiction. Law enforcement and Judges have there own opinions on it.

[Zaprenz]

All factors measured to differentiate drug use from abuse are themselves subjective and non-quantifiable.

It's like HAM-D, DSM-V, GAF criteria used to classify mental disorders. They attempt to make what is a subjective, non-quantifiable variable(s) in to discreet quantifiable variable(s) which are effective and useful in clinical practice. Accepted as a very usefull indicator of a condition - they are incredibly useful but they are never going to be anywhere near 100% accurate.

There are always going to be cases which are either borderline and hard to decide or simply where two different people have two contrasting opinions on someones drug use (This can't exclude medical practitioners themselves - high dose legally prescribed, taken as directed, benzos might be abuse from one dr's perspective, it might be essential in anothers)

[Rej]

I completely agree.

[Psych0naut]

Rej, please do not post one-liners, it wastes valueable server space, without adding anything to the discussion. Thanks.

[Police Officer]

Originally Posted by Psych0naut

There is a big difference between drug use, and drug abuse. All drugs can be used, or abused, both legal, and illegal drugs. When a person has a prescription for amphetamines, and takes them daily, as instructed by the persons doctor, it's (medical) drug use. If the same person binges on his or her prescribed amphetamines, because of the euphoric effects, it's drug abuse, even though the person has a prescription for the drug. If I drink a beer because I like the taste of it, it's drug use, even though it don't get any effects from drinking only one beer. If I regularly gulp down a bottle of whiskey to supress some negative emotions, it's drug abuse, even though it's perfectly legal. The goverment's point of view, and a rational point of view regarding the difference of drug use, and drug abuse can be quite opposite of each other, but in the end, with common sense and ration thinking, anyone with a brain is able to distinguish the differences.

I'm going to say that I agree.

Although another way to differentiate the two is that drug use LEADS to drug abuse.

[FuBai]

Originally Posted by Police Officer

I'm going to say that I agree.

Although another way to differentiate the two is that drug use LEADS to drug abuse.

Let me qualify that statement:

"...another way to differentiate between the two is that under certain circumstances a proportion of those who use drugs may well go onto abuse them, although this outcome is by no means guaranteed or likley in the majority of cases."

As a Police Officer you meet the dregs of society on a regular basis and the majority of those who come into your purview who use drugs probably abuse them; however it is unfair to tar all users with the same brush. We know that 34% of the UK population aged 16-59 have used an illegal drug at least once in their lives but addiction/abuse rates are much, much lower than that. I know you have talked with methamphetamine users who say that there is no such thing as a casual or recreational Meth user; but consider the situation and experience that the addicted Meth abuser is in and has experienced - birds of a feather flock together etcetera and that individual's experience is a product of his social allegiances and the interaction he has with others like him. This being the case he is unlikely to know the full picture.

Here's a good example: Let's say you know absolutely nothing about world war II, and to find out about it you have the choice of asking a soldier from the front lines or an Historian. If you ask the soldier you will probably get a detailed and emotional account of the immediate military situations he was a part of, but you will not get the full picture. If you ask the historian you will get the overview, the general explanation of what happened because he has collated and studied all those individual sources like soldiers and thus has a greater breadth of knowledge than any single individual who was fighting on the lines. If you want to find out about the war you ask the Historian, if you want to find out about individual circumstance you ask the soldier. Here you are talking about a generalised statement applying to multiple individuals and thus you either take on the role of the historian yourself and collated the sources from each aspect of drug use, or you ask someone who has already done so, not simply the opinion of one individual.

[Zaprenz]

Originally Posted by FuBai

"...another way to differentiate between the two is that under certain circumstances a proportion of those who use drugs may well go onto abuse them, although this outcome is by no means guaranteed or likley in the majority of cases."

This statement does not differentiate between drug USE and drug ABUSE in any useful way (as was the original question) as it does not define what the actual terms mean.

It's saying:

Condition A (is likely to lead to) Condition B.

In SWIYs opinion what are the requirements for condition A and B respectively? [People will answer this question differently]

Both are subjective variables and could therefore switch places according to one (or a groups) perspective.

Originally Posted by FuBai

Here's a good example: Let's say you know absolutely nothing about world war II, and to find out about it you have the choice of asking a soldier from the front lines or an Historian. If you ask the soldier you will probably get a detailed and emotional account of the immediate military situations he was a part of, but you will not get the full picture. If you ask the historian you will get the overview, the general explanation of what happened because he has collated and studied all those individual sources like soldiers and thus has a greater breadth of knowledge than any single individual who was fighting on the lines. If you want to find out about the war you ask the Historian, if you want to find out about individual circumstance you ask the soldier. Here you are talking about a generalised statement applying to multiple individuals and thus you either take on the role of the historian yourself and collated the sources from each aspect of drug use, or you ask someone who has already done so, not simply the opinion of one individual.

Whatever scale you are monitoring drug use it is still subjective.

Hypothetical example:
All citizens of Country A consider use of DRUG XYZ USE
All citizens of Country B consider use of DRUG XYZ ABUSE
They collectively get so angry at each other about it they wage a war.

Who writes history??
The winners of that war!!


SWIM is not suggesting all drug use if good (the above is for demonstrating a point in logic), for example SWIM perceives meth use of any kind abuse and doesn't like it but his use of the word "abuse" is subjective. (Others may well disagree but that's the point - in order to attempt to disect the differences between "drug use" and "drug abuse" one must at least define the terms)