Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (384259)	5/14/2008 4:38:39 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573983

For one, he didn't get hooked because he was managing pain. Because when you are in pain, you almost never can get addicted. Really? Never heard that. Learn something new every day.

To: combjelly who wrote (384259)	5/14/2008 7:34:48 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573983

The basic problem is that there is 15% to 20% of the population who have a genetic weakness for a particular drug. This includes gambling. Their brains over-release endorphins in response, compared to the rest of the population. Which is why addicts often make the statement "I can remember the first time I did (fill in the blank). It was the best thing that ever happened to me". While you are sort of right about this, it isn't entirely accurate, in terms of how these drugs affect the brain. Your bottom line remark is right, though. Some people can handle coke without getting crazy, while others will fork over their entire lives to it. Meanwhile, others are affected the same way by gambling while they may handle coke more reasonably. And still others are unable to control almost any drug. Don't get me wrong, it is good he got over it. But Rush has tried to downplay what happened. For one, he didn't get hooked because he was managing pain. I'm not sure "downplay" is the correct term -- he admitted it on his show, and moved on. I would have done the same, and would never have answered questions about it or brought it up again, and I suspect he received first-rate PR advice on the subject. But he did admit it to his listeners, and his addiction WAS a result of originally prescribed painkillers in connection with a back problem and major surgery. At least, I've never seen any credible challenge to his claim that this is the case. Clearly, you do not have all the facts. Because when you are in pain, you almost never can get addicted. Utter nonsense. I'm in and out of a dozen pain clinics and have discussed the subject of Drug Seeking Behavior with more than one of these docs. Those patients who are being treated with heavy duty, highly addictive pain meds like Oxycontin have to be carefully monitored to avoid addiction. It has long been a topic of discussion in medical circles that physicians sometimes avoid proper treatment of intractable pain because they are concerned about replacing the pain with an addiction -- something you are suggesting cannot, or only rarely can, happen. Not sure where you're getting your info, but you are dead wrong on this point. I wasn't there and don't have access to his medical records and I doubt you do, either. So, unless there is some reason to doubt what he said, I'm inclined to believe it. Regardless. Al's pleasure in Limbaugh's addiction is unseemly at best, and is probably more aptly classified as bitter and hateful, just as were Al Franken's remarks at the time. But it is what we've come to expect from liberals so there is nothing new here.