Posts by slywolf45

stormygull22 said:Some people just love to philosophize and act like they're some kind of deep thinkers. Personally, I find homophobes disgusting, but I'm not one myself—I just find them repulsive. To me, it’s sexually abnormal, just as much as writing with my feet or stepping on animals would be abnormal to me. I look at this through a religious lens, even though I despise organized religion; I believe God said only men and women have the right to a relationship. Doing it with men, with animals, or with relatives—that’s just revolting. And just because I’m a passive sports fan now, what does that mean? Does being a fan automatically make you stupid and primitive? Apparently so. These parades disgust me. Like that girl over there said, if we allow this, then anyone can hold a parade—from people who enjoy anal sex to those with shoe fetishes. It's nonsense. I’d want to crush them, both them and those pathetic people in uniforms who just follow orders and live off whatever the state forces upon the peasantry. We're all just peasants. Now everyone wants their "rights," wanting this or that; if you're different, fine, but why force it on everyone with these parades? I don't march in parades, whether I'm visiting my grandfather in the Midwest or just picking up a phone or milk at the grocery store. What gets me most is that they call this a "movement" or a "culture." Man, if that's the case, what culture are we, the straight people? Should we be having marches all the time just to show we love men and women, or to point out that these people are actually disturbed because they aren't like us? And they are disturbed; after all, peaches exist for a reason. And what would all these philosopher types do without these "disturbed" homophobes? Who would they create? Or would kids just start popping out of rectums today? I don't know, maybe I'm just narrow-minded, so someone explain it to me. Is this some new thing from the European Union? It's a joke, nothing else. But it's also sad that this actually walks the streets and exists.

🤣 🤣 🤣
Here is yet another example confirming my theory that men whose entire world revolves around being obsessed with other men are fundamentally broken.

Jonathan Kim4 said:It isn't even really about the sex itself, is it? It’s more about the ego trip—the realization that he’s the one who "converted" two lesbians.

The whole thing starts taking on the proportions of some legendary first-time encounter. Suddenly, it’s all about who got there first...

Honestly, half of them probably don't even believe they are actually lesbians to begin with. They likely just adopted the label to stroke his ego... and then he shows up, and they give in with that little coy giggle, admitting it was all an act because, deep down, they just want him to show them who’s boss.😁

mistybison said:Women tend to view this issue quite differently than men do. Most heterosexual women are largely indifferent, whether it involves two men together or two women. Conversely, men often find the idea of two women appealing, yet find two men unappeable. We simply hold vastly different perspectives regarding other people's sexuality. It also seems to me that women are more aware of being "extra" in a relationship between two gay men, whereas men don't feel that way regarding female same-sex relationships. 🤔

True, I agree... though we’re really drifting into deep psychoanalysis now regarding how men and women perceive sex, emotions, and everything else.
It’s almost as if men operate under the assumption that two women can't achieve true emotional depth or sexual satisfaction without a man present. So, when they hear about two women being together, they mentally frame it as some sort of provocative prelude designed specifically for his benefit. In their minds, there’s an expected crescendo where he makes a monumental entrance to lead them both toward ecstasy...🤣

mistybison said:I am not certain what the specific research indicates on this matter, but from my own observations when speaking with both men and women, I have been quite surprised to find that men are typically the ones expressing hostility toward homosexuals, whereas women often seem indifferent. It appears that either men harbor latent tendencies themselves, or women simply maintain a much different perspective on sexuality that makes homosexuality seem far less threatening. 🤔

Yeah... though, if we're being precise, that male reaction seems to target gay men specifically, rather than lesbians... what a shocker!
I’m honestly not sure why you're so surprised; the issue of male homophobes is about as old as time itself.
As for the "latent" theory—I wouldn't say it's a universal rule, even if there are certainly plenty of people who fit the description. There are so many people out there harboring fantasies about the same sex that they'll never act on, let alone admit to anyone (including themselves).

I can't help but feel like certain high-level American scientists—though I won't explicitly say they're American, there’s just an unmistakable vibe there—seem to have absolutely nothing better to do with their time. So, they pivot toward researching niche subjects that offer zero tangible benefit to the rest of humanity...

Now, is there any actual truth to that? Perhaps, in a small way. But honestly, what does it matter to the rest of us?

It seems we’ve all collectively tried to offer some semblance of advice to the girl who started this thread.
Look, I’m not going to engage with those comments along the lines of "junkies should just drop dead" or whatever; honestly, that kind of rhetoric is completely out of line (to say the least).

Everything was proceeding relatively smoothly until Noah Sanchez7 showed up and, as a few people have pointed out, began essentially glorifying drugs and addicts (though if you actually bother to read his previous posts, you'll see what I mean). That’s where I lost my cool!

I don't look down on anyone, and I believe everyone’s struggles are valid, no matter how trivial or nonsensical they might seem to an outsider.
Furthermore, I find it incredibly foolish to draw comparisons between being gay and being an addict; it’s not as if someone wakes up and makes a conscious choice to be gay, whereas addiction is a path one actively walks into.

And yes, I did write in one post that I "couldn't care less" about addicts, but that was strictly in the heat of an argument with Noah Sanchez7. His perspective on the very nature of drug use is nothing short of appalling. When I made that comment, I was primarily venting at him and people with his specific mindset, not the rest of the community—many of whom, unlike him, are actually seeking help to get clean.

To those pointing out that we feel condescended to by people who clearly lack firsthand experience: I’ve been following this discussion from the jump, and I’ve noticed that many of us who are being "called out" (myself included) actually do have personal history with this. It often means we are indirectly tied to the issue. We’ve already established that it isn't just the users who suffer, but also their families and the people who love them.

I won't go on a long list of how many people I know—or used to know—who struggled with addiction, because that's beside the point right now. But no one here can tell me that I lack personal experience in this area.Unfortunately!

Noah Sanchez7 said:We have finally reached the heart of the matter >> creating and shaping a society >> so that a child isn't ashamed of having a parent with an addiction, and an addict isn't ashamed of their struggle, just as a person in a wheelchair shouldn't be ashamed of their physical disability..

Now, does anyone have the guts and integrity to argue that such a hypothetical, less intolerant society wouldn't be better than the one we live in today?

Am I hearing you right, "violent" and unadjusted with a disgusting persona..?

The truth is, increasing tolerance just opens the door for more dependencies. We already have enough people struggling with addiction as it is.

Noah Sanchez7 said:When are you guys finally going to... Do you see what I mean? 😠 😠 😠
I'll be driven by my cravings for drugs, while you all chase a new Mercedes-Benz or a massive plasma CNN.

What's the damn difference?

The difference is pretty simple: you aren't going to catch Hepatitis C or cirrhosis from a Mercedes-Benz or a flat-screen... nor are you likely to end up dead with your head stuck in a toilet bowl because of them..

Look... here's a bit of hard truth. At the end of the day, you're the only one who can actually help yourself. This forum, as much as we all care, simply isn't going to do it for you.

And regarding what I said about outpatient Hep C treatments... my point was simply that I don't support that specific approach to care. I've seen far too many people lose their lives because of it—just recently, a woman only 32 years old passed away, leaving two young children behind. That’s why I find that whole methodology so unsettling. If you think I'm only saying this because I work in a clinic, you're mistaken. I've had far too many close encounters with that particular tragedy to be anything other than certain about what I'm talking about, okay?

Noah Sanchez7 said:Listen, you stubborn idiot, I'm taking out a loan to start a legitimate business venture.
And from those profits, I'll pay off the debt and buy enough "peace and quiet" to go stick a needle in my vein ten times a day.

You moron, blinded by stereotypes and prejudices, things aren't always what they seem.

I suggest you find yourself a local dive bar instead.

And then they have the nerve to call me the unpleasant one...😕

Chris Peterson53 said:Personal choice
freedom of decision
You throw these lofty terms around, and then suddenly, you're arguing that society should hand out free vaccines to strip away your precious "personal choice." Hypocrite!

The only vaccine society should be distributing for free as a preventative measure is:
a vaccine against people like you!

Not every addict—no, just hypocrites exactly like you! You who dare to lecture an addict—someone who understands their fate and their children's future—by suggesting, with total cynicism, that their mother should take the hit instead: "Let her be tested, since addicts clearly know best!"
You want to wrap yourself in the cloak of Robin Hood, playing the hero for "rights" that essentially advise people to stay addicted just so they can feel "enlightened" (evolved, right?)—but in reality, you're just a common social parasite trying to pass off your parasitic existence as some superior art form of living!

I second everything said here..👍

Now he’ll probably claim it’s his "free choice" to get off the horse, just as he "chose" to be on it in the first place..
But I say this: fine, go ahead and choose how you get down. You knew exactly what the consequences of drug use were, so now you can face them head-on..

Harold Flores4 said:Oh, man, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried! I had a brother who was an addict... Are you even listening? He was!
We went through hell watching him spiral right in front of us... we were constantly having to deal with his "dealers"... dealing with the police...
Just picture this: ten SWAT officers in full gear kicking down the door, screaming at everyone to get on the ground face-first, including a six-year-old kid. Just imagine that level of terror... the sheer shock of it all....
Okay, so we somehow managed to pull through, but it definitely left its mark.
Then one day he ends up in the ER... diagnosis comes back as a tumor. Emergency surgery. And go ahead and guess where? His liver, obviously. The disease spreads fast, metastases everywhere... and before long, my brother is gone.
I spent two years on disability leave. It triggered a depression that had actual physical symptoms. I couldn't function normally, and I had two kids at home to look after. Can you imagine what they were going through back then? Thank God I'm doing much better mentally now than I ever have.
But... even today, there isn't a day that goes by where my seven-year-old girl doesn't cry for him. I see my little guy suffering through it too. And the grandparents?
So, now you tell me, was he only destroying himself? Did he only have responsibility toward himself?
I can see you think you're pretty smart, but I honestly don't get your perspective on any of this. I know and believe that addiction is a nightmare and getting clean is incredibly hard, and that addicts will come up with a thousand excuses, which is why I read your posts the way I do, but I’m afraid you're giving the original poster a totally warped view of reality—even though she knows it herself, she just found one person who thinks like her and it makes her feel less alone. If someone refuses to get clean, they need to realize their child won't have a future with them.
Sweetie, I am sending you so much strength, willpower, and love, along with a huge amount of support.

It isn't really about intelligence. He’s clearly just some kid playing the rebel role for the sake of it without any actual cause...

He’s struggling to connect the dots because he's too busy trying to look edgy by being the "lone wolf" against the world. In reality, he’s not fighting anyone but himself.

Steven Lopez19 said:Only junkies care about themselves and how they're gonna get their next fix....

And that's the whole damn secret...

Look, I get it. I already pointed out which post I was referring to earlier..

Noah Sanchez7 said:That’s true, mostly because an addict views themselves as a completely independent entity, which I honestly see as an advantage.
Why should my behavior be dictated by those close to me?

If they actually care about me, they should respect my freedom rather than trying to use their "attachment" to control what I do!!

So, let me get this straight... your parents should just applaud the fact that you’ve made the conscious, free-will decision to slowly kill yourself? Well, mission accomplished, I guess. Bravo.

George Davis6 said:Honestly, that would only be true if you were totally alone in the world—no parents, no friends, absolutely nobody who actually gives a damn about you...

Honestly, though? People struggling with addiction tend to be incredibly selfish in all of this. They aren't exactly losing sleep over the wreckage they leave behind in their loved ones' lives.

Noah Sanchez7 said:Is an apology actually an excuse? I'm not even sure what that means anymore.. 😳

You should probably check out the latest thread on "Addiction Recovery," because I'd likely give you the exact same answer..

An apology? You mean an excuse? Yeah, that’s basically what it is... (it could be an apology too, but certainly not in this context)

Noah Sanchez7 said:Not the first one. Definitely the second...

When I wrote that, I wasn't talking specifically to you.
I was referring to the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture them.
There are vaccines out there for almost everything, including HIV and various cancers.
But no matter how much they charge for a vaccine, the profit margin won't match what they make once a patient gets sick.
Because, as we both know, a vaccine provides long-term protection.

By the way, have you heard of the Zodiac medication?
It's a drug that makes you quit smoking effortlessly. My mom is a perfect example.
I couldn't believe my eyes when she finally quit.
That medication is overpriced here, but in the US, it's practically free.
Basically, you just have to want it.

If there's really a fight against addiction, why isn't that vaccine provided for free? Even if it's a once-a-year thing?
Then addicts wouldn't have any excuses left.

If you're going to argue about costs, then why shouldn't the government step up? Why should the state suffer because of junkies? The government wouldn't be "suffering"—on the contrary, they'd be rehabilitating people to become productive workers, which means less crime, less theft, and less of everything else. Right?

I assume you aren't trying to draw a direct comparison between our system and the US, right?
On the flip side, there are plenty of medications that are covered by insurance or provided free of charge over here, yet in America, you’re footing the entire bill yourself. So... I’m not quite sure what point you're trying to make with that comparison.

Noah Sanchez7 said:Not the first one. Definitely the second...

When I wrote that, I wasn't talking specifically to you.
I was referring to the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture them.
There are vaccines out there for almost everything, including HIV and various cancers.
But no matter how much they charge for a vaccine, the profit margin won't match what they make once a patient gets sick.
Because, as we both know, a vaccine provides long-term protection.

By the way, have you heard of the Zodiac medication?
It's a drug that makes you quit smoking effortlessly. My mom is a perfect example.
I couldn't believe my eyes when she finally quit.
That medication is overpriced here, but in the US, it's practically free.
Basically, you just have to want it.

If there's really a fight against addiction, why isn't that vaccine provided for free? Even if it's a once-a-year thing?
Then addicts wouldn't have any excuses left.

If you're going to argue about costs, then why shouldn't the government step up? Why should the state suffer because of junkies? The government wouldn't be "suffering"—on the contrary, they'd be rehabilitating people to become productive workers, which means less crime, less theft, and less of everything else. Right?

Oh, please... everyone carves out their own destiny. Unless some terminal disease decides otherwise, you’re the one driving the bus.
I have friends who got deep into the drug scene. I tell them the exact same thing I'm telling you: there are no excuses. There’s no excuse for not quitting. It doesn't matter how expensive the meds are or whatever else comes up... because if you truly want to change, you'll push through the withdrawal, ignore those half-baked therapies (which usually do more harm than good), and actually do something for yourself.
Of course, taking the path of least resistance is always tempting. It’s much easier to say, "I can't handle detox, I need my meds, I can't go to rehab." (And trust me, I know all about the path of least resistance, because I'm often the one choosing it myself.)

With an attitude like yours—just sitting around waiting for something to become free so you can finally get better—you aren't going to get anywhere.

Noah Sanchez7 said:I’m not sure if any of you have heard about blockers.
They basically neutralize the effects of any drugs, including heroin.
There are three types available >> pills, injections, and implants.

I stick to the pills because they’re the cheapest option. One pill lasts me two days, and during that time, I can take as much coke as I want and it’ll feel like I just drank a glass of water. It’s the same deal with oxycodone, Tramadol, and stuff like that.
Now, an implant that lasts two months goes for about $650, and an injection that works for a month is around $430.
Where am I supposed to get that kind of money?

I recently heard there’s this new injection that lasts for an entire year! And wouldn't you know it, it costs $3,200...?!

A blocker is hands down the most effective way to get clean, mostly because you realize there's no point in chasing a high when you know it won't hit.
If some "addict" were to get that one-year injection, do you know what that actually means for them?
It means no coke for a whole year. And during those twelve months, they aren't just going to sit at home waiting for the clock to run out; they’ll likely try to get back into a normal routine.

So, I’m asking you good people—specifically those working in the outpatient clinics who claim to care so much about helping addicts recover—can't this be made a little more affordable, or even free???

It's just more proof that everything is about the money. Nobody actually gives a damn about us addicts.

How many brain cells do you actually have left? Or rather, how many survived that last yellow haze of yours?
Regarding that bolded part... you aren't exactly speaking for me, are you? I work in a clinic, so what exactly are you implying, that I should be paying for my own treatment, or perhaps go beg Ljubicic to lower the drug prices? Do you honestly think I set the pricing?

Furthermore... why on earth would I personally care about curing an addict? Huh? Out of pure altruism? Honestly, it’s attitudes like yours that make me lose interest..
And don't try to frame drug use as being comparable to cancer. No one chooses to get cancer, but you? You were the one who drove the needle in yourself.

And yes, of course the injection is expensive. Look, if life-saving medications for HIV are priced so high that ordinary citizens can't touch them, I'm not sure what else you expect me to say..

And don't go assuming I'm some wide-eyed innocent who's never touched anything. I've seen plenty, but I was smart enough to know when to walk away.

Maybe I'm currently channeling all my intellect toward accepting and normalizing addiction from a global perspective, so that in the future, if I happen to use again, I won't feel quite so much guilt...

There isn't much left to say here... I'm out of comments.👎

Steven Lopez19 said:You’re never going to be able to explain that to an addict who has no desire to quit...
and Sakoman 👎 👎 👎

There's a reason they call him Sajkoman..