The nature of the human beast is to explore and experiment. So, growing up most of us are taught that drugs can and will do many scary things to the human brain and body. We have all seen that these effects can be blown out of proportion, making it seem like a few tokes at a party can send you spiralling into addiction, and then leading to a life of crime. The drugs listed below are worse than anything you were ever warned about. These drugs can and will fuck your life up beyond repair. Anybody that has been around me a bit knows that I don’t judge what a person does in their life. Well, that is not exactly true, if you are fucktard I will judge you. So let’s look at ten (10) really fucked up drugs and explore why you may not want to have them enter your body by any means.
A drug with potential side effects like sleep-walking, sleep-driving and occasionally sleep-spewing.
Zolpidem, more commonly known as “Ambien” is a sleeping pill that was developed as an alternative to Valium. And most of the time, it works pretty well. You can take one, fall asleep, and then wake up in the morning without further incident.
For some people though, Zolpidem can cause people to do all kinds of crazy shit while asleep. There are many cases of people on Zolpidem crashing cars and claiming to be asleep, and that’s just the warm up.
Do a little research about all the side effects which are being hidden from the public but are public record.
The drug criminals blow into your face.
Scopolamines ability to cause amnesia suggestibility has been exploited by Colombian criminals.
Criminals in Colombia have been blowing powder into the faces of victims, who then happily empty their bank accounts or assist in the robbing of their own house. The morning after, the victim has no idea what has happened.
Scopolamine is a drug that causes amnesia and suggestibility. The really scary thing about this drug is how easy it is to administer.
There have been rumors of people being drugged in the United States through touching business cards soaked in scopolamine.
Despite a wholesome reputation, is in fact a hallucinogenic.
The same stuff that’s probably sitting in your kitchen cupboard right now is one hell of a crazy drug.
High doses of nutmeg can induce hallucinations; which has led many people strapped for cash or wanting a legal alternative to the more famous hallucinogens to throw back massive doses of a kitchen spice.
These trips are normally unpleasant and more closely resemble psychotic detachment from reality as opposed to the psychedelic sixties.
Accompanying the hallucinations is severe anxiety, and a sense of impending doom.
The physical effects are also pretty harsh with rapid heart rate and palpitations, dry mouth, nausea and urinary retention all being reported.
Human Growth Hormone (HGH)
Human growth hormone or HGH is, as you would expect, a hormone found in humans that is necessary for growth.
Athletes have been known to inject HGH because they believe it will help with recovery after training.
There can be some very nasty side effects. The most intense one is a condition called acromegaly.
Acromegaly causes skin to get thicker, the hands and feet to swell and the jaw line to become more pronounced causing gaps between the teeth.
The early days of HGH use were even scarier, as it was sourced from dead bodies.
This practice led to many cases of Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease, a brain disorder similar to mad cow disease.
Acts like a super-charged version of LSD, with trips lasting up to 3 days.
Bromo-dragonfly is a drug that is named because its molecular structure looks like a dragonfly.
Bromo-dragonfly is sometimes sold as LSD, because it’s active at low enough doses to be put on a tab.
While an LSD trip usually lasts a few hours, Bromo-dragonfly can be active for up to 3 days, and can have a range of nasty side effects.
These include seizures, spasms in your veins and blood vessel constriction. Amputation of limbs is required in severe cases.
The trips have been described as being “dragged to hell and back again”.
Rimonadant, the anti-pot, can cure munchies but cause depression.
Getting the munchies is one of the most well known symptoms of marijuana smoking. Scientists figured that if they made a drug that had the opposite effect on the body, they could make people less hungry.
Rimonabant was born, a drug that works in the same places in the brain as cannabis but has exactly the opposite effect.
This strategy worked and the drug was approved for weight loss. Rimonabant was also found to have opposite effects to weed in other areas too. It increases sperm motility, and improves short-term memory in animals.
Rimonabant has the opposite effect of pot and was withdrawn from the market pretty quickly after it was revealed it was making people depressed and suicidal.
This “Super-Heroin” is 5000 times stronger than heroin, and can overdose a human simply through skin contact.
Heroin has caused untold levels of despair, suffering and bad PSAs. So you might be surprised to learn that scientists sat down and developed a drug 5000 times as strong.
Etorphine is a drug that works in the same way as heroin and morphine, but never really took off on the streets because it’s too potent to do anything besides instantly kill humans.
Its only use is to sedate large animals, and 1/100th of a gram can knock out a 6614 lb. elephant.
Contact with skin can be enough to cause an overdose in humans, so whenever the drug is used an assistant with an antidote has to be ready to Pulp Fiction you in case of an accident.
2,4-Dinitrophenol or DNP
DNP burns fat in humans so well, it raised body temperatures and cooks the user from the inside.
2,4-Dinitrophenol or DNP is a drug that screws up the way your body uses energy.
Normally the food you eat is turned into energy to keep your heart beating and let your muscles move and if you eat too much energy, the excess is stored as fat.
DNP is a drug that was used for weight loss in the 1930s, because it totally screwed with the way your body used energy so that energy is used up without any effort on your part.
While this may sound like the best invention ever, there’s a drawback. The drug was discontinued in 1938 because people were literally cooking from the inside, with massively raised body temperature, heart rate and sweating that was often fatal.
Amazingly, the drug is available through online pharmacies and people are still taking it, and it’s still killing them.
Dimethylheptylpyran, the super powerful synthetic marijuana.
Dimethylheptylpyran is a US military designed marijuana so potent that a 1mg dose can leave soldiers unable to perform their duties for up to 3 days.
From the 1950s to the 1970s the US military had a fun little side project at the Edgewood Arsenal. They would give soldiers various drugs and chemical agents to see what happened. One of these was a super potent version of marijuana called ‘dimethylheptylpyran’ or DMHP.
However, rather than a couple of joints, 0.0002 g is all the DMHP the person needed.
At 1mg doses soldiers were completely unable to perform their duties for up to 3 days.
The fucktards over at Edgewood thought they had stumbled across the ideal non-lethal incapacitating agent. One could just spray the enemy base with DMHP and walk in an hour later with no resistance.
By the late 1970s more effective chemical warfare agents had been weaponized, and the research was stopped.
Krokodil is a cheaply produced drug that has similar effects to heroin, but with side effects that include literally eating away at the flesh of the user.
A series of reactions with over the counter painkillers and easily available chemicals can create a drug called desomorphine that has similar effects to heroin.
Cooking up painkillers, lighter fluid, and cleaning oils in a kitchen doesn’t result in a pure product. A brown gunk called Krokodil is produced.
The mixture was named for its tendency to turn the skin of users scaly and reptilian as the toxic by-products eat away at the flesh. Heavy use leaves flesh grey and dead, sometimes rotting away to the bone.
Okay boys, girls, and the usual fucktard, this information was not provided so y’all could increase your stash it was done to increase your repertoire of knowledge. I know, since I am not stupid (all the time), that there are those of you who are thinking it is pretty cool that all of these fabulous drugs can still be found on the market today. This should not be the time that y’all take an opportunity to call your hook up to see if they can get you things off of your new shopping list. In my twisted way this is to serve as an educational tool and provide a little humor on behalf of all the dumb bastards that had to show society that they are indeed not super-human. As much as I enjoyed reading all about these drugs and as much as I enjoyed writing about them, there comes a time when a post has to come to an end. This is that time. Now, go find something useful to do with yourselves, just keep your hands on top of the table where everyone can see them because I know where some of your minds go sometimes.
What “Internet addiction disorder” (IAD) is still difficult to define at this time. Much of the original research was based upon the weakest type of research methodology, namely exploratory surveys with no clear hypothesis or rationale backing them. Coming from an a theoretical approach has some benefits, but also is not typically recognized as being a strong way to approach a new disorder. More recent research has expanded upon the original surveys and anecdotal case study reports. However, as I will illustrate below later, even these studies don’t support the conclusions the authors claim.
The original research into this disorder began with exploratory surveys, which cannot establish causal relationships between specific behaviors and their cause. While surveys can help establish descriptions of how people feel about themselves and their behaviors, they cannot draw conclusions about whether a specific technology, such as the Internet, has actually caused those behaviors. Those conclusions that are drawn are purely speculative and subjective made by the researchers themselves. Researchers have a name for this logical fallacy, ignoring a common cause. It’s one of the oldest fallacies in science, and one still regularly perpetrated in psychological research today.
Do some people have problems with spending too much time online? Sure they do. Some people also spend too much time reading, watching television, and working, and ignore family, friendships, and social activities. But do we have TV addiction disorder, book addiction, and work addiction being suggested as legitimate mental disorders in the same category as schizophrenia and depression? I think not. It’s the tendency of some mental health professionals and researchers to want to label everything they see as potentially harmful with a new diagnostic category. Unfortunately, this causes more harm than it helps people. (The road to “discovering” IAD is filled with many logical fallacies, not the least of which is the confusion between cause and effect.)
What most people online who think they are addicted are probably suffering from is the desire to not want to deal with other problems in their lives. Those problems may be a mental disorder (depression, anxiety, etc.), a serious health problem or disability, or a relationship problem. It is no different than turning on the TV so you won’t have to talk to your spouse, or going “out with the boys” for a few drinks so you don’t have to spend time at home. Nothing is different except the modality.
What some very few people who spend time online without any other problems present may suffer from is compulsive over-use. Compulsive behaviors, however, are already covered by existing diagnostic categories and treatment would be similar. It’s not the technology (whether it be the Internet, a book, the telephone, or the television) that is important or addicting — it’s the behavior. And behaviors are easily treatable by traditional cognitive-behavior techniques in psychotherapy.
Case studies, the alternative to surveys used for many conclusions drawn about online overuse, are just as problematic. How can we really draw any reasonable conclusions about millions of people online based upon one or two case studies? Yet media stories, and some researchers, covering this issue usually use a case study to help “illustrate” the problem. All a case study does is influence our emotional reactions to the issue; it does nothing to help us further understand the actual problem and the many potential explanations for it. Case studies on an issue like this are usually a red flag that help frame the issue in an emotional light, leaving hard, scientific data out of the picture. It is a common diversionary tactic.
Why Does the Research Leave Something to Be Desired?
Well, the obvious answer is that many of the original researchers into the phenomenon known as IAD were actually clinicians who decided to conduct a survey. Usually doctoral training is sufficient to create and test a survey, yet the psychometric properties of these surveys are never released. (Perhaps because they were never conducted in the first place? We simply do not know.)
The obvious confounds are never controlled for in most of these surveys. Questions about pre-existing or a history of mental disorders (e.g., depression, anxiety), health problems or disabilities, or relationship problems are absent from these surveys. Since this is one of the most obvious alternative explanations for some of the data being obtained (for example, see Storm King’s article, Is the Internet Addictive, or Are Addicts Using the Internet? below), it is very surprising these questions are left off. It taints all the data and make the data virtually useless.
Other factors are simply not controlled for. The current Internet population is nearly 50/50 in terms of proportion of men to women. Yet people are still drawing conclusions about this same group of people based upon survey samples that have 70-80% men, comprised mostly of white Americans. Researchers barely mention these discrepancies, all of which will again skew the results.
Research done in a particular area should also agree about certain very basic things after a time. Years have gone by and there are more than a few studies out there looking at Internet addiction. Yet none of them agree on a single definition for this problem, and all of them vary widely in their reported results of how much time an “addict” spends online. If they can’t even get these basics down, it is not surprising the research quality still suffers.
More research has been done since the original surveys were released in 1996. This newer research has been conducted by more independent researchers with clearer hypotheses and stronger, less biased population sets. More about these studies will be discussed in updates to this article.
Where Did It Come From?
Good question. It came from, believe it or not, the criteria for pathological gambling, a single, anti-social behavior that has very little social redeeming value. Researchers in this area believe they can simply copy this criteria and apply it to the hundreds of behaviors carried out everyday on the Internet, a largely pro-social, interactive, and information-driven medium. Do these two dissimilar areas have much in common beyond their face value? I don’t see it.
I don’t know of any other disorder currently being researched where the researchers, showing all the originality of a trash romance novel writer, simply “borrowed” the diagnostic symptom criteria for an unrelated disorder, made a few changes, and declared the existence of a new disorder. If this sounds absurd, it’s because it is.
And this speaks to the larger problem these researchers grapple with… Most have no theory driving their assumptions (see Walther, 1999 for a further discussion of this issue). They see a client in pain (and in fact, I’ve sat in many presentations by these clinicians where they start it off with just such an example), and figure, “Hey, the Internet caused this pain. I’m going to go out and study what makes this possible on the Internet.” There’s no theory (well, sometimes there’s theory after-the-fact), and while some quasi-theoretical explanations are slowly emerging, it is putting the chicken far before the egg.
Do You Spend Too Much Time Online?
In relation to what or whom? Time alone cannot be an indicator of being addicted or engaging in compulsive behavior. Time must be taken in context with other factors, such as whether you’re a college student (who, as a whole, proportionally spend a greater amount of time online), whether it’s a part of your job, whether you have any pre-existing conditions (such as another mental disorder; a person with depression is more likely to spend more time online than someone who doesn’t, for instance, often in a virtual support group environment), whether you have problems or issues in your life which may be causing you to spend more time online (e.g., using it to “get away” from life’s problems, a bad marriage, difficult social relations), etc. So talking about whether you spend too much time online without this important context is useless.
What Makes the Internet So Addictive?
Well, as I have shown above, the research is exploratory at this time, so suppositions such as what makes the Internet so “addictive” are no better than guesses. Since other researchers online have made their guesses known, here are mine.
Since the aspects of the Internet where people are spending the greatest amount of time online have to do with social interactions, it would appear that socialization is what makes the Internet so “addicting.” That’s right — plain old hanging out with other people and talking with them. Whether it’s via e-mail, a discussion forum, chat, or a game online (such as a MUD), people are spending this time exchanging information, support, and chit-chat with other people like themselves.
Would we ever characterize any time spent in the real world with friends as “addicting?” Of course not. Teenagers talk on the phone for hours on end, with people they see everyday! Do we say they are addicted to the telephone? Of course not. People lose hours at a time, immersed in a book, ignoring friends and family, and often not even picking up the phone when it rings. Do we say they are addicted to the book? Of course not. If some clinicians and researchers are now going to start defining addiction as social interactions, then every real-world social relationship I have is an addictive one.
Socializing — talking — is a very “addictive” behavior, if one applies the same criteria to it as researchers looking at Internet addiction do. Does the fact that we’re now socializing with the help of some technology (can you say, “telephone”?) change the basic process of socialization? Perhaps, a bit. But not so significantly as to warrant a disorder. Checking e-mail, as Greenfield claims, is not the same as pulling a slot-machine’s handle. One is social seeking behavior, the other is reward seeking behavior. They are two very different things, as any behaviorist will tell you. It’s too bad the researchers can’t make this differentiation, because it shows a significant lack of understanding of basic behavioral theory.
What Do I Do If I Think I Have It?
First, don’t panic. Second, just because there is a debate about the validity of this diagnostic category amongst professionals doesn’t mean there isn’t help for it. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, help is readily available for this problem without needing to create all this hoopla about a new diagnosis.
If you have a life problem, or are grappling with a disorder such as depression, seek professional treatment for it. Once you admit and address the problem, other pieces of your life will fall back into place.
Psychologists have studied compulsive behaviors and their treatments for years now, and nearly any well-trained mental health professional will be able to help you learn to slowly curve the time spent online, and address the problems or concerns in your life that may have contributed to your online overuse, or were caused by it. No need for a specialist or an online support group.
This information was forwarded to me by my daughter who is a double Bachelors in Engineering candidate attending college as we speak. One of her elective classes offered a free writing essay for their final exam grade. A grade with is 65% of their overall grade. My daughter chose to write about the theory of Internet Addiction and chose this article by John M. Grohol, Psy.D. as her launching point for her research. Why did she send me this article to read? Probably because I tell her that she spends too damn much time on the internet and the fact the we talk about disabilities every once in a while because there is so much bullshit out there called a disability. I believe this is my daughter’s attempt to humor me, she didn’t say exactly. Funny enough is the fact that she sent it to me but I had sent her the picture below just a few days ago because eventhough she has unlimited data usage on her cell phone plan, she is always taking “Free Wi-Fi ” into consideration when heading out.
What do you, the reader on the internet right now, think about studying internet addiction?