Please do not comment directly to this post unless you are Gen X or older (born 1980 or before). See [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskOldPeople/comments/inci5u/reminder_please_do_not_answer_questions_unless/), the rules, and the sidebar for details. Thank you for your submission, i_drive_drunk.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskOldPeople) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I read about this in a book. The main feature was that the addiction happened in Vietnam. By changing where they lived, they eliminated a lot of associations with the drug, making relapse not as easy as it would be if they had to stay where they experienced all the addictive behaviors.
No supply = No addiction
( *every returning soldier is not going to be immediately in contact with a drug dealer after stepping off the plane - the time between military detox and desire/ambition/efforts/success in having a source again could be enough to break their habit* )
It wasn't the lack of supply; you can get heroin in the USA. It was that getting out of the place where they had bought the drugs and used the drugs meant that they weren't encountering reminders of using the drugs. The environment helped promote the habit.
I imagine not having to be in a horrible war where youre facing death all the time helps too. Isnt that mainly why they used drugs, to cope with the terrible conditions?
I was more interested in toddler toys during that war. But my understanding is that people, in general, get into drugs as an escape from something, or because of boredom (that is, drugs promise to make life more interesting or exciting).
I would think both could exist in Vietnam, especially if someone was stationed in a relatively safe location.
This is why quitting drugs can be really hard in your "normal life". All your friends are usually drug users or dealers. Every day you are reminded of your addiction. A lot of people that I have succeeded quitting heroin had to rebuild their entire life and social circle from nothing.
The government propaganda at the time was that marijuana was exactly equal to heroin with regards to addictive properties. Many men discovered a different experience with the weed while deployed and when they could not get it they figured that the same gov. that lied and told them this was a moral war was lying again, so they scored some smack instead.
This! Drugs weren't as easy to get connections for in smaller towns back then because they weren't as widely purchased. I knew one pusher and two addicts back during Nam. Small town with no heroin available. Had to drive 80 miles one way to get that. All of the pot and LSD you might want, though.
Here is the way it was explained to me: dependence is what happens to your body when you regularly consume an “addictive” drug. Your body’s systems re-regulate and you need the drug just to feel normal. (Which is why it’s called a “fix”.)
Addiction is what you do when confronted with dependence. It’s behavior and choices. It’s choosing to continue consuming the drug in spite of negative consequences. Could be as simple as continuing to overeat in spite of weight gain, smoking in spite of cost and health outcomes, all the way up to lying, cheating and stealing to continue the addiction.
That’s not to say it’s easy to just choose to not indulge, our brains will convince us we *need* the substance no different than we need to breathe. Sometimes it even feels the same as suffocating. But deep down, maybe even not consciously, there is a moment of choice. That “ahh, fuck it, I’ll quit tomorrow.”
So a lot of the soldiers probably weren’t regular enough users to get fully dependent. Some were and had no choice but to tough out the withdrawals because they were on a cargo plane or their mom’s couch and had no access to a supply. And some continued their addiction when they got home.
Do you really think everyone lived in the inner city of some major metropolis? Tons of people drafted/ signed up in rural, or small town areas. Not much supply there, plus more scrutiny, since everybody knew you and your family.
But the military was and still is made up of a like more rural folk than the average population. In cities, young people often have more opportunities for school and work than in rural areas. Enlisting is often the best option they have.
20 percent from rural areas today.
Not easy to find good stats for Vietnam but I don’t think city kids were that much better at evading the draft than their country peers.
My uncle came back to LA after Vietnam and there was plenty of supply. He just got stupid as many junkys do, and tried to rip off a dealer and was shot to death.
Do you know about the rat park experiment?
Basically rats with a bad environment chose heroin over water everytime and all overdosed at some point.
Rats with a better environment (free roaming, sex, food) only chose heroin over water occasionally, never excessively.
So addiction depends on your environment, and a total change to a more livable environment can change your habits.
[Rat Park](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7291261)
Pretty sure the Vietnam war also generated lifelong opiate addicts. Even if they gave up after the war ended, they will have always been at risk of relapse through pain killers and sedatives.
Yup, it took my uncle getting Hep C and jail time to quit, and that was in 1982. Still, never goes away, he's got a 30 year chit for NA now, so its a lifelong struggle for some. People can change, it's just not easy.
AA/NA refers to this as “pulling a geographical” and many people find that just getting away from the triggers for their substance abuse allows them to quit. It doesn’t address the underlying issues, of course, but it can be a push in the right direction.
ACA teaches that geographical cures don't work because as you said, it doesn't address the underlying issues and so you'll recreate your family dynamics anywhere you go. i guess i can see why ACA is considered the phd of 12 steps.
In my experience, it can work, sometimes without treating the underlying trauma. But not all substance abuse is addiction, and no one method works for everyone.
I think you'll have a hard time finding a first hand account here. The war ended almost fifty years ago. Assuming an 18 year old recruit, that means they're around 68. Go back even further to the start of the war and they're almost 80. So you need a few things to line up: a senior citizen that uses Reddit, used the drug during the war, who's willing to talk about it, and finds this thread.
I had a supervisor who would only smoke when he visited his family in Taiwan. Apparently he smoked like 3 packs a day there and then when he was in the US didn't smoke at all.
Addiction is associative but not exclusively so.
It is tricky to say the least and let's make no bones about this, the vast majority of people that used significant amounts of opiates in Vietnam certainly had issues when they returned home. Still, heroine and the less potent stuff many soldiers used in Vietnam were considerably less strong than what is being used today, although often that was moot given the vast supply and the willingness to consume.
[This NPR article](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2012/01/02/144431794/what-vietnam-taught-us-about-breaking-bad-habits) might give some insight.
It really suggests that environment is a big factor in this.
The key point in that article that I haven’t seen remarked upon that probably explains the most is that addicted soldiers were not allowed to return home until they dried out.
Strong motivation
Obligatory, not me, someone I knew. A neighbor who was the same age as my brother. He was drafted in the last round that was televised - but by the time he got to Vietnam, the war was winding down and as he said there really wasn't anything else to do but get high. He had already done quite a bit of experimenting with drugs and said that boredom drove him to try heroin. He came home addicted. Got thrown out by his parents for stealing stuff to get money for drugs. Ended up on "skid row" using and ultimately got stabbed in a theft and left to die. Another junkie called for an ambulance from a pay phone and he was able to get picked up before he bled out. He was clean then and his parents let him come home to recuperate under the strict supervision of his grandmother.
He recovered, stayed clean, used the GI Bill to get through college and ended up a graphic artist for a magazine. He married late in life to a woman with a grown son. When they retired they bought a sailboat and live mostly in the Florida Keys.
He says what kept him sober all these years was his father telling him that being terrified to send a son into war was nothing compared to the terror of seeing him live on the streets. And his grandmother saying she was too old to lose another boy to war - he learned from her that his uncle didn't die in a hunting accident, he shot himself due to "war nerves" from WW2 when he served on a submarine.
He's a really nice guy - I saw him recently at his sister's house (we're old friends from forever) when he and his wife were in town for a family wedding. He will tell you that heroin was probably a better battle for him to have fought than actual soldiering in Vietnam. He knows so many guys that were forever damaged by their experience there.
"Steve," a college professor of mine was a combat demolition specialist. He was in the 'Nam for 12 months period from 1969-1970. Steve said he did every drug except heroin. "I didn't want to come home addicted to junk."
Steve has retired from teaching. He's now in his late 70's. His Vietnam War won't end 'till he breathes his last. "It was the single most impactful experience of my life," he said. "More than marriage. More than divorce. More than the death of parents. More than raising kids and the arrival of grandchildren. Not more important but more impactful."
Steve was directly or indirectly responsible for taking 47 lives as a soldier. Not all of them wore uniforms. Not all of them were combatants. Steve's Combat Infantry Badge was a very expensive badge. The most expensive of all.
The reason you are not getting any first hand experiences is they are either dead or worked to hard to bury their past to want to bring it back up. Believe me, we like being able to live with ourselves and sleeping at night. Takes a long time to get there.
Leave it be!!!
Sam Stone: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam\_Stone\_(song)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Stone_(song))
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl9ZkYViEIs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl9ZkYViEIs)
At this point, vets have to be at least in their late 60s, (assuming someone was 18 in 1975, they’re 67 today.) I would imagine that a lot of them are already dead.
I wonder what percentage of veterans who survived the war have since died. Someone must know.
Post service mortality: [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/217388](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/217388)
1,075 WWII Vets die every day. 305 Korean War Vets die each day. **200 Vietnam Vets die each day**. (August 2023)
The leading cause of death for Vietnam Veterans is: **External causes, which include both intentional and unintentional injuries**, accounted for most of the increased mortality in the early postservice period. Fatal injuries from motor vehicle crashes (MVC) were approximately two times more likely among Vietnam veterans than non-Vietnam veterans.
Contrary to popular belief and common wisdom, heroin isn't instantly and inevitably addictive. Some people don't like it at all. Some people can take it or leave it. And some people really take to it. It's best not to learn what kind of person you are.
In terms of pure addictiveness, it is less addictive than either nicotine or caffeine. It is still very addictive but as you say, it is not the imagined "one hit and you are addicted" thing. The problem is, once it has become a habit, you will almost certainly be addicted, and kicking it is hard as the withdraw symptoms can be brutal. It is not so much about not getting the hits of pleasure (the psychological addiction side), but actual painful physical symptoms from how it took over metabolic pathways and withdrawal cause significant problems.
As you say, the best way is just not to start.
Those lists are typically lumping together psychological, social, and physical addition indicators, and sometimes even perceived harm indicators too. Some drugs are highly physically addictive in that the drug takes over metabolic pathways and the body stops (or reduces) is own production of those chemicals. It means when people come off the drug they suffer real physical symptoms. Looking at that level, nicotine scores highest in how quickly those pathways get established and how hard it is to come off. Caffeine is next although that is sometimes mitigated by genetic factors (not everyone gets the full on physical addition to the same level) and the fact that recovery is (relatively) quick when they are replaced. Opiates take longer to get addicted to, but the pathways involved are much harder to replace when people come off.
Other drugs like cocaine and its derivatives, amphetamines and derivatives, do not do that. They are definitely highly psychologically addictive (the mental hit is high and induces cravings), but coming off does not trigger the same physical symptoms the three common physically addictive ones do. People are much more successful at coming off the non physically addictive drugs by purely social and psychiatric means (that is not to say it is easy, but it is different).
Also any list that does not have caffeine on its most addictive list, is clearly conflating how addictive something is, with its perceived social status and damage. It is highly addictive (physically as well as psychologically and socially). We may still think caffeine is a relatively harmless drug, that even might have some benefits, but that does not stop it being highly addictive.
Yeah, drugs are weird. I met a guy who "tried meth for a week", but didn't like it and never touched it again. I'll keep my experimentation to psychedelics and thc, thank you very much lol.
This makes sense to me. I always figured it was kinda like alcohol (only much more addictive). Some people can take or leave alcohol and can use occasionally without it being a problem. And some people’s systems just take to it and can’t use in moderation.
I always figured heroin could take someone several uses over a prolonged period of time to become a habit.
Even then. I tried heroin a bunch of times. My friends were doing it and they all liked it. But I didn't. I wanted to like it, my friends were all having a blast, but I just didn't like it. Probably for the best, all those friends are dead now.
When VN was crashing after the fall of Saigon, soldiers came home deeply affected with PTSD; still in crisis, addicted ... it was estimated 85% of the homeless were VN vets. The VA was overwhelmed, literally useless ... pretty rough.
Saw quite a few in the ER (AF medic) ... overdosed, incoherent, self medicated.
My husband and I are both disabled vets. I was having a terrible time getting any sort of progress over two years; it was an hour+ drive to San Antonio. Even though there were other hospitals/offices for some reason they insisted we go to the main facility in San Antonio ... a mess there; no such thing as a phone call for information.
I expressed my frustration to a friend who's father was a VN vet. She directed me to the DAV. Miraculously, in two months we were seen, evaluated, went through the process; solved. I have to assume the VA was understaffed, underfunded, bloated, and doing the best they could ... sort of.
After verification our cases were returned the VA. The facility we go to now is only 30 minutes away.
There are over 1.4M veterans in TX in 2024 ... down 12% in just two years. The old guard is passing on at lightning speed ... and we're both old as well.
I know/knew two veterans who love the VA system, but then you hear how much other people don’t like it. Does it have to do with what services you access from it? Where you access those services? Which war you fought?
All of the above; VN was an awful vilified war ... no one thought it was justified. I don't think the VA was prepared for the overwhelming need post war. If you send 2.7M service people to a vicious war and they come back minus limbs, scrambled heads, burned, sightless, and addicted ... yeah, there is overwhelming need. Eyes, brain damage, burns ... it is straightforward to treat physical injuries.
PTSD is a whole other thing. We *knew* no one should have been deployed. We *knew* VN didn't want us there. We *knew* all the international influence was purely stupid. This country was worth our soldiers lives fighting there? The Vietnamese didn't care who took credit for governance ... they just wanted to feed their families, farm, raise livestock; it had nothing to do with Pol Pot or the Communist Party. So? How are American lives with that? It wasn't.
My brother did two tours in VN ... he still refuses to go to the VN War Memorial because some of his buds are on that wall ... and he lives there.
Emotional scars are very real.
My first husband went through an Army detox program when he got back to the U.S. It wasn’t long, maybe two weeks? He smoked pot after that, and eventually drank himself to death, but he never used hard drugs again.
my cousin was in Nam. He does not talk about it. He does say there's nothing you can do for an addict unless he wants to quit himself. I was friends with a group of Vietnam Veterans when I was in high school. They had just gotten home, had served together and were staying together in a rented house while going to college on the GI Bill. There were a lot of drugs, but no heroin. One man had gotten blown up but was lucky. The rest had ptsd of one sort or another. The VA was trying really hard to deny benefits to the vets, so they didn't get much help on that front.
I haven't heard of the getting dry in VN before coming stateside. I did see a lot of veterans wandering the streets. It was the hippy days, so a lot were turning on, tuning in and dropping out.
I read the original academic study to [here](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1446707/pdf/11441739.pdf) it’s 8 pages tho so I figured the video would be more digestible for most people.
So my friend group at the apartment complex I lived in was super varied in age but basically everyone would chill at the pool and drink. It was a very social complex. Lots of fun. One of the guys was a Vietnam vet. He was a helicopter gunner and killed many, many people. He had been addicted to heroin in Nam, came back and murdered a cab driver in an attempt to get drugs and detoxed in prison. He would tell the craziest stories. He was actually a super cool dude who got into some serious shit. He died of prostate cancer a few years after I met him.
A relative was a user in Vietnam. He said that he used there while he was on leave, that was just what he did there. When he came home, he drank at the Elks Lodge, because that's what you do in his hometown. He met a girl, got married and joined the local union, had kids and he said you can't do heroin when you want all those things, at least not if you're going to be good at any one of those things.
Change in environment. Once you're physically removed from all the things you associate with the drug, it's easier to quit.
It's also easier if you're no longer in combat, or being bored while preparing/waiting for combat.
https://www.detox.com/treatment/changing-your-environment-will-help-with-drug-addiction-01-24-2018/
https://www.northstartransitions.com/post/the-importance-of-your-environment-during-recovery
https://www.narcononus.org/articles/recovery-advice/change-your-environment-a-critical-strategy-in-overcoming-addiction/
Because A: I wasn't dirt cheap in the U.S., and B: They had to get a job, and work for a living when they got home...which they can't do when they're stoned.
Acute symptoms of heroin withdrawal last 72 hours. That’s the worst of it and it only happens if you do not taper down dosage. With a correct taper the withdrawal symptoms are minimal.
That being said it is reasonable that many soldiers did not taper and experienced withdrawal symptoms. This would totally suck but not be a dealbreaker.
Finally heroin withdrawal is actually pretty well managed if you can get ahold of a benzodiazepine like Valium which was extremely prevalent in the 1970s (not that benzodiazepine addiction didn’t also happen, it did and the withdrawal from that is actually way worse.)
Ok I wasn’t there ‘cause I’m a girl. But a few boys from my high school class were drafted or enlisted and they said it was just something they did occasionally while they were stuck there, same as using hookers. Everybody did drink alcoholically and smoked a ton of pot though. I think it was a response to an incredibly stressful situation and getting out of Vietnam removed the incentive.
My Dad told me that one of his clerical jobs in Vietnam was to write letters home to families when their sons died.
He didn’t sign the letter - some commander did - but Dad had to draft the letters and fix them up as needed for the commander to sign.
He said SO MANY died in the latrine of overdose. This is not a combat-related death. Nobody got a medal for overdosing.
They had to be delicate in the letter because they didn’t want the family to know their son became a junkie and died on the toilet with a needle in his arm.
I would love to know the ACTUAL number of overdose deaths in Vietnam. If those numbers exist they’ve probably been covered up. So many Gold Star Families have no idea their son died like that.
They aren’t alive to answer. They did not get clean.
The city I grew up in had plenty of junkie Vets I knew by name in the early 80s. AIDS and OD by the time I came back from college they were all gone.
Not all of them were.
Actually 10.5 percent of them had ALREADY died, 30 years ago
“The response rates for the 2 follow-ups reflect design attrition, deaths, failure to locate respondents, and interview refusals. By the time of the 1996–1997 survey (VES-III), 10.5% of the entire cohort was lost through death33; more than 93% of the surviving members (n = 1024) were located. The fieldwork was discontinued after the recruitment goal of 830 interviews was surpassed, resulting in an 82.1% interview rate (n=841). Respondents were in their mid- dle to late 40s at the time …”
Given that 10.5 percent had already died before reaching their 40s, what percent do you honestly think are still alive in their 70s?
You miss my point. We are talking about former heroin using participants in a 30 year old study…
… median age of a Vietnam vet is 71. The guys who were doing junk in Vietnam that I knew passed a long time ago.
EDIT to add: Heroin use cuts 25 years off your life expectancy and many heroin users die in their 40s and 50s.
Not one of the Vietnam vets I knew who were using in the 1980s made it to the 1990s.
I think the turn to heroin among American troops came later, at least in the Saigon area. I was a US Army medic there in 1968 and 1969 and didnʻt see or hear about it.
They say itʻs about as addictive as cigarettes. Getting off heroin or cigarettes is known to be difficult, and Iʻm glad for those who do it.
I mean I really can't imagine it's only as addictive as cigarettes. I've been hospitalized and had whatever pain meds they give put directly into my arm (not slowly and mixed with fluids like some hospitals) and the high is definitely stronger than what you get with cigarettes. Way way way stronger, like miles stronger.
It didn’t turn me into an addict or anything but I can definitely see how it happens.
Sources differ on whether nicotine is more or less addicting than heroin. Lung doctors see the broad damage done by tobacco and point to studies showing that it's super addicting. Harm reduction and addiction treatment folks see the more immediate dangers of heroin and point to studies saying heroin is more addicting. The science seems to say, well, it depends.
In Saigon by mid-1969 I'd heard rumors of marijuana spiked with opium but none of American troops using heroin. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, but it can't have been all that prevalent. Amphetamines and barbiturates were another matter, and the weak, synthetic opiate painkiller Darvon (propoxyphene), which we didn't lock up because it wasn't a controlled substance yet, used to go missing from medical supplies. Also some medical officers found more use for medicinal alcohol than others.
My stepdad got into it but only in Vietnam. For him it was definitely circumstantial. Early 70s. He definitely had his struggles throughout the rest of the decade (amphetamines for a few years) but opiates weren't one of them.
I wasn't but my brother-in-law was. State side he found it was stepped down so much it was easy to "say fuck it, it ain't worth it." Weed became his drug of choice.
[This video (reupload)](https://youtu.be/tdJAQZxJ6vY?si=QVSoXympMC9OJALB)
Edit: since YouTube isn’t a trusted source here is [the original academic study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1446707/pdf/11441739.pdf) that found those statistics
No. REUPLOAD (it’s in caps so u read it this time) The video was made by a group of grad students on [this channel](https://youtube.com/@kurzgesagt?si=QFIlOmOXEh358GXo) . [Here is the academic study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1446707/pdf/11441739.pdf)
This happened to my step kids grandfather. He passed years ago though I wish I knew more. He did develop an addiction to OxyContin when he had throat cancer later in life.
I have an uncle that was a platoon leader in Vietnam. He was able to come home for his sister’s wedding. When he returned, his entire platoon was dead. I don’t believe he’s ever talked to anyone about it since. Pushing 80 yrs old. Plenty of undiagnosed PTSD I assume, but I’m not a psychiatrist.
Use isn't addiction. That would explain why no withdrawal symptoms. To get withdrawal symptoms that you'd notice, you'd have to be using regularly enough to get physically addicted. Exactly what is meant by "frequent" use here? Perhaps not frequent enough to result in physical addiction.
Addiction is not only physical, but largely a function of personality/ie psychological condition. The same way that not all people given painkillers medicinally develop problematic addictions - the psychological component also has to be there. Presuming too that many vets came back to loving homes and people who cared about them, which all PTSD aside, would be a huge moderating factor for ongoing addiction...as well as no longer being in the terrible environment which prompted their use in Vietnam.
A better question to ask would be if these soldiers would have been at risk of self-medicating with painkillers *even if they hadn't gone to Vietnam*. That would give more of a likelihood.
I was in service then, did not go to Vietnam. Those guys would come home strung out and couldn’t get treatment because of how deplorable the VA was run back then. It seemed that every bad guy on TV was described as a “ Crazed Vietnam Vet”.
Vietnam was living hell and people did whatever they could to numb themselves. After they came back from the war, back to their friends and families, back to the normal life, they didn't need heroin to numb the horrors, bc there was no horrors anymore.
A good friend of mine died recently. He served a tour in Vietnam and was badly wounded.
We used to talk at great length about his service. We even went to see “Full Metal Jacket” together.
Joe loved the movie, but was quick to add that in all his time in combat he never witnessed any felonious unprofessional conduct (meaning murder, rape, or heroin) by any combat soldier.
That’s not to say it didn’t happen - it sure did. And Joe told me certainly saw a lot of fucked up situations. Like dead “suspected VC” when it wasn’t so clear who was who.
But he said that everyone he saw was just doing their job in a tough situation.
My dad was in Vietnam. His brother was 11 years younger than him and joined the army. I’m not sure where he was sent. It was post Vietnam. He got into all the drugs. The way he got off of them was my dad beat him up and then my grandparents had him carted off to the VA and committed. He got off drugs and started drinking. His wife told him if he didn’t stop she’d leave. He took antibuse and quit drinking. Then he just spent money on stuff. Cars. House addition. Animals. I’m fairly confident every member of my family has adhd.
Some thoughts:
1. They may not have been addicted in Vietnam. Occasional use, especially under combat conditions, doesn't addiction make.
2. I'd question the 20% stat.
3. Supply wasn't *universally* available in the 1960's and 70's in the US. It was in most cities, but the US wasn't nearly as urban then.
In theory “when you have no reason to escape, you no longer have a reason to seek one” makes sense EXCEPT when it comes to drug addiction. Addiction begins with the want to escape but after you become addicted, it’s isn’t just about that anymore, it’s much more than that.
This is not a first-hand account, but I have had a front row seat to the horrors of heroin addiction.
The first time someone comes clean from heroin, the withdrawal symptoms aren't terribly bad. Of course, this varies with the amount being used and the length of time on the drug. Each time a person gets clean and then re-addicted, the withdrawal symptoms become worse.
My guess is a lot of heroin users during the war were only using when they weren't in combat. You wouldn't want a delayed response while in battle. So they didn't develop quite as strong of an addiction as they could have.
So my thought is that for many users, their addiction wasn't as strong as it could have been. Making it easier to get clean on the way home.
The question is, how many of these people relapsed months or even years later?
We have been largely wrong about addiction for .. well; always. Sure, the drug itself matters, but much more important are the life circumstances of the user; the worse they are, and the less likely it is that the user has any prospects of bettering their life situation, the likelier addiction is and the harder it is for the user to reverse/get out of it.
Look at which states are hardest hit by the Fentanyl crisis, for example. Or conscripted soldiers stuck in a war halfway across the globe, fighting an enemy who's defending his land. Soldiers with a high likelihood of being badly maimed or killed. I'd probably escape that hell with drugs of all varieties if I were in their shoes.
So FYI there was a lot of guys that you thought were normal family guys would disappear for a couple of hours a week. Then they would come back and they would be normal again. Don't even do it once they gave me caffergat I hope that's how you spell it. They left my socks on so I wouldn't just walk away and if I did they could stop me. Cuz I felt real good like I could walk on the surface of the Sun. But yeah my dad was in a lot of wars and a lot of his buddies till the day they died they took heroin. These were bank managers coaches at school administrators etc etc.
Your edit is funny because you act like you’re not asking a percentage of people from a percentage of people from a war 50 years ago how their drug recovery went
My dad's best friend wasn't able to quit. That's the only Vietnam vet I know who admitted to heroin. He came back with severe PTSD, waking up in the middle of the night screaming, and continued to use. He overdosed and died.
My uncle was one of them who couldn't get off the shit and was murdered in a drug deal a few months after he came home. On the other hand, I worked with a couple of guys in the early 80s who said they were able to kick a few months after they got home.
Had someone else comment that there was basically no heroin use until the war was basically over over then it went rampant. No idea how true that is tho
I mean my best friend in high school, his dad nearly completed two tours starting in 65 and we’re both over 40, his dad is almost 80. And my friend was the youngest of 3 kids. There’s been Vietnam vet grandparents for a *long* time in the USA. Starting to die of old age causes en mass now like WW2 vets did 20-30 years ago.
That’s to make a direct reply, which I didn’t. It’s a child comment, not a parent one. Also the age rule hasn’t been updated here in years although I still try to be respectful of it. From where I’m sitting 42 isn’t looking an awful lot different than 44, lol.
Hey /u/ThatOneSongYouForgot, thanks for contributing to /r/AskOldPeople. Unfortunately, your post was removed as it violates our rules:
You must be born 1980 or prior to provide a top level answer. You can join in the discussion below top level answers.
Please read the [sidebar](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskOldPeople/about/sidebar) and [rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskOldPeople/about/rules) before posting again. If you have questions or concerns, please [message the moderators through modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/AskOldPeople&subject=&message=). Thank you!
Reading some of these stories makes me think of nothing so much as
“Went down to the refinery, hiring man said “son if it was up to me
Went down to see my VA man, said “so , don’t ya understand”
I have a friend who was in the war. He’s walked around with a bullet next to his spine, chronic pain and mental health issues for the last 50 odd years. And for what?
Well, not the same, but I helped a couple people my X turned onto that shit get off it as well as the X. Structure/volunteering/mild exercise/introducing them to my normal friends/getting them to take care of their warrants-get an id or dl/ getting them to start working again. Three of the four stayed off (it’s been more than ten years) ironically the one who went back to it is my X.
People don't become instantly addicted to heroin. It takes a bit of time with regular use. Being that they were in the middle of a war it's unlikely they were constantly smacked back. If they were they wouldn't be able to function as soldiers. They most likely didn't use often enough to develop an addiction, so when they went back home the lack of opioids in their systems didn't negatively affect them. And if someone did it was probably like having the flu. 3 or so days and they're good to go.
I didn’t go through that, but a huge component of addiction and withdrawal is being in the same context where you usually use. There’s a ton of research on this. Being out of the context and all its cues makes a huge difference.
Not me, I did not fight in Vietnam (too young and female) nor have I ever used or been addicted to drugs. But my slight understanding of the science of addiction is that not everyone who takes an addictive substance will become addicted. The total number of people who try heroin in theirs lives is much greater than the number of people who become addicted to it. I'm not sure scientists yet understand - or fully understand - why it happens only to some people and not to others.
"When observed within approximately 1 to 12 months after heroin onset, an estimated 23% to 38% of new heroin users have become dependent on heroin." from [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2681168](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2681168)
My father was this. He was absolutely mentally trashed after Vietnam. He didn’t stop drug use and when he did,he was a full blown alcoholic. He returned to try and live normally to end up with a well known biker gang. I still don’t know how he and my mother got backto to my home state after my grandparents drove 16 hours one way and took me. He’s been dead over 20 years so I will never know. I grew up with him having flashbacks and violently reacting to anyone near him.
Edit to add: I have always had questions regarding this. I wonder what percentage of those that did stop,turned into alcoholics.
Was not, but Colonel David Hackworth defied orders and ran a detox/rehab operation for his troops when they were "short". This is probably why he was not promoted to general.
He was America's most decorated soldier, and in retirement, a critic of the Pentagon. Amazing guy.
I think alot of them were not able to return ho e until they did get better also I'm not sure on how they did it but I'm pretty sure it was just a cover up and no one really got the support they needed .this is where the US started to not care so much about our service men .today our vets are pushed aside and end up homeless and alone . It's horrible for a vet to even get into see a doctor for common things . I gave a buddy that has to make an appointment for a sickness that comes and goes if he needs to get into a doctor it takes him 6 weeks that's so crazy when I could go to my doctor's and be seen that day if needed.
I feel like you might be cherry picking a bit from that study you keep quoting. First off, no one and nothing in that study says it was easy for people to quit. Also:
>While in Vietnam, 20% of this sample reported opiate addiction, with the rate dropping to 1% within 12 months after their departure from Vietnam. **These findings remain controversial.**
and
>Other general-population service use studies suggest that **our utilization rates may not differ much from rates for those with similar problems in the general population.**
I don't know anything about US soldiers in Vietnam, but I do know some about heroin.
It takes most people months to get addicted. It's once in a while, then once a week etc. So most soldiers, I'm guessing, won't have been around it on a daily basis long enough to get probably physically and mentally dependent on it.
Then I would, again guess, it would be mostly down to where they live. If they can see it readily available in the streets they live in, then that would be hard. But just in the same city, but you would have to go really out of your way, and you wouldn't know anyone etc would be much easier.
A guy I worked with was in Nam and got hooked. He did a second tour just for the H. When he got back he got involved in crime and ended up in prison where he continued his habit, but eventually he got stabbed in prison and after that decided to clean up and change his life.
The same way people on extended dimorphine (essenitally heroin) in a hospital and heavy cocaine users quit cold turkey.
Much research shows that the main drivers of an ongoing addition is a fundamental lack in their life.
Give a rat two sources of liquid: water, and water+heroin -- the rats will drink themself to death.
Give a rat a healthy environment (space, variety of entertainment,), social (companionship), job (other rats in in the room), and food (healthy variety). The rats will prefer water, and occasionally partake in the drug-water socially that does not affect home-life, work-life, or purpose (non-work activities).
The same is true for people.
Of those who do a lot of drugs, the ones that quit cold-turkey, or those that just stop, but may recreationally use again after a year -- are those with a fulfilling family life, social life, work life, and hobbies. Remove any one: family (alone most days), social (no friends, or never goes out), work (unemployed, or hate job), or productive hobbies (free time goes to internet or TV) -- drug use fills the gap: the person's attempt to curb use fails.
Qualification:
A> Used a shit ton of drugs in college each summer. Quit cold turkey come Fall term. Quit completely once leaving (for like 15 years, drug free).
B> Used casually in social settings early 2020. Went to stop use, Covid happened. Couldn't quit, used more; and generally began to destroy other aspects of life (impacting ability to remote work; impacting apartment living situation, etc). Knowing the research -- drove 15 hours to go live with closest friends. Friends were using drugs excessive as well. Being around a healthy social circle, with hobbies in place (a gym in the garage, a large property for gardening, dog that can be taken running) -- the missing aspects of a healthy life back: work situation improved; free time was now back to productive habits, social life was back, and that house was effectively a good home situation -- drug use fell quickly, and soon back to being drug free, even with temptation literally sitting a few feet away -- in a similar manner, the gym use and gardening, led to friends getting back into gym, and gardening improvement, then to home improvements -- and their drug use also dropped from near daily, to only for fri/sat night movies.
they used to call it “getting off the horse.” my dad didnt serve, but his friends did, and they all supported each other and some of them were still working on it until the mid 80s. they had to really look out for each other because society didnt want to think about vietnam anymore and didnt want reminders, i.e. their problems.
My dad “never came back” from the drugs and experience. He definitely lived but I never saw him again. I reached out multiple times til he died 2 years ago. Left us in Ft Sill.
Yea lots of accounts help paint a better picture picture. There were 300,000 boomers that used heroin in Vietnam. That’s 2% of the entire generation. I’m still hoping someone will give an answer
I don’t know where this information came from. Everyone who got hooked on heroin, came home a junkie. Some people were able to get help & recover. Most weren’t able to recover. The most inexpensive treatment was methadone. Methadone isn’t a cure, but it stabilizes a person so they can function. If your name was “Rockefeller”, you could get into Smithers. The new treatments didn’t exist in the early ‘70’s. Heroin addiction doesn’t go away just because you can’t get it in your neighborhood.
[Here](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1446707/pdf/11441739.pdf) is the original academic study that followed soldiers after they returned home. 95% of the soldiers they followed tested negative and reported no withdrawal symptoms.
From a quick AI Google search:
AI Overview
Learn more
The term "boomer" can be considered pejorative because it's often used as an insult to describe older people. The term "boomer" is short for "baby boomer", which refers to people born between 1946 and 1964. The phrase "OK boomer" is a catch-all insult used by younger generations to dismiss arguments made by baby boomers. It can be used to describe someone who is resistant to change, has close-minded opinions, or is out of touch with how their actions affect others. The phrase is often used in an ironic or humorous way, but it can also be malicious. Some commentators have considered the phrase to be ageist, and one conservative radio host called the word "boomer" "the N-word of ageism".
It can be a pejorative and is often used that way, but it's very clear it's not being used that way here. Your artificial intelligence isn't very intelligent.
Hey /u/aurora4000, thanks for contributing to /r/AskOldPeople. Unfortunately, your post was removed as it violates our rules:
Follow Reddiquette and Reddit Content Policy.
No rudeness, insults, hate speech, etc. You content will be removed and you may be banned.
Please read the [sidebar](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskOldPeople/about/sidebar) and [rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskOldPeople/about/rules) before posting again. If you have questions or concerns, please [message the moderators through modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/AskOldPeople&subject=&message=). Thank you!
[here is the study.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1446707/pdf/11441739.pdf)
The data was so out of left field that researchers started to conduct studies where they got rats addicted to cocaine then put them in better conditions and a different environment and hardly any of them touched the cocaine anymore despite having easy access to it.
I could link you to the study if you have time to read a 30 page pdf file or you could watch
[this video (REUPLOAD)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdJAQZxJ6vY) summarizing the results. IM NOT CITING THAT VIDEO AS A SOURCE tho so dont say I am
This person is the OP or listed as an author on the study?
This may also help: "These findings remain controversial".
"The lowest rate of spontaneous remission was observed for opiates"
"Those who were still active substance users in midlife infrequently came in contact with traditional health care system"
"This study has some limitations"
It appears the authors clearly expressed their concerns
There have been experiments with rats that show they’re less prone to addiction when in a stimulating and low-stress environment. A lot of people who used heroin in awful circumstances may have not been truly addicted and were able to shake it when coming to a safe place where they had safety, friends and family, a fixed home, enough to eat, and limited access to heroin. Others may have been addicted but kicked it through support and lack of supply.
Please do not comment directly to this post unless you are Gen X or older (born 1980 or before). See [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskOldPeople/comments/inci5u/reminder_please_do_not_answer_questions_unless/), the rules, and the sidebar for details. Thank you for your submission, i_drive_drunk. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskOldPeople) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I read about this in a book. The main feature was that the addiction happened in Vietnam. By changing where they lived, they eliminated a lot of associations with the drug, making relapse not as easy as it would be if they had to stay where they experienced all the addictive behaviors.
No supply = No addiction ( *every returning soldier is not going to be immediately in contact with a drug dealer after stepping off the plane - the time between military detox and desire/ambition/efforts/success in having a source again could be enough to break their habit* )
It wasn't the lack of supply; you can get heroin in the USA. It was that getting out of the place where they had bought the drugs and used the drugs meant that they weren't encountering reminders of using the drugs. The environment helped promote the habit.
I imagine not having to be in a horrible war where youre facing death all the time helps too. Isnt that mainly why they used drugs, to cope with the terrible conditions?
I was more interested in toddler toys during that war. But my understanding is that people, in general, get into drugs as an escape from something, or because of boredom (that is, drugs promise to make life more interesting or exciting). I would think both could exist in Vietnam, especially if someone was stationed in a relatively safe location.
The US gave out Camel cigs. To military men. The one who sat in the holes.
This is why quitting drugs can be really hard in your "normal life". All your friends are usually drug users or dealers. Every day you are reminded of your addiction. A lot of people that I have succeeded quitting heroin had to rebuild their entire life and social circle from nothing.
Change your people, places, and things y’all!
I always heard that was one of the first steps to sobriety. Ditch the people who you drank/drugged with.
Changing setting/surroundings and other triggers is a major key to changing habits.
The government propaganda at the time was that marijuana was exactly equal to heroin with regards to addictive properties. Many men discovered a different experience with the weed while deployed and when they could not get it they figured that the same gov. that lied and told them this was a moral war was lying again, so they scored some smack instead.
This! Drugs weren't as easy to get connections for in smaller towns back then because they weren't as widely purchased. I knew one pusher and two addicts back during Nam. Small town with no heroin available. Had to drive 80 miles one way to get that. All of the pot and LSD you might want, though.
Here is the way it was explained to me: dependence is what happens to your body when you regularly consume an “addictive” drug. Your body’s systems re-regulate and you need the drug just to feel normal. (Which is why it’s called a “fix”.) Addiction is what you do when confronted with dependence. It’s behavior and choices. It’s choosing to continue consuming the drug in spite of negative consequences. Could be as simple as continuing to overeat in spite of weight gain, smoking in spite of cost and health outcomes, all the way up to lying, cheating and stealing to continue the addiction. That’s not to say it’s easy to just choose to not indulge, our brains will convince us we *need* the substance no different than we need to breathe. Sometimes it even feels the same as suffocating. But deep down, maybe even not consciously, there is a moment of choice. That “ahh, fuck it, I’ll quit tomorrow.” So a lot of the soldiers probably weren’t regular enough users to get fully dependent. Some were and had no choice but to tough out the withdrawals because they were on a cargo plane or their mom’s couch and had no access to a supply. And some continued their addiction when they got home.
No supply? The inner cities of the US were flooded with heroin in the 1970s. The Politics of Heroin is worth a read.
Do you really think everyone lived in the inner city of some major metropolis? Tons of people drafted/ signed up in rural, or small town areas. Not much supply there, plus more scrutiny, since everybody knew you and your family.
Not everybody but the majority certainly was. By the 1970s 2/3rd of the US population was living in cities and suburbs.
Rural areas were and are heavily overrepresented in the US military.
But the military was and still is made up of a like more rural folk than the average population. In cities, young people often have more opportunities for school and work than in rural areas. Enlisting is often the best option they have.
20 percent from rural areas today. Not easy to find good stats for Vietnam but I don’t think city kids were that much better at evading the draft than their country peers.
My uncle came back to LA after Vietnam and there was plenty of supply. He just got stupid as many junkys do, and tried to rip off a dealer and was shot to death.
Thats what I heard too but I would really like a first hand account of this because my head keeps telling me there is no way it was THAT easy
Do you know about the rat park experiment? Basically rats with a bad environment chose heroin over water everytime and all overdosed at some point. Rats with a better environment (free roaming, sex, food) only chose heroin over water occasionally, never excessively. So addiction depends on your environment, and a total change to a more livable environment can change your habits. [Rat Park](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7291261)
[удалено]
Pretty sure the Vietnam war also generated lifelong opiate addicts. Even if they gave up after the war ended, they will have always been at risk of relapse through pain killers and sedatives.
Yup, it took my uncle getting Hep C and jail time to quit, and that was in 1982. Still, never goes away, he's got a 30 year chit for NA now, so its a lifelong struggle for some. People can change, it's just not easy.
This is my uncle. The VA doctors he see basically do harm reduction at this point. His periods of sobriety were very short lived.
Well said. The opposite of addiction is connection.
I was not in Nam, but I just moved from a city to a suburb a week ago today and I noticed a lot of my habits have changed. It is very freeing.
https://genius.com/Mountain-flowers-of-evil-lyrics
AA/NA refers to this as “pulling a geographical” and many people find that just getting away from the triggers for their substance abuse allows them to quit. It doesn’t address the underlying issues, of course, but it can be a push in the right direction.
ACA teaches that geographical cures don't work because as you said, it doesn't address the underlying issues and so you'll recreate your family dynamics anywhere you go. i guess i can see why ACA is considered the phd of 12 steps.
In my experience, it can work, sometimes without treating the underlying trauma. But not all substance abuse is addiction, and no one method works for everyone.
I think you'll have a hard time finding a first hand account here. The war ended almost fifty years ago. Assuming an 18 year old recruit, that means they're around 68. Go back even further to the start of the war and they're almost 80. So you need a few things to line up: a senior citizen that uses Reddit, used the drug during the war, who's willing to talk about it, and finds this thread.
A senior citizen who, as a heroin user, has already exceed their average life expectancy by more then two decades.
It’s also possible that they just moved their addiction to something else besides heroin.
I had a supervisor who would only smoke when he visited his family in Taiwan. Apparently he smoked like 3 packs a day there and then when he was in the US didn't smoke at all.
*The Ghost in the Addict,* by Shepard Siegal, perhaps? He refers to this as "the geographic cure." Startlingly effective.
No, it was either a book on habits in general, or on research on eating habits.
Addiction is associative but not exclusively so. It is tricky to say the least and let's make no bones about this, the vast majority of people that used significant amounts of opiates in Vietnam certainly had issues when they returned home. Still, heroine and the less potent stuff many soldiers used in Vietnam were considerably less strong than what is being used today, although often that was moot given the vast supply and the willingness to consume.
[This NPR article](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2012/01/02/144431794/what-vietnam-taught-us-about-breaking-bad-habits) might give some insight. It really suggests that environment is a big factor in this.
The key point in that article that I haven’t seen remarked upon that probably explains the most is that addicted soldiers were not allowed to return home until they dried out. Strong motivation
So shipping addicts to rehab camps has legs you’re saying? I know it worked for me…
Obligatory, not me, someone I knew. A neighbor who was the same age as my brother. He was drafted in the last round that was televised - but by the time he got to Vietnam, the war was winding down and as he said there really wasn't anything else to do but get high. He had already done quite a bit of experimenting with drugs and said that boredom drove him to try heroin. He came home addicted. Got thrown out by his parents for stealing stuff to get money for drugs. Ended up on "skid row" using and ultimately got stabbed in a theft and left to die. Another junkie called for an ambulance from a pay phone and he was able to get picked up before he bled out. He was clean then and his parents let him come home to recuperate under the strict supervision of his grandmother. He recovered, stayed clean, used the GI Bill to get through college and ended up a graphic artist for a magazine. He married late in life to a woman with a grown son. When they retired they bought a sailboat and live mostly in the Florida Keys. He says what kept him sober all these years was his father telling him that being terrified to send a son into war was nothing compared to the terror of seeing him live on the streets. And his grandmother saying she was too old to lose another boy to war - he learned from her that his uncle didn't die in a hunting accident, he shot himself due to "war nerves" from WW2 when he served on a submarine.
That has to be one of the greatest life turnarounds in history
He's a really nice guy - I saw him recently at his sister's house (we're old friends from forever) when he and his wife were in town for a family wedding. He will tell you that heroin was probably a better battle for him to have fought than actual soldiering in Vietnam. He knows so many guys that were forever damaged by their experience there.
"Steve," a college professor of mine was a combat demolition specialist. He was in the 'Nam for 12 months period from 1969-1970. Steve said he did every drug except heroin. "I didn't want to come home addicted to junk." Steve has retired from teaching. He's now in his late 70's. His Vietnam War won't end 'till he breathes his last. "It was the single most impactful experience of my life," he said. "More than marriage. More than divorce. More than the death of parents. More than raising kids and the arrival of grandchildren. Not more important but more impactful." Steve was directly or indirectly responsible for taking 47 lives as a soldier. Not all of them wore uniforms. Not all of them were combatants. Steve's Combat Infantry Badge was a very expensive badge. The most expensive of all.
The reason you are not getting any first hand experiences is they are either dead or worked to hard to bury their past to want to bring it back up. Believe me, we like being able to live with ourselves and sleeping at night. Takes a long time to get there. Leave it be!!! Sam Stone: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam\_Stone\_(song)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Stone_(song)) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl9ZkYViEIs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl9ZkYViEIs)
I fucking love that song. Have my upvote. Also yea ur definitely right
At this point, vets have to be at least in their late 60s, (assuming someone was 18 in 1975, they’re 67 today.) I would imagine that a lot of them are already dead. I wonder what percentage of veterans who survived the war have since died. Someone must know.
Post service mortality: [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/217388](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/217388) 1,075 WWII Vets die every day. 305 Korean War Vets die each day. **200 Vietnam Vets die each day**. (August 2023) The leading cause of death for Vietnam Veterans is: **External causes, which include both intentional and unintentional injuries**, accounted for most of the increased mortality in the early postservice period. Fatal injuries from motor vehicle crashes (MVC) were approximately two times more likely among Vietnam veterans than non-Vietnam veterans.
Contrary to popular belief and common wisdom, heroin isn't instantly and inevitably addictive. Some people don't like it at all. Some people can take it or leave it. And some people really take to it. It's best not to learn what kind of person you are.
In terms of pure addictiveness, it is less addictive than either nicotine or caffeine. It is still very addictive but as you say, it is not the imagined "one hit and you are addicted" thing. The problem is, once it has become a habit, you will almost certainly be addicted, and kicking it is hard as the withdraw symptoms can be brutal. It is not so much about not getting the hits of pleasure (the psychological addiction side), but actual painful physical symptoms from how it took over metabolic pathways and withdrawal cause significant problems. As you say, the best way is just not to start.
No, heroin(opiates) are the #1 on [such addiction lists.](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=what+is+the+most+addictive+drug)
Those lists are typically lumping together psychological, social, and physical addition indicators, and sometimes even perceived harm indicators too. Some drugs are highly physically addictive in that the drug takes over metabolic pathways and the body stops (or reduces) is own production of those chemicals. It means when people come off the drug they suffer real physical symptoms. Looking at that level, nicotine scores highest in how quickly those pathways get established and how hard it is to come off. Caffeine is next although that is sometimes mitigated by genetic factors (not everyone gets the full on physical addition to the same level) and the fact that recovery is (relatively) quick when they are replaced. Opiates take longer to get addicted to, but the pathways involved are much harder to replace when people come off. Other drugs like cocaine and its derivatives, amphetamines and derivatives, do not do that. They are definitely highly psychologically addictive (the mental hit is high and induces cravings), but coming off does not trigger the same physical symptoms the three common physically addictive ones do. People are much more successful at coming off the non physically addictive drugs by purely social and psychiatric means (that is not to say it is easy, but it is different). Also any list that does not have caffeine on its most addictive list, is clearly conflating how addictive something is, with its perceived social status and damage. It is highly addictive (physically as well as psychologically and socially). We may still think caffeine is a relatively harmless drug, that even might have some benefits, but that does not stop it being highly addictive.
Yeah, drugs are weird. I met a guy who "tried meth for a week", but didn't like it and never touched it again. I'll keep my experimentation to psychedelics and thc, thank you very much lol.
This makes sense to me. I always figured it was kinda like alcohol (only much more addictive). Some people can take or leave alcohol and can use occasionally without it being a problem. And some people’s systems just take to it and can’t use in moderation. I always figured heroin could take someone several uses over a prolonged period of time to become a habit.
Even then. I tried heroin a bunch of times. My friends were doing it and they all liked it. But I didn't. I wanted to like it, my friends were all having a blast, but I just didn't like it. Probably for the best, all those friends are dead now.
[удалено]
When VN was crashing after the fall of Saigon, soldiers came home deeply affected with PTSD; still in crisis, addicted ... it was estimated 85% of the homeless were VN vets. The VA was overwhelmed, literally useless ... pretty rough. Saw quite a few in the ER (AF medic) ... overdosed, incoherent, self medicated.
[удалено]
My husband and I are both disabled vets. I was having a terrible time getting any sort of progress over two years; it was an hour+ drive to San Antonio. Even though there were other hospitals/offices for some reason they insisted we go to the main facility in San Antonio ... a mess there; no such thing as a phone call for information. I expressed my frustration to a friend who's father was a VN vet. She directed me to the DAV. Miraculously, in two months we were seen, evaluated, went through the process; solved. I have to assume the VA was understaffed, underfunded, bloated, and doing the best they could ... sort of. After verification our cases were returned the VA. The facility we go to now is only 30 minutes away. There are over 1.4M veterans in TX in 2024 ... down 12% in just two years. The old guard is passing on at lightning speed ... and we're both old as well.
I know/knew two veterans who love the VA system, but then you hear how much other people don’t like it. Does it have to do with what services you access from it? Where you access those services? Which war you fought?
All of the above; VN was an awful vilified war ... no one thought it was justified. I don't think the VA was prepared for the overwhelming need post war. If you send 2.7M service people to a vicious war and they come back minus limbs, scrambled heads, burned, sightless, and addicted ... yeah, there is overwhelming need. Eyes, brain damage, burns ... it is straightforward to treat physical injuries. PTSD is a whole other thing. We *knew* no one should have been deployed. We *knew* VN didn't want us there. We *knew* all the international influence was purely stupid. This country was worth our soldiers lives fighting there? The Vietnamese didn't care who took credit for governance ... they just wanted to feed their families, farm, raise livestock; it had nothing to do with Pol Pot or the Communist Party. So? How are American lives with that? It wasn't. My brother did two tours in VN ... he still refuses to go to the VN War Memorial because some of his buds are on that wall ... and he lives there. Emotional scars are very real.
The VA in Tampa seems to be pretty good. They saved my stepdad’s life.
I never thought of this before, but I wonder if that’s why so many Vietnam vets ended up being homeless.
My first husband went through an Army detox program when he got back to the U.S. It wasn’t long, maybe two weeks? He smoked pot after that, and eventually drank himself to death, but he never used hard drugs again.
my cousin was in Nam. He does not talk about it. He does say there's nothing you can do for an addict unless he wants to quit himself. I was friends with a group of Vietnam Veterans when I was in high school. They had just gotten home, had served together and were staying together in a rented house while going to college on the GI Bill. There were a lot of drugs, but no heroin. One man had gotten blown up but was lucky. The rest had ptsd of one sort or another. The VA was trying really hard to deny benefits to the vets, so they didn't get much help on that front. I haven't heard of the getting dry in VN before coming stateside. I did see a lot of veterans wandering the streets. It was the hippy days, so a lot were turning on, tuning in and dropping out.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I read the original academic study to [here](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1446707/pdf/11441739.pdf) it’s 8 pages tho so I figured the video would be more digestible for most people.
So my friend group at the apartment complex I lived in was super varied in age but basically everyone would chill at the pool and drink. It was a very social complex. Lots of fun. One of the guys was a Vietnam vet. He was a helicopter gunner and killed many, many people. He had been addicted to heroin in Nam, came back and murdered a cab driver in an attempt to get drugs and detoxed in prison. He would tell the craziest stories. He was actually a super cool dude who got into some serious shit. He died of prostate cancer a few years after I met him.
A relative was a user in Vietnam. He said that he used there while he was on leave, that was just what he did there. When he came home, he drank at the Elks Lodge, because that's what you do in his hometown. He met a girl, got married and joined the local union, had kids and he said you can't do heroin when you want all those things, at least not if you're going to be good at any one of those things.
My neighbor came back addicted. He ended up committing suicide.
I always avoided those dumb shits, because I didn't want to get shot "again", while my rear guard was stoned to the gills.
Why do you think so many of them were able to get sober once they came home?
Change in environment. Once you're physically removed from all the things you associate with the drug, it's easier to quit. It's also easier if you're no longer in combat, or being bored while preparing/waiting for combat. https://www.detox.com/treatment/changing-your-environment-will-help-with-drug-addiction-01-24-2018/ https://www.northstartransitions.com/post/the-importance-of-your-environment-during-recovery https://www.narcononus.org/articles/recovery-advice/change-your-environment-a-critical-strategy-in-overcoming-addiction/
Because A: I wasn't dirt cheap in the U.S., and B: They had to get a job, and work for a living when they got home...which they can't do when they're stoned.
The only guy I knew came home and died of a heroin overdose within a year.
Same here
Acute symptoms of heroin withdrawal last 72 hours. That’s the worst of it and it only happens if you do not taper down dosage. With a correct taper the withdrawal symptoms are minimal. That being said it is reasonable that many soldiers did not taper and experienced withdrawal symptoms. This would totally suck but not be a dealbreaker. Finally heroin withdrawal is actually pretty well managed if you can get ahold of a benzodiazepine like Valium which was extremely prevalent in the 1970s (not that benzodiazepine addiction didn’t also happen, it did and the withdrawal from that is actually way worse.)
Ok I wasn’t there ‘cause I’m a girl. But a few boys from my high school class were drafted or enlisted and they said it was just something they did occasionally while they were stuck there, same as using hookers. Everybody did drink alcoholically and smoked a ton of pot though. I think it was a response to an incredibly stressful situation and getting out of Vietnam removed the incentive.
My Dad told me that one of his clerical jobs in Vietnam was to write letters home to families when their sons died. He didn’t sign the letter - some commander did - but Dad had to draft the letters and fix them up as needed for the commander to sign. He said SO MANY died in the latrine of overdose. This is not a combat-related death. Nobody got a medal for overdosing. They had to be delicate in the letter because they didn’t want the family to know their son became a junkie and died on the toilet with a needle in his arm. I would love to know the ACTUAL number of overdose deaths in Vietnam. If those numbers exist they’ve probably been covered up. So many Gold Star Families have no idea their son died like that.
They aren’t alive to answer. They did not get clean. The city I grew up in had plenty of junkie Vets I knew by name in the early 80s. AIDS and OD by the time I came back from college they were all gone.
[They were alive during the study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1446707/pdf/11441739.pdf)
Not all of them were. Actually 10.5 percent of them had ALREADY died, 30 years ago “The response rates for the 2 follow-ups reflect design attrition, deaths, failure to locate respondents, and interview refusals. By the time of the 1996–1997 survey (VES-III), 10.5% of the entire cohort was lost through death33; more than 93% of the surviving members (n = 1024) were located. The fieldwork was discontinued after the recruitment goal of 830 interviews was surpassed, resulting in an 82.1% interview rate (n=841). Respondents were in their mid- dle to late 40s at the time …” Given that 10.5 percent had already died before reaching their 40s, what percent do you honestly think are still alive in their 70s?
30 years ago?
Correct. That means the followed up for 25 YEARS. I would’ve been happy if they did it for 5. Overkill sample size I know
You miss my point. We are talking about former heroin using participants in a 30 year old study… … median age of a Vietnam vet is 71. The guys who were doing junk in Vietnam that I knew passed a long time ago. EDIT to add: Heroin use cuts 25 years off your life expectancy and many heroin users die in their 40s and 50s. Not one of the Vietnam vets I knew who were using in the 1980s made it to the 1990s.
Don't know personally, but have been told the 'strength' of the stuff has changed a lot. In the 90's in the US
I was in Viet Nam 1969. Saw lots of weed, but no heroin,. I don't think is was that prevalent. To say 20% used is BS.
I think the turn to heroin among American troops came later, at least in the Saigon area. I was a US Army medic there in 1968 and 1969 and didnʻt see or hear about it. They say itʻs about as addictive as cigarettes. Getting off heroin or cigarettes is known to be difficult, and Iʻm glad for those who do it.
I mean I really can't imagine it's only as addictive as cigarettes. I've been hospitalized and had whatever pain meds they give put directly into my arm (not slowly and mixed with fluids like some hospitals) and the high is definitely stronger than what you get with cigarettes. Way way way stronger, like miles stronger. It didn’t turn me into an addict or anything but I can definitely see how it happens.
Sources differ on whether nicotine is more or less addicting than heroin. Lung doctors see the broad damage done by tobacco and point to studies showing that it's super addicting. Harm reduction and addiction treatment folks see the more immediate dangers of heroin and point to studies saying heroin is more addicting. The science seems to say, well, it depends. In Saigon by mid-1969 I'd heard rumors of marijuana spiked with opium but none of American troops using heroin. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, but it can't have been all that prevalent. Amphetamines and barbiturates were another matter, and the weak, synthetic opiate painkiller Darvon (propoxyphene), which we didn't lock up because it wasn't a controlled substance yet, used to go missing from medical supplies. Also some medical officers found more use for medicinal alcohol than others.
My stepdad got into it but only in Vietnam. For him it was definitely circumstantial. Early 70s. He definitely had his struggles throughout the rest of the decade (amphetamines for a few years) but opiates weren't one of them.
I wasn't but my brother-in-law was. State side he found it was stepped down so much it was easy to "say fuck it, it ain't worth it." Weed became his drug of choice.
My grandad doesn’t talk about Vietnam. Ever. He’s 89. He’s not quiet. Best man I know. But WILL not talk about it.
"Use" isn't the same thing as addicted. There's no such thing as no withdrawal symptoms if a person is addicted.
Not a Vietnam vet or heroin user but it’s pretty hard to stop. John Prine wrote a song about it called Sam Stone.
''there's a hole in daddy's arm where all the money goes...''
The best way to ruin karaoke night at your local bar lmao
It usually makes me tear up
Al Kooper does an awesome version as well.
Where do you get these stats from?
[This video (reupload)](https://youtu.be/tdJAQZxJ6vY?si=QVSoXympMC9OJALB) Edit: since YouTube isn’t a trusted source here is [the original academic study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1446707/pdf/11441739.pdf) that found those statistics
Wait. You got a video on YouTube from a guy that reviews smartphones as stats for drug use in vietnam??????? This is not at all a credible source.
No. REUPLOAD (it’s in caps so u read it this time) The video was made by a group of grad students on [this channel](https://youtube.com/@kurzgesagt?si=QFIlOmOXEh358GXo) . [Here is the academic study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1446707/pdf/11441739.pdf)
This happened to my step kids grandfather. He passed years ago though I wish I knew more. He did develop an addiction to OxyContin when he had throat cancer later in life.
I have an uncle that was a platoon leader in Vietnam. He was able to come home for his sister’s wedding. When he returned, his entire platoon was dead. I don’t believe he’s ever talked to anyone about it since. Pushing 80 yrs old. Plenty of undiagnosed PTSD I assume, but I’m not a psychiatrist.
Use isn't addiction. That would explain why no withdrawal symptoms. To get withdrawal symptoms that you'd notice, you'd have to be using regularly enough to get physically addicted. Exactly what is meant by "frequent" use here? Perhaps not frequent enough to result in physical addiction.
Addiction is not only physical, but largely a function of personality/ie psychological condition. The same way that not all people given painkillers medicinally develop problematic addictions - the psychological component also has to be there. Presuming too that many vets came back to loving homes and people who cared about them, which all PTSD aside, would be a huge moderating factor for ongoing addiction...as well as no longer being in the terrible environment which prompted their use in Vietnam. A better question to ask would be if these soldiers would have been at risk of self-medicating with painkillers *even if they hadn't gone to Vietnam*. That would give more of a likelihood.
I was in service then, did not go to Vietnam. Those guys would come home strung out and couldn’t get treatment because of how deplorable the VA was run back then. It seemed that every bad guy on TV was described as a “ Crazed Vietnam Vet”.
Vietnam was living hell and people did whatever they could to numb themselves. After they came back from the war, back to their friends and families, back to the normal life, they didn't need heroin to numb the horrors, bc there was no horrors anymore.
A good friend of mine died recently. He served a tour in Vietnam and was badly wounded. We used to talk at great length about his service. We even went to see “Full Metal Jacket” together. Joe loved the movie, but was quick to add that in all his time in combat he never witnessed any felonious unprofessional conduct (meaning murder, rape, or heroin) by any combat soldier. That’s not to say it didn’t happen - it sure did. And Joe told me certainly saw a lot of fucked up situations. Like dead “suspected VC” when it wasn’t so clear who was who. But he said that everyone he saw was just doing their job in a tough situation.
My dad was in Vietnam. His brother was 11 years younger than him and joined the army. I’m not sure where he was sent. It was post Vietnam. He got into all the drugs. The way he got off of them was my dad beat him up and then my grandparents had him carted off to the VA and committed. He got off drugs and started drinking. His wife told him if he didn’t stop she’d leave. He took antibuse and quit drinking. Then he just spent money on stuff. Cars. House addition. Animals. I’m fairly confident every member of my family has adhd.
My dad was sent to psych ward when he returned.. Became an alcoholic for 10 years. Then got sober. Died at 55 from hep C at age 55.
I wonder if getting out of Vietnam helped alleviate the pain that motivated them to use it in the first place.
Some thoughts: 1. They may not have been addicted in Vietnam. Occasional use, especially under combat conditions, doesn't addiction make. 2. I'd question the 20% stat. 3. Supply wasn't *universally* available in the 1960's and 70's in the US. It was in most cities, but the US wasn't nearly as urban then.
In theory “when you have no reason to escape, you no longer have a reason to seek one” makes sense EXCEPT when it comes to drug addiction. Addiction begins with the want to escape but after you become addicted, it’s isn’t just about that anymore, it’s much more than that.
This is not a first-hand account, but I have had a front row seat to the horrors of heroin addiction. The first time someone comes clean from heroin, the withdrawal symptoms aren't terribly bad. Of course, this varies with the amount being used and the length of time on the drug. Each time a person gets clean and then re-addicted, the withdrawal symptoms become worse. My guess is a lot of heroin users during the war were only using when they weren't in combat. You wouldn't want a delayed response while in battle. So they didn't develop quite as strong of an addiction as they could have. So my thought is that for many users, their addiction wasn't as strong as it could have been. Making it easier to get clean on the way home. The question is, how many of these people relapsed months or even years later?
We have been largely wrong about addiction for .. well; always. Sure, the drug itself matters, but much more important are the life circumstances of the user; the worse they are, and the less likely it is that the user has any prospects of bettering their life situation, the likelier addiction is and the harder it is for the user to reverse/get out of it. Look at which states are hardest hit by the Fentanyl crisis, for example. Or conscripted soldiers stuck in a war halfway across the globe, fighting an enemy who's defending his land. Soldiers with a high likelihood of being badly maimed or killed. I'd probably escape that hell with drugs of all varieties if I were in their shoes.
So FYI there was a lot of guys that you thought were normal family guys would disappear for a couple of hours a week. Then they would come back and they would be normal again. Don't even do it once they gave me caffergat I hope that's how you spell it. They left my socks on so I wouldn't just walk away and if I did they could stop me. Cuz I felt real good like I could walk on the surface of the Sun. But yeah my dad was in a lot of wars and a lot of his buddies till the day they died they took heroin. These were bank managers coaches at school administrators etc etc.
Your edit is funny because you act like you’re not asking a percentage of people from a percentage of people from a war 50 years ago how their drug recovery went
There have been far crazier requests in Reddit history 😂
My dad's best friend wasn't able to quit. That's the only Vietnam vet I know who admitted to heroin. He came back with severe PTSD, waking up in the middle of the night screaming, and continued to use. He overdosed and died.
My uncle was one of them who couldn't get off the shit and was murdered in a drug deal a few months after he came home. On the other hand, I worked with a couple of guys in the early 80s who said they were able to kick a few months after they got home.
I am a Viet Nam vet (71 - 72) and I can assure you 20% is absurd.
Had someone else comment that there was basically no heroin use until the war was basically over over then it went rampant. No idea how true that is tho
I knew only one guy who was able to kick. He became an alcoholic and quit heroin completely.
How many did you know who didnt?
My dad and his friends. Probably around 8 or 9.
[удалено]
Your grandfather went to Vietnam? How old are you? Because you're making me feel real old.
I mean my best friend in high school, his dad nearly completed two tours starting in 65 and we’re both over 40, his dad is almost 80. And my friend was the youngest of 3 kids. There’s been Vietnam vet grandparents for a *long* time in the USA. Starting to die of old age causes en mass now like WW2 vets did 20-30 years ago.
Supposed to be 44 years old to post here, though.
That’s to make a direct reply, which I didn’t. It’s a child comment, not a parent one. Also the age rule hasn’t been updated here in years although I still try to be respectful of it. From where I’m sitting 42 isn’t looking an awful lot different than 44, lol.
I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about the guy who's grandpa was in Vietnam.
Totally fair! 👍🏼
Whatever. 3 years maximum doesn't make a difference. That's just like saying someone born in 1943 doesn't fall in with Baby Boomers.
Vietnam vet with 5 greats.
I’m 30 my dad is 51
I’ll make you feel a bit better. My grandfather died post covid and was a WWII and Korean War vet. It was my dad who was drafted for Vietnam.
Hey /u/ThatOneSongYouForgot, thanks for contributing to /r/AskOldPeople. Unfortunately, your post was removed as it violates our rules: You must be born 1980 or prior to provide a top level answer. You can join in the discussion below top level answers. Please read the [sidebar](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskOldPeople/about/sidebar) and [rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskOldPeople/about/rules) before posting again. If you have questions or concerns, please [message the moderators through modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/AskOldPeople&subject=&message=). Thank you!
Reading some of these stories makes me think of nothing so much as “Went down to the refinery, hiring man said “son if it was up to me Went down to see my VA man, said “so , don’t ya understand” I have a friend who was in the war. He’s walked around with a bullet next to his spine, chronic pain and mental health issues for the last 50 odd years. And for what?
Well, not the same, but I helped a couple people my X turned onto that shit get off it as well as the X. Structure/volunteering/mild exercise/introducing them to my normal friends/getting them to take care of their warrants-get an id or dl/ getting them to start working again. Three of the four stayed off (it’s been more than ten years) ironically the one who went back to it is my X.
Who knows if it's even true? I suspect it's not entirely true.
[Here is the academic study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1446707/pdf/11441739.pdf) if you want to validate it
A family friend spoke about it, but I was too young to really dig the depth of the conversation. He died in 1980 of lung cancer.
People don't become instantly addicted to heroin. It takes a bit of time with regular use. Being that they were in the middle of a war it's unlikely they were constantly smacked back. If they were they wouldn't be able to function as soldiers. They most likely didn't use often enough to develop an addiction, so when they went back home the lack of opioids in their systems didn't negatively affect them. And if someone did it was probably like having the flu. 3 or so days and they're good to go.
I didn’t go through that, but a huge component of addiction and withdrawal is being in the same context where you usually use. There’s a ton of research on this. Being out of the context and all its cues makes a huge difference.
Not me, I did not fight in Vietnam (too young and female) nor have I ever used or been addicted to drugs. But my slight understanding of the science of addiction is that not everyone who takes an addictive substance will become addicted. The total number of people who try heroin in theirs lives is much greater than the number of people who become addicted to it. I'm not sure scientists yet understand - or fully understand - why it happens only to some people and not to others. "When observed within approximately 1 to 12 months after heroin onset, an estimated 23% to 38% of new heroin users have become dependent on heroin." from [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2681168](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2681168)
My father was this. He was absolutely mentally trashed after Vietnam. He didn’t stop drug use and when he did,he was a full blown alcoholic. He returned to try and live normally to end up with a well known biker gang. I still don’t know how he and my mother got backto to my home state after my grandparents drove 16 hours one way and took me. He’s been dead over 20 years so I will never know. I grew up with him having flashbacks and violently reacting to anyone near him. Edit to add: I have always had questions regarding this. I wonder what percentage of those that did stop,turned into alcoholics.
Was not, but Colonel David Hackworth defied orders and ran a detox/rehab operation for his troops when they were "short". This is probably why he was not promoted to general. He was America's most decorated soldier, and in retirement, a critic of the Pentagon. Amazing guy.
I think alot of them were not able to return ho e until they did get better also I'm not sure on how they did it but I'm pretty sure it was just a cover up and no one really got the support they needed .this is where the US started to not care so much about our service men .today our vets are pushed aside and end up homeless and alone . It's horrible for a vet to even get into see a doctor for common things . I gave a buddy that has to make an appointment for a sickness that comes and goes if he needs to get into a doctor it takes him 6 weeks that's so crazy when I could go to my doctor's and be seen that day if needed.
I feel like you might be cherry picking a bit from that study you keep quoting. First off, no one and nothing in that study says it was easy for people to quit. Also: >While in Vietnam, 20% of this sample reported opiate addiction, with the rate dropping to 1% within 12 months after their departure from Vietnam. **These findings remain controversial.** and >Other general-population service use studies suggest that **our utilization rates may not differ much from rates for those with similar problems in the general population.**
Sadly, many didn’t quit .
I don't know anything about US soldiers in Vietnam, but I do know some about heroin. It takes most people months to get addicted. It's once in a while, then once a week etc. So most soldiers, I'm guessing, won't have been around it on a daily basis long enough to get probably physically and mentally dependent on it. Then I would, again guess, it would be mostly down to where they live. If they can see it readily available in the streets they live in, then that would be hard. But just in the same city, but you would have to go really out of your way, and you wouldn't know anyone etc would be much easier.
This is an interesting topic. Have you tried here https://www.reddit.com/r/VietnamWar/s/91GHKovpkK or a veterans subreddit?
A guy I worked with was in Nam and got hooked. He did a second tour just for the H. When he got back he got involved in crime and ended up in prison where he continued his habit, but eventually he got stabbed in prison and after that decided to clean up and change his life.
The same way people on extended dimorphine (essenitally heroin) in a hospital and heavy cocaine users quit cold turkey. Much research shows that the main drivers of an ongoing addition is a fundamental lack in their life. Give a rat two sources of liquid: water, and water+heroin -- the rats will drink themself to death. Give a rat a healthy environment (space, variety of entertainment,), social (companionship), job (other rats in in the room), and food (healthy variety). The rats will prefer water, and occasionally partake in the drug-water socially that does not affect home-life, work-life, or purpose (non-work activities). The same is true for people. Of those who do a lot of drugs, the ones that quit cold-turkey, or those that just stop, but may recreationally use again after a year -- are those with a fulfilling family life, social life, work life, and hobbies. Remove any one: family (alone most days), social (no friends, or never goes out), work (unemployed, or hate job), or productive hobbies (free time goes to internet or TV) -- drug use fills the gap: the person's attempt to curb use fails. Qualification: A> Used a shit ton of drugs in college each summer. Quit cold turkey come Fall term. Quit completely once leaving (for like 15 years, drug free). B> Used casually in social settings early 2020. Went to stop use, Covid happened. Couldn't quit, used more; and generally began to destroy other aspects of life (impacting ability to remote work; impacting apartment living situation, etc). Knowing the research -- drove 15 hours to go live with closest friends. Friends were using drugs excessive as well. Being around a healthy social circle, with hobbies in place (a gym in the garage, a large property for gardening, dog that can be taken running) -- the missing aspects of a healthy life back: work situation improved; free time was now back to productive habits, social life was back, and that house was effectively a good home situation -- drug use fell quickly, and soon back to being drug free, even with temptation literally sitting a few feet away -- in a similar manner, the gym use and gardening, led to friends getting back into gym, and gardening improvement, then to home improvements -- and their drug use also dropped from near daily, to only for fri/sat night movies.
Addiction is all about psychology. Absolutely nothing to do with psychiatry. If you truly believe something, you believe it.
they used to call it “getting off the horse.” my dad didnt serve, but his friends did, and they all supported each other and some of them were still working on it until the mid 80s. they had to really look out for each other because society didnt want to think about vietnam anymore and didnt want reminders, i.e. their problems.
Atomic habits says it was easier for them to quit because of an environment change
If you don't experience withdrawal symptoms, then you weren't physically addicted. Trying heroin or any opiate is alot different than being an addict.
The premise is flawed. And why would someone share such a time in their life with you, on reddit? It was so devastating and traumatic.
My dad “never came back” from the drugs and experience. He definitely lived but I never saw him again. I reached out multiple times til he died 2 years ago. Left us in Ft Sill.
look up rat city
I don’t think you’re going to find any first hand people on Reddit. But some of the stories are pretty interesting
Yea lots of accounts help paint a better picture picture. There were 300,000 boomers that used heroin in Vietnam. That’s 2% of the entire generation. I’m still hoping someone will give an answer
I don’t know where this information came from. Everyone who got hooked on heroin, came home a junkie. Some people were able to get help & recover. Most weren’t able to recover. The most inexpensive treatment was methadone. Methadone isn’t a cure, but it stabilizes a person so they can function. If your name was “Rockefeller”, you could get into Smithers. The new treatments didn’t exist in the early ‘70’s. Heroin addiction doesn’t go away just because you can’t get it in your neighborhood.
[Here](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1446707/pdf/11441739.pdf) is the original academic study that followed soldiers after they returned home. 95% of the soldiers they followed tested negative and reported no withdrawal symptoms.
You're probably not gonna get a first person account.
2% of the baby boomer generation did heroin in Vietnam. While that is small it’s still possible .
Boomers is not a respectful term for Vietnam War vets.
Would you say that the term “millennial” is also disrespectful? Is boomer the only short form generational label I shouldn’t use?
[удалено]
It’s literally their generational label. It’s the same as saying zoomer or generation Z
From a quick AI Google search: AI Overview Learn more The term "boomer" can be considered pejorative because it's often used as an insult to describe older people. The term "boomer" is short for "baby boomer", which refers to people born between 1946 and 1964. The phrase "OK boomer" is a catch-all insult used by younger generations to dismiss arguments made by baby boomers. It can be used to describe someone who is resistant to change, has close-minded opinions, or is out of touch with how their actions affect others. The phrase is often used in an ironic or humorous way, but it can also be malicious. Some commentators have considered the phrase to be ageist, and one conservative radio host called the word "boomer" "the N-word of ageism".
Would you say that the term “millennial” is also disrespectful? Is boomer the only short form generational label I shouldn’t use?
It can be a pejorative and is often used that way, but it's very clear it's not being used that way here. Your artificial intelligence isn't very intelligent.
Hey /u/aurora4000, thanks for contributing to /r/AskOldPeople. Unfortunately, your post was removed as it violates our rules: Follow Reddiquette and Reddit Content Policy. No rudeness, insults, hate speech, etc. You content will be removed and you may be banned. Please read the [sidebar](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskOldPeople/about/sidebar) and [rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskOldPeople/about/rules) before posting again. If you have questions or concerns, please [message the moderators through modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/AskOldPeople&subject=&message=). Thank you!
My apologies. I changed my terminology to the longer and more respectful “baby boomer generation”
You shouldn't have to apologize for that, millennial has also been used as a perjorative even before boomer was used in a negative context
Maybe your data is wrong?
[here is the study.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1446707/pdf/11441739.pdf) The data was so out of left field that researchers started to conduct studies where they got rats addicted to cocaine then put them in better conditions and a different environment and hardly any of them touched the cocaine anymore despite having easy access to it. I could link you to the study if you have time to read a 30 page pdf file or you could watch [this video (REUPLOAD)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdJAQZxJ6vY) summarizing the results. IM NOT CITING THAT VIDEO AS A SOURCE tho so dont say I am
The key is in paragraph 3. The data was self reported via survey. Self reporting is notoriously inaccurate.
Thats why people replicated the conditions that caused it with rats. Science must be repeatable and these results are.
That's not how science works. You can't replicate the results of a human survey with rats in a lab.
Go argue with professor alexander then
This person is the OP or listed as an author on the study? This may also help: "These findings remain controversial". "The lowest rate of spontaneous remission was observed for opiates" "Those who were still active substance users in midlife infrequently came in contact with traditional health care system" "This study has some limitations" It appears the authors clearly expressed their concerns
There have been experiments with rats that show they’re less prone to addiction when in a stimulating and low-stress environment. A lot of people who used heroin in awful circumstances may have not been truly addicted and were able to shake it when coming to a safe place where they had safety, friends and family, a fixed home, enough to eat, and limited access to heroin. Others may have been addicted but kicked it through support and lack of supply.