My position on drugs.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-01-2012, 09:50 PM
RE: My position on drugs.
(16-01-2012 07:42 PM)Ben Wrote:  The problem is people on drugs don't just fuck up themselves... addicts will go to any lengths to get what they need.

I think you are not differentiating the behavior viv-a-vis illegal drugs and what it would be like if they were available like alcohol.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
16-01-2012, 09:54 PM (This post was last modified: 16-01-2012 10:26 PM by houseofcantor.)
RE: My position on drugs.
(16-01-2012 09:20 PM)Ben Wrote:  Your mistake is assuming that people have some kind of free will that can override their drive to do anything to obtain more drugs; the mind is a very physical thing and drugs affect it in a very physical way that sheer will cannot overcome.

You're a wiggler, aren't you? Tongue

If we were testifying before a Senate sub-committee, I would be required to state that the research is inconclusive. You take "meth" from my post to argue against lucradis, and fail miserably in several areas, fueling my rebuttal. I recommend clearing some of that moral perspective from your agenda, because it'll trip you up like this.

There is no moral objection to having agenda, If you're just "drugs kill," there is nothing inherently incorrect with such, but when you go "do anything to obtain more drugs;" especially in contention against one, like me, working from a lower archetype; you're in danger of running your agenda off the rails.

It is inevitable that a legal intoxicant such as alcohol will be a vector for legalization; my moral position here is that criminalization should never have occurred. It's a much lower archetype and closer to the moral ideal. Get more room to "politick" with such in the agenda. Wink
(16-01-2012 09:34 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  I just thought maybe you needed to smoke some gungy before you do anything rash.

Now yer on the platform. Big Grin

Some of the confusion seems to be: "I'm thinking of doing something rash. Lemme smoke some meth first..." Big Grin

Talk about scratching an itch from a rash into irrationality. Big Grin

Meth is derivative of criminalization. If I were a chemist combining ingredients to get high, it's one thing; but meth would never have been part of common context - it ain't even a specific compound. Tongue

There is a universal lack of my simple stupidity - I love my Gwynnies! - making it a worthy battle to fight for the right of marijuana. That's the causality of this thread being here - thoughts of becoming an activist. In terms of the here and now, if I got the glass dick in my hand; I obviously have the moral right to smoke meth. The use of duplicity in agenda is legion; but the less the better. Got some addition going on like "glass dick = immorality;" that shit's being falsified right before your eyes. Because I'm writing it.

Somebody who doesn't do meth and lost a baby sister to the glass dick could equate it to immorality; if that somebody was on this Senate subcommittee, I'd know about it - knows what I'm saying? Big Grin

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
16-01-2012, 10:30 PM
RE: My position on drugs.
I'm sorry man but I used to sell drugs and I've known my fair share of junkies. I've also known my fair share of alcoholics and I can tell you that while the base addictiveness of something like heroin is higher than alcohol I can also tell you that any serious alcoholic is nearly identical in nature to another addict. It's all in your head if you think one is really that much different than another. Societal perception maybe, accepted norms.
I'm not here to get into a fight over which drugs are worse than others either, just wanted to make the point that if one is legal than all should be because it just makes no sense otherwise.
Chas is also right when stating that were meth or any other drug treated as alcohol is currently it would function differently within society.

"I think of myself as an intelligent, sensitive human being with the soul of a clown which always forces me to blow it at the most important moments." -Jim Morrison
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2012, 10:46 PM
RE: My position on drugs.
Why the apology?

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2012, 04:53 AM (This post was last modified: 17-01-2012 07:23 AM by DeepThought.)
RE: My position on drugs.
(16-01-2012 09:20 PM)Ben Wrote:  Your mistake is assuming that people have some kind of free will that can override their drive to do anything to obtain more drugs; the mind is a very physical thing and drugs affect it in a very physical way that sheer will cannot overcome. In a way, a person who chooses to use substances that are capable of making him behave in such a way has already chosen to hurt other people.

The addiction potential of a drug is significantly affected by route of administration. Taking a drug orally has a much lower addiction potential that taking it intravenously. Smoking tobacco vs chewing nicotine gum. etc... Part of it has to do with the brain associating certain actions/behaviours with a 'reward'. With some methods the onset of it's effects is quicker making it more addictive.

Apparently nicotine is more addictive than heroin and stimulates almost identical reward pathways.
http://www1.umn.edu/perio/tobacco/nicaddct.html
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/08/02/scienc...u-use.html
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/29/magazi...eroin.html

Perhaps by your logic nicotine slaves have chosen to hurt others and should be locked up. Maybe cigarettes should be illegal as well? Why aren't there people robbing service stations to get another hit of tobacco?

(16-01-2012 09:20 PM)Ben Wrote:  Comparing meth to alcohol isn't a very good analogy either because it does not impair people nearly as badly as meth.

Sounds like you don't know anything about alcohol or it's effects on the brain.

<sarcasm>
A drink here and there every second day... what the harm huh? especially after doing that for 20 years? Those drug addicts are so stupid taking their meth and cocaine!
</sarcasm>

My ex-girlfriends sister has acquired brain injury from abusing alcohol. Alcohol is so prevalent in society that allot of its effects aren't widely known by the general population. Most of us know it can cause violent/irrational/impulsive behaviour. It can also cause schizophrenia and other neurological problems.
It works by blocking communication to certain sets of neurons. When neurons stop receiving stimulation from neighbouring cells the neuron thinks it's not connected to anything and runs its suicide program (apoptosis). As you take more it keeps crippling more and more of the brain. Eventually the brain runs out of redundant circuits and that's when the damage gets obvious quickly.

That's why things like alzheimer's dementia get picked up so late - when allot of damage has already been done.

I have ADHD so I know a little about psycho-stimulant medications from personal experience and from my own research. The effects drugs like Ritalin and Dex-Amphetamine have in the brain are virtually indistinguishable from low dose meth-amphetamine or cocaine. Do I sound impaired to you?

(16-01-2012 09:20 PM)Ben Wrote:  Ideally, drugs as addictive as meth would have no place in our society. However, if legalizing it does allow better control of it at a lower cost, then I agree that legalization is the practical stance to take.

I'm taking Ritalin at the moment. 2 months ago I stopped for 1.5 months and I didn't have any issues. I felt slightly more tired in the morning for a couple days but then everything went back to normal.

I don't think I'm susceptible to addiction and it probably comes down to other factors like the way I think, genetics etc. Your assessment of people 'having no free will' based on the kind of drug is wrong.

Given a population of a certain size there will ALWAYS be SOME addicts. It doesn't make a difference if it's alcohol, cigarettes, meth, or heroin. I'd much rather live in a safer environment where addicts are given proper treatment and don't rob others for their next hit. At least the addicts can still contribute to society rather than cost us 50k/year rotting behind bars.

(16-01-2012 09:20 PM)Ben Wrote:  I'm not convinced, though, that legalization wouldn't lead to comparable costs in regulation and more difficulty in controlling the manufacture, sale, and use of the substance.

Well if a substance is legal there would be no reason for a black market to exist.
"hmm I can pay $50 for 0.1g of some junk of unknown quality from some dodgy bastard" or "I can give this script to my local pharmacy and get exactly what is on that script at a reasonable price"

Seems like the difference between night and day to me.

People wouldn't have to resort to robbery or mugging to acquire the drugs.
The drug could be regulated and sold at a reasonable price.

How much money do you think the drug related crimes cost to deal with?
How about the crimes involved when drug gangs compete for territory?
The health costs from addicts using drugs that have poisons, impurities and unknown concentration due to it being on the black market?
The spreading of blood-borne diseases like HIV and Hep C and health costs associated with them spreading further?
How about the other costs like home contents insurance premiums, health costs of people injured being robbed?
How about the number of people rotting in prison for crimes that could otherwise be contributing to society rather than costing US$50,000/annum?
The cost of the DEA and the local police drug taskforce/annum?
The costs of the prosecutors and public defenders and the court time involved?

You may add that to the total.

All that without mentioning the impact on society and peoples families the current approach has.

“Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.” - Lawrence M. Krauss
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DeepThought's post
17-01-2012, 05:13 PM
RE: My position on drugs.
All good points. I admit I don't have much experience with drugs and alcohol, so I probably shouldn't have spoken so soon. Anyway, after reading your arguments I have to admit there's a really strong case for legalizing these substances.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ben's post
17-01-2012, 05:57 PM
RE: My position on drugs.
Ben, you may find the drug laws in Portugal really interesting. Do some Googling on it. They de-ciminalized ALL drugs, and the overall outcome was very positive. Really interesting stuff.

Also, legalizing drugs depending on the level of intoxication is impossible. My brother was a meth head, in a bad way, and he becamse far more intoxicated on alcohol than meth. It varies for every person, plus we are spoon fed a lot of bogus info on the illegal stuff. All from our loving government. Some of it outdated (I read an article written LAST YEAR that claimed weed kills brain cells. That one was de-bunked in the 90s), and some outright made up.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stark Raving's post
17-01-2012, 07:16 PM
RE: My position on drugs.
(17-01-2012 05:13 PM)Ben Wrote:  All good points. I admit I don't have much experience with drugs and alcohol, so I probably shouldn't have spoken so soon. Anyway, after reading your arguments I have to admit there's a really strong case for legalizing these substances.

After all this time I must insist it's a moral thing, you know, speaking too soon? I call that speaking out the side of the neck or speaking out yer ass; but I do it all the time. Big Grin

You want something kinda beyond belief; I'm 32 years old and living under a bridge after deciding I was too illogical to continue studying math. Drinking and being a no-account from nowhere with no kinda pedigree.

Eleven years later and i'm a known local moral paragon? That Christians recognize Holy Spirit in me? That I generate love in waveform? What the fuck?

Without a previous context of shit like LSD and marijuana, the above context when it happened would have been me, in the bin, with the jacket.

There is one and only one argument for universal drug use - to alter the state of the continuous identity - but that's the one that may prove necessary. Wink

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
18-01-2012, 08:22 AM
RE: My position on drugs.
(17-01-2012 07:16 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  You want something kinda beyond belief; I'm 32 years old and living under a bridge after deciding I was too illogical to continue studying math. Drinking and being a no-account from nowhere with no kinda pedigree.

HoC, have you read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
18-01-2012, 11:51 AM (This post was last modified: 18-01-2012 11:56 AM by kim.)
RE: My position on drugs.
(17-01-2012 04:53 AM)DeepThought Wrote:  Given a population of a certain size there will ALWAYS be SOME addicts. It doesn't make a difference if it's alcohol, cigarettes, meth, or heroin. I'd much rather live in a safer environment where addicts are given proper treatment and don't rob others for their next hit. At least the addicts can still contribute to society rather than cost us 50k/year rotting behind bars.

These statements carry possibly the most abundant truths which remain completely misunderstood by the US population at large. The US citizenry on the whole see prison to be the complete solution to "the drug problems which plague our society", and this is the nail in it's own coffin - a self fulfilling prophecy, of sorts.

Fact: Addiction will always remain in some form - excuse me while I warm mine up.
Fact: Treatment is a big question mark - we prefer a bandaids to stitches, thank you.
Fact: Put one guy in prison or treat four addicts; the cost is the same. - we can't close our prisons, think of the job loss.

Misinformation is the greatest driving force of our economy - far more than moral concern, civic pride, or community involvement, as many think this issue to be effected by. We create and enforce laws which placate our ignorance and pander to our own apathy, and then wonder why everything isn't working.

Education - how fucking difficult is it, really?

Oh... did I say a naughty word? If reason is the enemy of faith, then by that logic... education looks to be the enemy of a safe and productive society.

Before I go looking for answers in prison, I'd look to who's running That Media Show. Dodgy
(Like That 70s Show -get it? I'm sorry, I don't have tv, so I'm not even sure if that's funny or not -but I'm taking the chance anyway. Smile )

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like kim's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: