EPTMost drugs are indulgent and nothing productive IRL actually comes out of it. I realize that I sound pretty conservative but I do think occasional natural drug use can be beneficial just very hard to control.
"Why is that so important to you" - Page 3
| Blogs > ghermination |
|
Wotans_Fire
United Kingdom294 Posts
Most drugs are indulgent and nothing productive IRL actually comes out of it. I realize that I sound pretty conservative but I do think occasional natural drug use can be beneficial just very hard to control. | ||
|
MamiyaOtaru
United States1687 Posts
The "Phil" in that list is him btw further, Drug misuse is not a disease, it is a decision, like the decision to step out in front of a moving car. You would call that not a disease but an error in judgement. When a bunch of people begin to do it, it is a social error, a life-style. In this particular life-style the motto is "Be happy now because tomorrow you are dying," but the dying begins almost at once, and the happiness is a memory. -also PKD (who did his share of drugs) /ignored, just like the downsides | ||
|
ghermination
United States2851 Posts
On September 01 2009 12:56 Wotans_Fire wrote: Well I think the reason that society generally condemns drug use is because of peoples tendency to go overboard. If it was widely accepted a large portion of the population would be unproductive. While it's true that everyone has their way to escape, drug use can make the real world seem extremely tedious and boring. Most drugs are indulgent and nothing productive IRL actually comes out of it. I realize that I sound pretty conservative but I do think occasional natural drug use can be beneficial just very hard to control. Have you read the rest of the thread where perfectly good arguments were given to your points? | ||
|
Icarus
United States105 Posts
When I read through this thread, it reminded me of a dystopian novel called "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley. In that novel, there's a drug called soma that everyone takes. Though it's a necessity and a rule to take that drug in the novel, when the citizens of the World State took that drug, they went into a "peace and love" trance somewhat similar to that of the 70's, if I read the posts correctly. But when the main character, the Caveman, didn't take soma, and left his Indian preservation for the World State, he was disillusioned. Though I admit, things in this novel are somewhat exaggerated, Huxley wrote this novel in the hopes of making people realize what the use of technology, drugs, and psychology can do to the world. By the way, I have never taken drugs. Nor do I like any kind of alcohol. Just thought you should know before you read the rest. And thought you should also know that I have never experienced the things you have, ghermination, so just know that this is not an insult to your opinion, nor am I trying to change it. It's up to you. (This is biased to my opinion, so you've been forewarned): In my opinion, you don't need drugs for recreational use to get all of these experiences. I've had plenty of things in my life I remember(I also have part photogenic memory) and I've experienced them all in my normal state. I also believe that drugs are forms of escapism. From what I know in novels I've read, the different philosophies I've taken a bit of in my wonderful English Literature classes, the people I know, and what people do, people do drugs because they're stuck or stumped about something. Because they can't think of or come up with other options. It may be true that, from what I've read from your posts, that drugs can give you unforgettable experiences and show you other ways of thinking, I don't think it's necessary for people to use drugs to see those ways. And remember, all of the cultural changes that occurred, if you think about it, happened as a result of people's actions, not directly by drugs. Drugs were simply a way of giving ideas; the mind of the people chose their own way. So in actuality, they might've not needed the drugs to push for those cultural changes. | ||
|
vAltyR
United States581 Posts
These drugs are perfectly legal and have been for IMHO there is no reason that these drugs could not be legalized and regulated by the government. In fact, I do think that's the best option. It would create a whole new industry, and government regulation (needing a license to sell, and most likely individual taxes like those on tobacco) would help create more revenue for the government. The legalization process would also ensure the product would be safe, instead of people running the risk of buying tainted drugs (not sure how big of a problem this actually is, but the risk is still there). In a practical sense, there is very little difference between drinking and smoking weed. To be honest, I do not do drugs of any kind (except occasional drinking) but hey, it's not like the legalization process would force me to start taking it or anything. | ||
|
ShaperofDreams
Canada2492 Posts
I don't buy "It's not necessary" as a reason, and you compare how you are "fine" without drugs when you don't have anything to compare it to. Most of your points have already been addressed in this thread anyways by Xeo. Wouldn't the "Soma" from The Brave new world be MUCH more comparable to Alcohol, Cigarettes, and Coffee then more heavy psychoactive drugs? edit: for spelling edit: also the author did drugs lol | ||
|
Icarus
United States105 Posts
And the soma can be comparable to alcohol, cigarettes, and coffee just as much as the psycoactive drugs that ghermination is talking about. I hope you've read the book before you said that. Because Wikipedia, Cliffnotes, and all that stuff doesn't cut it for this book. It's an amazing book; takes more than a research paper to know it inside and out. As you said in your post, I have 0 experience or knowledge past D.A.R.E(never really had interest in that stuff anyways). Now, do you have knowledge of the book? All I'm doing is talking about something that sounded SIMILAR to what ghermination is talking about when I talked about Brave New World. To go off on a tangent, it's one of the most shocking novels I've ever read. In a good way, an eye-opener way. Also, "it's not necessary" isn't a reason. All I'm saying is that you don't need them to have some of the positive experiences in life. I have more than a few friends around me who've had them before, w/o drugs. It's not a reason. It's a way of life. We're all biased, don't you think? Have you tried to go on for 18 years without use of drugs, going to school, reading books, going out to play, go on the computer, and do all of those tiny things in life without drugs? That's what I did, and here's where I led my life so far. How about you? You sound like you've had both sides, drugs and no-drugs, side of life. Have you ever went for an extremely long period of time without them? I'm not just talking a few years, not just childhood. It takes more than that to truly know yourself. At least that's what I think. | ||
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
| ||
|
WeSt
Portugal918 Posts
| ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
On September 01 2009 16:59 Slaughter wrote: Lets all take drugs and form a new world using the model of Brave New World. You gonna be an epsilon :O | ||
Xeofreestyler
Belgium6771 Posts
On September 01 2009 12:36 Koiru wrote: The reason I'm so obviously biased is from personal experiences that have to do with the people I know who do drugs on an "occasional" to "often" basis. The majority (NOT ALL) of these people exemplify qualities and characteristics that I find completely aggravating and irresponsible. Again, not all of them, but the majority. Understandable, wherever something exists, people will be there to abuse it. But I dont see how a percentage of the population can be a valid argument against drugs. Its not the drugs, its the people who handle them. Thats why, instead of condoning them and illegalizing them, people should be better informed about how they work so that people can start using them in a more responsible manner. I was lucky to have a very good teacher in high school that informed us about drugs' negative AND positive sides, not just negative. I'm pretty sure thats still the reason that I treat these chemicals with respect and always read up massive amounts of information before trying something new, instead of just going WOO PAR-TAY and popping some random pill. Having never done them I could use a bit more detail :o. What's the difference in feeling people get between LSD/Heroin/PCP/Cocaine? Hah, I don't have a fear of addiction, my personality isn't addictive at all, I just don't see any appeal in altering my state of mind. I like myself  Well ghermination explained this pretty well. If you wanna read about drugs' effects or what kind of things people experience www.erowid.org is a very good source. (experiences: http://www.erowid.org/experiences/) And I don't have any problem with people who don't feel the need to do drugs. I just don't like it when these people start forming strong opinions based on very little knowledge at all. People don't booze at work because it's against the law. I'm sure plenty of people would booze during the day if they could  . I was operating under the assumption that his "culturally advancing" drugs would be legal at all times of the day, where not just those limited only by their creativity (artists, musicians, etc.) do it during working hours.Even if drugs would be legalized, I don't think anyone would say that there shouldn't be any control. On the contrary actually. And this is to the guy that said 'keeping it illegal is best for society'. Thats the whole thing. Its not. Drugs WILL be around. And if you keep them illegal, people who seek them will have to keep coming in contact with illegal activities. It also costs a shitload for law enforcements to hunt all this down. If there would be a state-controlled way of distributing drugs (like in Holland for weed) the damage this illegalization brings to society would be GREATLY reduced. Wait, not every person who plays SC is like that? . On a serious note though, I've never viewed drugs like that before. And the reason for my perspective is not because of some bullshit theory that I suck up every media message and parental view like a fat girl on cookies, my perspective comes from my own experiences with the people who associate themselves with drugs/alcohol. Well, okay, but like I said: you shouldn't judge drugs based on the people who take them, much like the same way you shouldn't judge a game by the people who play it. Yes I know but enough people die from drunk drivers who AREN'T alcoholics for me to think of it as so much better when you aren't a frequent user. Still a case of personal responsibility. Another question: If drugs are so culturally advancing and have positive effects, why are they never mentioned in connection with world-changing individuals? I'm talking Albert Einstein/Mahatma Gandhi/Adolf Hitler/Galileo Galilei/William Shakespeare/Plato/Aristotle/Isaac Newton/Karl Marx/Thomas Jefferson/Benjamin Franklin/Alexander the Great/Mao/Stalin/Abraham Lincoln/Napoleon/Genghis Khan/on and on and on 'Never mentioned'? Dude you really need to stop making generalizations lol. Of course some of the people you mentioned lived way too long ago to give any defining proof about them (even though I have heard quite a few things about the ancient greek having access to psychoactive substances, Delphic oracles for example were under the influence) But here's a list you might enjoy: http://www.erowid.org/culture/characters/characters_drug_use.shtml | ||
|
GeneralStan
United States4789 Posts
On September 01 2009 13:54 Icarus wrote: We're all biased, don't you think? Have you tried to go on for 18 years without use of drugs, going to school, reading books, going out to play, go on the computer, and do all of those tiny things in life without drugs? That's what I did, and here's where I led my life so far. How about you? You sound like you've had both sides, drugs and no-drugs, side of life. Have you ever went for an extremely long period of time without them? I'm not just talking a few years, not just childhood. It takes more than that to truly know yourself. At least that's what I think. I spent 19 years without doing any drugs besides caffeine (and a little nicotine). I bought into the propaganda. Not all the way. It was perfectly obvious to me that smoking a joint didn't turn you into a drug fiend - that the cancer claims were dubious at best. I knew some dumb slackers that had gotten into weed in high school, and I always said that it wasn't the thing for me. That was the right decision to make - at the time. In college, I decided to try Marijuana. It was a truly eye-opening experience. My appreciation for complex music is due entirely to the herb. Before, I didn't notice anything in music, it was a flag canvas. Now I hear each instrument playing individually, I can tell if it's the bass, or the guitar playing, I hear the variation in each (or lack thereof). This revelation alone is enough to cause me to realize that drugs can be a beneficial thing. LSD was the true eye opener for me though. It brought me to a profound realization of self. I saw everything that I was doing wrong in my life. I stopped smoking weed. I traded it for working out. I started being social to people everywhere. It brought me out of a downward spiral of loneliness and escapism. This isn't even touching the mental effects of the trip (which were quite profound) The funny thing, is by any standard measurement, my trip was a very bad trip. I spiraled out of control into a black chasm, turn apart into nothing by dark demons. It is a strange feeling indeed to assign your name and age to yourself - to realize the elements of your identity that you take so much for granted are fleeting constructs of the mind. I had to tell myself that I was strong enough to pull myself out of that chasm, to be yself again As I realize I'm rambling, the point I wish to make is that my drug experience blessed me with a self-awareness that I lacked before, and abilities that I simply didn't have before. Drugs should be approached with respect and care, not abused. But to dismiss them outright without a fair trial is ludicrious. To say 'it's not for me' without knowing what it is about, much less giving it a shot is so very narrow minded. If you were truly secure in yourself, you would know that one drug experience isn't going to change the fundamental reality of yourself. | ||
|
GeneralStan
United States4789 Posts
On September 01 2009 12:36 Koiru wrote: Another question: If drugs are so culturally advancing and have positive effects, why are they never mentioned in connection with world-changing individuals? I'm talking Albert Einstein/Mahatma Gandhi/Adolf Hitler/Galileo Galilei/William Shakespeare/Plato/Aristotle/Isaac Newton/Karl Marx/Thomas Jefferson/Benjamin Franklin/Alexander the Great/Mao/Stalin/Abraham Lincoln/Napoleon/Genghis Khan/on and on and on Francis Crick / The Beatles / Carl Sagan / Barack Obama. Listing a bunch of people who you assume never took drugs doesn't prove very much. Which leads me to a tangential point. People always say "all the drug users I know are total fuck ups". NO. All the people who you know of using drugs are the obvious ones - those that have spiraled out of control. The average drug user is a perfectly reasonable person. You'd never even know they used drugs. In fact, you don't! With confirmation bias, you just assume ALL (or at least most) drug users are the out of control whack jobs you see. You're judging the iceburg by the tip. | ||
|
underscore
252 Posts
Yada yada it's 4-5 years later -> mental institution, suicidal I wonder if he's still alive. Drugs only become dangerous if you do them a lot. I don't know how often you take drugs but judging by your post I give you 10 years tops before it goes downhill. Good luck. | ||
|
Chromyne
Canada561 Posts
Do you have to try something before judging it? Are there exceptions to this? I also believe that some people just don't have the will power/self control to handle some of these drugs, should they still try them? | ||
| ||
