|
On October 17 2011 21:42 dibbaN wrote:
Rendering yourself unable to function hurts yourself, your country, the world.
Also the need for substances is pitiful and a sign of weakness. Saying you do drugs is like saying you have issues that you simply can't cope with and need to resort to a delusional state. That crosses the line of what's called "prejudice".
This is completly wrong.
|
If I see someone who smokes 40 cigarettes a day, that's fine by me. It's their lungs, they can do what they want with them.
If I see someone weighing 200 kg that's fine by me. It's their body, they can eat all the McDonald's they want to.
If I see someone who reaches for the bottle the minute they wake up, that's fine by me. If I see someone who smokes weed every day, that's fine by me. If I see someone who likes to do heroin every day, that's fine by me. It should be their choice what they do with themselfs
The problem arises, when some politicians have set a fixed line between what they personally think is okay and then force it onto everyone else. People looking for drugs are gonna find drugs. Only, as long as it's illegal they are fucking it up for everyone else by funding various criminal elements.
Just legalize all that shit. Are they afraid everyone is gonna turn into drug users? I personally wouldn't touch heroin even if it was distributed by official sanatary clinics and was absolutely free. I doubt anyone I know would either.
People keep away from drugs because they know it's unhealthy for them. Or they take them, knowing the dangers because they think the effects of them offset the dangers.
I don't for a second believe availability is what is keeping anyone from doing drugs.
On October 17 2011 20:55 nick1689 wrote:
It depends. I work part-time in a chemist while Im at Uni, and Ive seen first hand how addiction to heroin is literally ruining people's lives - its a health issue, they want to get off, they want to be free from the addiction, but they literally cannot due to its effects. You should not be prejudice against these people
In my opinion there should only be prejudice when people use drugs so much that it begins to negatively affect other people, whilst at the same time they take no action, or try anything at all, to address their drug problem.
But surely they knew heroin was bad for them before they started doing it? I have a hard time seeing people going "What's this heroin stuff? Sure, let me have one of that." and suddenly, before they know it, they are addicts. Yes there might have been a reason for them to start abusing it, but other people have been in the same position and chosen to not take heroin.
They choose to take heroin, knowing the dangers, and now they suffer the consequenses.
|
I was at a wedding on Saturday. At this wedding, there were two gentlemen who were pounding shots hard at the bar for several hours. They then grabbed some wine bottles from their tables to sip on, took to the dance floor, ripped off their shirts and proceeded to fall over everybody and be completely annoying until one of them clocked the other one in the forehead with his wine bottle. One of the aunts got toasted and amused herself by flashing her breasts at the DJ, and when he didn't flinch she then propped a leg up on the DJ's table and hiked up her skirt.
Am I about to make a "it's hypocritical not to ban alcohol if you ban weed" point? Not exactly. The point is that lots of other people aside from the three aforementioned indulged in alcohol and didn't make complete asses of themselves or end up with bleeding gashes on their heads. It's not the substance itself that's the problem, it's what you do with it.
|
On October 17 2011 21:18 Setev wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 20:41 Snusdosa wrote:...I hardly think "not smoking" and "not buying irresponsibly farmed meat" is grounds for sainthood. I'm not perfect by any means, but I try to avoid things I know will cause negative consequences wherever reasonably possible and it's easy to avoid. Simple. Not buying drugs, and therefore not directly funding a string of drug dealers, is an easy thing to avoid doing. The thing is, where else would i purchase marijuana if not from a dealer? If marijuana was legal and i could purchase it from the state i would never buy from a dealer again. But it isn't, since its illegal im FORCED to go to these criminals to buy my weed. Now you might say, i know i fund drug dealers, why smoke at all? Well thats where my argument comes in, if i were to refrain from doing anything that causes negative consequences honestly i would have to back up on a LOT of things."Other people are bad/worse, so that makes what I'm doing oK!" ? No it doesn't, but it does render the argument that funding drug dealers make pot bad rather weak considering buying clothes is hardly looked down upon the same way people look down on weed. But most clothing companies are in some way involved in slavery. This feels like a cop-out tbh. Why not just try to avoid bad things? Would it hurt you or cause you any inconvenience to stop giving a string of drug dealers money? Well i just dont think that reason is enough to stop me from occasionally smoking some weed. Also, the guy i purchase from grows his weed at home, its not from the cartels of Mexico or from criminal smugglers. btw.... why is going on vacation to SE Asia bad? /confused Since going to for example to Thailand on vacation has become such a common and popular thing in especially Europe an enourmous tourism market has developed. This is really good for the economy but a lot of the people who work in the business are working for less than minimum wage. Its not slavery, but in europe their working conditions would be illegal. Also the pollution caused by a plane travelling from Europe to Thailand is equal to the pollution one average family car causes during one year. Pardon my english. Yes, I will say to you, why smoke at all if you know full well that you are funding criminals? And you said that you need to back up on stuff like buying new clothes and not taking airplanes? Clothes are a necessity of life. Travel by air is a necessity for people who do business or work overseas. They are necessary evils, from what you describe them. But you smoking weed or not is totally not a necessity. And you chose to smoke weed. And you said you are forced to help criminals because the state made weed illegal (ie, not your fault, its the law's fault). And I noticed that you said you buy your weed from your friend who grows his own weed from home. No ties to criminal elements. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I have no problem with that. I just don't agree with the concept that buying drugs = flying in aeroplanes to SEA countries = buying clothes = equal amounts of sin. No, buying and using drugs is disproportionately more sinful compared to the other two, and can be totally avoided if you choose to.
Ok, I'll make it simple for you.
1. You want to eat potatoes. You grow more than you eat. You sell some at low price to some friends.
2. Oh, shit, gangs took your potatoes.
3.Fortunately, you live in a civilized courty, potatoes are legal, the gang is arrested, and you get your potatoes back.
Endresult after iteration: You get money, you don't mind a little tax, everybody gets potatoes, the economy is booming.
1. So, you grow you own weed. It's not that hard. It's a weed, nature made it resilient.
2. So you're not a criminal, you don't own guns, you're a rational human being who smokes G sometimes and sells at low cost to some friends.
3. Oh sorry, gangs just took your weed. At gunpoint. Now, in a civilized county, a small business can count on the cops to help him out. Not so if you grow.
So you
4.A)Go out of business
B)hide yourself real good
C)get guns yourself.
After Iteration you have: Smokers who have trouble finding weed, because the good guys are hiding, and a thriving black economy that doesn't pay taxes and gets people shot.
Now, to make growing weed even better, the cops are the most dangerous gang around. Get the picture?
|
On October 17 2011 22:09 Vorenius wrote:
If I see someone who smokes 40 cigarettes a day, that's fine by me. It's their lungs, they can do what they want with them.
If I see someone weighing 200 kg that's fine by me. It's their body, they can eat all the McDonald's they want to.
If I see someone who reaches for the bottle the minute they wake up, that's fine by me. If I see someone who smokes weed every day, that's fine by me. If I see someone who likes to do heroin every day, that's fine by me. It should be their choice what they do with themselfs
The problem arises, when some politicians have set a fixed line between what they personally think is okay and then force it onto everyone else. People looking for drugs are gonna find drugs. Only, as long as it's illegal they are fucking it up for everyone else by funding various criminal elements.
Just legalize all that shit. Are they afraid everyone is gonna turn into drug users? I personally wouldn't touch heroin even if it was distributed by official sanatary clinics and was absolutely free. I doubt anyone I know would either.
People keep away from drugs because they know it's unhealthy for them. Or they take them, knowing the dangers because they think the effects of them offset the dangers.
I don't for a second believe availability is what is keeping anyone from doing drugs.
I respect a person's right to choose harmful drugs, and I'm also fine with it being legal... if people want to destroy their bodies, then I have no right to stop them (and I don't want politicians to have the right to stop them either)... but as far as you saying "it's fine by me" for everything, I wouldn't go that far.
It's not fine by me; I'd rather have them make more intelligent decisions. If they asked me my opinion, I would give them advice as opposed to being indifferent. I'd rather have them live healthier and longer lives. If they wanted help, I would give it to them.
I don't respect those people who don't care about their bodies or their lives. If they go out of their way to really break themselves down destructively (and I'm not talking about a little fast food or a few drinks), then they're not respecting their own lives, so why should I? They're not acting responsibly or mature, so they certainly haven't earned my respect as addicts (and this doesn't necessarily only pertain to harmful drug users).
|
I wanna ask: Why are the best drugs still illegal by international treaty? I mean, yes, some profits from alcohol companies. . But that can't be the whole truth, tobacco got what was coming to it with powerful lobbies and government on it's side. They know that if the economy as a whole would improve (and it would) they would profit. Yes, incompetence of legislators. But the people get the government it deserves. Even in an absolute monarchy, the King was the country incarnate. In fractal geometry you'd say the country was self-similar across scale. So making sure the people prospered was good for the kings health, and informing the king would keep the country safe in Nash's equillibrium.
There are so many theories out on this one question, most are throwing up our shoulders and shouting conspiracy. But that's a non-explanation. Every social gathering is a conspiracy against the rest.
The economy stuff is easy, if you don't mind me quoting myself:
+ Show Spoiler +On October 17 2011 21:18 Setev wrote:
Show nested quote +
Yes, I will say to you, why smoke at all if you know full well that you are funding criminals? And you said that you need to back up on stuff like buying new clothes and not taking airplanes? Clothes are a necessity of life. Travel by air is a necessity for people who do business or work overseas. They are necessary evils, from what you describe them.
But you smoking weed or not is totally not a necessity. And you chose to smoke weed. And you said you are forced to help criminals because the state made weed illegal (ie, not your fault, its the law's fault).
And I noticed that you said you buy your weed from your friend who grows his own weed from home. No ties to criminal elements. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I have no problem with that. I just don't agree with the concept that buying drugs = flying in aeroplanes to SEA countries = buying clothes = equal amounts of sin. No, buying and using drugs is disproportionately more sinful compared to the other two, and can be totally avoided if you choose to.
Ok, I'll make it simple for you.
1. You want to eat potatoes. You grow more than you eat. You sell some at low price to some friends.
2. Oh, shit, gangs took your potatoes.
3.Fortunately, you live in a civilized courty, potatoes are legal, the gang is arrested, and you get your potatoes back.
Endresult after iteration: You get money, you don't mind a little tax, everybody gets potatoes, the economy is booming.
1. So, you grow you own weed. It's not that hard. It's a weed, nature made it resilient.
2. So you're not a criminal, you don't own guns, you're a rational human being who smokes G sometimes and sells at low cost to some friends.
3. Oh sorry, gangs just took your weed. At gunpoint. Now, in a civilized county, a small business can count on the cops to help him out. Not so if you grow.
So you
4.A)Go out of business
B)hide yourself real good
C)get guns yourself.
After Iteration you have: Smokers who have trouble finding weed, because the good guys are hiding, and a thriving black economy that doesn't pay taxes and gets people shot.
Now, to make growing weed even better, the cops are the most dangerous gang around. Get the picture?
I think the problem is one in argumentation by the Legalization lobby. On the one hand is the medical argument, which has had some success in at least decriminalizing the stuff. But I don't see it going beyond some pity-weed for sick people. Maybe it'll showcase some of the positive sides to the public. I'll help, but there's a knee jerk reaction: Just anyone can get the stuff for minor complaints! If you're really sick, you can get some (Not out of my Medicare Taxdollars!), but on the whole, you have to suffer.
On the other, concerning the recreational use, or more specifically, it's psycho-activity, the Drug lobby is just downplaying the issue. It's no big deal, addicts need treatment, it's no big deal to treat them, we can stop punishment, because it's no big deal. The problem is that here, the other side is actually correct: the legalization of cannabis is a huge fucking deal. It would be the the event of the century.
Why? You are what you eat, you are what you use. Along with the drug, come cultural modes or styles. It's been argued the heated arguments and the fierce resistance against the church of the 17th century Enlightenment was made possible by Widespread use of coffee. Before, people basically walked around drunk 24/7, because beer was the only thing to drink.
+ Show Spoiler +
Coffee, by the way, is the only drug that is now legalized as a right. You can sue your employer if he refuses to give you a coffee break. Basically, Coffee culture is so dominant right now, we stop seeing its edges. Arguably, through the sciences, coffee engineers, coffee programs and coffee launches satellites into orbit. I also think that's why some much stuff is made with hasty decisions nowadays. Combined with the ego-boost red meat gives, managers ramp up the production, and make sure the pack stays hunting together.
The cocaine driven CEO sees his profits expand while he budgets on the outsourced workers, wondering why the products other companies make start deteriorating.
I admire Steve Jobs for his LSD inspired vision, but boy, was he hard to take.
Whenever the conversation comes to drugs and creativity, someone shouts:
"Oh, so all I have to do is take psychedelics and I'll be brilliant."
If you can take it. I can't drink a bottle of vodka and stay standing. Some people can. Everyone's in distress about guys like that, but while piss drunk, he's having the time of his life. People like that are hard to be around. Nobody takes these guys seriously:
"Oh, so all I have to do is drink shot's every night, and I'll be guaranteed some great times"
Sure. And then what?
"Oh, so all we have to do is smoke weed and get along"
It's not that simple, and you know it. It's not about laziness, it's about education. High in a classroom, you're the equal of that professor, that teacher. You're the equal of the boss, the motherfucking president. Not in the sense that you are elevated to their level, which they would like as flattery, (Oh, I love the english language sometimes) but the sense of relating as one collection of cells to another. And people can't handle that.
We are dependent for our survival on the notion that someone somewhere knows. We walk around saying "Well, I don't really understand quantum physics, because I haven't studied it, and it's too hard and nobody really gets it anyway" Then suddenly, when you smoke some dank shit in the tub and this equation comes to mind and it there, and it's real, and it's as complete as anyone's with 20 years tenure in research. He might write it down with more rigor. But really, if you never experience that, or if your private revelation is incomplete or inconsistent, what good is his understanding doing you if you can't talk to him like a human being?
People talk about disrespect for authority. Well, since we've hopefully eliminated the people who don't know how to spell it, I'll proceed by eliminating those that don't know its meaning.
The word is derived from author. Highest Author-ity is given to those writers who can quote the most and the furthest back. This is in fact a theological means of ranking scripture.
Opposed to Authority is Originality, which means to come from the Origin. In it's monastic context, this is divinely inspired prophecy. Presumed is, in any case, that the Ultimate Authority of the Bible, and thus the world, is God.
In Europe there was in this fashion 1000 years of tradition which preserved the knowledge of the Greeks and Roman. The crux was continuous rewriting, books on books on books. Then, the source material appeared through centuries 10-14, this tradition was continued, and writing original research was nonexistant. Untill of course the Scientific Revolution
As they went along checking and absorbing the material, they incorporated the scaffolding as part of the building. It's as hard to make an accurate appraisal of the accomplishment, as it is for a fish to write a paper on fluid dynamics.
It's been so short a while that we evaluate law etsi Deus non daratur. Even if God didn't exist, these laws are binding to us. One piece of the scaffolding came down. To most people it is common sense now, but there are many cultures, with less strict record-keeping, more original texts and a far longer background of drug used religious exaltation. This is of course our current problem with Islam. We depend on the opium and hashish, we adore the visions these compounds give, but we do no want to give full way to the ontological confusion and magical thinking.
Legalizing cannabis means gradual reintroduction of equality. It means making the University universal. It means the end of measuring truth by dick-waving. It means that we demolish a structure which is now providing a steady stream of concented reality top-down in order to destribute it amongst the poor. Are the poor willing to educate themselves?
What would it look like if the Authorative voice of the TV presenter were suddenly equal to You? Tube? Informative? Superficial? Pornographic? That is what was set in motion in the 60's. The parents of those kinds literally saw society break down. But they had no internet.
So, the basic question before the United Nations is: Can we trust humanity with its own destiny?
|
On October 17 2011 22:09 Vorenius wrote:If I see someone who smokes 40 cigarettes a day, that's fine by me. It's their lungs, they can do what they want with them. If I see someone weighing 200 kg that's fine by me. It's their body, they can eat all the McDonald's they want to. If I see someone who reaches for the bottle the minute they wake up, that's fine by me. If I see someone who smokes weed every day, that's fine by me. If I see someone who likes to do heroin every day, that's fine by me. It should be their choice what they do with themselfs The problem arises, when some politicians have set a fixed line between what they personally think is okay and then force it onto everyone else. People looking for drugs are gonna find drugs. Only, as long as it's illegal they are fucking it up for everyone else by funding various criminal elements. Just legalize all that shit. Are they afraid everyone is gonna turn into drug users? I personally wouldn't touch heroin even if it was distributed by official sanatary clinics and was absolutely free. I doubt anyone I know would either. People keep away from drugs because they know it's unhealthy for them. Or they take them, knowing the dangers because they think the effects of them offset the dangers. I don't for a second believe availability is what is keeping anyone from doing drugs. Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 20:55 nick1689 wrote:
It depends. I work part-time in a chemist while Im at Uni, and Ive seen first hand how addiction to heroin is literally ruining people's lives - its a health issue, they want to get off, they want to be free from the addiction, but they literally cannot due to its effects. You should not be prejudice against these people
In my opinion there should only be prejudice when people use drugs so much that it begins to negatively affect other people, whilst at the same time they take no action, or try anything at all, to address their drug problem. But surely they knew heroin was bad for them before they started doing it? I have a hard time seeing people going "What's this heroin stuff? Sure, let me have one of that." and suddenly, before they know it, they are addicts. Yes there might have been a reason for them to start abusing it, but other people have been in the same position and chosen to not take heroin. They choose to take heroin, knowing the dangers, and now they suffer the consequenses.
The discussion isn't about whether politics should be able to restrict people's use of drugs. It's about whether or not non-users or "other-users" have any positive or negative ideas about drug users and whether or not they are justified.
That aside, of course you are fine with people messing up their own bodies - until you start paying the taxes that help create their rehab clinics and pay for their medical bills, as is the case in a great big part of the world. Legalization, if accompanied by a drug tax, could help solve that problem, but could also make it far worse due to an increased accessibility to drugs and therefore more users.
Sorry, but I'm not particularly fond of paying for the lung cancer treatment of a patient who largely knowingly inflicted it upon him/herself, to use the example of cigarettes.
|
On October 17 2011 22:21 Tincuradan wrote:I wanna ask: Why are the best drugs still illegal by international treaty? I mean, yes, some profits from alcohol companies. . But that can't be the whole truth, tobacco got what was coming to it with powerful lobbies and government on it's side. They know that if the economy as a whole would improve (and it would) they would profit. Yes, incompetence of legislators. But the people get the government it deserves. Even in an absolute monarchy, the King was the country incarnate. In fractal geometry you'd say the country was self-similar across scale. So making sure the people prospered was good for the kings health, and informing the king would keep the country safe in Nash's equillibrium. There are so many theories out on this one question, most are throwing up our shoulders and shouting conspiracy. But that's a non-explanation. Every social gathering is a conspiracy against the rest. The economy stuff is easy, if you don't mind me quoting myself: + Show Spoiler +On October 17 2011 21:18 Setev wrote:
Show nested quote +
Yes, I will say to you, why smoke at all if you know full well that you are funding criminals? And you said that you need to back up on stuff like buying new clothes and not taking airplanes? Clothes are a necessity of life. Travel by air is a necessity for people who do business or work overseas. They are necessary evils, from what you describe them.
But you smoking weed or not is totally not a necessity. And you chose to smoke weed. And you said you are forced to help criminals because the state made weed illegal (ie, not your fault, its the law's fault).
And I noticed that you said you buy your weed from your friend who grows his own weed from home. No ties to criminal elements. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I have no problem with that. I just don't agree with the concept that buying drugs = flying in aeroplanes to SEA countries = buying clothes = equal amounts of sin. No, buying and using drugs is disproportionately more sinful compared to the other two, and can be totally avoided if you choose to.
Ok, I'll make it simple for you.
1. You want to eat potatoes. You grow more than you eat. You sell some at low price to some friends.
2. Oh, shit, gangs took your potatoes.
3.Fortunately, you live in a civilized courty, potatoes are legal, the gang is arrested, and you get your potatoes back.
Endresult after iteration: You get money, you don't mind a little tax, everybody gets potatoes, the economy is booming.
1. So, you grow you own weed. It's not that hard. It's a weed, nature made it resilient.
2. So you're not a criminal, you don't own guns, you're a rational human being who smokes G sometimes and sells at low cost to some friends.
3. Oh sorry, gangs just took your weed. At gunpoint. Now, in a civilized county, a small business can count on the cops to help him out. Not so if you grow.
So you
4.A)Go out of business
B)hide yourself real good
C)get guns yourself.
After Iteration you have: Smokers who have trouble finding weed, because the good guys are hiding, and a thriving black economy that doesn't pay taxes and gets people shot.
Now, to make growing weed even better, the cops are the most dangerous gang around. Get the picture? I think the problem is one in argumentation by the Legalization lobby. On the one hand is the medical argument, which has had some success in at least decriminalizing the stuff. But I don't see it going beyond some pity-weed for sick people. Maybe it'll showcase some of the positive sides to the public. I'll help, but there's a knee jerk reaction: Just anyone can get the stuff for minor complaints! If you're really sick, you can get some (Not out of my Medicare Taxdollars!), but on the whole, you have to suffer. On the other, concerning the recreational use, or more specifically, it's psycho-activity, the Drug lobby is just downplaying the issue. It's no big deal, addicts need treatment, it's no big deal to treat them, we can stop punishment, because it's no big deal. The problem is that here, the other side is actually correct: the legalization of cannabis is a huge fucking deal. It would be the the event of the century. Why? You are what you eat, you are what you use. Along with the drug, come cultural modes or styles. It's been argued the heated arguments and the fierce resistance against the church of the 17th century Enlightenment was made possible by Widespread use of coffee. Before, people basically walked around drunk 24/7, because beer was the only thing to drink. + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsFxH2zdi_Y Coffee, by the way, is the only drug that is now legalized as a right. You can sue your employer if he refuses to give you a coffee break. Basically, Coffee culture is so dominant right now, we stop seeing its edges. Arguably, through the sciences, coffee engineers, coffee programs and coffee launches satellites into orbit. I also think that's why some much stuff is made with hasty decisions nowadays. Combined with the ego-boost red meat gives, managers ramp up the production, and make sure the pack stays hunting together. The cocaine driven CEO sees his profits expand while he budgets on the outsourced workers, wondering why the food made by his cousin tastes like cardboard nowadays. I admire Steve Jobs for his LSD inspired vision, but boy, was he hard to take. "Oh, so all I have to do is take psychedelics and I'll be brilliant." If you can take it. I can't drink a bottle of vodka and stay standing. Some people can. Everyone's in distress about guys like that, but while piss drunk, he's having the time of his life. People like that are hard to be around. Nobody takes this guys seriously: "Oh, so all I have to do is drink shot's every night, and I'll be guaranteed some great times" Sure. And then what? "Oh, so all we have to do is smoke weed and get along" It's not that simple, and you know it. It's not about laziness, it's about education. High in a classroom, you're the equal of that professor, that teacher. You're the equal of the boss, the motherfucking president. Not in the sense that you are elevated to their level, which they would like as flattery, (Oh, I love the english language sometimes) but the sense of relating as one collection of cells to another. And people can't handle that. We are dependent for our survival on the notion that someone somewhere knows. We walk around saying "Well, I don't really understand quantum physics, because I haven't studied it, and it's too hard and nobody really gets it anyway" Then suddenly, when you smoke some dank shit in the tub and this equation comes to mind and it there, and it's real, and it's as complete as anyone's with 20 years tenure in research. He might write it down with more rigor. But really, if you never experience that, or if your private revelation is incomplete or inconsistent, what good is his understanding doing you if you can't talk to him like a human being? People talk about disrespect for authority. Well, since we've hopefully eliminated the people who don't know how to spell it, I'll proceed by eliminating those that don't know its meaning. The word is derived from author. Highest Author-ity is given to those writers who can quote the most and the furthest back. This is in fact a theological means of ranking scripture. Opposed to Authority is Originality, which means to come from the Origin. In it's monastic context, this is divinely inspired prophecy. Presumed is, in any case, that the Ultimate Authority of the Bible, and thus the world, is God. Ending Authority means calling an end to a 1000 years of tradition which preserved the knowledge of the Greeks and Roman. It's as hard to make an accurate appraisal of that accomplishment, as it is for a fish to write a paper on fluid dynamics. On the other hand, as we go along absorbing the material, we incorporate the scaffolding as part of the building. It's been so short a while that we evaluate law etsi Deus non daratur. Even if God didn't exist, these laws are binding to us. Is that enough for you? Legalizing cannabis means gradual reintroduction of equality. It means making the University universal. It means the end of measuring truth by dick-waving. It means that we demolish a structure which is now providing a steady stream of concented reality top-down in order to destribute it amongst the poor. Are the poor willing to educate themselves? What would it look like if the Authorative voice of the TV presenter were suddenly equal to You? Tube? Informative? Superficial? Pornographic? That is what was set in motion in the 60's. The parents of those kinds literally saw society break down. But they had no internet. So, the basic question before the United Nations is: Can we trust humanity with its own destiny?
Dude, whatever you're smoking I want some
|
I'm only against mind-altering products. For me, do whatever the hell you want, we're gonna have a problem if it affects others. I really don't give a f about legality, economy.
Smoking? Well, you still function normally in mental sense.
Over eating? Same.
Drugs? This I disagree. Especially those highly addictive ones. You won't know what the person might do, he isn't himself. He might hurt himself or worst others. It affects his mind to do whatever it takes to just get the same high. He becomes an annoyance to other people.
Drinking? People act stupid when they are intoxicated.
|
Ok, let's stipulate that drug addicts are a "minority".
If so, are there any other minorities that share the characteristic "untrustworthy"?
It's prejudice, sure - against the few exceptions, but have you ever met a junkie you can trust? They live in a different world to the rest of us. Things we value, they don't - they'd sell off almost anything to fuel their addiction.
I'm not talking about recreational users, i'm talking about the group of people you've mentioned here - active habitual drug users.
Sentimental affection, appreciation of the little things, profound love and mutual attraction. All things that define our very humanity. For a junkie all of that is great, but to them the beauty of life is diminished in comparison to chasing the total stimulation of the ultimate high.
Btw OP, do you discriminate against members of cults? Like, religious sects? Mao called religion 'an opium for the people' and in many ways i agree. If the state religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism) in their most common forms are the Alcohol and Tobacco of the religious world, heavy drug use (Heroin, Crack, Meth) would equal fanatical religious extremism.
Would you not discriminate against fundamentalists, even if their beliefs had no "victims" other than the practitioners themselves?
Meh,.. Stupid and doomed thread.
|
On October 17 2011 11:39 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 11:34 Antoine wrote:
people don't choose to be black or female.
they choose to use drugs/smoke/drink etc
this is the critical difference.
to address your above post, at some point the person made the choice to start. Prejudice mean to pre-judge. It doesn't matter whether the characteristic is chosen or not, you can still judge someone for it. Personally, I don't find anything wrong with any kind of prejudice. Most prejudices have quite a lot of truth to them, which is why they exist in the first place. Prejudice doesn't say that 100% of X people are a certain way, just that statistically they tend to be a certain way according to a criteria. For example, science has firmly established that there are distinct advantages that each sex has over the other. To be prejudiced, or "sexist" as it is incorrectly called, is absolutely rational, and in many cases prejudice is necessary for survival. Are you going to assume that berry is going to make you sick just because a similar looking berry made you sick in the past? I sure hope so, otherwise political correctness has completely eradicated common sense.
I like the opinion I quotted.
I have prejudice against drug users. I think they can be more likely dangerous (aggressive etc.) because their perception or thinking is somehow influenced by drugs.
I automatically dislike mariujana users like any smoker out there who forces me to breathe their smoke.
|
|
|
The most common recreational drugs (weed,tobacco and alcohol) are as much of a "victimless crime" today as homosexuality was half a century ago, meaning the existence of a prejudice against the former now is no better than the massive and socially destructive prejudice that existed against the later then...
|
On October 17 2011 22:31 theSkareqro wrote:
I'm only against mind-altering products. For me, do whatever the hell you want, we're gonna have a problem if it affects others. I really don't give a f about legality, economy.
Smoking? Well, you still function normally in mental sense.
Over eating? Same.
Drugs? This I disagree. Especially those highly addictive ones. You won't know what the person might do, he isn't himself. He might hurt himself or worst others. It affects his mind to do whatever it takes to just get the same high. He becomes an annoyance to other people.
Drinking? People act stupid when they are intoxicated.
/facepalm
http://www.thedailytransmission.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Distorted.jpg
36 people died due to meth abuse in Scotland from 1990-2000
there were 10 times more deaths from Tylenol than meth
people see the newspaper stories and watch tv shows and movies where the junkies are almost dead and distort the statistics to be greater than they really are. the truth is for every junkie homeless on the street there are 10 recreational users who are functioning in society. the truth is that alcohol and nicotine take more lives than most illegal drugs put together. don't even get me started on prescription -related deaths.
|
On October 17 2011 22:28 bonifaceviii wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 22:21 Tincuradan wrote:I wanna ask: Why are the best drugs still illegal by international treaty? I mean, yes, some profits from alcohol companies. . But that can't be the whole truth, tobacco got what was coming to it with powerful lobbies and government on it's side. They know that if the economy as a whole would improve (and it would) they would profit. Yes, incompetence of legislators. But the people get the government it deserves. Even in an absolute monarchy, the King was the country incarnate. In fractal geometry you'd say the country was self-similar across scale. So making sure the people prospered was good for the kings health, and informing the king would keep the country safe in Nash's equillibrium. There are so many theories out on this one question, most are throwing up our shoulders and shouting conspiracy. But that's a non-explanation. Every social gathering is a conspiracy against the rest. The economy stuff is easy, if you don't mind me quoting myself: + Show Spoiler +On October 17 2011 21:18 Setev wrote:
Show nested quote +
Yes, I will say to you, why smoke at all if you know full well that you are funding criminals? And you said that you need to back up on stuff like buying new clothes and not taking airplanes? Clothes are a necessity of life. Travel by air is a necessity for people who do business or work overseas. They are necessary evils, from what you describe them.
But you smoking weed or not is totally not a necessity. And you chose to smoke weed. And you said you are forced to help criminals because the state made weed illegal (ie, not your fault, its the law's fault).
And I noticed that you said you buy your weed from your friend who grows his own weed from home. No ties to criminal elements. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I have no problem with that. I just don't agree with the concept that buying drugs = flying in aeroplanes to SEA countries = buying clothes = equal amounts of sin. No, buying and using drugs is disproportionately more sinful compared to the other two, and can be totally avoided if you choose to.
Ok, I'll make it simple for you.
1. You want to eat potatoes. You grow more than you eat. You sell some at low price to some friends.
2. Oh, shit, gangs took your potatoes.
3.Fortunately, you live in a civilized courty, potatoes are legal, the gang is arrested, and you get your potatoes back.
Endresult after iteration: You get money, you don't mind a little tax, everybody gets potatoes, the economy is booming.
1. So, you grow you own weed. It's not that hard. It's a weed, nature made it resilient.
2. So you're not a criminal, you don't own guns, you're a rational human being who smokes G sometimes and sells at low cost to some friends.
3. Oh sorry, gangs just took your weed. At gunpoint. Now, in a civilized county, a small business can count on the cops to help him out. Not so if you grow.
So you
4.A)Go out of business
B)hide yourself real good
C)get guns yourself.
After Iteration you have: Smokers who have trouble finding weed, because the good guys are hiding, and a thriving black economy that doesn't pay taxes and gets people shot.
Now, to make growing weed even better, the cops are the most dangerous gang around. Get the picture? I think the problem is one in argumentation by the Legalization lobby. On the one hand is the medical argument, which has had some success in at least decriminalizing the stuff. But I don't see it going beyond some pity-weed for sick people. Maybe it'll showcase some of the positive sides to the public. I'll help, but there's a knee jerk reaction: Just anyone can get the stuff for minor complaints! If you're really sick, you can get some (Not out of my Medicare Taxdollars!), but on the whole, you have to suffer. On the other, concerning the recreational use, or more specifically, it's psycho-activity, the Drug lobby is just downplaying the issue. It's no big deal, addicts need treatment, it's no big deal to treat them, we can stop punishment, because it's no big deal. The problem is that here, the other side is actually correct: the legalization of cannabis is a huge fucking deal. It would be the the event of the century. Why? You are what you eat, you are what you use. Along with the drug, come cultural modes or styles. It's been argued the heated arguments and the fierce resistance against the church of the 17th century Enlightenment was made possible by Widespread use of coffee. Before, people basically walked around drunk 24/7, because beer was the only thing to drink. + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsFxH2zdi_Y Coffee, by the way, is the only drug that is now legalized as a right. You can sue your employer if he refuses to give you a coffee break. Basically, Coffee culture is so dominant right now, we stop seeing its edges. Arguably, through the sciences, coffee engineers, coffee programs and coffee launches satellites into orbit. I also think that's why some much stuff is made with hasty decisions nowadays. Combined with the ego-boost red meat gives, managers ramp up the production, and make sure the pack stays hunting together. The cocaine driven CEO sees his profits expand while he budgets on the outsourced workers, wondering why the food made by his cousin tastes like cardboard nowadays. I admire Steve Jobs for his LSD inspired vision, but boy, was he hard to take. "Oh, so all I have to do is take psychedelics and I'll be brilliant." If you can take it. I can't drink a bottle of vodka and stay standing. Some people can. Everyone's in distress about guys like that, but while piss drunk, he's having the time of his life. People like that are hard to be around. Nobody takes this guys seriously: "Oh, so all I have to do is drink shot's every night, and I'll be guaranteed some great times" Sure. And then what? "Oh, so all we have to do is smoke weed and get along" It's not that simple, and you know it. It's not about laziness, it's about education. High in a classroom, you're the equal of that professor, that teacher. You're the equal of the boss, the motherfucking president. Not in the sense that you are elevated to their level, which they would like as flattery, (Oh, I love the english language sometimes) but the sense of relating as one collection of cells to another. And people can't handle that. We are dependent for our survival on the notion that someone somewhere knows. We walk around saying "Well, I don't really understand quantum physics, because I haven't studied it, and it's too hard and nobody really gets it anyway" Then suddenly, when you smoke some dank shit in the tub and this equation comes to mind and it there, and it's real, and it's as complete as anyone's with 20 years tenure in research. He might write it down with more rigor. But really, if you never experience that, or if your private revelation is incomplete or inconsistent, what good is his understanding doing you if you can't talk to him like a human being? People talk about disrespect for authority. Well, since we've hopefully eliminated the people who don't know how to spell it, I'll proceed by eliminating those that don't know its meaning. The word is derived from author. Highest Author-ity is given to those writers who can quote the most and the furthest back. This is in fact a theological means of ranking scripture. Opposed to Authority is Originality, which means to come from the Origin. In it's monastic context, this is divinely inspired prophecy. Presumed is, in any case, that the Ultimate Authority of the Bible, and thus the world, is God. Ending Authority means calling an end to a 1000 years of tradition which preserved the knowledge of the Greeks and Roman. It's as hard to make an accurate appraisal of that accomplishment, as it is for a fish to write a paper on fluid dynamics. On the other hand, as we go along absorbing the material, we incorporate the scaffolding as part of the building. It's been so short a while that we evaluate law etsi Deus non daratur. Even if God didn't exist, these laws are binding to us. Is that enough for you? Legalizing cannabis means gradual reintroduction of equality. It means making the University universal. It means the end of measuring truth by dick-waving. It means that we demolish a structure which is now providing a steady stream of concented reality top-down in order to destribute it amongst the poor. Are the poor willing to educate themselves? What would it look like if the Authorative voice of the TV presenter were suddenly equal to You? Tube? Informative? Superficial? Pornographic? That is what was set in motion in the 60's. The parents of those kinds literally saw society break down. But they had no internet. So, the basic question before the United Nations is: Can we trust humanity with its own destiny? Dude, whatever you're smoking I want some
I get the economic part about legalizing drugs. It gave me a new perspective, thanks. Legalizing drugs was never discussed seriously here in SEA.
But the rest....nvm.
|
Man you guys all seem to know some pretty messed up people.
I smoke weed every now and then (ok I use a vaporiser because tobacco smoke makes me feel ill), I go to the pub every now and then with my friends to try new ales and whiskeys, occasionally I even get drunk. In the past I've done ketamine, ecstasy and other club drugs but that was in my 'reckless youth', the whole point of which is to make mistakes to turn you into a fully functioning adult who can make educated decisions (and no I dont think taking drugs was a mistake, I just took too much because I was too young to know better).
I'm also doing a masters degree in physics, my project is modelling collisions from CERN, I also go climbing 3 times a week with friends and enjoy cooking, I know my films and used to play in a band so have a nice social circle there, I have a wide group of friends and I honestly cant think of many people who dont think I'm a nice, sociable guy.
I've met people who sit there telling me that all drugs are bad and they look down on people who do them (whilst they're getting drunk on some god aweful cheap vodka), every single one I've spoken to hasnt tried drugs, at all, they just spout the same nonsense again and again about it killing your brain and turning into a loser or becoming addicted and ruining your life, I even point out the hypocrisy of them drinking to them but they just say the most unbelievably condescending things about alcohol being easy to control and other drugs (which they havent tried) being dangerous and snaring you in the blink of an eye, the best is when they go out for a smoke after the conversation and I just sit there face palming.
The most well rounded people I know have all tried drugs, some still do them from time to time, others dont, thats not the point though, the point is people with overly negative opinions on drugs are the ones who have had no exposure to them directly, its exactly the same as 'violent video games' as gamers we all know games are fine, if you play too much you do turn a bit anitsocial and get a bit angry at life.
|
On October 17 2011 22:34 Thrill wrote:
Ok, let's stipulate that drug addicts are a "minority".
If so, are there any other minorities that share the characteristic "untrustworthy"?
It's prejudice, sure - against the few exceptions, but have you ever met a junkie you can trust? They live in a different world to the rest of us. Things we value, they don't - they'd sell off almost anything to fuel their addiction.
I'm not talking about recreational users, i'm talking about the group of people you've mentioned here - active habitual drug users.
Sentimental affection, appreciation of the little things, profound love and mutual attraction. All things that define our very humanity. For a junkie all of that is great, but to them the beauty of life is diminished in comparison to chasing the total stimulation of the ultimate high.
Btw OP, do you discriminate against members of cults? Like, religious sects? Mao called religion 'an opium for the people' and in many ways i agree. If the state religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism) in their most common forms are the Alcohol and Tobacco of the religious world, heavy drug use (Heroin, Crack, Meth) would equal fanatical religious extremism.
Would you not discriminate against fundamentalists, even if their beliefs had no "victims" other than the practitioners themselves?
Meh,.. Stupid and doomed thread.
Karl Marx:
"Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man—state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo."
Emphasis mine.
If religion is the opium of the people, then philosophy is the marijuana of the lunatic fringe.
|
On October 17 2011 22:21 Tincuradan wrote:
So, the basic question before the United Nations is: Can we trust humanity with its own destiny?
Aside from everything else in your post, which was thought provoking cause it was all arguments I've never heard, though I'm still trying to figure it out because you were pretty rambling, I'm looking at this line and wondering.
Did you just beat Dues Ex Human Revolution?
Edit:
On October 17 2011 22:51 adwodon wrote:
I smoke weed every now and then (ok I use a vaporiser because tobacco smoke makes me feel ill), I go to the pub every now and then with my friends to try new ales and whiskeys, occasionally I even get drunk. In the past I've done ketamine, ecstasy and other club drugs but that was in my 'reckless youth', the whole point of which is to make mistakes to turn you into a fully functioning adult who can make educated decisions (and no I dont think taking drugs was a mistake, I just took too much because I was too young to know better).
So I've been wondering about this as well. In the US ketamine is pretty commonly accepted as a very dangerous drug on almost the level of heroin, or at least on the level of heavy perscription opiate abuse (though they are different drugs in many ways, they are liked and used by the same groups). But in a lot of posts here (mostly from the UK) it has been referred to as a party drug. I've been around K and it wasn't pretty - do Americans have a much higher accepted dose or something? Or does the UK party that much harder? Seeing it compared to ecstasy is really confusing for me.
|
|
|
If somebody can smoke drugs while being reliable to themselves and most importantly others, I see no problems. You would never even notice... 
Spacetoaster, my friend, on K you don't feel you. Disassociation, what better way to party?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
