|
On October 18 2011 04:28 DarQraven wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 04:20 SupLilSon wrote:
Steve Jobs (RIP) said that his first LSD trip was one of the most influential moments in his life. And some other guy threw up and went into a 3-hour bad trip.
Three hours out of twelve?
Doesn't sound that bad man =)
|
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.
^
this. I am surprised no-one has made this distinction yet.
|
On October 18 2011 03:33 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 03:18 Laurence wrote:
Taking drugs is a "victimless crime?" How naive is that statement! How is it naive at all? If taking drugs is a crime, drinking alcohol is just as much of a crime. (In fact, alcohol is MUCH worse, if not then worst, for your health than most recreational drugs labeled elicit.) I guess eating fatty food and giving yourself heart disease is now a crime as well.
Not a crime, but not victimless either
|
On October 18 2011 04:32 _-NoMaN-_ 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. ^ this. I am surprised no-one has made this distinction yet.
A gay person isn't gay if they never decide to have gay sex. Therefore, being gay is a choice! Just like being an addict is a choice!
|
On October 18 2011 04:35 Ayabara wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 04:32 _-NoMaN-_ wrote: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. ^ this. I am surprised no-one has made this distinction yet. A gay person isn't gay if they never decide to have gay sex. Therefore, being gay is a choice! Just like being an addict is a choice!
Does that make people who are celibate not straight? o.O
|
On October 18 2011 04:30 AutomatonOmega wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 04:23 SupLilSon wrote:On October 18 2011 04:20 AutomatonOmega wrote:On October 18 2011 03:59 SupLilSon wrote:On October 18 2011 03:45 AutomatonOmega wrote:On October 17 2011 19:34 rhmiller907 wrote:I smoke pot occasionally and that hasn't stopped me from going to school or work. In my mind if someone can use drugs and still be a "productive" member of society then who cares. My friends dad smoked crack but he also owned his own business ran it quite successfully. My parents used to smoke pot and both of them are very successful. I myself drink alcohol smoke cigarettes and pot. I also go to school have two jobs and still find time to play SC2. It's all about moderation  . People that keep making this argument need to keep one thing in mind: The thing that is 'bad' about pot are the symptoms of its addiction, and addiction is SPECIFICALLY a genetic condition that applies to all such behaviors, and is qualified by the associated negative symptoms. If you don't have the genetic addictive condition, you won't get addicted (though you can still develop a dependency) and if you personally suffer no ill effects in your personal or professional life for smoking pot, then there's no problem. There's a lot of people out there who both have the addictive biology and suffer all the major consequences for extended pot use, and those are the ones that are 'addicts' in the literal sense. Sorry but you really need to provide a SOURCE to back up what you say. Because I'm fairly certain that you are wrong. On top of that, addictiveness is a much more complicated phenomenon than what you suggest. http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=54633Read the whole thing. Really? I'm glad I asked for a source because I would have never guessed who you were using for a "reliable source". You do realize that "Dr. Drew" is about as much as a legitimate doctor or scientific mind as Dr. Drew from TV or Howard Stern. He is a radio personality... FROM THE ARTICLE YOU LINKED: "The opinions expressed herein are the guest's alone and have not been reviewed by a WebMD physician. If you have questions about your health, you should consult your personal physician. This event is meant for informational purposes only." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drew_PinskyPretty sure he's more qualified than you. You of course can choose whether to disregard facts, but that's on a completely different axis.
Yea, my dad is a Neurologist who graduated from Johns Hopkins Medical School and I am a Biology student at University of Maryland, studying under professors who actually work in the scientific field. I'll choose to believe them over him. I'm sorry but Dr. Drew is hardly a reliable source.
|
On October 18 2011 04:28 DarQraven wrote:
Like I said, semantics. The only thing that 'drugs' such as caffeine and medication have in common with the real deal is the name and the fact that they do something to your brain.
The actually relevant part is what that 'something' is, though.
That "something" is just a matter of amplitude.
On October 18 2011 04:28 DarQraven wrote:
In caffeine's case, it makes you feel more awake, active.
The same could be said for cocaine. And yes, I'm speaking from first hand experience.
On October 18 2011 04:28 DarQraven wrote:
In aspirin's case, it dulls the pain senses.
I guess we're to ignore the widespread problem of addiction to prescription pain medication, then, because that's all it does too.
On October 18 2011 04:28 DarQraven wrote:
In shrooms' case, they make you trip balls.
So do antidepressants.
On October 18 2011 04:28 DarQraven wrote:
If your argument is that those commonplace drugs are remotely comparable in effect to 'real'-drugs taken for entertainment, I think you might think again about throwing words like "fools and hypocrites" around.
The Canadian government just had a huge debate on the merits of banning energy drinks from being sold to children because of caffeine (they didn't, they just went for putting an upper limit on the caffeine content and plastering them with warning labels that obviously will be ignored). So these "semantic" arguments really do matter.
|
On October 18 2011 04:38 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 04:30 AutomatonOmega wrote:On October 18 2011 04:23 SupLilSon wrote:On October 18 2011 04:20 AutomatonOmega wrote:On October 18 2011 03:59 SupLilSon wrote:On October 18 2011 03:45 AutomatonOmega wrote:On October 17 2011 19:34 rhmiller907 wrote:I smoke pot occasionally and that hasn't stopped me from going to school or work. In my mind if someone can use drugs and still be a "productive" member of society then who cares. My friends dad smoked crack but he also owned his own business ran it quite successfully. My parents used to smoke pot and both of them are very successful. I myself drink alcohol smoke cigarettes and pot. I also go to school have two jobs and still find time to play SC2. It's all about moderation . People that keep making this argument need to keep one thing in mind: The thing that is 'bad' about pot are the symptoms of its addiction, and addiction is SPECIFICALLY a genetic condition that applies to all such behaviors, and is qualified by the associated negative symptoms. If you don't have the genetic addictive condition, you won't get addicted (though you can still develop a dependency) and if you personally suffer no ill effects in your personal or professional life for smoking pot, then there's no problem. There's a lot of people out there who both have the addictive biology and suffer all the major consequences for extended pot use, and those are the ones that are 'addicts' in the literal sense. Sorry but you really need to provide a SOURCE to back up what you say. Because I'm fairly certain that you are wrong. On top of that, addictiveness is a much more complicated phenomenon than what you suggest. http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=54633Read the whole thing. Really? I'm glad I asked for a source because I would have never guessed who you were using for a "reliable source". You do realize that "Dr. Drew" is about as much as a legitimate doctor or scientific mind as Dr. Drew from TV or Howard Stern. He is a radio personality... FROM THE ARTICLE YOU LINKED: "The opinions expressed herein are the guest's alone and have not been reviewed by a WebMD physician. If you have questions about your health, you should consult your personal physician. This event is meant for informational purposes only." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drew_PinskyPretty sure he's more qualified than you. You of course can choose whether to disregard facts, but that's on a completely different axis. Yea, my dad is a Neurologist who graduated from Johns Hopkins Medical School and I am a Biology student at University of Maryland, studying under professors who actually work in the scientific field. I'll choose to believe them over him. I'm sorry but Dr. Drew is hardly a reliable source.
And what do they say about addiction? Please, if I'm wrong to consider Drew Pinsky (A member of ASAM) a reliable source considering his background, feel free to, rather than flaming and trolling, educate.
|
On October 18 2011 04:28 DarQraven wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 04:20 SupLilSon wrote:
Steve Jobs (RIP) said that his first LSD trip was one of the most influential moments in his life. And some other guy threw up and went into a 3-hour bad trip.
And that is fine.. everyone has a unique and personal experience/reaction. All I was trying to point out was that success and drug use are most definitely not tied together.
|
"Is being uncomfortable around people who use drugs just because they use drugs just as bad as racism or sexism?"
I can't believe this is a real thought that someone had. Goddamnit, it takes two seconds of logical thinking to realize how ridiculous that comparison is. Choice: Not Choice: Not Choice. Done. Stupid shit like this is why people hate stoners.
Where does my prejudice against stupid people fit in with all of this???
|
On October 18 2011 04:36 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 04:35 Ayabara wrote:On October 18 2011 04:32 _-NoMaN-_ wrote: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. ^ this. I am surprised no-one has made this distinction yet. A gay person isn't gay if they never decide to have gay sex. Therefore, being gay is a choice! Just like being an addict is a choice! Does that make people who are celibate not straight? o.O
Sarcasm!
Straight people are straight. Gay people are gay. Addicts are addicts. They are all predetermined conditions, that is to say, there is no choice to be made. An addict is an addict for life, from the moment they are born to the day they die, they will struggle with their condition.
And in what world, exactly, can anyone live in where people will go through their entire life without ever using a drug? Alcohol, medicinal opiates, marijuana... they are all very prevalent and most people use them without every having an addiction problem. Only those who are prone to addiction will become addicted.
But I guess no one ever should use any mind altering drugs just to be safe!
|
On October 18 2011 04:41 AutomatonOmega wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 04:38 SupLilSon wrote:On October 18 2011 04:30 AutomatonOmega wrote:On October 18 2011 04:23 SupLilSon wrote:On October 18 2011 04:20 AutomatonOmega wrote:On October 18 2011 03:59 SupLilSon wrote:On October 18 2011 03:45 AutomatonOmega wrote:On October 17 2011 19:34 rhmiller907 wrote:I smoke pot occasionally and that hasn't stopped me from going to school or work. In my mind if someone can use drugs and still be a "productive" member of society then who cares. My friends dad smoked crack but he also owned his own business ran it quite successfully. My parents used to smoke pot and both of them are very successful. I myself drink alcohol smoke cigarettes and pot. I also go to school have two jobs and still find time to play SC2. It's all about moderation . People that keep making this argument need to keep one thing in mind: The thing that is 'bad' about pot are the symptoms of its addiction, and addiction is SPECIFICALLY a genetic condition that applies to all such behaviors, and is qualified by the associated negative symptoms. If you don't have the genetic addictive condition, you won't get addicted (though you can still develop a dependency) and if you personally suffer no ill effects in your personal or professional life for smoking pot, then there's no problem. There's a lot of people out there who both have the addictive biology and suffer all the major consequences for extended pot use, and those are the ones that are 'addicts' in the literal sense. Sorry but you really need to provide a SOURCE to back up what you say. Because I'm fairly certain that you are wrong. On top of that, addictiveness is a much more complicated phenomenon than what you suggest. http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=54633Read the whole thing. Really? I'm glad I asked for a source because I would have never guessed who you were using for a "reliable source". You do realize that "Dr. Drew" is about as much as a legitimate doctor or scientific mind as Dr. Drew from TV or Howard Stern. He is a radio personality... FROM THE ARTICLE YOU LINKED: "The opinions expressed herein are the guest's alone and have not been reviewed by a WebMD physician. If you have questions about your health, you should consult your personal physician. This event is meant for informational purposes only." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drew_PinskyPretty sure he's more qualified than you. You of course can choose whether to disregard facts, but that's on a completely different axis. Yea, my dad is a Neurologist who graduated from Johns Hopkins Medical School and I am a Biology student at University of Maryland, studying under professors who actually work in the scientific field. I'll choose to believe them over him. I'm sorry but Dr. Drew is hardly a reliable source. And what do they say about addiction? Please, if I'm wrong to consider Drew Pinsky (A member of ASAM) a reliable source considering his background, feel free to, rather than flaming and trolling, educate.
Addiction is not a completely genetic phenomenon. Yes, there is a large degree of genetic disposition involved, but it is not entirely governed by your DNA. Every substance has it's own addictive properties. Some substances are just chemically more addictive than others, regardless of the user. For example, caffeine and nicotine are among the most addictive substances whereas THC is among the least addictive. Furthermore, it is folly to completely disregard the nurture side. Your upbringing and environment can heavily influence whether or not something becomes an addiction. Also, almost anything can become an addiction, it doesn't have to have clear negative consequences. Some people are addicted to exercise, some people are addicted to food, some people are addicted to porn.
|
On October 18 2011 04:48 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 04:41 AutomatonOmega wrote:On October 18 2011 04:38 SupLilSon wrote:On October 18 2011 04:30 AutomatonOmega wrote:On October 18 2011 04:23 SupLilSon wrote:On October 18 2011 04:20 AutomatonOmega wrote:On October 18 2011 03:59 SupLilSon wrote:On October 18 2011 03:45 AutomatonOmega wrote:On October 17 2011 19:34 rhmiller907 wrote:I smoke pot occasionally and that hasn't stopped me from going to school or work. In my mind if someone can use drugs and still be a "productive" member of society then who cares. My friends dad smoked crack but he also owned his own business ran it quite successfully. My parents used to smoke pot and both of them are very successful. I myself drink alcohol smoke cigarettes and pot. I also go to school have two jobs and still find time to play SC2. It's all about moderation . People that keep making this argument need to keep one thing in mind: The thing that is 'bad' about pot are the symptoms of its addiction, and addiction is SPECIFICALLY a genetic condition that applies to all such behaviors, and is qualified by the associated negative symptoms. If you don't have the genetic addictive condition, you won't get addicted (though you can still develop a dependency) and if you personally suffer no ill effects in your personal or professional life for smoking pot, then there's no problem. There's a lot of people out there who both have the addictive biology and suffer all the major consequences for extended pot use, and those are the ones that are 'addicts' in the literal sense. Sorry but you really need to provide a SOURCE to back up what you say. Because I'm fairly certain that you are wrong. On top of that, addictiveness is a much more complicated phenomenon than what you suggest. http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=54633Read the whole thing. Really? I'm glad I asked for a source because I would have never guessed who you were using for a "reliable source". You do realize that "Dr. Drew" is about as much as a legitimate doctor or scientific mind as Dr. Drew from TV or Howard Stern. He is a radio personality... FROM THE ARTICLE YOU LINKED: "The opinions expressed herein are the guest's alone and have not been reviewed by a WebMD physician. If you have questions about your health, you should consult your personal physician. This event is meant for informational purposes only." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drew_PinskyPretty sure he's more qualified than you. You of course can choose whether to disregard facts, but that's on a completely different axis. Yea, my dad is a Neurologist who graduated from Johns Hopkins Medical School and I am a Biology student at University of Maryland, studying under professors who actually work in the scientific field. I'll choose to believe them over him. I'm sorry but Dr. Drew is hardly a reliable source. And what do they say about addiction? Please, if I'm wrong to consider Drew Pinsky (A member of ASAM) a reliable source considering his background, feel free to, rather than flaming and trolling, educate. Addiction is not a completely genetic phenomenon. Yes, there is a large degree of genetic disposition involved, but it is not entirely governed by your DNA. Every substance has it's own addictive properties. Some substances are just chemically more addictive than others, regardless of the user. For example, caffeine and nicotine are among the most addictive substances whereas THC is among the least addictive. Furthermore, it is folly to completely disregard the nurture side. Your upbringing and environment can heavily influence whether or not something becomes an addiction. Also, almost anything can become an addiction, it doesn't have to have clear negative consequences. Some people are addicted to exercise, some people are addicted to food, some people are addicted to porn.
So what makes something more 'addictive'? Isn't it the amount of serotonin or dopamine the drug makes the brain release?
|
On October 18 2011 04:28 DarQraven wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 04:12 DamnCats wrote:On October 18 2011 04:07 DarQraven wrote:On October 18 2011 02:29 TheGlassface wrote:On October 18 2011 00:53 RoosterSamurai wrote:On October 18 2011 00:51 TheGlassface wrote:
Wow @ responses.
I mean, wow.
There are good and bad people of all kinds. Everyone uses drugs, from caffeine to alcohol to meth to opiates to ADHD medication. I personally have met meth addicts who maintained a 6 figure income and family. I've met an alcoholic who graduated cum laudi, who happened to write all of his finals on mescaline. I've also seen a man robbed over a 20 sack of weed and personally been at the hands of several bad encounters with addicts.
Don't blame the drug, blame the person.
Wow. I really did not expect what I saw here.
Not everyone uses drugs/alcohol of some kind. Aspirin is a drug. Caffeine is a drug. Any kind of medication for disorders, also drugs. So, you're right but it's a minority. A very small minority. Most people don't even know they're using some kind of drug every day. Semantics. TheGlassFace is 100 percent correct here. Every single person who works in an office in this country can tell you how addicted people are to caffeine, which happens to be... a psychoactive stimulant! Hypocrites and fools. Like I said, semantics. The only thing that 'drugs' such as caffeine and medication have in common with the real deal is the name and the fact that they do something to your brain. The actually relevant part is what that 'something' is, though. In caffeine's case, it makes you feel more awake, active. In aspirin's case, it dulls the pain senses. In shrooms' case, they make you trip balls. If your argument is that those commonplace drugs are remotely comparable in effect to 'real'-drugs taken for entertainment, I think you might think again about throwing words like "fools and hypocrites" around. I'm not gonna bother explaining all that again, I already did some pages back.
Yea, people who don't think the comparison between caffeine and something like cocaine is legitimate are fools and hypocrites. Let's go down the list:
Comes from a plant? check, and check.
Acts as a CNS stimulant? check, and check.
Makes you feel more alert and awake? check, check checkity check check check.
Don't take caffeine after a long period of use? Become irritable and get headaches/feel like crap.
Don't take cocaine after a long period of use? Become irritable (maybe slightly easier) and feel like crap.
Shit if you want to compare more I bet you could find someone who has tripped harder off fucking cough medicine (DXM) than something like shrooms or LSD.
|
On October 18 2011 04:38 SupLilSon wrote:
Yea, my dad is a Neurologist who graduated from Johns Hopkins Medical School and I am a Biology student at University of Maryland, studying under professors who actually work in the scientific field. I'll choose to believe them over him. I'm sorry but Dr. Drew is hardly a reliable source.
Wikipedia:
BA Amherst College[5]
MD University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine of USC
Residency Internal Medicine, Huntington Memorial Hospital
Board Certified, American Board of Internal Medicine[29]
Board Certified, American Board of Addiction Medicine[30]
Certified member of American Society of Addiction Medicine since 1990[31]
Member of American College of Physicians
Licensed Physician and Surgeon in the State of California since 1985[6]
I hope to one day live in a world where these credentials would make you a "reliable source", because right now the majority of doctors wouldn't be considered a "reliable source" on their dedicated field of study, I guess...
|
You are shallow and a shitty person if you judge someone for something like this.
Might as well look down on people who enjoy swimming, or roller coasters. Those are choices too.
|
On October 18 2011 04:48 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 04:41 AutomatonOmega wrote:On October 18 2011 04:38 SupLilSon wrote:On October 18 2011 04:30 AutomatonOmega wrote:On October 18 2011 04:23 SupLilSon wrote:On October 18 2011 04:20 AutomatonOmega wrote:On October 18 2011 03:59 SupLilSon wrote:On October 18 2011 03:45 AutomatonOmega wrote:On October 17 2011 19:34 rhmiller907 wrote:I smoke pot occasionally and that hasn't stopped me from going to school or work. In my mind if someone can use drugs and still be a "productive" member of society then who cares. My friends dad smoked crack but he also owned his own business ran it quite successfully. My parents used to smoke pot and both of them are very successful. I myself drink alcohol smoke cigarettes and pot. I also go to school have two jobs and still find time to play SC2. It's all about moderation . People that keep making this argument need to keep one thing in mind: The thing that is 'bad' about pot are the symptoms of its addiction, and addiction is SPECIFICALLY a genetic condition that applies to all such behaviors, and is qualified by the associated negative symptoms. If you don't have the genetic addictive condition, you won't get addicted (though you can still develop a dependency) and if you personally suffer no ill effects in your personal or professional life for smoking pot, then there's no problem. There's a lot of people out there who both have the addictive biology and suffer all the major consequences for extended pot use, and those are the ones that are 'addicts' in the literal sense. Sorry but you really need to provide a SOURCE to back up what you say. Because I'm fairly certain that you are wrong. On top of that, addictiveness is a much more complicated phenomenon than what you suggest. http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=54633Read the whole thing. Really? I'm glad I asked for a source because I would have never guessed who you were using for a "reliable source". You do realize that "Dr. Drew" is about as much as a legitimate doctor or scientific mind as Dr. Drew from TV or Howard Stern. He is a radio personality... FROM THE ARTICLE YOU LINKED: "The opinions expressed herein are the guest's alone and have not been reviewed by a WebMD physician. If you have questions about your health, you should consult your personal physician. This event is meant for informational purposes only." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drew_PinskyPretty sure he's more qualified than you. You of course can choose whether to disregard facts, but that's on a completely different axis. Yea, my dad is a Neurologist who graduated from Johns Hopkins Medical School and I am a Biology student at University of Maryland, studying under professors who actually work in the scientific field. I'll choose to believe them over him. I'm sorry but Dr. Drew is hardly a reliable source. And what do they say about addiction? Please, if I'm wrong to consider Drew Pinsky (A member of ASAM) a reliable source considering his background, feel free to, rather than flaming and trolling, educate. Addiction is not a completely genetic phenomenon. Yes, there is a large degree of genetic disposition involved, but it is not entirely governed by your DNA. Every substance has it's own addictive properties. Some substances are just chemically more addictive than others, regardless of the user. For example, caffeine and nicotine are among the most addictive substances whereas THC is among the least addictive. Furthermore, it is folly to completely disregard the nurture side. Your upbringing and environment can heavily influence whether or not something becomes an addiction. Also, almost anything can become an addiction, it doesn't have to have clear negative consequences. Some people are addicted to exercise, some people are addicted to food, some people are addicted to porn.
What Pinsky stated was basically that what defines an addiction is the continuation of the behavior in the face of mounting consequences and being in denial.
To him (And I guess I agree on principle) you can partake in behaviors that are considered addictive otherwise but if there's no negative consequences for that behavior and you're not in denial about it, whether you're physically or psychologically dependent on it or not is irrelevant, you're not exactly 'addicted' in the literal sense.
You have the capacity to drop it and move on without the need to always be a 'recovering addict'. For a real addict, quitting is only one step of a complex and grueling process.
|
On October 18 2011 04:52 patzernuk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 04:38 SupLilSon wrote:
Yea, my dad is a Neurologist who graduated from Johns Hopkins Medical School and I am a Biology student at University of Maryland, studying under professors who actually work in the scientific field. I'll choose to believe them over him. I'm sorry but Dr. Drew is hardly a reliable source. Show nested quote +Wikipedia:
BA Amherst College[5]
MD University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine of USC
Residency Internal Medicine, Huntington Memorial Hospital
Board Certified, American Board of Internal Medicine[29]
Board Certified, American Board of Addiction Medicine[30]
Certified member of American Society of Addiction Medicine since 1990[31]
Member of American College of Physicians
Licensed Physician and Surgeon in the State of California since 1985[6]
I hope to one day live in a world where these credentials would make you a "reliable source", because right now the majority of doctors wouldn't be considered a "reliable source" on their dedicated field of study, I guess...
You do realize that he is a radio personality, much more invested in his own self promotion than public health or scientific knowledge. He does not work in the scientific community so why would you trust his outdated opinions on topics that are still being researched, relearned and revised?
Any doctor will tell you how much you fall behind on current medical knowledge if you are out of the field, new discoveries are made literally every day.
|
On October 18 2011 04:07 DarQraven wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 02:29 TheGlassface wrote:On October 18 2011 00:53 RoosterSamurai wrote:On October 18 2011 00:51 TheGlassface wrote:
Wow @ responses.
I mean, wow.
There are good and bad people of all kinds. Everyone uses drugs, from caffeine to alcohol to meth to opiates to ADHD medication. I personally have met meth addicts who maintained a 6 figure income and family. I've met an alcoholic who graduated cum laudi, who happened to write all of his finals on mescaline. I've also seen a man robbed over a 20 sack of weed and personally been at the hands of several bad encounters with addicts.
Don't blame the drug, blame the person.
Wow. I really did not expect what I saw here.
Not everyone uses drugs/alcohol of some kind. Aspirin is a drug. Caffeine is a drug. Any kind of medication for disorders, also drugs. So, you're right but it's a minority. A very small minority. Most people don't even know they're using some kind of drug every day. Semantics.
Not at all.
They used to treat illness with Opium, and cocaine. In order to address the stigma, we must first understand that the "common" drugs we use now are only looked at in favorable conditions because they are socially acceptable.
Ritalin is essentially speed, yet it's prescribed to children and adults alike world wide.
Xanax is used both for fun and regular uses by millions.
There are several medications that later get pulled due to health risks but are very beneficial up front.
Ecstasy has been proclaimed several times by modern psychologists and was originally started as a very effective treatment. Then, after exploding into the Dallas rave scene, it was scheduled.
So, just because we are ok with truckers cracking themselves out on increasingly large amount of caffeine and we're fine to put more and more analogues of amphetamine into fat burners and energy drinks does not make a hair of difference to me.
If people choose to put these items into themselves, that is their choice and what they do past that is all I'm concerned with. Again, the person not the drugs.
|
If I find out a person is a habitual drug user, (pot smoker we'll say) I'll hang out with them much less. If it's drugs worse than pot, they can find new drug friends. Cause I'm out.
If I wanted people to think I'm a hooker, I'd chill with Hookers all the time, and probably end up hookin' a bit. If I wanted them to think I was super into religion, I'd go to church all the time and chill with church folk. I'm sure you see where I'm going with this.
I don't want anyone to think I do drugs, so I a) don't do them and b) don't hang around people who do.
It's pretty cut and dry really. For me that is. This is coming from a guy who thinks smoking ANYthing is a completely stupid thing to do.
~my two cents~
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
