|
On October 18 2011 10:52 SpaceToaster wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 10:16 ghrur wrote:Since so many people seem to be misunderstanding my point, let me put this into bullet point format. Perhaps it'll help: - Negative stigmas are currently associated with drug use.
- Drugs are harmful to the body.
- Negative stigmas associated with drugs cause less kids to use them.
- Less kids' bodies are damaged by drugs.
- Less people need to go to the hospital.
- The burden on our healthcare system lessens.
- Negative stigmas are currently associated with drug use.
- Drugs are harmful to the brain.
- Negative stigmas associated with drugs cause less kids to use them.
- Less kids' brains are damaged by drugs.
- Less kids are hindered in their development.
- We end up with a healthier, smarter population.
Given that the end result is beneficial to society, why should we remove the negative stigmas/prejudices against drug use and drug users? Answer is we shouldn't. I disagree. You're thinking like an adult and thinking kids do too. Kids don't think that way. Negative stigmas and taboos tend to draw in the curiosities of teens, and if anything cause more kids to try drugs. Its been proven that the DARE program, which is the primary place schoolchildren learn about drugs, is not only ineffective, but may actually have the opposite effect of its intent. In addition negative stigmas can limit education about an issue and put those that break the taboo at a much greater risk than they would be otherwise.
God forbid he think and act like an adult  I'm pretty sure this thread calls for some mature, adult conversation. He has certainly justified why *he* thinks the way he does. He doesn't have to justify why an immature little kid (who, as you appropriately pointed out, doesn't have a sharp grasp on consequences yet) may respond to the OP any differently or act out his curiosity.
|
On October 18 2011 11:06 ghrur wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 10:52 SpaceToaster wrote:On October 18 2011 10:16 ghrur wrote:Since so many people seem to be misunderstanding my point, let me put this into bullet point format. Perhaps it'll help: - Negative stigmas are currently associated with drug use.
- Drugs are harmful to the body.
- Negative stigmas associated with drugs cause less kids to use them.
- Less kids' bodies are damaged by drugs.
- Less people need to go to the hospital.
- The burden on our healthcare system lessens.
- Negative stigmas are currently associated with drug use.
- Drugs are harmful to the brain.
- Negative stigmas associated with drugs cause less kids to use them.
- Less kids' brains are damaged by drugs.
- Less kids are hindered in their development.
- We end up with a healthier, smarter population.
Given that the end result is beneficial to society, why should we remove the negative stigmas/prejudices against drug use and drug users? Answer is we shouldn't. I disagree. You're thinking like an adult and thinking kids do too. Kids don't think that way. Negative stigmas and taboos tend to draw in the curiosities of teens, and if anything cause more kids to try drugs. Its been proven that the DARE program, which is the primary place schoolchildren learn about drugs, is not only ineffective, but may actually have the opposite effect of its intent. In addition negative stigmas can limit education about an issue and put those that break the taboo at a much greater risk than they would be otherwise. This can be equated to the taboo against premarital sex in the southern US. Despite the heavy religious taboo, rural Southern areas consistently have higher rates of teenage pregnancy than other areas of the country. This is because all the emphasis is put on "no", which while that does keep some kids abstinent, will not work 100% of the time. And for those kids that do have premarital sex, they have never been educated on safe sex or contraceptives. This can easily be paralleled to drug use. Drugs are illegal (or age restricted in the case of alcohol and tobacco), and there is a heavy stigma against drug use. All the emphasis is put on "drugs are bad, mmmkaaay", and that works for a certain number of kids. But it also makes other kids want to try drugs. For those that do they have no education on responsible use, what to avoid, who to avoid, etc. Now that's a fair point. Could it possibly be that the taboo lies precisely with the adults and not with the kids therefore kids are more prone to trying it? Suppose kids adopt this attitude too, then wouldn't peer pressure work against kids trying it as well? If that is correct, then the answer is not to abolish the prejudicial attitude toward drugs, but to expand it. Ah, but there I'm speculating. I like your parallel toward sex, but one problem with it is that sex education helps lower teenage pregnancy. However, if DARE hasn't helped curb drug use, then the parallel fails because education is not the answer to solving teen drug use. Furthermore, I'm not sure how many kids are prevented from drug use by the stigma compared to those who try it because of it. I apologize for my ignorance. I simply assumed more would be prevented from using it than those who would be tempted into trying it. It could very well be a false assumption. If it holds true, though, then our prejudice against drugs is still beneficial to society.
I hate the idea that "drugs" is the blanket term used to describe all illegal substances. You can't realistically sit there and talk about the negative effects of "drugs" without specifying which you are talking about, and the differences in each. I know it has been brought up numerous times in this thread, but there are methods of consuming marijuana in such a way that it has no negative long-term side effects whatsoever on the body (ie. vaporization/oral consumption.) It is unfair to throw marijuana in the same basket as cocaine or heroine.
There is NOTHING inherently wrong with the consumption of marijuana that even warrants the prejudices and stigma attached to it.
|
On October 18 2011 11:12 ryanAnger wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 11:06 ghrur wrote:On October 18 2011 10:52 SpaceToaster wrote:On October 18 2011 10:16 ghrur wrote:Since so many people seem to be misunderstanding my point, let me put this into bullet point format. Perhaps it'll help: - Negative stigmas are currently associated with drug use.
- Drugs are harmful to the body.
- Negative stigmas associated with drugs cause less kids to use them.
- Less kids' bodies are damaged by drugs.
- Less people need to go to the hospital.
- The burden on our healthcare system lessens.
- Negative stigmas are currently associated with drug use.
- Drugs are harmful to the brain.
- Negative stigmas associated with drugs cause less kids to use them.
- Less kids' brains are damaged by drugs.
- Less kids are hindered in their development.
- We end up with a healthier, smarter population.
Given that the end result is beneficial to society, why should we remove the negative stigmas/prejudices against drug use and drug users? Answer is we shouldn't. I disagree. You're thinking like an adult and thinking kids do too. Kids don't think that way. Negative stigmas and taboos tend to draw in the curiosities of teens, and if anything cause more kids to try drugs. Its been proven that the DARE program, which is the primary place schoolchildren learn about drugs, is not only ineffective, but may actually have the opposite effect of its intent. In addition negative stigmas can limit education about an issue and put those that break the taboo at a much greater risk than they would be otherwise. This can be equated to the taboo against premarital sex in the southern US. Despite the heavy religious taboo, rural Southern areas consistently have higher rates of teenage pregnancy than other areas of the country. This is because all the emphasis is put on "no", which while that does keep some kids abstinent, will not work 100% of the time. And for those kids that do have premarital sex, they have never been educated on safe sex or contraceptives. This can easily be paralleled to drug use. Drugs are illegal (or age restricted in the case of alcohol and tobacco), and there is a heavy stigma against drug use. All the emphasis is put on "drugs are bad, mmmkaaay", and that works for a certain number of kids. But it also makes other kids want to try drugs. For those that do they have no education on responsible use, what to avoid, who to avoid, etc. Now that's a fair point. Could it possibly be that the taboo lies precisely with the adults and not with the kids therefore kids are more prone to trying it? Suppose kids adopt this attitude too, then wouldn't peer pressure work against kids trying it as well? If that is correct, then the answer is not to abolish the prejudicial attitude toward drugs, but to expand it. Ah, but there I'm speculating. I like your parallel toward sex, but one problem with it is that sex education helps lower teenage pregnancy. However, if DARE hasn't helped curb drug use, then the parallel fails because education is not the answer to solving teen drug use. Furthermore, I'm not sure how many kids are prevented from drug use by the stigma compared to those who try it because of it. I apologize for my ignorance. I simply assumed more would be prevented from using it than those who would be tempted into trying it. It could very well be a false assumption. If it holds true, though, then our prejudice against drugs is still beneficial to society. I hate the idea that "drugs" is the blanket term used to describe all illegal substances. You can't realistically sit there and talk about the negative effects of "drugs" without specifying which you are talking about, and the differences in each. I know it has been brought up numerous times in this thread, but there are methods of consuming marijuana in such a way that it has no negative long-term side effects whatsoever on the body (ie. vaporization/oral consumption.) It is unfair to throw marijuana in the same basket as cocaine or heroine. There is NOTHING inherently wrong with the consumption of marijuana that even warrants the prejudices and stigma attached to it.
It's not a blanket term used to describe illegal substances. It's a term used to describe substances that alter the chemical functions of a human body. Marijuana fits perfectly under this term. There is no proven evidence whether or not marijuana is harmful long term. You can cite papers, and I can cite papers, and all we'll both see is inconsistent evidence. I understand it's far less harmful than alcohol, tobacco, and god forbid, even junk food, but that doesn't mean it's not harmful.
|
On October 18 2011 11:06 ghrur wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 10:52 SpaceToaster wrote:On October 18 2011 10:16 ghrur wrote:Since so many people seem to be misunderstanding my point, let me put this into bullet point format. Perhaps it'll help: - Negative stigmas are currently associated with drug use.
- Drugs are harmful to the body.
- Negative stigmas associated with drugs cause less kids to use them.
- Less kids' bodies are damaged by drugs.
- Less people need to go to the hospital.
- The burden on our healthcare system lessens.
- Negative stigmas are currently associated with drug use.
- Drugs are harmful to the brain.
- Negative stigmas associated with drugs cause less kids to use them.
- Less kids' brains are damaged by drugs.
- Less kids are hindered in their development.
- We end up with a healthier, smarter population.
Given that the end result is beneficial to society, why should we remove the negative stigmas/prejudices against drug use and drug users? Answer is we shouldn't. I disagree. You're thinking like an adult and thinking kids do too. Kids don't think that way. Negative stigmas and taboos tend to draw in the curiosities of teens, and if anything cause more kids to try drugs. Its been proven that the DARE program, which is the primary place schoolchildren learn about drugs, is not only ineffective, but may actually have the opposite effect of its intent. In addition negative stigmas can limit education about an issue and put those that break the taboo at a much greater risk than they would be otherwise. This can be equated to the taboo against premarital sex in the southern US. Despite the heavy religious taboo, rural Southern areas consistently have higher rates of teenage pregnancy than other areas of the country. This is because all the emphasis is put on "no", which while that does keep some kids abstinent, will not work 100% of the time. And for those kids that do have premarital sex, they have never been educated on safe sex or contraceptives. This can easily be paralleled to drug use. Drugs are illegal (or age restricted in the case of alcohol and tobacco), and there is a heavy stigma against drug use. All the emphasis is put on "drugs are bad, mmmkaaay", and that works for a certain number of kids. But it also makes other kids want to try drugs. For those that do they have no education on responsible use, what to avoid, who to avoid, etc. Now that's a fair point. Could it possibly be that the taboo lies precisely with the adults and not with the kids therefore kids are more prone to trying it? Suppose kids adopt this attitude too, then wouldn't peer pressure work against kids trying it as well? If that is correct, then the answer is not to abolish the prejudicial attitude toward drugs, but to expand it. Ah, but there I'm speculating. I like your parallel toward sex, but one problem with it is that sex education helps lower teenage pregnancy. However, if DARE hasn't helped curb drug use, then the parallel fails because education is not the answer to solving teen drug use. Furthermore, I'm not sure how many kids are prevented from drug use by the stigma compared to those who try it because of it. I apologize for my ignorance. I simply assumed more would be prevented from using it than those who would be tempted into trying it. It could very well be a false assumption. If it holds true, though, then our prejudice against drugs is still beneficial to society.
In response to your first point, all stigma's are created and perpetrated by adults. I guess it would be possible to make the stigma so strong that you basically dehumanize drug users, but you couldn't just "expand it" to children. I wouldn't agree with that, but that's the only way to make a stigma strong enough to curtail drug use.
You're a little off the mark on the sex ed/DARE comparison. Sex ed lowers teen pregnancy, not teen sex. It might even increase the amount of teen sex, but as far as I know that has not been the case, teenage hormone balls want to have sex after all. The parallel with that was in areas without sex-ed the negative effects of premarital sex are more pronounced because the safe way to do things was never taught. DARE is a program that only teaches a stigma, it doesn't teach the safe way to do things. I would make a case that a program that taught responsible use (probably focusing on how to responsibly drink or use tobacco) could decrease the harmful effects of drugs on society more than an abstinence based program.
Its really hard to say on the last point. As you can see in this thread, and as I have seen in my life, there are a lot of people that won't touch substances just because they've been told they were bad all their lives and they don't really ask questions. On the other hand a lot of people try drugs once and realize (sometimes falsely, you don't get the bad part of coke or tobacco the first time) that the stigma was unwarranted and excessive, and begin to push the limits. I will say its not common for someone to go out and say "I'm gonna go find pot cause dad told me not to," but that doesn't mean that the curiosity associated with the taboo nature of drugs doesn't affect a person's decision to do drugs when they are available.
|
I think there is a big differents between someone who smokes weed once and a while , then someone using crack , heroin, or other illegal "hard drugs".
Weed gets demonized so much when its really not even that bad for you. In some cases its medical use is very amazing. However if someone I knew did Meth or Crack or something to that affect then yes I think that being prejudice isn't a bad thing, because its more of a person I would watch my back from. Just for the fact they would be more likely to lie, cheat do whatever it takes for the harder drugs.
However for weed I see no problem with it and would not judge someone for that.
|
On October 18 2011 11:18 ghrur wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 11:12 ryanAnger wrote:On October 18 2011 11:06 ghrur wrote:On October 18 2011 10:52 SpaceToaster wrote:On October 18 2011 10:16 ghrur wrote:Since so many people seem to be misunderstanding my point, let me put this into bullet point format. Perhaps it'll help: - Negative stigmas are currently associated with drug use.
- Drugs are harmful to the body.
- Negative stigmas associated with drugs cause less kids to use them.
- Less kids' bodies are damaged by drugs.
- Less people need to go to the hospital.
- The burden on our healthcare system lessens.
- Negative stigmas are currently associated with drug use.
- Drugs are harmful to the brain.
- Negative stigmas associated with drugs cause less kids to use them.
- Less kids' brains are damaged by drugs.
- Less kids are hindered in their development.
- We end up with a healthier, smarter population.
Given that the end result is beneficial to society, why should we remove the negative stigmas/prejudices against drug use and drug users? Answer is we shouldn't. I disagree. You're thinking like an adult and thinking kids do too. Kids don't think that way. Negative stigmas and taboos tend to draw in the curiosities of teens, and if anything cause more kids to try drugs. Its been proven that the DARE program, which is the primary place schoolchildren learn about drugs, is not only ineffective, but may actually have the opposite effect of its intent. In addition negative stigmas can limit education about an issue and put those that break the taboo at a much greater risk than they would be otherwise. This can be equated to the taboo against premarital sex in the southern US. Despite the heavy religious taboo, rural Southern areas consistently have higher rates of teenage pregnancy than other areas of the country. This is because all the emphasis is put on "no", which while that does keep some kids abstinent, will not work 100% of the time. And for those kids that do have premarital sex, they have never been educated on safe sex or contraceptives. This can easily be paralleled to drug use. Drugs are illegal (or age restricted in the case of alcohol and tobacco), and there is a heavy stigma against drug use. All the emphasis is put on "drugs are bad, mmmkaaay", and that works for a certain number of kids. But it also makes other kids want to try drugs. For those that do they have no education on responsible use, what to avoid, who to avoid, etc. Now that's a fair point. Could it possibly be that the taboo lies precisely with the adults and not with the kids therefore kids are more prone to trying it? Suppose kids adopt this attitude too, then wouldn't peer pressure work against kids trying it as well? If that is correct, then the answer is not to abolish the prejudicial attitude toward drugs, but to expand it. Ah, but there I'm speculating. I like your parallel toward sex, but one problem with it is that sex education helps lower teenage pregnancy. However, if DARE hasn't helped curb drug use, then the parallel fails because education is not the answer to solving teen drug use. Furthermore, I'm not sure how many kids are prevented from drug use by the stigma compared to those who try it because of it. I apologize for my ignorance. I simply assumed more would be prevented from using it than those who would be tempted into trying it. It could very well be a false assumption. If it holds true, though, then our prejudice against drugs is still beneficial to society. I hate the idea that "drugs" is the blanket term used to describe all illegal substances. You can't realistically sit there and talk about the negative effects of "drugs" without specifying which you are talking about, and the differences in each. I know it has been brought up numerous times in this thread, but there are methods of consuming marijuana in such a way that it has no negative long-term side effects whatsoever on the body (ie. vaporization/oral consumption.) It is unfair to throw marijuana in the same basket as cocaine or heroine. There is NOTHING inherently wrong with the consumption of marijuana that even warrants the prejudices and stigma attached to it. It's not a blanket term used to describe illegal substances. It's a term used to describe substances that alter the chemical functions of a human body. Marijuana fits perfectly under this term. There is no proven evidence whether or not marijuana is harmful long term. You can cite papers, and I can cite papers, and all we'll both see is inconsistent evidence. I understand it's far less harmful than alcohol, tobacco, and god forbid, even junk food, but that doesn't mean it's not harmful.
Everything else that you might ever consume also fits perfectly under the term. My issue is that there is no differentiation between more harmful and less harmful substances, and that's a problem.
Additionally, how do you explain the positive public view of alcohol? Drinking alcohol makes you cool, drinking alcohol is great if you want to have a good time, etc.? Is this not a problem? Shouldn't this be changed?
Also, one of the major issues with marijuana being illegal is that it creates severe bias of any kind of research, and severely limits the amount of research that can be done in the first place. If it were legalized, we might be able to actually determine (without bias) what effects marijuana has on the body, and if there are any harmful or beneficial ones.
|
On October 18 2011 11:25 ryanAnger wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 11:18 ghrur wrote:On October 18 2011 11:12 ryanAnger wrote:On October 18 2011 11:06 ghrur wrote:On October 18 2011 10:52 SpaceToaster wrote:On October 18 2011 10:16 ghrur wrote:Since so many people seem to be misunderstanding my point, let me put this into bullet point format. Perhaps it'll help: - Negative stigmas are currently associated with drug use.
- Drugs are harmful to the body.
- Negative stigmas associated with drugs cause less kids to use them.
- Less kids' bodies are damaged by drugs.
- Less people need to go to the hospital.
- The burden on our healthcare system lessens.
- Negative stigmas are currently associated with drug use.
- Drugs are harmful to the brain.
- Negative stigmas associated with drugs cause less kids to use them.
- Less kids' brains are damaged by drugs.
- Less kids are hindered in their development.
- We end up with a healthier, smarter population.
Given that the end result is beneficial to society, why should we remove the negative stigmas/prejudices against drug use and drug users? Answer is we shouldn't. I disagree. You're thinking like an adult and thinking kids do too. Kids don't think that way. Negative stigmas and taboos tend to draw in the curiosities of teens, and if anything cause more kids to try drugs. Its been proven that the DARE program, which is the primary place schoolchildren learn about drugs, is not only ineffective, but may actually have the opposite effect of its intent. In addition negative stigmas can limit education about an issue and put those that break the taboo at a much greater risk than they would be otherwise. This can be equated to the taboo against premarital sex in the southern US. Despite the heavy religious taboo, rural Southern areas consistently have higher rates of teenage pregnancy than other areas of the country. This is because all the emphasis is put on "no", which while that does keep some kids abstinent, will not work 100% of the time. And for those kids that do have premarital sex, they have never been educated on safe sex or contraceptives. This can easily be paralleled to drug use. Drugs are illegal (or age restricted in the case of alcohol and tobacco), and there is a heavy stigma against drug use. All the emphasis is put on "drugs are bad, mmmkaaay", and that works for a certain number of kids. But it also makes other kids want to try drugs. For those that do they have no education on responsible use, what to avoid, who to avoid, etc. Now that's a fair point. Could it possibly be that the taboo lies precisely with the adults and not with the kids therefore kids are more prone to trying it? Suppose kids adopt this attitude too, then wouldn't peer pressure work against kids trying it as well? If that is correct, then the answer is not to abolish the prejudicial attitude toward drugs, but to expand it. Ah, but there I'm speculating. I like your parallel toward sex, but one problem with it is that sex education helps lower teenage pregnancy. However, if DARE hasn't helped curb drug use, then the parallel fails because education is not the answer to solving teen drug use. Furthermore, I'm not sure how many kids are prevented from drug use by the stigma compared to those who try it because of it. I apologize for my ignorance. I simply assumed more would be prevented from using it than those who would be tempted into trying it. It could very well be a false assumption. If it holds true, though, then our prejudice against drugs is still beneficial to society. I hate the idea that "drugs" is the blanket term used to describe all illegal substances. You can't realistically sit there and talk about the negative effects of "drugs" without specifying which you are talking about, and the differences in each. I know it has been brought up numerous times in this thread, but there are methods of consuming marijuana in such a way that it has no negative long-term side effects whatsoever on the body (ie. vaporization/oral consumption.) It is unfair to throw marijuana in the same basket as cocaine or heroine. There is NOTHING inherently wrong with the consumption of marijuana that even warrants the prejudices and stigma attached to it. It's not a blanket term used to describe illegal substances. It's a term used to describe substances that alter the chemical functions of a human body. Marijuana fits perfectly under this term. There is no proven evidence whether or not marijuana is harmful long term. You can cite papers, and I can cite papers, and all we'll both see is inconsistent evidence. I understand it's far less harmful than alcohol, tobacco, and god forbid, even junk food, but that doesn't mean it's not harmful. Everything else that you might ever consume also fits perfectly under the term. My issue is that there is no differentiation between more harmful and less harmful substances, and that's a problem. Additionally, how do you explain the positive public view of alcohol? Drinking alcohol makes you cool, drinking alcohol is great if you want to have a good time, etc.? Is this not a problem? Shouldn't this be changed? Also, one of the major issues with marijuana being illegal is that it creates severe bias of any kind of research, and severely limits the amount of research that can be done in the first place. If it were legalized, we might be able to actually determine (without bias) what effects marijuana has on the body, and if there are any harmful or beneficial ones.
If you want to make a distinction, then make one. What sorts of drugs are okay to discriminate against people for and what sorts aren't? Where do you draw the line and why?
|
On October 18 2011 07:32 Wrongspeedy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 07:19 AutomatonOmega wrote:On October 18 2011 07:12 oldgregg wrote:On October 18 2011 07:01 AutomatonOmega wrote:On October 18 2011 05:58 ryanAnger wrote:
Threads like these typically result in people like me getting angry at people like the guy who posted at the top of the page.
Ignorance and subordination has resulted in a negative stigma against Marijuana. People will always be judgmental and hypocritical, but it doesn't make it any easier for me to accept it.
I've been high. I've hung out with stoners for the last 16 years, was exposed to them for at least 8 before that. For every one person I've personally known who can handle daily cannabis consumption without a significant impact on several areas of their adult life, there's at least 5 who can't. And even the degree to which someone may be able to handle daily pot use is oftentimes on shaky ground. This isn't conjecture. I'm mildly autistic, everything I know about human behavior I had to observe. So please, don't consider me to be in the ignorant finger-pointing camp, because I'm not. I have very good reasons for considering non-recreational marijuana a huge waste. And that's the thing, half the people who say they use it recreationally are lying to themselves. If you use it every day, by yourself, nobody else to smoke with, and spend oftentimes hours in a day looking for more when you run out, and get irritable when you can't score any more, that's not recreational use. Well you must hang out with some pretty weird stoners then. For all of the stoners I know, smoking weed doesn't affect any part of their adult lives apart from the fact of having to buy weed occasionally. But then again both of our evidence is circumstantial, so neither of us can make any certain claims. Central Oregon. College town. Coincidentally, this town has a really bad job market. Might contribute to the amount of deadbeats around here. There is nothing to do in central Oregon, except hang out outside, that and its extremely easy to find around here/there. Weed definitely can be addictive (and I will never argue that inhaling burning debris isn't bad for you) so it definitely can have a negative impact on your life, but when you learn the facts or try if for yourself and see, you will easily see that caffeine, alcohol, and tobacco are all just as bad (if not X10 worse) for you than cannabis. The societal norm of weed is pure propaganda. And its sad that our government thinks its okay to legislate all the good that cannabis (and hemp) could do while supporting and making money off the others. Most doctors are glorified pill pushers that do nothing but prescribe people who don't need it heron in a pill form with a cute little bottle, that says its legal and okay. I know drug addicts and I have friends who would/have called themselves that. Sure I generally like to avoid hanging out with people who are drug "addicts" but these people are my friends and I have seen the good in them too. My uncle is a recovering Meth addict. I've always thought about him whenever hardcore drugs are ever brought up, I won't do anything but smoke weed because of those thoughts (okay maybe if I'm comfortable I might do another psychedelic at some point in the future). Addict is a word that will always come with a negative connotation because it implies someone is out of control, so yeah I guess I avoid those people, but I also try my hardest to never judge people.
Yah, I take a more 'dislike the addiction, pity the addict' approach myself.
Also, despite my arguments against weed use, I'm pro-legalization. Legalizing would solve a lot more problems than it creates.
|
everyone has their own choice to make. let them deal with the consequences (or lackthereof coming from a marijuana user)
|
On October 18 2011 10:16 ghrur wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 09:32 oldgregg wrote:On October 18 2011 09:18 ghrur wrote:
I think there's nothing wrong with being prejudiced against drug users. The fact is that 99% of the drugs out there have some form of physical damage, some form of detriment or side effect that will damage your body. A stigma will cause people to think twice before trying something possibly addictive and necessarily harmful. It creates a great disincentive to trying drugs for most kids. That means a healthier, smarter population. That means lessening the burden on our health industry. That means creating more and saving more for calling out recreational drug use for what it is: a detriment to society. We lose nothing by it, so why not? Are you including alcohol, tobacco and marijuana in your list of drugs? If so, then I feel sorry for you, it must be tiring work hating on most of the population. Plus, hating on someone doesn't remedy the problem, it just makes them hate you back. As for the health industry, well........ Half of the drugs doctors give out are addictive and harmful and don't actually solve the problem. Watch Louis Theroux's 'America's Medicated Kids' Who said anything about hate? Prejudiced against simply means I associate them with something negative. Furthermore, my argument is in support of a population associating drugs with a negative stigma. It doesn't say anything about my personal opinion on drug users, therefore why do you bring me into the equation at all? And I never mention the drugs doctors give out being any LESS harmful. Don't strawman and read the argument. The point is simple: Drugs currently have a negative stigma in society, therefore this drives kids away from them, therefore less people are addicted/damaged/etc. by them, therefore it benefits our society. I don't need your pity. I need you to address my argument. + Show Spoiler +On October 18 2011 09:55 Voltaire wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 09:18 ghrur wrote:
I think there's nothing wrong with being prejudiced against drug users. The fact is that 99% of the drugs out there have some form of physical damage, some form of detriment or side effect that will damage your body. A stigma will cause people to think twice before trying something possibly addictive and necessarily harmful. It creates a great disincentive to trying drugs for most kids. That means a healthier, smarter population. That means lessening the burden on our health industry. That means creating more and saving more for calling out recreational drug use for what it is: a detriment to society. We lose nothing by it, so why not? The physical damage from recreational drugs doesn't come until you've been using for a long time. That's not what kids will see; they will see their friends who have only just started doing it and they'll want to try. Are you prejudicial towards drug users personally? Do you think you are better than them? Substances are already legal (alcohol, tobacco) that are way worse for you than some illegal drugs. Why shouldn't those be legalized, or why shouldn't alcohol and tobacco be made illegal? I say make everything legal. The government doesn't need to legislate morality. Doing cocaine every day is more healthy than being incredibly obese. Should we have a stigma against fattening foods too? The burden drug users create on our health industry is ridiculously small compared to the burden the war on drugs has put on the prison system. The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world yet still significantly higher crime rates than nearly all other first world countries (it varies a ton depending on which areas and cities in the US, obviously) That's because of the war on drugs. Show nested quote +A 2008 study by Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron has estimated that legalizing drugs would inject $76.8 billion a year into the U.S. economy — $44.1 billion from law enforcement savings, and at least $32.7 billion in tax revenue ($6.7 billion from marijuana, $22.5 billion from cocaine and heroin, remainder from other drugs). Also, healthcare costs because of currently illegal recreational drug use would be much lower if they were legalized. There would be far less overdoses because people would be able to buy specific quantities of their drug. The way the system is currently set up, people have to buy drugs on the streets that are likely cut with other stuff, therefore they don't know the purity and can accidentally overdose even after years of experience. The price for illegal drugs would go way down if they were legalized. This is simple capitalism; they are incredibly inflated because of their legal status. There's no way a kilogram of cocaine would be able to sell for $30,000 (a lot more if it's sold in many small quantities) if it was legal. Addicts wouldn't have to spend all their money on getting their fix. Therefore they wouldn't have to resort to crime to fund their incredibly expensive addictions. I'm sure someone is going to argue that they will resort to crime anyways because they'll lose their jobs because of their addiction. That's not true for everyone, many addicts can hide it. Also, legalization will reduce crime, not completely eliminate it. It's still a way better scenario than the current one. Another thing legalization of all drugs would do is take away power from organized crime organizations. These organizations, like the Mexican cartels, are largely funded by the illegal drug trade. There is no way they could compete with actual companies who don't have to worry about hiding from the law, so if drugs were legalized they'd be out of business. There is no underground market anywhere close to the size of the drug trade, so it is evident that legalization would cause a massive blow to these organizations. Please tell me how a theoretical world where illegal drugs are all legalized would be worse than the current one we are in. The money wasted on the war on drugs is beyond ridiculous. Just look how alcohol (one of the more dangerous drugs out there) prohibition worked out and how alcohol is in our society today. Why couldn't it be like that for all drugs? I'll address your post the same way. Read my argument. Read your first paragraph. I NEVER talk about legalization nor government intervention. Where are you going? Why do you quote me at all? Do you read my point? It has NOTHING to do with legalization. Neither does the thread. My point is attaching a negative stigma to drugs, not whether or not drugs should be legalized. So, good strawman. Since so many people seem to be misunderstanding my point, let me put this into bullet point format. Perhaps it'll help: - Negative stigmas are currently associated with drug use.
- Drugs are harmful to the body.
- Negative stigmas associated with drugs cause less kids to use them.
- Less kids' bodies are damaged by drugs.
- Less people need to go to the hospital.
- The burden on our healthcare system lessens.
- Negative stigmas are currently associated with drug use.
- Drugs are harmful to the brain.
- Negative stigmas associated with drugs cause less kids to use them.
- Less kids' brains are damaged by drugs.
- Less kids are hindered in their development.
- We end up with a healthier, smarter population.
Given that the end result is beneficial to society, why should we remove the negative stigmas/prejudices against drug use and drug users? Answer is we shouldn't.
I interpreted your post as saying that keeping the stigma meant keeping the war on drugs going, as if it was a net gain to society. I was just saying why I do not think that is the case.
Anyways, at others have pointed out, negative stigmas associated with drugs don't actually deter kids from using them. But since this is an argument not about legality but about the morality of stereotyping which is entirely subjective, I don't see this thread really going anywhere.
|
Drugs have helped me get through 3 years of college, go to the gym everyday, put me in a good mood after having a shitty day. Drugs are fine. The Sun, girl drivers, tobacco, alcohol, unemployment, bad schools & teachers , texting, facebook should be made illegal.
Drugs that people do that i look down on involve needles or drugs that ruin family, cause people to steal for money etc.
|
|
|
I mean to what degree are we talking about when we say drug users.
If I was to use weed and what not, I fail to see how this will justify the prejudice of me being a terrible person? I love my family and friends and I uphold moral codes.
Now if i were to be a drug abuser and did terrible ACTIONS like stealing,lying etc...then I am a terrible person. But I am considered to be terribly only because of my actions which I have done. Drugs can lead to immoral conduct but not be the main source.
This is retarded. The views on this is disgusting. We should judge people on whether they live in moral conduct not based on if they used drugs...This is childish.
edit: I have friends who do use drugs. I am proud to call them my friends and trust them with my life because they are great people.
|
On October 18 2011 01:44 Deja Thoris wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 01:36 CounterOrder wrote:
Anyway, ive done around 85 different drugs and sadly im the most sane and down to earth person ive yet to meet, also easily the most knowledgeable.
Every drug ive done has had a far more positive affect on me and my life in general than negatives...
You should add modest to the list while you are on a roll. To add to your huge wealth of knowledge, its effect, not affect. I somehow get the impression that your post is slightly biased. Also, if all the drugs you've smoked, injected and snorted had net positive effects then you are in the minority.
Bah i always mess up effect and affect, ive never shot and never been addicted and i know im quite the excpeption thats why i dont encourage anyone else to do any drugs with out a good week or 2 of research, i feel that approach is best. Harm reduction is what we should be focusing on not hating those with the strenght to want to experience different states of consciousness> In this world of globablization there a fewer ideads followed by more people, its degenerative. Drugs can bring forth many new ideas.
In fact did you that the dna double helix was discovered because they guy doing the research did LSD and all of asudden he understood, drugs are drugs it simply how people use them.
PS: i really wish i wasnt eh exceptiopn, a fgood examply is a did oxy for 6 years but only on weekends for that whole time(never did more than 4 days in aeek and that was rare ussally only friday saterday, the same way most peopel drink,i dont feel addiction is hard to avoid but agian im the exception here aswell.
Its a terrible feeling to be controlled by something out of your control, thats why you have to know your limits and never just say "fuck it, lets get fucked".
Im wierd though the more a crave a drug the less i want it the feeling of not having controll turn me off enough that i dont care about getting anymore of said drug. Maybe i have the opposite of an addictive personality or just alot of will power and understanding that becoming hooked on somthing just isnt an opyion no matter what. Self control dudes!
PS: To respond to the comment that if all the drugs ive done have benefited me its simply because i spent alot of time researching all of them before trying them and knew how to use it safely and properly.
. People dont care to educate themselves on harm reduction. ALso i want to point out that physically opiates and psychedelics do no damage to body tissue and are among the safest drugs to comsume but in the case of opiates its funny cause they are the least harmfull but at the same time the most dangerous due to people not being properly educated and the potential of OD. With heroin and such it isnt the drug its the life style that hurts them all, they some how lose touch with everything and care of nothing else. Yes this is a problem but i guess my point is not al are like that and the people who are have a good chance of some sort of truama or anxiety or some sort of problem that they are trying to self medicate with. Really wth is up with judging people so strongly over something that should be every humans right. The amount of people who want destroy personal choice and freedom is really saddening.
PS: 9 year drug history if that means anything also 9 years of research. Been studying alot of different areas to fully understand how drugs work, they seem rather safe when not abused.
|
Amphetamines are taken everyday by millions of people. See: ADD meds. They all are perfectly fine because amphetamines at non recreational doses is basically harmless. Amphetamines aren't all meth...even though meth is a prescription drug called Desoxyn (wtf how is this shit legal).
Hallucinogens are harmless. You physically can't commit crimes while on them. Like I said before, it's a spiritual experience. It may not be for everyone but they are harmless. Everyone should try DMT
Opiates are highly addictive and personally I think the high is boring. I look forward to trying coke one day. Seems fun and it isn't that physically harmful, just addictive but I don't addicted to anything easily. Meth-not even once. Such a disgusting drug. It causes blisters and from what I have researched, the high is too intense.
|
The word drug is so loose now, Caffine for example is a drug.
Yes its a legal drug, but in some northern europe countries red bull/ energy drinks are illegal because taurine (a drug which is placed in it) has not gone through clinical trials.
There is a great british tv show called Horizon who has done some amazing in depth programs and one was called "is alchol worse than escatcy"
below is a link to an overview of the show
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/tx/drugs/survey/
the top 20 list of the drugs they looked into..
http://www.listology.com/list/top-twenty-most-dangerous-drugs-according-bbc-horizon
two Legal drugs (Alchol and Tabacco) are high on this list..
I am not against drug users and i have an open mind but it's clear some drugs are alot worse and if somebody told me they was a crack addict i would not be preduice against them however i would keep in my mind the emotional swings they would go through which would mean i would not want to be their friend / do business with them etc..
but if my mate invited me down the pub for a beer i would still say yes and be his friend lol :D espc if hes buying!
if you approach this subject with an OPEN mind you soon realize everything you need to know and its not all bad.
Edit:
FYI - Alot of scientists and other members of the medical community have all agreed that if alchol was invent today then it would be 100% Illegal.. just keep that mind. The reason it is Legal is because it has been for 100's of years.
|
On October 19 2011 00:30 La1 wrote:The word drug is so loose now, Caffine for example is a drug. Yes its a legal drug, but in some northern europe countries red bull/ energy drinks are illegal because taurine (a drug which is placed in it) has not gone through clinical trials. There is a great british tv show called Horizon who has done some amazing in depth programs and one was called "is alchol worse than escatcy" below is a link to an overview of the show http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/tx/drugs/survey/the top 20 list of the drugs they looked into.. http://www.listology.com/list/top-twenty-most-dangerous-drugs-according-bbc-horizontwo Legal drugs (Alchol and Tabacco) are high on this list.. I am not against drug users and i have an open mind but it's clear some drugs are alot worse and if somebody told me they was a crack addict i would not be preduice against them however i would keep in my mind the emotional swings they would go through which would mean i would not want to be their friend / do business with them etc.. but if my mate invited me down the pub for a beer i would still say yes and be his friend lol :D espc if hes buying! if you approach this subject with an OPEN mind you soon realize everything you need to know and its not all bad.
^^this right here
Any form of prejudice is wrong. It is stupid. It makes the world arrogant and ignorant.
|
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/feb/19/ecstasy-harm-brain-new-study
"study was carried out by a team led by Professor John Halpern of Harvard Medical School"
They determine with a much more thorough study than before that MDMA does not harm your brain the way some very flawed studies had shown. The best part of the article is the end where even though they realized what their article is saying, they had to add in something deterring people from using it.
"But the drug still posed risks, he said. 'Ecstasy consumption is dangerous because illegally made pills often contain contaminants that can have harmful side-effects.'"
Aka harvard medical school says that the only bad things about MDMA (aside from completely overdoing it on dosage obviously, which you can do with pretty much every single substance including water..) is the fact that thanks to prohibition you have no idea what the fuck you're buying except a little colorful pill and a hope that it's not rat poison.
|
Does Cannabis count as an illegal drug?
|
lets just all eat some acid and get on with playing starcraft
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
