|
On October 20 2011 03:23 Tincuradan wrote:Show nested quote +´I personally am afraid that in fact it is a prejudice, and that my own personal discomfort associated with drug users, or even people who drink Alcohol in non-trivial quantities or use recreational Adderall, is just as wrong as other forms of discrimination. This is something I've begun dwelling on lately because my best friend has recently started dating someone who is addicted to pot, and I've managed to make her angry with me after expressing that I think she could do better. Am I in the wrong? OP: It's just as bad in principle, but my principles don't stop me from feeling uncomfortable around women and black people. It's a natural reaction to confrontation with a different perspective on reality. I try to change that, but I´m not perfect. Trying to convince people of an opposing standpoint on this issue is as useless as debating politics or religion. Most people don´t know enough about the issue to have a nuanced opinion. Best thing to do is listen. Trying to change them is as useless as trying to change women or blacks. Drug users are in a symbiotic relationship with a plant, changing their consciousness. Calling that fundamentally wrong or sinful is dangerous, because you assume you have a right to determine their subjective viewpoints (consciousness, internal chemistry, whatever you want to call it) But it´s difficult, because lot´s of people presume to have the rights to determine that stuff for other people. And maybe they do. I mean, any parent or anyone in education would say they have the right to have influence over what children experience. After turning 16, 18, or 21 we say they have to choose for themselves what they vote for, what religious denomination they take, whether or not to have sex and with what gender, what culture to immerse themselves into (Race is a cultural construct! Race is a cultural construct!), or even what gender they want to be. So, why do states still regard their citizens as children with regard to what they put in their body?
Well I think the fear stems from the fact that drugs impare cognitive function, and everyone is, every day, put in a position to hurt others. It's terrifying that an otherwise docile human being could become dangerous (though actual aggression OR poor decision making) simply because they made the choice to do drugs and "we" didn't choose to stop them.
I don't really think it's important whether or not it's their right to do drugs. We live in a world where, right or not, people do and will continue to do them. We have to decide how to operate in this world; I dunno, you tell me, would YOU be less inclined trust someone extremely close to your heart in the arms of a drunkard and a pothead, if you knew nothing else about him?
I just don't know.
|
On October 20 2011 03:36 UmiNotsuki wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2011 03:23 Tincuradan wrote:´I personally am afraid that in fact it is a prejudice, and that my own personal discomfort associated with drug users, or even people who drink Alcohol in non-trivial quantities or use recreational Adderall, is just as wrong as other forms of discrimination. This is something I've begun dwelling on lately because my best friend has recently started dating someone who is addicted to pot, and I've managed to make her angry with me after expressing that I think she could do better. Am I in the wrong? OP: It's just as bad in principle, but my principles don't stop me from feeling uncomfortable around women and black people. It's a natural reaction to confrontation with a different perspective on reality. I try to change that, but I´m not perfect. Trying to convince people of an opposing standpoint on this issue is as useless as debating politics or religion. Most people don´t know enough about the issue to have a nuanced opinion. Best thing to do is listen. Trying to change them is as useless as trying to change women or blacks. Drug users are in a symbiotic relationship with a plant, changing their consciousness. Calling that fundamentally wrong or sinful is dangerous, because you assume you have a right to determine their subjective viewpoints (consciousness, internal chemistry, whatever you want to call it) But it´s difficult, because lot´s of people presume to have the rights to determine that stuff for other people. And maybe they do. I mean, any parent or anyone in education would say they have the right to have influence over what children experience. After turning 16, 18, or 21 we say they have to choose for themselves what they vote for, what religious denomination they take, whether or not to have sex and with what gender, what culture to immerse themselves into (Race is a cultural construct! Race is a cultural construct!), or even what gender they want to be. So, why do states still regard their citizens as children with regard to what they put in their body? Well I think the fear stems from the fact that drugs impare cognitive function, and everyone is, every day, put in a position to hurt others. It's terrifying that an otherwise docile human being could become dangerous (though actual aggression OR poor decision making) simply because they made the choice to do drugs and "we" didn't choose to stop them. I don't really think it's important whether or not it's their right to do drugs. We live in a world where, right or not, people do and will continue to do them. We have to decide how to operate in this world; I dunno, you tell me, would YOU be less inclined trust someone extremely close to your heart in the arms of a drunkard and a pothead, if you knew nothing else about him? I just don't know.
I have a post somewhere up there on the culturally dependent effects of drugs. There is nothing about a drug that makes a person aggressive per se. I refer you to: http://www.sirc.org/publik/drinking3.html
All that being said, yes, it would be hard for me to come to terms with such a thing. If his drug use strikes me as extreme, extremists are not easy people to interact with.
I would be equally worried if someone close to me fell for a extremely devout christian, muslim, scientologist, neo-nazi or some other fringe group with strange ideas. I'd worry about her vulnerability to be sucked into such things and disregarding everything else.
But my worry would depend more on how good her quality of judgement is, rather than on the specific extremity of the guys she's dating.
This sounds like a very personal issue to me, and I have no idea of the emotional charge involved, but most important in these cases is keeping lines of communication open. And you touched on the key already already, trust. That´s a damn hard thing to summon, in any situation.
The most obvious way to find out if you can trust him, is talk to the guy, test the water, see if he uses to self-medicate some deeper issue, or if he has a proper handle on complex social situations without using drugs. And I guarantee, meeting your girlfriend's closest friends(/whatever your status) is a complex social situation.
And if that works satisfactory, please, part-take, and enjoy your life with people you love and people you don't know yet.
|
On October 20 2011 04:22 Tincuradan wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2011 03:36 UmiNotsuki wrote:On October 20 2011 03:23 Tincuradan wrote:´I personally am afraid that in fact it is a prejudice, and that my own personal discomfort associated with drug users, or even people who drink Alcohol in non-trivial quantities or use recreational Adderall, is just as wrong as other forms of discrimination. This is something I've begun dwelling on lately because my best friend has recently started dating someone who is addicted to pot, and I've managed to make her angry with me after expressing that I think she could do better. Am I in the wrong? OP: It's just as bad in principle, but my principles don't stop me from feeling uncomfortable around women and black people. It's a natural reaction to confrontation with a different perspective on reality. I try to change that, but I´m not perfect. Trying to convince people of an opposing standpoint on this issue is as useless as debating politics or religion. Most people don´t know enough about the issue to have a nuanced opinion. Best thing to do is listen. Trying to change them is as useless as trying to change women or blacks. Drug users are in a symbiotic relationship with a plant, changing their consciousness. Calling that fundamentally wrong or sinful is dangerous, because you assume you have a right to determine their subjective viewpoints (consciousness, internal chemistry, whatever you want to call it) But it´s difficult, because lot´s of people presume to have the rights to determine that stuff for other people. And maybe they do. I mean, any parent or anyone in education would say they have the right to have influence over what children experience. After turning 16, 18, or 21 we say they have to choose for themselves what they vote for, what religious denomination they take, whether or not to have sex and with what gender, what culture to immerse themselves into (Race is a cultural construct! Race is a cultural construct!), or even what gender they want to be. So, why do states still regard their citizens as children with regard to what they put in their body? Well I think the fear stems from the fact that drugs impare cognitive function, and everyone is, every day, put in a position to hurt others. It's terrifying that an otherwise docile human being could become dangerous (though actual aggression OR poor decision making) simply because they made the choice to do drugs and "we" didn't choose to stop them. I don't really think it's important whether or not it's their right to do drugs. We live in a world where, right or not, people do and will continue to do them. We have to decide how to operate in this world; I dunno, you tell me, would YOU be less inclined trust someone extremely close to your heart in the arms of a drunkard and a pothead, if you knew nothing else about him? I just don't know. I have a post somewhere up there on the culturally dependent effects of drugs. There is nothing about a drug that makes a person aggressive per se. I refer you to: http://www.sirc.org/publik/drinking3.htmlAll that being said, yes, it would be hard for me to come to terms with such a thing. If his drug use strikes me as extreme, extremists are not easy people to interact with. I would be equally worried if someone close to me fell for a extremely devout christian, muslim, scientologist, neo-nazi or some other fringe group with strange ideas. I'd worry about her vulnerability to be sucked into such things and disregarding everything else. But my worry would depend more on how good her quality of judgement is, rather than on the specific extremity of the guys she's dating. This sounds like a very personal issue to me, and I have no idea of the emotional charge involved, but most important in these cases is keeping lines of communication open. And you touched on the key already already, trust. That´s a damn hard thing to summon, in any situation. The most obvious way to find out if you can trust him, is talk to the guy, test the water, see if he uses to self-medicate some deeper issue, or if he has a proper handle on complex social situations without using drugs. And I guarantee, meeting your girlfriend's closest friends(/whatever your status) is a complex social situation. And if that works satisfactory, please, part-take, and enjoy your life with people you love and people you don't know yet.
Reading this post was a though-provoking experience. Thank you.
|
Drug use is a choice (though addiction or, for example, genetic predisposition to alcoholism can affect your agency in that choice). The aspects of race, sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, disability, etc. that are typically protected against discrimination under law are not choices, or are fundamental enough to the livelihood of a person (e.g. religion) so as to be considered a basic right or facet of humanity. Irrespective of recreational vs. chronic drug use; the severity of the drugs; the harm that the drug does or does not do, and to whom that harm is done, there is an essential difference between prejudice against drug users and the other aforementioned categories for this reason. As such, it is entirely up to each person to determine subjectively how they feel about drug use, and furthermore how they feel about others who are drug users.
I personally don't have anything but pity for those who choose to use drugs beyond a responsible, recreational level, but I have only enmity for stoners and addicts who gripe about the stigma and judgment they experience in the eyes of others.
|
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/17805504
There, go watch that and listen to some real talk.
He says a great thing about weed about 25ish minutes in.
Check it and understand, Marijuana doesn't make you a loser.
|
On October 20 2011 04:33 SweetClyde wrote:
Drug use is a choice (though addiction or, for example, genetic predisposition to alcoholism can affect your agency in that choice). The aspects of race, sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, disability, etc. that are typically protected against discrimination under law are not choices, or are fundamental enough to the livelihood of a person (e.g. religion) so as to be considered a basic right or facet of humanity. Irrespective of recreational vs. chronic drug use; the severity of the drugs; the harm that the drug does or does not do, and to whom that harm is done, there is an essential difference between prejudice against drug users and the other aforementioned categories for this reason. As such, it is entirely up to each person to determine subjectively how they feel about drug use, and furthermore how they feel about others who are drug users.
I personally don't have anything but pity for those who choose to use drugs beyond a responsible, recreational level, but I have only enmity for stoners and addicts who gripe about the stigma and judgment they experience in the eyes of others.
Do you believe it's just as much a right to do drugs as it is to judge people for doing them?
|
On October 20 2011 05:36 UmiNotsuki wrote:
Do you believe it's just as much a right to do drugs as it is to judge people for doing them?
Employers can't fire alcoholics because apparently it's considered to be discriminating against the disabled, so is there a right to judge people for doing drugs?
|
On October 20 2011 04:33 SweetClyde wrote:
Drug use is a choice (though addiction or, for example, genetic predisposition to alcoholism can affect your agency in that choice). The aspects of race, sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, disability, etc. that are typically protected against discrimination under law are not choices, or are fundamental enough to the livelihood of a person (e.g. religion) so as to be considered a basic right or facet of humanity. Irrespective of recreational vs. chronic drug use; the severity of the drugs; the harm that the drug does or does not do, and to whom that harm is done, there is an essential difference between prejudice against drug users and the other aforementioned categories for this reason. As such, it is entirely up to each person to determine subjectively how they feel about drug use, and furthermore how they feel about others who are drug users.
I personally don't have anything but pity for those who choose to use drugs beyond a responsible, recreational level, but I have only enmity for stoners and addicts who gripe about the stigma and judgment they experience in the eyes of others.
The aspects of race, sex and sexual orientation are not invariant constants. A black man can be required not to act or talk "black". A man might aspire to be extremely manly, and women might be required to hide their femininity. People attracted to the same sex often hide their orientation for a very long time. Although the disposition is innate, the choice is for to the individual, and the law enshrines the right to make a choice.
Likewise, as you say, basic disposition for drug use is often not a choice. Primitive cultures acknowledged this, and rather than expel such people, or prohibit their use, they instituted them as shamans. The border between medicine and "spirit plants" was pretty much nonexistent. Think about it, you're on an island with 5 more people, and one of them wants to smoke pot. Would you decide to put him in a cage? Or would you say: That's enough?
You acknowledge the basic right, but dislike the preference to be pushed to extremes in your presence. Lots of people dislike homosexuals being "openly gay", and they doubt the nessecity of Gay Prides. I could rewrite your post almost exactly. Now, you're entitled to your feelings, and I certainly think provoking people is the wrong way to go about achieving tolerance, but your conclusion of essential difference doesn't follow from the premises.
Also, you might have some considerations for the fact that it's currently international policy to incarcerate drug users as well as manufacturers. The stigma and judgment they experience is very real, even they if receive absolution if on a local level. And so it was until very recently with the protected aspects you mention.
|
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.
As if drugs never lead to the creation of wonderful things. If you are so against the use of drugs and the negative effects the spawn, go home take all your tapes all your cds and all your records and burn em. Because the artists who produced them, we're rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreal fucking high on drugs.
Matter of fact why don't you just go take all of your apple equipment and burn it, because Steve Jobs was part of the hippie movement and was associated with drugs.
Freud was a cocaine addict who has contributed more to psychology than 99% of non drug users.
The country you live in, was built on drugs. Between coffee, alcohol, and nicotine, you take them off of the shelves and see what it does for the economy. And if you would like to suggest to me that the 3 substances I stated aren't a drug maybe you need to look into reading comprehension, or have you head examined. After that you can remove all schedule 1-3 prescription narcotics, and see how well off we are then. All of which, for the most part, come from poppy. Man made heroin. But they stick it in a bottle put a price tag on it and sell it over a counter. The same drugs you suggest are harmful to the body, are sold over the counter, or with a prescription.
I'm not familiar with the enclosed box of a brain you live in, and I apologize if that comes off as offensive but notice where I bold. Since when did negative stigmas ever stone wall any non sheep of a human being from finding out the truth behind these stigmas. From what I've read it doesn't seem as if you yourself have delved into the world of drugs. Perhaps I'm wrong but your beliefs and opinions seem to be inherit. So for me you're argument is bias, skewed, null and void, that's all she wrote.
I can't say that drugs do wonders for everyone, because they don't. Drugs aren't the boogie monster but they're also not the fountain of youth.
My experience with drugs has definitely had its ups and downs. When I was I'm in my addiction I'm more of a full blown addict without much of a motive aside from sticking a needle in my arm. Regardless of my negative experience involving drugs, that doesn't justify me to believe they are the root of all evil with 0 benefit.
Everything in moderation, everything has a boiling point and without moderation it's bound to scald.
You wanna remove the debt? Legalize marijuana, and regulate it like alcohol.
No pun, suggesting from another side of the spectrum
On October 20 2011 01:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2011 01:39 SnetteL wrote:On October 19 2011 23:42 Dranak wrote:On October 19 2011 20:43 SnetteL wrote:
How can this community be this uptight?
How shallow can you be if your opinion of someone you know changes just because they use drugs? If you are sincere with other people you base your opinion on their behavior/actions. Whether they are using drugs or not should be as trivial as which kind of clothes they wear.
Exactly. You base your opinion on their actions, using drugs is an action, therefore it affects your opinion of them. T.T you are difficult. Everyone with half a brain can make a distinction between eating bread as an action or killing a baby. Sometimes things are implied because they make communication easier. As actions I obviously ent actions who are in any way related to other people. If they started eating illegal bread that somehow makes them non-functioning members of society, then my opinion of them would be changed.
So you're integrity, beliefs, and opinions come from laws made by other men?
edit: spelling, bold
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
