This comes from a little personal realization of mine, and I'm wondering what you fine people of TL think about it. Is being uncomfortable around people who use drugs just because they use drugs just as bad as racism or sexism?
The arguments for both sides are this:
No, it is not prejudice: Prejudices such as racism and sexism are based on fallacies, such as the assumption that black people or Asians or women or even majorities are in some way inferior to other demographics because of one or more innate flaws within them. This doesn't apply to drug users because drug use is a quantifiable phenomenon that causes a noticeable decrease of perception, critical thought, and the like, making discrimination against drug users justified.
Yes, it is prejudice: People who are on drugs are committing what some call a "victimless crime," which some people may argue isn't a crime at all; the only one they are hurting are themselves. Assuming we only consider drugs which don't cause people to become more violent, such as marijuana or tobacco (which is a drug,) then there is no damage done to others around the drug user due to his or her drug use.
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?
Poll: Is prejudice against drug users wrong?
No (805)
66%
Yes (393)
32%
Other (Post below!) (29)
2%
1227 total votes
Your vote: Is prejudice against drug users wrong?
(Vote): Yes (Vote): No (Vote): Other (Post below!)
Poll: When an acquaintance tells you that he/ she uses illegal drugs...
It negatively affects your opinion of him/ her. (649)
56%
It depends on certain circumstances (explain in post). (224)
19%
It does not affect your opinion of him/ her. (214)
19%
It positively affects your opinion of him/ her. (65)
6%
1152 total votes
Your vote: When an acquaintance tells you that he/ she uses illegal drugs...
(Vote): It negatively affects your opinion of him/ her. (Vote): It positively affects your opinion of him/ her. (Vote): It does not affect your opinion of him/ her. (Vote): It depends on certain circumstances (explain in post).
EDIT: In an effort to curb the argument over the definition of prejudice and what exactly we're discussing here, I provide the following definition of "prejudice": "Preconceived opinion not based on reason or experience" I would also like to note that my use of that word was meant to be synonymous with "judging someone based solely on their drug use."
No. my mother and father were both big alcoholics. My best friend went completely wacked out on pot and almost got me in some bad places. I've seen drug use and abuse do nothing but hurt the people around me, and I certainly think very little of people who cannot find any other coping mechanism than to resort to warping their perception.
There's a big difference between the recreational marijuana user and an alcoholic or crack addict. One of those differences is that the latter has a huge negative impact on your life and the lives of those around you.
A truly dangerous drug addiction should absolutely be cause to terminate an employee, end a relationship, refuse to do business with, etc. Of course, what constitutes a "dangerous drug addiction" is open to interpretation.
I suppose that if someone tells me that they use drugs ( such as pot, meth, crack, or anything else ) i wouldn't want to be around them. and therefore I would be prejudiced.
On October 17 2011 11:28 TheLOLas wrote: I suppose that if someone tells me that they use drugs ( such as pot, meth, crack, or anything else ) i wouldn't want to be around them. and therefore I would be prejudiced.
Do you think it's prejudice? Or do you somehow justify not wanting to be around them?
If I said "I don't want to be around Mike because he's black," that's wrong. If I say "I don't want to be around Mike because he smokes pot," is that just as bad?
On October 17 2011 11:28 TheLOLas wrote: I suppose that if someone tells me that they use drugs ( such as pot, meth, crack, or anything else ) i wouldn't want to be around them. and therefore I would be prejudiced.
Do you think it's prejudice? Or do you somehow justify not wanting to be around them?
If I said "I don't want to be around Mike because he's black," that's wrong. If I say "I don't want to be around Mike because he smokes pot," is that just as bad?
I have an inherent fear of people who are actively high on PCP and Cocaine. Something about a man who can steamroll me into a bloody mess AFTER I shoot him in the chest 12 times just doesn't sit right with me.
I wouldn't want to be around someone who felt uncomfortable with others who used recreational drugs. Not because I find their prejudice misguided but because id find them to be a tad moronic. Also, there is a difference between drug user and drug abuser.
No it's not a prejudice, because it is based on reason. It's totally acceptable to judge someone by their actions. In fact, that's the only way to judge someone.
However, that doesn't mean you can't judge someone incorrectly, or place too much or too little value on certain actions.
On October 17 2011 11:28 TheLOLas wrote: I suppose that if someone tells me that they use drugs ( such as pot, meth, crack, or anything else ) i wouldn't want to be around them. and therefore I would be prejudiced.
Do you think it's prejudice? Or do you somehow justify not wanting to be around them?
If I said "I don't want to be around Mike because he's black," that's wrong. If I say "I don't want to be around Mike because he smokes pot," is that just as bad?
He can change being a pot head.
What about in the case of psychological or even physiological dependence on a drug? He sure can't stop then. Still not prejudice?
Please be aware I'm just curious what people think, not arguing one way or another.
On October 17 2011 11:32 Kingsp4de20 wrote: Yet to meet some one I respect or look up to who is a serious user...The people I have known who were addicts were pretty flaky and untrustworthy.
That's interesting. Does your history with flaky and untrustworthy addicts give you ground on which it's okay to judge other users?
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.
But does that decision give me right to discriminate against them anymore than their decision to, say, go to the bathroom at precisely 12:00 noon, or play with LEGO's at age 40?
On October 17 2011 11:28 TheLOLas wrote: I suppose that if someone tells me that they use drugs ( such as pot, meth, crack, or anything else ) i wouldn't want to be around them. and therefore I would be prejudiced.
Do you think it's prejudice? Or do you somehow justify not wanting to be around them?
If I said "I don't want to be around Mike because he's black," that's wrong. If I say "I don't want to be around Mike because he smokes pot," is that just as bad?
He can change being a pot head.
It's not about whether he can change, it's about whether he chose to become it. A child murderer can't change from being a child murderer but he definitely chose to murder a child.
On October 17 2011 11:22 UmiNotsuki wrote: This doesn't apply to drug users because drug use is a quantifiable phenomenon that causes a noticeable decrease of perception, critical thought, and the like, making discrimination against drug users justified.
You're grouping all drugs together. I suggest doing more research before generalizing the fact that they all decrease perception/critical thought and the like. I could easily just make the same claim on religion.
All drugs are different, some do cause a lot of harm, while others do very little. Look at any primary research being done on marijuana, ecstacy, shrooms, lsd and compare them to alcohol, heroin, cocaine, ketamines. You'll see a huge difference, where in some research papers will say taking marijuana/lsd/shrooms in moderate doses will actually improve some aspects of life (e.g. intelligence and happiness).
And in your situation I'd like to know if the person she's dating is actually 'addicted' to pot and whether or not it is causing harm to others in that partner's life. Otherwise you're basing your choice on a very biased poll that isn't related to your specific situation.
Making the conscious choice to harm your body using drugs or abusing alcohol =/= Being born a certain race or sexual orientation, so looking down on someone for making poor decisions is definitely not the same as looking down on someone for being born a certain way. The former way is justified; the latter is bigotry.
On October 17 2011 11:34 Antoine wrote: people don't choose to be black or female. they choose to use drugs/smoke/drink etc
this is the critical difference.
to address your above post, at some point the person made the choice to start.
Prejudice mean to pre-judge. It doesn't matter whether the characteristic is chosen or not, you can still judge someone for it.
Personally, I don't find anything wrong with any kind of prejudice. Most prejudices have quite a lot of truth to them, which is why they exist in the first place. Prejudice doesn't say that 100% of X people are a certain way, just that statistically they tend to be a certain way according to a criteria.
For example, science has firmly established that there are distinct advantages that each sex has over the other. To be prejudiced, or "sexist" as it is incorrectly called, is absolutely rational, and in many cases prejudice is necessary for survival. Are you going to assume that berry is going to make you sick just because a similar looking berry made you sick in the past? I sure hope so, otherwise political correctness has completely eradicated common sense.
On October 17 2011 11:26 Alay wrote: No. my mother and father were both big alcoholics. My best friend went completely wacked out on pot and almost got me in some bad places. I've seen drug use and abuse do nothing but hurt the people around me, and I certainly think very little of people who cannot find any other coping mechanism than to resort to warping their perception.
And yet their are hundreds of thousands of people who can drink every day or smoke put every day and function just fine in society. Just because your friends fucked up doesn't mean it was all the drugs fault. Why do you just assume its a coping method? Lots of people do it simply because they enjoy it! Some people like to spend their spare time playing sports, some video games and other like to drink or smoke? Why hold it against them?
a prejudice against ones life style is different than a hereditary attribute. You can not change your race or sex but you can choose to take drugs or not.
I was a heavy drug user for quite some time. Everyone except other drug users held judgement over me and avoided me.
Was it wrong for them not to associate with my risky life style? No. Did I blame them? No. But prejudiced is just the most god awful word you could choose to describe it.
How can you blame someone for not wanting to be around dangerous and usually illegal drug use. Victimless crime my ass. The only times you read that about heroin or cocaine is when it's the user trying to justify it for themselves.
This is a topic that I think about a LOT. I voted other, and I'll explain why:
Drug use is something that is incredibly integrated into our society. I can understand that, just how I wouldn't want to hang around somebody who skateboards a lot (because it's a pastime I don't enjoy), somebody who doesn't use drugs (and when I say drugs I mean "oh, those drugs") wouldn't enjoy the company of one who does use them for recreation.
A lot of the adverse affects are from a combination of the drug's function and the personality of the person using them. There are some people with very seriously addictive personalities - they allow themselves to become VERY dependent on a drug. Mix that personality with cocaine, a drug with high reinforcing properties, and you have what some may define as an addict.
People are going to judge whomever they like - stereotyping is a natural, human phenomenon. But, as somebody who smokes more marijuana than your average bear, I consider myself to be much more functional that may meet the eye. I study Biochemistry at undergrad, have aspirations of attending graduate school, and am in a very stable relationship with a girl who doesn't smoke. But people who use a fair amount of everyday drugs, consume alcohol like the majority does, and then paints other "drug users" in an unfriendly light is very naive and unaware of the nonsense bias they've created in their head.
I'm splurging a lot, and here's what I'll say: I think prejudice against drug users can be very warranted on a case-by-case basis, but I don't think enough responsibility lies on the user rather than the drug. People say that their friends and loved ones are captured by drugs, but a drug is a drug is a drug. It's what the person who uses it does when under the influence, and how often they use. Some drugs are addictive, but one has to acknowledge what brought the user to that point.
On October 17 2011 11:27 trainRiderJ wrote: A truly dangerous drug addiction should absolutely be cause to terminate an employee, end a relationship, refuse to do business with, etc. Of course, what constitutes a "dangerous drug addiction" is open to interpretation.
It shouldn't be. I've met enough heroin addicts to know that anyone addicted to the stuff is bad news. Either because they are constantly putting themselves in bad situations, showing up to your apartment with incredibly sketchy people, or trying to steal your shit, all in the name of shooting up. Only drugs powerful enough to cause that kind of addiction should truly be regarded as dangerous. This applies to alcohol, opiates, amphetamines, benzos, and cocaine.
Nicotine is honestly as addictive as many of the things listed above, but available in every corner store.
Am I the only one that thinks this is a way too open question to be able to debate it properly? There's all kinds of drugs, from the one you get from your doctor to the ones you buy in shady parts of town.
But all in all, I don't like beeing prejudiced at all. However, you do flash some warning labels in my mind of you use something like methamphetamines "recreationally".
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.
But does that decision give me right to discriminate against them anymore than their decision to, say, go to the bathroom at precisely 12:00 noon, or play with LEGO's at age 40?
Absolutely depending on the context. Not hiring someone because they do drugs is very different from not hiring someone because they play with legos. It can affect job performance (and you don't want someone bringing drugs into the office) and your business image, so in that context it's absolutely fine to discriminate, infact correct to.
On October 17 2011 11:22 UmiNotsuki wrote: This doesn't apply to drug users because drug use is a quantifiable phenomenon that causes a noticeable decrease of perception, critical thought, and the like, making discrimination against drug users justified.
You're grouping all drugs together. I suggest doing more research before generalizing the fact that they all decrease perception/critical thought and the like. I could easily just make the same claim on religion.
All drugs are different, some do cause a lot of harm, while others do very little. Look at any primary research being done on marijuana, ecstacy, shrooms, lsd and compare them to alcohol, heroin, cocaine, ketamines. You'll see a huge difference, where in some research papers will say taking marijuana/lsd/shrooms in moderate doses will actually improve some aspects of life (e.g. intelligence and happiness).
And in your situation I'd like to know if the person she's dating is actually 'addicted' to pot and whether or not it is causing harm to others in that partner's life. Otherwise you're basing your choice on a very biased poll that isn't related to your specific situation.
The science is there to say that all drugs (or almost all drugs, there are some off the beaten path counterexamples) cause harm to some degree; I don't think we can really disagree on that. As for religion... I don't want the thread to be derailed by this, but I think religion is just as bad as drug use (i.e., just as foolish,) but I don't discriminate against people for that because it's almost never their choice; instead, they were told that was the truth by their parents since birth and it's become a part of them, something they cannot change. Not their fault. I would prefer no one reply to that in this thread, PM me if you have something to say to me.
In my case, she's dating someone who's in a troubled situation and it's my personal opinion that he would not be able to deal with the withdrawal of stopping pot because he has a troubled life. I don't know if it causes harm because frankly it makes me so uncomfortable that he smokes that I'm not willing to find out. It's not like I can get her to stop dating him even if she really is in danger.
Lastly, I'm not basing a decision off the poll, I'm just curious what the TL community thinks. Polls are cool :D
I know i probably shouldn't be, but it fucking angers me, all the potheads at school. It's rather hard to explain, i think pot should be legalized, yet i dissaprove of anyone i know who uses it. Meh i guess i'm just retarded.
I think i suffer from the Holden Caulfield complex. There are often times where i'm like, i could see myself smoking, then i think later, smoking is fucking stupid.
I wouldn't class it as a prejudice equal to racism or sexism
On October 17 2011 11:42 dupshflayh wrote: Am I the only one that thinks this is a way too open question to be able to debate it properly? There's all kinds of drugs, from the one you get from your doctor to the ones you buy in shady parts of town.
But all in all, I don't like beeing prejudiced at all. However, you do flash some warning labels in my mind of you use something like methamphetamines "recreationally".
No, it isn't too open. The thread isn't about whether drug use should be tolerated. Its about whether judging someone based on their drug use is considered prejudice. And it's not. Its just judging someone based on their lifestyle choices. Choices they have complete control over.
I don't really like the wording of the poll. I felt compelled to vote "other" because I have different opinions on different drugs. The word "prejudice" is also kind of a loaded word implying that there is never anything wrong with drug use (not to say I'm against some forms of safe recreational drug use).
I think it is a prejudice if you think "drug users" are the same as "drug addicts". That said many prejudices people have about drug addicts are true. In a way its the same with the prejudices people have with gamers. Not every gamer is addicted to games and not every gamer is antisocial.
It's clear that half the people in this thread think that the word "prejudice" is synonymous with "looking down on people." Just like most people think "prejudice" and "racism" are the same thing, when clearly they are very different things.
I guess I would be wasting my time trying to swim against the current...
On October 17 2011 11:34 Antoine wrote: people don't choose to be black or female. they choose to use drugs/smoke/drink etc
this is the critical difference.
to address your above post, at some point the person made the choice to start.
Prejudice mean to pre-judge. It doesn't matter whether the characteristic is chosen or not, you can still judge someone for it.
Personally, I don't find anything wrong with any kind of prejudice. Most prejudices have quite a lot of truth to them, which is why they exist in the first place. Prejudice doesn't say that 100% of X people are a certain way, just that statistically they tend to be a certain way according to a criteria.
For example, science has firmly established that there are distinct advantages that each sex has over the other. To be prejudiced, or "sexist" as it is incorrectly called, is absolutely rational, and in many cases prejudice is necessary for survival. Are you going to assume that berry is going to make you sick just because a similar looking berry made you sick in the past? I sure hope so, otherwise political correctness has completely eradicated common sense.
Prejudice: Preconceived opinion not based on reason or experience. It's based on reason and/or experience. Therefore it's not prejudiced.
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.
But does that decision give me right to discriminate against them anymore than their decision to, say, go to the bathroom at precisely 12:00 noon, or play with LEGO's at age 40?
Going to the restroom at precisely 12:00 noon and playing with LEGO's at age 40 aren't harmful. I plan on playing LEGO's with my children if I have them at age 40. I steer clear of drug users because they become unpredictable when under the influence. Would I rather be in a car with a driver who does the above examples you mentioned, or a guy who took illegal substances just a few minutes ago?
Honestly, I think you're under the influence of something right now, OP. All of your counter-arguments are throwing wild examples of, "Yeah... but what if... [insert an example that covers maybe 0.1% of illegal substance users]." Merry-Go-Round.
On October 17 2011 11:34 Antoine wrote: people don't choose to be black or female. they choose to use drugs/smoke/drink etc
this is the critical difference.
to address your above post, at some point the person made the choice to start.
Prejudice mean to pre-judge. It doesn't matter whether the characteristic is chosen or not, you can still judge someone for it.
Personally, I don't find anything wrong with any kind of prejudice. Most prejudices have quite a lot of truth to them, which is why they exist in the first place. Prejudice doesn't say that 100% of X people are a certain way, just that statistically they tend to be a certain way according to a criteria.
For example, science has firmly established that there are distinct advantages that each sex has over the other. To be prejudiced, or "sexist" as it is incorrectly called, is absolutely rational, and in many cases prejudice is necessary for survival. Are you going to assume that berry is going to make you sick just because a similar looking berry made you sick in the past? I sure hope so, otherwise political correctness has completely eradicated common sense.
Prejudice: Preconceived opinion not based on reason or experience. It's based on reason and/or experience. Therefore it's not prejudiced.
Oh, I see...
So if a ginger robbed me, and I proceeded to assume that all gingers are thieves, it wouldn't be considered prejudice, because I have experience to back it up?
This is the problem with this thread and every discussion using these terms... everyone disagrees with what the terms actually mean!
On October 17 2011 11:47 Headlines wrote: Honestly, I think you're under the influence of something right now, OP. All of your counter-arguments are throwing wild examples of, "Yeah... but what if... [insert an example that covers maybe 0.1% of illegal substance users]." Merry-Go-Round.
The majority of illegal substance users would be pot smokers, most of which have normal functional lives.
Off topic, LEGOs are awesome no matter what your age is.
Poll: When an acquaintance tells you that he/ she uses illegal drugs...
It negatively affects your opinion of him/ her. (649)
56%
It depends on certain circumstances (explain in post). (224)
19%
It does not affect your opinion of him/ her. (214)
19%
It positively affects your opinion of him/ her. (65)
6%
1152 total votes
Your vote: When an acquaintance tells you that he/ she uses illegal drugs...
(Vote): It negatively affects your opinion of him/ her. (Vote): It positively affects your opinion of him/ her. (Vote): It does not affect your opinion of him/ her. (Vote): It depends on certain circumstances (explain in post).
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.
But does that decision give me right to discriminate against them anymore than their decision to, say, go to the bathroom at precisely 12:00 noon, or play with LEGO's at age 40?
Going to the restroom at precisely 12:00 noon and playing with LEGO's at age 40 aren't harmful. I plan on playing LEGO's with my children if I have them at age 40. I steer clear of drug users because they become unpredictable when under the influence. Would I rather be in a car with a driver who does the above examples you mentioned, or a guy who took illegal substances just a few minutes ago?
Honestly, I think you're under the influence of something right now, OP. All of your counter-arguments are throwing wild examples of, "Yeah... but what if... [insert an example that covers maybe 0.1% of illegal substance users]." Merry-Go-Round.
I think that's very fair, saying that it usually causes unpredictability; but unfortunately for me I know many people who smoke pot and are no different (at least outwardly) while under the influence, or are in fact less dangerous because of the calming affect. Sadly that doesn't serve to reduce my discomfort.
I smiled at you thinking I was on drugs xD I was just trying to provide some simple arguments for both sides of the story. I'm trying to refrain from having an opinion for now. But, FYI, I don't smoke, I don't drink, I don't do drugs. Ever.
On October 17 2011 11:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Here, this should be the poll imo:
Poll: When an acquaintance tells you that he/ she uses illegal drugs...
It negatively affects your opinion of him/ her. (649)
56%
It depends on certain circumstances (explain in post). (224)
19%
It does not affect your opinion of him/ her. (214)
19%
It positively affects your opinion of him/ her. (65)
6%
1152 total votes
Your vote: When an acquaintance tells you that he/ she uses illegal drugs...
(Vote): It negatively affects your opinion of him/ her. (Vote): It positively affects your opinion of him/ her. (Vote): It does not affect your opinion of him/ her. (Vote): It depends on certain circumstances (explain in post).
On October 17 2011 11:34 Antoine wrote: people don't choose to be black or female. they choose to use drugs/smoke/drink etc
this is the critical difference.
to address your above post, at some point the person made the choice to start.
Prejudice mean to pre-judge. It doesn't matter whether the characteristic is chosen or not, you can still judge someone for it.
Personally, I don't find anything wrong with any kind of prejudice. Most prejudices have quite a lot of truth to them, which is why they exist in the first place. Prejudice doesn't say that 100% of X people are a certain way, just that statistically they tend to be a certain way according to a criteria.
For example, science has firmly established that there are distinct advantages that each sex has over the other. To be prejudiced, or "sexist" as it is incorrectly called, is absolutely rational, and in many cases prejudice is necessary for survival. Are you going to assume that berry is going to make you sick just because a similar looking berry made you sick in the past? I sure hope so, otherwise political correctness has completely eradicated common sense.
Prejudice: Preconceived opinion not based on reason or experience. It's based on reason and/or experience. Therefore it's not prejudiced.
Oh, I see...
So if a ginger robbed me, and I proceeded to assume that all gingers are thieves, it wouldn't be considered prejudice, because I have experience to back it up?
This is the problem with this thread and every discussion using these terms... everyone disagrees with what the terms actually mean!
If I had a dollar for every time a TL user invoked the slippery slope argument.... If I judge someone for their ACTIONS, such as drug use, I am judging THEM, not EVERYONE LIKE THEM.
A Ginger on drugs is someone I don't wish to associate with. A Ginger not on drugs is some random person I don't know. If he says hi, I'll say hi. We may even become friends.
Judging someone based on looks lacks reason, and although could be linked to experience, there is a good chance you haven't been robbed by EVERY SINGLE Ginger you have ever seen.
But every single drug user is intentionally breaking a law to intentionally harm their body in one way or another. Even the drugs listed earlier which were compared to cocaine and heroin have drastic negative effects, especially when taken over time. If I saw a guy stabbing himself I'd fucking judge the hell out of him.
It's not the same thing. Start being logical, or start posting when you're sober. One of the two.
Its like anything I suppose. People will not like you or look down on you for anything. You like this and they don't so therefore they don't like you. It can happen for many things. Drug use it is prejudice in a way because the people that do judge you will often just make assumptions about your whole personality from that one admission (drug user). Not every drug user is crazy/dangerous/criminal/lazy type but some people will think you are based solely on that one fact that you use drugs. I personally know a few people who use pot and other who have tried stronger drugs and I never felt any different being around them.
On October 17 2011 11:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Here, this should be the poll imo:
Poll: When an acquaintance tells you that he/ she uses illegal drugs...
It negatively affects your opinion of him/ her. (649)
56%
It depends on certain circumstances (explain in post). (224)
19%
It does not affect your opinion of him/ her. (214)
19%
It positively affects your opinion of him/ her. (65)
6%
1152 total votes
Your vote: When an acquaintance tells you that he/ she uses illegal drugs...
(Vote): It negatively affects your opinion of him/ her. (Vote): It positively affects your opinion of him/ her. (Vote): It does not affect your opinion of him/ her. (Vote): It depends on certain circumstances (explain in post).
legal/illegal drugs.. whats the difference? I can't see anyone logically drawing a conclusion that they would rather be associated with someone who abuses legal drugs.
Voted that it depends on certain circumstances. The circumstances being basically what drugs they use and how frequently they use them. For example if someone told me they smoke pot like once a month or only at social gatherings, it wouldn't influence my opinion of them at all. But if someone told me they use meth regularly (or even smoke pot daily), it would definitely influence my opinion (for the worse).
I definitely judge people based on their decisions. Drug use is a decision. I do not consider all drug uses the same, but there are a few I am particularly 'prejudice' against.
The biggest one is smoking-- in my mind when you choose to force other people around you to breathe the air you have polluted with disgusting chemicals, that is the same as driving drunk. If you want to endanger yourself, that's one thing, but when you put innocent people in danger based on your decision, that's wrong. On the other hand, I don't mind tobacco or nicotine patches or whatever, because I don't have to be subjected to them. I know zero smokers who are responsible and don't expose others to their smoking. If you are going to smoke, do it inside your own home, for god's sake never smoke around children, and don't think that just because you're outside it's any better for all the people walking past you on the street, or your neighbors who would like to use their backyard without breathing noxious fumes.
Drugs like meth, for example, which kills fast and does terrible things to the mind and body-- I will judge you as someone who makes such ridiculously bad choices that I do not want to be around you.
Drugs that actually don't effect others around you, and that aren't going to immediately kill you-- well do what you want. I am not going to 'pre-judge' you for a choice that effects only you, but I will probably make a judgement about you, good or bad, once I get to know you.
IMO the problem with this thread is that the OP started from the assumption that "drugs are bad." It's like asking, "I think X race is bad, is it wrong to be prejudiced?" Also I think it would be better if we specified what drugs we're talking about because weed, cocaine, tobacco, caffeine, asprin, meth, tobacco, and alcohol can all be labeled "drugs" but they aren't anywhere near the same thing.
On October 17 2011 11:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Here, this should be the poll imo:
Poll: When an acquaintance tells you that he/ she uses illegal drugs...
It negatively affects your opinion of him/ her. (649)
56%
It depends on certain circumstances (explain in post). (224)
19%
It does not affect your opinion of him/ her. (214)
19%
It positively affects your opinion of him/ her. (65)
6%
1152 total votes
Your vote: When an acquaintance tells you that he/ she uses illegal drugs...
(Vote): It negatively affects your opinion of him/ her. (Vote): It positively affects your opinion of him/ her. (Vote): It does not affect your opinion of him/ her. (Vote): It depends on certain circumstances (explain in post).
legal/illegal drugs.. whats the difference? I can't see anyone logically drawing a conclusion that they would rather be associated with someone who abuses legal drugs.
Well I'm not an alcoholic, but I occasionally have a drink at dinner or at a party You don't have to abuse legal drugs to use them (unless you're addicted).
I felt that my poll had a bit milder wording (it fixed "prejudice"), which was one of the two main problems (the other being marijuana vs. most other illegal drugs... a lot of people don't mind pot smokers but may care about users of other drugs).
On October 17 2011 11:42 dupshflayh wrote: Am I the only one that thinks this is a way too open question to be able to debate it properly? There's all kinds of drugs, from the one you get from your doctor to the ones you buy in shady parts of town.
But all in all, I don't like beeing prejudiced at all. However, you do flash some warning labels in my mind of you use something like methamphetamines "recreationally".
No, it isn't too open. The thread isn't about whether drug use should be tolerated. Its about whether judging someone based on their drug use is considered prejudice. And it's not. Its just judging someone based on their lifestyle choices. Choices they have complete control over.
So judging someone for taking Benzodiazepines is OK. Let's say they didn't buy them on the black market and have a prescription for severe social anxiety. Is it still ok? See, there's plenty of uses for most of the things you normally call drugs. It's a way to wide description, as simply "drugs" implies pretty much anything that can alter your consciousness to any degree. Coffee is a drug(although not nearly as potent as say amphetamines), yet you judge no one for using it, do you?
On October 17 2011 11:57 thrawn2112 wrote: IMO the problem with this thread is that the OP started from the assumption that "drugs are bad." It's like asking, "I think X race is bad, is it wrong to be prejudiced?" Also I think it would be better if we specified what drugs we're talking about because weed, cocaine, tobacco, caffeine, asprin, meth, tobacco, and alcohol can all be labeled "drugs" but they aren't anywhere near the same thing.
In my defense, I think you're misunderstanding me and I think everyone else seems to understand my meaning well enough to contribute. No thread's ever perfect!
On October 17 2011 11:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Here, this should be the poll imo:
Poll: When an acquaintance tells you that he/ she uses illegal drugs...
It negatively affects your opinion of him/ her. (649)
56%
It depends on certain circumstances (explain in post). (224)
19%
It does not affect your opinion of him/ her. (214)
19%
It positively affects your opinion of him/ her. (65)
6%
1152 total votes
Your vote: When an acquaintance tells you that he/ she uses illegal drugs...
(Vote): It negatively affects your opinion of him/ her. (Vote): It positively affects your opinion of him/ her. (Vote): It does not affect your opinion of him/ her. (Vote): It depends on certain circumstances (explain in post).
Depends on the drug. If they say they smoke pot every once in a while then I wouldn't care. But if they said they did like meth or cocaine, then yeah I would think negatively of them.
I don't really see why it matters if judging someone based on if they do drugs is prejudice or not. If you want to be considered a respectable person don't do drugs, simple as that. Otherwise I'm going to assume something is wrong with you, since you can't have a good time without affecting your state of mind with some drug (this applies to people who drink WAY too much alcohol for fun on a regular basis too).
I smoke weed, and use hallucinogenics/amphetamines. I have so many deep character flaws to begin with, that I don't see why I should be worried about smoking some weed and tripping on a weekend. Anyone who tells you that they're too self-aware or emotionally secure to use drugs is lying. We all need ways to deal with the constant barrage of cognitive dissonance that people lucky enough to not be born as a starving African corpse have to deal with. For some people it's drugs, for others it's alcohol, or self-harm, or suicide. Those who don't self medicate are usually too stupid to realize how pointless a life without transcendent experience is.
On October 17 2011 11:42 dupshflayh wrote: Am I the only one that thinks this is a way too open question to be able to debate it properly? There's all kinds of drugs, from the one you get from your doctor to the ones you buy in shady parts of town.
But all in all, I don't like beeing prejudiced at all. However, you do flash some warning labels in my mind of you use something like methamphetamines "recreationally".
No, it isn't too open. The thread isn't about whether drug use should be tolerated. Its about whether judging someone based on their drug use is considered prejudice. And it's not. Its just judging someone based on their lifestyle choices. Choices they have complete control over.
So judging someone for taking Benzodiazepines is OK. Let's say they didn't buy them on the black market and have a prescription for severe social anxiety. Is it still ok? See, there's plenty of uses for most of the things you normally call drugs. It's a way to wide description, as simply "drugs" implies pretty much anything that can alter your consciousness to any degree. Coffee is a drug(although not nearly as potent as say amphetamines), yet you judge no one for using it, do you?
Yes, every action taken can be called "good" or "bad" for different reasons.
If a man kills me, that's wrong. If a man kills me, and that action saves the lives of 5 other people, that's not wrong.
It's why its called "abuse". It's not THC "abuse" if its prescribed for end-stage cancer analgesia. It's abuse if you're taking it solely because you like the feeling.
On October 17 2011 12:02 naggerNZ wrote: I smoke weed, and use hallucinogenics/amphetamines. I have so many deep character flaws to begin with, that I don't see why I should be worried about smoking some weed and tripping on a weekend. Anyone who tells you that they're too self-aware or emotionally secure to use drugs is lying. We all need ways to deal with the constant barrage of cognitive dissonance that people lucky enough to not be born as a starving African corpse have to deal with. For some people it's drugs, for others it's alcohol, or self-harm, or suicide. Those who don't self medicate are usually too stupid to realize how pointless a life without transcendent experience is.
Non-drug users usually make the same "stupid" argument about you. It doesn't help that you wrapped your argument up in what can only be compared to a sort of religious context. It's very similar to "like isn't worth living without god". How can you tell others what makes their life pointless?
On October 17 2011 12:02 naggerNZ wrote: I smoke weed, and use hallucinogenics/amphetamines. I have so many deep character flaws to begin with, that I don't see why I should be worried about smoking some weed and tripping on a weekend. Anyone who tells you that they're too self-aware or emotionally secure to use drugs is lying. We all need ways to deal with the constant barrage of cognitive dissonance that people lucky enough to not be born as a starving African corpse have to deal with. For some people it's drugs, for others it's alcohol, or self-harm, or suicide. Those who don't self medicate are usually too stupid to realize how pointless a life without transcendent experience is.
On October 17 2011 11:26 Alay wrote: No. my mother and father were both big alcoholics. My best friend went completely wacked out on pot and almost got me in some bad places. I've seen drug use and abuse do nothing but hurt the people around me, and I certainly think very little of people who cannot find any other coping mechanism than to resort to warping their perception.
And yet their are hundreds of thousands of people who can drink every day or smoke put every day and function just fine in society. Just because your friends fucked up doesn't mean it was all the drugs fault. Why do you just assume its a coping method? Lots of people do it simply because they enjoy it! Some people like to spend their spare time playing sports, some video games and other like to drink or smoke? Why hold it against them?
"Why hold it against them?" Because drugs can make people do fucked up things, they can make you abusive, emotionally or physically, or make you lazy or stupid. Yeah there are tons of people that 'function just fine' in society, but Alay said, "I've seen drug use and abuse do nothing but hurt the people around me." How could you not hold drug use against people??
Doing something (drug/alcohol) that is considered wrong by many people, and many governments for fun does not make it okay to do. Your intentions can be to have fun, but the reality is that it damages you and those around you.
"Yeah, my parents were alcoholics, but I don't hold it against them, even though it 'did nothing but hurt the people around me' because they just did it to cope and/or have fun." That's what you sound like. And spending your spare time on sports or games is quite different than spending your time smoking or drinking. Obviously there is always potential for bad things to happen no matter how you spend your spare time, but the absolute truth is that smoking and drinking fucking kill you gradually.
On October 17 2011 11:42 dupshflayh wrote: Am I the only one that thinks this is a way too open question to be able to debate it properly? There's all kinds of drugs, from the one you get from your doctor to the ones you buy in shady parts of town.
But all in all, I don't like beeing prejudiced at all. However, you do flash some warning labels in my mind of you use something like methamphetamines "recreationally".
No, it isn't too open. The thread isn't about whether drug use should be tolerated. Its about whether judging someone based on their drug use is considered prejudice. And it's not. Its just judging someone based on their lifestyle choices. Choices they have complete control over.
So judging someone for taking Benzodiazepines is OK. Let's say they didn't buy them on the black market and have a prescription for severe social anxiety. Is it still ok? See, there's plenty of uses for most of the things you normally call drugs. It's a way to wide description, as simply "drugs" implies pretty much anything that can alter your consciousness to any degree. Coffee is a drug(although not nearly as potent as say amphetamines), yet you judge no one for using it, do you?
Though its not written in the op, I assume everyone understands what types of "drugs" the op means. Its pretty obvious that we are talking about illegal drugs. I guess you could take this broad view on the topic, but its really plainly obvious where we draw the line.
On October 17 2011 12:02 naggerNZ wrote: Those who don't self medicate are usually too stupid to realize how pointless a life without transcendent experience is.
Transcendent experiences do not have to come about via drugs, my friend.
i greatly enjoy good food, and some of my best times have been with friends who share this passion in some good restaurants around the world. however i despise fat people. i will not suffer the company of a fat person however "funny" or enjoyable and lovable he may be. thankfully noone in my immediate family is fat, and ofcourse none of my friends.
likewise, i enjoy a nice joint every now and then with some company ( like once a week, sometimes much less). however i will never talk with a junkie on the street (there are loads of them in athens) nor will i condone on a friend taking the leap to drug abuse. neither will i put myself into situations where drug abuse takes place. my sister is an artist and naturally lots of her friends are cokeheads. i have distanced myself from her group of friends just because of that.
It is just a distinction of use versus abuse. addiction and abuse are signs of weak character and generally i avoid this type of people.
i keep an open mind on smoking since i dont smoke myself and all my male role models smoke so can't help but sympathise.
edit: i wanted to clarify that although it might be "prejudice" on my part (you americans pop this word everywhere damn you and your political correctness :D ) it has nothing to do with the illegality of drugs. it is only about how far the person goes. the day i see my friend do anything harmful/degrading to score some nice skunk weed i am gonna quit drugs and hanging out with him. not because it is illegal, but because without our dignity we are nothing.
On October 17 2011 11:42 dupshflayh wrote: Am I the only one that thinks this is a way too open question to be able to debate it properly? There's all kinds of drugs, from the one you get from your doctor to the ones you buy in shady parts of town.
But all in all, I don't like beeing prejudiced at all. However, you do flash some warning labels in my mind of you use something like methamphetamines "recreationally".
No, it isn't too open. The thread isn't about whether drug use should be tolerated. Its about whether judging someone based on their drug use is considered prejudice. And it's not. Its just judging someone based on their lifestyle choices. Choices they have complete control over.
So judging someone for taking Benzodiazepines is OK. Let's say they didn't buy them on the black market and have a prescription for severe social anxiety. Is it still ok? See, there's plenty of uses for most of the things you normally call drugs. It's a way to wide description, as simply "drugs" implies pretty much anything that can alter your consciousness to any degree. Coffee is a drug(although not nearly as potent as say amphetamines), yet you judge no one for using it, do you?
Yes, every action taken can be called "good" or "bad" for different reasons.
If a man kills me, that's wrong. If a man kills me, and that action saves the lives of 5 other people, that's not wrong.
It's why its called "abuse". It's not THC "abuse" if its prescribed for end-stage cancer analgesia. It's abuse if you're taking it solely because you like the feeling.
Sex not for the purpose of reproduction is abuse, because you're only doing it because you like the feeling.
Well, I can't really answer polls because you're not exactly specific. But I won't associate with people who do hard drugs (heroine, cocaine, etc), they're ruining their lives and they can do that just fine on their own.
I really dont care about what happends to the person that use ilegal drugs, i care of the people that gets the money from the drugs and in my case those are the drug cartels that are destroying my country.
On October 17 2011 12:02 naggerNZ wrote: Those who don't self medicate are usually too stupid to realize how pointless a life without transcendent experience is.
Transcendent experiences do not have to come about via drugs, my friend.
Not to mention the entire thing isn't transcendent. It's just your brain perceiving things horribly incorrectly.
On October 17 2011 11:42 dupshflayh wrote: Am I the only one that thinks this is a way too open question to be able to debate it properly? There's all kinds of drugs, from the one you get from your doctor to the ones you buy in shady parts of town.
But all in all, I don't like beeing prejudiced at all. However, you do flash some warning labels in my mind of you use something like methamphetamines "recreationally".
No, it isn't too open. The thread isn't about whether drug use should be tolerated. Its about whether judging someone based on their drug use is considered prejudice. And it's not. Its just judging someone based on their lifestyle choices. Choices they have complete control over.
So judging someone for taking Benzodiazepines is OK. Let's say they didn't buy them on the black market and have a prescription for severe social anxiety. Is it still ok? See, there's plenty of uses for most of the things you normally call drugs. It's a way to wide description, as simply "drugs" implies pretty much anything that can alter your consciousness to any degree. Coffee is a drug(although not nearly as potent as say amphetamines), yet you judge no one for using it, do you?
Yes, every action taken can be called "good" or "bad" for different reasons.
If a man kills me, that's wrong. If a man kills me, and that action saves the lives of 5 other people, that's not wrong.
It's why its called "abuse". It's not THC "abuse" if its prescribed for end-stage cancer analgesia. It's abuse if you're taking it solely because you like the feeling.
Sex not for the purpose of reproduction is abuse, because you're only doing it because you like the feeling.
It regulates heart rate, blood pressure, long-term satisfaction with ones life, and is a safe and reliable method of stress reduction which uses the already (safe) in place chemicals in your brain.
It reduces the risk of a heart attack and stroke, and studies have linked it to lessening the risk of prostate cancer, as well as lessening the effects of PMS.
All without a single negative effect if two healthy people are doing it. Amazing how much logic helps.
Racism/sexism is being prejudiced against someone for something they were born with and is out of their control. Drug use is a choice. It is perfectly fine to dislike someone for doing actions you disagree with.
On October 17 2011 12:05 brokor wrote: i greatly enjoy good food, and some of my best times have been with friends who share this passion in some good restaurants around the world. however i despise fat people. i will not suffer the company of a fat person however "funny" or enjoyable and lovable he may be. thankfully noone in my immediate family is fat, and ofcourse none of my friends.
If you want to smoke some pot, then that's whatever. I get that. I drink a good bit, and can't really see much of a difference in their severity. If you want to do heroin, well then yeah, I'm gonna judge you.
On October 17 2011 12:02 naggerNZ wrote: Those who don't self medicate are usually too stupid to realize how pointless a life without transcendent experience is.
Transcendent experiences do not have to come about via drugs, my friend.
Not to mention the entire thing isn't transcendent. It's just your brain perceiving things horribly incorrectly.
If we had the capacity to perceive everything for exactly what it is, then transcendent experiences wouldn't exist.
On October 17 2011 12:02 naggerNZ wrote: Those who don't self medicate are usually too stupid to realize how pointless a life without transcendent experience is.
Transcendent experiences do not have to come about via drugs, my friend.
Sort of reminds me of the phrase "I don't need drugs to have fun"
I don't need running shoes to run, either, but they have their benefits :D
On October 17 2011 12:02 naggerNZ wrote: Those who don't self medicate are usually too stupid to realize how pointless a life without transcendent experience is.
Transcendent experiences do not have to come about via drugs, my friend.
Sort of reminds me of the phrase "I don't need drugs to have fun"
I don't need running shoes to run, either, but they have their benefits :D
I'm just going to say that the term "drug" is a very broad term that is hard to generalize without blanketing a very large group of substances. Caffeine is a drug, as is aspirin. Nicotine and marijuana are drugs as well but then you have your hardcore drugs like crack and heroin.
If someone came up to me and admitted they were a pot smoker, I don't think my opinion on them would change. However, if someone tried to befriend me as a heroin user, I'd definitely question their integrity a bit. I don't think that trying any drug once classifies someone as a "user" of that drug. Frequency of use is a huge factor especially when it comes to drugs like alcohol.
Also certain people react differently to various substances. I know people who can slam down a 12 pack of beers and have a completely normal conversation with me. On the other hand I know some really annoying alcoholics that turn out to be huge assholes when they get a few drinks in them.
On October 17 2011 11:42 dupshflayh wrote: Am I the only one that thinks this is a way too open question to be able to debate it properly? There's all kinds of drugs, from the one you get from your doctor to the ones you buy in shady parts of town.
But all in all, I don't like beeing prejudiced at all. However, you do flash some warning labels in my mind of you use something like methamphetamines "recreationally".
No, it isn't too open. The thread isn't about whether drug use should be tolerated. Its about whether judging someone based on their drug use is considered prejudice. And it's not. Its just judging someone based on their lifestyle choices. Choices they have complete control over.
So judging someone for taking Benzodiazepines is OK. Let's say they didn't buy them on the black market and have a prescription for severe social anxiety. Is it still ok? See, there's plenty of uses for most of the things you normally call drugs. It's a way to wide description, as simply "drugs" implies pretty much anything that can alter your consciousness to any degree. Coffee is a drug(although not nearly as potent as say amphetamines), yet you judge no one for using it, do you?
Yes, every action taken can be called "good" or "bad" for different reasons.
If a man kills me, that's wrong. If a man kills me, and that action saves the lives of 5 other people, that's not wrong.
It's why its called "abuse". It's not THC "abuse" if its prescribed for end-stage cancer analgesia. It's abuse if you're taking it solely because you like the feeling.
According to you, then, I abuse coffee every day. I like the feeling of waking up faster. I also abuse alcohol, because I like to have a drink now and then. You see, when you put wide open definitions like that, it becomes very easy to talk "past" one another, as you're not talking about specifics but rather an idea of substances that is widely open to interpretation.
Then it becomes a discussion where recreational users come with other definitions of "drugs" than you, and therefore talking "past" (I don't know if this is the right english term for it) eachother. Because the stereotypical stoner will of course not put his marihuana under the category "drugs", while the sheltered soccer mom will.
Also, the definition of "good use" will also vary to an enourmous extent, as even heroinists will say that it's "good use" because otherwise they will get sick from withdrawal.
On October 17 2011 12:06 F1rstAssau1t wrote: I really dont care about what happends to the person that use ilegal drugs, i care of the people that gets the money from the drugs and in my case those are the drug cartels that are destroying my country.
it may be cartels destroying the country, but it is the government/state that enables them to do so, by banning all drugs and making a choice of an adult person about his life illegal. call me a libertarian but the government shouldnt have a say in what i do unless i am hurting someone else's rights. they might also get a good chunk of money out of it instead of funding cartels and criminals.
Gaming excessively can cause people to ignore other responsibilities in their lives in a similar way to heavy drug use. Another similarity between the two is that there are both people who do them to excess and people who enjoy the activity in a controlled fashion that doesn't harm anyone.
Does anyone here think it's ok to discriminate against people who play video games because some of them can't control their habits?
On October 17 2011 12:02 naggerNZ wrote: Those who don't self medicate are usually too stupid to realize how pointless a life without transcendent experience is.
Transcendent experiences do not have to come about via drugs, my friend.
Sort of reminds me of the phrase "I don't need drugs to have fun"
I don't need running shoes to run, either, but they have their benefits :D
Running shoes don't cause brain deterioration.
Being alive causes brain deterioration, too. Kill yourself.
On October 17 2011 12:02 naggerNZ wrote: Those who don't self medicate are usually too stupid to realize how pointless a life without transcendent experience is.
Transcendent experiences do not have to come about via drugs, my friend.
Not to mention the entire thing isn't transcendent. It's just your brain perceiving things horribly incorrectly.
I'd be much less worried about one's perception and the "reality," but rather the emotional weight attached with the experience. Tripping has helped people put things into perspective, and brought a lot of inward thought and reflection.
Even though it's artificially induced, if somebody feels more comfortable with themselves after tripping, would you argue that they actually don't or shouldn't be because the experience was from a drug?
On October 17 2011 11:42 dupshflayh wrote: Am I the only one that thinks this is a way too open question to be able to debate it properly? There's all kinds of drugs, from the one you get from your doctor to the ones you buy in shady parts of town.
But all in all, I don't like beeing prejudiced at all. However, you do flash some warning labels in my mind of you use something like methamphetamines "recreationally".
No, it isn't too open. The thread isn't about whether drug use should be tolerated. Its about whether judging someone based on their drug use is considered prejudice. And it's not. Its just judging someone based on their lifestyle choices. Choices they have complete control over.
So judging someone for taking Benzodiazepines is OK. Let's say they didn't buy them on the black market and have a prescription for severe social anxiety. Is it still ok? See, there's plenty of uses for most of the things you normally call drugs. It's a way to wide description, as simply "drugs" implies pretty much anything that can alter your consciousness to any degree. Coffee is a drug(although not nearly as potent as say amphetamines), yet you judge no one for using it, do you?
Yes, every action taken can be called "good" or "bad" for different reasons.
If a man kills me, that's wrong. If a man kills me, and that action saves the lives of 5 other people, that's not wrong.
It's why its called "abuse". It's not THC "abuse" if its prescribed for end-stage cancer analgesia. It's abuse if you're taking it solely because you like the feeling.
On October 17 2011 12:02 naggerNZ wrote: I smoke weed, and use hallucinogenics/amphetamines. I have so many deep character flaws to begin with, that I don't see why I should be worried about smoking some weed and tripping on a weekend. Anyone who tells you that they're too self-aware or emotionally secure to use drugs is lying. We all need ways to deal with the constant barrage of cognitive dissonance that people lucky enough to not be born as a starving African corpse have to deal with. For some people it's drugs, for others it's alcohol, or self-harm, or suicide. Those who don't self medicate are usually too stupid to realize how pointless a life without transcendent experience is.
Non-drug users usually make the same "stupid" argument about you.
Reasons to living can be different from person to person regardless of how effective/ineffective their style is. What you're saying about a man killing you isn't wrong it's just what the vast majority of the world agrees with, so do i. But my point is that there's no right or wrong. If you wanna go on a moral quest go right ahead but don't become ignorant. Double check your sources on drugs before you judge a person for being a casual pot smoker. Come up with the actual obvious damage it does without just asuming but with real facts. You're a gamer enlighten yourself stop bullshitting yourself, it's your loss else in the end.
On October 17 2011 12:02 naggerNZ wrote: Those who don't self medicate are usually too stupid to realize how pointless a life without transcendent experience is.
Transcendent experiences do not have to come about via drugs, my friend.
Not to mention the entire thing isn't transcendent. It's just your brain perceiving things horribly incorrectly.
If we had the capacity to perceive everything for exactly what it is, then transcendent experiences wouldn't exist.
It's not a real perception. That's why it's called a hallucination. Your logic is horribly/nonexistent.
On October 17 2011 11:42 dupshflayh wrote: Am I the only one that thinks this is a way too open question to be able to debate it properly? There's all kinds of drugs, from the one you get from your doctor to the ones you buy in shady parts of town.
But all in all, I don't like beeing prejudiced at all. However, you do flash some warning labels in my mind of you use something like methamphetamines "recreationally".
No, it isn't too open. The thread isn't about whether drug use should be tolerated. Its about whether judging someone based on their drug use is considered prejudice. And it's not. Its just judging someone based on their lifestyle choices. Choices they have complete control over.
So judging someone for taking Benzodiazepines is OK. Let's say they didn't buy them on the black market and have a prescription for severe social anxiety. Is it still ok? See, there's plenty of uses for most of the things you normally call drugs. It's a way to wide description, as simply "drugs" implies pretty much anything that can alter your consciousness to any degree. Coffee is a drug(although not nearly as potent as say amphetamines), yet you judge no one for using it, do you?
Yes, every action taken can be called "good" or "bad" for different reasons.
If a man kills me, that's wrong. If a man kills me, and that action saves the lives of 5 other people, that's not wrong.
It's why its called "abuse". It's not THC "abuse" if its prescribed for end-stage cancer analgesia. It's abuse if you're taking it solely because you like the feeling.
According to you, then, I abuse coffee every day. I like the feeling of waking up faster. I also abuse alcohol, because I like to have a drink now and then. You see, when you put wide open definitions like that, it becomes very easy to talk "past" one another, as you're not talking about specifics but rather an idea of substances that is widely open to interpretation.
Then it becomes a discussion where recreational users come with other definitions of "drugs" than you, and therefore talking "past" (I don't know if this is the right english term for it) eachother. Because the stereotypical stoner will of course not put his marihuana under the category "drugs", while the sheltered soccer mom will.
Please just stop talking. Everyone knows what sort of things we're talking about and not everything needs to have a perfect definition to carry meaning.
On October 17 2011 12:11 Shifft wrote: Gaming excessively can cause people to ignore other responsibilities in their lives in a similar way to heavy drug use.
Does anyone here think it's ok to discriminate against people who play video games because some of them can't control their habits?
Yes it is. If playing video games in excess is destroying parts of your life, then it is completely ok for me to judge you.
On October 17 2011 11:42 dupshflayh wrote: Am I the only one that thinks this is a way too open question to be able to debate it properly? There's all kinds of drugs, from the one you get from your doctor to the ones you buy in shady parts of town.
But all in all, I don't like beeing prejudiced at all. However, you do flash some warning labels in my mind of you use something like methamphetamines "recreationally".
No, it isn't too open. The thread isn't about whether drug use should be tolerated. Its about whether judging someone based on their drug use is considered prejudice. And it's not. Its just judging someone based on their lifestyle choices. Choices they have complete control over.
So judging someone for taking Benzodiazepines is OK. Let's say they didn't buy them on the black market and have a prescription for severe social anxiety. Is it still ok? See, there's plenty of uses for most of the things you normally call drugs. It's a way to wide description, as simply "drugs" implies pretty much anything that can alter your consciousness to any degree. Coffee is a drug(although not nearly as potent as say amphetamines), yet you judge no one for using it, do you?
Yes, every action taken can be called "good" or "bad" for different reasons.
If a man kills me, that's wrong. If a man kills me, and that action saves the lives of 5 other people, that's not wrong.
It's why its called "abuse". It's not THC "abuse" if its prescribed for end-stage cancer analgesia. It's abuse if you're taking it solely because you like the feeling.
Sex not for the purpose of reproduction is abuse, because you're only doing it because you like the feeling.
That sounds like the excuse someone would give for never getting laid.
Doing something because it feels good or makes you happy is not only non-abusive, but it's one of the fundamentals of human nature. It's abuse if you go out of your way to do things that bring you sadness, not happiness.
On October 17 2011 12:02 naggerNZ wrote: Those who don't self medicate are usually too stupid to realize how pointless a life without transcendent experience is.
Transcendent experiences do not have to come about via drugs, my friend.
Not to mention the entire thing isn't transcendent. It's just your brain perceiving things horribly incorrectly.
If we had the capacity to perceive everything for exactly what it is, then transcendent experiences wouldn't exist.
It's not a real perception. That's why it's called a hallucination. Your logic is horribly/nonexistent.
Yours is ignorant so your logic is biased try again.
On October 17 2011 12:02 naggerNZ wrote: Those who don't self medicate are usually too stupid to realize how pointless a life without transcendent experience is.
Transcendent experiences do not have to come about via drugs, my friend.
Sort of reminds me of the phrase "I don't need drugs to have fun"
I don't need running shoes to run, either, but they have their benefits :D
Running shoes don't cause brain deterioration.
hm, what? This is a pretty big claim. If we're talking about some standard recreational drugs such as alcohol and marijuana, Id like to see some sources
On October 17 2011 12:02 naggerNZ wrote: Those who don't self medicate are usually too stupid to realize how pointless a life without transcendent experience is.
Transcendent experiences do not have to come about via drugs, my friend.
Not to mention the entire thing isn't transcendent. It's just your brain perceiving things horribly incorrectly.
If we had the capacity to perceive everything for exactly what it is, then transcendent experiences wouldn't exist.
It's not a real perception. That's why it's called a hallucination. Your logic is horribly/nonexistent.
I don't think you understand what the word perception means.
On October 17 2011 12:02 naggerNZ wrote: Those who don't self medicate are usually too stupid to realize how pointless a life without transcendent experience is.
Transcendent experiences do not have to come about via drugs, my friend.
Sort of reminds me of the phrase "I don't need drugs to have fun"
I don't need running shoes to run, either, but they have their benefits :D
Running shoes don't cause brain deterioration.
I'm not arguing for or against the physiology or health implications. I don't think you quite understood what I was saying. Don't think of it so literally, I'm talking about drug use in terms of lifestyle, disregarding health ramifications. As it was already pointed, there's a lot of stuff that kills us, like using our metabolism and stuff.
On October 17 2011 12:02 naggerNZ wrote: Those who don't self medicate are usually too stupid to realize how pointless a life without transcendent experience is.
Transcendent experiences do not have to come about via drugs, my friend.
Not to mention the entire thing isn't transcendent. It's just your brain perceiving things horribly incorrectly.
If we had the capacity to perceive everything for exactly what it is, then transcendent experiences wouldn't exist.
It's not a real perception. That's why it's called a hallucination. Your logic is horribly/nonexistent.
Unless you are one of the very few people to have the innate condition of Synesthesia, good luck experiencing it without drugs.
On October 17 2011 11:42 dupshflayh wrote: Am I the only one that thinks this is a way too open question to be able to debate it properly? There's all kinds of drugs, from the one you get from your doctor to the ones you buy in shady parts of town.
But all in all, I don't like beeing prejudiced at all. However, you do flash some warning labels in my mind of you use something like methamphetamines "recreationally".
No, it isn't too open. The thread isn't about whether drug use should be tolerated. Its about whether judging someone based on their drug use is considered prejudice. And it's not. Its just judging someone based on their lifestyle choices. Choices they have complete control over.
So judging someone for taking Benzodiazepines is OK. Let's say they didn't buy them on the black market and have a prescription for severe social anxiety. Is it still ok? See, there's plenty of uses for most of the things you normally call drugs. It's a way to wide description, as simply "drugs" implies pretty much anything that can alter your consciousness to any degree. Coffee is a drug(although not nearly as potent as say amphetamines), yet you judge no one for using it, do you?
Yes, every action taken can be called "good" or "bad" for different reasons.
If a man kills me, that's wrong. If a man kills me, and that action saves the lives of 5 other people, that's not wrong.
It's why its called "abuse". It's not THC "abuse" if its prescribed for end-stage cancer analgesia. It's abuse if you're taking it solely because you like the feeling.
On October 17 2011 12:02 naggerNZ wrote: I smoke weed, and use hallucinogenics/amphetamines. I have so many deep character flaws to begin with, that I don't see why I should be worried about smoking some weed and tripping on a weekend. Anyone who tells you that they're too self-aware or emotionally secure to use drugs is lying. We all need ways to deal with the constant barrage of cognitive dissonance that people lucky enough to not be born as a starving African corpse have to deal with. For some people it's drugs, for others it's alcohol, or self-harm, or suicide. Those who don't self medicate are usually too stupid to realize how pointless a life without transcendent experience is.
Non-drug users usually make the same "stupid" argument about you.
Reasons to living can be different from person to person regardless of how effective/ineffective their style is. What you're saying about a man killing you isn't wrong it's just what the vast majority of the world agrees with, so do i. But my point is that there's no right or wrong. If you wanna go on a moral quest go right ahead but don't become ignorant. Double check your sources on drugs before you judge a person for being a casual pot smoker. Come up with the actual obvious damage it does without just asuming but with real facts. You're a gamer enlighten yourself stop bullshitting yourself, it's your loss else in the end.
On October 17 2011 12:02 naggerNZ wrote: Those who don't self medicate are usually too stupid to realize how pointless a life without transcendent experience is.
Transcendent experiences do not have to come about via drugs, my friend.
Not to mention the entire thing isn't transcendent. It's just your brain perceiving things horribly incorrectly.
If we had the capacity to perceive everything for exactly what it is, then transcendent experiences wouldn't exist.
It's not a real perception. That's why it's called a hallucination. Your logic is horribly/nonexistent.
Unless you are one of the very few people to have the innate condition of Synesthesia, good luck experiencing it without drugs.
I don't want to see each number in a spatial array, nor see sound. Those are complications which delay and prevent my ability to function.
On October 17 2011 12:11 Shifft wrote: Gaming excessively can cause people to ignore other responsibilities in their lives in a similar way to heavy drug use. Another similarity between the two is that there are both people who do them to excess and people who enjoy the activity in a controlled fashion that doesn't harm anyone.
Does anyone here think it's ok to discriminate against people who play video games because some of them can't control their habits?
Of course. If I knew that a person had a video game addiction and would most likely come to work tired and mind preoccupied on something else then I would not hire them.
On October 17 2011 12:11 Shifft wrote: Gaming excessively can cause people to ignore other responsibilities in their lives in a similar way to heavy drug use.
Does anyone here think it's ok to discriminate against people who play video games because some of them can't control their habits?
Yes it is. If playing video games in excess is destroying parts of your life, then it is completely ok for me to judge you.
Sorry, I edited another sentence into my post. My point was that being prejudiced against drug users means that you assume that all people who use drugs are using them in a harmful way, similar to the way that many people assume that all people who play online video games do it in an excessive fashion that is harmful to other parts of their lives. I'm pretty sure that nobody on TL is prejudiced against gamers so why be prejudiced against drug users when many of them can control their habits.
A lot of people seem to be equating drug use with drug addiction or abuse (which is a difficult term because it all depends on relatively arbitrary definitions). I didn't get the impression the OP was referring specifically to addicts.
While many people are saying that drug use is a behavior and can be controlled, there seems to be an implicit condemnation of that particular behavior as universally negative. As others have suggested, it is instructive, in countering this assumption, to consider the fact that alcohol, tobacco, and even caffeine are all legal and regularly used drugs (I suppose tobacco is cocktail of drugs). Just as the scientific community is uncertain of the ultimate health implications of caffeine ingestion, it is relatively uncertain of the long term effects associated with marijuana, psilocybin, LSD, and many of the myriad illegal recreational drugs. Yet, there is essentially no stigma at all associated with low level alcohol or caffeine usage, while there is considerable stigma associated with the use of illegal drugs.
This is where prejudice comes in. Merriam-Webster offers this definition of the word:
an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge
I wonder how many people condemning drug use have actually consulted the primary literature (supposing they did, how many would actually be capable of understanding the papers and judging the quality of the science within?) or done any comprehensive study whatsoever with the intention of performing an impartial assessment. Those who arrive at their judgement without having done any of this are assuredly embracing prejudice.
Illegal drugs, with some notable exceptions, have one primary damning attribute - they happen to be illegal. Many people may unsuspectingly believe that laws are created for logical reasons having to do with the sustenance and advancement of society. They may also believe that laws are created by people with expertise, or at the very least, are created by people who earnestly consult unbiased individuals with the requisite expertise. These assumptions are understandable, but, evidently (in many cases besides drugs) they are not the case. Fortunately in this modern world information of all kinds is readily available. Naturally, the quality of this information is highly variable, but there are some standards to which sources can be held (such as peer review). As such, if we wish to form an opinion on a matter, we actually have the luxury of informing ourselves properly before we do so. (It is interesting to note, though, that the more I know about any particular issue, the more difficult I find it to feel sufficiently knowledgeable to form an opinion - but, if you have the luxury of not forming an opinion, what is the rush to do so?)
meh I smoke a lot of weed, but when I see all these people taking valiums or xanax for no reason whatsoever... These same people will shit on pot smokers.... What about alcohol, OP mentions legality and alcohol is legal yet drunkards deserve way more prejudice than pot smokers.
I'd say the only thing that matters is how you're able to manage your own life and deal with people around you. I don't even mind someone using heavy drugs as long as he can have a normal life. Of course it's gonna be difficult for crackheads. What I mean is some women will be terrible mothers and not even realize it because they'll be constantly under xanax, while some people can take other drugs and have a perfectly good life.
On October 17 2011 11:42 dupshflayh wrote: Am I the only one that thinks this is a way too open question to be able to debate it properly? There's all kinds of drugs, from the one you get from your doctor to the ones you buy in shady parts of town.
But all in all, I don't like beeing prejudiced at all. However, you do flash some warning labels in my mind of you use something like methamphetamines "recreationally".
No, it isn't too open. The thread isn't about whether drug use should be tolerated. Its about whether judging someone based on their drug use is considered prejudice. And it's not. Its just judging someone based on their lifestyle choices. Choices they have complete control over.
So judging someone for taking Benzodiazepines is OK. Let's say they didn't buy them on the black market and have a prescription for severe social anxiety. Is it still ok? See, there's plenty of uses for most of the things you normally call drugs. It's a way to wide description, as simply "drugs" implies pretty much anything that can alter your consciousness to any degree. Coffee is a drug(although not nearly as potent as say amphetamines), yet you judge no one for using it, do you?
Yes, every action taken can be called "good" or "bad" for different reasons.
If a man kills me, that's wrong. If a man kills me, and that action saves the lives of 5 other people, that's not wrong.
It's why its called "abuse". It's not THC "abuse" if its prescribed for end-stage cancer analgesia. It's abuse if you're taking it solely because you like the feeling.
According to you, then, I abuse coffee every day. I like the feeling of waking up faster. I also abuse alcohol, because I like to have a drink now and then. You see, when you put wide open definitions like that, it becomes very easy to talk "past" one another, as you're not talking about specifics but rather an idea of substances that is widely open to interpretation.
Then it becomes a discussion where recreational users come with other definitions of "drugs" than you, and therefore talking "past" (I don't know if this is the right english term for it) eachother. Because the stereotypical stoner will of course not put his marihuana under the category "drugs", while the sheltered soccer mom will.
Please just stop talking. Everyone knows what sort of things we're talking about and not everything needs to have a perfect definition to carry meaning.
Please stop using master suppression techniques. That may work in political debates, but it's naught but rude anywhere else.
And no, "everyone" doesn't know what we're talking about, as the entire definition of "drugs" (and to some extent "abuse") is a grey area.
Illegal drugs, with some notable exceptions, have one primary damning attribute - they happen to be illegal. Many people may unsuspectingly believe that laws are created for logical reasons having to do with the sustenance and advancement of society. They may also believe that laws are created by people with expertise, or at the very least, are created by people who earnestly consult unbiased individuals with the requisite expertise. These assumptions are understandable, but, evidently (in many cases besides drugs) they are not the case. Fortunately in this modern world information of all kinds is readily available. Naturally, the quality of this information is highly variable, but there are some standards to which sources can be held (such as peer review). As such, if we wish to form an opinion on a matter, we actually have the luxury of informing ourselves properly before we do so. (It is interesting to note, though, that the more I know about any particular issue, the more difficult I find it to feel sufficiently knowledgeable to form an opinion - but, if you have the luxury of not forming an opinion, what is the rush to do so?)
This is something I agree with a lot. Drugs are made illegal because more people than not don't know how to use them responsibly. What about the responsible crowd? They get grouped.
On October 17 2011 11:57 RedJustice wrote: The biggest one is smoking-- in my mind when you choose to force other people around you to breathe the air you have polluted with disgusting chemicals, that is the same as driving drunk. If you want to endanger yourself, that's one thing, but when you put innocent people in danger based on your decision, that's wrong. On the other hand, I don't mind tobacco or nicotine patches or whatever, because I don't have to be subjected to them. I know zero smokers who are responsible and don't expose others to their smoking. If you are going to smoke, do it inside your own home, for god's sake never smoke around children, and don't think that just because you're outside it's any better for all the people walking past you on the street, or your neighbors who would like to use their backyard without breathing noxious fumes.
This is more like an irrational fear than a prejudice. Seek help, I don't even smoke tobacco.
On October 17 2011 11:28 TheLOLas wrote: I suppose that if someone tells me that they use drugs ( such as pot, meth, crack, or anything else ) i wouldn't want to be around them. and therefore I would be prejudiced.
Do you think it's prejudice? Or do you somehow justify not wanting to be around them?
If I said "I don't want to be around Mike because he's black," that's wrong. If I say "I don't want to be around Mike because he smokes pot," is that just as bad?
He can change being a pot head.
What about in the case of psychological or even physiological dependence on a drug? He sure can't stop then. Still not prejudice?
Please be aware I'm just curious what people think, not arguing one way or another.
They definitely chose to begin using or abusing for whatever reasons. Either way I'd hold the same low regard for the person who uses, but if they're dependent on the drug to the extent where they could die by stopping (Heroine, etc) then they'd definitely have a higher level of pity from me for paying such a price from their own poor choices.
Regardless, every person I've ever met who I've been friends with/related to that has used any sort of substance has always been a big let down or just overall bad news. I steer clear of people who need to alter their mind.
On October 17 2011 11:28 TheLOLas wrote: I suppose that if someone tells me that they use drugs ( such as pot, meth, crack, or anything else ) i wouldn't want to be around them. and therefore I would be prejudiced.
Do you think it's prejudice? Or do you somehow justify not wanting to be around them?
If I said "I don't want to be around Mike because he's black," that's wrong. If I say "I don't want to be around Mike because he smokes pot," is that just as bad?
He can change being a pot head.
It's not about whether he can change, it's about whether he chose to become it. A child murderer can't change from being a child murderer but he definitely chose to murder a child.
Your post doesn't make much sense... are you agreeing or arguing against me?
On October 17 2011 11:28 TheLOLas wrote: I suppose that if someone tells me that they use drugs ( such as pot, meth, crack, or anything else ) i wouldn't want to be around them. and therefore I would be prejudiced.
Do you think it's prejudice? Or do you somehow justify not wanting to be around them?
If I said "I don't want to be around Mike because he's black," that's wrong. If I say "I don't want to be around Mike because he smokes pot," is that just as bad?
He can change being a pot head.
What about in the case of psychological or even physiological dependence on a drug? He sure can't stop then. Still not prejudice?
Please be aware I'm just curious what people think, not arguing one way or another.
They definitely chose to begin using or abusing for whatever reasons. Either way I'd hold the same low regard for the person who uses, but if they're dependent on the drug to the extent where they could die by stopping (Heroine, etc) then they'd definitely have a higher level of pity from me for paying such a price from their own poor choices.
Regardless, every person I've ever met who I've been friends with/related to that has used any sort of substance has always been a big let down or just overall bad news. I steer clear of people who need to alter their mind.
On October 17 2011 11:28 TheLOLas wrote: I suppose that if someone tells me that they use drugs ( such as pot, meth, crack, or anything else ) i wouldn't want to be around them. and therefore I would be prejudiced.
Do you think it's prejudice? Or do you somehow justify not wanting to be around them?
If I said "I don't want to be around Mike because he's black," that's wrong. If I say "I don't want to be around Mike because he smokes pot," is that just as bad?
He can change being a pot head.
It's not about whether he can change, it's about whether he chose to become it. A child murderer can't change from being a child murderer but he definitely chose to murder a child.
Your post doesn't make much sense... are you agreeing or arguing against me?
lol Out of curiosity.. have you ever tried alcohol?
On October 17 2011 12:11 Shifft wrote: Gaming excessively can cause people to ignore other responsibilities in their lives in a similar way to heavy drug use.
Does anyone here think it's ok to discriminate against people who play video games because some of them can't control their habits?
Yes it is. If playing video games in excess is destroying parts of your life, then it is completely ok for me to judge you.
Sorry, I edited another sentence into my post. My point was that being prejudiced against drug users means that you assume that all people who use drugs are using them in a harmful way, similar to the way that many people assume that all people who play online video games do it in an excessive fashion that is harmful to other parts of their lives. I'm pretty sure that nobody on TL is prejudiced against gamers so why be prejudiced against drug users when many of them can control their habits.
I'd say for most people, the discrimination is usually just a first impression. If I met someone and the only thing I knew about them was that they were a drug user, I would base my opinion off of that, that doesn't mean that that is all I would base my opinion on. Its the same with gaming. If the only thing I knew about someone is that they played video games heavily, I would assume they have certain traits that people who play video games heavily have. Upon learning more about the person I would adjust my opinion of them. That being said, this forming of a first opinion should not be considered prejudice. The way the word prejudice is used in the modern world, it implies forming an opinion on someone based on something they have no control over. The reason this is wrong is because they have no control over this trait.
Personally, i dont feel like pot or alcohol should be considered in polls like this, since they are so very very minor.
However, almost every other drug does create a viable prejudice simply because of the effects on the body and mind. There ARE the times when drug users are the victims, such as the whole idea of forced injection for addiction (saw a story about that and how some dealers forcibly injected the bad low quality meth and then sold regular meth at heightened costs) and certain specific scenarios (lsd brainwash is another), the majority of the time these "high end" drugs is not unfair discrimination, but accurate and knowledge based prejudice.
The OP itself almost promotes drug use, and I personnaly have grown up around people who have heavily used drugs and it's something that I don't want to think of. the majority of people in the world don't live in large houses, inside of nice gated communities, so I'm sure there are other people here who have lived in neighborhoods with drug abuse or in families with drug/alcohol abuse; who'd rather not voice an opinion on the subject, only for a Nay-Sayer to contradict them.
On October 17 2011 11:26 Alay wrote: No. my mother and father were both big alcoholics. My best friend went completely wacked out on pot and almost got me in some bad places. I've seen drug use and abuse do nothing but hurt the people around me, and I certainly think very little of people who cannot find any other coping mechanism than to resort to warping their perception.
And yet their are hundreds of thousands of people who can drink every day or smoke put every day and function just fine in society. Just because your friends fucked up doesn't mean it was all the drugs fault. Why do you just assume its a coping method? Lots of people do it simply because they enjoy it! Some people like to spend their spare time playing sports, some video games and other like to drink or smoke? Why hold it against them?
Because it's a choice based negativity that causes harm to themselves or others around them.
problems with learning and memory; distorted perception (sights, sounds, time, touch); diminished motor coordination; and increased heart rate.
From the NIDA directly. I don't think it's arguable that there are negative affects of marijuana use.
Who was arguing against this? Smoking ANYTHING isn't going to be good. At the same time, I don't know if I would prejudice somebody just for indulging in anything that harms their own health, as it is not my responsibility.
I'd have a bigger problem with somebody who hurts OTHER people with their behavior.
I'm just as likely to stop being friends with people who drink too much as people who smoke pot. If you're doing ANYTHING with a substance to the point where it becomes part of what defines you, I generally don't want to be around you. People who can have a great time without requiring or even requesting drugs or alcohol are the people I like to be around.
problems with learning and memory; distorted perception (sights, sounds, time, touch); diminished motor coordination; and increased heart rate.
From the NIDA directly. I don't think it's arguable that there are negative affects of marijuana use.
Even assuming NIDA is a reliable source (does it even cite primary literature - if so, did you read it?), it apparently states that these are short term issues, all of which can be caused by ingestion of perfectly legal substances. I think to make a case against marijuana it might be helpful to have more than this.
On October 17 2011 12:18 endy wrote: meh I smoke a lot of weed, but when I see all these people taking valiums or xanax for no reason whatsoever... These same people will shit on pot smokers.... What about alcohol, OP mentions legality and alcohol is legal yet drunkards deserve way more prejudice than pot smokers.
I'd say the only thing that matters is how you're able to manage your own life and deal with people around you. I don't even mind someone using heavy drugs as long as he can have a normal life. Of course it's gonna be difficult for crackheads. What I mean is some women will be terrible mothers and not even realize it because they'll be constantly under xanax, while some people can take other drugs and have a perfectly good life.
My roommates are shitfaced like 3 days out of the week, yet they "don't get" how someone could smoke pot regularly. You can't make this stuff up.
From a employer perspective do you guys think that it is justified if they refuse to hire you because you engaged in drug or alcohol abuse (not the occasional drink or joint) and if not would that be prejudice?
the main issue with drug usage is that half the people dont put alcohol and ciggs into that category, or also prescription meds. they just assume drugs = illegal drugs.
this is the biggest issue. illegal = bad = negative.
I know a person who is heavily alcoholic. Alcohol has been compared several times to the mildest of drugs and I have seen from front row how acholos has ruined his brain and life. Perhaps it's not all alcohols fault, but every time I see him wasted, stumbling around there unable to make a coherent thought, I pity him. I can't feel anything but pity towards him.
If I hear you mention drugs I may forgive you if you don't push the issue further, but if you keep at it or you actually whip some out, I will call the cops on the spot. Oh well, maybe I will leave the room/house first. Is that prejudice? No, it's me being smart. If you want to ruin your brain and health, go ahead. But don't drag me into your insanity.
On October 17 2011 12:23 darklight54321 wrote: Personally, i dont feel like pot or alcohol should be considered in polls like this, since they are so very very minor.
How is alcohol a minor drug?
Physically addictive? Check. Impairs you beyond your ability to do simple tasks? Check. Incites violence? Check.
Alcohol withdrawal is one of two common withdrawals capable of killing you (benzos are the other, operate off the same receptor). Not to mention it's abuse is far more widespread than any other drug and this cannot be blamed solely on its legality.
On October 17 2011 11:28 TheLOLas wrote: I suppose that if someone tells me that they use drugs ( such as pot, meth, crack, or anything else ) i wouldn't want to be around them. and therefore I would be prejudiced.
Do you think it's prejudice? Or do you somehow justify not wanting to be around them?
If I said "I don't want to be around Mike because he's black," that's wrong. If I say "I don't want to be around Mike because he smokes pot," is that just as bad?
He can change being a pot head.
^ This. You choose to do drugs, you can choose not to, many times, making a judgement on character can occur for some.
I personally don't have a predetermined judgement on people if I hear they do drugs, but I will consider them lacking some intelligence in keeping themselves healthy, because most drugs do have a negative effect, assuming we mean narcotics here.
But, there are exceptions to everything (:
EDIT; Read a few posts, I also have the same opinion towards people who drink heavily and smoke ("but I will consider them lacking some intelligence in keeping themselves healthy")
problems with learning and memory; distorted perception (sights, sounds, time, touch); diminished motor coordination; and increased heart rate.
From the NIDA directly. I don't think it's arguable that there are negative affects of marijuana use.
Who was arguing against this? Smoking ANYTHING isn't going to be good. At the same time, I don't know if I would prejudice somebody just for indulging in anything that harms their own health, as it is not my responsibility.
I'd have a bigger problem with somebody who hurts OTHER people with their behavior.
problems with learning and memory; distorted perception (sights, sounds, time, touch); diminished motor coordination; and increased heart rate.
From the NIDA directly. I don't think it's arguable that there are negative affects of marijuana use.
Even assuming NIDA is a reliable source (does it even cite primary literature - if so, did you read it?), it apparently states that these are short term issues, all of which can be caused by ingestion of perfectly legal substances. I think to make a case against marijuana it might be helpful to have more than this.
On October 17 2011 11:28 TheLOLas wrote: I suppose that if someone tells me that they use drugs ( such as pot, meth, crack, or anything else ) i wouldn't want to be around them. and therefore I would be prejudiced.
Do you think it's prejudice? Or do you somehow justify not wanting to be around them?
If I said "I don't want to be around Mike because he's black," that's wrong. If I say "I don't want to be around Mike because he smokes pot," is that just as bad?
He can change being a pot head.
^ This. You choose to do drugs, you can choose not to, many times, making a judgement on character can occur for some.
I personally don't have a predetermined judgement on people if I hear they do drugs, but I will consider them lacking some intelligence in keeping themselves healthy, because most drugs do have a negative effect, assuming we mean narcotics here.
I hope you don't eat any fast food or McDonald's cheeseburgers... or I may have a presumption about your intelligence as well.
On October 17 2011 11:28 TheLOLas wrote: I suppose that if someone tells me that they use drugs ( such as pot, meth, crack, or anything else ) i wouldn't want to be around them. and therefore I would be prejudiced.
Do you think it's prejudice? Or do you somehow justify not wanting to be around them?
If I said "I don't want to be around Mike because he's black," that's wrong. If I say "I don't want to be around Mike because he smokes pot," is that just as bad?
He can change being a pot head.
It's not about whether he can change, it's about whether he chose to become it. A child murderer can't change from being a child murderer but he definitely chose to murder a child.
And, as per usual, discussion about general drug use makes the standard transition to the slaying of children.
I used to be prejudice against people who used drugs when I was much younger, but it doesn't really bother me at all anymore. I don't personally do any, but I don't mind hanging around people who do (though I admit I would be more than a little uncomfortable if someone was doing heroine or something while I was in the same room as them :D)
The only thing I dislike about hanging around with people who smoke or do whatever is the select few who insist over and over that I have some too.
As a whole prejudice is wrong there are many who lead productive lives and never harm anyone who get a bad name from the media or a few who take it to extremes. Hate them all on a case by case basis.
On October 17 2011 12:27 yandere991 wrote: From a employer perspective do you guys think that it is justified if they refuse to hire you because you engaged in drug or alcohol abuse (not the occasional drink or joint) and if not would that be prejudice?
First off, who admits to drug use in a job interview? People normally omit anything that might make them look bad to an employer, even legal things.
Second, if your habits were interfering with your ability to do your job, an employer is completely justified in firing your lazy ass.
I do, however, completely disagree with compulsory drug testing, and firing someone because they use drugs recreationally. What you do outside work hours should be irrelevant to holding said job (with a few exceptions, of course, such as some public sector work or law enforcement)
On October 17 2011 12:02 naggerNZ wrote: Those who don't self medicate are usually too stupid to realize how pointless a life without transcendent experience is.
Transcendent experiences do not have to come about via drugs, my friend.
Sort of reminds me of the phrase "I don't need drugs to have fun"
I don't need running shoes to run, either, but they have their benefits :D
Running shoes don't cause brain deterioration.
hm, what? This is a pretty big claim. If we're talking about some standard recreational drugs such as alcohol and marijuana, Id like to see some sources
Marijuana Manzar Ashtari, Kelly Cervellione, John Cottone, Babak A. Ardekani, Sanjiv Kumra. Diffusion abnormalities in adolescents and young adults with a history of heavy cannabis use. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 2009; 43 (3): 189-204 DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2008.12.002 Source
Alcohol (If you were just arguing on autopilot and not thinking about it I shouldn't have to source alcohol causing brain damage. But just in case you're actually a crazy person.. here's a wikipedia link you can start from.) Wikipedia
I don't want to pick on anyone personally in this thread but there are ridiculous things being said. There aren't any safe drugs. All of the listed recreational drugs are damaging, both to the brain and rest of the body. The argument is about whether you would associate yourself with drug users or not.
And from what I've seen: Everyone just picks the side they're on. Drug users say it's fine, Non drug users say it isn't. Captivating.
I wouldn't refuse to associate with someone because he doesn't share my religion (or lack thereof). It's a personal choice and it doesn't hurt people around you (not inherently).
On October 17 2011 12:29 Greentellon wrote: I know a person who is heavily alcoholic. Alcohol has been compared several times to the mildest of drugs and I have seen from front row how acholos has ruined his brain and life. Perhaps it's not all alcohols fault, but every time I see him wasted, stumbling around there unable to make a coherent thought, I pity him. I can't feel anything but pity towards him.
If I hear you mention drugs I may forgive you if you don't push the issue further, but if you keep at it or you actually whip some out, I will call the cops on the spot. Oh well, maybe I will leave the room/house first. Is that prejudice? No, it's me being smart. If you want to ruin your brain and health, go ahead. But don't drag me into your insanity.
Dude, it's you being smart? HAHAHAHA. No. It's you having an irrational (and impulsive) reaction based on complete ignorance. That's quite humorous though
I mean just to think you'd call the cops on somebody and negatively affect their life for a personal choice they made that does not directly nor indirectly affect yours just seems a little crazy
No, it is not prejudice: Prejudices such as racism and sexism are based on fallacies, such as the assumption that black people or Asians or women or even majorities are in some way inferior to other demographics because of one or more innate flaws within them. This doesn't apply to drug users because drug use is a quantifiable phenomenon that causes a noticeable decrease of perception, critical thought, and the like, making discrimination against drug users justified.
This is not accurate. Sure there are fallacies, but there are plenty of drug users that contribute plenty to society. Any kind of generalization will have that kind of fallacy. But that's not why it's not prejudice.
The reason it's not prejudice is because you're at least judging somebody on what they do, rather than what they are. That's why it's PREjudice. I mean come on, when ARE we allowed to judge people? Can I judge you when you wear clothes than make you look like a hoodlum that you picked out? Can I judge you when you smoke, collect knives, and have thirty piercings?
It's okay to judge people based on choices they make. Being black, gay, or a woman isn't a choice.
On October 17 2011 12:29 Greentellon wrote: I know a person who is heavily alcoholic. Alcohol has been compared several times to the mildest of drugs and I have seen from front row how acholos has ruined his brain and life. Perhaps it's not all alcohols fault, but every time I see him wasted, stumbling around there unable to make a coherent thought, I pity him. I can't feel anything but pity towards him.
If I hear you mention drugs I may forgive you if you don't push the issue further, but if you keep at it or you actually whip some out, I will call the cops on the spot. Oh well, maybe I will leave the room/house first. Is that prejudice? No, it's me being smart. If you want to ruin your brain and health, go ahead. But don't drag me into your insanity.
Dude, it's you being smart? HAHAHAHA. No. It's you having an irrational (and impulsive) reaction based on complete ignorance. That's quite humorous though
I mean just to think you'd call the cops on somebody and negatively affect their life for a personal choice they made that does not directly nor indirectly affect yours just seems a little crazy
In America, illegal drugs are illegal.
It's insane, I know. But if you flaunt your drug use, you're probably going to jail, one way or another. Sorry that you don't like that. But that's the way it works. Something about crimes being prosecutable in the court of law.
On October 17 2011 12:29 Greentellon wrote: I know a person who is heavily alcoholic. Alcohol has been compared several times to the mildest of drugs and I have seen from front row how acholos has ruined his brain and life. Perhaps it's not all alcohols fault, but every time I see him wasted, stumbling around there unable to make a coherent thought, I pity him. I can't feel anything but pity towards him.
If I hear you mention drugs I may forgive you if you don't push the issue further, but if you keep at it or you actually whip some out, I will call the cops on the spot. Oh well, maybe I will leave the room/house first. Is that prejudice? No, it's me being smart. If you want to ruin your brain and health, go ahead. But don't drag me into your insanity.
Dude, it's you being smart? HAHAHAHA. No. It's you having an irrational (and impulsive) reaction based on complete ignorance. That's quite humorous though
I mean just to think you'd call the cops on somebody and negatively affect their life for a personal choice they made that does not directly nor indirectly affect yours just seems a little crazy
In America, illegal drugs are illegal.
It's insane, I know. But if you flaunt your drug use, you're probably going to jail, one way or another. Sorry that you don't like that. But that's the way it works. Something about crimes being prosecutable in the court of law.
who said anything about morals being related to laws? please go away
I think that most people who judge drug users are doing so from a short-sited perspective. I know a ton of people who smoke and drink, but also do well at school and have goal-oriented lives.
Everyone discriminates every day. You like big boobs? Pouty lips? Nice ass? Proportioned figures? Straight hair? Black hair? We discriminate when we choose CVS over Wal-Greens or whole wheat over white bread. The problem becomes when discrimination is rooted in collectivism. Instead of looking at people as individuals you view them through groups and then make decisions based on those collective labels. So, racism, sexism (other than when warranted (for ex. you probably would rather hire a man to do manual labor than a woman)), etc.
It shouldn't ever be illegal however to be racist, sexist, or ageist. It however, should generally be looked down upon and you should generally not patronize their establishment (in todays environment you have no idea if the person is a racist or not thanks to the CRA and the curtailment of property rights) or associate yourself with them. It's not hard to ostracize folks.
As for drug use -- I would not ever recommend it (either prescription or recreational), but it is the individuals choice and their right to use their body in the manner they see fit. Yes, I will base my associations on their character, how they act, their moral judgments, and many other criteria. Without discrimination how would you ever be able to make any choices? There must be some criteria you check through to make a decision between A or B. Those choices should be based on individual merit, reason, and logic when humanly possible.
No, it is not prejudice: Prejudices such as racism and sexism are based on fallacies, such as the assumption that black people or Asians or women or even majorities are in some way inferior to other demographics because of one or more innate flaws within them. This doesn't apply to drug users because drug use is a quantifiable phenomenon that causes a noticeable decrease of perception, critical thought, and the like, making discrimination against drug users justified.
This is not accurate. Sure there are fallacies, but there are plenty of drug users that contribute plenty to society. Any kind of generalization will have that kind of fallacy. But that's not why it's not prejudice.
The reason it's not prejudice is because you're at least judging somebody on what they do, rather than what they are. That's why it's PREjudice. I mean come on, when ARE we allowed to judge people? Can I judge you when you wear clothes than make you look like a hoodlum that you picked out? Can I judge you when you smoke, collect knives, and have thirty piercings?
It's okay to judge people based on choices they make. Being black, gay, or a woman isn't a choice.
I like this.
Besides, anyone whom you write off simply because you know they occasionally smoke the odd joint or whatever probably won't want anything to do with you in the first place. Smoking may be a bad habit, but pettiness is probably worse for you in the long run. You're doing them a favor by staying out of their way.
On October 17 2011 12:29 Greentellon wrote: I know a person who is heavily alcoholic. Alcohol has been compared several times to the mildest of drugs and I have seen from front row how acholos has ruined his brain and life. Perhaps it's not all alcohols fault, but every time I see him wasted, stumbling around there unable to make a coherent thought, I pity him. I can't feel anything but pity towards him.
If I hear you mention drugs I may forgive you if you don't push the issue further, but if you keep at it or you actually whip some out, I will call the cops on the spot. Oh well, maybe I will leave the room/house first. Is that prejudice? No, it's me being smart. If you want to ruin your brain and health, go ahead. But don't drag me into your insanity.
Dude, it's you being smart? HAHAHAHA. No. It's you having an irrational (and impulsive) reaction based on complete ignorance. That's quite humorous though
I mean just to think you'd call the cops on somebody and negatively affect their life for a personal choice they made that does not directly nor indirectly affect yours just seems a little crazy
In America, illegal drugs are illegal.
It's insane, I know. But if you flaunt your drug use, you're probably going to jail, one way or another. Sorry that you don't like that. But that's the way it works. Something about crimes being prosecutable in the court of law.
Illegal does not mean morally wrong. The united states court of law also once required African American citizens to be segregated from the white folk. Would you like to make a case for that as well?
On October 17 2011 12:29 Greentellon wrote: I know a person who is heavily alcoholic. Alcohol has been compared several times to the mildest of drugs and I have seen from front row how acholos has ruined his brain and life. Perhaps it's not all alcohols fault, but every time I see him wasted, stumbling around there unable to make a coherent thought, I pity him. I can't feel anything but pity towards him.
If I hear you mention drugs I may forgive you if you don't push the issue further, but if you keep at it or you actually whip some out, I will call the cops on the spot. Oh well, maybe I will leave the room/house first. Is that prejudice? No, it's me being smart. If you want to ruin your brain and health, go ahead. But don't drag me into your insanity.
Dude, it's you being smart? HAHAHAHA. No. It's you having an irrational (and impulsive) reaction based on complete ignorance. That's quite humorous though
I mean just to think you'd call the cops on somebody and negatively affect their life for a personal choice they made that does not directly nor indirectly affect yours just seems a little crazy
In America, illegal drugs are illegal.
It's insane, I know. But if you flaunt your drug use, you're probably going to jail, one way or another. Sorry that you don't like that. But that's the way it works. Something about crimes being prosecutable in the court of law.
who said anything about morals being related to laws? please go away
I know we're not supposed to "+1," but...
+1
I think it's sad that people so often assume that their government is correct and that laws and morality are the same thing. I hope this doesn't derail the thread, because it's been awesome so far.
I want to be if I can assure of the world, the real world around me as is possible. Now you can only attain that to a certain degree but I want the greatest degree of control. I've never involved myself in narcotics of any kind, I don't smoke I don't drink because that can just easily fuzz the edges of rationality fuzz the edges of my reasoning powers and I want to be as aware as I possibly can. That means giving up a lot of fantasies that might be comforting in someway but I'm willing to give that up; in order to live in an actually real world, as close as I can get to it.
On October 17 2011 12:29 Greentellon wrote: I know a person who is heavily alcoholic. Alcohol has been compared several times to the mildest of drugs and I have seen from front row how acholos has ruined his brain and life. Perhaps it's not all alcohols fault, but every time I see him wasted, stumbling around there unable to make a coherent thought, I pity him. I can't feel anything but pity towards him.
If I hear you mention drugs I may forgive you if you don't push the issue further, but if you keep at it or you actually whip some out, I will call the cops on the spot. Oh well, maybe I will leave the room/house first. Is that prejudice? No, it's me being smart. If you want to ruin your brain and health, go ahead. But don't drag me into your insanity.
Dude, it's you being smart? HAHAHAHA. No. It's you having an irrational (and impulsive) reaction based on complete ignorance. That's quite humorous though
I mean just to think you'd call the cops on somebody and negatively affect their life for a personal choice they made that does not directly nor indirectly affect yours just seems a little crazy
In America, illegal drugs are illegal.
It's insane, I know. But if you flaunt your drug use, you're probably going to jail, one way or another. Sorry that you don't like that. But that's the way it works. Something about crimes being prosecutable in the court of law.
who said anything about morals being related to laws? please go away
In America, when people break the law, we have this thing we do which we refer to as "calling the police". Equally as insane as my former post. Anyways, the police are readily available, and will report to the location you give them in very little time. They then proceed to arrest the criminals.
Is it stupid to call the police when someone is throwing their drug use in your face? Maybe on your island. But here, we call that normal.
Of course its bad to discriminate against drug users. Not all drug users are dirty criminals, most of them are just average people who go home and smoke a joint at the end of the day
On October 17 2011 12:29 Greentellon wrote: I know a person who is heavily alcoholic. Alcohol has been compared several times to the mildest of drugs and I have seen from front row how acholos has ruined his brain and life. Perhaps it's not all alcohols fault, but every time I see him wasted, stumbling around there unable to make a coherent thought, I pity him. I can't feel anything but pity towards him.
If I hear you mention drugs I may forgive you if you don't push the issue further, but if you keep at it or you actually whip some out, I will call the cops on the spot. Oh well, maybe I will leave the room/house first. Is that prejudice? No, it's me being smart. If you want to ruin your brain and health, go ahead. But don't drag me into your insanity.
Dude, it's you being smart? HAHAHAHA. No. It's you having an irrational (and impulsive) reaction based on complete ignorance. That's quite humorous though
I mean just to think you'd call the cops on somebody and negatively affect their life for a personal choice they made that does not directly nor indirectly affect yours just seems a little crazy
In America, illegal drugs are illegal.
It's insane, I know. But if you flaunt your drug use, you're probably going to jail, one way or another. Sorry that you don't like that. But that's the way it works. Something about crimes being prosecutable in the court of law.
Illegal does not mean morally wrong. The united states court of law also once required African American citizens to be segregated from the white folk. Would you like to make a case for that as well?
What, this is bullshit. If there are unjust laws then we change them. Things that are illegal are harmful to yourself and others. If they aren't harmful to yourself and others then they shouldn't be illegal. But Laws are only there to enforce morals on society.
If you don't think drugs should be illegal, because they aren't harmful or whatever, then you're disputing that law. You're arguing that it shouldn't be illegal. But don't go around saying "Illegal =/= immoral" because that goes against the entire idea of a criminal justice system.
On October 17 2011 12:29 Greentellon wrote: I know a person who is heavily alcoholic. Alcohol has been compared several times to the mildest of drugs and I have seen from front row how acholos has ruined his brain and life. Perhaps it's not all alcohols fault, but every time I see him wasted, stumbling around there unable to make a coherent thought, I pity him. I can't feel anything but pity towards him.
If I hear you mention drugs I may forgive you if you don't push the issue further, but if you keep at it or you actually whip some out, I will call the cops on the spot. Oh well, maybe I will leave the room/house first. Is that prejudice? No, it's me being smart. If you want to ruin your brain and health, go ahead. But don't drag me into your insanity.
Dude, it's you being smart? HAHAHAHA. No. It's you having an irrational (and impulsive) reaction based on complete ignorance. That's quite humorous though
I mean just to think you'd call the cops on somebody and negatively affect their life for a personal choice they made that does not directly nor indirectly affect yours just seems a little crazy
In America, illegal drugs are illegal.
It's insane, I know. But if you flaunt your drug use, you're probably going to jail, one way or another. Sorry that you don't like that. But that's the way it works. Something about crimes being prosecutable in the court of law.
Illegal does not mean morally wrong. The united states court of law also once required African American citizens to be segregated from the white folk. Would you like to make a case for that as well?
What, this is bullshit. If there are unjust laws then we change them. Things that are illegal are harmful to yourself and others. If they aren't harmful to yourself and others then they shouldn't be illegal. But Laws are only there to enforce morals on society.
If you don't think drugs should be illegal, because they aren't harmful or whatever, then you're disputing that law. You're arguing that it shouldn't be illegal. But don't go around saying "Illegal =/= immoral" because that goes against the entire idea of a criminal justice system.
I think that this is a little off-topic. We don't need to discuss the definition of every single word in the OP, because I think we all understand well enough what it means to give opinions. If our definitions differ slightly it won't be a huge problem.
Instead of arguing about whether things are illegal or wrong or whatever, I think we should be discussing whether it's acceptable to judge someone based only on their drug use. The broadness of that is up to you.
Seen too many people hurt by continued drug use, particularly in the university setting. No, drug use is a choice and *agreed* with
Prejudices such as racism and sexism are based on fallacies, such as the assumption that black people or Asians or women or even majorities are in some way inferior to other demographics because of one or more innate flaws within them. This doesn't apply to drug users because drug use is a quantifiable phenomenon that causes a noticeable decrease of perception, critical thought, and the like, making discrimination against drug users justified.
. Differs from racism and sexism for reasons stated.
Someone tells me they use drugs, my first thought find out why and discourage them from continued use from that point on. Exception for me is when someone is in continual, agonizing pain from a chronic disease.
On October 17 2011 12:29 Greentellon wrote: I know a person who is heavily alcoholic. Alcohol has been compared several times to the mildest of drugs and I have seen from front row how acholos has ruined his brain and life. Perhaps it's not all alcohols fault, but every time I see him wasted, stumbling around there unable to make a coherent thought, I pity him. I can't feel anything but pity towards him.
If I hear you mention drugs I may forgive you if you don't push the issue further, but if you keep at it or you actually whip some out, I will call the cops on the spot. Oh well, maybe I will leave the room/house first. Is that prejudice? No, it's me being smart. If you want to ruin your brain and health, go ahead. But don't drag me into your insanity.
Dude, it's you being smart? HAHAHAHA. No. It's you having an irrational (and impulsive) reaction based on complete ignorance. That's quite humorous though
I mean just to think you'd call the cops on somebody and negatively affect their life for a personal choice they made that does not directly nor indirectly affect yours just seems a little crazy
In America, illegal drugs are illegal.
It's insane, I know. But if you flaunt your drug use, you're probably going to jail, one way or another. Sorry that you don't like that. But that's the way it works. Something about crimes being prosecutable in the court of law.
who said anything about morals being related to laws? please go away
In America, when people break the law, we have this thing we do which we refer to as "calling the police". Equally as insane as my former post. Anyways, the police are readily available, and will report to the location you give them in very little time. They then proceed to arrest the criminals.
Is it stupid to call the police when someone is throwing their drug use in your face? Maybe on your island. But here, we call that normal.
That is really concerning to me. I'm not a drug user but I've been around enough to have a fairly informed opinion, and to me the absolute worst thing you can do to a regular drug user (not a dealer) is call the authorities on them, at least not as a first option. Jail time, even a brief stint with no prison sentence, tends to lead to more drug use, and from what I've seen also can create feelings of paranoia and depression that last for an extended time afterwards.
Do I think you should not be prejudiced against drug users? I don't know - if you don't like drugs, then be prejudiced and don't hang out with drug users. But on the other hand, if you care about someone and they become a drug user or you find out that they use drugs, it should not drastically change how you perceive them. If you are concerned the best thing you can do is express your concern, and if that doesn't work try to get other people close to them to express their concerns as well.
Of course that all goes out the window when you're dealing with an armed drug dealer or someone who is violent and on PCP/coke/crack/etc. If you feel threatened then absolutely call the police, but if you are non-threateningly offered drugs, as the original post in the quote tree seemed to mention, then calling the cops is a seriously irrational first impulse. Drug users are not out to get you or make you use drugs, and if they offer it is because they honestly (and possibly not rationally, but sometimes they are fully rational about it) think that you would enjoy them or that they would help you in some way. Getting them into legal trouble is repaying their perceived kindness by negatively influencing their lives - sometimes permanently depending on what the police find. Yet again though, if you're aggressively being pushed to do heroin (for instance) by a drug dealer that just wants another customer, that's a different story from being offered pot at a house party.
On October 17 2011 13:18 Danglars wrote: Seen too many people hurt by continued drug use, particularly in the university setting. No, drug use is a choice and *agreed* with
Prejudices such as racism and sexism are based on fallacies, such as the assumption that black people or Asians or women or even majorities are in some way inferior to other demographics because of one or more innate flaws within them. This doesn't apply to drug users because drug use is a quantifiable phenomenon that causes a noticeable decrease of perception, critical thought, and the like, making discrimination against drug users justified.
. Differs from racism and sexism for reasons stated.
Someone tells me they use drugs, my first thought find out why and discourage them from continued use from that point on. Exception for me is when someone is in continual, agonizing pain from a chronic disease.
This is interesting. Personally speaking, I've had more than one experience in which I asked a drug user for reasons as to why they used drugs, and when I was told "because I can" I challenged them to stop because it was hurting them. I was in fact told that I was a bigot because I judged drug users without ever having used those drugs myself.
I'm reminded of the American Juggalo thread in that these people practice an absurd level of acceptance. Is it really not okay to have an opinion on something (smoking pot is bad for you and should be avoided, for instance) without ever having experienced it? Doesn't that preclude democracy by saying that we can't have opinions on war unless we're veterans, can't have opinions on healthcare unless we've experienced every single option available, can't even have opinions on abortion unless we've had one?
On October 17 2011 12:29 Greentellon wrote: I know a person who is heavily alcoholic. Alcohol has been compared several times to the mildest of drugs and I have seen from front row how acholos has ruined his brain and life. Perhaps it's not all alcohols fault, but every time I see him wasted, stumbling around there unable to make a coherent thought, I pity him. I can't feel anything but pity towards him.
If I hear you mention drugs I may forgive you if you don't push the issue further, but if you keep at it or you actually whip some out, I will call the cops on the spot. Oh well, maybe I will leave the room/house first. Is that prejudice? No, it's me being smart. If you want to ruin your brain and health, go ahead. But don't drag me into your insanity.
Dude, it's you being smart? HAHAHAHA. No. It's you having an irrational (and impulsive) reaction based on complete ignorance. That's quite humorous though
I mean just to think you'd call the cops on somebody and negatively affect their life for a personal choice they made that does not directly nor indirectly affect yours just seems a little crazy
In America, illegal drugs are illegal.
It's insane, I know. But if you flaunt your drug use, you're probably going to jail, one way or another. Sorry that you don't like that. But that's the way it works. Something about crimes being prosecutable in the court of law.
who said anything about morals being related to laws? please go away
In America, when people break the law, we have this thing we do which we refer to as "calling the police". Equally as insane as my former post. Anyways, the police are readily available, and will report to the location you give them in very little time. They then proceed to arrest the criminals.
Is it stupid to call the police when someone is throwing their drug use in your face? Maybe on your island. But here, we call that normal.
That is really concerning to me. I'm not a drug user but I've been around enough to have a fairly informed opinion, and to me the absolute worst thing you can do to a regular drug user (not a dealer) is call the authorities on them, at least not as a first option. Jail time, even a brief stint with no prison sentence, tends to lead to more drug use, and from what I've seen also can create feelings of paranoia and depression that last for an extended time afterwards.
Do I think you should not be prejudiced against drug users? I don't know - if you don't like drugs, then be prejudiced and don't hang out with drug users. But on the other hand, if you care about someone and they become a drug user or you find out that they use drugs, it should not drastically change how you perceive them. If you are concerned the best thing you can do is express your concern, and if that doesn't work try to get other people close to them to express their concerns as well.
Of course that all goes out the window when you're dealing with an armed drug dealer or someone who is violent and on PCP/coke/crack/etc. If you feel threatened then absolutely call the police, but if you are non-threateningly offered drugs, as the original post in the quote tree seemed to mention, then calling the cops is a seriously irrational first impulse. Drug users are not out to get you or make you use drugs, and if they offer it is because they honestly (and possibly not rationally, but sometimes they are fully rational about it) think that you would enjoy them or that they would help you in some way. Getting them into legal trouble is repaying their perceived kindness by negatively influencing their lives - sometimes permanently depending on what the police find. Yet again though, if you're aggressively being pushed to do heroin (for instance) by a drug dealer that just wants another customer, that's a different story from being offered pot at a house party.
You, like so many people in this thread, are lumping all drugs together and saying that they are all equally bad. This is just silly. Not all drugs harm the individual and society
On October 17 2011 12:29 Greentellon wrote: I know a person who is heavily alcoholic. Alcohol has been compared several times to the mildest of drugs and I have seen from front row how acholos has ruined his brain and life. Perhaps it's not all alcohols fault, but every time I see him wasted, stumbling around there unable to make a coherent thought, I pity him. I can't feel anything but pity towards him.
If I hear you mention drugs I may forgive you if you don't push the issue further, but if you keep at it or you actually whip some out, I will call the cops on the spot. Oh well, maybe I will leave the room/house first. Is that prejudice? No, it's me being smart. If you want to ruin your brain and health, go ahead. But don't drag me into your insanity.
Dude, it's you being smart? HAHAHAHA. No. It's you having an irrational (and impulsive) reaction based on complete ignorance. That's quite humorous though
I mean just to think you'd call the cops on somebody and negatively affect their life for a personal choice they made that does not directly nor indirectly affect yours just seems a little crazy
In America, illegal drugs are illegal.
It's insane, I know. But if you flaunt your drug use, you're probably going to jail, one way or another. Sorry that you don't like that. But that's the way it works. Something about crimes being prosecutable in the court of law.
who said anything about morals being related to laws? please go away
In America, when people break the law, we have this thing we do which we refer to as "calling the police". Equally as insane as my former post. Anyways, the police are readily available, and will report to the location you give them in very little time. They then proceed to arrest the criminals.
Is it stupid to call the police when someone is throwing their drug use in your face? Maybe on your island. But here, we call that normal.
Im in california with less than an ounce and a medical card. Call the police on me, they wont even bother showing and mention you to stop wasting their time.
Remember, difference between federal and state police, not like you would call the FBI or DEA on a kid with less than a ounce.
comparing drug use to race or sex is a pretty damned far stretch. You don't decide whether you're black or white, male or female. Using drugs is a life choice it's not forced upon you.
Obeying laws, even when you disagree with them, is a respectable and right thing to do. Sports have tangential benefits of health, discipline, and hard work, along with teamwork and cooperation. Drug use generally is pleasure for pleasure's sake, and is not productive for society.
Citing alcohol/cigarette legality is a misnomer. We should ban all of them or none of them. As a matter of moral principle, I'm in favor of banning all of them, but I'm just some weirdo who knows that I don't need to get wasted to enjoy myself or relax. As a matter of freedom, I'm in favor of permitting them, but I feel this is a sad point to cede when such a large portion of society is hampered and pacified by drugs use.
In conclusion, there is prejudice against drug use, and for good reason.
On October 17 2011 12:29 Greentellon wrote: I know a person who is heavily alcoholic. Alcohol has been compared several times to the mildest of drugs and I have seen from front row how acholos has ruined his brain and life. Perhaps it's not all alcohols fault, but every time I see him wasted, stumbling around there unable to make a coherent thought, I pity him. I can't feel anything but pity towards him.
If I hear you mention drugs I may forgive you if you don't push the issue further, but if you keep at it or you actually whip some out, I will call the cops on the spot. Oh well, maybe I will leave the room/house first. Is that prejudice? No, it's me being smart. If you want to ruin your brain and health, go ahead. But don't drag me into your insanity.
Dude, it's you being smart? HAHAHAHA. No. It's you having an irrational (and impulsive) reaction based on complete ignorance. That's quite humorous though
I mean just to think you'd call the cops on somebody and negatively affect their life for a personal choice they made that does not directly nor indirectly affect yours just seems a little crazy
In America, illegal drugs are illegal.
It's insane, I know. But if you flaunt your drug use, you're probably going to jail, one way or another. Sorry that you don't like that. But that's the way it works. Something about crimes being prosecutable in the court of law.
who said anything about morals being related to laws? please go away
In America, when people break the law, we have this thing we do which we refer to as "calling the police". Equally as insane as my former post. Anyways, the police are readily available, and will report to the location you give them in very little time. They then proceed to arrest the criminals.
Is it stupid to call the police when someone is throwing their drug use in your face? Maybe on your island. But here, we call that normal.
That is really concerning to me. I'm not a drug user but I've been around enough to have a fairly informed opinion, and to me the absolute worst thing you can do to a regular drug user (not a dealer) is call the authorities on them, at least not as a first option. Jail time, even a brief stint with no prison sentence, tends to lead to more drug use, and from what I've seen also can create feelings of paranoia and depression that last for an extended time afterwards.
Do I think you should not be prejudiced against drug users? I don't know - if you don't like drugs, then be prejudiced and don't hang out with drug users. But on the other hand, if you care about someone and they become a drug user or you find out that they use drugs, it should not drastically change how you perceive them. If you are concerned the best thing you can do is express your concern, and if that doesn't work try to get other people close to them to express their concerns as well.
Of course that all goes out the window when you're dealing with an armed drug dealer or someone who is violent and on PCP/coke/crack/etc. If you feel threatened then absolutely call the police, but if you are non-threateningly offered drugs, as the original post in the quote tree seemed to mention, then calling the cops is a seriously irrational first impulse. Drug users are not out to get you or make you use drugs, and if they offer it is because they honestly (and possibly not rationally, but sometimes they are fully rational about it) think that you would enjoy them or that they would help you in some way. Getting them into legal trouble is repaying their perceived kindness by negatively influencing their lives - sometimes permanently depending on what the police find. Yet again though, if you're aggressively being pushed to do heroin (for instance) by a drug dealer that just wants another customer, that's a different story from being offered pot at a house party.
You, like so many people in this thread, are lumping all drugs together and saying that they are all equally bad. This is just silly. Not all drugs harm the individual and society
I would argue that it's not important whether all drugs are equally bad, or even whether all drugs are bad at all. Rather, I'd encourage you to express your opinion on whether or not it's okay to judge people based on drug use. Perhaps you think that it's okay for some drugs you think are bad, but not okay for other, less harmful drugs? Vote "other" in the poll and tell us why!
the results of the polls is why i rarely ever go to teamliquid/internet/website related meet ups. i don't want to toss around the word "squares" but are you kidding me. if someone told you they smoked a joint on the weekend at the pub it would make you think negatively of them? is this the middle ages?
and no, before you ask. i don't use any drugs besides alcohol.
On October 17 2011 12:29 Greentellon wrote: I know a person who is heavily alcoholic. Alcohol has been compared several times to the mildest of drugs and I have seen from front row how acholos has ruined his brain and life. Perhaps it's not all alcohols fault, but every time I see him wasted, stumbling around there unable to make a coherent thought, I pity him. I can't feel anything but pity towards him.
If I hear you mention drugs I may forgive you if you don't push the issue further, but if you keep at it or you actually whip some out, I will call the cops on the spot. Oh well, maybe I will leave the room/house first. Is that prejudice? No, it's me being smart. If you want to ruin your brain and health, go ahead. But don't drag me into your insanity.
Dude, it's you being smart? HAHAHAHA. No. It's you having an irrational (and impulsive) reaction based on complete ignorance. That's quite humorous though
I mean just to think you'd call the cops on somebody and negatively affect their life for a personal choice they made that does not directly nor indirectly affect yours just seems a little crazy
In America, illegal drugs are illegal.
It's insane, I know. But if you flaunt your drug use, you're probably going to jail, one way or another. Sorry that you don't like that. But that's the way it works. Something about crimes being prosecutable in the court of law.
who said anything about morals being related to laws? please go away
In America, when people break the law, we have this thing we do which we refer to as "calling the police". Equally as insane as my former post. Anyways, the police are readily available, and will report to the location you give them in very little time. They then proceed to arrest the criminals.
Is it stupid to call the police when someone is throwing their drug use in your face? Maybe on your island. But here, we call that normal.
That is really concerning to me. I'm not a drug user but I've been around enough to have a fairly informed opinion, and to me the absolute worst thing you can do to a regular drug user (not a dealer) is call the authorities on them, at least not as a first option. Jail time, even a brief stint with no prison sentence, tends to lead to more drug use, and from what I've seen also can create feelings of paranoia and depression that last for an extended time afterwards.
Do I think you should not be prejudiced against drug users? I don't know - if you don't like drugs, then be prejudiced and don't hang out with drug users. But on the other hand, if you care about someone and they become a drug user or you find out that they use drugs, it should not drastically change how you perceive them. If you are concerned the best thing you can do is express your concern, and if that doesn't work try to get other people close to them to express their concerns as well.
Of course that all goes out the window when you're dealing with an armed drug dealer or someone who is violent and on PCP/coke/crack/etc. If you feel threatened then absolutely call the police, but if you are non-threateningly offered drugs, as the original post in the quote tree seemed to mention, then calling the cops is a seriously irrational first impulse. Drug users are not out to get you or make you use drugs, and if they offer it is because they honestly (and possibly not rationally, but sometimes they are fully rational about it) think that you would enjoy them or that they would help you in some way. Getting them into legal trouble is repaying their perceived kindness by negatively influencing their lives - sometimes permanently depending on what the police find. Yet again though, if you're aggressively being pushed to do heroin (for instance) by a drug dealer that just wants another customer, that's a different story from being offered pot at a house party.
You, like so many people in this thread, are lumping all drugs together and saying that they are all equally bad. This is just silly. Not all drugs harm the individual and society
I would argue that it's not important whether all drugs are equally bad, or even whether all drugs are bad at all. Rather, I'd encourage you to express your opinion on whether or not it's okay to judge people based on drug use. Perhaps you think that it's okay for some drugs you think are bad, but not okay for other, less harmful drugs? Vote "other" in the poll and tell us why!
I already voted 'Yes' in the first poll, and my reason is posted further up on ths page
On October 17 2011 12:29 Greentellon wrote: I know a person who is heavily alcoholic. Alcohol has been compared several times to the mildest of drugs and I have seen from front row how acholos has ruined his brain and life. Perhaps it's not all alcohols fault, but every time I see him wasted, stumbling around there unable to make a coherent thought, I pity him. I can't feel anything but pity towards him.
If I hear you mention drugs I may forgive you if you don't push the issue further, but if you keep at it or you actually whip some out, I will call the cops on the spot. Oh well, maybe I will leave the room/house first. Is that prejudice? No, it's me being smart. If you want to ruin your brain and health, go ahead. But don't drag me into your insanity.
Dude, it's you being smart? HAHAHAHA. No. It's you having an irrational (and impulsive) reaction based on complete ignorance. That's quite humorous though
I mean just to think you'd call the cops on somebody and negatively affect their life for a personal choice they made that does not directly nor indirectly affect yours just seems a little crazy
In America, illegal drugs are illegal.
It's insane, I know. But if you flaunt your drug use, you're probably going to jail, one way or another. Sorry that you don't like that. But that's the way it works. Something about crimes being prosecutable in the court of law.
who said anything about morals being related to laws? please go away
In America, when people break the law, we have this thing we do which we refer to as "calling the police". Equally as insane as my former post. Anyways, the police are readily available, and will report to the location you give them in very little time. They then proceed to arrest the criminals.
Is it stupid to call the police when someone is throwing their drug use in your face? Maybe on your island. But here, we call that normal.
That is really concerning to me. I'm not a drug user but I've been around enough to have a fairly informed opinion, and to me the absolute worst thing you can do to a regular drug user (not a dealer) is call the authorities on them, at least not as a first option. Jail time, even a brief stint with no prison sentence, tends to lead to more drug use, and from what I've seen also can create feelings of paranoia and depression that last for an extended time afterwards.
Do I think you should not be prejudiced against drug users? I don't know - if you don't like drugs, then be prejudiced and don't hang out with drug users. But on the other hand, if you care about someone and they become a drug user or you find out that they use drugs, it should not drastically change how you perceive them. If you are concerned the best thing you can do is express your concern, and if that doesn't work try to get other people close to them to express their concerns as well.
Of course that all goes out the window when you're dealing with an armed drug dealer or someone who is violent and on PCP/coke/crack/etc. If you feel threatened then absolutely call the police, but if you are non-threateningly offered drugs, as the original post in the quote tree seemed to mention, then calling the cops is a seriously irrational first impulse. Drug users are not out to get you or make you use drugs, and if they offer it is because they honestly (and possibly not rationally, but sometimes they are fully rational about it) think that you would enjoy them or that they would help you in some way. Getting them into legal trouble is repaying their perceived kindness by negatively influencing their lives - sometimes permanently depending on what the police find. Yet again though, if you're aggressively being pushed to do heroin (for instance) by a drug dealer that just wants another customer, that's a different story from being offered pot at a house party.
You, like so many people in this thread, are lumping all drugs together and saying that they are all equally bad. This is just silly. Not all drugs harm the individual and society
That was not my intention at all, and I apologize if I came across that way. I intended to say that calling the cops as a knee jerk reaction to the presence of drugs is extremely excessive, but that you are within your rights to be morally against drug use though I myself am not. Re-reading my third paragraph I really think it does a decent job of saying that yes, police involvement is okay under certain circumstances where the drug use/presence was potentially dangerous, but that you should become well enough informed to know which situations are okay and which ones are dangerous.
In fact my list of drugs that I think should be illegal is far shorter than my list of drugs that I think should be legalized. The only drugs that I think are harmful are the few that are very addictive and very harmful to people's health, like PCP, meth, heroin, and borderline on ketamine. Everything else can be done responsibly with no harm done to others.
Pot not the biggest deal in the world. enjoy responsibly in the comfort of your home like you would a few beers. but dont go smoking in the corner of a park when i try and take my kids out for the day.
i know two junkies and they are both vile insane unrational human beings. you dive into the world of hard chemicals then i think youre scum. no respect for yourself or anybody else.
On October 17 2011 12:29 Greentellon wrote: I know a person who is heavily alcoholic. Alcohol has been compared several times to the mildest of drugs and I have seen from front row how acholos has ruined his brain and life. Perhaps it's not all alcohols fault, but every time I see him wasted, stumbling around there unable to make a coherent thought, I pity him. I can't feel anything but pity towards him.
If I hear you mention drugs I may forgive you if you don't push the issue further, but if you keep at it or you actually whip some out, I will call the cops on the spot. Oh well, maybe I will leave the room/house first. Is that prejudice? No, it's me being smart. If you want to ruin your brain and health, go ahead. But don't drag me into your insanity.
Dude, it's you being smart? HAHAHAHA. No. It's you having an irrational (and impulsive) reaction based on complete ignorance. That's quite humorous though
I mean just to think you'd call the cops on somebody and negatively affect their life for a personal choice they made that does not directly nor indirectly affect yours just seems a little crazy
In America, illegal drugs are illegal.
It's insane, I know. But if you flaunt your drug use, you're probably going to jail, one way or another. Sorry that you don't like that. But that's the way it works. Something about crimes being prosecutable in the court of law.
who said anything about morals being related to laws? please go away
In America, when people break the law, we have this thing we do which we refer to as "calling the police". Equally as insane as my former post. Anyways, the police are readily available, and will report to the location you give them in very little time. They then proceed to arrest the criminals.
Is it stupid to call the police when someone is throwing their drug use in your face? Maybe on your island. But here, we call that normal.
That is really concerning to me. I'm not a drug user but I've been around enough to have a fairly informed opinion, and to me the absolute worst thing you can do to a regular drug user (not a dealer) is call the authorities on them, at least not as a first option. Jail time, even a brief stint with no prison sentence, tends to lead to more drug use, and from what I've seen also can create feelings of paranoia and depression that last for an extended time afterwards.
Do I think you should not be prejudiced against drug users? I don't know - if you don't like drugs, then be prejudiced and don't hang out with drug users. But on the other hand, if you care about someone and they become a drug user or you find out that they use drugs, it should not drastically change how you perceive them. If you are concerned the best thing you can do is express your concern, and if that doesn't work try to get other people close to them to express their concerns as well.
Of course that all goes out the window when you're dealing with an armed drug dealer or someone who is violent and on PCP/coke/crack/etc. If you feel threatened then absolutely call the police, but if you are non-threateningly offered drugs, as the original post in the quote tree seemed to mention, then calling the cops is a seriously irrational first impulse. Drug users are not out to get you or make you use drugs, and if they offer it is because they honestly (and possibly not rationally, but sometimes they are fully rational about it) think that you would enjoy them or that they would help you in some way. Getting them into legal trouble is repaying their perceived kindness by negatively influencing their lives - sometimes permanently depending on what the police find. Yet again though, if you're aggressively being pushed to do heroin (for instance) by a drug dealer that just wants another customer, that's a different story from being offered pot at a house party.
You, like so many people in this thread, are lumping all drugs together and saying that they are all equally bad. This is just silly. Not all drugs harm the individual and society
That was not my intention at all, and I apologize if I came across that way. I intended to say that calling the cops as a knee jerk reaction to the presence of drugs is extremely excessive, but that you are within your rights to be morally against drug use though I myself am not. Re-reading my third paragraph I really think it does a decent job of saying that yes, police involvement is okay under certain circumstances where the drug use/presence was potentially dangerous, but that you should become well enough informed to know which situations are okay and which ones are dangerous.
In fact my list of drugs that I think should be illegal is far shorter than my list of drugs that I think should be legalized. The only drugs that I think are harmful are the few that are very addictive and very harmful to people's health, like PCP, meth, heroin, and borderline on ketamine. Everything else can be done responsibly with no harm done to others.
Ok yeah I did misread your post! Yea I agree with you. It all needs to be dependant on the drug and the person, ie the situation. Call the cops if they are being violent, stealing etc but not just because they are on drugs.
depends. i know pot smokers and they're fine. hang with people if you enjoy hanging out with them. it might not be fun if they're on pcp or they just shoot h all day, but if they're just regular guys who want to smoke a blunt once in a while then it's fine by me.
On October 17 2011 13:18 Danglars wrote: Seen too many people hurt by continued drug use, particularly in the university setting. No, drug use is a choice and *agreed* with
Prejudices such as racism and sexism are based on fallacies, such as the assumption that black people or Asians or women or even majorities are in some way inferior to other demographics because of one or more innate flaws within them. This doesn't apply to drug users because drug use is a quantifiable phenomenon that causes a noticeable decrease of perception, critical thought, and the like, making discrimination against drug users justified.
. Differs from racism and sexism for reasons stated.
Someone tells me they use drugs, my first thought find out why and discourage them from continued use from that point on. Exception for me is when someone is in continual, agonizing pain from a chronic disease.
This is interesting. Personally speaking, I've had more than one experience in which I asked a drug user for reasons as to why they used drugs, and when I was told "because I can" I challenged them to stop because it was hurting them. I was in fact told that I was a bigot because I judged drug users without ever having used those drugs myself.
I'm reminded of the American Juggalo thread in that these people practice an absurd level of acceptance. Is it really not okay to have an opinion on something (smoking pot is bad for you and should be avoided, for instance) without ever having experienced it? Doesn't that preclude democracy by saying that we can't have opinions on war unless we're veterans, can't have opinions on healthcare unless we've experienced every single option available, can't even have opinions on abortion unless we've had one?
I've heard the "because I can" argument before.
I have had very few experiences with people that are suffering from diseases that either can't be cured or leave lasting high levels of pain. If we jam somebody into the hospital on a morphine drip to cope, how is that different from the next guy using something other than morphine? I.E. legitimate medical marijuana (Not gonna get into the abuse of that system, just going in theory here). I'm not gonna soapbox any altruism for mankind, but I'll offer my discouragement ofdrug use to anybody listening to me just walking about life.
On October 17 2011 13:18 Danglars wrote: Seen too many people hurt by continued drug use, particularly in the university setting. No, drug use is a choice and *agreed* with
Prejudices such as racism and sexism are based on fallacies, such as the assumption that black people or Asians or women or even majorities are in some way inferior to other demographics because of one or more innate flaws within them. This doesn't apply to drug users because drug use is a quantifiable phenomenon that causes a noticeable decrease of perception, critical thought, and the like, making discrimination against drug users justified.
. Differs from racism and sexism for reasons stated.
Someone tells me they use drugs, my first thought find out why and discourage them from continued use from that point on. Exception for me is when someone is in continual, agonizing pain from a chronic disease.
This is interesting. Personally speaking, I've had more than one experience in which I asked a drug user for reasons as to why they used drugs, and when I was told "because I can" I challenged them to stop because it was hurting them. I was in fact told that I was a bigot because I judged drug users without ever having used those drugs myself.
I'm reminded of the American Juggalo thread in that these people practice an absurd level of acceptance. Is it really not okay to have an opinion on something (smoking pot is bad for you and should be avoided, for instance) without ever having experienced it? Doesn't that preclude democracy by saying that we can't have opinions on war unless we're veterans, can't have opinions on healthcare unless we've experienced every single option available, can't even have opinions on abortion unless we've had one?
I've heard the "because I can" argument before.
I have had very few experiences with people that are suffering from diseases that either can't be cured or leave lasting high levels of pain. If we jam somebody into the hospital on a morphine drip to cope, how is that different from the next guy using something other than morphine? I.E. legitimate medical marijuana (Not gonna get into the abuse of that system, just going in theory here). I'm not gonna soapbox any altruism for mankind, but I'll offer my discouragement ofdrug use to anybody listening to me just walking about life.
Again with the lumping of all drugs together! They're not all the same, people!
On October 17 2011 12:29 Greentellon wrote: I know a person who is heavily alcoholic. Alcohol has been compared several times to the mildest of drugs and I have seen from front row how acholos has ruined his brain and life. Perhaps it's not all alcohols fault, but every time I see him wasted, stumbling around there unable to make a coherent thought, I pity him. I can't feel anything but pity towards him.
If I hear you mention drugs I may forgive you if you don't push the issue further, but if you keep at it or you actually whip some out, I will call the cops on the spot. Oh well, maybe I will leave the room/house first. Is that prejudice? No, it's me being smart. If you want to ruin your brain and health, go ahead. But don't drag me into your insanity.
Dude, it's you being smart? HAHAHAHA. No. It's you having an irrational (and impulsive) reaction based on complete ignorance. That's quite humorous though
I mean just to think you'd call the cops on somebody and negatively affect their life for a personal choice they made that does not directly nor indirectly affect yours just seems a little crazy
In America, illegal drugs are illegal.
It's insane, I know. But if you flaunt your drug use, you're probably going to jail, one way or another. Sorry that you don't like that. But that's the way it works. Something about crimes being prosecutable in the court of law.
who said anything about morals being related to laws? please go away
In America, when people break the law, we have this thing we do which we refer to as "calling the police". Equally as insane as my former post. Anyways, the police are readily available, and will report to the location you give them in very little time. They then proceed to arrest the criminals.
Is it stupid to call the police when someone is throwing their drug use in your face? Maybe on your island. But here, we call that normal.
That is really concerning to me. I'm not a drug user but I've been around enough to have a fairly informed opinion, and to me the absolute worst thing you can do to a regular drug user (not a dealer) is call the authorities on them, at least not as a first option. Jail time, even a brief stint with no prison sentence, tends to lead to more drug use, and from what I've seen also can create feelings of paranoia and depression that last for an extended time afterwards.
Do I think you should not be prejudiced against drug users? I don't know - if you don't like drugs, then be prejudiced and don't hang out with drug users. But on the other hand, if you care about someone and they become a drug user or you find out that they use drugs, it should not drastically change how you perceive them. If you are concerned the best thing you can do is express your concern, and if that doesn't work try to get other people close to them to express their concerns as well.
Of course that all goes out the window when you're dealing with an armed drug dealer or someone who is violent and on PCP/coke/crack/etc. If you feel threatened then absolutely call the police, but if you are non-threateningly offered drugs, as the original post in the quote tree seemed to mention, then calling the cops is a seriously irrational first impulse. Drug users are not out to get you or make you use drugs, and if they offer it is because they honestly (and possibly not rationally, but sometimes they are fully rational about it) think that you would enjoy them or that they would help you in some way. Getting them into legal trouble is repaying their perceived kindness by negatively influencing their lives - sometimes permanently depending on what the police find. Yet again though, if you're aggressively being pushed to do heroin (for instance) by a drug dealer that just wants another customer, that's a different story from being offered pot at a house party.
You, like so many people in this thread, are lumping all drugs together and saying that they are all equally bad. This is just silly. Not all drugs harm the individual and society
I would argue that it's not important whether all drugs are equally bad, or even whether all drugs are bad at all. Rather, I'd encourage you to express your opinion on whether or not it's okay to judge people based on drug use. Perhaps you think that it's okay for some drugs you think are bad, but not okay for other, less harmful drugs? Vote "other" in the poll and tell us why!
I already voted 'Yes' in the first poll, and my reason is posted further up on ths page
Ack; this is embarrassing! o.o;
You're right, you did. And, after reading your conversation with SpaceToaster I see there's no derailment to worry about. Carry on! In reply to your opinion,
On October 17 2011 13:05 oldgregg wrote: Of course its bad to discriminate against drug users. Not all drug users are dirty criminals, most of them are just average people who go home and smoke a joint at the end of the day
Isn't it true that the act of going home and smoking a joint at the end of the day is a decision that could possibly negatively impact them? Am I not justified in not wanting to spend time with this person because of it? More importantly, am I to trust my best friend in the arms of this person, at the risk of exposing her to drugs and allowing her to use them too? She's extremely important to me!
On October 17 2011 13:18 Danglars wrote: Seen too many people hurt by continued drug use, particularly in the university setting. No, drug use is a choice and *agreed* with
Prejudices such as racism and sexism are based on fallacies, such as the assumption that black people or Asians or women or even majorities are in some way inferior to other demographics because of one or more innate flaws within them. This doesn't apply to drug users because drug use is a quantifiable phenomenon that causes a noticeable decrease of perception, critical thought, and the like, making discrimination against drug users justified.
. Differs from racism and sexism for reasons stated.
Someone tells me they use drugs, my first thought find out why and discourage them from continued use from that point on. Exception for me is when someone is in continual, agonizing pain from a chronic disease.
This is interesting. Personally speaking, I've had more than one experience in which I asked a drug user for reasons as to why they used drugs, and when I was told "because I can" I challenged them to stop because it was hurting them. I was in fact told that I was a bigot because I judged drug users without ever having used those drugs myself.
I'm reminded of the American Juggalo thread in that these people practice an absurd level of acceptance. Is it really not okay to have an opinion on something (smoking pot is bad for you and should be avoided, for instance) without ever having experienced it? Doesn't that preclude democracy by saying that we can't have opinions on war unless we're veterans, can't have opinions on healthcare unless we've experienced every single option available, can't even have opinions on abortion unless we've had one?
I've heard the "because I can" argument before.
I have had very few experiences with people that are suffering from diseases that either can't be cured or leave lasting high levels of pain. If we jam somebody into the hospital on a morphine drip to cope, how is that different from the next guy using something other than morphine? I.E. legitimate medical marijuana (Not gonna get into the abuse of that system, just going in theory here). I'm not gonna soapbox any altruism for mankind, but I'll offer my discouragement ofdrug use to anybody listening to me just walking about life.
I think there's an important distinction to be made between what's right and wrong and what's acceptable grounds to discriminate against someone for. I don't see anything "wrong" with morphine and I don't see anything "wrong" with recreational marijuana, but for one reason or another there's something within me that doesn't discriminate against someone on morphine for pain and does discriminate against someone on pot because it's there.
On October 17 2011 12:29 Greentellon wrote: I know a person who is heavily alcoholic. Alcohol has been compared several times to the mildest of drugs and I have seen from front row how acholos has ruined his brain and life. Perhaps it's not all alcohols fault, but every time I see him wasted, stumbling around there unable to make a coherent thought, I pity him. I can't feel anything but pity towards him.
If I hear you mention drugs I may forgive you if you don't push the issue further, but if you keep at it or you actually whip some out, I will call the cops on the spot. Oh well, maybe I will leave the room/house first. Is that prejudice? No, it's me being smart. If you want to ruin your brain and health, go ahead. But don't drag me into your insanity.
Dude, it's you being smart? HAHAHAHA. No. It's you having an irrational (and impulsive) reaction based on complete ignorance. That's quite humorous though
I mean just to think you'd call the cops on somebody and negatively affect their life for a personal choice they made that does not directly nor indirectly affect yours just seems a little crazy
In America, illegal drugs are illegal.
It's insane, I know. But if you flaunt your drug use, you're probably going to jail, one way or another. Sorry that you don't like that. But that's the way it works. Something about crimes being prosecutable in the court of law.
who said anything about morals being related to laws? please go away
In America, when people break the law, we have this thing we do which we refer to as "calling the police". Equally as insane as my former post. Anyways, the police are readily available, and will report to the location you give them in very little time. They then proceed to arrest the criminals.
Is it stupid to call the police when someone is throwing their drug use in your face? Maybe on your island. But here, we call that normal.
That is really concerning to me. I'm not a drug user but I've been around enough to have a fairly informed opinion, and to me the absolute worst thing you can do to a regular drug user (not a dealer) is call the authorities on them, at least not as a first option. Jail time, even a brief stint with no prison sentence, tends to lead to more drug use, and from what I've seen also can create feelings of paranoia and depression that last for an extended time afterwards.
Do I think you should not be prejudiced against drug users? I don't know - if you don't like drugs, then be prejudiced and don't hang out with drug users. But on the other hand, if you care about someone and they become a drug user or you find out that they use drugs, it should not drastically change how you perceive them. If you are concerned the best thing you can do is express your concern, and if that doesn't work try to get other people close to them to express their concerns as well.
Of course that all goes out the window when you're dealing with an armed drug dealer or someone who is violent and on PCP/coke/crack/etc. If you feel threatened then absolutely call the police, but if you are non-threateningly offered drugs, as the original post in the quote tree seemed to mention, then calling the cops is a seriously irrational first impulse. Drug users are not out to get you or make you use drugs, and if they offer it is because they honestly (and possibly not rationally, but sometimes they are fully rational about it) think that you would enjoy them or that they would help you in some way. Getting them into legal trouble is repaying their perceived kindness by negatively influencing their lives - sometimes permanently depending on what the police find. Yet again though, if you're aggressively being pushed to do heroin (for instance) by a drug dealer that just wants another customer, that's a different story from being offered pot at a house party.
You, like so many people in this thread, are lumping all drugs together and saying that they are all equally bad. This is just silly. Not all drugs harm the individual and society
I would argue that it's not important whether all drugs are equally bad, or even whether all drugs are bad at all. Rather, I'd encourage you to express your opinion on whether or not it's okay to judge people based on drug use. Perhaps you think that it's okay for some drugs you think are bad, but not okay for other, less harmful drugs? Vote "other" in the poll and tell us why!
I already voted 'Yes' in the first poll, and my reason is posted further up on ths page
Ack; this is embarrassing! o.o;
You're right, you did. And, after reading your conversation with SpaceToaster I see there's no derailment to worry about. Carry on! In reply to your opinion,
On October 17 2011 13:05 oldgregg wrote: Of course its bad to discriminate against drug users. Not all drug users are dirty criminals, most of them are just average people who go home and smoke a joint at the end of the day
Isn't it true that the act of going home and smoking a joint at the end of the day is a decision that could possibly negatively impact them? Am I not justified in not wanting to spend time with this person because of it? More importantly, am I to trust my best friend in the arms of this person, at the risk of exposing her to drugs and allowing her to use them too? She's extremely important to me!
Haha no worries mate. In reply to your first response; Yes smoking a joint could potentially harm them, but then again so could smoking a cigarette or having a beer or eating a hamburger. Would you not want to spend time with a person who did any of these things? As to whether you would trust your best friend in the arms of the drug user; Well that all depends on the drug. For weed, I would say it is pretty safe to trust your friend with them. All of the pot smokers I know (I used to smoke too), are normal, responsible people. There is no reason not to trust them just because they smoke weed, as for Heroin or crack I don't personally know, but I would be less inclined to trust them!
On October 17 2011 13:32 0neder wrote: Obeying laws, even when you disagree with them, is a respectable and right thing to do. Sports have tangential benefits of health, discipline, and hard work, along with teamwork and cooperation. Drug use generally is pleasure for pleasure's sake, and is not productive for society.
Citing alcohol/cigarette legality is a misnomer. We should ban all of them or none of them. As a matter of moral principle, I'm in favor of banning all of them, but I'm just some weirdo who knows that I don't need to get wasted to enjoy myself or relax. As a matter of freedom, I'm in favor of permitting them, but I feel this is a sad point to cede when such a large portion of society is hampered and pacified by drugs use.
In conclusion, there is prejudice against drug use, and for good reason.
This but sense people will always try to escape reality, i'm for legalizing everything but only in controlled area's sort of like a "bar" except stricter where you will be carded upon entry not just for age but for banning, so abusers can be effected banned and you can if you wanted to ban yourself from going to such places. You'd also be placed in the hands of that "bar" in which they will be responsible for what you do and thus encouraged to take care of you and not let you leave until you are in the right of mind. But that's my thoughts on how we should handle drugs from a pragmatic point of view, although i get your point form the moral standpoint which is very much the united states argument based on the united states protestant past in which if you weren't useful you wouldn't get food because you weren't working the fields or mending shit, which is the same place the where the moralities behind the pushing moves such as prohibition and even abolitionist movement both of which come from the north east part of the us.
On October 17 2011 12:29 Greentellon wrote: I know a person who is heavily alcoholic. Alcohol has been compared several times to the mildest of drugs and I have seen from front row how acholos has ruined his brain and life. Perhaps it's not all alcohols fault, but every time I see him wasted, stumbling around there unable to make a coherent thought, I pity him. I can't feel anything but pity towards him.
If I hear you mention drugs I may forgive you if you don't push the issue further, but if you keep at it or you actually whip some out, I will call the cops on the spot. Oh well, maybe I will leave the room/house first. Is that prejudice? No, it's me being smart. If you want to ruin your brain and health, go ahead. But don't drag me into your insanity.
Dude, it's you being smart? HAHAHAHA. No. It's you having an irrational (and impulsive) reaction based on complete ignorance. That's quite humorous though
I mean just to think you'd call the cops on somebody and negatively affect their life for a personal choice they made that does not directly nor indirectly affect yours just seems a little crazy
In America, illegal drugs are illegal.
It's insane, I know. But if you flaunt your drug use, you're probably going to jail, one way or another. Sorry that you don't like that. But that's the way it works. Something about crimes being prosecutable in the court of law.
who said anything about morals being related to laws? please go away
In America, when people break the law, we have this thing we do which we refer to as "calling the police". Equally as insane as my former post. Anyways, the police are readily available, and will report to the location you give them in very little time. They then proceed to arrest the criminals.
Is it stupid to call the police when someone is throwing their drug use in your face? Maybe on your island. But here, we call that normal.
That is really concerning to me. I'm not a drug user but I've been around enough to have a fairly informed opinion, and to me the absolute worst thing you can do to a regular drug user (not a dealer) is call the authorities on them, at least not as a first option. Jail time, even a brief stint with no prison sentence, tends to lead to more drug use, and from what I've seen also can create feelings of paranoia and depression that last for an extended time afterwards.
Do I think you should not be prejudiced against drug users? I don't know - if you don't like drugs, then be prejudiced and don't hang out with drug users. But on the other hand, if you care about someone and they become a drug user or you find out that they use drugs, it should not drastically change how you perceive them. If you are concerned the best thing you can do is express your concern, and if that doesn't work try to get other people close to them to express their concerns as well.
Of course that all goes out the window when you're dealing with an armed drug dealer or someone who is violent and on PCP/coke/crack/etc. If you feel threatened then absolutely call the police, but if you are non-threateningly offered drugs, as the original post in the quote tree seemed to mention, then calling the cops is a seriously irrational first impulse. Drug users are not out to get you or make you use drugs, and if they offer it is because they honestly (and possibly not rationally, but sometimes they are fully rational about it) think that you would enjoy them or that they would help you in some way. Getting them into legal trouble is repaying their perceived kindness by negatively influencing their lives - sometimes permanently depending on what the police find. Yet again though, if you're aggressively being pushed to do heroin (for instance) by a drug dealer that just wants another customer, that's a different story from being offered pot at a house party.
You, like so many people in this thread, are lumping all drugs together and saying that they are all equally bad. This is just silly. Not all drugs harm the individual and society
I would argue that it's not important whether all drugs are equally bad, or even whether all drugs are bad at all. Rather, I'd encourage you to express your opinion on whether or not it's okay to judge people based on drug use. Perhaps you think that it's okay for some drugs you think are bad, but not okay for other, less harmful drugs? Vote "other" in the poll and tell us why!
I already voted 'Yes' in the first poll, and my reason is posted further up on ths page
Ack; this is embarrassing! o.o;
You're right, you did. And, after reading your conversation with SpaceToaster I see there's no derailment to worry about. Carry on! In reply to your opinion,
On October 17 2011 13:05 oldgregg wrote: Of course its bad to discriminate against drug users. Not all drug users are dirty criminals, most of them are just average people who go home and smoke a joint at the end of the day
Isn't it true that the act of going home and smoking a joint at the end of the day is a decision that could possibly negatively impact them? Am I not justified in not wanting to spend time with this person because of it? More importantly, am I to trust my best friend in the arms of this person, at the risk of exposing her to drugs and allowing her to use them too? She's extremely important to me!
While the morality of the decision is debatable (everyone has their own opinion) you are correct in stating that smoking pot is a decision that could negatively impact a person. There are possible legal ramifications in most counties. I think you're justified in making a decision to avoid possible harm that could come from hanging out with this person, though almost nothing can happen to you just by being around the person. You'd have to actually use drugs to get in trouble for using drugs! I would at least get to know the guy before you passed judgement on his character, though obviously his drug habits are a part of who he is - it wouldn't be fair to judge him as a whole just based on that.
What does bother me a bit is that you are trying to pass judgement for your friend on this person, but thats a little off topic. You should trust your friend to make her own decisions, even if you don't approve completely. I wouldn't strain your friendship over one facet of a guy that you don't seem to know all that well (though I don't know the whole situation, thats what I can gather from your writing). Get to know him and decide if she could do better based on all of his qualities rather than just the one that's been analyzed in this thread.
On October 17 2011 12:34 Romance_us wrote: [quote]
Dude, it's you being smart? HAHAHAHA. No. It's you having an irrational (and impulsive) reaction based on complete ignorance. That's quite humorous though
I mean just to think you'd call the cops on somebody and negatively affect their life for a personal choice they made that does not directly nor indirectly affect yours just seems a little crazy
In America, illegal drugs are illegal.
It's insane, I know. But if you flaunt your drug use, you're probably going to jail, one way or another. Sorry that you don't like that. But that's the way it works. Something about crimes being prosecutable in the court of law.
who said anything about morals being related to laws? please go away
In America, when people break the law, we have this thing we do which we refer to as "calling the police". Equally as insane as my former post. Anyways, the police are readily available, and will report to the location you give them in very little time. They then proceed to arrest the criminals.
Is it stupid to call the police when someone is throwing their drug use in your face? Maybe on your island. But here, we call that normal.
That is really concerning to me. I'm not a drug user but I've been around enough to have a fairly informed opinion, and to me the absolute worst thing you can do to a regular drug user (not a dealer) is call the authorities on them, at least not as a first option. Jail time, even a brief stint with no prison sentence, tends to lead to more drug use, and from what I've seen also can create feelings of paranoia and depression that last for an extended time afterwards.
Do I think you should not be prejudiced against drug users? I don't know - if you don't like drugs, then be prejudiced and don't hang out with drug users. But on the other hand, if you care about someone and they become a drug user or you find out that they use drugs, it should not drastically change how you perceive them. If you are concerned the best thing you can do is express your concern, and if that doesn't work try to get other people close to them to express their concerns as well.
Of course that all goes out the window when you're dealing with an armed drug dealer or someone who is violent and on PCP/coke/crack/etc. If you feel threatened then absolutely call the police, but if you are non-threateningly offered drugs, as the original post in the quote tree seemed to mention, then calling the cops is a seriously irrational first impulse. Drug users are not out to get you or make you use drugs, and if they offer it is because they honestly (and possibly not rationally, but sometimes they are fully rational about it) think that you would enjoy them or that they would help you in some way. Getting them into legal trouble is repaying their perceived kindness by negatively influencing their lives - sometimes permanently depending on what the police find. Yet again though, if you're aggressively being pushed to do heroin (for instance) by a drug dealer that just wants another customer, that's a different story from being offered pot at a house party.
You, like so many people in this thread, are lumping all drugs together and saying that they are all equally bad. This is just silly. Not all drugs harm the individual and society
I would argue that it's not important whether all drugs are equally bad, or even whether all drugs are bad at all. Rather, I'd encourage you to express your opinion on whether or not it's okay to judge people based on drug use. Perhaps you think that it's okay for some drugs you think are bad, but not okay for other, less harmful drugs? Vote "other" in the poll and tell us why!
I already voted 'Yes' in the first poll, and my reason is posted further up on ths page
Ack; this is embarrassing! o.o;
You're right, you did. And, after reading your conversation with SpaceToaster I see there's no derailment to worry about. Carry on! In reply to your opinion,
On October 17 2011 13:05 oldgregg wrote: Of course its bad to discriminate against drug users. Not all drug users are dirty criminals, most of them are just average people who go home and smoke a joint at the end of the day
Isn't it true that the act of going home and smoking a joint at the end of the day is a decision that could possibly negatively impact them? Am I not justified in not wanting to spend time with this person because of it? More importantly, am I to trust my best friend in the arms of this person, at the risk of exposing her to drugs and allowing her to use them too? She's extremely important to me!
Haha no worries mate. In reply to your first response; Yes smoking a joint could potentially harm them, but then again so could smoking a cigarette or having a beer or eating a hamburger. Would you not want to spend time with a person who did any of these things? As to whether you would trust your best friend in the arms of the drug user; Well that all depends on the drug. For weed, I would say it is pretty safe to trust your friend with them. All of the pot smokers I know (I used to smoke too), are normal, responsible people. There is no reason not to trust them just because they smoke weed, as for Heroin or crack I don't personally know, but I would be less inclined to trust them!
In all fairness, yes, I know plenty of people who smoke pot and who manage to lead perfectly good lives in spite of it. For some reason, though, there's something within me that says "this is wrong" and doesn't want to be within a thousand miles of even a drop of alcohol.
Also, I feel like I may have external troubles with trusting her with him, so I may very well just be looking to scapegoat his drug use as a legitimate reason not to want her to be with him. I really don't know!
I am against any drug that "takes away the dignity of the user" in exchange for whatever benefit the drugs produces. There are better options to be happy that let people not only retain their dignity, but also improve the world and themselves. For example, instead of getting instant pleasure by drinking and acting like a drunk person, I could be exercising, creating things and learning things I like in my future career path.
There is no way I will ever reduce myself to a spaced out stoner, getting joy out of thin air. What is the difference between that and becoming a vegetable in exchange for an ample supply of artificial happiness?
Sure, there are very few downsides to alcohol and marijuana, but the state that people are in while doing them is what I care about. Drunk and high people are annoying, and the pleasure that they can get is often seen as a replacement for the pleasure of a job well done, resulting in alcoholics and those "hippies" that are constantly rallying for the legalization of marijuana.
If someone can somehow do a drug while retaining their dignity and receiving the benefits, then I fully support it. For example, low amounts of alcohol or caffeine.
Definition of dignity, because I used the word so much :
Bearing, conduct, or speech indicative of self-respect.
This thread makes me giggle. So many have opinions but they keep "but"ing everything they say so basically its cool but its not. Its not cool but in some circumstances under these predefined terms its cool. How is that even an opinion?
It affects me really depending on the "drug" they use.
Tobacco, marijuana, and alcohol really don't change my opinions on anyone.
Recreational use of prescription drugs is something that would; or obviously harder drugs ex: meth; ecstasy; etc.
I've seen a lot of people throughout my life greatly change due to excessive use of harder illegal substances. I've lost friends to them, and for some of them I don't mean we don't talk anymore; I mean they are actually dead due to their poor decisions and drug orientated lifestyle.
It's a very sad day when you find out someone you knew growing up is gone forever.
On October 17 2011 12:34 Romance_us wrote: [quote]
Dude, it's you being smart? HAHAHAHA. No. It's you having an irrational (and impulsive) reaction based on complete ignorance. That's quite humorous though
I mean just to think you'd call the cops on somebody and negatively affect their life for a personal choice they made that does not directly nor indirectly affect yours just seems a little crazy
In America, illegal drugs are illegal.
It's insane, I know. But if you flaunt your drug use, you're probably going to jail, one way or another. Sorry that you don't like that. But that's the way it works. Something about crimes being prosecutable in the court of law.
who said anything about morals being related to laws? please go away
In America, when people break the law, we have this thing we do which we refer to as "calling the police". Equally as insane as my former post. Anyways, the police are readily available, and will report to the location you give them in very little time. They then proceed to arrest the criminals.
Is it stupid to call the police when someone is throwing their drug use in your face? Maybe on your island. But here, we call that normal.
That is really concerning to me. I'm not a drug user but I've been around enough to have a fairly informed opinion, and to me the absolute worst thing you can do to a regular drug user (not a dealer) is call the authorities on them, at least not as a first option. Jail time, even a brief stint with no prison sentence, tends to lead to more drug use, and from what I've seen also can create feelings of paranoia and depression that last for an extended time afterwards.
Do I think you should not be prejudiced against drug users? I don't know - if you don't like drugs, then be prejudiced and don't hang out with drug users. But on the other hand, if you care about someone and they become a drug user or you find out that they use drugs, it should not drastically change how you perceive them. If you are concerned the best thing you can do is express your concern, and if that doesn't work try to get other people close to them to express their concerns as well.
Of course that all goes out the window when you're dealing with an armed drug dealer or someone who is violent and on PCP/coke/crack/etc. If you feel threatened then absolutely call the police, but if you are non-threateningly offered drugs, as the original post in the quote tree seemed to mention, then calling the cops is a seriously irrational first impulse. Drug users are not out to get you or make you use drugs, and if they offer it is because they honestly (and possibly not rationally, but sometimes they are fully rational about it) think that you would enjoy them or that they would help you in some way. Getting them into legal trouble is repaying their perceived kindness by negatively influencing their lives - sometimes permanently depending on what the police find. Yet again though, if you're aggressively being pushed to do heroin (for instance) by a drug dealer that just wants another customer, that's a different story from being offered pot at a house party.
You, like so many people in this thread, are lumping all drugs together and saying that they are all equally bad. This is just silly. Not all drugs harm the individual and society
I would argue that it's not important whether all drugs are equally bad, or even whether all drugs are bad at all. Rather, I'd encourage you to express your opinion on whether or not it's okay to judge people based on drug use. Perhaps you think that it's okay for some drugs you think are bad, but not okay for other, less harmful drugs? Vote "other" in the poll and tell us why!
I already voted 'Yes' in the first poll, and my reason is posted further up on ths page
Ack; this is embarrassing! o.o;
You're right, you did. And, after reading your conversation with SpaceToaster I see there's no derailment to worry about. Carry on! In reply to your opinion,
On October 17 2011 13:05 oldgregg wrote: Of course its bad to discriminate against drug users. Not all drug users are dirty criminals, most of them are just average people who go home and smoke a joint at the end of the day
Isn't it true that the act of going home and smoking a joint at the end of the day is a decision that could possibly negatively impact them? Am I not justified in not wanting to spend time with this person because of it? More importantly, am I to trust my best friend in the arms of this person, at the risk of exposing her to drugs and allowing her to use them too? She's extremely important to me!
While the morality of the decision is debatable (everyone has their own opinion) you are correct in stating that smoking pot is a decision that could negatively impact a person. There are possible legal ramifications in most counties. I think you're justified in making a decision to avoid possible harm that could come from hanging out with this person, though almost nothing can happen to you just by being around the person. You'd have to actually use drugs to get in trouble for using drugs! I would at least get to know the guy before you passed judgement on his character, though obviously his drug habits are a part of who he is - it wouldn't be fair to judge him as a whole just based on that.
What does bother me a bit is that you are trying to pass judgement for your friend on this person, but thats a little off topic. You should trust your friend to make her own decisions, even if you don't approve completely. I wouldn't strain your friendship over one facet of a guy that you don't seem to know all that well (though I don't know the whole situation, thats what I can gather from your writing). Get to know him and decide if she could do better based on all of his qualities rather than just the one that's been analyzed in this thread.
I did say I'm not sure what it is that makes me uncomfortable! But you're very right.
I think the thing that most worries me about his drug use is not HIS drug use, but hers. She's never done drugs and that's always made me a lot more comfortable spending time with her (I come from a town where more than 50% of the teenage population smokes pot.) But she's always had this curiosity for smoking pot, since a lot of her friends do it too, which I've been very keen on trying to kill. I sometimes question if I'm doing it not because I want to keep her safe, but because I'm unthinkingly biased against drug use.
On October 17 2011 14:02 DeltruS wrote: I am against any drug that "takes away the dignity of the user" in exchange for whatever benefit the drugs produces. There are better options to be happy that let people not only retain their dignity, but also improve the world and themselves. For example, instead of getting instant pleasure by drinking and acting like a drunk person, I could be exercising, creating things and learning things I like in my future career path.
There is no way I will ever reduce myself to a spaced out stoner, getting joy out of thin air. What is the difference between that and becoming a vegetable in exchange for an ample supply of artificial happiness?
Sure, there are very few downsides to alcohol and marijuana, but the state that people are in while doing them is what I care about. Drunk and high people are annoying, and the pleasure that they can get is often seen as a replacement for the pleasure of a job well done, resulting in alcoholics and those "hippies" that are constantly rallying for the legalization of marijuana.
If someone can somehow do a drug while retaining their dignity and receiving the benefits, then I fully support it. For example, low amounts of alcohol or caffeine.
Definition of dignity, because I used the word so much :
Bearing, conduct, or speech indicative of self-respect.
The bolded text, is so, SO true. That's something I haven't personally considered. I know some drug users smoke only in private situations, but when I've experienced high or drunk people around me it's not once been anything less than extremely unpleasant for me and every sober person with me. Maybe this contributes to my bias. Is that wrong?
EDIT: Next time I make a double post I'm going to force myself to reveal an embarrassing secret about myself, complete with pictures, and post it as a blog. That'll set me straight in no time.
The OP is way too open, it could mean a lot of things.
I for one would never touch a drug (I even try my hardest to steer clear of legal ones), but thats just me. I like having a clear mind but that is just me, just my choice. On the rare occasions that I drink alcohol, I drink it more for the taste and stop drinking way before I am able to get drunk or anything like that. Again, just my choice.
Taking that into account, I don't really care at all whether or not someone enjoys a joint/shroom/what have you or getting drunk at a party or anything like that. That's their choice and I respect it. Knowing whether that someone uses recreational drugs does not at all (consciously) change my opinion of em. Hell, most of my closest friends smoke weed and drink to excess at times.
That being said, there is also a line to be drawn between using a recreational drug and letting it control your life. While I don't care if someone does drugs, I won't lie, I start to get kinda iffy towards em when I realize that drugs/alcohol is playing a prominent role in their lives, and they depend on it (basically to the point where it is easy to tell that that person uses/relies on the stuff). In my experiences, they just tend to be less trustworthy, have more problems, etc etc.
Just what I think.
What I really don't like is when people are on either extreme side of the spectrum. I'm talking about both those straight-edge kids that you hear about that people the shit out of people for just smoking a cig or having a drink, and I'm talking about those drug users (recreational or hardcore) that think that being against doing drugs is stupid. (and there's a lot of both of them around where I live ~_~)
Edit: Oh and to add another thing, while I said all that above I still don't really fancy being around the people while they are getting high or drunk, because as someone in this thread just made me (and another person :D) realize that they tend to be super annoying when they are lol
On October 17 2011 12:29 Greentellon wrote: I know a person who is heavily alcoholic. Alcohol has been compared several times to the mildest of drugs and I have seen from front row how acholos has ruined his brain and life. Perhaps it's not all alcohols fault, but every time I see him wasted, stumbling around there unable to make a coherent thought, I pity him. I can't feel anything but pity towards him.
If I hear you mention drugs I may forgive you if you don't push the issue further, but if you keep at it or you actually whip some out, I will call the cops on the spot. Oh well, maybe I will leave the room/house first. Is that prejudice? No, it's me being smart. If you want to ruin your brain and health, go ahead. But don't drag me into your insanity.
Dude, it's you being smart? HAHAHAHA. No. It's you having an irrational (and impulsive) reaction based on complete ignorance. That's quite humorous though
I mean just to think you'd call the cops on somebody and negatively affect their life for a personal choice they made that does not directly nor indirectly affect yours just seems a little crazy
In America, illegal drugs are illegal.
It's insane, I know. But if you flaunt your drug use, you're probably going to jail, one way or another. Sorry that you don't like that. But that's the way it works. Something about crimes being prosecutable in the court of law.
who said anything about morals being related to laws? please go away
In America, when people break the law, we have this thing we do which we refer to as "calling the police". Equally as insane as my former post. Anyways, the police are readily available, and will report to the location you give them in very little time. They then proceed to arrest the criminals.
Is it stupid to call the police when someone is throwing their drug use in your face? Maybe on your island. But here, we call that normal.
That is really concerning to me. I'm not a drug user but I've been around enough to have a fairly informed opinion, and to me the absolute worst thing you can do to a regular drug user (not a dealer) is call the authorities on them, at least not as a first option. Jail time, even a brief stint with no prison sentence, tends to lead to more drug use, and from what I've seen also can create feelings of paranoia and depression that last for an extended time afterwards.
Do I think you should not be prejudiced against drug users? I don't know - if you don't like drugs, then be prejudiced and don't hang out with drug users. But on the other hand, if you care about someone and they become a drug user or you find out that they use drugs, it should not drastically change how you perceive them. If you are concerned the best thing you can do is express your concern, and if that doesn't work try to get other people close to them to express their concerns as well.
Of course that all goes out the window when you're dealing with an armed drug dealer or someone who is violent and on PCP/coke/crack/etc. If you feel threatened then absolutely call the police, but if you are non-threateningly offered drugs, as the original post in the quote tree seemed to mention, then calling the cops is a seriously irrational first impulse. Drug users are not out to get you or make you use drugs, and if they offer it is because they honestly (and possibly not rationally, but sometimes they are fully rational about it) think that you would enjoy them or that they would help you in some way. Getting them into legal trouble is repaying their perceived kindness by negatively influencing their lives - sometimes permanently depending on what the police find. Yet again though, if you're aggressively being pushed to do heroin (for instance) by a drug dealer that just wants another customer, that's a different story from being offered pot at a house party.
You, like so many people in this thread, are lumping all drugs together and saying that they are all equally bad. This is just silly. Not all drugs harm the individual and society
I would argue that it's not important whether all drugs are equally bad, or even whether all drugs are bad at all. Rather, I'd encourage you to express your opinion on whether or not it's okay to judge people based on drug use. Perhaps you think that it's okay for some drugs you think are bad, but not okay for other, less harmful drugs? Vote "other" in the poll and tell us why!
I already voted 'Yes' in the first poll, and my reason is posted further up on ths page
Ack; this is embarrassing! o.o;
You're right, you did. And, after reading your conversation with SpaceToaster I see there's no derailment to worry about. Carry on! In reply to your opinion,
On October 17 2011 13:05 oldgregg wrote: Of course its bad to discriminate against drug users. Not all drug users are dirty criminals, most of them are just average people who go home and smoke a joint at the end of the day
Isn't it true that the act of going home and smoking a joint at the end of the day is a decision that could possibly negatively impact them? Am I not justified in not wanting to spend time with this person because of it? More importantly, am I to trust my best friend in the arms of this person, at the risk of exposing her to drugs and allowing her to use them too? She's extremely important to me!
You have to look at the particulars of each drug. You can't overdose on marijuana and it isn't physically addictive. It would probably be best for you to just tell your friend that you are concerned about her exposure to drug use, but you shouldn't jump to conclusions about negative impacts to her life, even if she also smokes. Even drugs that are addictive, such as alcohol, can be used responsibly.
It's insane, I know. But if you flaunt your drug use, you're probably going to jail, one way or another. Sorry that you don't like that. But that's the way it works. Something about crimes being prosecutable in the court of law.
who said anything about morals being related to laws? please go away
In America, when people break the law, we have this thing we do which we refer to as "calling the police". Equally as insane as my former post. Anyways, the police are readily available, and will report to the location you give them in very little time. They then proceed to arrest the criminals.
Is it stupid to call the police when someone is throwing their drug use in your face? Maybe on your island. But here, we call that normal.
That is really concerning to me. I'm not a drug user but I've been around enough to have a fairly informed opinion, and to me the absolute worst thing you can do to a regular drug user (not a dealer) is call the authorities on them, at least not as a first option. Jail time, even a brief stint with no prison sentence, tends to lead to more drug use, and from what I've seen also can create feelings of paranoia and depression that last for an extended time afterwards.
Do I think you should not be prejudiced against drug users? I don't know - if you don't like drugs, then be prejudiced and don't hang out with drug users. But on the other hand, if you care about someone and they become a drug user or you find out that they use drugs, it should not drastically change how you perceive them. If you are concerned the best thing you can do is express your concern, and if that doesn't work try to get other people close to them to express their concerns as well.
Of course that all goes out the window when you're dealing with an armed drug dealer or someone who is violent and on PCP/coke/crack/etc. If you feel threatened then absolutely call the police, but if you are non-threateningly offered drugs, as the original post in the quote tree seemed to mention, then calling the cops is a seriously irrational first impulse. Drug users are not out to get you or make you use drugs, and if they offer it is because they honestly (and possibly not rationally, but sometimes they are fully rational about it) think that you would enjoy them or that they would help you in some way. Getting them into legal trouble is repaying their perceived kindness by negatively influencing their lives - sometimes permanently depending on what the police find. Yet again though, if you're aggressively being pushed to do heroin (for instance) by a drug dealer that just wants another customer, that's a different story from being offered pot at a house party.
You, like so many people in this thread, are lumping all drugs together and saying that they are all equally bad. This is just silly. Not all drugs harm the individual and society
I would argue that it's not important whether all drugs are equally bad, or even whether all drugs are bad at all. Rather, I'd encourage you to express your opinion on whether or not it's okay to judge people based on drug use. Perhaps you think that it's okay for some drugs you think are bad, but not okay for other, less harmful drugs? Vote "other" in the poll and tell us why!
I already voted 'Yes' in the first poll, and my reason is posted further up on ths page
Ack; this is embarrassing! o.o;
You're right, you did. And, after reading your conversation with SpaceToaster I see there's no derailment to worry about. Carry on! In reply to your opinion,
On October 17 2011 13:05 oldgregg wrote: Of course its bad to discriminate against drug users. Not all drug users are dirty criminals, most of them are just average people who go home and smoke a joint at the end of the day
Isn't it true that the act of going home and smoking a joint at the end of the day is a decision that could possibly negatively impact them? Am I not justified in not wanting to spend time with this person because of it? More importantly, am I to trust my best friend in the arms of this person, at the risk of exposing her to drugs and allowing her to use them too? She's extremely important to me!
Haha no worries mate. In reply to your first response; Yes smoking a joint could potentially harm them, but then again so could smoking a cigarette or having a beer or eating a hamburger. Would you not want to spend time with a person who did any of these things? As to whether you would trust your best friend in the arms of the drug user; Well that all depends on the drug. For weed, I would say it is pretty safe to trust your friend with them. All of the pot smokers I know (I used to smoke too), are normal, responsible people. There is no reason not to trust them just because they smoke weed, as for Heroin or crack I don't personally know, but I would be less inclined to trust them!
In all fairness, yes, I know plenty of people who smoke pot and who manage to lead perfectly good lives in spite of it. For some reason, though, there's something within me that says "this is wrong" and doesn't want to be within a thousand miles of even a drop of alcohol.
Also, I feel like I may have external troubles with trusting her with him, so I may very well just be looking to scapegoat his drug use as a legitimate reason not to want her to be with him. I really don't know!
Ok well it seems you have an irrational fear of drugs then Oh were you talking about a real life situation that a friend of yours is in? Does they guy just seem like a dodgy character? Remember that just because some drug users are dodgy characters it doesn't mean all of them are!
On October 17 2011 14:02 DeltruS wrote: I am against any drug that "takes away the dignity of the user" in exchange for whatever benefit the drugs produces. There are better options to be happy that let people not only retain their dignity, but also improve the world and themselves. For example, instead of getting instant pleasure by drinking and acting like a drunk person, I could be exercising, creating things and learning things I like in my future career path.
There is no way I will ever reduce myself to a spaced out stoner, getting joy out of thin air. What is the difference between that and becoming a vegetable in exchange for an ample supply of artificial happiness?
Sure, there are very few downsides to alcohol and marijuana, but the state that people are in while doing them is what I care about. Drunk and high people are annoying, and the pleasure that they can get is often seen as a replacement for the pleasure of a job well done, resulting in alcoholics and those "hippies" that are constantly rallying for the legalization of marijuana.
If someone can somehow do a drug while retaining their dignity and receiving the benefits, then I fully support it. For example, low amounts of alcohol or caffeine.
Definition of dignity, because I used the word so much :
Bearing, conduct, or speech indicative of self-respect.
That's a really interesting (and pretty mature imo) view on drug use, fairly similar to my own views, though you seem to have a stricter view of dignity than I do. To me getting wasted in public is losing dignity, but getting wasted with friends in private is not. Recreational drug use is fine as long as you can keep self respect, hold a job/do well in school, and be a functioning part of society.
That said I believe in widespread legalization of all but the most harmful substances, but I am also in favor of drug tests for welfare and government assistance. I guess to be short about it, getting fucked up is a privilege, not a right. Just one possible way you can reward yourself or relax after being an employed, successful human being.
People don't exist in a vacuum, if it hurts you it hurts some else as well. Friends, family, the society which has to feed and clothe you while you waste away, whatever.
I'm only prejudice about tweakers (because they do shady shit and steal a lot). If anyone else is using recreational drugs or smokes weed it doesn't bother me (except when they try and get me to smoke or act like i'm stupid when I don't smoke).
I'm actually starting to be prejudice about people who drink all the time though. Most of the people I meet at bars and parties and shit are really superficial and pretty much are boring as fuck unless drinking. Need to find a better method to meet women
On October 17 2011 14:02 DeltruS wrote: I am against any drug that "takes away the dignity of the user" in exchange for whatever benefit the drugs produces. There are better options to be happy that let people not only retain their dignity, but also improve the world and themselves. For example, instead of getting instant pleasure by drinking and acting like a drunk person, I could be exercising, creating things and learning things I like in my future career path.
There is no way I will ever reduce myself to a spaced out stoner, getting joy out of thin air. What is the difference between that and becoming a vegetable in exchange for an ample supply of artificial happiness?
Sure, there are very few downsides to alcohol and marijuana, but the state that people are in while doing them is what I care about. Drunk and high people are annoying, and the pleasure that they can get is often seen as a replacement for the pleasure of a job well done, resulting in alcoholics and those "hippies" that are constantly rallying for the legalization of marijuana.
If someone can somehow do a drug while retaining their dignity and receiving the benefits, then I fully support it. For example, low amounts of alcohol or caffeine.
Definition of dignity, because I used the word so much :
Bearing, conduct, or speech indicative of self-respect.
The bolded text, is so, SO true. That's something I haven't personally considered. I know some drug users smoke only in private situations, but when I've experienced high or drunk people around me it's not once been anything less than extremely unpleasant for me and every sober person with me. Maybe this contributes to my bias. Is that wrong?
EDIT: Next time I make a double post I'm going to force myself to reveal an embarrassing secret about myself, complete with pictures, and post it as a blog. That'll set me straight in no time.
Of course it contributes to your phobia. You've not tried any drug, and yet you are making opinions with 0 experience. You're also trying to control someone elses life, because of your irrational fear of something you have no experience with. In a normal circumstance, someone would be pointing you to a psychologist, however this is a forum and those with your same opinion will support your assertion. Every person reacts to each drug differently, so to create a single notion about these drugs is completely irrational. The first step is to try a drug yourself, or with that person who you're trying to "protect" and see how you respond, this way the phobia is either confirmed or denied, rather than just confirmed out of fear. Your fear may even be stronger than the drug, but that is for you to find out.
It depends on the person, but typically it won't affect my opinion of them or it will slightly increase it. If they can be a a regular functioning member of society and they use drugs then by all means I have no problems with it. If they are a "junky", then I won't approve of their drug habits. As for prejudice, I think it is wrong for people to just consider anyone who uses drugs a junky and look down on them. Prejudice against it as a blanket is wrong, but of course there are individuals who make it easy to overlook.
While the morality of the decision is debatable (everyone has their own opinion) you are correct in stating that smoking pot is a decision that could negatively impact a person. There are possible legal ramifications in most counties. I think you're justified in making a decision to avoid possible harm that could come from hanging out with this person, though almost nothing can happen to you just by being around the person. You'd have to actually use drugs to get in trouble for using drugs! I would at least get to know the guy before you passed judgement on his character, though obviously his drug habits are a part of who he is - it wouldn't be fair to judge him as a whole just based on that.
What does bother me a bit is that you are trying to pass judgement for your friend on this person, but thats a little off topic. You should trust your friend to make her own decisions, even if you don't approve completely. I wouldn't strain your friendship over one facet of a guy that you don't seem to know all that well (though I don't know the whole situation, thats what I can gather from your writing). Get to know him and decide if she could do better based on all of his qualities rather than just the one that's been analyzed in this thread.
I did say I'm not sure what it is that makes me uncomfortable! But you're very right.
I think the thing that most worries me about his drug use is not HIS drug use, but hers. She's never done drugs and that's always made me a lot more comfortable spending time with her (I come from a town where more than 50% of the teenage population smokes pot.) But she's always had this curiosity for smoking pot, since a lot of her friends do it too, which I've been very keen on trying to kill. I sometimes question if I'm doing it not because I want to keep her safe, but because I'm unthinkingly biased against drug use.
Whew, cleaned out all the nested quotes - god when that opened up it was like 3 pages long!
To me it sounds more like you don't want the nature of your friendship to change, it doesn't sound like its drug related, but just that her not using drugs is a quality you admire that you don't want to change. I'm in the don't knock it till you try it crowd (I've tried a lot of things and I don't like much and I don't want to get addicted to the things I do like - cigarette addiction is bad enough and I can't kick that - so I don't do drugs), so I fully understand the curiosity. Most towns have about that ratio of pot smokers, favoring poor groups and artistic groups, with business or science minded people tending to stay away from pot, but its that common almost everywhere. Its your personal relationship so I don't really know what to tell you to do about it, but I can share about different people I know that have tried pot or smoke regularly.
The bottom line about it is that everyone is different, and the amount of use is really affected by the company a person keeps. One group I know smokes every day, but they are all very career minded and stay out of trouble. They know the risk but the relaxation is worth it to them. Some people try it, and just don't like it, or judge that its not worth the risk of legal trouble to use with any frequency - which is where I sit. Then there's the people who try it and think they have found the answer to life, the universe, and everything and don't have any desire to do anything else but finance their drug use. I don't like these people, and I won't hang out with them, but their way of life is fine, just lazy.
On October 17 2011 14:03 Synwave wrote: This thread makes me giggle. So many have opinions but they keep "but"ing everything they say so basically its cool but its not. Its not cool but in some circumstances under these predefined terms its cool. How is that even an opinion?
I think alot of that comes from the fact that we are discussing 'drugs' as an umbrella term, and trying to makes generalizations about them
I used to be on of those people who judge drug users immediately. I thought all of them were fuck ups and that they were going no where in life. Then one time one of my best friends (so i guess peer pressure) said to me "I don't know why you judge us if you never experience it" so I went for it and what do you know, it'snot that big of a deal. If you let drugs define your life then ya, I understand a prejudice, but those who do it once in a while (like fast food) they can definitively be the same as people who don't do anything, or even better.
On October 17 2011 11:47 jdseemoreglass wrote: It's clear that half the people in this thread think that the word "prejudice" is synonymous with "looking down on people." Just like most people think "prejudice" and "racism" are the same thing, when clearly they are very different things.
I guess I would be wasting my time trying to swim against the current...
Exactly. For those raising their eyebrows at the semantics here, prejudice means literally 'pre-judge', with no indication as to the connotations or positivity/negativity encapsulated by those judgments.
Some prejudices can be positive, like the common stereotype that asians are good at math.
For the sake of clarification, 'prejudice' means to feel differently about someone for whom environmental or developmental conditions differ than your own in some significant way.
On October 17 2011 14:38 Bandino wrote: I used to be on of those people who judge drug users immediately. I thought all of them were fuck ups and that they were going no where in life. Then one time one of my best friends (so i guess peer pressure) said to me "I don't know why you judge us if you never experience it" so I went for it and what do you know, it'snot that big of a deal. If you let drugs define your life then ya, I understand a prejudice, but those who do it once in a while (like fast food) they can definitively be the same as people who don't do anything, or even better.
That... Is the most retarded argument ever used... And I am sad to say that it works...
Because that argument means only murderers and crime bosses can try and convict each other. Somehow I don't see that working out too well for society in general. But what do I know, I haven't done <insert activity here>, so I can't judge them!!!"
By the way, have you tried non-consensual bondage sex yet with a stranger of the same gender yet? No, then I guess you can't be a juror then!!! *facepalm*
To the OP: You cannot change being asian, or being black, or having a life changing disease, or being mentally challenged.
You can, however, stop drug use, especially if it's hurting you. There are NUMEROUS programs around the world to stop drug use. The prejudice I have against people who use drugs is because they obviously made a bad choice in life, and refuse to accept/cbf/don't have the willpower to fix their mistake. So yes, I do have a problem with drug users.
If you have prejudice against someone because of their sexual orientation, their skin colour, or even because their retarded makes you a bad person. To have prejudice against someone who uses illegal drugs is perfectly acceptable.
If you are judging someone negatively because they use a drug than you are being prejudice for sure. You are judging them on something that really doesnt say anything about the person.
On October 17 2011 14:38 Bandino wrote: I used to be on of those people who judge drug users immediately. I thought all of them were fuck ups and that they were going no where in life. Then one time one of my best friends (so i guess peer pressure) said to me "I don't know why you judge us if you never experience it" so I went for it and what do you know, it'snot that big of a deal. If you let drugs define your life then ya, I understand a prejudice, but those who do it once in a while (like fast food) they can definitively be the same as people who don't do anything, or even better.
That... Is the most retarded argument ever used... And I am sad to say that it works...
Because that argument means only murderers and crime bosses can try and convict each other. Somehow I don't see that working out too well for society in general. But what do I know, I haven't done <insert activity here>, so I can't judge them!!!"
By the way, have you tried non-consensual bondage sex yet with a stranger of the same gender yet? No, then I guess you can't be a juror then!!! *facepalm*
You are making the assumption that 'all drugs are bad mkay' because we are constantly told by the media that they are. How do you know that all drugs are bad? Have you ever tried any drug? Open your mind and try something before you judge it
As for whether or not I'm prejudiced about drugs and/or drug users: I come from a rather large family of people who have extensively experimented with and used drugs. I myself have only drank a little (not enough to get drunk) and smoked/ate weed a few times to varying levels of intoxication.
Personally, I've been around stoners a lot, and know the cultural underpinnings well. For example, I knew a certain player/caster smoked weed before the subject ever came up in any of his casts, and the fact that the subject came up at all is proof positive that the 'stoner vibe' was detected by a lot of other people besides myself.
For all the positive and medicinal aspects of casual (as in, not lifestyle forming) cannabis use, those who do form a lifestyle around it suffer from varying extremes of consequences for doing so. Those who don't think it's addictive would be really wrong, reference any one of literally hundreds of references to the contrary by Dr. Drew on the subject (as a specialist in the area of addiction medicine). When it's available, people will smoke all they have, and then oftentimes literally spend hours in a day trying to procure more. You can't say that's not an addiction. And, should their weed quest prove futile, oftentimes people get irritable and cranky. My own older brother would basically be a huge dick to his family until his (then) wife would go buy him some. His situation wasn't unique.
Most of the people crusading for weed specifically that cite the positive aspects of casual/rare/occasional/social use are themselves in the lifestyle category anyways and are lying to themselves about whether or not they suffer any of the negative consequences of its use.
...And that's just marijuana. The softest-core drug there is. I don't even need to get into amphetamine/opiate/euphoric abuse, or alcohol.
It's totally okay to judge someone for substance abuse. The likelihood of someone using substances without abusing them is abysmally low.
On October 17 2011 14:38 Bandino wrote: I used to be on of those people who judge drug users immediately. I thought all of them were fuck ups and that they were going no where in life. Then one time one of my best friends (so i guess peer pressure) said to me "I don't know why you judge us if you never experience it" so I went for it and what do you know, it'snot that big of a deal. If you let drugs define your life then ya, I understand a prejudice, but those who do it once in a while (like fast food) they can definitively be the same as people who don't do anything, or even better.
That... Is the most retarded argument ever used... And I am sad to say that it works...
Because that argument means only murderers and crime bosses can try and convict each other. Somehow I don't see that working out too well for society in general. But what do I know, I haven't done <insert activity here>, so I can't judge them!!!"
By the way, have you tried non-consensual bondage sex yet with a stranger of the same gender yet? No, then I guess you can't be a juror then!!! *facepalm*
You are making the assumption that 'all drugs are bad mkay' because we are constantly told by the media that they are. How do you know that all drugs are bad? Have you ever tried any drug? Open your mind and try something before you judge it
You ever meet a meth addict? You ever judge them for being a junky? You think you need to try meth before you have the right?
What about whores? Do you need to be a whore before you can look at one and be like 'Ehhh'.
On October 17 2011 14:38 Bandino wrote: I used to be on of those people who judge drug users immediately. I thought all of them were fuck ups and that they were going no where in life. Then one time one of my best friends (so i guess peer pressure) said to me "I don't know why you judge us if you never experience it" so I went for it and what do you know, it'snot that big of a deal. If you let drugs define your life then ya, I understand a prejudice, but those who do it once in a while (like fast food) they can definitively be the same as people who don't do anything, or even better.
That... Is the most retarded argument ever used... And I am sad to say that it works...
Because that argument means only murderers and crime bosses can try and convict each other. Somehow I don't see that working out too well for society in general. But what do I know, I haven't done <insert activity here>, so I can't judge them!!!"
By the way, have you tried non-consensual bondage sex yet with a stranger of the same gender yet? No, then I guess you can't be a juror then!!! *facepalm*
You are making the assumption that 'all drugs are bad mkay' because we are constantly told by the media that they are. How do you know that all drugs are bad? Have you ever tried any drug? Open your mind and try something before you judge it
Have you ever shot a man and watch him die? It's okay if he's got no life, right? Like a terminal cancer person. How do you know killing people is bad? We're all going to die anyway. Have you murdered anyone yet? Open your mind and try something before you judge it.
I can continue like this with many more examples, how about gay bondage sex? Many men try it, even when they're happily married, have kids and well adjusted lives. You can't judge it till you try it.
On October 17 2011 14:38 Bandino wrote: I used to be on of those people who judge drug users immediately. I thought all of them were fuck ups and that they were going no where in life. Then one time one of my best friends (so i guess peer pressure) said to me "I don't know why you judge us if you never experience it" so I went for it and what do you know, it'snot that big of a deal. If you let drugs define your life then ya, I understand a prejudice, but those who do it once in a while (like fast food) they can definitively be the same as people who don't do anything, or even better.
That... Is the most retarded argument ever used... And I am sad to say that it works...
Because that argument means only murderers and crime bosses can try and convict each other. Somehow I don't see that working out too well for society in general. But what do I know, I haven't done <insert activity here>, so I can't judge them!!!"
By the way, have you tried non-consensual bondage sex yet with a stranger of the same gender yet? No, then I guess you can't be a juror then!!! *facepalm*
You are making the assumption that 'all drugs are bad mkay' because we are constantly told by the media that they are. How do you know that all drugs are bad? Have you ever tried any drug? Open your mind and try something before you judge it
Different people have different susceptibilities to drug addiction. Not everyone can simply shake the psychological craving that comes after trying once.
I don't know why would you even suggest to him to try any drug without first specifying ANY possible side effects that might occur during the first consumption.
I'm curious, but which particular drug is wrongly portrayed by the media to be *bad*?
On October 17 2011 12:29 Greentellon wrote: I know a person who is heavily alcoholic. Alcohol has been compared several times to the mildest of drugs and I have seen from front row how acholos has ruined his brain and life. Perhaps it's not all alcohols fault, but every time I see him wasted, stumbling around there unable to make a coherent thought, I pity him. I can't feel anything but pity towards him.
If I hear you mention drugs I may forgive you if you don't push the issue further, but if you keep at it or you actually whip some out, I will call the cops on the spot. Oh well, maybe I will leave the room/house first. Is that prejudice? No, it's me being smart. If you want to ruin your brain and health, go ahead. But don't drag me into your insanity.
Dude, it's you being smart? HAHAHAHA. No. It's you having an irrational (and impulsive) reaction based on complete ignorance. That's quite humorous though
I mean just to think you'd call the cops on somebody and negatively affect their life for a personal choice they made that does not directly nor indirectly affect yours just seems a little crazy
In America, illegal drugs are illegal.
It's insane, I know. But if you flaunt your drug use, you're probably going to jail, one way or another. Sorry that you don't like that. But that's the way it works. Something about crimes being prosecutable in the court of law.
who said anything about morals being related to laws? please go away
In America, when people break the law, we have this thing we do which we refer to as "calling the police". Equally as insane as my former post. Anyways, the police are readily available, and will report to the location you give them in very little time. They then proceed to arrest the criminals.
Is it stupid to call the police when someone is throwing their drug use in your face? Maybe on your island. But here, we call that normal.
who said anything about morals being related to laws? please go away
also your attempt to condescend while simultaneously being unintelligent is amusing
Define drug ? Alcohol is a drug, im pretty much sure most of the ppl who voted "no" drink it. Tabaco is also a drug and im pretty sure that it doesn't affect you in any way other then causing you problems with your lungs and making you fell bad if you haven't smoked it in a while Marijuana is considered a drug.... is it bad ? most likely not What about speed, LSD or other... "middle" drugs in terms of effects, is this when you start counting drugs as "drugs" ? Or is it only when you get to shit like heroin ? If someone is doing heroin on a regular basis then it might affect my option of him negatively but if someone is drinking/smoking or if he did LSD few times at parties or just to " see how it is " then most likely not
I don't think most people should do drugs past alcohol or marijuana, but ecstasy had a mind blowing positive effect on my life. It depends on the person that uses it and where they are emotionally and intellectually, but I think it's a life experience you have to do if you can handle it. Being able to see new perspectives because of drugs has actually been a great thing for me.
On October 17 2011 15:12 Aterons_toss wrote: Define drug ? Alcohol is a drug, im pretty much sure most of the ppl who voted "no" drink it. Tabaco is also a drug and im pretty sure that it doesn't affect you in any way other then causing you problems with your lungs and making you fell bad if you haven't smoked it in a while Marijuana is considered a drug.... is it bad ? most likely not What about speed, LSD or other... "middle" drugs in terms of effects, is this when you start counting drugs as "drugs" ? Or is it only when you get to shit like heroin ? If someone is doing heroin on a regular basis then it might affect my option of him negatively but if someone is drinking/smoking or if he did LSD few times at parties or just to " see how it is " then most likely not
Same thinking process for me.
Except that an heroinoman is more of someone in need of help, imo, like a sick person.
Portugal approach powa. Cuz they're not high on hero after regular use, they just need it in order to stay "normal"...
On October 17 2011 14:38 Bandino wrote: I used to be on of those people who judge drug users immediately. I thought all of them were fuck ups and that they were going no where in life. Then one time one of my best friends (so i guess peer pressure) said to me "I don't know why you judge us if you never experience it" so I went for it and what do you know, it'snot that big of a deal. If you let drugs define your life then ya, I understand a prejudice, but those who do it once in a while (like fast food) they can definitively be the same as people who don't do anything, or even better.
That... Is the most retarded argument ever used... And I am sad to say that it works...
Because that argument means only murderers and crime bosses can try and convict each other. Somehow I don't see that working out too well for society in general. But what do I know, I haven't done <insert activity here>, so I can't judge them!!!"
By the way, have you tried non-consensual bondage sex yet with a stranger of the same gender yet? No, then I guess you can't be a juror then!!! *facepalm*
You are making the assumption that 'all drugs are bad mkay' because we are constantly told by the media that they are. How do you know that all drugs are bad? Have you ever tried any drug? Open your mind and try something before you judge it
Have you ever shot a man and watch him die? It's okay if he's got no life, right? Like a terminal cancer person. How do you know killing people is bad? We're all going to die anyway. Have you murdered anyone yet? Open your mind and try something before you judge it.
I can continue like this with many more examples, how about gay bondage sex? Many men try it, even when they're happily married, have kids and well adjusted lives. You can't judge it till you try it.
This is not about drugs, moron. GTFO
Ok you really need to calm down, Have you had a bad experience with a drug addict in the past?
Yes, I have met 2 meth addicts, I didn't judge them for it, but I do feel abit sorry for them and I think they could have made better decisions in their lives but who am I to tell them what to do?They didn't hurt me in any way and I had no reason to hate them.
And why are you comparing killing someone with taking drugs? Even a 4 year old child knows the consequences of killing a person, and we know that that is objectively a wrong thing to do. You don't know the consequences of taking a drug until you've tried it. I used to smoke weed and I enjoyed it for a while, until I stopped enjoying it so I stopped smoking it, although I still do occasionally.
You are another of these people in this thread who are lumping all drugs into one category and proclaiming that they are all evil. Most people in jail in the US are in there for maijuana possession, which is a victimless crime. I think you just have a stigma in your mind against people who break the law, no matter what that law may be
I would not want to be around someone who uses "hard" drugs like meth or crack simply because of their drug use because I feel that there is a significant statistical relationship between the use of these drugs and violent, criminal, or unpredictable behavior, and I believe that this is a causal relationship in which the drug use is the actual reason for the violent behavior because of the drugs affecting their mind.
As for someone who uses drugs such as alchohol or pot in moderate amounts (not an alchoholic or pothead), I would be fine with being around them and not think less of them as a person since I don't think that type of drug use would make them more likely to be a "bad" person.
On October 17 2011 14:38 Bandino wrote: I used to be on of those people who judge drug users immediately. I thought all of them were fuck ups and that they were going no where in life. Then one time one of my best friends (so i guess peer pressure) said to me "I don't know why you judge us if you never experience it" so I went for it and what do you know, it'snot that big of a deal. If you let drugs define your life then ya, I understand a prejudice, but those who do it once in a while (like fast food) they can definitively be the same as people who don't do anything, or even better.
That... Is the most retarded argument ever used... And I am sad to say that it works...
Because that argument means only murderers and crime bosses can try and convict each other. Somehow I don't see that working out too well for society in general. But what do I know, I haven't done <insert activity here>, so I can't judge them!!!"
By the way, have you tried non-consensual bondage sex yet with a stranger of the same gender yet? No, then I guess you can't be a juror then!!! *facepalm*
You are making the assumption that 'all drugs are bad mkay' because we are constantly told by the media that they are. How do you know that all drugs are bad? Have you ever tried any drug? Open your mind and try something before you judge it
Different people have different susceptibilities to drug addiction. Not everyone can simply shake the psychological craving that comes after trying once.
I don't know why would you even suggest to him to try any drug without first specifying ANY possible side effects that might occur during the first consumption.
I'm curious, but which particular drug is wrongly portrayed by the media to be *bad*?
I was talking about marijuana, I dont know why, but I just assumed that that was what he was talking about. And yes, I would recommend marijuana to everyone, trying it once has no negative effects and for nearly all people who try it, they have an amazing, pleasant, different experience.
As for the drugs wrongly portrayed by the media; I think marijuana, and to a lesser extent psychedelics eg/ LSD, mushrooms, cactus. I'm not saying these drugs have NO negative effects, but that their very small negative effects are greatly exaggerated by the media.
On October 17 2011 14:38 Bandino wrote: I used to be on of those people who judge drug users immediately. I thought all of them were fuck ups and that they were going no where in life. Then one time one of my best friends (so i guess peer pressure) said to me "I don't know why you judge us if you never experience it" so I went for it and what do you know, it'snot that big of a deal. If you let drugs define your life then ya, I understand a prejudice, but those who do it once in a while (like fast food) they can definitively be the same as people who don't do anything, or even better.
That... Is the most retarded argument ever used... And I am sad to say that it works...
Because that argument means only murderers and crime bosses can try and convict each other. Somehow I don't see that working out too well for society in general. But what do I know, I haven't done <insert activity here>, so I can't judge them!!!"
By the way, have you tried non-consensual bondage sex yet with a stranger of the same gender yet? No, then I guess you can't be a juror then!!! *facepalm*
You are making the assumption that 'all drugs are bad mkay' because we are constantly told by the media that they are. How do you know that all drugs are bad? Have you ever tried any drug? Open your mind and try something before you judge it
Different people have different susceptibilities to drug addiction. Not everyone can simply shake the psychological craving that comes after trying once.
I don't know why would you even suggest to him to try any drug without first specifying ANY possible side effects that might occur during the first consumption.
I'm curious, but which particular drug is wrongly portrayed by the media to be *bad*?
I was talking about marijuana, I dont know why, but I just assumed that that was what he was talking about. And yes, I would recommend marijuana to everyone, trying it once has no negative effects and for nearly all people who try it, they have an amazing, pleasant, different experience.
As for the drugs wrongly portrayed by the media; I think marijuana, and to a lesser extent psychedelics eg/ LSD, mushrooms, cactus. I'm not saying these drugs have NO negative effects, but that their very small negative effects are greatly exaggerated by the media.
Read my post at the bottom of the last page plz. I've literally born witness to people who put their lives on hold until they get more pot when they run out. I've also born witness to people being rageapes when they can't replenish.
If people never use it once, they won't get addicted. And, people who are susceptible to addictions develop a yearning to start to loathe the feeling of being sober, just like my little brother. To him, there always has to be a compromise. If I want him to clean his piss up so he can get a job and stop needing me to support him (he's 23), then I have to be cool with him drinking instead, cuz sober is BAAAAAAD. Even though he scrounges the money for alcohol by rounding up cans and stuff that cumulatively over the last year could've saved me from having to hand rent in late on a damn-near consistent basis.
It is prejudice in some circumstances, such as when a person's drug use is controlled and does not negatively effect the user in any way. In general, blanket statements like "illegal drug users have decreased mental/thought capacity" are unfair. Some drug users have low mental/thought capacity, but the same could be said for people who don't use drugs and vice versa.
I think the prejudice against illegal drug use is a social construct used to control people's freedoms. It's generally held by people who have never even tried drugs, or people who have tried them but were bad at using them. There's no reason for a few bad apples who can't handle drug intake to remove other people's basic human right of control over your own body.
I feel like the argument from the other side is based on emotion, when someone's friend overdosed or alcoholic/drug addicted family member has their personality drained by the positive and negative effects of the drugs. Well guess what, I also had a friend once who got heavily addicted to (non-illegal) drugs to the point that it almost ruined his life before he finally got sober, in fact if he didn't get sober when he did he might have died. That sucked, but the fact of the matter is, people who are bad at doing drugs shouldn't do them. If they do them and get addicted, it should be up to them and/or their family to get official medical treatment for their addiction. The law shouldn't have any say in the matter.
On October 17 2011 15:37 Meta wrote: It is prejudice in some circumstances, such as when a person's drug use is controlled and does not negatively effect the user in any way. In general, blanket statements like "illegal drug users have decreased mental/thought capacity" is unfair. Some drug users have low mental/thought capacity, but the same could be said for people who don't use drugs and vice versa.
I think the prejudice against illegal drug use is a social construct used to control people's freedoms. It's generally held by people who have never even tried drugs, or people who have tried them but were bad at using them. There's no reason for a few bad apples who can't handle drug intake to remove other people's basic human right of control over your own body.
I feel like the argument from the other side is based on emotion, when someone's friend overdosed or alcoholic/drug addicted family member has their personality drained by the positive and negative effects of the drugs. Well guess what, I also had a friend once who got heavily addicted to (non-illegal) drugs to the point that it almost ruined his life before he finally got sober, in fact if he didn't get sober when he did he might have died. That sucked, but the fact of the matter is, people who are bad at doing drugs shouldn't do them. If they do them and get addicted, it should be up to them and/or their family to get official medical treatment for their addiction. The law shouldn't have any say in the matter.
What about people that have lived and worked with drug/alcohol addicts their entire lives, watching their friends and loved ones flounder at life for year after year, making little compromises here and there in every other facet of their life to fit those chemicals in?
On October 17 2011 14:38 Bandino wrote: I used to be on of those people who judge drug users immediately. I thought all of them were fuck ups and that they were going no where in life. Then one time one of my best friends (so i guess peer pressure) said to me "I don't know why you judge us if you never experience it" so I went for it and what do you know, it'snot that big of a deal. If you let drugs define your life then ya, I understand a prejudice, but those who do it once in a while (like fast food) they can definitively be the same as people who don't do anything, or even better.
That... Is the most retarded argument ever used... And I am sad to say that it works...
Because that argument means only murderers and crime bosses can try and convict each other. Somehow I don't see that working out too well for society in general. But what do I know, I haven't done <insert activity here>, so I can't judge them!!!"
By the way, have you tried non-consensual bondage sex yet with a stranger of the same gender yet? No, then I guess you can't be a juror then!!! *facepalm*
You are making the assumption that 'all drugs are bad mkay' because we are constantly told by the media that they are. How do you know that all drugs are bad? Have you ever tried any drug? Open your mind and try something before you judge it
Different people have different susceptibilities to drug addiction. Not everyone can simply shake the psychological craving that comes after trying once.
I don't know why would you even suggest to him to try any drug without first specifying ANY possible side effects that might occur during the first consumption.
I'm curious, but which particular drug is wrongly portrayed by the media to be *bad*?
I was talking about marijuana, I dont know why, but I just assumed that that was what he was talking about. And yes, I would recommend marijuana to everyone, trying it once has no negative effects and for nearly all people who try it, they have an amazing, pleasant, different experience.
As for the drugs wrongly portrayed by the media; I think marijuana, and to a lesser extent psychedelics eg/ LSD, mushrooms, cactus. I'm not saying these drugs have NO negative effects, but that their very small negative effects are greatly exaggerated by the media.
Read my post at the bottom of the last page plz. I've literally born witness to people who put their lives on hold until they get more pot when they run out. I've also born witness to people being rageapes when they can't replenish.
If people never use it once, they won't get addicted. And, people who are susceptible to addictions develop a yearning to start to loathe the feeling of being sober, just like my little brother. To him, there always has to be a compromise. If I want him to clean his piss up so he can get a job and stop needing me to support him (he's 23), then I have to be cool with him drinking instead, cuz sober is BAAAAAAD. Even though he scrounges the money for alcohol by rounding up cans and stuff that cumulatively over the last year could've saved me from having to hand rent in late on a damn-near consistent basis.
Ok well I've never EVER seen anyone react that way to Marijuana. And I know alot of stoners. That must be a really rare addiction.
Are you lumping alcohol in with all these other addictive drugs, the consumers of which you will pre judge? I guarantee that most of TL has tried alcohol and have not degenrated into alcoholics. Shame about your brother though, I hope he gets clean.
Remember that a fairly large portion people who are against these drugs haven't tried them. Its like acid, most people have a very very different perception of it before and after. It is often regarded as an almost rite of passage because of how indescribable it is to someone who hasn't tried.
But drugs like heroin crack meth etc are just messed up and are extremely addicitive, harmful to your body, and are OD-able.
Which brings me to this:
Saying that people who smoke marijuana can be all generally thrown into one group of "less adequate people" is just as stupid as it sounds. Marijuana is far more harmless than the socially acceptable drugs that you think are OK. Alcohol is quite literally a poison, I've seen many men die too young to alcohol addictions. I've seen some long term marijuana users, and I can tell you that they are not only very alive, but they are alot less crazy than you make them out to be. Some of the smartest and most capable people I know have been smoking pot on the side for years. Its just not socially accepted here in the US, you really need to visit places like Europe or smoke it regularly to really access a paradigm shift for yourself.
Get educated about drugs before you discuss these matters, it helps to not dilute the conversation by saying that drugs are inherently bad
let me reiterate: drugs like meth, crack, heroin, ketamine, etc. are very very bad for you and deserve their harsh treatment, this post was in regards to judging people who use lighter psychedelics and cannabis
On October 17 2011 14:38 Bandino wrote: I used to be on of those people who judge drug users immediately. I thought all of them were fuck ups and that they were going no where in life. Then one time one of my best friends (so i guess peer pressure) said to me "I don't know why you judge us if you never experience it" so I went for it and what do you know, it'snot that big of a deal. If you let drugs define your life then ya, I understand a prejudice, but those who do it once in a while (like fast food) they can definitively be the same as people who don't do anything, or even better.
That... Is the most retarded argument ever used... And I am sad to say that it works...
Because that argument means only murderers and crime bosses can try and convict each other. Somehow I don't see that working out too well for society in general. But what do I know, I haven't done <insert activity here>, so I can't judge them!!!"
By the way, have you tried non-consensual bondage sex yet with a stranger of the same gender yet? No, then I guess you can't be a juror then!!! *facepalm*
You are making the assumption that 'all drugs are bad mkay' because we are constantly told by the media that they are. How do you know that all drugs are bad? Have you ever tried any drug? Open your mind and try something before you judge it
Different people have different susceptibilities to drug addiction. Not everyone can simply shake the psychological craving that comes after trying once.
I don't know why would you even suggest to him to try any drug without first specifying ANY possible side effects that might occur during the first consumption.
I'm curious, but which particular drug is wrongly portrayed by the media to be *bad*?
I was talking about marijuana, I dont know why, but I just assumed that that was what he was talking about. And yes, I would recommend marijuana to everyone, trying it once has no negative effects and for nearly all people who try it, they have an amazing, pleasant, different experience.
As for the drugs wrongly portrayed by the media; I think marijuana, and to a lesser extent psychedelics eg/ LSD, mushrooms, cactus. I'm not saying these drugs have NO negative effects, but that their very small negative effects are greatly exaggerated by the media.
Read my post at the bottom of the last page plz. I've literally born witness to people who put their lives on hold until they get more pot when they run out. I've also born witness to people being rageapes when they can't replenish.
If people never use it once, they won't get addicted. And, people who are susceptible to addictions develop a yearning to start to loathe the feeling of being sober, just like my little brother. To him, there always has to be a compromise. If I want him to clean his piss up so he can get a job and stop needing me to support him (he's 23), then I have to be cool with him drinking instead, cuz sober is BAAAAAAD. Even though he scrounges the money for alcohol by rounding up cans and stuff that cumulatively over the last year could've saved me from having to hand rent in late on a damn-near consistent basis.
Ok well I've never EVER seen anyone react that way to Marijuana. And I know alot of stoners. That must be a really rare addiction.
Are you lumping alcohol in with all these other addictive drugs, the consumers of which you will pre judge? I guarantee that most of TL has tried alcohol and have not degenrated into alcoholics. Shame about your brother though, I hope he gets clean.
Keep in mind, I do happen to be the only lifelong sober member of my entire extended family, the worst thing I've ever been addicted to is caffeine and arguably video games (different subject matter entirely). So I guess you could say I'm biased as someone who, being totally sober, has to watch everyone I love fuck up their lives in little subtle incremental ways that add up over time. You can say that you personally have never seen any of these negatives manifest, but I'd argue it's cuz you weren't looking for them, cuz you were high. :p
On October 17 2011 14:38 Bandino wrote: I used to be on of those people who judge drug users immediately. I thought all of them were fuck ups and that they were going no where in life. Then one time one of my best friends (so i guess peer pressure) said to me "I don't know why you judge us if you never experience it" so I went for it and what do you know, it'snot that big of a deal. If you let drugs define your life then ya, I understand a prejudice, but those who do it once in a while (like fast food) they can definitively be the same as people who don't do anything, or even better.
That... Is the most retarded argument ever used... And I am sad to say that it works...
Because that argument means only murderers and crime bosses can try and convict each other. Somehow I don't see that working out too well for society in general. But what do I know, I haven't done <insert activity here>, so I can't judge them!!!"
By the way, have you tried non-consensual bondage sex yet with a stranger of the same gender yet? No, then I guess you can't be a juror then!!! *facepalm*
You are making the assumption that 'all drugs are bad mkay' because we are constantly told by the media that they are. How do you know that all drugs are bad? Have you ever tried any drug? Open your mind and try something before you judge it
Have you ever shot a man and watch him die? It's okay if he's got no life, right? Like a terminal cancer person. How do you know killing people is bad? We're all going to die anyway. Have you murdered anyone yet? Open your mind and try something before you judge it.
I can continue like this with many more examples, how about gay bondage sex? Many men try it, even when they're happily married, have kids and well adjusted lives. You can't judge it till you try it.
This is not about drugs, moron. GTFO
Ok you really need to calm down, Have you had a bad experience with a drug addict in the past?
Yes, I have met 2 meth addicts, I didn't judge them for it, but I do feel abit sorry for them and I think they could have made better decisions in their lives but who am I to tell them what to do?They didn't hurt me in any way and I had no reason to hate them.
And why are you comparing killing someone with taking drugs? Even a 4 year old child knows the consequences of killing a person, and we know that that is objectively a wrong thing to do. You don't know the consequences of taking a drug until you've tried it. I used to smoke weed and I enjoyed it for a while, until I stopped enjoying it so I stopped smoking it, although I still do occasionally.
You are another of these people in this thread who are lumping all drugs into one category and proclaiming that they are all evil. Most people in jail in the US are in there for maijuana possession, which is a victimless crime. I think you just have a stigma in your mind against people who break the law, no matter what that law may be
Just wanted to correct one mis-perception here, although your point still bears weight. Most people in jail for crimes in the usa are due to intoxication and/or drugs are in the high majority due to alcohol.
On October 17 2011 15:37 Meta wrote: It is prejudice in some circumstances, such as when a person's drug use is controlled and does not negatively effect the user in any way. In general, blanket statements like "illegal drug users have decreased mental/thought capacity" is unfair. Some drug users have low mental/thought capacity, but the same could be said for people who don't use drugs and vice versa.
I think the prejudice against illegal drug use is a social construct used to control people's freedoms. It's generally held by people who have never even tried drugs, or people who have tried them but were bad at using them. There's no reason for a few bad apples who can't handle drug intake to remove other people's basic human right of control over your own body.
I feel like the argument from the other side is based on emotion, when someone's friend overdosed or alcoholic/drug addicted family member has their personality drained by the positive and negative effects of the drugs. Well guess what, I also had a friend once who got heavily addicted to (non-illegal) drugs to the point that it almost ruined his life before he finally got sober, in fact if he didn't get sober when he did he might have died. That sucked, but the fact of the matter is, people who are bad at doing drugs shouldn't do them. If they do them and get addicted, it should be up to them and/or their family to get official medical treatment for their addiction. The law shouldn't have any say in the matter.
What about people that have lived and worked with drug/alcohol addicts their entire lives, watching their friends and loved ones flounder at life for year after year, making little compromises here and there in every other facet of their life to fit those chemicals in?
I think what he is trying to argue is that you should look at each situation individually rather than having a blanket prejudice.
People who you buy drugs from are quite like to commit other crimes (gangs can have an impressive armory O.o) Medical bills if you end up ill because of the drug use (or drug use causes an accident ie drunk driving) Second hand smoke Emotions of those close to you (How would your mother feel about you hurting yourself?) Loss of your own productivity ect
On October 17 2011 15:46 LAN-f34r wrote: People who you buy drugs from are quite like to commit other crimes (gangs can have an impressive armory O.o) Medical bills if you end up ill because of the drug use (or drug use causes an accident ie drunk driving) Second hand smoke Emotions of those close to you (How would your mother feel about you hurting yourself?) Loss of your own productivity ect
Victim-less crime?
Please look up the definition of victim. It doesn't mean someone isn't hurt by your actions, it means someone isn't victimized by your actions.
People don't choose their gender, race, ethnicity, and, oftentimes, their faith. People can choose whether or not to use drugs. Merely suggesting that prejudice against a drug-user is comparable to prejudice against sexes or races is ludicrous and, to some extent, offensive. Do not cast the lot of a drug-user facing prejudice with that of a woman facing prejudice.
Additionally, drug use is not a crime without victims. Think of drug lords and gangs in Mexico-- think of the near Anarchy the state is facing-- the countless women and children who are being murdered in cold blood in order to line the pockets of criminals-- all thanks to drugs. Thanks to narcotics, to depressants, to stimulants, there is crime, abuse, and irrational behavior. Thanks to illegal drugs, there is poverty and destitution, there is murder. Illegal drug use has taken or ruined the lives of millions upon millions of people, and you want me to believe that illegal drug use is a crime without victims?
I hope you will understand why I feel no shame in my prejudice against those who use, buy, or sell any sort of illegal drug.
People are allowed to have their prejudices, and I would in no way 'legislate' otherwise, but I do indeed recommend being more receptive to things you initially have that knee-jerk prejudice to and applying some critical thought.
Where is the line drawn for you personally? Alcohol, weed, meth, crack, hallucinogens... where and WHY do you draw the line? Is the line concrete and drawn in every single circumstance?
Is a substances legal status a factor? Does, the use of/dependence upon, legal, prescribed, drugs (benzos, anti-depressants, opiates...) count? Does the use of/dependence upon these drugs factor in when they are being used illegally by those not prescribed?
Are you well educated on a specific substances positive/negative effects? In what scenarios are a drugs use "allowed"?
To what degree do you extend your prejudice? Do you actively look/talk/act down upon users or do you just personally avoid association?
If you've never fleshed out answers to these kinds of questions do you really think that you've applied any semblance of critical thought to the matter? All of us have personal reasons for the things we wish to stay away from and that is fine, but for fucks sake at least THINK about these things and whether they are actually healthy 'prejudices' to be having.
This is to no one in particular, just a response to the general mood of the thread.
On October 17 2011 15:46 LAN-f34r wrote: People who you buy drugs from are quite like to commit other crimes (gangs can have an impressive armory O.o) Medical bills if you end up ill because of the drug use (or drug use causes an accident ie drunk driving) Second hand smoke Emotions of those close to you (How would your mother feel about you hurting yourself?) Loss of your own productivity ect
Victim-less crime?
Please look up the definition of victim. It doesn't mean someone isn't hurt by your actions, it means someone isn't victimized by your actions.
Then victim-less crimes can still be hurting people? Why are they different from any other crime then, such that drugs should be allowed or accepted or whatever you want to call it?
LAN-f34r I'm sorry for putting this so rudely but that post reads like a after school commercial :[
-Yes, people who buy drugs are likely to commit other crimes. Just like people who serve in the military are prone to be violent or people from Alabama that were born in the 1940s are likely to be racist. ..... Generalizations are the entire content of your post. I'd say drug users and sellers are as varied as any other section of the population and when people assert blanket claims it's very off putting for actual discussion including drug users.
On October 17 2011 15:43 Surrealz wrote: Remember that a fairly large portion people who are against these drugs haven't tried them. Its like acid, most people have a very very different perception of it before and after. It is often regarded as an almost rite of passage because of how indescribable it is to someone who hasn't tried.
But drugs like heroin crack meth etc are just messed up and are extremely addicitive, harmful to your body, and are OD-able.
Everything is toxic, but it's the dose that makes the poison. That's the first law of toxicology.
You can OD on any drug. Although the law of toxicology states you can OD on jelly beans and fried chicken, lets stay on track.
Enough LSD will kill you, or make you very ill. Enough of any drug, legal or illegal will do this. If you happen to have 1.2 grams of LSD laying around, and you stumble upon it when you're tripping, or you decide it would be a good idea to trip really hard and just take it all, you would die.
It would take about 8 grams (about a half a pound) of mushrooms to kill you 50% of the time.
It's not likely that you would OD on these drugs, but they're not exactly not-OD-able.
On October 17 2011 15:37 Meta wrote: It is prejudice in some circumstances, such as when a person's drug use is controlled and does not negatively effect the user in any way. In general, blanket statements like "illegal drug users have decreased mental/thought capacity" is unfair. Some drug users have low mental/thought capacity, but the same could be said for people who don't use drugs and vice versa.
I think the prejudice against illegal drug use is a social construct used to control people's freedoms. It's generally held by people who have never even tried drugs, or people who have tried them but were bad at using them. There's no reason for a few bad apples who can't handle drug intake to remove other people's basic human right of control over your own body.
I feel like the argument from the other side is based on emotion, when someone's friend overdosed or alcoholic/drug addicted family member has their personality drained by the positive and negative effects of the drugs. Well guess what, I also had a friend once who got heavily addicted to (non-illegal) drugs to the point that it almost ruined his life before he finally got sober, in fact if he didn't get sober when he did he might have died. That sucked, but the fact of the matter is, people who are bad at doing drugs shouldn't do them. If they do them and get addicted, it should be up to them and/or their family to get official medical treatment for their addiction. The law shouldn't have any say in the matter.
What about people that have lived and worked with drug/alcohol addicts their entire lives, watching their friends and loved ones flounder at life for year after year, making little compromises here and there in every other facet of their life to fit those chemicals in?
I think what he is trying to argue is that you should look at each situation individually rather than having a blanket prejudice.
I've lived with, worked with, and been friends and enemies with stoners my entire adult life. I've seen the consistent long-term ill effects of prolonged addicted marijuana abuse. So much unrealized potential.
And those of you out there saying that (anecdotally) you know of someone who realized great potential while being on weed, you never saw what they were capable off of weed to know the difference. Just imagine the possibilities of sobriety! That accomplished doctor/lawyer/surgeon/etc. that you know who sparks up a doob every night before bedtime is the exception.
That's like pointing to the (again, anecdotal) story of the old lady that smoked cigarettes and drank alcohol and lived to be 97 years old as somehow being evidence that that shit isn't as bad for you as everyone says it is. You're deluding yourself if you think that's the case.
On October 17 2011 11:32 VPCursed wrote: I wouldn't want to be around someone who felt uncomfortable with others who used recreational drugs. Not because I find their prejudice misguided but because id find them to be a tad moronic. Also, there is a difference between drug user and drug abuser.
Well, if those people who used recreational drugs have great personalities and are good friends, then I'll be fine to hang out with them WHEN THEY ARE SOBER. But when they start using those drugs in my presence, then I'll ask them to shove it or do it somewhere else.
Anyway, I find it weird that you find people who are uncomfortable with others who used recreational drugs "a tad moronic". Why is that? Its perfectly understandable that people want to stay away from smokers when they are puffing away on regular cigarettes or pot or weed or heroine etc. Don't want to get poisoned by all those carcinogens.
You said that there is a difference between drug use and drug abuse. Well, hate to break it to you but recreational drug use is drug abuse. Try and prove me wrong by quoting some medical study or case file.
You think its "COOL" to use drugs? Well, I find that concept truly moronic.
This is entirely pointless because the only reason to have a prejudice against drug users is because of the stigma attached to the 'culture' rather than the actual drug itself. So yes it would be irrational to be prejudiced because of drug use because each case is individual. It also depends on certain drugs. Certain drugs are understandable in that you don't like what they do to people, but to lump all drug users as bad is infentile.
After all, everyone takes drugs. Everyone. Rx or not a drug is a drug is a drug.
I feel sorry for the people who are so bombarded with negativity from the media and so unable to think for themselves and from their own experiences that they hold prejudice against users of marijuana.
On October 17 2011 15:48 mbr2321 wrote: People don't choose their gender, race, ethnicity, and, oftentimes, their faith. People can choose whether or not to use drugs. Merely suggesting that prejudice against a drug-user is comparable to prejudice against sexes or races is ludicrous and, to some extent, offensive. Do not cast the lot of a drug-user facing prejudice with that of a woman facing prejudice.
Additionally, drug use is not a crime without victims. Think of drug lords and gangs in Mexico-- think of the near Anarchy the state is facing-- the countless women and children who are being murdered in cold blood in order to line the pockets of criminals-- all thanks to drugs. Thanks to narcotics, to depressants, to stimulants, there is crime, abuse, and irrational behavior. Thanks to illegal drugs, there is poverty and destitution, there is murder. Illegal drug use has taken or ruined the lives of millions upon millions of people, and you want me to believe that illegal drug use is a crime without victims?
I hope you will understand why I feel no shame in my prejudice against those who use, buy, or sell any sort of illegal drug.
During the NA prohibition era alcohol was also peddled by criminal gangs and created at home by petty criminals.
The more I drink the more I find that it is little different from marijuana except that one is legal and the other isn't. In the end, whether or not alcohol or marijuana impairs a person severely lies mostly on how much self control and prudence one has. Cigarettes causes cancer and other ailments for both the smoker and everyone around them. You don't see smokers face the same kind of persecution that someone smoking weed might face.
On October 17 2011 15:55 psycroptic wrote: I feel sorry for the people who are so bombarded with negativity from the media and so unable to think for themselves and from their own experiences that they hold prejudice against users of marijuana.
I have never seen marijuana in media. Good or bad.
On October 17 2011 12:29 Greentellon wrote: I know a person who is heavily alcoholic. Alcohol has been compared several times to the mildest of drugs and I have seen from front row how acholos has ruined his brain and life. Perhaps it's not all alcohols fault, but every time I see him wasted, stumbling around there unable to make a coherent thought, I pity him. I can't feel anything but pity towards him.
If I hear you mention drugs I may forgive you if you don't push the issue further, but if you keep at it or you actually whip some out, I will call the cops on the spot. Oh well, maybe I will leave the room/house first. Is that prejudice? No, it's me being smart. If you want to ruin your brain and health, go ahead. But don't drag me into your insanity.
Dude, it's you being smart? HAHAHAHA. No. It's you having an irrational (and impulsive) reaction based on complete ignorance. That's quite humorous though
I mean just to think you'd call the cops on somebody and negatively affect their life for a personal choice they made that does not directly nor indirectly affect yours just seems a little crazy
In America, illegal drugs are illegal.
It's insane, I know. But if you flaunt your drug use, you're probably going to jail, one way or another. Sorry that you don't like that. But that's the way it works. Something about crimes being prosecutable in the court of law.
who said anything about morals being related to laws? please go away
In America, when people break the law, we have this thing we do which we refer to as "calling the police". Equally as insane as my former post. Anyways, the police are readily available, and will report to the location you give them in very little time. They then proceed to arrest the criminals.
Is it stupid to call the police when someone is throwing their drug use in your face? Maybe on your island. But here, we call that normal.
who said anything about morals being related to laws? please go away
also your attempt to condescend while simultaneously being unintelligent is amusing
Laws are founded on basic moral principals. These principals focused on the smooth running of a coherent and thoughtful society. Cocaine was enforceably outlawed in 1970 in the United States because the government realized it had dangerously addictive properties, extreme health risks, and posed a real danger to society.
Murder is illegal because it is immoral by all modern, standard principles-- as is robbery, driving while intoxicated, rape, and so many other despicable, detestable things.
Basically, what I'm saying, in so many words, is that you are completely misguided, misinformed, or generally ignorant while you attempt to disassociate laws and morals. please go away
On October 17 2011 15:53 Probe1 wrote: LAN-f34r I'm sorry for putting this so rudely but that post reads like a after school commercial :[
-Yes, people who buy drugs are likely to commit other crimes. Just like people who serve in the military are prone to be violent or people from Alabama that were born in the 1940s are likely to be racist. ..... Generalizations are the entire content of your post. I'd say drug users and sellers are as varied as any other section of the population and when people assert blanket claims it's very off putting for actual discussion including drug users.
I was making a point that drugs do hurt other people. Perhaps one user might not have any negative effects. But there ARE negative effects. My point were examples of possible negative effects.
Notice what I did not try to do: say that these effects are larger than the benefit gained from drug use, say that people should not some drugs, say that everyone will cause these effects.
Notice what I did do: Make a counter argument to a flawed argument.
On October 17 2011 15:48 mbr2321 wrote: People don't choose their gender, race, ethnicity, and, oftentimes, their faith. People can choose whether or not to use drugs. Merely suggesting that prejudice against a drug-user is comparable to prejudice against sexes or races is ludicrous and, to some extent, offensive. Do not cast the lot of a drug-user facing prejudice with that of a woman facing prejudice.
Additionally, drug use is not a crime without victims. Think of drug lords and gangs in Mexico-- think of the near Anarchy the state is facing-- the countless women and children who are being murdered in cold blood in order to line the pockets of criminals-- all thanks to drugs. Thanks to narcotics, to depressants, to stimulants, there is crime, abuse, and irrational behavior. Thanks to illegal drugs, there is poverty and destitution, there is murder. Illegal drug use has taken or ruined the lives of millions upon millions of people, and you want me to believe that illegal drug use is a crime without victims?
I hope you will understand why I feel no shame in my prejudice against those who use, buy, or sell any sort of illegal drug.
During the NA prohibition era alcohol was also peddled by criminal gangs and created at home by petty criminals.
The more I drink the more I find that it is little different from marijuana except that one is legal and the other isn't. In the end, whether or not alcohol or marijuana impairs a person severely lies mostly on how much self control and prudence one has. Cigarettes causes cancer and other ailments for both the smoker and everyone around them. You don't see smokers face the same kind of persecution that someone smoking weed might face.
My point wasn't that illegal drugs should be illegal. I understand and sympathize with you that there are very strange and narrow classifications of what is a "dangerous" substance and what isn't.
My point is that I look down on people who use illegal drugs because they are indirectly supporting and facilitating the violent crimes that preceded their purchase of the substance.
On October 17 2011 15:43 Surrealz wrote: Remember that a fairly large portion people who are against these drugs haven't tried them. Its like acid, most people have a very very different perception of it before and after. It is often regarded as an almost rite of passage because of how indescribable it is to someone who hasn't tried.
But drugs like heroin crack meth etc are just messed up and are extremely addicitive, harmful to your body, and are OD-able.
Everything is toxic, but it's the dose that makes the poison. That's the first law of toxicology.
You can OD on any drug. Although the law of toxicology states you can OD on jelly beans and fried chicken, lets stay on track.
Enough LSD will kill you, or make you very ill. Enough of any drug, legal or illegal will do this. If you happen to have 1.2 grams of LSD laying around, and you stumble upon it when you're tripping, or you decide it would be a good idea to trip really hard and just take it all, you would die.
It would take about 8 grams (about a half a pound) of mushrooms to kill you 50% of the time.
It's not likely that you would OD on these drugs, but they're not exactly not-OD-able.
I literally fucking ODed on weed once. I was SURE there was other shit in that brownie, up to and including meth, shrooms, LSD, possibly PCP, DMT, etc.
I ate about a 6oz brownie. I think it had an unevenly potent concentration of weed in it compared to the others because nobody got as fucked up that night as I did, and the next time I tried to eat one (weeks later) it was NOTHING like this shit. HOLY FUCK.
I noticed I was getting fucked up because I started getting cotton mouth on my way to the deli to get some snacks (which should've tipped me off by itself). I was giggling to myself on the way home as my time perception started sharply distorting. I ran into a buddy of mine and we spoke for a while, but I had to end the conversation on the grounds that I was incapable of finishing a sentence. I found this hilarious, and so did he.
I also found everything else hilarious for the next couple of hours. My heart rate spiked and I think (not sure, but think) I started having a migraine. Problem was (or maybe not problem, per se) that I was too high to feel the pain, but the contraction of my blood vessels in my brain made the high much worse. Time collapsed into half second increments. The light was on and off at the same time, not strobing, but simultaneously on and fucking off. (Was actually off, though.) My heart was glowing neon yellow-green and my brain was glowing red-orange. The blood vessels between them gently changed from the former to the latter as the blood traveled through them.
I spent the next undisclosed number of hours talking to myself rapidly, talking to god pretty rapidly, dreaming trippy music while not sleeping, touching myself, feeling guilty about touching myself since, you know, god was RIGHT THE FUCK THERE.
It was intense.
I eventually crawled to the bathroom and vomited the entirety of my stomach contents several times before finally being able to go to sleep.
I was STILL pretty high the next morning.
---------------------------------------
Anyways, this narrative is there to let you guys know that yes, I have been fucked up, and I'm not condemning weed use for the sake thereof out of some kind of church lady crusade.
On October 17 2011 11:32 VPCursed wrote: I wouldn't want to be around someone who felt uncomfortable with others who used recreational drugs. Not because I find their prejudice misguided but because id find them to be a tad moronic. Also, there is a difference between drug user and drug abuser.
Well, if those people who used recreational drugs have great personalities and are good friends, then I'll be fine to hang out with them WHEN THEY ARE SOBER. But when they start using those drugs in my presence, then I'll ask them to shove it or do it somewhere else.
Anyway, I find it weird that you find people who are uncomfortable with others who used recreational drugs "a tad moronic". Why is that? Its perfectly understandable that people want to stay away from smokers when they are puffing away on regular cigarettes or pot or weed or heroine etc. Don't want to get poisoned by all those carcinogens.
You said that there is a difference between drug use and drug abuse. Well, hate to break it to you but recreational drug use is drug abuse. Try and prove me wrong by quoting some medical study or case file.
You think its "COOL" to use drugs? Well, I find that concept truly moronic.
Nowhere did he say it was COOL to use drugs.
There is absolutely a difference between drug use and drug abuse, you throwing recreational into the mix as if it suddenly devalues the person doing it is exactly the stigma he's essentially calling moronic.
If you can conclude that there is acceptable drug use, and you can, assuming you've ever taken medication for anything ever, it is not equal to drug abuse. Whether it's RECREATIONAL or not shouldn't be a factor. Are you going to so far as to say, a person prescribed xanax for anxiety and uses it on a regular basis is a perfectly legitimate and upstanding citizen, while someone that has taken xanax ONCE outside of having a prescription is a drug abuser? Even though the latter is significantly healthier than the former?
I'd find it extremely difficult as to how that holds up to the scrutiny of an intelligent individual.
I think drugs really need to be separated into different categories because really, not all illegal drugs are the same. I break them down like this:
If someone were to tell me they smoke pot I'd think 'ok cool' and it wouldn't have very much of an effect on my opinion of them because I've been friends with pot-heads and I know some pot smokers that I didn't really like. I myself smoke marijuana quite irregularly. I've smoked somewhat heavily in the past, and have an occasional toke every now and then. I personally don't think its had a detrimental effect on me whatsoever but I do understand that weed can mess some people up.
If someone said they do are have done LSD or shrooms it would probably have a positive effect on my attitude towards them because, having done lsd, I find that psychedelics are mind-opening. I feel that my experience with LSD has made me a better, more empathetic person.
If someone said they like drinking alcohol, I would really have to know in what kind of moderation to form an opinion but I suppose right of the bat, it would ever so slightly negatively impact my opinion of that person because I just link alcohol with that whole "bro" college kid scene. I do drink every now and again, and I find that it generally loosens people up, sometimes to the point where they just get really obnoxious.
Now if someone said they do meth or crack or coke or similar drugs, it would have a definite negative impact on my opinion of them. I would most likely try to avoid that person. But at the same time, I would try to hold back on judging them too harshly. They made some bad choices, sure. However, they may not have had the best opportunity to make smart decisions. When someone is surrounded by illicit activity, that pretty much what they learned is the norm. And those hard drugs don't give second chances. Not most of the time anyways. Just because someone is an addict doesn't mean they are a bad person. Of course, some addicts are, but at the same time, sober people can be bad people too.
i haven't read much replys in this thread but i definitely believe it's circumstantial based on the knowledge of each drug.
for example adderall known as the study drug. in this day and age, the rising standard of what you have to know and how much you have to study is almost 10x the amount of information compared to the 80's or 90's. and there's a definitive statistic that we have to work harder to secure a job than we ever had before in life and hence some would even consider unnatural and would force many students at the highest competing level to go to these things. for me i do not judge someone using addy a drug user or see it in a negative light. just a reaction to the increasing standard since you still do have to study.
marijuana is another circumstantial one because most people just don't understand there is little to no damage. but the thing is most argument for it is lack of facts on both sides. it's not "its' no damage to your brain" it's no damage to your brain if you use it late in life. having a adolescent use marijuana will definitely harm them permanently in the ability to memorize and retain information. while i do say there are more positives for marijuana than negatives that can do for society. while i still do look at marijuana users negatively since there is definite potential for abuse like giving marijuana to minors and the fact someone can be high out of their mind while driving risking other's lives due to weed brownies or cookies. a person who does not have tolerance to mj will definitely suffer chopped vision time distortion and other such things and it WILL affect the ability to drive and operate machinery.
steroids. obviously this is another circumstantial one. this really doesn't impair someone psychologically unless you consider roid rage doing that. but most people who use roids still have to work out hard, eat very clean etc. there is no benefit of it unless you workout and have a proper diet. the negative argument against it is it's potential for abuse, so it's definitely dangerous when minors can get their hands on it and most body builders these days abuse it way more than even professional athletes.
most of the arguments are based on people's definition of wrong or right by a morale set by the government which is flawed. the real argument should always come down to the fact if the so called drug is 1. impairs the user psychologically or physically and thus affecting the public (driving is most common) 2. making it legal endangers minors
there is an impossible line between this though since there are many things legal which harm minors/users anyway.
but to sum up my general point, i do believe prejudice against drug users is justified IF it's based on the understanding of the drug the person uses.
On October 17 2011 15:37 Meta wrote: It is prejudice in some circumstances, such as when a person's drug use is controlled and does not negatively effect the user in any way. In general, blanket statements like "illegal drug users have decreased mental/thought capacity" is unfair. Some drug users have low mental/thought capacity, but the same could be said for people who don't use drugs and vice versa.
I think the prejudice against illegal drug use is a social construct used to control people's freedoms. It's generally held by people who have never even tried drugs, or people who have tried them but were bad at using them. There's no reason for a few bad apples who can't handle drug intake to remove other people's basic human right of control over your own body.
I feel like the argument from the other side is based on emotion, when someone's friend overdosed or alcoholic/drug addicted family member has their personality drained by the positive and negative effects of the drugs. Well guess what, I also had a friend once who got heavily addicted to (non-illegal) drugs to the point that it almost ruined his life before he finally got sober, in fact if he didn't get sober when he did he might have died. That sucked, but the fact of the matter is, people who are bad at doing drugs shouldn't do them. If they do them and get addicted, it should be up to them and/or their family to get official medical treatment for their addiction. The law shouldn't have any say in the matter.
What about people that have lived and worked with drug/alcohol addicts their entire lives, watching their friends and loved ones flounder at life for year after year, making little compromises here and there in every other facet of their life to fit those chemicals in?
I think what he is trying to argue is that you should look at each situation individually rather than having a blanket prejudice.
I've lived with, worked with, and been friends and enemies with stoners my entire adult life. I've seen the consistent long-term ill effects of prolonged addicted marijuana abuse. So much unrealized potential.
And those of you out there saying that (anecdotally) you know of someone who realized great potential while being on weed, you never saw what they were capable off of weed to know the difference. Just imagine the possibilities of sobriety! That accomplished doctor/lawyer/surgeon/etc. that you know who sparks up a doob every night before bedtime is the exception.
That's like pointing to the (again, anecdotal) story of the old lady that smoked cigarettes and drank alcohol and lived to be 97 years old as somehow being evidence that that shit isn't as bad for you as everyone says it is. You're deluding yourself if you think that's the case.
I really hope that you can spot the hypocrisy in your post. Unfortunately, scientific studies and research are the only things which can conclusively prove marijuana to be anything. And no, I will not look up 'Dr. Drew'. You look him/her up and then give us the link.
On October 17 2011 12:29 Greentellon wrote: I know a person who is heavily alcoholic. Alcohol has been compared several times to the mildest of drugs and I have seen from front row how acholos has ruined his brain and life. Perhaps it's not all alcohols fault, but every time I see him wasted, stumbling around there unable to make a coherent thought, I pity him. I can't feel anything but pity towards him.
If I hear you mention drugs I may forgive you if you don't push the issue further, but if you keep at it or you actually whip some out, I will call the cops on the spot. Oh well, maybe I will leave the room/house first. Is that prejudice? No, it's me being smart. If you want to ruin your brain and health, go ahead. But don't drag me into your insanity.
Dude, it's you being smart? HAHAHAHA. No. It's you having an irrational (and impulsive) reaction based on complete ignorance. That's quite humorous though
I mean just to think you'd call the cops on somebody and negatively affect their life for a personal choice they made that does not directly nor indirectly affect yours just seems a little crazy
In America, illegal drugs are illegal.
It's insane, I know. But if you flaunt your drug use, you're probably going to jail, one way or another. Sorry that you don't like that. But that's the way it works. Something about crimes being prosecutable in the court of law.
who said anything about morals being related to laws? please go away
In America, when people break the law, we have this thing we do which we refer to as "calling the police". Equally as insane as my former post. Anyways, the police are readily available, and will report to the location you give them in very little time. They then proceed to arrest the criminals.
Is it stupid to call the police when someone is throwing their drug use in your face? Maybe on your island. But here, we call that normal.
who said anything about morals being related to laws? please go away
also your attempt to condescend while simultaneously being unintelligent is amusing
Laws are founded on basic moral principals. These principals focused on the smooth running of a coherent and thoughtful society. Cocaine was enforceably outlawed in 1970 in the United States because the government realized it had dangerously addictive properties, extreme health risks, and posed a real danger to society.
Murder is illegal because it is immoral by all modern, standard principles-- as is robbery, driving while intoxicated, rape, and so many other despicable, detestable things.
Basically, what I'm saying, in so many words, is that you are completely misguided, misinformed, or generally ignorant while you attempt to disassociate laws and morals. please go away
Laws are founded in morals, but not necessarily the morals of each individual held accountable to the law. In a discussion such as this one laws and morality should be kept separate, as we are discussing our personal morality and prejudices rather than the morality of the lawmakers.
On October 17 2011 15:46 LAN-f34r wrote: People who you buy drugs from are quite like to commit other crimes (gangs can have an impressive armory O.o) Medical bills if you end up ill because of the drug use (or drug use causes an accident ie drunk driving) Second hand smoke Emotions of those close to you (How would your mother feel about you hurting yourself?) Loss of your own productivity ect
Victim-less crime?
Please look up the definition of victim. It doesn't mean someone isn't hurt by your actions, it means someone isn't victimized by your actions.
Then victim-less crimes can still be hurting people? Why are they different from any other crime then, such that drugs should be allowed or accepted or whatever you want to call it?
Im not sure you understand basic english. I never said anything about crime. I was saying that someone being hurt does not equal victimizing. There is in fact a difference between the terms and they shouldn't be used interchangeably because they are not the same words.
On October 17 2011 15:37 Meta wrote: It is prejudice in some circumstances, such as when a person's drug use is controlled and does not negatively effect the user in any way. In general, blanket statements like "illegal drug users have decreased mental/thought capacity" is unfair. Some drug users have low mental/thought capacity, but the same could be said for people who don't use drugs and vice versa.
I think the prejudice against illegal drug use is a social construct used to control people's freedoms. It's generally held by people who have never even tried drugs, or people who have tried them but were bad at using them. There's no reason for a few bad apples who can't handle drug intake to remove other people's basic human right of control over your own body.
I feel like the argument from the other side is based on emotion, when someone's friend overdosed or alcoholic/drug addicted family member has their personality drained by the positive and negative effects of the drugs. Well guess what, I also had a friend once who got heavily addicted to (non-illegal) drugs to the point that it almost ruined his life before he finally got sober, in fact if he didn't get sober when he did he might have died. That sucked, but the fact of the matter is, people who are bad at doing drugs shouldn't do them. If they do them and get addicted, it should be up to them and/or their family to get official medical treatment for their addiction. The law shouldn't have any say in the matter.
What about people that have lived and worked with drug/alcohol addicts their entire lives, watching their friends and loved ones flounder at life for year after year, making little compromises here and there in every other facet of their life to fit those chemicals in?
I think what he is trying to argue is that you should look at each situation individually rather than having a blanket prejudice.
I've lived with, worked with, and been friends and enemies with stoners my entire adult life. I've seen the consistent long-term ill effects of prolonged addicted marijuana abuse. So much unrealized potential.
And those of you out there saying that (anecdotally) you know of someone who realized great potential while being on weed, you never saw what they were capable off of weed to know the difference. Just imagine the possibilities of sobriety! That accomplished doctor/lawyer/surgeon/etc. that you know who sparks up a doob every night before bedtime is the exception.
That's like pointing to the (again, anecdotal) story of the old lady that smoked cigarettes and drank alcohol and lived to be 97 years old as somehow being evidence that that shit isn't as bad for you as everyone says it is. You're deluding yourself if you think that's the case.
I really hope that you can spot the hypocrisy in your post. Unfortunately, scientific studies and research are the only things which can conclusively prove marijuana to be anything. And no, I will not look up 'Dr. Drew'. You look him/her up and then give us the link.
Member question: I have smoked pot for a number of years as an antistressor. Currently I'm having thick sinus congestion and very bad headaches and sore throat. I also have ulcerative colitis. What treatments can help me regain my health as I am very tired and in a lot of discomfort? I want to quit the smoke altogether.
Dr. Drew: You no longer use marijuana as a stress reducer. You are an addict and this addiction will not stop without treatment. I would suggest you look into Marijuana Anonymous. You need careful supervision when you stop this drug. There is an extraordinarily high incident of suicide in the first six months of marijuana abstinence.
The syndrome of marijuana addiction is always the same: A profound euphoria is experienced, usually after the second or third exposure to it, and from that moment on the addict pursues, preoccupies, or uses that drug every day. Somewhere down the line, exactly what you are experiencing develops; the addict gets depressed, has trouble sleeping and being motivated. Of course, the addict's response is to smoke more or better pot to deal with "the stress," which only accelerates the decline into depression.
Spoilered it for you.
The whole Q&A interview linked above is actually pretty informative not so much about weed but about addiction itself as a disease, great read.
I smoke weed erryday, am in college, love my mother who loves me too, and have plenty of friends that do and don't smoke weed.
The question at hand though is too vague to really answer the way he wants me to.
Will I think less of a person if I find they are a meth head/shooting up fucking heroin/wasting away on coke/smoking crack/Abusing cough medication.....there are too many to list.
If you're doing any more than smoking bud and using hallucinogenics (and with those, shrooms and acid only please, and try to keep it infrequent....loses a little magic, and really it's just better overall to only do it once every 3 to 6 months to a year.) I will lose respect for you. I have a very deep seeded hatred for alcohol, but I have seen people use it without ruining themselves so I really think that's just a personal self control issue, and less to do with the drug itself. But ya, alcoholics.....I don't care for one bit.
But really people...just because I light a plant on fire in the privacy of my own room doesn't mean jack shit.
I can't "fuck my brain up" on weed. I've smoked STUPID amounts of marijuana and I've been 100% in control of my thoughts and actions. I guess I just don't understand what people mean when they talk about people being utterly "wasted" (as in too drunk to walk straight or say a full sentence, which DOES happen) off of just weed. It's just not a part of my experience.
BTW, just to clear things up. Been smoking every day for over 4 years, have had a steady job over that entire time, currently attending one of the BEST hard science schools in the WORLD, I love to read, I love going outside on hikes through the desert rock, I've been at national level competition for debate, and did nearly all my reseach stoned. I smoked weed during school in highschool, and all the teachers LOVED me, and thought I was a wonderful nice respectful boy.
I'm a pretty damn awesome person, and I fucking love weed.
EDIT: just read the post above me....and I can say with 100% truth that it is complete and total bullshit. Seriously, I wouldn't put it past anti drug causes to put that shit on the internet as propaganda. "weed addiction"? Don't make me fucking laugh. Weed has no physical addiction. It's as addictive as FOOD is. You see all those fat people out there that can't control their eating habits? That's the same as a person who is "addicted" to weed. And that's not even talking about the bullshit "suicide rate" from quitting weed. It honestly just makes me laugh anybody with a brain would actually believe that bullshit.
Seriously people. My brain works as well or better than.
EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. OF. YOU.
And I smoke hella bud. I have a better memory than just about all of the people I know that don't smoke weed, long term and short.
So really....if you think that the "dr drew" shit is worth a damn, and should be taken as good true information...than I just have to see you as the kind of person that would be for outlawing food that's bad for you.
TL;DR + direct on-topic answer: Do I feel prejudiced against? It's hard to be so selfish!
Did you know Islam explicitly outlaws alcohol, but says nothing of Cannabis, and it's resin, Hashish? Have you heard of the Opium Wars, where Britain forced opium (unrefined herion/morphene) trade on China, ? Maybe you've heard of refined Sugar, which was so rare in Medieval Europe, it was a medicine for higher classes. Guess what slaves were 90% used for in the Carribean. Or maybe you've read the story of Adam and Eve the first drug bust.
Drugs DRUGS D R U G S... I like the distinction between soft drugs, hard drugs and prescription drugs in the Netherlands. The line is of course arbitrary, because who decides what´s an acceptable risk and what isn´t?
Every culture glorifies a certain drug nearby as reference state, and demonizes others. It's been done over and over, and it has nothing to do with the physical effects. In fact, it's effects are so strong, users commonly don't experience the real drug, but the cultural description of the drug. For instance, alcohol doesn't make you loose, irresponsible, loud and horny. People who act like that are just looking for excuses, and culture gives them what they want, so long as they consume alcohol. Venues for these people are created, because they make a profit. Meanwhile others are enjoying their wine, spirits in whatever means and circumstance they deem fit. If people are given an incentive to behave, they can drink all they want, they won't get violent or obnoxious.
Notice the warning label commonly applied against drinking alone. Leads to addiction. I'll say to that, depression, self-medication and self-conditioning lead to addicition. But normal neuroses are hard enough to iron out on your own without impaired thinking. Many fail to become real alcoholics. Maybe you're lucky enough to know a true alcoholic, but you might never know until they lose their job, their girlfriend, or their health. Then suddenly shit hits the fan, and it more easy to blame the bottle than you having somewhat of a dickish personality. And as alcohol DOES desensitize people to external impulses, DOES slow reaction time and in large quantities, DOES damage vital organs, we can comfortably say alcoholics are stupid.
Nobody fully understands the effect a drug has on their brain if the only time they use them is in a social situation where conformism is expected. A few million years of social evolution has seen to that. Mirror neurons, empathy and advertising, they distort the effect of these substances in the brain. I'm not saying these are bad things, in case you're wondering.
I can't say the same for weed because its effects on different people have been studied little or funded by groups with special interests. I do know some people who use weed as an excuse not to think. I know people who use weed to think better. I know people who just want to sit and stare at the TV on weed, and I know people who paint, write and create on weed.
As far as I can tell from my narrow point of view, weed removes some selective processes from cognitive functioning. Makes sense it `fucks you up` if your following activity is selecting the proper function, the right strategy, the outcome of a logical equation, or any highly trained skill. You´ll have so much more data to deal with, if you´re not prepared, you´ll get overloaded. And lot´s of people do.
Some freak out and get paranoid. Some have no other way to cope than to wallow in it all. Some start believing this is the "better" or "true" way of seeing, without any discrimination or rational thoughts at all. But is this the drug, or do these people react the same way new information is presented, they meet a new person or try a new game?
Taking soft drugs is a skill, like any other. It requires a reflective mind and a good memory or recording skills like writing, speaking or video. If I set policy I wouldn't let just anyone operate them, same as I wouldn't let just anyone operate heavy machinery, drive a car or program a computer.
Tips: The important thing is thinking about thinking and perception. Think high about how you normally think, and think normally about how you think when high. Self restraint and moderation still apply. Know the rules before you break them. Respect the substance, it's as much judging you as you are it. Read some books, do some research, talk to your more sane friends and then go for it.
Oh, and when you get so high you actually think you can fly, some advice: Try it from the ground, not from 10 stories high. Jumping out of windows to test such things is stupid. On the other hand, if you're that stupid, maybe you were bound to be selected out of the gene pool.
On October 17 2011 15:46 LAN-f34r wrote: People who you buy drugs from are quite like to commit other crimes (gangs can have an impressive armory O.o) Medical bills if you end up ill because of the drug use (or drug use causes an accident ie drunk driving) Second hand smoke Emotions of those close to you (How would your mother feel about you hurting yourself?) Loss of your own productivity ect
Victim-less crime?
Nobody is going to buy guns if their business is protected by the law. Right now, it isn't. Even in the Netherlands, if your plantation gets robbed and they steal your weed, you're fucked. Nobody is going to a hospital from one time use, unless you're the kind of person who takes first time swimming lessons in the ocean. The effects of second hand smoke are real. They are comparable to living in proximity to a highway, or a smoggy city. We don't disallow highways or smoggy cities. I don't know about your mother, but if she doesn't allow you to make mistakes, she doesn't allow you to live. If you lose productive capabilities, you should evaluate your use. But maybe you've realized there's more to life than production.
If you claim a drug user has no moral responsibilities, no self consciousness and no self determination, you've just dehumanized them, and you can do whatever you want with them, because they are no more than animals. But how can a substance temporarily active in the brain subtract from such things? It only adds in my opinion.
On October 17 2011 16:26 N3rV[Green] wrote: I smoke weed erryday, am in college, love my mother who loves me too, and have plenty of friends that do and don't smoke weed.
The question at hand though is too vague to really answer the way he wants me to.
Will I think less of a person if I find they are a meth head/shooting up fucking heroin/wasting away on coke/smoking crack/Abusing cough medication.....there are too many to list.
If you're doing any more than smoking bud and using hallucinogenics (and with those, shrooms and acid only please, and try to keep it infrequent....loses a little magic, and really it's just better overall to only do it once every 3 to 6 months to a year.) I will lose respect for you. I have a very deep seeded hatred for alcohol, but I have seen people use it without ruining themselves so I really think that's just a personal self control issue, and less to do with the drug itself. But ya, alcoholics.....I don't care for one bit.
But really people...just because I light a plant on fire in the privacy of my own room doesn't mean jack shit.
I can't "fuck my brain up" on weed. I've smoked STUPID amounts of marijuana and I've been 100% in control of my thoughts and actions. I guess I just don't understand what people mean when they talk about people being utterly "wasted" (as in too drunk to walk straight or say a full sentence, which DOES happen) off of just weed. It's just not a part of my experience.
BTW, just to clear things up. Been smoking every day for over 4 years, have had a steady job over that entire time, currently attending one of the BEST hard science schools in the WORLD, I love to read, I love going outside on hikes through the desert rock, I've been at national level competition for debate, and did nearly all my reseach stoned. I smoked weed during school in highschool, and all the teachers LOVED me, and thought I was a wonderful nice respectful boy.
I'm a pretty damn awesome person, and I fucking love weed.
If what you say is true, you're not a poster child for weed abuse in any event. You'd be in the extreeeeeeeme minority, and your experience is in no way normal.
Also, there's no evidence that weed actually helped you accomplish these things. Since you never did them off of weed, you have no idea how much more you could've accomplished without it.
I have very little prejudice against people using drugs, unless I can actively see them having no self-control and fucking up their lives because of it. The people I know for instance who smoke marijuana (about half probs, in various amounts) are doing all right for themselves, are fun to hang around with and vibe really well socially. So it's no big deal when someone I know uses drugs.
On October 17 2011 16:26 N3rV[Green] wrote: I smoke weed erryday, am in college, love my mother who loves me too, and have plenty of friends that do and don't smoke weed.
The question at hand though is too vague to really answer the way he wants me to.
Will I think less of a person if I find they are a meth head/shooting up fucking heroin/wasting away on coke/smoking crack/Abusing cough medication.....there are too many to list.
If you're doing any more than smoking bud and using hallucinogenics (and with those, shrooms and acid only please, and try to keep it infrequent....loses a little magic, and really it's just better overall to only do it once every 3 to 6 months to a year.) I will lose respect for you. I have a very deep seeded hatred for alcohol, but I have seen people use it without ruining themselves so I really think that's just a personal self control issue, and less to do with the drug itself. But ya, alcoholics.....I don't care for one bit.
But really people...just because I light a plant on fire in the privacy of my own room doesn't mean jack shit.
I can't "fuck my brain up" on weed. I've smoked STUPID amounts of marijuana and I've been 100% in control of my thoughts and actions. I guess I just don't understand what people mean when they talk about people being utterly "wasted" (as in too drunk to walk straight or say a full sentence, which DOES happen) off of just weed. It's just not a part of my experience.
BTW, just to clear things up. Been smoking every day for over 4 years, have had a steady job over that entire time, currently attending one of the BEST hard science schools in the WORLD, I love to read, I love going outside on hikes through the desert rock, I've been at national level competition for debate, and did nearly all my reseach stoned. I smoked weed during school in highschool, and all the teachers LOVED me, and thought I was a wonderful nice respectful boy.
I'm a pretty damn awesome person, and I fucking love weed.
there's nothing wrong when it comes to the argument of "well it's my body i do whatever i want" and i completely agree with you. there's nothing wrong with you blazing one in your house
the argument falls flat when 1. people light one, before attending school or work and has to drive impairing their ability to operate a vehicle. this is why dui's are so harsh. 2. minors have access to weed and it has been PROVEN to harm children who don't have their brains fully developed permanently. 3. introducing a minor to something illegally has definitely been proven that it's a gateway to obtain more substances or "try" harder things than weed.
do you see how this can affect other people besides you? its all good and everything if you're in your house doing it alone but when you go out in public and you're beyond your tolerance the control you have over yourself is questionable especially on a individual by individual basis.
I am prejudiced against people who use drugs which are more illegal than marijuana, and people who abuse any drug to the detriment of his/her social, academic, and employment functionings.
I am also somewhat prejudiced against people who don't use alcohol at all for none-religious reasons, but that's quite a different matter
On October 17 2011 11:32 VPCursed wrote: I wouldn't want to be around someone who felt uncomfortable with others who used recreational drugs. Not because I find their prejudice misguided but because id find them to be a tad moronic. Also, there is a difference between drug user and drug abuser.
Well, if those people who used recreational drugs have great personalities and are good friends, then I'll be fine to hang out with them WHEN THEY ARE SOBER. But when they start using those drugs in my presence, then I'll ask them to shove it or do it somewhere else.
Anyway, I find it weird that you find people who are uncomfortable with others who used recreational drugs "a tad moronic". Why is that? Its perfectly understandable that people want to stay away from smokers when they are puffing away on regular cigarettes or pot or weed or heroine etc. Don't want to get poisoned by all those carcinogens.
You said that there is a difference between drug use and drug abuse. Well, hate to break it to you but recreational drug use is drug abuse. Try and prove me wrong by quoting some medical study or case file.
You think its "COOL" to use drugs? Well, I find that concept truly moronic.
Nowhere did he say it was COOL to use drugs.
There is absolutely a difference between drug use and drug abuse, you throwing recreational into the mix as if it suddenly devalues the person doing it is exactly the stigma he's essentially calling moronic.
If you can conclude that there is acceptable drug use, and you can, assuming you've ever taken medication for anything ever, it is not equal to drug abuse. Whether it's RECREATIONAL or not shouldn't be a factor. Are you going to so far as to say, a person prescribed xanax for anxiety and uses it on a regular basis is a perfectly legitimate and upstanding citizen, while someone that has taken xanax ONCE outside of having a prescription is a drug abuser? Even though the latter is significantly healthier than the former?
I'd find it extremely difficult as to how that holds up to the scrutiny of an intelligent individual.
No, the "cool to use drugs concept is moronic" is my opinion, not VPCursed's opinion, and I'm just saying it.
As for the person who used xanax ONCE outside of prescription, then its not considered drug abuse, as he did not use it frequently, and he did not interfere with the lives of those around him and himself.
Xanax is a depressant, I wouldn't want to be anywhere near a Xanax abuser when he is high (effects are just like alcohol) on it, even though he may be my best friend when he is sober.
There is absolutely a difference between drug use and drug abuse, you throwing recreational into the mix as if it suddenly devalues the person doing it is exactly the stigma he's essentially calling moronic.
Someone pointed out to me that drinking coffee/Red Bull is consuming caffeine, hence a form of drug use. After that, I think that recreational drug use do have a difference from drug abuse after all, provided you are not addicted to coffee and only takes a few cups (2 or 3?) per day. I think the term "recreational drug use" should be changed to "responsible drug use" to avoid confusion.
I don't think light drugs should be in the same pot as hard drugs. I mean if someone tells me he's smoking marijuana or hashish i wouldn't care (maybe unless he's smoking everyday and is addicted) but if someone tells me he's on heroin that does affect my opinion of him negatively a lot (my friend's cousin was heroin addicted... is damn awful).
On October 17 2011 16:26 N3rV[Green] wrote: I smoke weed erryday, am in college, love my mother who loves me too, and have plenty of friends that do and don't smoke weed.
The question at hand though is too vague to really answer the way he wants me to.
Will I think less of a person if I find they are a meth head/shooting up fucking heroin/wasting away on coke/smoking crack/Abusing cough medication.....there are too many to list.
If you're doing any more than smoking bud and using hallucinogenics (and with those, shrooms and acid only please, and try to keep it infrequent....loses a little magic, and really it's just better overall to only do it once every 3 to 6 months to a year.) I will lose respect for you. I have a very deep seeded hatred for alcohol, but I have seen people use it without ruining themselves so I really think that's just a personal self control issue, and less to do with the drug itself. But ya, alcoholics.....I don't care for one bit.
But really people...just because I light a plant on fire in the privacy of my own room doesn't mean jack shit.
I can't "fuck my brain up" on weed. I've smoked STUPID amounts of marijuana and I've been 100% in control of my thoughts and actions. I guess I just don't understand what people mean when they talk about people being utterly "wasted" (as in too drunk to walk straight or say a full sentence, which DOES happen) off of just weed. It's just not a part of my experience.
BTW, just to clear things up. Been smoking every day for over 4 years, have had a steady job over that entire time, currently attending one of the BEST hard science schools in the WORLD, I love to read, I love going outside on hikes through the desert rock, I've been at national level competition for debate, and did nearly all my reseach stoned. I smoked weed during school in highschool, and all the teachers LOVED me, and thought I was a wonderful nice respectful boy.
I'm a pretty damn awesome person, and I fucking love weed.
there's nothing wrong when it comes to the argument of "well it's my body i do whatever i want" and i completely agree with you. there's nothing wrong with you blazing one in your house
the argument falls flat when 1. people light one, before attending school or work and has to drive impairing their ability to operate a vehicle. this is why dui's are so harsh. 2. minors have access to weed and it has been PROVEN to harm children who don't have their brains fully developed permanently. 3. introducing a minor to something illegally has definitely been proven that it's a gateway to obtain more substances or "try" harder things than weed.
do you see how this can affect other people besides you? its all good and everything if you're in your house doing it alone but when you go out in public and you're beyond your tolerance the control you have over yourself is questionable especially on a individual by individual basis.
The "you can't drive while stoned" myth is just that, a myth. I've driven stoned which I do as well as I do sober (if not better, since I DON'T go over the speed limit EVER when I drive baked) and the same is true for EVERY SINGLE PERSON that I've ever driven with. Hell it was a common nightly event to go drive down the backroads and smoke a few bowls. I still want to understand where people get these "facts" from and if they are from direct experience.
Direct experience is honestly the only true way to know something.
On October 17 2011 16:34 Mobius_1 wrote: I am prejudiced against people who use drugs which are more illegal than marijuana, and people who abuse any drug to the detriment of his/her social, academic, and employment functionings.
I am also somewhat prejudiced against people who don't use alcohol at all for none-religious reasons, but that's quite a different matter
i'm prejudiced against people who have 0 clue about the actual facts based on drugs even more so on people who base their moral on rules set by the government. just an fyi, not everything you consider a "drug" is detriment to social, academic or employment functioning. this is coming from a person who doesn't use any "drugs" the definition should honestly be re-written about what a drug is since it falls more along the lines of psychologically or physically manipulating one's chemistry and if that poses potential harm to other people.
Well, imo it really depends on what drug it is. Alcohol is a drug too, you know. What im saying is, it wouldnt affect my opinion if someone told me they've tried marijuana once. But i'd probably never hang out with some hardcore meth smoker.
On October 17 2011 16:26 N3rV[Green] wrote: EDIT: just read the post above me....and I can say with 100% truth that it is complete and total bullshit. Seriously, I wouldn't put it past anti drug causes to put that shit on the internet as propaganda. "weed addiction"? Don't make me fucking laugh. Weed has no physical addiction. It's as addictive as FOOD is. You see all those fat people out there that can't control their eating habits? That's the same as a person who is "addicted" to weed. And that's not even talking about the bullshit "suicide rate" from quitting weed. It honestly just makes me laugh anybody with a brain would actually believe that bullshit.
Seriously people. My brain works as well or better than.
EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. OF. YOU.
And I smoke hella bud. I have a better memory than just about all of the people I know that don't smoke weed, long term and short.
So really....if you think that the "dr drew" shit is worth a damn, and should be taken as good true information...than I just have to see you as the kind of person that would be for outlawing food that's bad for you.
Has it occurred to you that you don't possess the genetic addiction trigger? Or that you might be some kind of THC resistant mutant?
Not being facetious at all.
Edit: The age you start smoking is important, too. You're 23 now, right? You've smoked 'over 4 years', that means you were what, 18 when you started?
How many people do you know just like you that started smoking weed at the usual age?
Usual age being:
The national average age for first use of marijuana by persons who initiated use in 1995 to 1997 at age 25 or younger was 16.2 years (Table C.5). The average age at first use of marijuana ranged from a low of 15.1 years in Montana and Nevada to 17.1 years in Maine, a range of 2.0 years. Four of the States that fell into the highest quintile for past month rates of use of marijuana among youths had lower than average ages at time of first use of marijuana: Montana (15.1 years), Nevada (15.1 years), Minnesota (15.6 years), and Washington (15.8 years). Three of the States in the lowest quintile of past month prevalence also had a higher than average age at first use: Iowa and Tennessee (16.9 years) and Idaho (16.7 years). Some of the confidence intervals for the State average age at time of first use of marijuana were quite large (anywhere from 0.6 to 3.7 years depending on the State); therefore, the estimates should be used with caution.
On October 17 2011 16:26 N3rV[Green] wrote: I smoke weed erryday, am in college, love my mother who loves me too, and have plenty of friends that do and don't smoke weed.
The question at hand though is too vague to really answer the way he wants me to.
Will I think less of a person if I find they are a meth head/shooting up fucking heroin/wasting away on coke/smoking crack/Abusing cough medication.....there are too many to list.
If you're doing any more than smoking bud and using hallucinogenics (and with those, shrooms and acid only please, and try to keep it infrequent....loses a little magic, and really it's just better overall to only do it once every 3 to 6 months to a year.) I will lose respect for you. I have a very deep seeded hatred for alcohol, but I have seen people use it without ruining themselves so I really think that's just a personal self control issue, and less to do with the drug itself. But ya, alcoholics.....I don't care for one bit.
But really people...just because I light a plant on fire in the privacy of my own room doesn't mean jack shit.
I can't "fuck my brain up" on weed. I've smoked STUPID amounts of marijuana and I've been 100% in control of my thoughts and actions. I guess I just don't understand what people mean when they talk about people being utterly "wasted" (as in too drunk to walk straight or say a full sentence, which DOES happen) off of just weed. It's just not a part of my experience.
BTW, just to clear things up. Been smoking every day for over 4 years, have had a steady job over that entire time, currently attending one of the BEST hard science schools in the WORLD, I love to read, I love going outside on hikes through the desert rock, I've been at national level competition for debate, and did nearly all my reseach stoned. I smoked weed during school in highschool, and all the teachers LOVED me, and thought I was a wonderful nice respectful boy.
I'm a pretty damn awesome person, and I fucking love weed.
there's nothing wrong when it comes to the argument of "well it's my body i do whatever i want" and i completely agree with you. there's nothing wrong with you blazing one in your house
the argument falls flat when 1. people light one, before attending school or work and has to drive impairing their ability to operate a vehicle. this is why dui's are so harsh. 2. minors have access to weed and it has been PROVEN to harm children who don't have their brains fully developed permanently. 3. introducing a minor to something illegally has definitely been proven that it's a gateway to obtain more substances or "try" harder things than weed.
do you see how this can affect other people besides you? its all good and everything if you're in your house doing it alone but when you go out in public and you're beyond your tolerance the control you have over yourself is questionable especially on a individual by individual basis.
The "you can't drive while stoned" myth is just that, a myth. I've driven stoned which I do as well as I do sober (if not better, since I DON'T go over the speed limit EVER when I drive baked) and the same is true for EVERY SINGLE PERSON that I've ever driven with. Hell it was a common nightly event to go drive down the backroads and smoke a few bowls. I still want to understand where people get these "facts" from and if they are from direct experience.
Direct experience is honestly the only true way to know something.
my point was based on tolerance. you give a noobie with 0 tolerance a weed brownie and i can guarantee you he'll crash the car. this is FACT. i've eaten many weed brownies and the consumption of weed is far more powerful than ever smoking it. who's to say everyone is going to smoke it and not eat it? it's not a fucknig myth that not everyone is going to smoke it and some people are going to eat it before doing something that involves others like driving. the thing is i presented you with arguments that contain very real facts. you've only replied with "it's a myth bro, because me and my stoner buddies say so and only because a handful of 4-5 guys believe so"
i've been in a car with many stoners and they do far from perfect driving. they also have something else going on as well like having the music blasted beyond belief where they can't hear anything and or bob and weave the car consistently. so your "direct experience" is different from mine.
and you lost all credibility by saying direct experience. i'm not even going to take the time out to reply to you cause i already know you can never answer with a sound statistic/fact/ or study for your arguments and you support all your arguments through emotional bias.
First off, there is a fundamental difference between various drugs and you can't put them in the same basket, it's like comparing apples to elephants. Some drugs are really bad and some drugs have amazing benefits, providing you can use them in moderation. There is also a huge difference between an addict and someone who takes drugs for a number of personal reasons. In fact, it's not far from gaming - games are cool, they make you smart and expand your horizons but if you turn into a basement dwelling slob they just happened to ruin your life. Only that they actually didn't - you ruined it yourself.
I believe drugs are an excellent medication against the insanity of the contemporary consumer society. What most of you don't understand is that we're all drugged up already, drugged up by commercials, by money, by other people's opinions, by cosmetic and pharmaceutical corporations, by McDonalds, by society's unreasonable standards most of which revolve around devouring and purchasing whatever you can because somebody on the other end needs to produce it. All this doesn't really let you develop into a free humane being unless you somehow snap out of it here and there.
In my experience casual use of marihuana is a great tool to free up your creative potential. Very selective use of LSD or mushrooms will do more to clear up your existential and spiritual issues than a lifetime of debate with philosophers, religious or atheist fanatics. And a bit of cocaine here and there makes for stellar sex ^_^
Ecstasy, speed and other synthetic consumer drugs on the other hand are downright sinister and will turn you into a drooling, droning retard. And heroin is just a very slow and miserable way to commit suicide.
In the end, judging someone because he is a drug user is no different than judging him for any other reasons. It simply depends on your choice of being or not being a judgmental person. Oh, and calling the cops on someone for smoking pot makes you a colossal douchebag :p
I think everyone can agree that drugs screw with your mind and lungs/throat/liver/body. This is true regardless of the positive and negative outcomes of doing them. So how some people claim that drugs have absolutely zero effects on your long-term health is beyond me.
On October 17 2011 16:28 Tincuradan wrote: Carl Sagan was a published astronomer, documentary filmmaker, awesome dude and daily smoker http://www.druglibrary.org/think/~jnr/sagan.htm Go watch his Cosmos series.
Nowhere in that article does it say he was a daily smoker. Also he died of fucking pneumonia. There's a chance that, if he was a daily smoker, that it contributed to his death.
On October 17 2011 16:28 Tincuradan wrote: Drugs DRUGS D R U G S... I like the distinction between soft drugs, hard drugs and prescription drugs in the Netherlands. The line is of course arbitrary, because who decides what´s an acceptable risk and what isn´t?
Every culture glorifies a certain drug nearby as reference state, and demonizes others. It's been done over and over, and it has nothing to do with the physical effects. In fact, it's effects are so strong, users commonly don't experience the real drug, but the cultural description of the drug. For instance, alcohol doesn't make you loose, irresponsible, loud and horny. People who act like that are just looking for excuses, and culture gives them what they want, so long as they consume alcohol. Venues for these people are created, because they make a profit. Meanwhile others are enjoying their wine, spirits in whatever means and circumstance they deem fit. If people are given an incentive to behave, they can drink all they want, they won't get violent or obnoxious.
Notice the warning label commonly applied against drinking alone. Leads to addiction. I'll say to that, depression, self-medication and self-conditioning lead to addicition. But normal neuroses are hard enough to iron out on your own without impaired thinking. Many fail to become real alcoholics. Maybe you're lucky enough to know a true alcoholic, but you might never know until they lose their job, their girlfriend, or their health. Then suddenly shit hits the fan, and it more easy to blame the bottle than you having somewhat of a dickish personality. And as alcohol DOES desensitize people to external impulses, DOES slow reaction time and in large quantities, DOES damage vital organs, we can comfortably say alcoholics are stupid.
Nobody fully understands the effect a drug has on their brain if the only time they use them is in a social situation where conformism is expected. A few million years of social evolution has seen to that. Mirror neurons, empathy and advertising, they distort the effect of these substances in the brain. I'm not saying these are bad things, in case you're wondering.
I can't say the same for weed because its effects on different people have been studied little or funded by groups with special interests. I do know some people who use weed as an excuse not to think. I know people who use weed to think better. I know people who just want to sit and stare at the TV on weed, and I know people who paint, write and create on weed.
As far as I can tell from my narrow point of view, weed removes some selective processes from cognitive functioning. Makes sense it `fucks you up` if your following activity is selecting the proper function, the right strategy, the outcome of a logical equation, or any highly trained skill. You´ll have so much more data to deal with, if you´re not prepared, you´ll get overloaded. And lot´s of people do.
Some freak out and get paranoid. Some have no other way to cope than to wallow in it all. Some start believing this is the "better" or "true" way of seeing, without any discrimination or rational thoughts at all. But is this the drug, or do these people react the same way new information is presented, they meet a new person or try a new game?
Taking soft drugs is a skill, like any other. It requires a reflective mind and a good memory or recording skills like writing, speaking or video. If I set policy I wouldn't let just anyone operate them, same as I wouldn't let just anyone operate heavy machinery, drive a car or program a computer.
Tips: The important thing is thinking about thinking and perception. Think high about how you normally think, and think normally about how you think when high. Self restraint and moderation still apply. Know the rules before you break them. Respect the substance, it's as much judging you as you are it. Read some books, do some research, talk to your more sane friends and then go for it.
Oh, and when you get so high you actually think you can fly, some advice: Try it from the ground, not from 10 stories high. Jumping out of windows to test such things is stupid. On the other hand, if you're that stupid, maybe you were bound to be selected out of the gene pool.
On October 17 2011 15:46 LAN-f34r wrote: People who you buy drugs from are quite like to commit other crimes (gangs can have an impressive armory O.o) Medical bills if you end up ill because of the drug use (or drug use causes an accident ie drunk driving) Second hand smoke Emotions of those close to you (How would your mother feel about you hurting yourself?) Loss of your own productivity ect
Victim-less crime?
Nobody is going to buy guns if their business is protected by the law. Right now, it isn't. Even in the Netherlands, if your plantation gets robbed and they steal your weed, you're fucked. Nobody is going to a hospital from one time use, unless you're the kind of person who takes first time swimming lessons in the ocean. The effects of second hand smoke are real. They are comparable to living in proximity to a highway, or a smoggy city. We don't disallow highways or smoggy cities. I don't know about your mother, but if she doesn't allow you to make mistakes, she doesn't allow you to live. If you lose productive capabilities, you should evaluate your use. But maybe you've realized there's more to life than production.
If you claim a drug user has no moral responsibilities, no self consciousness and no self determination, you've just dehumanized them, and you can do whatever you want with them, because they are no more than animals. But how can a substance temporarily active in the brain subtract from such things? It only adds in my opinion.
THIS post is amazing! So clear and intelligent. Everyone should read it
I don't think have any conscious prejudice against drug use. I have deep concern for people who have an addiction to drugs of any kind, and some drugs do pose significant risks in contexts for people (It can be as simple as a person who gets high or drunk and drives, as complicated as Heroin due to a wrecked childhood). But I have a deep concern for addictions of any kind to begin with, so I guess that doesn't full answer the quesiton. When considering how I view a person I try as much as possible to look at the individual context and I think that's where the judgement of a Person lies.
The question is really open though. Fundamentally, there's a wide gap between Heroin use (which would always have you deeply concerned for the person involved) and recreational Marijuana or LSD use. So I guess when Determine someone is using drugs my reaction is determined by as much the person and personality and context as well as the drugs involved, but the shortest answer I can give is "unless evidence for concern to user's welfare exists, insufficient data to make fully applicable conclusion" is where I'd stand knowing someone used drugs.
On October 17 2011 16:54 white_horse wrote: I think everyone can agree that drugs screw with your mind and lungs/throat/liver/body. This is true regardless of the positive and negative outcomes of doing them. So how some people claim that drugs have absolutely zero effects on your long-term health is beyond me.
Everything you put into your body screws with it, it's more a question of adaptation and habituation. What some people consider food, others consider screwing them up completely.
Spices aren't illegal. Neither are Chilli Peppers. I saw someone eat one of those uberspicy one, and he cried, had diahhrea. Some people use them every day, and claim the food tastes bad without it.
But everyone knows real men cook with provincial herbs! We should make those damn peppers against the law!
But you're right, the argument for legalization seems too often: it's no big deal, it's no big deal. I advocate the right of anyone to screw with their body, and I think that that is a big deal.
On October 17 2011 16:54 white_horse wrote: I think everyone can agree that drugs screw with your mind and lungs/throat/liver/body. This is true regardless of the positive and negative outcomes of doing them. So how some people claim that drugs have absolutely zero effects on your long-term health is beyond me.
Everything screws with everything in certain amounts, frequencies, circumstances and 1000 other parameters and everything has an effect on your long-term health.
Back on topic: I chose "other" in the poll, because there can be so many instances and exceptions when the OP asked about "drug" "use". Take caffeine for example. Its a drug, but almost everybody uses it. Can't imagine anyone having prejudices about someone who takes coffee or tea every morning after bed instead of water.
I think I'm quite neutral about smokers. I am fine with them but when they light up, I go away. I don't hate on them, but if they light up near me when I am unable to move away or lights up in non-smoking areas, I'll get seriously mad at them. But all my smoker friends ALWAYS shoved it when I asked them to.
On October 17 2011 16:26 N3rV[Green] wrote: EDIT: just read the post above me....and I can say with 100% truth that it is complete and total bullshit. Seriously, I wouldn't put it past anti drug causes to put that shit on the internet as propaganda. "weed addiction"? Don't make me fucking laugh. Weed has no physical addiction. It's as addictive as FOOD is. You see all those fat people out there that can't control their eating habits? That's the same as a person who is "addicted" to weed. And that's not even talking about the bullshit "suicide rate" from quitting weed. It honestly just makes me laugh anybody with a brain would actually believe that bullshit.
Seriously people. My brain works as well or better than.
EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. OF. YOU.
And I smoke hella bud. I have a better memory than just about all of the people I know that don't smoke weed, long term and short.
So really....if you think that the "dr drew" shit is worth a damn, and should be taken as good true information...than I just have to see you as the kind of person that would be for outlawing food that's bad for you.
Has it occurred to you that you don't possess the genetic addiction trigger? Or that you might be some kind of THC resistant mutant?
Not being facetious at all.
Edit: The age you start smoking is important, too. You're 23 now, right? You've smoked 'over 4 years', that means you were what, 18 when you started?
How many people do you know just like you that started smoking weed at the usual age?
The national average age for first use of marijuana by persons who initiated use in 1995 to 1997 at age 25 or younger was 16.2 years (Table C.5). The average age at first use of marijuana ranged from a low of 15.1 years in Montana and Nevada to 17.1 years in Maine, a range of 2.0 years. Four of the States that fell into the highest quintile for past month rates of use of marijuana among youths had lower than average ages at time of first use of marijuana: Montana (15.1 years), Nevada (15.1 years), Minnesota (15.6 years), and Washington (15.8 years). Three of the States in the lowest quintile of past month prevalence also had a higher than average age at first use: Iowa and Tennessee (16.9 years) and Idaho (16.7 years). Some of the confidence intervals for the State average age at time of first use of marijuana were quite large (anywhere from 0.6 to 3.7 years depending on the State); therefore, the estimates should be used with caution.
Bro I'm in the exact same boat as the guy you're calling "not the poster child for weed abuse". I can honestly say I know hundreds of other college kids that smoke weed either every single day or almost every day, aren't addicted, and are getting above a 3.5, me being one of them. To say that this is some kind of extremely rare thing is just hilarious. Really though you should go and poll some college campus or something if you want clarity, because polled statistics are actually a good basis for truth, particularly when the polling is on drug use. Maybe I don't have the addiction trigger gene either, along with all of the other people I know that smoke weed regularly.
On October 17 2011 16:34 Mobius_1 wrote: I am prejudiced against people who use drugs which are more illegal than marijuana, and people who abuse any drug to the detriment of his/her social, academic, and employment functionings.
I am also somewhat prejudiced against people who don't use alcohol at all for none-religious reasons, but that's quite a different matter
i'm prejudiced against people who have 0 clue about the actual facts based on drugs even more so on people who base their moral on rules set by the government. just an fyi, not everything you consider a "drug" is detriment to social, academic or employment functioning. this is coming from a person who doesn't use any "drugs" the definition should honestly be re-written about what a drug is since it falls more along the lines of psychologically or physically manipulating one's chemistry and if that poses potential harm to other people.
I think you misunderstood me. I use "drugs" but not to the detriment of my functionings, but I take care not to abuse/use them too much which would lead to said "drugs" impeding my functionings.
While I disagree with the illegality of marijuana (it's pretty much harmless and its illegal status leads to the black market and its related crimes), cocaine, heroin, ecstasy and other "hard" drugs are dangerous and have negative long-term effects, and I wouldn't want to be friends with a regular user of them. I only use the legality scale for judging drugs because if I said "harmful" or "dangerous" or something like that there would likely be a huge debate about whether alcohol or tobacco or caffeine or cocaine or whatever is more harmful than marijuana.
Do you judge fat people based on the fact that they are fat? Do you judge drug users based on the fact that they are drug users? Do you judge people that use 3 swear words in every sentence based on their language? Do you judge ...
Point would be: we all judge people. Judging people based on what they themself chose, is not as bad as judging people because of factors they didn't chose - like sex, skin color, natural hair color, height, etc.
Now you could make a good post about how people shouldn't judge each other ...
That's what we have internet for ! Here we just judge each other based on the stupid shit we write ... ability to paragraph, spelling errors, etc
I've lived with, worked with, and been friends and enemies with stoners my entire adult life. I've seen the consistent long-term ill effects of prolonged addicted marijuana abuse. So much unrealized potential.
And those of you out there saying that (anecdotally) you know of someone who realized great potential while being on weed, you never saw what they were capable off of weed to know the difference. Just imagine the possibilities of sobriety! That accomplished doctor/lawyer/surgeon/etc. that you know who sparks up a doob every night before bedtime is the exception.
That's like pointing to the (again, anecdotal) story of the old lady that smoked cigarettes and drank alcohol and lived to be 97 years old as somehow being evidence that that shit isn't as bad for you as everyone says it is. You're deluding yourself if you think that's the case.
I would like to say well said mate.
I do believe that it is prejudice to generalise all drug users bad as a whole some of them are great people, however I also in my personal opinion think it is almost warranted for most of them, now for discussion sake I will elaborate why.
In my home town when I was in school, we had three high-schools and it was many kilometres to any others, so everyone stuck together, rough estimate of 500 16-18 year old students. I was a school captain and at that time a some of the kids had begun the alcohol/marijuana/smoking/other heavy drug phase. In the last 5 years I have dealt with close to one hundred cases most of them because their friends came to me for help.
Now I have only had experience with four people in my life on heavy drugs like ice LSD etc but all of them ended badly I support anyone that hates those types of drugs even though I have little experience with it.
now most of the cases I dealt with were alcohol and marijuana related, I'll keep them separate and in spoiler tags.
Alcohol I found caused similar problems in all of the kids, it started out slowly that they would drink once twice a week then it changed to five or more days a week which resulted in neglect of themselves and most of their responsibilities then some of them even turned to borrowing money from friends family or anyone and then moved to knocking on doors at midnight drunk and looking for a place to sleep or more money, then further on the fighting would start they would start coming home bloodied etc.
Then sports teams would drop them because they failed to show up or be any good because of it, even though they were great people sober they could not help themselves and eventually got into a mind frame that it was al-right or why should anyone care. However their were ones that would drink three to four times a week and still be worker of the month material but that was maybe three to four out of thirty. I found when challenged to give it up for a month just one month and try the best they could at the sport job or test that was at hand and held to that they would do much better, and to my surprise some of them didn't drink much again others went back drinking but not near as much and every single one of them stayed productive and responsible once they had had the debates challenges and discussions about the problem.
Now onto Marijuana one thing I can give it credit for is it does not make people aggressive while under its effects, however that is about all I can give it.
In most of the cases the kids neglected the same things as Alcohol work school sports family friends (Marijuana neglect I found was more of not wanting to apply themselves as much to school a job or sports and the family neglect is less interaction all of the families said they interacted less, they still did talk and interact but understand it WAS less then the previous 15 or more years of their lives I count that as neglect)
I will admit there was a few that were excellent at sports and school even while using it they were above average, however over time one by one giving them the challenge to give it up for a certain period of time and apply themselves to school/job/sports they did better, after the time period after having long deep discussions constantly for weeks and months about what Marijuana held back (some even still need to talk about it now) the kids that were above average in school became top fives and higher, football and soccer players that were a good part of the team became even better core members and a couple even became captains of their respected team, something they would not have done while in the Marijuana phase.
Now what I found meaningful was that not a single one of the kids went back to it, not one, it took a hell of a lot of work they completely agree understand and know it held them back they even actively now help their younger siblings or friends with similar situations get out of it.
My personal opinion from my own experiences kids can cope and do good while using drugs but they can do far better without it.
Alcohol holds a person back while under its influence, Marijuana holds a person back period I am unsure how people can say otherwise they either have not enough experience or they want to justify their use of it, either way drugs are not good or bad if you can stay away from them do so life is better.
If you don't do drugs like weed people have a better opinion of you.
If you don't drink people have a lower opinion of you.
Perception is everything. Some drugs deserve the reputation they have (Meth, Heroine) but others (Weed, XTC) are about as harmless as alcohol.
Alcohol holds a person back while under its influence, Marijuana holds a person back period I am unsure how people can say otherwise they either have not enough experience or they want to justify their use of it, either way drugs are not good or bad if you can stay away from them do so life is better.
The president of the US has smoked weed. I really don't understand how people can keep talking about limited options as a result of weed.
Smoke weed and the best you can hope for is being president of the US? Ooh the horror.
On October 17 2011 16:28 Tincuradan wrote: Carl Sagan was a published astronomer, documentary filmmaker, awesome dude and daily smoker http://www.druglibrary.org/think/~jnr/sagan.htm Go watch his Cosmos series.
Nowhere in that article does it say he was a daily smoker. Also he died of fucking pneumonia. There's a chance that, if he was a daily smoker, that it contributed to his death.
You're right, corrected.
Christopher Hitchen's defense of his tobacco use: I've knowingly taken a risk with my lifestyle, and lost the bet. Though I've taken more out of it than it out of me.
BTW, it's disgusting how many Christian news reportings are gloating about his throat cancer. Or subtly suggesting it's the wrath of god for his sin of disbelief. It's exactly this linking between substance use and sin which keeps prohibition laws in place.
My parents would not approve of my dating a crack whore. I would not approve of my little brother dating a crack whore. I would not be friends with a crack whore if I knew she was a crack whore.
Give catholicism to a smart guy, he'll extract the precepts and symbolism; while a weak-minded one will believe that going to mass leads to Heaven. Give drugs to a smart guy, he'll either refuse or use them with parsimony, knowing the advantages/drawbacks and when to stop; while a weak-minded one will fall under dependence and fuck his own mind. Explain to a smart friend you do drugs, he'll warn you about the dangers and maybe ask you not to be on drugs with him, but will know that it doesn't harm anyone else neither change who you are (if you're not in the drug abusers category of course, otherwise he should try to help you); while a weak-minded one will suddenly assume you're a piece of shit like all the other junkies he's met or seen on tv, whatever your consumption is. I try not to consider myself stupid, so as a drug user I simply choose to whom I explain this and I never had any problem (except when I still thought all my friends were open-minded... long time ago indeed); while the weak-minded drug users will simply smash it to everyone's face, thus enabling the prejudice's perennity.
(If my point is unclear, please ask for precision)
Now the fun thing with this poll is that TL being frequented by quite some pot smokers (at least), I feel like a majority of the non-negative votes are from them.. I would be interested to see the actual statistics from people who NEVER did drugs (or like once to try... I mean not for a time). I would bet on 80%, which quite saddens me... Come on guys, we've stopped assuming that black guys are lazy and women should stay in the kitchen: maybe it's time to truly think outside of the boxes !
I have a better opinion of people who smoke weed on rare occasions than people who smoke cigarettes. When it comes to smoking regularly I think both are stupid.
When people tell me they smoke weed once a month or so, when at a party and they get offered or w/e, my only opinion is that they are laid back and like to have fun once in a while, which is something I like in a person. I also like people who rather not use drugs.
My opinion on drugs like cocaine, meth or heroine is the very mainstream very negative one.
When it comes to drugs that people use to have an especially good time, like speed or hallucinogens or whatever... For people who just want to try and have fun, I go with the live and let live approach. If someone likes to party every weekend and use them all the time, then I have a negative opinion.
I don't think it's unfair discrimination, because it's a choice you make and opinions are based on observation. For example pot, is bad for your lungs, can lead to addiction and people who use constantly show behaviors like lack of motivation and general potheadedness (for lack of a better term). On the other hand sexuality or race is not a choice.
This is only my opinion, and only a general assessment, I am aware that different people have different reasons of doing what they do.
On October 17 2011 17:51 Orcasgt24 wrote: Drug user are criminals. The law discriminates against them for a reason and so shall I.
Drugs are bad mmmkay
I think you're being serious, but I can't tell?
I definitely don't think anyone should base their personal perceptions on the law. Remember that laws were made based on the lawmaker(s)' personal perceptions of evidence that existed at the time the law was made. That evidence is sometimes still accurate and sometimes wildly out of date, and the lawmaker may have vastly different beliefs than you do. Your opinion may wind up being the same as that of the law, but I think its selling yourself short to blindly base your personal opinions on the law.
The president of the US has smoked weed. I really don't understand how people can keep talking about limited options as a result of weed.
Smoke weed and the best you can hope for is being president of the US? Ooh the horror.
You answered for me, past tense "has" as with my experience I would assume if he had not stopped he would not be president however since he did he was able to bring out his full potential. Also I can make a one off argument too, get a group of one million normal people use Marijuana with them regularly for the next five years and see if one person in the group becomes president if they don't do I win?
I never said use Marijuana and your doomed I said use it and you will not reach the level you could have, maybe my experience of a few dozen people is incorrect though if in ten years a massive study is released and says using it benefits you greatly if you eat crinkle cut potato chips while smoking then that's fine lets all do it and be better, however Marijuana by itself right now lowers the level person a person could have reached in my opinion.
On October 17 2011 11:22 UmiNotsuki wrote: This comes from a little personal realization of mine, and I'm wondering what you fine people of TL think about it. Is being uncomfortable around people who use drugs just because they use drugs just as bad as racism or sexism?
It might have been said before, but I just wanted to respond to this singular point: You're born with a race and sex. You however are not born with drug use.
It is the choice to use drugs or not that creates a distinction between unfair discrimination, and fair discrimination.
If you decide to do drugs, you are responsible for your decision -whatever this entails.
On October 17 2011 18:02 VonDarkmore wrote: Marijuana by itself right now lowers the level person a person could have reached in my opinion.
So does everything that isn't working seriously for your career or cultivating yourself. Video games are obviously a good example, and this is why a lot of non-gamers have low opinions of gamers. Are you saying they're right then ? That because the hundreds of hours all of us invested in games instead of studying, we're worth less than the ones who didn't ? Or would that be just a harmless way of happily losing time... ?
Edit for you, same poster : "People don't choose to be attracted to the same gender, they just are attracted to the same gender."
People don't choose to be attracted to drugs haha. Homosexuals make the choice of fulfilling their desires, such as drug users. In religion, an homosexual is condemned because he chose to act, not because of these desires that are just a test from God So you accept the homosexual's "unnatural" choice", but not the drug user's "unnatural" choice. Must be nice being politically correct rather than think deeply by yourself...
What is a drug ? i don't discriminate ppl for drinking coffee, coca-cola or eating chocolate all of which are more physically addicting then most legally labelled drugs.
'drugs' is a meaningless arbitrary distinction between chemicals. It's a retarded distinction at that.
Well I'll say what people do to their own bodies is up to them. But there are certain drugs, some call them "Hard Drugs' which under the influence of people can harm others.( I am tempted to include alcohol with the hard drugs sometimes when i walk past the local college campus) Hard drugs which cause people to have "out of body/mind" experiences are very dangerous and I would never encourage or understand the use of them, so I won't try too. But there is a huge difference between someone who has smoked pot, and someone who has a 100$ a day habit and habitually abuses any drug, designer prescription drugs included. I can see why someone would want to have a couple drinks of alcohol or puffs of a cigarette, but I don't see ANY positive rationale behind, oh i'm gonna try some heroin or Meth, there is no road that dangerous drugs will lead you down that will have a positive affect on your life.
However I feel there is a very dangerous trend in today's society(and this thread) of, grouping drugs into certain groups. ie: Soft drugs,(marijuana, alcohol, caffeine, tobaaco), Party Drugs(ecstasy, mushrooms etc) and the "Hard Drugs"(cocaine heroin lsd meth etc.) I feel this is a very dangerous way of classifying things and is very hard for younger minds to comprehend fully. Say a 16 year old, who has parents who smoke cigarettes, and he/she happens to try a cigarette and learns how the tobacco affects him/her. That same kid while obviously understanding that Alcohol is not the same thing as tobacco, has been "programmed" for lack of a better word, to associate tobacco in a similar drug tier as alcohol, marijuana, or other over-the-counter drugs. If this kid's experience with the cigarette was "oh, hey that's not so bad" imo, its logical that they would also think "Oh tobacco is not as bad as I've been told, Maybe (insert other drugs in the same tier here) isn't so bad either." Which can end up being a never ending cycle for certain people until they reach who knows what levels of drug. This classification system while it might work for adults and the Judicial system, I feel it is a dangerous way to approach the subject with kids, and something that should be phased out of our modern psyche, knowledge about each individual drug/substance needs to grow instead of being hidden or taboo in society.
One thing that really disappoints me with all of our modern technology and medicine, There are still no clear warnings to the public about what the serious possible affects of ALL THINGS people consume can be. As the post above me stated, everything is just a Chemical or a combination of chemicals, these chemicals are taken into our bodies and produce a reaction from our brain. Personally I see no difference in a person who drinks 3-4 cups of coffee a day to keep going, and someone who has 3-4 drinks of alcohol or smokes some marijuana everyday. They all negatively affect your health and an addiction is an addiction. Even things that don't negatively affect your physical health can be addictive just the same and affect you negatively in other ways. Yes there is a sticker on packs of cigarettes that tells me I am about to die of cancer, but there is no label on the wrapper of a Mcdonald's Big mac that I am x% more likely to become obese, or die of a heart attack by consuming this product. Hell I know people(a person to be exact) who works out at the gym 7 days a week twice a day and have completely lost all premise of what it is to be human. If your going to coddle the public and tell them whats bad and whats good, it's better to warn of other serious harmful substances/products. I'm sick of seeing all these television Lawyers telling me to "Call Now!!" if you took this pill and now are dying of some strange disease, it's absolutely ridiculous.(The people who take all these crazy diet pills or get botox etc is an addiction all it's own, some more dangerous than any drug that can be bought on the black market, but that's for another thread)
On another note, I'd like to put a persistent myth to bed, as I feel it's very unfair to generalize so wildly on a very deep subject matter. Just because someone smoked some weed doesn't mean, OMG you will never reach your full potential or you will be a stoner for life and people who drink a lot will get fat and eat mcdonalds forever and have a shitty job for the rest of their life. To me it sounds like a weak minds reaction to a specific case. Do some people smoke weed and become lazy stereotypical stoners? yes, Do ALL of them? no, Do some people smoke weed and become superstar musicians or artists? yes, Is it solely because they smoked some weed? no, Do some people drink too much and get liver cancer? Yes, do some people get liver cancer without ever drinking alcohol? yes! The subject of drug use even today in 2011 is not one of absolutes and every individuals experiences with them will differ. I would be willing to bet any amount of money or whatever property you find valuable, that 99.9% of these cases you see of a depressed person abusing a drug to cover up an emotion, is not due to their use of a drug, but because of other factors in their life that a Mental Health Professional could help them through. the problem is the stigma in today's society not just the drugs. For every known case of someone going down the wrong path with a drug, there is an unknown case of someone you don't know who has used a drug but not abused it and lived a perfectly happy and fulfilled life.
The ideal of, oh you should get 4.0 gpa in high school and, go to an ivy league university, marry your beautiful High School sweetheart at 25 and have kids at 30, become rich and successful, is a modern mystique and a side effect of the Middle Class. In the end you have to figure out what makes you happy, and what do you enjoy in life. I know plenty of people who work "shitty" jobs and don't have any money and never went to college that are perfectly happy. And I know plenty of "successful" graduate students who are out of their mind with stress and have lost all knowledge of what it feels like to be genuinely "happy". Who are you as a human being to say what someone else's potential is, and what it is not. Your made up ideal of what other people should do with their lives is a dangerous way to look at society and is why we don't live in Monarchies/Dictatorships anymore(for the most part lol) Shame on you.
So to op's question, and to end my ramblings, I choose other. I'm no saint, I judge people incorrectly all the time, but I'm always willing to look at someone by their actions or words, rather than by something they choose to do in their free time, or something they choose to put into their body. "People are strange, when your a stranger."
On October 17 2011 18:02 VonDarkmore wrote: Marijuana by itself right now lowers the level person a person could have reached in my opinion.
So does everything that isn't working seriously for your career or cultivating yourself. Video games are obviously a good example, and this is why a lot of non-gamers have low opinions of gamers. Are you saying they're right then ? That because the hundreds of hours all of us invested in games instead of studying, we're worth less than the ones who didn't ? Or would that be just a harmless way of happily losing time... ?
Using as a premise that the best people in life are those who give everything toward achieving all they can possibly achieve, then yes video games are bad. I believe that premise is false.
Using as a premise that a good life is a balanced life than marijuana can be part of a balanced lifestlye if used rarely.
People who are balanced can't achieve greatness and people who achieve greatness are unhappy. Once you achieve greatness, once you are better at something than anyone else, then what are you left with?
It's impossible for us to know what the 'goal' of life is, but my opinion is that the 'goal' of life is to live and be happy.
Personally my brother has been addicted to meth twice (meaning he relapsed after a few years the first time he went clean) and almost had life in prison and was in a gang. I used to smoke weed and drink with my buddies in 7th/8th grade but quit midway through 9th grade because I realized there was no reason for it.
GeneticToss, I don't get you. To start with, I added an extra paragraph to my previous post if you didn't see.. Now, my problem : you say you think lower of drug users because they don't achieve all they could have achieved; and then you say the important thing in life is more happiness than achievement. Please decide ! Unless you think happy people who happen to start doing drugs become increasingly unhappy ? I never saw anybody like this... And I know a LOT of them. (edit: mostly because people heavily drug-addicted are generally ones who can't feel happy otherwise... Then in your own opinion drugs would the best way of living for them ^^ )
On October 17 2011 18:34 Nasradime wrote: GeneticToss, I don't get you. To start with, I added an extra paragraph to my previous post if you didn't see.. Now, my problem : you say you think lower of drug users because they don't achieve all they could have achieved; and then you say the important thing in life is more happiness than achievement. Please decide ! Unless you think happy people who happen to start doing drugs become increasingly unhappy ? I never saw anybody like this... And I know a LOT of them.
Hmm well I think life is about being happy. I think that being happy comes from being balanced. I think that smoking once in a while can be a part of a balanced life. If you feel a need to smoke though, then I think that is when it becomes a problem.
As for the homosexuality thing I think we better just drop that part of the debate because this is not what this thread is about.
Marijuana or mushrooms? Dont care, its not harmful in any way.
Also OP can you add one more poll please? How about alcohol, the 5th most dangerous drug in the world, whats peoples opinion on alcohol? Looking at the current polls tells me either TL is filled with hypocrites OR filled with people who wouldn't touch a drop of aclohol.
Personally if you take any drugs i am going to think less of you. Although i know plenty of people who smoke pot and i don't have any problem with that if its recreational and not stoned all day. Anything harder then that usage or drug wise, i don't want to know you at all. You are most likely a dead beat liar.
On October 17 2011 18:48 Mojar wrote: Personally if you take any drugs i am going to think less of you. Although i know plenty of people who smoke pot and i don't have any problem with that if its recreational and not stoned all day. Anything harder then that usage or drug wise, i don't want to know you at all. You are most likely a dead beat liar.
On October 17 2011 18:44 Snusdosa wrote: Depends on the drug.
Cocaine or heroine? Thats bullshit, dont use it.
Marijuana or mushrooms? Dont care, its not harmful in any way.
Also OP can you add one more poll please? How about alcohol, the 5th most dangerous drug in the world, whats peoples opinion on alcohol? Looking at the current polls tells me either TL is filled with hypocrites OR filled with people who wouldn't touch a drop of aclohol.
5th? Where does that number come from ? I'd say it's 2nd next to heroin.
It's the biggest study on drugs in the UK yet, David Nutt - who after the report concluded that the only logical thing to do would be to legalize marijuana considering alcohol being legal despite the giantic health issues associated with it - got fired after the study was published.
People are really dumb, they're basing their opinion on things on what their governments tell them, they dont think for themselves. "But pot is illegal there must be a reason for that herp derp", yeah, reason being the ones you've elected to run your country is a bunch of tards.
I see a lot f people saying that drug use is a choice, thus discrimination against them is ok.
Is this necessarily true? I for one am convinced we are indeed not "free" in some sense of the word. We are born different, and those inherent differences makes us chose differently put in the same situation. We have created society as it is now, and since it is nowadays omnipresent, it can not be avoided, and thus it WILL affect everyone to an extent that is impossible to comprehend.
(It might feel as if I stray off the point here, bare with me tho! )
Who would I be if me, the same person, was born in the stone age? Certainly I would be quite different, aside from what I would do to survive etc. That makes us collectively responsible for each individual that is born in our society. Our society is in many ways better than it's predecessors, but it's FAR from perfect, and as it's citizens it's our responsibility to improve the system so that tomorrows people may have a better world.
As a result, it's universally wrong to judge people based on how they turned out. They would've been different if our world looked different, and casting them out will simply cause our system to converge to some point close to where it is now (but a more extreme one, since it doesn't consider it's flaws). So I'd say: Unless you are convinced our system is near perfection - do not judge.
This of course is quite philosophical, but I think it's true, and important to remember.
As for what I think of the OP's situation.. My experience with pot and pot heads is that it's important to keep the intake down a little bit. It's too easy if you have easy access to drugs, to use them casually, like, I'm bored -> smoke pot. This makes you do less things that gives you natural happiness, so it will probably make you depressed in the long run.
She might need a little help to get there, but I think she might be happier if she smoked less frequently, like once a week tops.
On October 17 2011 16:34 Mobius_1 wrote: I am prejudiced against people who use drugs which are more illegal than marijuana, and people who abuse any drug to the detriment of his/her social, academic, and employment functionings.
I am also somewhat prejudiced against people who don't use alcohol at all for none-religious reasons, but that's quite a different matter
Hilarious considering that alcohol is more harmful and more addictive than plenty of those "more illegal than marijuana" drugs.
There are some drugs I'll never touch, opiates are an obvious one, but I urge the non-users to experience in moderation before judging quite so harshly.
Like anything, moderation is the key. People die from excessive WoW-ing, so it's not unreasonable to expect that disrespecting a substance can cause serious harm.
First poll: Having prejudice against somebody who smokes pot every day and uses some psychedelic drugs like shrooms 2-3 times a month is like thinking every black person is some gang from member from ghetto who will try to kill/rob/beat you. Yes there are some idiots who get addicted and do stupid shit but most of users arent,just like there are some ghetto gang members but that doesnt make every black person is one.
Second poll: If somebody is any using kind of drug(even hard ones),still functions normally,and i dont even notice anything is wrong with them why should it negatively affect my opinion of them if all those drugs they are using arent affecting them and they behave and function like any other person who doesnt use any drugs?
If somebody is really fucked up addict who cant function normally and starts doing stupid shit to get some money for more drugs,well that person doesnt need to tell you that he/she uses drugs,you will know it already.
i dont know and i dont care what you think about drugs, but as long as you buy them you just support the criminals and terrorists that you dislike. i dont know how much people can get more stupid than that lol. ofc it is totally fine if u grow your own and use by yourself. but seriously people should stop subsidizing the terrorists and crime cartels by buying their drugs, it aint helpin anything..
I wouldn't recommend it, while not being physically addictive most people who try it get a strong urge to experince it again since the effect was so awesome.
Well I'll say what people do to their own bodies is up to them. But there are certain drugs, some call them "Hard Drugs' which under the influence of people can harm others.( I am tempted to include alcohol with the hard drugs sometimes when i walk past the local college campus) Hard drugs which cause people to have "out of body/mind" experiences are very dangerous and I would never encourage or understand the use of them, so I won't try too. But there is a huge difference between someone who has smoked pot, and someone who has a 100$ a day habit and habitually abuses any drug, designer prescription drugs included. I can see why someone would want to have a couple drinks of alcohol or puffs of a cigarette, but I don't see ANY positive rational behind, oh i'm gonna try some heroin or Meth, there is no road that dangerous drugs will lead you down that will have a positive affect on your life.
However I feel there is a very dangerous trend in today's society(and this thread) of, grouping drugs into certain groups. ie: Soft drugs,(marijuana, alcohol, caffeine, tobaaco), Party Drugs(ecstasy, mushrooms etc) and the "Hard Drugs"(cocaine heroin lsd meth etc.) I feel this is a very dangerous way of classifying things and is very hard for younger minds to comprehend fully. Say a 16 year old, who has parents who smoke cigarettes, and he/she happens to try a cigarette and learns how the tobacco affects him/her. That same kid while obviously understanding that Alcohol is not the same thing as tobacco, has been "programmed" for lack of a better word, to associate tobacco in a similar drug tier as alcohol, marijuana, or other over-the-counter drugs. If this kid's experience with the cigarette was "oh, hey that's not so bad" imo, its logical that they would also think "Oh tobacco is not as bad as I've been told, Maybe (insert other drugs in the same tier here) isn't so bad either." Which can end up being a never ending cycle for certain people until they reach who knows what levels of drug. This classification system while it might work for adults and the Judicial system, I feel it is a dangerous way to approach the subject with kids, and something that should be phased out in of modern psyche, knowledge about each individual drug/substance needs to grow instead of being hidden or taboo in society.
One thing that really disappoints me with all of our modern technology and medicine, There are still no clear warnings to the public about what the serious possible affects of ALL THINGS people consume can be. As the post above me stated, everything is just a Chemical or a combination of chemicals, these chemicals are taken into our bodies and produce a reaction from our brain. Personally I see no difference in a person who drinks 3-4 cups of coffee a day to keep going, and someone who has 3-4 drinks of alcohol or smokes some marijuana everyday. They all negatively affect your health and an addiction is an addiction. Even things that don't negatively affect your physical health can be addictive just the same and affect you negatively in other ways. Yes there is a sticker on packs of cigarettes that tells me I am about to die of cancer, but there is no label on the wrapper of a Mcdonald's Big mac that I am x% more likely to become obese, or die of a heart attack by consuming this product. Hell I know people(a person to be exact) who works out at the gym 7 days a week twice a day and have completely lost all premise of what it is to be human. If your going to coddle the public and tell them whats bad and whats good, it's better to warn of other serious harmful substances/products. I'm sick of seeing all these television Lawyers telling me to "Call Now!!" if you took this pill and now are dying of some strange disease, it's absolutely ridiculous.(The people who take all these crazy diet pills or get botox etc is an addiction all it's own, some more dangerous than any drug that can be bought on the black market, but that's for another thread)
On another note, I'd like to put a persistent myth to bed, as I feel it's very unfair to generalize so wildly on a very deep subject matter. Just because someone smoked some weed doesn't mean, OMG you will never reach your full potential or you will be a stoner for life and people who drink a lot will get fat and eat mcdonalds forever and have a shitty job for the rest of their life. To me it sounds like a weak minds reaction to a specific case. Do some people smoke weed and become lazy stereotypical stoners? yes, Do ALL of them? no, Do some people smoke weed and become superstar musicians or artists? yes, Is it solely because they smoked some weed? no, Do some people drink too much and get liver cancer? Yes, do some people get liver cancer without ever drinking alcohol? yes! The subject of drug use even today in 2011 is not one of absolutes and every individuals experiences with them will differ. I would be willing to bet any amount of money or whatever property you find valuable, that 99.9% of these cases you see of a depressed person abusing a drug to cover up an emotion, is not due to their use of a drug, but because of other factors in their life that a Mental Health Professional could help them through. the problem is the stigma in today's society not just the drugs. For every known case of someone going down the wrong path with a drug, there is an unknown case of someone you don't know who has used a drug but not abused it and lived a perfectly happy and fulfilled life.
The ideal of, oh you should get 4.0 gpa in high school and, go to an ivy league university, marry your beautiful High School sweetheart at 25 and have kids at 30, become rich and successful, is a modern mystique and a side effect of the Middle Class. In the end you have to figure out what makes you happy, and what do you enjoy in life. I know plenty of people who work "shitty" jobs and don't have any money and never went to college that are perfectly happy. And I know plenty of "successful" graduate students who are out of their mind with stress and have lost all knowledge of what it feels like to be genuinely "happy". Who are you as a human being to say what someone else's potential is, and what it is not. Your made up ideal of what other people should do with their lives is a dangerous way to look at society and is why we don't live in Monarchies/Dictatorships anymore(for the most part lol) Shame on you.
So to op's question, and to end my ramblings, I choose other. I'm no saint, I judge people incorrectly all the time, but I'm always willing to look at someone by their actions or words, rather than by something they choose to do in their free time, or something they choose to put into their body. "People are strange, when your a stranger."
This was a very good post. You should all read it!
Lots of drugs are more similar to caffeine or other "soft-drugs" than you would think. Would you think the same way about coffee addicts as you say about "drug" addicts? Is it only because of the law? Some of you should really try to open up and get some more experience or at least knowledge before you put on such hard judgments. Be a little open minded, before you judge imo. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but at least know what you talk about before you "know for sure".
Of course I will have different opinions about other ppl when they say they use drugs. But that is because everything they do and say will change my opinion about other ppl all the time. If it will be in a negative, positive or just no reaction at all really depends on the situation. As long as people dont get addicts or hurt others, I dont give a shit.
On October 17 2011 16:28 Tincuradan wrote: Carl Sagan was a published astronomer, documentary filmmaker, awesome dude and daily smoker http://www.druglibrary.org/think/~jnr/sagan.htm Go watch his Cosmos series.
Nowhere in that article does it say he was a daily smoker. Also he died of fucking pneumonia. There's a chance that, if he was a daily smoker, that it contributed to his death.
You're right, corrected.
Christopher Hitchen's defense of his tobacco use: I've knowingly taken a risk with my lifestyle, and lost the bet. Though I've taken more out of it than it out of me.
It's disgusting how many Christian news reportings are gloating about his throat cancer. Or subtly suggesting it's the wrath of god for his sin of disbelief. It's exactly this linking between substance use and sin which keeps prohibition laws in place.
Hitch
And yeah, I wasn't pointing to Sagan's occasional weed indulgence as contributing to his death in any way because of any inherent wrongness/immorality/sin, but rather because he died of pneumonia, a condition that doesn't readily lend itself to harming one's lungs with foreign matter, just to be clear.
in regards to 'most dangerous'... tobacco kills the most people every year by a huge margin, then alcohol (direct poisoning; not counting eventual liver failure and such). then Hepatitis from Heroin (a lot less than alcohol poisoning). Death from everything else is basically a footnote to death statistics
also, I have never had a bad time on drugs. and some of the greatest writers of all time did heaps of drugs (Hunter S Thompson, Huxley, PK Dick, etc). You haven't unlocked your potential until you've tried amphetamines
In regards to OP's question, I think people who are prejudiced against a person just because they've smoked some weed or something are complete dicks. but each to their own
It's the biggest study on drugs in the UK yet, David Nutt - who after the report concluded that the only logical thing to do would be to legalize marijuana considering alcohol being legal despite the giantic health issues associated with it - got fired after the study was published.
People are really dumb, they're basing their opinion on things on what their governments tell them, they dont think for themselves. "But pot is illegal there must be a reason for that herp derp", yeah, reason being the ones you've elected to run your country is a bunch of tards.
thanks for the source. interesting article. Not that surprising he got fired considering what politics are these days like you said.
Hmm.. Thought people would be more open minded here. How many people you know using cannabis for example? I know some and they are normal people. I don't get how it would affect the personal side of this fellow if he uses something. I absolutely hate tobacco but it has no negative impact on the person in my mind. Why would pot be different? Is it just because it is illegal due to conservative meanings?
Random fun usage =/= junkie. Junkies are another story and this has nothing to do with junkies this OP.
"I've seen drug use and abuse do nothing but hurt the people around me." Only negative impact in your life with something like pot is that you probably have to deal with shady dealers.
Again drug addiction is different and sad story, and if someone uses pot to escape world the problem doesn't lie in the pot it lies in the persons other parts of life.
e: Fun thing to think about.. How many people you know being addicted to coffee and people being addicted to pot? Don't answer, just think about it from different perspectives.
I wouldn't recommend it, while not being physically addictive most people who try it get a strong urge to experince it again since the effect was so awesome.
and the effect will never be the same.
I'd agree that it's something definitely worth experiencing.
I wouldn't recommend it, while not being physically addictive most people who try it get a strong urge to experince it again since the effect was so awesome.
and the effect will never be the same.
I'd agree that it's something definitely worth experiencing.
As a person that looks experiences in life being the most valuable thing, you make it sound very tempting hehe. :D
Drug is a pretty ambiguous term. Is a drug anything that temporarily alters your brain chemistry? If that's the case then we are grouping things like chocolate and heroin under one big umbrella. To get past this issue people typically use the phrase "Illegal Drugs" to describe substances that are "abused." There's a problem here. Is a drug that is illegal automatically more harmful than a legal drug?
For instance scientific research overwhelmingly supports the fact that Cannabis is less harmful than Alcohol. Yet Alcohol is the drug of choice for our society and people consider it to be in an entirely different category. After all, alcohol is not an illegal drug and drinking it responsibly is not abuse.
Looking at another example, there is a hallucinogen taken as a sacrament in South American shamanic cultures called Ayahuasca. To the native culture this sacrament is a medicine for the soul, an important part of their spiritual practice. Westerners who have ventured to South America for the ayahuasca experience have reported immense benefits as a direct result of the experience. Alcohols and cocaine addicts returned home free of their addictions. Some have reported that Ayahuasca allowed them to expand their capacity for empathy and compassion.
The point is that Ayahuasca is an "illegal drug" in the US and if you're caught brewing it you'll end up in jail. Surely no one would argue that Ayahuasca is more harmful than Alcohol, or that it destroys your life. Is a glass of scotch after work more ethical than drinking ayahuasca in a guided session simply because alcohol is legal? Probably not.
Having established the fact that illegal doesn't always mean worse, i want to talk about the word abuse. I saw a previous poster say that using Cannabis is "abuse if you're taking it solely because you like the feeling." I find that statement to be inherently flawed. For example, I like to go skiing.I enjoy the feeling. Skiing is a risky activity, I might hit my head and damage my brain, or hell I might tumble down the slope and break my entire body. Does that make skiing abuse?
Some studies have found thatCannabis has a negative impact on the brain. I'll grant that it might be true, however the studies were always (?) flawed in some way (small sample size, users had taken other drugs, etc). Even if there is a chance that it is harmful to your brain, that doesn't mean that using it is automatically abuse. Eating McDonalds once in a while isn't abuse even though its clearly detrimental to your health.
An adult smoking Cannabis in the privacy of his own home does no harm. If the person was already a lazy jackass he'll still be a lazy jackass when he smokes weed. A successful goal oriented person who smokes weed is still just that, successful. You might argue that there are very few stoners that are successful, but that doesn't automatically mean cannabis had a causal impact on their failure.
For me it comes down to not really respecting someone's personality/mind when they feel a need to take mind-alterating substances on a regular basis to be able to enjoy themselves or feel worthwhile. Now don't come at me with the weak-ass "everything is a mind-alterating substance" BS; sugar, caffeine and vitamins aren't even remotely close to the effects of alcohol, thc and other drugs.
Drink when you're out partying? Fine. Pretty much anyone does, you don't go to a club to have philosophical discussions. Drink yourself into throwing up? Maybe not so good. Smoke marijuana every so often? Fine. Do as you please. Smoke every day and be high for most of your waking week? Don't expect me to see you as "just someone doing what they enjoy".
Let me ask you, what is the concensus about people who drink every single day, and up to a point where they won't be all 'there' anymore? Not just one glass of wine or something, think along the lines of 4+ beers every day (since that's around the same level of fucked-upness that marijuana tends to give you, at least for me)? You'd label those people alcoholics, don't lie. You'd say they have a drinking problem. You would say they are probably having issues of some sort.
Then why should I be completely fine with people who are stoned every day, most of the day?
--
It's not so much discrimination as cold hard fact that you won't be clear as day when you're on drugs - that's the entire point of the stuff. You're not really yourself anymore. When I did weedcake, I laughed about jokes that I didn't even understand or fully hear, even if something in me was telling me that they really didn't make sense. I'd laugh about stuff that wasn't even a joke, just a word that sounded funny. All my 'brilliant discoveries and ideas' that I had that night were utter shit, as the tape recorder I had on during that night proved the next day. Stuff along the lines of "maybe we should put these (decorative cake sprinkles) on that snail over there, that would be awesome!" and a friend responding with "I want pizza", followed by uncontrollable laughter for about 15 minutes.
Basically, when I meet someone who is high, I just don't take them seriously anymore or even listen/talk, if at all possible. What they're like at that moment is not what they're like at other times, what they say doesn't mean anything - you're not talking to the real person you're standing in front of. Based on that, when someone is stoned 4 days out of 5, I just don't take them seriously at all or want much to do with them. That's not me thinking they're going to attack me in any way, that's just me not giving a shit about them because they have nothing about them that interests me.
The poll is flawed. "Is prejudice against drug users wrong?" implies that drug users are some kind of innocent party, and that there is no justification for negative feelings towards drug users... which I think is nonsense. I have negative feelings towards drug users, and I think I am perfectly justified in doing so. At the very least anyone using illegal drugs is directly funding a string of drug dealers which on its own is bad enough, before you even look at any other factors.
My neighbour probably thinks his cannabis is only personal to him, but it sucks to come home and find my house stinking of his filth because it's seeped through under the wooden floorboards into my home.
On October 17 2011 19:25 DarQraven wrote: For me it comes down to not really respecting someone's personality/mind when they feel a need to take mind-alterating substances on a regular basis to be able to enjoy themselves or feel worthwhile. Now don't come at me with the weak-ass "everything is a mind-alterating substance" BS; sugar, caffeine and vitamins aren't even remotely close to the effects of alcohol, thc and other drugs.
Drink when you're out partying? Fine. Pretty much anyone does, you don't go to a club to have philosophical discussions. Drink yourself into throwing up? Maybe not so good. Smoke marijuana every so often? Fine. Do as you please. Smoke every day and be high for most of your waking week? Don't expect me to see you as "just someone doing what they enjoy".
Let me ask you, what is the concensus about people who drink every single day, and up to a point where they won't be all 'there' anymore? Not just one glass of wine or something, think along the lines of 4+ beers every day (since that's around the same level of fucked-upness that marijuana tends to give you, at least for me)? You'd label those people alcoholics, don't lie. You'd say they have a drinking problem. You would say they are probably having issues of some sort.
Then why should I be completely fine with people who are stoned every day, most of the day?
--
It's not so much discrimination as cold hard fact that you won't be clear as day when you're on drugs - that's the entire point of the stuff. You're not really yourself anymore. When I did weedcake, I laughed about jokes that I didn't even understand or fully hear, even if something in me was telling me that they really didn't make sense. I'd laugh about stuff that wasn't even a joke, just a word that sounded funny. All my 'brilliant discoveries and ideas' that I had that night were utter shit, as the tape recorder I had on during that night proved the next day. Stuff along the lines of "maybe we should put these (decorative cake sprinkles) on that snail over there, that would be awesome!" and a friend responding with "I want pizza", followed by uncontrollable laughter for about 15 minutes.
Basically, when I meet someone who is high, I just don't take them seriously anymore or even listen/talk, if at all possible. What they're like at that moment is not what they're like at other times, what they say doesn't mean anything - you're not talking to the real person you're standing in front of. Based on that, when someone is stoned 4 days out of 5, I just don't take them seriously at all or want much to do with them. That's not me thinking they're going to attack me in any way, that's just me not giving a shit about them because they have nothing about them that interests me.
if you met Richard Branson or Ted Turner while they were blazed would you listen to what they had to say?
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.
On October 17 2011 19:31 Hairy wrote: The poll is flawed. "Is prejudice against drug users wrong?" implies that drug users are some kind of innocent party, and that there is no justification for negative feelings towards drug users... which I think is nonsense. At the very least anyone using illegal drugs is directly funding a string of drug dealers which on its own is bad enough, before you even look at any other factors.
Dude.. purchasing new clothes very often means you are funding slavery in poor countries. Tobacco has had a history of using children for cheap labor in the tobacco fields. When you choose the cheaper meat in the supermarket you are supporting companies exploiting farmers in third world countries, you're ruining things for farmers in your own country as well as contributing to pollution and global warming.
I don't give a shit if someone gets some white powder in front of me and snorts it. It doesn't poison me, it's his choice, I don't care. But a person smoking next to non-smokers - that's what really makes me mad ! As for the "different type of drugs" argument - coke users don't smell nearly as bad as marijuana junkies, is it a prejudice to stay away from the awful marijuana smell ?
On October 17 2011 19:31 Hairy wrote: The poll is flawed. "Is prejudice against drug users wrong?" implies that drug users are some kind of innocent party, and that there is no justification for negative feelings towards drug users... which I think is nonsense. At the very least anyone using illegal drugs is directly funding a string of drug dealers which on its own is bad enough, before you even look at any other factors.
Dude.. purchasing new clothes very often means you are funding slavery in poor countries. Tobacco has had a history of using children for cheap labor in the tobacco fields. When you choose the cheaper meat in the supermarket you are supporting companies exploiting farmers in third world countries, you're ruining things for farmers in your own country as well as contributing to pollution and global warming.
Your argument is very flawed.
I don't buy clothes from anywhere I know uses sweatshops, and I don't really buy that many to begin with. I don't smoke tobacco, and I buy meat farmed from local sources. It might be more expensive, sure, but I have plenty of money saved because I don't waste it on cigarettes....
On October 17 2011 19:25 DarQraven wrote: For me it comes down to not really respecting someone's personality/mind when they feel a need to take mind-alterating substances on a regular basis to be able to enjoy themselves or feel worthwhile. Now don't come at me with the weak-ass "everything is a mind-alterating substance" BS; sugar, caffeine and vitamins aren't even remotely close to the effects of alcohol, thc and other drugs.
Drink when you're out partying? Fine. Pretty much anyone does, you don't go to a club to have philosophical discussions. Drink yourself into throwing up? Maybe not so good. Smoke marijuana every so often? Fine. Do as you please. Smoke every day and be high for most of your waking week? Don't expect me to see you as "just someone doing what they enjoy".
Let me ask you, what is the concensus about people who drink every single day, and up to a point where they won't be all 'there' anymore? Not just one glass of wine or something, think along the lines of 4+ beers every day (since that's around the same level of fucked-upness that marijuana tends to give you, at least for me)? You'd label those people alcoholics, don't lie. You'd say they have a drinking problem. You would say they are probably having issues of some sort.
Then why should I be completely fine with people who are stoned every day, most of the day?
--
It's not so much discrimination as cold hard fact that you won't be clear as day when you're on drugs - that's the entire point of the stuff. You're not really yourself anymore. When I did weedcake, I laughed about jokes that I didn't even understand or fully hear, even if something in me was telling me that they really didn't make sense. I'd laugh about stuff that wasn't even a joke, just a word that sounded funny. All my 'brilliant discoveries and ideas' that I had that night were utter shit, as the tape recorder I had on during that night proved the next day. Stuff along the lines of "maybe we should put these (decorative cake sprinkles) on that snail over there, that would be awesome!" and a friend responding with "I want pizza", followed by uncontrollable laughter for about 15 minutes.
Basically, when I meet someone who is high, I just don't take them seriously anymore or even listen/talk, if at all possible. What they're like at that moment is not what they're like at other times, what they say doesn't mean anything - you're not talking to the real person you're standing in front of. Based on that, when someone is stoned 4 days out of 5, I just don't take them seriously at all or want much to do with them. That's not me thinking they're going to attack me in any way, that's just me not giving a shit about them because they have nothing about them that interests me.
if you met Richard Branson or Ted Turner while they were blazed would you listen to what they had to say?
Probably not, since what they'd have to say at that point is probably not what they are famous or to be respected for. Furthermore, I couldn't take a word they'd say seriously because if they truly are "blazed" then they're most likely to be babbling about irrelevant shit or not making much sense, if my experiences with drugs are anything to go by.
On October 17 2011 19:25 DarQraven wrote: For me it comes down to not really respecting someone's personality/mind when they feel a need to take mind-alterating substances on a regular basis to be able to enjoy themselves or feel worthwhile. Now don't come at me with the weak-ass "everything is a mind-alterating substance" BS; sugar, caffeine and vitamins aren't even remotely close to the effects of alcohol, thc and other drugs.
Let me ask you, what is the concensus about people who drink every single day, and up to a point where they won't be all 'there' anymore? Not just one glass of wine or something, think along the lines of 4+ beers every day (since that's around the same level of fucked-upness that marijuana tends to give you, at least for me)? You'd label those people alcoholics, don't lie. You'd say they have a drinking problem. You would say they are probably having issues of some sort.
Then why should I be completely fine with people who are stoned every day, most of the day?
You underestimate the power of caffeine and synthesized legal stimulants, Go to the local Market and drink a couple of "High Power Energy Voltage Red bull Crack in a can" drinks and tell me you don't get the shakes. I'm no doctor, but I'd be willing to guess that whatever is making my body uncontrollably shake for up too an hour is just as harmful as any weed or alcohol abuse, Long and short term. Stimulants of any kinds be it, Speed, Cocaine, or caffeine, produce the same reaction from your brain, and that abuse is what causes long term detrimental side effects.
And to your other point, Are you blaming alcohol/drugs, as to why people are having issues/problems in their life or is the drug just a crutch/symptom of a bigger emotional issue? Maybe there are some cases, but I find it hard to believe that someone who is abusing a drug, their only problem is the abuse of the drug and that is why they are depressed/have issues.
On October 17 2011 17:51 Orcasgt24 wrote: Drug user are criminals. The law discriminates against them for a reason and so shall I.
Drugs are bad mmmkay
I think you're being serious, but I can't tell?
I definitely don't think anyone should base their personal perceptions on the law. Remember that laws were made based on the lawmaker(s)' personal perceptions of evidence that existed at the time the law was made. That evidence is sometimes still accurate and sometimes wildly out of date, and the lawmaker may have vastly different beliefs than you do. Your opinion may wind up being the same as that of the law, but I think its selling yourself short to blindly base your personal opinions on the law.
I was serious. Their is a really damn good reason why LSD, Meth, Cocain, Herion and all the other drugs are illegal. IMO tobacco and alcohol should also be illegal for the same reasons.
On October 17 2011 19:25 DarQraven wrote: For me it comes down to not really respecting someone's personality/mind when they feel a need to take mind-alterating substances on a regular basis to be able to enjoy themselves or feel worthwhile. Now don't come at me with the weak-ass "everything is a mind-alterating substance" BS; sugar, caffeine and vitamins aren't even remotely close to the effects of alcohol, thc and other drugs.
Drink when you're out partying? Fine. Pretty much anyone does, you don't go to a club to have philosophical discussions. Drink yourself into throwing up? Maybe not so good. Smoke marijuana every so often? Fine. Do as you please. Smoke every day and be high for most of your waking week? Don't expect me to see you as "just someone doing what they enjoy".
Let me ask you, what is the concensus about people who drink every single day, and up to a point where they won't be all 'there' anymore? Not just one glass of wine or something, think along the lines of 4+ beers every day (since that's around the same level of fucked-upness that marijuana tends to give you, at least for me)? You'd label those people alcoholics, don't lie. You'd say they have a drinking problem. You would say they are probably having issues of some sort.
Then why should I be completely fine with people who are stoned every day, most of the day?
--
It's not so much discrimination as cold hard fact that you won't be clear as day when you're on drugs - that's the entire point of the stuff. You're not really yourself anymore. When I did weedcake, I laughed about jokes that I didn't even understand or fully hear, even if something in me was telling me that they really didn't make sense. I'd laugh about stuff that wasn't even a joke, just a word that sounded funny. All my 'brilliant discoveries and ideas' that I had that night were utter shit, as the tape recorder I had on during that night proved the next day. Stuff along the lines of "maybe we should put these (decorative cake sprinkles) on that snail over there, that would be awesome!" and a friend responding with "I want pizza", followed by uncontrollable laughter for about 15 minutes.
Basically, when I meet someone who is high, I just don't take them seriously anymore or even listen/talk, if at all possible. What they're like at that moment is not what they're like at other times, what they say doesn't mean anything - you're not talking to the real person you're standing in front of. Based on that, when someone is stoned 4 days out of 5, I just don't take them seriously at all or want much to do with them. That's not me thinking they're going to attack me in any way, that's just me not giving a shit about them because they have nothing about them that interests me.
if you met Richard Branson or Ted Turner while they were blazed would you listen to what they had to say?
Probably not, since what they'd have to say at that point is probably not what they are famous or to be respected for. Furthermore, I couldn't take a word they'd say seriously because if they truly are "blazed" then they're most likely to be babbling about irrelevant shit or not making much sense, if my experiences with drugs are anything to go by.
If you're talking about weed I can assure you anybody who isn't 13 or smoking for the first time wont be behaving like that. And if they are behaving like that they were probably fools well before they invited THC into their bloodstream. Dock Ellis pitched a no hitter on LSD, and I wouldn't be shocked if Carl Sagan was stoned in every single episode of cosmos ever produced. It depends completely on the person.
On October 17 2011 19:25 DarQraven wrote: For me it comes down to not really respecting someone's personality/mind when they feel a need to take mind-alterating substances on a regular basis to be able to enjoy themselves or feel worthwhile. Now don't come at me with the weak-ass "everything is a mind-alterating substance" BS; sugar, caffeine and vitamins aren't even remotely close to the effects of alcohol, thc and other drugs.
Let me ask you, what is the concensus about people who drink every single day, and up to a point where they won't be all 'there' anymore? Not just one glass of wine or something, think along the lines of 4+ beers every day (since that's around the same level of fucked-upness that marijuana tends to give you, at least for me)? You'd label those people alcoholics, don't lie. You'd say they have a drinking problem. You would say they are probably having issues of some sort.
Then why should I be completely fine with people who are stoned every day, most of the day?
You underestimate the power of caffeine and synthesized legal stimulants, Go to the local Market and drink a couple of "High Power Energy Voltage Red bull Crack in a can" drinks and tell me you don't get the shakes. I'm no doctor, but I'd be willing to guess that whatever is making my body uncontrollably shake for up too an hour is just as harmful as any weed or alcohol abuse, Long and short term.
And to your other point, Are you blaming alcohol/drugs, as to why people are having issues/problems in their life or is the drug just a crutch/symptom of a bigger emotional issue? Maybe there are some cases, but I find it hard to believe that someone who is abusing a drug, their only problem is the abuse of the drug and that is why they are depressed/have issues.
You seem to have misread this.
sugar, caffeine and vitamins aren't even remotely close to the effects of alcohol, thc and other drugs
Yes, you get shaky when you take massive amounts of caffeine. Do you start babbling nonsense, though? Do you possibly turn all introverted and trip out, or go off on a longwinded tangent about snail decoration?
I said those substances aren't even close to typical drugs in their effect, not that they don't have an effect. For hell's sake, you could probably eat a few cups of sugar and you'd have shaky hands and a massive energy boost as well. It wouldn't change your personality, though.
Drugs do. They simply have a whole different range of effects on people, effects that change how they behave, respond, think. Even if they respond or think much at all. They can change your perception of time and space. They can make you see shit that simply isn't there. The most introverted guy in the world can suddenly go off blabbering on and on to complete strangers like he's known them for years. They can make you "see clearly" (read: disable/reduce critical thought) and come up with complete BS. Some party drugs can make you stay up hours on end, something that even massive amounts of caffeine won't do.
When's the last time you hallucinated because of 5 cups of coffee?
--
As for the issues thing, that is simply how society thinks about drunkards. You see a guy who's drunk as hell most of the time and you either assume he's a homeless guy or has some kind of issue that he's trying to drink away. Substance abuse certainly *can* lead to issues, but that wasn't my point. It's the other way around. If most anyone here will agree that a guy who's drunk most of the week is doing something wrong, then why should it be accepted to be stoned most of the week?
Just don't judge people too hard, man. That is like the only good advice or viewpoint I can come up with when it comes to stuff like this. What I consider drug abuse and what someone else does are completely distinct, relying mostly on anecdotal proof and not on any structured or systematic analysis.
Don't be a dick and tell people who smoke pot they are doing something wrong, unless you really know them well enough to have earned the right to say that.
We are all entitled to our oppinions and views, but going up to someone and saying that "hey, your life choices are wrong because <insert irrelevant anecdote about someone/something else>" is just not ok in my book.
I don't buy clothes from anywhere I know uses sweatshops, and I don't really buy that many to begin with. I don't smoke tobacco, and I buy meat farmed from local sources. It might be more expensive, sure, but I have plenty of money saved because I don't waste it on cigarettes....
Ok, we've established that you are a role model for people in general. But can you honestly say that you're pure as a saint? I'll bet on that just a few minutes of soul searching should reveal to you that some of the things you do aren't innocent.
Then again, the point wasn't to point out to you that you are doing bad things, it was to point out that purchasing 5 grams of marijuana from someone isn't worse than going on vacation to southeast Asia or purchasing products manufactured by underpayed workers in poor countries.
When the entire world has cleaned up their act, then we could use your argument about funding drug dealers against drug users, but right now that is nothing compared to what regular, lawrespecting citizens are responsible off.
I was serious. Their is a really damn good reason why LSD, Meth, Cocain, Herion and all the other drugs are illegal. IMO tobacco and alcohol should also be illegal for the same reasons.
Now its on you to explain these reasons, explain why the reasons why each of illegal drugs are legit while we sit back and listen. Go on.
On October 17 2011 19:25 DarQraven wrote: For me it comes down to not really respecting someone's personality/mind when they feel a need to take mind-alterating substances on a regular basis to be able to enjoy themselves or feel worthwhile. Now don't come at me with the weak-ass "everything is a mind-alterating substance" BS; sugar, caffeine and vitamins aren't even remotely close to the effects of alcohol, thc and other drugs.
Let me ask you, what is the concensus about people who drink every single day, and up to a point where they won't be all 'there' anymore? Not just one glass of wine or something, think along the lines of 4+ beers every day (since that's around the same level of fucked-upness that marijuana tends to give you, at least for me)? You'd label those people alcoholics, don't lie. You'd say they have a drinking problem. You would say they are probably having issues of some sort.
Then why should I be completely fine with people who are stoned every day, most of the day?
You underestimate the power of caffeine and synthesized legal stimulants, Go to the local Market and drink a couple of "High Power Energy Voltage Red bull Crack in a can" drinks and tell me you don't get the shakes. I'm no doctor, but I'd be willing to guess that whatever is making my body uncontrollably shake for up too an hour is just as harmful as any weed or alcohol abuse, Long and short term.
And to your other point, Are you blaming alcohol/drugs, as to why people are having issues/problems in their life or is the drug just a crutch/symptom of a bigger emotional issue? Maybe there are some cases, but I find it hard to believe that someone who is abusing a drug, their only problem is the abuse of the drug and that is why they are depressed/have issues.
sugar, caffeine and vitamins aren't even remotely close to the effects of alcohol, thc and other drugs
Yes, you get shaky when you take massive amounts of caffeine. Do you start babbling nonsense, though? Do you possibly turn all introverted and trip out, or go off on a longwinded tangent about snail decoration?
I said those substances aren't even close to typical drugs in their effect, not that they don't have an effect. For hell's sake, you could probably eat a few cups of sugar and you'd have shaky hands and a massive energy boost as well. It wouldn't change your personality, though.
Drugs do. They simply have a whole different range of effects on people, effects that change how they behave, respond, think. Even if they respond or think much at all. They can change your perception time and space. They can make you see shit that simply isn't there. The most introverted guy in the world can suddenly go off blabbering on and on to complete strangers. They can make you "see clearly" (read: disable/reduce critical thought).
When's the last time you hallucinated because of 5 cups of coffee?
I once again disagree, You've never shown up to work or school and been next too the person who has had 1 too many cups of coffee and is Unable to stop talking for 2 hours straight, constantly pestering about something which you would never ordinarily talk about. Although they would usually be silent or "introverted" as you would put it without the coffee. I've never hallucinated from drinking coffee or eating sugar, but I've never hallucinated from drinking alcohol either or smoking weed. Caffiene likewise can "change your perception of time and space" just in the other direction, 1 minute can feel like an hour etc.
edit: Do I think alcohol is more dangerous than caffeine? yes, short term definitely, Have I drank so much that I blacked out and regretted it in my life? yes, I'm sure if you could stomach it or were motivated too you could drink coffee until you had a heart attack though. I'm just trying to say caffeine specifically is a very dangerous and addictive drug. As goes for cigarettes and alcohol, just cause it's legal doesn't mean its any better.
On October 17 2011 19:25 DarQraven wrote: For me it comes down to not really respecting someone's personality/mind when they feel a need to take mind-alterating substances on a regular basis to be able to enjoy themselves or feel worthwhile. Now don't come at me with the weak-ass "everything is a mind-alterating substance" BS; sugar, caffeine and vitamins aren't even remotely close to the effects of alcohol, thc and other drugs.
Let me ask you, what is the concensus about people who drink every single day, and up to a point where they won't be all 'there' anymore? Not just one glass of wine or something, think along the lines of 4+ beers every day (since that's around the same level of fucked-upness that marijuana tends to give you, at least for me)? You'd label those people alcoholics, don't lie. You'd say they have a drinking problem. You would say they are probably having issues of some sort.
Then why should I be completely fine with people who are stoned every day, most of the day?
You underestimate the power of caffeine and synthesized legal stimulants, Go to the local Market and drink a couple of "High Power Energy Voltage Red bull Crack in a can" drinks and tell me you don't get the shakes. I'm no doctor, but I'd be willing to guess that whatever is making my body uncontrollably shake for up too an hour is just as harmful as any weed or alcohol abuse, Long and short term.
And to your other point, Are you blaming alcohol/drugs, as to why people are having issues/problems in their life or is the drug just a crutch/symptom of a bigger emotional issue? Maybe there are some cases, but I find it hard to believe that someone who is abusing a drug, their only problem is the abuse of the drug and that is why they are depressed/have issues.
You seem to have misread this.
sugar, caffeine and vitamins aren't even remotely close to the effects of alcohol, thc and other drugs
Yes, you get shaky when you take massive amounts of caffeine. Do you start babbling nonsense, though? Do you possibly turn all introverted and trip out, or go off on a longwinded tangent about snail decoration?
I said those substances aren't even close to typical drugs in their effect, not that they don't have an effect. For hell's sake, you could probably eat a few cups of sugar and you'd have shaky hands and a massive energy boost as well. It wouldn't change your personality, though.
Drugs do. They simply have a whole different range of effects on people, effects that change how they behave, respond, think. Even if they respond or think much at all. They can change your perception time and space. They can make you see shit that simply isn't there. The most introverted guy in the world can suddenly go off blabbering on and on to complete strangers. They can make you "see clearly" (read: disable/reduce critical thought).
When's the last time you hallucinated because of 5 cups of coffee?
I once again disagree, You've never shown up to work or school and been next too the person who has had 1 too many cups of coffee and is Unable to stop talking for 2 hours straight, constantly pestering about something which you would never ordinarily talk about. Although they would usually be silent or "introverted" as you would put it without the coffee. I've never hallucinated from drinking coffee or eating sugar, but I've never hallucinated from drinking alcohol either or smoking weed. Caffiene likewise can "change your perception of time and space" just in the other direction, 1 minute can feel like an hour etc.
In freaking massive amounts, yes. Think along the lines of 2-3 jars in the span of an hour, and not that watery stuff Starbucks calls coffee either. 99.99% Of people will not ever drink that much, because they're not drinking coffee with the sole intent of becoming ADHD as fuck. With drugs you do. You only take drugs to become different - that's a philosophical difference if anything, and quite an important one as well. Even then, I've never had someone's personality traits seen changed by caffeine. They will get more active, sure. They'll talk faster. Will they suddenly turn into a different person? In my experience (as a university student where many people I know are practically on intravenous coffee drips during peak weeks), no. Not even close.
That said, I get the feeling you're just coming up with stuff just to try to make a point. No, I have *never* had my perception of time changed the way it did by using marijuana, by anything else. Not by having fun, studying, caffeine, sugar, alcohol, etc or a combination of any of those. I spent an 'hour' lost in my own room trying to find my bag, which turned out to be exactly 1 minute when I came back to the clock in the kitchen. That shit just doesn't happen with any 'regular' substance, no matter how much you take. Similarly, I have never seen a shy guy suddenly want to hug strangers because he's had sugar.
That aside, why are we narrowing this discussion down to marijuana all of a sudden? No, weed won't make you hallucinate. LSD will. Shrooms will. As far as I'm aware, those qualify as drugs as well and their effects blow caffeine or sugar, even in massive amounts, clear out of the water.
Prejudices are always wrong, since they are "judgments or assumption about someone or something before having enough knowledge to be able to do so with guaranteed accuracy". I think the main question could be instead given as: "Is our not-so-good opinion of people who make (large) use of drugs justified or not?" I think it depends on the context: as many said before, there are many people that make use of drugs, but they are not so addicted and they can still have a normal life (they do it just as "hobby"), while the majority of troubles happen when there is addiction, something that may occur based on the particular emotional condition of the drug user, making him/her forgetting about his/her life, becoming more aggressive etc. However there are 2 things i would like to point out which are usually ignored: 1) Drug users of any type economically support mafia and other criminal organization which hold the monopoly of drug market, exploiting poor people in third/second world country. 2) Even if someone become addicted, he had the possibility to chose to not use drugs before, and chose to use them. Everybody is responsible of their choices.
On October 17 2011 19:25 DarQraven wrote: For me it comes down to not really respecting someone's personality/mind when they feel a need to take mind-alterating substances on a regular basis to be able to enjoy themselves or feel worthwhile. Now don't come at me with the weak-ass "everything is a mind-alterating substance" BS; sugar, caffeine and vitamins aren't even remotely close to the effects of alcohol, thc and other drugs.
Let me ask you, what is the concensus about people who drink every single day, and up to a point where they won't be all 'there' anymore? Not just one glass of wine or something, think along the lines of 4+ beers every day (since that's around the same level of fucked-upness that marijuana tends to give you, at least for me)? You'd label those people alcoholics, don't lie. You'd say they have a drinking problem. You would say they are probably having issues of some sort.
Then why should I be completely fine with people who are stoned every day, most of the day?
You underestimate the power of caffeine and synthesized legal stimulants, Go to the local Market and drink a couple of "High Power Energy Voltage Red bull Crack in a can" drinks and tell me you don't get the shakes. I'm no doctor, but I'd be willing to guess that whatever is making my body uncontrollably shake for up too an hour is just as harmful as any weed or alcohol abuse, Long and short term.
And to your other point, Are you blaming alcohol/drugs, as to why people are having issues/problems in their life or is the drug just a crutch/symptom of a bigger emotional issue? Maybe there are some cases, but I find it hard to believe that someone who is abusing a drug, their only problem is the abuse of the drug and that is why they are depressed/have issues.
You seem to have misread this.
sugar, caffeine and vitamins aren't even remotely close to the effects of alcohol, thc and other drugs
Yes, you get shaky when you take massive amounts of caffeine. Do you start babbling nonsense, though? Do you possibly turn all introverted and trip out, or go off on a longwinded tangent about snail decoration?
I said those substances aren't even close to typical drugs in their effect, not that they don't have an effect. For hell's sake, you could probably eat a few cups of sugar and you'd have shaky hands and a massive energy boost as well. It wouldn't change your personality, though.
Drugs do. They simply have a whole different range of effects on people, effects that change how they behave, respond, think. Even if they respond or think much at all. They can change your perception time and space. They can make you see shit that simply isn't there. The most introverted guy in the world can suddenly go off blabbering on and on to complete strangers. They can make you "see clearly" (read: disable/reduce critical thought).
When's the last time you hallucinated because of 5 cups of coffee?
I once again disagree, You've never shown up to work or school and been next too the person who has had 1 too many cups of coffee and is Unable to stop talking for 2 hours straight, constantly pestering about something which you would never ordinarily talk about. Although they would usually be silent or "introverted" as you would put it without the coffee. I've never hallucinated from drinking coffee or eating sugar, but I've never hallucinated from drinking alcohol either or smoking weed. Caffiene likewise can "change your perception of time and space" just in the other direction, 1 minute can feel like an hour etc.
In freaking massive amounts, yes. Think along the lines of 2-3 jars in the span of an hour, and not that watery stuff Starbucks calls coffee either. 99.99% Of people will not ever drink that much, because they're not drinking coffee with the sole intent of becoming ADHD as fuck. With drugs you do. You only take drugs to become different - that's a philosophical difference if anything, and quite an important one as well.
That said, I get the feeling you're just coming up with stuff just to try to make a point. No, I have *never* had my perception of time changed the way it did by using marijuana, by anything else. Not by having fun, studying, caffeine, sugar, alcohol, etc or a combination of any of those. I spent an 'hour' lost in my own room trying to find my bag, which turned out to be exactly 1 minute when I came back to the clock in the kitchen. That shit just doesn't happen with any 'regular' substance, no matter how much you take. Similarly, I have never seen a shy guy suddenly want to hug strangers because he's had sugar.
That aside, why are we narrowing this discussion down to marijuana all of a sudden? No, weed won't make you hallucinate. LSD will. Shrooms will. As far as I'm aware, those qualify as drugs as well and their effects blow caffeine or sugar, even in massive amounts, clear out of the water.
You said "Now don't come at me with the weak-ass "everything is a mind-alterating substance" BS; sugar, caffeine and vitamins aren't even remotely close to the effects of alcohol, thc and other drugs."
And I am trying to relate caffeine to alcohol and marijuana if consumed in equal quantities/abused. You might not abuse caffeine but there are plenty of people who have 3-4 cups of strong coffee before noon. These people are drinking the coffee to "become different" just because caffeine Get's you going, and Alcohol slows you down doesn't mean one is worse than the other. These people become dependent on Coffee to get going and eventually have to drink more and more and more over time, to "get their fix".
As for the other more hardcore drugs that actually make you hallucinate, lsd ecstacy shrooms etc, there is no relation and i would not try to make one.
I don't buy clothes from anywhere I know uses sweatshops, and I don't really buy that many to begin with. I don't smoke tobacco, and I buy meat farmed from local sources. It might be more expensive, sure, but I have plenty of money saved because I don't waste it on cigarettes....
Ok, we've established that you are a role model for people in general. But can you honestly say that you're pure as a saint? I'll bet on that just a few minutes of soul searching should reveal to you that some of the things you do aren't innocent.
...I hardly think "not smoking" and "not buying irresponsibly farmed meat" is grounds for sainthood. I'm not perfect by any means, but I try to avoid things I know will cause negative consequences wherever reasonably possible and it's easy to avoid. Simple. Not buying drugs, and therefore not directly funding a string of drug dealers, is an easy thing to avoid doing.
When the entire world has cleaned up their act, then we could use your argument about funding drug dealers against drug users, but right now that is nothing compared to what regular, lawrespecting citizens are responsible off.
"Other people are bad/worse, so that makes what I'm doing oK!" ?
This feels like a cop-out tbh. Why not just try to avoid bad things? Would it hurt you or cause you any inconvenience to stop giving a string of drug dealers money?
btw.... why is going on vacation to SE Asia bad? /confused
On October 17 2011 17:51 Orcasgt24 wrote: Drug user are criminals. The law discriminates against them for a reason and so shall I.
Drugs are bad mmmkay
I think you're being serious, but I can't tell?
I definitely don't think anyone should base their personal perceptions on the law. Remember that laws were made based on the lawmaker(s)' personal perceptions of evidence that existed at the time the law was made. That evidence is sometimes still accurate and sometimes wildly out of date, and the lawmaker may have vastly different beliefs than you do. Your opinion may wind up being the same as that of the law, but I think its selling yourself short to blindly base your personal opinions on the law.
I was serious. Their is a really damn good reason why LSD, Meth, Cocain, Herion and all the other drugs are illegal. IMO tobacco and alcohol should also be illegal for the same reasons.
Don't even try, you have no idea what you are talking about. Putting LSD together with Meth, Cocaine and Heroin ... what a joke.
On October 17 2011 16:34 Mobius_1 wrote: I am prejudiced against people who use drugs which are more illegal than marijuana, and people who abuse any drug to the detriment of his/her social, academic, and employment functionings.
I am also somewhat prejudiced against people who don't use alcohol at all for none-religious reasons, but that's quite a different matter
Hilarious considering that alcohol is more harmful and more addictive than plenty of those "more illegal than marijuana" drugs.
There are some drugs I'll never touch, opiates are an obvious one, but I urge the non-users to experience in moderation before judging quite so harshly.
Like anything, moderation is the key. People die from excessive WoW-ing, so it's not unreasonable to expect that disrespecting a substance can cause serious harm.
MDMA is worth experiencing once in your life.
Still won't try MDMA, despite what certain authorities claiming the therapeutic benefits...
...I hardly think "not smoking" and "not buying irresponsibly farmed meat" is grounds for sainthood. I'm not perfect by any means, but I try to avoid things I know will cause negative consequences wherever reasonably possible and it's easy to avoid. Simple. Not buying drugs, and therefore not directly funding a string of drug dealers, is an easy thing to avoid doing.
The thing is, where else would i purchase marijuana if not from a dealer? If marijuana was legal and i could purchase it from the state i would never buy from a dealer again. But it isn't, since its illegal im FORCED to go to these criminals to buy my weed. Now you might say, i know i fund drug dealers, why smoke at all? Well thats where my argument comes in, if i were to refrain from doing anything that causes negative consequences honestly i would have to back up on a LOT of things.
"Other people are bad/worse, so that makes what I'm doing oK!" ?
No it doesn't, but it does render the argument that funding drug dealers make pot bad rather weak considering buying clothes is hardly looked down upon the same way people look down on weed. But most clothing companies are in some way involved in slavery.
This feels like a cop-out tbh. Why not just try to avoid bad things? Would it hurt you or cause you any inconvenience to stop giving a string of drug dealers money?
Well i just dont think that reason is enough to stop me from occasionally smoking some weed. Also, the guy i purchase from grows his weed at home, its not from the cartels of Mexico or from criminal smugglers.
btw.... why is going on vacation to SE Asia bad? /confused
Since going to for example to Thailand on vacation has become such a common and popular thing in especially Europe an enourmous tourism market has developed. This is really good for the economy but a lot of the people who work in the business are working for less than minimum wage. Its not slavery, but in europe their working conditions would be illegal.
Also the pollution caused by a plane travelling from Europe to Thailand is equal to the pollution one average family car causes during one year.
On October 17 2011 19:25 DarQraven wrote: For me it comes down to not really respecting someone's personality/mind when they feel a need to take mind-alterating substances on a regular basis to be able to enjoy themselves or feel worthwhile. Now don't come at me with the weak-ass "everything is a mind-alterating substance" BS; sugar, caffeine and vitamins aren't even remotely close to the effects of alcohol, thc and other drugs.
Let me ask you, what is the concensus about people who drink every single day, and up to a point where they won't be all 'there' anymore? Not just one glass of wine or something, think along the lines of 4+ beers every day (since that's around the same level of fucked-upness that marijuana tends to give you, at least for me)? You'd label those people alcoholics, don't lie. You'd say they have a drinking problem. You would say they are probably having issues of some sort.
Then why should I be completely fine with people who are stoned every day, most of the day?
You underestimate the power of caffeine and synthesized legal stimulants, Go to the local Market and drink a couple of "High Power Energy Voltage Red bull Crack in a can" drinks and tell me you don't get the shakes. I'm no doctor, but I'd be willing to guess that whatever is making my body uncontrollably shake for up too an hour is just as harmful as any weed or alcohol abuse, Long and short term.
And to your other point, Are you blaming alcohol/drugs, as to why people are having issues/problems in their life or is the drug just a crutch/symptom of a bigger emotional issue? Maybe there are some cases, but I find it hard to believe that someone who is abusing a drug, their only problem is the abuse of the drug and that is why they are depressed/have issues.
You seem to have misread this.
sugar, caffeine and vitamins aren't even remotely close to the effects of alcohol, thc and other drugs
Yes, you get shaky when you take massive amounts of caffeine. Do you start babbling nonsense, though? Do you possibly turn all introverted and trip out, or go off on a longwinded tangent about snail decoration?
I said those substances aren't even close to typical drugs in their effect, not that they don't have an effect. For hell's sake, you could probably eat a few cups of sugar and you'd have shaky hands and a massive energy boost as well. It wouldn't change your personality, though.
Drugs do. They simply have a whole different range of effects on people, effects that change how they behave, respond, think. Even if they respond or think much at all. They can change your perception time and space. They can make you see shit that simply isn't there. The most introverted guy in the world can suddenly go off blabbering on and on to complete strangers. They can make you "see clearly" (read: disable/reduce critical thought).
When's the last time you hallucinated because of 5 cups of coffee?
I once again disagree, You've never shown up to work or school and been next too the person who has had 1 too many cups of coffee and is Unable to stop talking for 2 hours straight, constantly pestering about something which you would never ordinarily talk about. Although they would usually be silent or "introverted" as you would put it without the coffee. I've never hallucinated from drinking coffee or eating sugar, but I've never hallucinated from drinking alcohol either or smoking weed. Caffiene likewise can "change your perception of time and space" just in the other direction, 1 minute can feel like an hour etc.
In freaking massive amounts, yes. Think along the lines of 2-3 jars in the span of an hour, and not that watery stuff Starbucks calls coffee either. 99.99% Of people will not ever drink that much, because they're not drinking coffee with the sole intent of becoming ADHD as fuck. With drugs you do. You only take drugs to become different - that's a philosophical difference if anything, and quite an important one as well.
That said, I get the feeling you're just coming up with stuff just to try to make a point. No, I have *never* had my perception of time changed the way it did by using marijuana, by anything else. Not by having fun, studying, caffeine, sugar, alcohol, etc or a combination of any of those. I spent an 'hour' lost in my own room trying to find my bag, which turned out to be exactly 1 minute when I came back to the clock in the kitchen. That shit just doesn't happen with any 'regular' substance, no matter how much you take. Similarly, I have never seen a shy guy suddenly want to hug strangers because he's had sugar.
That aside, why are we narrowing this discussion down to marijuana all of a sudden? No, weed won't make you hallucinate. LSD will. Shrooms will. As far as I'm aware, those qualify as drugs as well and their effects blow caffeine or sugar, even in massive amounts, clear out of the water.
You said "Now don't come at me with the weak-ass "everything is a mind-alterating substance" BS; sugar, caffeine and vitamins aren't even remotely close to the effects of alcohol, thc and other drugs."
And I am trying to relate caffeine to alcohol and marijuana if consumed in equal quantities/abused. You might not abuse caffeine but there are plenty of people who have 3-4 cups of strong coffee before noon. These people are drinking the coffee to "become different" just because caffeine Get's you going, and Alcohol slows you down doesn't mean one is worse than the other.
As for the other more hardcore drugs that actually make you hallucinate, lsd ecstacy shrooms etc, there is no relation and i would not try to make one.
I said that, and I never contradicted that or abandoned that position. None of those substances are capable of doing to you what more serious drugs can, no matter the amounts involved. Read my previous post again. You still seem to be under the assumption that I'm saying that common chemicals have *no effect*. They do. Just not an effect that's even in the same league as your typical party drug or hallucinogen, or just weed for that matter. It doesn't matter how much coffee you drink or how much it gets you going, you will still be the same person, just more awake, more energy or at least the experience thereof. A high dose of certain vitamins can make you very aware, concentrated. Sugar gives you a bit of a rush, then a low after that. That is not remotely the same as the effects of, let's say, LSD, where you'll be tripping balls for a good hour or 10 and will be barely recognizable, personality wise, to sober people.
I don't see how you've presented any arguments to the contrary, or what you're even trying to argue anymore. If what you said was true, how come we don't have people overdosing on caffeine at raves instead of the more costly and illegal drugs?
On October 17 2011 19:25 DarQraven wrote: For me it comes down to not really respecting someone's personality/mind when they feel a need to take mind-alterating substances on a regular basis to be able to enjoy themselves or feel worthwhile. Now don't come at me with the weak-ass "everything is a mind-alterating substance" BS; sugar, caffeine and vitamins aren't even remotely close to the effects of alcohol, thc and other drugs.
Let me ask you, what is the concensus about people who drink every single day, and up to a point where they won't be all 'there' anymore? Not just one glass of wine or something, think along the lines of 4+ beers every day (since that's around the same level of fucked-upness that marijuana tends to give you, at least for me)? You'd label those people alcoholics, don't lie. You'd say they have a drinking problem. You would say they are probably having issues of some sort.
Then why should I be completely fine with people who are stoned every day, most of the day?
You underestimate the power of caffeine and synthesized legal stimulants, Go to the local Market and drink a couple of "High Power Energy Voltage Red bull Crack in a can" drinks and tell me you don't get the shakes. I'm no doctor, but I'd be willing to guess that whatever is making my body uncontrollably shake for up too an hour is just as harmful as any weed or alcohol abuse, Long and short term.
And to your other point, Are you blaming alcohol/drugs, as to why people are having issues/problems in their life or is the drug just a crutch/symptom of a bigger emotional issue? Maybe there are some cases, but I find it hard to believe that someone who is abusing a drug, their only problem is the abuse of the drug and that is why they are depressed/have issues.
You seem to have misread this.
sugar, caffeine and vitamins aren't even remotely close to the effects of alcohol, thc and other drugs
Yes, you get shaky when you take massive amounts of caffeine. Do you start babbling nonsense, though? Do you possibly turn all introverted and trip out, or go off on a longwinded tangent about snail decoration?
I said those substances aren't even close to typical drugs in their effect, not that they don't have an effect. For hell's sake, you could probably eat a few cups of sugar and you'd have shaky hands and a massive energy boost as well. It wouldn't change your personality, though.
Drugs do. They simply have a whole different range of effects on people, effects that change how they behave, respond, think. Even if they respond or think much at all. They can change your perception time and space. They can make you see shit that simply isn't there. The most introverted guy in the world can suddenly go off blabbering on and on to complete strangers. They can make you "see clearly" (read: disable/reduce critical thought).
When's the last time you hallucinated because of 5 cups of coffee?
I once again disagree, You've never shown up to work or school and been next too the person who has had 1 too many cups of coffee and is Unable to stop talking for 2 hours straight, constantly pestering about something which you would never ordinarily talk about. Although they would usually be silent or "introverted" as you would put it without the coffee. I've never hallucinated from drinking coffee or eating sugar, but I've never hallucinated from drinking alcohol either or smoking weed. Caffiene likewise can "change your perception of time and space" just in the other direction, 1 minute can feel like an hour etc.
In freaking massive amounts, yes. Think along the lines of 2-3 jars in the span of an hour, and not that watery stuff Starbucks calls coffee either. 99.99% Of people will not ever drink that much, because they're not drinking coffee with the sole intent of becoming ADHD as fuck. With drugs you do. You only take drugs to become different - that's a philosophical difference if anything, and quite an important one as well.
That said, I get the feeling you're just coming up with stuff just to try to make a point. No, I have *never* had my perception of time changed the way it did by using marijuana, by anything else. Not by having fun, studying, caffeine, sugar, alcohol, etc or a combination of any of those. I spent an 'hour' lost in my own room trying to find my bag, which turned out to be exactly 1 minute when I came back to the clock in the kitchen. That shit just doesn't happen with any 'regular' substance, no matter how much you take. Similarly, I have never seen a shy guy suddenly want to hug strangers because he's had sugar.
That aside, why are we narrowing this discussion down to marijuana all of a sudden? No, weed won't make you hallucinate. LSD will. Shrooms will. As far as I'm aware, those qualify as drugs as well and their effects blow caffeine or sugar, even in massive amounts, clear out of the water.
You said "Now don't come at me with the weak-ass "everything is a mind-alterating substance" BS; sugar, caffeine and vitamins aren't even remotely close to the effects of alcohol, thc and other drugs."
And I am trying to relate caffeine to alcohol and marijuana if consumed in equal quantities/abused. You might not abuse caffeine but there are plenty of people who have 3-4 cups of strong coffee before noon. These people are drinking the coffee to "become different" just because caffeine Get's you going, and Alcohol slows you down doesn't mean one is worse than the other.
As for the other more hardcore drugs that actually make you hallucinate, lsd ecstacy shrooms etc, there is no relation and i would not try to make one.
I said that, and I never contradicted that or abandoned that position. None of those substances are capable of doing to you what more serious drugs can, no matter the amounts involved. Read my previous post again. You still seem to be under the assumption that I'm saying that common chemicals have *no effect*. They do. Just not an effect that's even in the same league as your typical party drug or hallucinogen, or just weed for that matter. It doesn't matter how much coffee you drink or how much it gets you going, you will still be the same person, just more awake, more energy or at least the experience thereof. A high dose of certain vitamins can make you very aware, concentrated. Sugar gives you a bit of a rush, then a low after that. That is not remotely the same as the effects of, let's say, LSD, where you'll be tripping balls for a good hour or 10 and will be barely recognizable, personality wise, to sober people.
I don't see how you've presented any arguments to the contrary, or what you're even trying to argue anymore. If what you said was true, how come we don't have people overdosing on caffeine at raves instead of the more costly and illegal drugs?
I am not talking about sugar or any of the hard drugs you are talking about. I am ONLY talking about Caffeine, Marijuana, and Alcohol, and their similarities. I've already stated my opinion on the others on page 14.
I think it depends on the context of the drug use. I know numerous successful and intelligent people (I'm a medical student) who use all manner of drugs for recreational purposes. It does not impact negatively upon their lives, they maintain their work and social responsibilities perfectly fine.
In majority of cases though I think drug use does have negative impact on a person's ability to function, so generally I would think less of some one who uses drugs.
On October 17 2011 19:25 DarQraven wrote: For me it comes down to not really respecting someone's personality/mind when they feel a need to take mind-alterating substances on a regular basis to be able to enjoy themselves or feel worthwhile. Now don't come at me with the weak-ass "everything is a mind-alterating substance" BS; sugar, caffeine and vitamins aren't even remotely close to the effects of alcohol, thc and other drugs.
Let me ask you, what is the concensus about people who drink every single day, and up to a point where they won't be all 'there' anymore? Not just one glass of wine or something, think along the lines of 4+ beers every day (since that's around the same level of fucked-upness that marijuana tends to give you, at least for me)? You'd label those people alcoholics, don't lie. You'd say they have a drinking problem. You would say they are probably having issues of some sort.
Then why should I be completely fine with people who are stoned every day, most of the day?
You underestimate the power of caffeine and synthesized legal stimulants, Go to the local Market and drink a couple of "High Power Energy Voltage Red bull Crack in a can" drinks and tell me you don't get the shakes. I'm no doctor, but I'd be willing to guess that whatever is making my body uncontrollably shake for up too an hour is just as harmful as any weed or alcohol abuse, Long and short term.
And to your other point, Are you blaming alcohol/drugs, as to why people are having issues/problems in their life or is the drug just a crutch/symptom of a bigger emotional issue? Maybe there are some cases, but I find it hard to believe that someone who is abusing a drug, their only problem is the abuse of the drug and that is why they are depressed/have issues.
You seem to have misread this.
sugar, caffeine and vitamins aren't even remotely close to the effects of alcohol, thc and other drugs
Yes, you get shaky when you take massive amounts of caffeine. Do you start babbling nonsense, though? Do you possibly turn all introverted and trip out, or go off on a longwinded tangent about snail decoration?
I said those substances aren't even close to typical drugs in their effect, not that they don't have an effect. For hell's sake, you could probably eat a few cups of sugar and you'd have shaky hands and a massive energy boost as well. It wouldn't change your personality, though.
Drugs do. They simply have a whole different range of effects on people, effects that change how they behave, respond, think. Even if they respond or think much at all. They can change your perception time and space. They can make you see shit that simply isn't there. The most introverted guy in the world can suddenly go off blabbering on and on to complete strangers. They can make you "see clearly" (read: disable/reduce critical thought).
When's the last time you hallucinated because of 5 cups of coffee?
I once again disagree, You've never shown up to work or school and been next too the person who has had 1 too many cups of coffee and is Unable to stop talking for 2 hours straight, constantly pestering about something which you would never ordinarily talk about. Although they would usually be silent or "introverted" as you would put it without the coffee. I've never hallucinated from drinking coffee or eating sugar, but I've never hallucinated from drinking alcohol either or smoking weed. Caffiene likewise can "change your perception of time and space" just in the other direction, 1 minute can feel like an hour etc.
In freaking massive amounts, yes. Think along the lines of 2-3 jars in the span of an hour, and not that watery stuff Starbucks calls coffee either. 99.99% Of people will not ever drink that much, because they're not drinking coffee with the sole intent of becoming ADHD as fuck. With drugs you do. You only take drugs to become different - that's a philosophical difference if anything, and quite an important one as well.
That said, I get the feeling you're just coming up with stuff just to try to make a point. No, I have *never* had my perception of time changed the way it did by using marijuana, by anything else. Not by having fun, studying, caffeine, sugar, alcohol, etc or a combination of any of those. I spent an 'hour' lost in my own room trying to find my bag, which turned out to be exactly 1 minute when I came back to the clock in the kitchen. That shit just doesn't happen with any 'regular' substance, no matter how much you take. Similarly, I have never seen a shy guy suddenly want to hug strangers because he's had sugar.
That aside, why are we narrowing this discussion down to marijuana all of a sudden? No, weed won't make you hallucinate. LSD will. Shrooms will. As far as I'm aware, those qualify as drugs as well and their effects blow caffeine or sugar, even in massive amounts, clear out of the water.
You said "Now don't come at me with the weak-ass "everything is a mind-alterating substance" BS; sugar, caffeine and vitamins aren't even remotely close to the effects of alcohol, thc and other drugs."
And I am trying to relate caffeine to alcohol and marijuana if consumed in equal quantities/abused. You might not abuse caffeine but there are plenty of people who have 3-4 cups of strong coffee before noon. These people are drinking the coffee to "become different" just because caffeine Get's you going, and Alcohol slows you down doesn't mean one is worse than the other.
As for the other more hardcore drugs that actually make you hallucinate, lsd ecstacy shrooms etc, there is no relation and i would not try to make one.
I said that, and I never contradicted that or abandoned that position. None of those substances are capable of doing to you what more serious drugs can, no matter the amounts involved. Read my previous post again. You still seem to be under the assumption that I'm saying that common chemicals have *no effect*. They do. Just not an effect that's even in the same league as your typical party drug or hallucinogen, or just weed for that matter. It doesn't matter how much coffee you drink or how much it gets you going, you will still be the same person, just more awake, more energy or at least the experience thereof. A high dose of certain vitamins can make you very aware, concentrated. Sugar gives you a bit of a rush, then a low after that. That is not remotely the same as the effects of, let's say, LSD, where you'll be tripping balls for a good hour or 10 and will be barely recognizable, personality wise, to sober people.
I don't see how you've presented any arguments to the contrary, or what you're even trying to argue anymore. If what you said was true, how come we don't have people overdosing on caffeine at raves instead of the more costly and illegal drugs?
I am not talking about sugar or any of the hard drugs you are talking about. I am ONLY talking about Caffeine, Marijuana, and Alcohol, and their similarities. I've already stated my opinion on the others on page 14.
Then your post is pointless since I AM talking about those.
On October 17 2011 20:49 LilClinkin wrote: I think it depends on the context of the drug use. I know numerous successful and intelligent people (I'm a medical student) who use all manner of drugs for recreational purposes. It does not impact negatively upon their lives, they maintain their work and social responsibilities perfectly fine.
In majority of cases though I think drug use does have negative impact on a person's ability to function, so generally I would think less of some one who uses drugs.
I sure as damn hell don't want a medical "professional" to see me if he uses drugs.
It depends. I work part-time in a chemist while Im at Uni, and Ive seen first hand how addiction to heroin is literally ruining people's lives - its a health issue, they want to get off, they want to be free from the addiction, but they literally cannot due to its effects. You should not be prejudice against these people
In my opinion there should only be prejudice when people use drugs so much that it begins to negatively affect other people, whilst at the same time they take no action, or try anything at all, to address their drug problem.
I'm absolutely prejudiced against people who take drugs, including family members.
I have a family member who smokes weed like 5 times a day at least. Even admits that it doesn't get him high anymore. That's just fucking stupid. He does well for himself overall but he's still low on money because of it. He would live very comfortably without this shit. I have a few other family members that did harder drugs and went to raves, etc. A bunch of low life idiots that deserve all the crap they get now and all of them live shitty lives as well as being unable to cope with life without substances (and even there); no exceptions. They won't get pity from me, they chose their own actions.
I know they are not all terrible people but it's still one of the dumbest thing you can do IMO and I don't plan to ever change my views on that. People can call me what they want but at least I stick to my morals. I don't need to use mind-altering substances to live my life (including alcohol which I've eliminated from my life since I had no use for it; and no I've never smoked).
I don't get in their face and tell them they're stupid if people tell me they take drugs. Not that I don't think it, but I know so many people do it I just need to shut up since it does me no good to mention it. I just tend to avoid seeing them again.
There are plenty of good and fun people out there that don't use drugs. I'll take my chances with one of them over someone that constantly breaks the laws. It's my experience that people who take drugs tend to be shittier people with shady ways that I wouldn't trust with any task. It's not a rule or anything, just life around me.
On October 17 2011 20:49 LilClinkin wrote: I think it depends on the context of the drug use. I know numerous successful and intelligent people (I'm a medical student) who use all manner of drugs for recreational purposes. It does not impact negatively upon their lives, they maintain their work and social responsibilities perfectly fine.
In majority of cases though I think drug use does have negative impact on a person's ability to function, so generally I would think less of some one who uses drugs.
I sure as damn hell don't want a medical "professional" to see me if he uses drugs.
Why? If they use a drug with a short half-life on a friday night at the beginning of their weekend, and then see you when you're unwell on Monday (ie. drug is clearly out of their system), how are they any different from a medical professional who doesn't use drugs at all?
ofc prejudice is wrong.and most people here would be damn surprised how many have expirience with drugs (outside of alc,caffeine etc). if you walk through a city you will pass hundreds drug users and outside of the super drunk guy and occasional red eyes you wont suspect anything at all.
in the end its sad that people still judge others so much, esp since most of those people know almost nothing about those substances other then "drugs are bad mmkay".
1) Drug users of any type economically support mafia and other criminal organization which hold the monopoly of drug market, exploiting poor people in third/second world country.
if you are against funding drug dealers then you gotta be for legalization of most drugs. a legal controlled market would cost illegal parties billions ,bring a similar amount into government pockets and make it far easier to regulate while also creating jobs.
also what you call "exploiting poor people" is the job that feeds their family. and feeds the family better then most other jobs in those regions. just sayin.
On October 17 2011 20:51 PolSC2 wrote: Is prejudice against sex offenders wrong?
oh nice so people that take some happy time with friends using substances you dont know/like = rapists? sure makes muuuch sense buddy
On October 17 2011 20:49 LilClinkin wrote: I think it depends on the context of the drug use. I know numerous successful and intelligent people (I'm a medical student) who use all manner of drugs for recreational purposes. It does not impact negatively upon their lives, they maintain their work and social responsibilities perfectly fine.
In majority of cases though I think drug use does have negative impact on a person's ability to function, so generally I would think less of some one who uses drugs.
I sure as damn hell don't want a medical "professional" to see me if he uses drugs.
and yet there is a very decent chance that this already happened. and you didnt notice. and maybe thought "hey that was a nice doc". :>
On October 17 2011 20:55 nick1689 wrote: It depends. I work part-time in a chemist while Im at Uni, and Ive seen first hand how addiction to heroin is literally ruining people's lives - its a health issue, they want to get off, they want to be free from the addiction, but they literally cannot due to its effects. You should not be prejudice against these people
In my opinion there should only be prejudice when people use drugs so much that it begins to negatively affect other people, whilst at the same time they take no action, or try anything at all, to address their drug problem.
no question.heroin is the devil. but thats one of the problems with people throwing all drugs together into one big pot. i doubt many would argue against herion,crack and the likes quickly destryoing the lifes of anyone who touches it with almost no exceptions.
On October 17 2011 20:49 LilClinkin wrote: I think it depends on the context of the drug use. I know numerous successful and intelligent people (I'm a medical student) who use all manner of drugs for recreational purposes. It does not impact negatively upon their lives, they maintain their work and social responsibilities perfectly fine.
In majority of cases though I think drug use does have negative impact on a person's ability to function, so generally I would think less of some one who uses drugs.
I sure as damn hell don't want a medical "professional" to see me if he uses drugs.
You wouldn't let Dr. House see you??
It all depends on what kind of drugs the person is using. Yes im gonna have prejudice against people who smoke meth or crack because there is a good chance they are insane, but I find that I like people who smoke pot more than most. I don't mind the airhead potheads just cuz they can funny to chill with but the straight up chill pot smokers who don't act like their life revolves around chronic and aren't all hippied or burned out are usually the best peeps to hang with they don't take everything so seriously they are very easy going, interesting, and liberal and not so wound up or naive and ignorant as the average person who is totally against all drugs.
On October 17 2011 20:59 BeMannerDuPenner wrote: ofc prejudice is wrong.and most people here would be damn surprised how many have expirience with drugs (outside of alc,caffeine etc). if you walk through a city you will pass hundreds drug users and outside of the super drunk guy and occasional red eyes you wont suspect anything at all.
in the end its sad that people still judge others so much, esp since most of those people know almost nothing about those substances other then "drugs are bad mmkay".
1) Drug users of any type economically support mafia and other criminal organization which hold the monopoly of drug market, exploiting poor people in third/second world country.
if you are against funding drug dealers then you gotta be for legalization of most drugs. a legal controlled market would cost illegal parties billions ,bring a similar amount into government pockets and make it far easier to regulate while also creating jobs.
also what you call "exploiting poor people" is the job that feeds their family. and feeds the family better then most other jobs in those regions. just sayin.
On October 17 2011 20:49 LilClinkin wrote: I think it depends on the context of the drug use. I know numerous successful and intelligent people (I'm a medical student) who use all manner of drugs for recreational purposes. It does not impact negatively upon their lives, they maintain their work and social responsibilities perfectly fine.
In majority of cases though I think drug use does have negative impact on a person's ability to function, so generally I would think less of some one who uses drugs.
I sure as damn hell don't want a medical "professional" to see me if he uses drugs.
and yet there is a very decent chance that this already happened. and you didnt notice. and maybe thought "hey that was a nice doc". :>
Our differences of opinion obviously stem from where we were brought up. I live in the USA, where most drugs are illegal. I don't want any help from a doctor who chooses to break the law. Sorry.
Can someone please define what does drug means in this thread ? EDIT : forget it, I guess everyone has his own definition and this why this discussion will never reach any logical conclusions
It is a person's choice to do drugs, but discriminating against them for it, while not prejudice, is overly judgemental. Many drugs are more than acceptable to use. If I take an aspirin or drink a beer, no one blinks an eye. I have a Caffeine addiction, but society doesn't punish me for it (I definately get withdrawal if i don't have caffeine). The issue is that "drugs" is a very broad term. If you want to judge someone for using drugs, then you have to consider all the factors. If you feel uncomfortable solely because they use drugs and consider nothing else, that is discriminatory and judgemental, even though it is not technically prejudice.
On October 17 2011 20:59 BeMannerDuPenner wrote: ofc prejudice is wrong.and most people here would be damn surprised how many have expirience with drugs (outside of alc,caffeine etc). if you walk through a city you will pass hundreds drug users and outside of the super drunk guy and occasional red eyes you wont suspect anything at all.
in the end its sad that people still judge others so much, esp since most of those people know almost nothing about those substances other then "drugs are bad mmkay".
1) Drug users of any type economically support mafia and other criminal organization which hold the monopoly of drug market, exploiting poor people in third/second world country.
if you are against funding drug dealers then you gotta be for legalization of most drugs. a legal controlled market would cost illegal parties billions ,bring a similar amount into government pockets and make it far easier to regulate while also creating jobs.
also what you call "exploiting poor people" is the job that feeds their family. and feeds the family better then most other jobs in those regions. just sayin.
On October 17 2011 20:51 PolSC2 wrote: Is prejudice against sex offenders wrong?
oh nice so people that take some happy time with friends using substances you dont know/like = rapists? sure makes muuuch sense buddy
On October 17 2011 20:53 PolSC2 wrote:
On October 17 2011 20:49 LilClinkin wrote: I think it depends on the context of the drug use. I know numerous successful and intelligent people (I'm a medical student) who use all manner of drugs for recreational purposes. It does not impact negatively upon their lives, they maintain their work and social responsibilities perfectly fine.
In majority of cases though I think drug use does have negative impact on a person's ability to function, so generally I would think less of some one who uses drugs.
I sure as damn hell don't want a medical "professional" to see me if he uses drugs.
and yet there is a very decent chance that this already happened. and you didnt notice. and maybe thought "hey that was a nice doc". :>
Our differences of opinion obviously stem from where we were brought up. I live in the USA, where most drugs are illegal. I don't want any help from a doctor who chooses to break the law. Sorry.
same here in germany... infact your marihuana laws often are way less strict then ours.
also are you saying that your opinion is just that way cause of the laws?
I just have to say I am constantly amazed by the amount of prudishness and conformism I read on TL. Like, most of you guys are probably teenagers or in your early twenties... and you actually despise people for "breaking the law"?
Back when I was a young nerd breaking the law was the right thing to do. If kids don't stand up against the establishment who else will? I really hope you guys aren't the voice of your generation or the future looks rather bleak
On October 17 2011 21:05 Diks wrote: Can someone please define what does drug means in this thread ? EDIT : forget it, I guess everyone has his own definition and this why this discussion will never reach any logical conclusions
Lol drug means anything you use to get fucked up. We are not talking about the someone who is sick using drugs prescribed to them, although I'll admit I can't stand those bastards.
On October 17 2011 20:59 BeMannerDuPenner wrote: ofc prejudice is wrong.and most people here would be damn surprised how many have expirience with drugs (outside of alc,caffeine etc). if you walk through a city you will pass hundreds drug users and outside of the super drunk guy and occasional red eyes you wont suspect anything at all.
in the end its sad that people still judge others so much, esp since most of those people know almost nothing about those substances other then "drugs are bad mmkay".
1) Drug users of any type economically support mafia and other criminal organization which hold the monopoly of drug market, exploiting poor people in third/second world country.
if you are against funding drug dealers then you gotta be for legalization of most drugs. a legal controlled market would cost illegal parties billions ,bring a similar amount into government pockets and make it far easier to regulate while also creating jobs.
also what you call "exploiting poor people" is the job that feeds their family. and feeds the family better then most other jobs in those regions. just sayin.
On October 17 2011 20:51 PolSC2 wrote: Is prejudice against sex offenders wrong?
oh nice so people that take some happy time with friends using substances you dont know/like = rapists? sure makes muuuch sense buddy
On October 17 2011 20:53 PolSC2 wrote:
On October 17 2011 20:49 LilClinkin wrote: I think it depends on the context of the drug use. I know numerous successful and intelligent people (I'm a medical student) who use all manner of drugs for recreational purposes. It does not impact negatively upon their lives, they maintain their work and social responsibilities perfectly fine.
In majority of cases though I think drug use does have negative impact on a person's ability to function, so generally I would think less of some one who uses drugs.
I sure as damn hell don't want a medical "professional" to see me if he uses drugs.
and yet there is a very decent chance that this already happened. and you didnt notice. and maybe thought "hey that was a nice doc". :>
Our differences of opinion obviously stem from where we were brought up. I live in the USA, where most drugs are illegal. I don't want any help from a doctor who chooses to break the law. Sorry.
lol, enjoy living your life with opinions shaped by the law.
On October 17 2011 20:51 PolSC2 wrote: Is prejudice against sex offenders wrong?
oh nice so people that take some happy time with friends using substances you dont know/like = rapists? sure makes muuuch sense buddy
They didn't say that it is directly equal to being a rapist, they gave an example of where someone's decision making process which may have nothing to do with how you know them can result in a negatvie opinion of them based purely on a choice they made in private that doesn't effect you. I probably would have chosen a more minor crime to get the point across but it does directly answer the question of prejudice.
To answer the thread though, if you want to take it as technical as it can go, it is prejudice against an action but not a person, but I voted no as prejudice in my opinion tends to reffer to people and not things - I preffer green to red but no one would describe me as prejudiced against red. To continue, it's not prejudice as at is nothing about the person themself that would result in me having a worse opinion of them, but rather something they choose to do and at any point could choose not to do - and it is a choice which has real noticable behavioural and cognitive changes. I would say it is like being accused of being prejudiced of someone who may occasionally scream in your face if you catch them at the wrong moment, rather something about a person that annoys you than a prejudice towards that person.
On October 17 2011 19:25 DarQraven wrote: For me it comes down to not really respecting someone's personality/mind when they feel a need to take mind-alterating substances on a regular basis to be able to enjoy themselves or feel worthwhile. Now don't come at me with the weak-ass "everything is a mind-alterating substance" BS; sugar, caffeine and vitamins aren't even remotely close to the effects of alcohol, thc and other drugs.
Let me ask you, what is the concensus about people who drink every single day, and up to a point where they won't be all 'there' anymore? Not just one glass of wine or something, think along the lines of 4+ beers every day (since that's around the same level of fucked-upness that marijuana tends to give you, at least for me)? You'd label those people alcoholics, don't lie. You'd say they have a drinking problem. You would say they are probably having issues of some sort.
Then why should I be completely fine with people who are stoned every day, most of the day?
You underestimate the power of caffeine and synthesized legal stimulants, Go to the local Market and drink a couple of "High Power Energy Voltage Red bull Crack in a can" drinks and tell me you don't get the shakes. I'm no doctor, but I'd be willing to guess that whatever is making my body uncontrollably shake for up too an hour is just as harmful as any weed or alcohol abuse, Long and short term.
And to your other point, Are you blaming alcohol/drugs, as to why people are having issues/problems in their life or is the drug just a crutch/symptom of a bigger emotional issue? Maybe there are some cases, but I find it hard to believe that someone who is abusing a drug, their only problem is the abuse of the drug and that is why they are depressed/have issues.
You seem to have misread this.
sugar, caffeine and vitamins aren't even remotely close to the effects of alcohol, thc and other drugs
Yes, you get shaky when you take massive amounts of caffeine. Do you start babbling nonsense, though? Do you possibly turn all introverted and trip out, or go off on a longwinded tangent about snail decoration?
I said those substances aren't even close to typical drugs in their effect, not that they don't have an effect. For hell's sake, you could probably eat a few cups of sugar and you'd have shaky hands and a massive energy boost as well. It wouldn't change your personality, though.
Drugs do. They simply have a whole different range of effects on people, effects that change how they behave, respond, think. Even if they respond or think much at all. They can change your perception time and space. They can make you see shit that simply isn't there. The most introverted guy in the world can suddenly go off blabbering on and on to complete strangers. They can make you "see clearly" (read: disable/reduce critical thought).
When's the last time you hallucinated because of 5 cups of coffee?
I once again disagree, You've never shown up to work or school and been next too the person who has had 1 too many cups of coffee and is Unable to stop talking for 2 hours straight, constantly pestering about something which you would never ordinarily talk about. Although they would usually be silent or "introverted" as you would put it without the coffee. I've never hallucinated from drinking coffee or eating sugar, but I've never hallucinated from drinking alcohol either or smoking weed. Caffiene likewise can "change your perception of time and space" just in the other direction, 1 minute can feel like an hour etc.
In freaking massive amounts, yes. Think along the lines of 2-3 jars in the span of an hour, and not that watery stuff Starbucks calls coffee either. 99.99% Of people will not ever drink that much, because they're not drinking coffee with the sole intent of becoming ADHD as fuck. With drugs you do. You only take drugs to become different - that's a philosophical difference if anything, and quite an important one as well.
That said, I get the feeling you're just coming up with stuff just to try to make a point. No, I have *never* had my perception of time changed the way it did by using marijuana, by anything else. Not by having fun, studying, caffeine, sugar, alcohol, etc or a combination of any of those. I spent an 'hour' lost in my own room trying to find my bag, which turned out to be exactly 1 minute when I came back to the clock in the kitchen. That shit just doesn't happen with any 'regular' substance, no matter how much you take. Similarly, I have never seen a shy guy suddenly want to hug strangers because he's had sugar.
That aside, why are we narrowing this discussion down to marijuana all of a sudden? No, weed won't make you hallucinate. LSD will. Shrooms will. As far as I'm aware, those qualify as drugs as well and their effects blow caffeine or sugar, even in massive amounts, clear out of the water.
You said "Now don't come at me with the weak-ass "everything is a mind-alterating substance" BS; sugar, caffeine and vitamins aren't even remotely close to the effects of alcohol, thc and other drugs."
And I am trying to relate caffeine to alcohol and marijuana if consumed in equal quantities/abused. You might not abuse caffeine but there are plenty of people who have 3-4 cups of strong coffee before noon. These people are drinking the coffee to "become different" just because caffeine Get's you going, and Alcohol slows you down doesn't mean one is worse than the other.
As for the other more hardcore drugs that actually make you hallucinate, lsd ecstacy shrooms etc, there is no relation and i would not try to make one.
I said that, and I never contradicted that or abandoned that position. None of those substances are capable of doing to you what more serious drugs can, no matter the amounts involved. Read my previous post again. You still seem to be under the assumption that I'm saying that common chemicals have *no effect*. They do. Just not an effect that's even in the same league as your typical party drug or hallucinogen, or just weed for that matter. It doesn't matter how much coffee you drink or how much it gets you going, you will still be the same person, just more awake, more energy or at least the experience thereof. A high dose of certain vitamins can make you very aware, concentrated. Sugar gives you a bit of a rush, then a low after that. That is not remotely the same as the effects of, let's say, LSD, where you'll be tripping balls for a good hour or 10 and will be barely recognizable, personality wise, to sober people.
I don't see how you've presented any arguments to the contrary, or what you're even trying to argue anymore. If what you said was true, how come we don't have people overdosing on caffeine at raves instead of the more costly and illegal drugs?
I am not talking about sugar or any of the hard drugs you are talking about. I am ONLY talking about Caffeine, Marijuana, and Alcohol, and their similarities. I've already stated my opinion on the others on page 14.
Then your post is pointless since I AM talking about those.
When you say "Now don't come at me with the weak-ass "everything is a mind-alterating substance" BS; sugar, caffeine and vitamins aren't even remotely close to the effects of alcohol, thc and other drugs."
it sounds like you are saying caffeine is as harmless as vitamins or sugar, and marijuana and alcohol more similar to cocaine or meth than too caffeine. Caffeine is a powerful stimulant and has no nutritional value like sugar or vitamins do. I'll leave it too a miscommunication since we are using text and not spoken word. All I was trying to say is caffeine is a drug, no different than weed or alcohol imo, very different than sugar or vitamins, The main difference is Caffeine comes packaged with fancy advertising and has billions of dollars behind it.
On October 17 2011 21:05 Diks wrote: Can someone please define what does drug means in this thread ? EDIT : forget it, I guess everyone has his own definition and this why this discussion will never reach any logical conclusions
Lol drug means anything you use to get fucked up. We are not talking about the someone who is sick using drugs prescribed to them, although I'll admit I can't stand those bastards.
quality post :D
On October 17 2011 21:09 Kickboxer wrote: I just have to say I am constantly amazed by the amount of prudishness and conformism I read on TL. Like, most of you guys are probably teenagers or in your early twenties... and you actually despise people for "breaking the law"?
Back when I was a young nerd breaking the law was the right thing to do. If kids don't stand up against the establishment who else will? I really hope you guys aren't the voice of your generation or the future looks rather bleak
been thinking this quite often recently. and tbh i really think todays teens are too busy playing games and texting on facebook to go out and do stupid stuff.
On October 17 2011 20:51 PolSC2 wrote: Is prejudice against sex offenders wrong?
oh nice so people that take some happy time with friends using substances you dont know/like = rapists? sure makes muuuch sense buddy
They didn't say that it is directly equal to being a rapist, they gave an example of where someone's decision making process which may have nothing to do with how you know them can result in a negatvie opinion of them based purely on a choice they made in private that doesn't effect you. I probably would have chosen a more minor crime to get the point across but it does directly answer the question of prejudice.
To answer the thread though, if you want to take it as technical as it can go, it is prejudice against an action but not a person, but I voted no as prejudice in my opinion tends to reffer to people and not things - I preffer green to red but no one would describe me as prejudiced against red. To continue, it's not prejudice as at is nothing about the person themself that would result in me having a worse opinion of them, but rather something they choose to do and at any point could choose not to do - and it is a choice which has real noticable behavioural and cognitive changes. I would say it is like being accused of being prejudiced of someone who may occasionally scream in your face if you catch them at the wrong moment, rather something about a person that annoys you than a prejudice towards that person.
and that changes what when the results are the same? if i say i hate and want to avoid evryone that masturbates i still judge the person based on nothing.
On October 17 2011 11:32 VPCursed wrote: I wouldn't want to be around someone who felt uncomfortable with others who used recreational drugs. Not because I find their prejudice misguided but because id find them to be a tad moronic. Also, there is a difference between drug user and drug abuser.
This is how I feel. There's a difference between a hardcore crackhead and someone who smokes weed on the weekends, and I can't see any logical reason to feel prejudiced towards the latter.
I was brought up to respect the law and law enforcement. Keyword respect, not blindly follow. Just because I respect a law doesn't mean I agree with it. There is a time and place to "oppose" certain laws. If you're not smart about "opposing" certain laws, you can end up in jail.
...I hardly think "not smoking" and "not buying irresponsibly farmed meat" is grounds for sainthood. I'm not perfect by any means, but I try to avoid things I know will cause negative consequences wherever reasonably possible and it's easy to avoid. Simple. Not buying drugs, and therefore not directly funding a string of drug dealers, is an easy thing to avoid doing.
The thing is, where else would i purchase marijuana if not from a dealer? If marijuana was legal and i could purchase it from the state i would never buy from a dealer again. But it isn't, since its illegal im FORCED to go to these criminals to buy my weed. Now you might say, i know i fund drug dealers, why smoke at all? Well thats where my argument comes in, if i were to refrain from doing anything that causes negative consequences honestly i would have to back up on a LOT of things.
"Other people are bad/worse, so that makes what I'm doing oK!" ?
No it doesn't, but it does render the argument that funding drug dealers make pot bad rather weak considering buying clothes is hardly looked down upon the same way people look down on weed. But most clothing companies are in some way involved in slavery.
This feels like a cop-out tbh. Why not just try to avoid bad things? Would it hurt you or cause you any inconvenience to stop giving a string of drug dealers money?
Well i just dont think that reason is enough to stop me from occasionally smoking some weed. Also, the guy i purchase from grows his weed at home, its not from the cartels of Mexico or from criminal smugglers.
btw.... why is going on vacation to SE Asia bad? /confused
Since going to for example to Thailand on vacation has become such a common and popular thing in especially Europe an enourmous tourism market has developed. This is really good for the economy but a lot of the people who work in the business are working for less than minimum wage. Its not slavery, but in europe their working conditions would be illegal.
Also the pollution caused by a plane travelling from Europe to Thailand is equal to the pollution one average family car causes during one year.
Pardon my english.
Yes, I will say to you, why smoke at all if you know full well that you are funding criminals? And you said that you need to back up on stuff like buying new clothes and not taking airplanes? Clothes are a necessity of life. Travel by air is a necessity for people who do business or work overseas. They are necessary evils, from what you describe them.
But you smoking weed or not is totally not a necessity. And you chose to smoke weed. And you said you are forced to help criminals because the state made weed illegal (ie, not your fault, its the law's fault).
And I noticed that you said you buy your weed from your friend who grows his own weed from home. No ties to criminal elements. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I have no problem with that. I just don't agree with the concept that buying drugs = flying in aeroplanes to SEA countries = buying clothes = equal amounts of sin. No, buying and using drugs is disproportionately more sinful compared to the other two, and can be totally avoided if you choose to.
Interesting factoid: In Australia, heroin was legally prescribed to obstetric patients during labor to anticipate and relieve the extreme pain associated with contractions. The practice was abolished in the 1970's not because the drug was unsafe, (it was actually the most effective drug for this purpose when looking at the therapeutic effect vs safety to mother and baby) but because hospitals were sick of having drug addicts break in to steal the supplies.
I personally have no issue with legalisation of even dangerous and highly addictive drugs to be administered to select patients with proven drug addictions as part of a program to rehabilitate them. At least then it would occur in a controlled environment where the dose of active drug is known, significantly reducing the risk of harmful side-effects.
The dangers of injecting non-medical grade drugs cooked with impurities that precipitate in veins and cause all manner of vascular disease is one of the reasons that illicit drug use earned it's negative stigma. Just look at the 'croc' crap being cooked and sold to poor addicts in Russia, their flesh is literally falling off.
been thinking this quite often recently. and tbh i really think todays teens are too busy playing games and texting on facebook to go out and do stupid stuff.
Kids are so sheltered these days its ridiculous...they'll really miss out on a lot of experience.
About the topic...honestly I've seen a lot people use abuse drugs and I don't think it had a real effect on them. Sure it had negative effect on some people, but those people definitely weren't disciplined or mature or smart, and probably would of end up in some trouble regardless if they did drugs or not. Some people are just like that.
On the other hand, I know plenty of people including myself who use those 'harmless' drugs, aka weed, mush, ect, (also I don't want to argue about the health consequences...it's not healthy but it's not nearly as bad as many other things like drinking so i personally don't care.) who lead perfectly normal lives. A lot of people like to relax by getting drunk or partying or something...I just enjoy smoking a bit of weed with a couple buddies, playing some video games, listen to awesome music, and relax. Partying is fun once in a while but the latter just fits my personally much better. I think anyone would have a negative opinion of me just because of this has his eyes completely closed and is just jealous in the end.
Blind prejudice against drug users is bad because there are different levels of drug users and use.
Many of my friends use drugs or have a past history. It genuinely does not bother me. Almost all cases are simply them smoking weed with an occasional person that's done cocaine. Then a smaller group, like me, that's done heavy psychedelics and some relaxers like lsd, dmt, opium and others.
I don't know how pharmacy pills are or how prevalent they are since I'm too old and missed that boat.
I have a stronger negative opinion about people who would not want to associate with me because of my past drug history. Damn it. Some people NEED to be smoking weed because they are so fucking up tight and high strung and don't know how to calm the fuck down.
For it me is just a matter of moderation. I would be predjudice against people who take too many recreational drugs (including alcohol). As long as your not overdoing it, i wouldn't have a problem with it unless you were taking really extreme drugs such as crocodile.
If you answer this question with yes, youre doing it wrong. Completly wrong. People use all kinds of drugs since thousands of years. Drugs exist as long as mankind.
Would i advise anyone to take drugs ? No. Thats a whole different story.
But wheres the problem with someone smoking weed or taking cocaine ?
On October 17 2011 20:51 PolSC2 wrote: Is prejudice against sex offenders wrong?
oh nice so people that take some happy time with friends using substances you dont know/like = rapists? sure makes muuuch sense buddy
They didn't say that it is directly equal to being a rapist, they gave an example of where someone's decision making process which may have nothing to do with how you know them can result in a negatvie opinion of them based purely on a choice they made in private that doesn't effect you. I probably would have chosen a more minor crime to get the point across but it does directly answer the question of prejudice.
To answer the thread though, if you want to take it as technical as it can go, it is prejudice against an action but not a person, but I voted no as prejudice in my opinion tends to reffer to people and not things - I preffer green to red but no one would describe me as prejudiced against red. To continue, it's not prejudice as at is nothing about the person themself that would result in me having a worse opinion of them, but rather something they choose to do and at any point could choose not to do - and it is a choice which has real noticable behavioural and cognitive changes. I would say it is like being accused of being prejudiced of someone who may occasionally scream in your face if you catch them at the wrong moment, rather something about a person that annoys you than a prejudice towards that person.
and that changes what when the results are the same? if i say i hate and want to avoid evryone that masturbates i still judge the person based on nothing.
But that's exactly my point, that's still not prejudice as typed. To answer your point about the results being the same though, it comes down to likelihood of harming you or others in some way.
sorry it's just the one we're discussing, I'm not suggesting the two are in any way equal and if this continues I'll make an effort to use a different example, but I'm literally just typing this before I go shopping before the town center fills with kids
) there is an action which doesn't harm me, which doesn't in any way change my interactions but which are likely part of the person and which do cause harm to someone, ergo I am likely to judge a person varying in a more negative way in that regard.
With drug use it's obviously far less simple, but in this case I'd argue that it's not prejudice to dislike drug use and to have a lower opinion of people because it isn't some aspect to a person it's how they choose to live their life and it can in minor ways lead to 'harm' (or more likely discomfort in the case of minor drug use) to others. Specifically important is that it isn't part of a person in any way and therefore I'd argue that in this case you could describe it as being prejudiced against an action and the group, rather than a person or people in the group. That though goes back to my original post in that I would say that actions or group labels are not something someone can be prejudiced against, as those actions are not pre-judged and there is nothing in that which pre-judges a person.
If someone chooses to jump in front of a bus, I'm likely to have judged the action (without prejudice) and have made no evaluation or judging of the person flying towards it, my attention would be focussed on the action and preventing anything more harmful coming of it. Yay a less inflamatory example!)
I realise you're active in this thread at the moment so I appologise that I won't be able to reply as fast as this post this time as I'm going to be out for a few hours so if you do respond to this post Ill reply if necessary later.
Edit:
On October 17 2011 21:36 creepcolony wrote: @ all those 68%: You dont drink ? Never ever ?
I can't speak for the others, but I don't but I'm not sure that should make my opinion any more or less valid as we're talking about prejudice towards drug users and defining exactly which drug users one may be prejudiced against is an integral part of the discussion.
For me, I'm equally opposed to drinking as I am to illegal drugs, but I realise people could make an arguement for them being different.
Rendering yourself unable to function hurts yourself, your country, the world. Also the need for substances is pitiful and a sign of weakness. Saying you do drugs is like saying you have issues that you simply can't cope with and need to resort to a delusional state. That crosses the line of what's called "prejudice".
Most of us automatically form an a negative stereotype against those who take part in illegal or taboo activities (assuming you are brought up in an environment where you are taught these are bad). This opinion changes depending on what kind of environment you are brought up in. For example if you are brought up in a country where drinking is seen as a fun activity, then you may change your opinion about those who drink. Or if you are brought up in an environment where it is publicized that smoking is harmful to health, then you may maintain a negative view towards smoking.
On October 17 2011 21:43 Animism wrote: Most of us automatically form an a negative stereotype against those who take part in illegal or taboo activities (assuming you are brought up in an environment where you are taught these are bad). This opinion changes depending on what kind of environment you are brought up in. For example if you are brought up in a country where drinking is seen as a fun activity, then you may change your opinion about those who drink. Or if you are brought up in an environment where it is publicized that smoking is harmful to health, then you may maintain a negative view towards smoking.
Surely the environment has a huge impact on our views on things, but you can also educate yourself and realize what is actually good and what is not from a scientific and/or social scientific point of view.
Though if you're brought up in a place where you're not taught these "things" are bad, then education isn't really considered cool, is it.. :/
On October 17 2011 19:25 DarQraven wrote: For me it comes down to not really respecting someone's personality/mind when they feel a need to take mind-alterating substances on a regular basis to be able to enjoy themselves or feel worthwhile. Now don't come at me with the weak-ass "everything is a mind-alterating substance" BS; sugar, caffeine and vitamins aren't even remotely close to the effects of alcohol, thc and other drugs.
Let me ask you, what is the concensus about people who drink every single day, and up to a point where they won't be all 'there' anymore? Not just one glass of wine or something, think along the lines of 4+ beers every day (since that's around the same level of fucked-upness that marijuana tends to give you, at least for me)? You'd label those people alcoholics, don't lie. You'd say they have a drinking problem. You would say they are probably having issues of some sort.
Then why should I be completely fine with people who are stoned every day, most of the day?
You underestimate the power of caffeine and synthesized legal stimulants, Go to the local Market and drink a couple of "High Power Energy Voltage Red bull Crack in a can" drinks and tell me you don't get the shakes. I'm no doctor, but I'd be willing to guess that whatever is making my body uncontrollably shake for up too an hour is just as harmful as any weed or alcohol abuse, Long and short term.
And to your other point, Are you blaming alcohol/drugs, as to why people are having issues/problems in their life or is the drug just a crutch/symptom of a bigger emotional issue? Maybe there are some cases, but I find it hard to believe that someone who is abusing a drug, their only problem is the abuse of the drug and that is why they are depressed/have issues.
You seem to have misread this.
sugar, caffeine and vitamins aren't even remotely close to the effects of alcohol, thc and other drugs
Yes, you get shaky when you take massive amounts of caffeine. Do you start babbling nonsense, though? Do you possibly turn all introverted and trip out, or go off on a longwinded tangent about snail decoration?
I said those substances aren't even close to typical drugs in their effect, not that they don't have an effect. For hell's sake, you could probably eat a few cups of sugar and you'd have shaky hands and a massive energy boost as well. It wouldn't change your personality, though.
Drugs do. They simply have a whole different range of effects on people, effects that change how they behave, respond, think. Even if they respond or think much at all. They can change your perception time and space. They can make you see shit that simply isn't there. The most introverted guy in the world can suddenly go off blabbering on and on to complete strangers. They can make you "see clearly" (read: disable/reduce critical thought).
When's the last time you hallucinated because of 5 cups of coffee?
I once again disagree, You've never shown up to work or school and been next too the person who has had 1 too many cups of coffee and is Unable to stop talking for 2 hours straight, constantly pestering about something which you would never ordinarily talk about. Although they would usually be silent or "introverted" as you would put it without the coffee. I've never hallucinated from drinking coffee or eating sugar, but I've never hallucinated from drinking alcohol either or smoking weed. Caffiene likewise can "change your perception of time and space" just in the other direction, 1 minute can feel like an hour etc.
In freaking massive amounts, yes. Think along the lines of 2-3 jars in the span of an hour, and not that watery stuff Starbucks calls coffee either. 99.99% Of people will not ever drink that much, because they're not drinking coffee with the sole intent of becoming ADHD as fuck. With drugs you do. You only take drugs to become different - that's a philosophical difference if anything, and quite an important one as well.
That said, I get the feeling you're just coming up with stuff just to try to make a point. No, I have *never* had my perception of time changed the way it did by using marijuana, by anything else. Not by having fun, studying, caffeine, sugar, alcohol, etc or a combination of any of those. I spent an 'hour' lost in my own room trying to find my bag, which turned out to be exactly 1 minute when I came back to the clock in the kitchen. That shit just doesn't happen with any 'regular' substance, no matter how much you take. Similarly, I have never seen a shy guy suddenly want to hug strangers because he's had sugar.
That aside, why are we narrowing this discussion down to marijuana all of a sudden? No, weed won't make you hallucinate. LSD will. Shrooms will. As far as I'm aware, those qualify as drugs as well and their effects blow caffeine or sugar, even in massive amounts, clear out of the water.
You said "Now don't come at me with the weak-ass "everything is a mind-alterating substance" BS; sugar, caffeine and vitamins aren't even remotely close to the effects of alcohol, thc and other drugs."
And I am trying to relate caffeine to alcohol and marijuana if consumed in equal quantities/abused. You might not abuse caffeine but there are plenty of people who have 3-4 cups of strong coffee before noon. These people are drinking the coffee to "become different" just because caffeine Get's you going, and Alcohol slows you down doesn't mean one is worse than the other.
As for the other more hardcore drugs that actually make you hallucinate, lsd ecstacy shrooms etc, there is no relation and i would not try to make one.
I said that, and I never contradicted that or abandoned that position. None of those substances are capable of doing to you what more serious drugs can, no matter the amounts involved. Read my previous post again. You still seem to be under the assumption that I'm saying that common chemicals have *no effect*. They do. Just not an effect that's even in the same league as your typical party drug or hallucinogen, or just weed for that matter. It doesn't matter how much coffee you drink or how much it gets you going, you will still be the same person, just more awake, more energy or at least the experience thereof. A high dose of certain vitamins can make you very aware, concentrated. Sugar gives you a bit of a rush, then a low after that. That is not remotely the same as the effects of, let's say, LSD, where you'll be tripping balls for a good hour or 10 and will be barely recognizable, personality wise, to sober people.
I don't see how you've presented any arguments to the contrary, or what you're even trying to argue anymore. If what you said was true, how come we don't have people overdosing on caffeine at raves instead of the more costly and illegal drugs?
I am not talking about sugar or any of the hard drugs you are talking about. I am ONLY talking about Caffeine, Marijuana, and Alcohol, and their similarities. I've already stated my opinion on the others on page 14.
Then your post is pointless since I AM talking about those.
When you say "Now don't come at me with the weak-ass "everything is a mind-alterating substance" BS; sugar, caffeine and vitamins aren't even remotely close to the effects of alcohol, thc and other drugs."
it sounds like you are saying caffeine is as harmless as vitamins or sugar, and marijuana and alcohol more similar to cocaine or meth than too caffeine. Caffeine is a powerful stimulant and has no nutritional value like sugar or vitamins do. I'll leave it too a miscommunication since we are using text and not spoken word. All I was trying to say is caffeine is a drug, no different than weed or alcohol imo, very different than sugar or vitamins, The main difference is Caffeine comes packaged with fancy advertising and has billions of dollars behind it.
This post proves you didn't read a single word I said, or refuse to understand it.
Fact: - I never denied caffeine was a drug. - I never denied it has effects on a person. - I never said caffeine was as harmless as vitamins, I equated caffeine to vitamins and sugar as in: They are commonplace in everyday products and most often ingested for other purposes than their mental effects. All of that was you "replying" to an argument I never made.
What I did state was that .. ahh fuck it. Just read my previous posts if you're at all interested.
If you are, instead, determined to think that a caffeine high equates to a weed/harddrug high/trip, both in terms of duration, intensity, gravity and range of the effects and amount it temporarily debilitates or changes a person's functioning, personality and perception, then by all means. Just don't expect me to take your argument very seriously.
That, and I want to know where you're getting your coffee.
prejudice is pre-judging someone for something. You aren't pre-judging someone if they tell you they do drugs, thats just straight up judgement (and i don't mean it in the bad way, I mean that you are judging their character by what you know, which is how you view all of the people that you know in your life).
drugs are a choice, being black/asian/female is not.
I don't do anything that I think is going to effect my judgement, but that doesn't necessarily mean I think less of people just based on the fact that they do. Personally I would rather you smoke weed than cigarettes regardless of legalization.
I have a prejudice against annoying people. I want to avoid talking to them if possible, and it negatively influences my opinion of them. I don't feel comfortable around annoying people, because they annoy me.
See what I did there?
Prejudice, especially of the kind you list (racism, sexism, etc) is based on a list of unavoidable traits that are part of us being human. Prejudice based on behaviors is a whole different ballgame. I've seen a few attempts at supporting illegal drugs in the past, but claiming discrimination is by far the most stupid of them.
On October 17 2011 21:23 LilClinkin wrote: Interesting factoid: In Australia, heroin was legally prescribed to obstetric patients during labor to anticipate and relieve the extreme pain associated with contractions. The practice was abolished in the 1970's not because the drug was unsafe, (it was actually the most effective drug for this purpose when looking at the therapeutic effect vs safety to mother and baby) but because hospitals were sick of having drug addicts break in to steal the supplies.
I personally have no issue with legalisation of even dangerous and highly addictive drugs to be administered to select patients with proven drug addictions as part of a program to rehabilitate them. At least then it would occur in a controlled environment where the dose of active drug is known, significantly reducing the risk of harmful side-effects.
The dangers of injecting non-medical grade drugs cooked with impurities that precipitate in veins and cause all manner of vascular disease is one of the reasons that illicit drug use earned it's negative stigma. Just look at the 'croc' crap being cooked and sold to poor addicts in Russia, their flesh is literally falling off.
heh , was waiting for someone to actually point this out.
i think some people in this thread would be mighty surprised if they looked up on certain analogs and their usage in " regular " medicine.
good chance you've been exposed to the " recreational " drugs you so despise already many times via normal medicine.
On October 17 2011 21:42 dibbaN wrote: Rendering yourself unable to function hurts yourself, your country, the world. Also the need for substances is pitiful and a sign of weakness. Saying you do drugs is like saying you have issues that you simply can't cope with and need to resort to a delusional state. That crosses the line of what's called "prejudice".
If I see someone who smokes 40 cigarettes a day, that's fine by me. It's their lungs, they can do what they want with them. If I see someone weighing 200 kg that's fine by me. It's their body, they can eat all the McDonald's they want to. If I see someone who reaches for the bottle the minute they wake up, that's fine by me. If I see someone who smokes weed every day, that's fine by me. If I see someone who likes to do heroin every day, that's fine by me. It should be their choice what they do with themselfs
The problem arises, when some politicians have set a fixed line between what they personally think is okay and then force it onto everyone else. People looking for drugs are gonna find drugs. Only, as long as it's illegal they are fucking it up for everyone else by funding various criminal elements.
Just legalize all that shit. Are they afraid everyone is gonna turn into drug users? I personally wouldn't touch heroin even if it was distributed by official sanatary clinics and was absolutely free. I doubt anyone I know would either. People keep away from drugs because they know it's unhealthy for them. Or they take them, knowing the dangers because they think the effects of them offset the dangers. I don't for a second believe availability is what is keeping anyone from doing drugs.
On October 17 2011 20:55 nick1689 wrote: It depends. I work part-time in a chemist while Im at Uni, and Ive seen first hand how addiction to heroin is literally ruining people's lives - its a health issue, they want to get off, they want to be free from the addiction, but they literally cannot due to its effects. You should not be prejudice against these people
In my opinion there should only be prejudice when people use drugs so much that it begins to negatively affect other people, whilst at the same time they take no action, or try anything at all, to address their drug problem.
But surely they knew heroin was bad for them before they started doing it? I have a hard time seeing people going "What's this heroin stuff? Sure, let me have one of that." and suddenly, before they know it, they are addicts. Yes there might have been a reason for them to start abusing it, but other people have been in the same position and chosen to not take heroin. They choose to take heroin, knowing the dangers, and now they suffer the consequenses.
I was at a wedding on Saturday. At this wedding, there were two gentlemen who were pounding shots hard at the bar for several hours. They then grabbed some wine bottles from their tables to sip on, took to the dance floor, ripped off their shirts and proceeded to fall over everybody and be completely annoying until one of them clocked the other one in the forehead with his wine bottle. One of the aunts got toasted and amused herself by flashing her breasts at the DJ, and when he didn't flinch she then propped a leg up on the DJ's table and hiked up her skirt.
Am I about to make a "it's hypocritical not to ban alcohol if you ban weed" point? Not exactly. The point is that lots of other people aside from the three aforementioned indulged in alcohol and didn't make complete asses of themselves or end up with bleeding gashes on their heads. It's not the substance itself that's the problem, it's what you do with it.
...I hardly think "not smoking" and "not buying irresponsibly farmed meat" is grounds for sainthood. I'm not perfect by any means, but I try to avoid things I know will cause negative consequences wherever reasonably possible and it's easy to avoid. Simple. Not buying drugs, and therefore not directly funding a string of drug dealers, is an easy thing to avoid doing.
The thing is, where else would i purchase marijuana if not from a dealer? If marijuana was legal and i could purchase it from the state i would never buy from a dealer again. But it isn't, since its illegal im FORCED to go to these criminals to buy my weed. Now you might say, i know i fund drug dealers, why smoke at all? Well thats where my argument comes in, if i were to refrain from doing anything that causes negative consequences honestly i would have to back up on a LOT of things.
"Other people are bad/worse, so that makes what I'm doing oK!" ?
No it doesn't, but it does render the argument that funding drug dealers make pot bad rather weak considering buying clothes is hardly looked down upon the same way people look down on weed. But most clothing companies are in some way involved in slavery.
This feels like a cop-out tbh. Why not just try to avoid bad things? Would it hurt you or cause you any inconvenience to stop giving a string of drug dealers money?
Well i just dont think that reason is enough to stop me from occasionally smoking some weed. Also, the guy i purchase from grows his weed at home, its not from the cartels of Mexico or from criminal smugglers.
btw.... why is going on vacation to SE Asia bad? /confused
Since going to for example to Thailand on vacation has become such a common and popular thing in especially Europe an enourmous tourism market has developed. This is really good for the economy but a lot of the people who work in the business are working for less than minimum wage. Its not slavery, but in europe their working conditions would be illegal.
Also the pollution caused by a plane travelling from Europe to Thailand is equal to the pollution one average family car causes during one year.
Pardon my english.
Yes, I will say to you, why smoke at all if you know full well that you are funding criminals? And you said that you need to back up on stuff like buying new clothes and not taking airplanes? Clothes are a necessity of life. Travel by air is a necessity for people who do business or work overseas. They are necessary evils, from what you describe them.
But you smoking weed or not is totally not a necessity. And you chose to smoke weed. And you said you are forced to help criminals because the state made weed illegal (ie, not your fault, its the law's fault).
And I noticed that you said you buy your weed from your friend who grows his own weed from home. No ties to criminal elements. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I have no problem with that. I just don't agree with the concept that buying drugs = flying in aeroplanes to SEA countries = buying clothes = equal amounts of sin. No, buying and using drugs is disproportionately more sinful compared to the other two, and can be totally avoided if you choose to.
Ok, I'll make it simple for you. 1. You want to eat potatoes. You grow more than you eat. You sell some at low price to some friends.
2. Oh, shit, gangs took your potatoes.
3.Fortunately, you live in a civilized courty, potatoes are legal, the gang is arrested, and you get your potatoes back.
Endresult after iteration: You get money, you don't mind a little tax, everybody gets potatoes, the economy is booming.
1. So, you grow you own weed. It's not that hard. It's a weed, nature made it resilient.
2. So you're not a criminal, you don't own guns, you're a rational human being who smokes G sometimes and sells at low cost to some friends.
3. Oh sorry, gangs just took your weed. At gunpoint. Now, in a civilized county, a small business can count on the cops to help him out. Not so if you grow.
So you 4.A)Go out of business B)hide yourself real good C)get guns yourself. After Iteration you have: Smokers who have trouble finding weed, because the good guys are hiding, and a thriving black economy that doesn't pay taxes and gets people shot.
Now, to make growing weed even better, the cops are the most dangerous gang around. Get the picture?
On October 17 2011 22:09 Vorenius wrote: If I see someone who smokes 40 cigarettes a day, that's fine by me. It's their lungs, they can do what they want with them. If I see someone weighing 200 kg that's fine by me. It's their body, they can eat all the McDonald's they want to. If I see someone who reaches for the bottle the minute they wake up, that's fine by me. If I see someone who smokes weed every day, that's fine by me. If I see someone who likes to do heroin every day, that's fine by me. It should be their choice what they do with themselfs
The problem arises, when some politicians have set a fixed line between what they personally think is okay and then force it onto everyone else. People looking for drugs are gonna find drugs. Only, as long as it's illegal they are fucking it up for everyone else by funding various criminal elements.
Just legalize all that shit. Are they afraid everyone is gonna turn into drug users? I personally wouldn't touch heroin even if it was distributed by official sanatary clinics and was absolutely free. I doubt anyone I know would either. People keep away from drugs because they know it's unhealthy for them. Or they take them, knowing the dangers because they think the effects of them offset the dangers. I don't for a second believe availability is what is keeping anyone from doing drugs.
I respect a person's right to choose harmful drugs, and I'm also fine with it being legal... if people want to destroy their bodies, then I have no right to stop them (and I don't want politicians to have the right to stop them either)... but as far as you saying "it's fine by me" for everything, I wouldn't go that far.
It's not fine by me; I'd rather have them make more intelligent decisions. If they asked me my opinion, I would give them advice as opposed to being indifferent. I'd rather have them live healthier and longer lives. If they wanted help, I would give it to them.
I don't respect those people who don't care about their bodies or their lives. If they go out of their way to really break themselves down destructively (and I'm not talking about a little fast food or a few drinks), then they're not respecting their own lives, so why should I? They're not acting responsibly or mature, so they certainly haven't earned my respect as addicts (and this doesn't necessarily only pertain to harmful drug users).
I wanna ask: Why are the best drugs still illegal by international treaty? I mean, yes, some profits from alcohol companies. . But that can't be the whole truth, tobacco got what was coming to it with powerful lobbies and government on it's side. They know that if the economy as a whole would improve (and it would) they would profit. Yes, incompetence of legislators. But the people get the government it deserves. Even in an absolute monarchy, the King was the country incarnate. In fractal geometry you'd say the country was self-similar across scale. So making sure the people prospered was good for the kings health, and informing the king would keep the country safe in Nash's equillibrium.
There are so many theories out on this one question, most are throwing up our shoulders and shouting conspiracy. But that's a non-explanation. Every social gathering is a conspiracy against the rest.
The economy stuff is easy, if you don't mind me quoting myself: + Show Spoiler +
On October 17 2011 21:18 Setev wrote: Show nested quote +
Yes, I will say to you, why smoke at all if you know full well that you are funding criminals? And you said that you need to back up on stuff like buying new clothes and not taking airplanes? Clothes are a necessity of life. Travel by air is a necessity for people who do business or work overseas. They are necessary evils, from what you describe them.
But you smoking weed or not is totally not a necessity. And you chose to smoke weed. And you said you are forced to help criminals because the state made weed illegal (ie, not your fault, its the law's fault).
And I noticed that you said you buy your weed from your friend who grows his own weed from home. No ties to criminal elements. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I have no problem with that. I just don't agree with the concept that buying drugs = flying in aeroplanes to SEA countries = buying clothes = equal amounts of sin. No, buying and using drugs is disproportionately more sinful compared to the other two, and can be totally avoided if you choose to.
Ok, I'll make it simple for you. 1. You want to eat potatoes. You grow more than you eat. You sell some at low price to some friends.
2. Oh, shit, gangs took your potatoes.
3.Fortunately, you live in a civilized courty, potatoes are legal, the gang is arrested, and you get your potatoes back.
Endresult after iteration: You get money, you don't mind a little tax, everybody gets potatoes, the economy is booming.
1. So, you grow you own weed. It's not that hard. It's a weed, nature made it resilient.
2. So you're not a criminal, you don't own guns, you're a rational human being who smokes G sometimes and sells at low cost to some friends.
3. Oh sorry, gangs just took your weed. At gunpoint. Now, in a civilized county, a small business can count on the cops to help him out. Not so if you grow.
So you 4.A)Go out of business B)hide yourself real good C)get guns yourself. After Iteration you have: Smokers who have trouble finding weed, because the good guys are hiding, and a thriving black economy that doesn't pay taxes and gets people shot.
Now, to make growing weed even better, the cops are the most dangerous gang around. Get the picture?
I think the problem is one in argumentation by the Legalization lobby. On the one hand is the medical argument, which has had some success in at least decriminalizing the stuff. But I don't see it going beyond some pity-weed for sick people. Maybe it'll showcase some of the positive sides to the public. I'll help, but there's a knee jerk reaction: Just anyone can get the stuff for minor complaints! If you're really sick, you can get some (Not out of my Medicare Taxdollars!), but on the whole, you have to suffer.
On the other, concerning the recreational use, or more specifically, it's psycho-activity, the Drug lobby is just downplaying the issue. It's no big deal, addicts need treatment, it's no big deal to treat them, we can stop punishment, because it's no big deal. The problem is that here, the other side is actually correct: the legalization of cannabis is a huge fucking deal. It would be the the event of the century.
Why? You are what you eat, you are what you use. Along with the drug, come cultural modes or styles. It's been argued the heated arguments and the fierce resistance against the church of the 17th century Enlightenment was made possible by Widespread use of coffee. Before, people basically walked around drunk 24/7, because beer was the only thing to drink.
Coffee, by the way, is the only drug that is now legalized as a right. You can sue your employer if he refuses to give you a coffee break. Basically, Coffee culture is so dominant right now, we stop seeing its edges. Arguably, through the sciences, coffee engineers, coffee programs and coffee launches satellites into orbit. I also think that's why some much stuff is made with hasty decisions nowadays. Combined with the ego-boost red meat gives, managers ramp up the production, and make sure the pack stays hunting together. The cocaine driven CEO sees his profits expand while he budgets on the outsourced workers, wondering why the products other companies make start deteriorating. I admire Steve Jobs for his LSD inspired vision, but boy, was he hard to take.
Whenever the conversation comes to drugs and creativity, someone shouts: "Oh, so all I have to do is take psychedelics and I'll be brilliant."
If you can take it. I can't drink a bottle of vodka and stay standing. Some people can. Everyone's in distress about guys like that, but while piss drunk, he's having the time of his life. People like that are hard to be around. Nobody takes these guys seriously:
"Oh, so all I have to do is drink shot's every night, and I'll be guaranteed some great times"
Sure. And then what?
"Oh, so all we have to do is smoke weed and get along"
It's not that simple, and you know it. It's not about laziness, it's about education. High in a classroom, you're the equal of that professor, that teacher. You're the equal of the boss, the motherfucking president. Not in the sense that you are elevated to their level, which they would like as flattery, (Oh, I love the english language sometimes) but the sense of relating as one collection of cells to another. And people can't handle that. We are dependent for our survival on the notion that someone somewhere knows. We walk around saying "Well, I don't really understand quantum physics, because I haven't studied it, and it's too hard and nobody really gets it anyway" Then suddenly, when you smoke some dank shit in the tub and this equation comes to mind and it there, and it's real, and it's as complete as anyone's with 20 years tenure in research. He might write it down with more rigor. But really, if you never experience that, or if your private revelation is incomplete or inconsistent, what good is his understanding doing you if you can't talk to him like a human being?
People talk about disrespect for authority. Well, since we've hopefully eliminated the people who don't know how to spell it, I'll proceed by eliminating those that don't know its meaning.
The word is derived from author. Highest Author-ity is given to those writers who can quote the most and the furthest back. This is in fact a theological means of ranking scripture. Opposed to Authority is Originality, which means to come from the Origin. In it's monastic context, this is divinely inspired prophecy. Presumed is, in any case, that the Ultimate Authority of the Bible, and thus the world, is God.
In Europe there was in this fashion 1000 years of tradition which preserved the knowledge of the Greeks and Roman. The crux was continuous rewriting, books on books on books. Then, the source material appeared through centuries 10-14, this tradition was continued, and writing original research was nonexistant. Untill of course the Scientific Revolution
As they went along checking and absorbing the material, they incorporated the scaffolding as part of the building. It's as hard to make an accurate appraisal of the accomplishment, as it is for a fish to write a paper on fluid dynamics.
It's been so short a while that we evaluate law etsi Deus non daratur. Even if God didn't exist, these laws are binding to us. One piece of the scaffolding came down. To most people it is common sense now, but there are many cultures, with less strict record-keeping, more original texts and a far longer background of drug used religious exaltation. This is of course our current problem with Islam. We depend on the opium and hashish, we adore the visions these compounds give, but we do no want to give full way to the ontological confusion and magical thinking.
Legalizing cannabis means gradual reintroduction of equality. It means making the University universal. It means the end of measuring truth by dick-waving. It means that we demolish a structure which is now providing a steady stream of concented reality top-down in order to destribute it amongst the poor. Are the poor willing to educate themselves?
What would it look like if the Authorative voice of the TV presenter were suddenly equal to You? Tube? Informative? Superficial? Pornographic? That is what was set in motion in the 60's. The parents of those kinds literally saw society break down. But they had no internet.
So, the basic question before the United Nations is: Can we trust humanity with its own destiny?
On October 17 2011 22:09 Vorenius wrote: If I see someone who smokes 40 cigarettes a day, that's fine by me. It's their lungs, they can do what they want with them. If I see someone weighing 200 kg that's fine by me. It's their body, they can eat all the McDonald's they want to. If I see someone who reaches for the bottle the minute they wake up, that's fine by me. If I see someone who smokes weed every day, that's fine by me. If I see someone who likes to do heroin every day, that's fine by me. It should be their choice what they do with themselfs
The problem arises, when some politicians have set a fixed line between what they personally think is okay and then force it onto everyone else. People looking for drugs are gonna find drugs. Only, as long as it's illegal they are fucking it up for everyone else by funding various criminal elements.
Just legalize all that shit. Are they afraid everyone is gonna turn into drug users? I personally wouldn't touch heroin even if it was distributed by official sanatary clinics and was absolutely free. I doubt anyone I know would either. People keep away from drugs because they know it's unhealthy for them. Or they take them, knowing the dangers because they think the effects of them offset the dangers. I don't for a second believe availability is what is keeping anyone from doing drugs.
On October 17 2011 20:55 nick1689 wrote: It depends. I work part-time in a chemist while Im at Uni, and Ive seen first hand how addiction to heroin is literally ruining people's lives - its a health issue, they want to get off, they want to be free from the addiction, but they literally cannot due to its effects. You should not be prejudice against these people
In my opinion there should only be prejudice when people use drugs so much that it begins to negatively affect other people, whilst at the same time they take no action, or try anything at all, to address their drug problem.
But surely they knew heroin was bad for them before they started doing it? I have a hard time seeing people going "What's this heroin stuff? Sure, let me have one of that." and suddenly, before they know it, they are addicts. Yes there might have been a reason for them to start abusing it, but other people have been in the same position and chosen to not take heroin. They choose to take heroin, knowing the dangers, and now they suffer the consequenses.
The discussion isn't about whether politics should be able to restrict people's use of drugs. It's about whether or not non-users or "other-users" have any positive or negative ideas about drug users and whether or not they are justified.
That aside, of course you are fine with people messing up their own bodies - until you start paying the taxes that help create their rehab clinics and pay for their medical bills, as is the case in a great big part of the world. Legalization, if accompanied by a drug tax, could help solve that problem, but could also make it far worse due to an increased accessibility to drugs and therefore more users.
Sorry, but I'm not particularly fond of paying for the lung cancer treatment of a patient who largely knowingly inflicted it upon him/herself, to use the example of cigarettes.
On October 17 2011 22:21 Tincuradan wrote: I wanna ask: Why are the best drugs still illegal by international treaty? I mean, yes, some profits from alcohol companies. . But that can't be the whole truth, tobacco got what was coming to it with powerful lobbies and government on it's side. They know that if the economy as a whole would improve (and it would) they would profit. Yes, incompetence of legislators. But the people get the government it deserves. Even in an absolute monarchy, the King was the country incarnate. In fractal geometry you'd say the country was self-similar across scale. So making sure the people prospered was good for the kings health, and informing the king would keep the country safe in Nash's equillibrium.
There are so many theories out on this one question, most are throwing up our shoulders and shouting conspiracy. But that's a non-explanation. Every social gathering is a conspiracy against the rest.
The economy stuff is easy, if you don't mind me quoting myself: + Show Spoiler +
On October 17 2011 21:18 Setev wrote: Show nested quote +
Yes, I will say to you, why smoke at all if you know full well that you are funding criminals? And you said that you need to back up on stuff like buying new clothes and not taking airplanes? Clothes are a necessity of life. Travel by air is a necessity for people who do business or work overseas. They are necessary evils, from what you describe them.
But you smoking weed or not is totally not a necessity. And you chose to smoke weed. And you said you are forced to help criminals because the state made weed illegal (ie, not your fault, its the law's fault).
And I noticed that you said you buy your weed from your friend who grows his own weed from home. No ties to criminal elements. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I have no problem with that. I just don't agree with the concept that buying drugs = flying in aeroplanes to SEA countries = buying clothes = equal amounts of sin. No, buying and using drugs is disproportionately more sinful compared to the other two, and can be totally avoided if you choose to.
Ok, I'll make it simple for you. 1. You want to eat potatoes. You grow more than you eat. You sell some at low price to some friends.
2. Oh, shit, gangs took your potatoes.
3.Fortunately, you live in a civilized courty, potatoes are legal, the gang is arrested, and you get your potatoes back.
Endresult after iteration: You get money, you don't mind a little tax, everybody gets potatoes, the economy is booming.
1. So, you grow you own weed. It's not that hard. It's a weed, nature made it resilient.
2. So you're not a criminal, you don't own guns, you're a rational human being who smokes G sometimes and sells at low cost to some friends.
3. Oh sorry, gangs just took your weed. At gunpoint. Now, in a civilized county, a small business can count on the cops to help him out. Not so if you grow.
So you 4.A)Go out of business B)hide yourself real good C)get guns yourself. After Iteration you have: Smokers who have trouble finding weed, because the good guys are hiding, and a thriving black economy that doesn't pay taxes and gets people shot.
Now, to make growing weed even better, the cops are the most dangerous gang around. Get the picture?
I think the problem is one in argumentation by the Legalization lobby. On the one hand is the medical argument, which has had some success in at least decriminalizing the stuff. But I don't see it going beyond some pity-weed for sick people. Maybe it'll showcase some of the positive sides to the public. I'll help, but there's a knee jerk reaction: Just anyone can get the stuff for minor complaints! If you're really sick, you can get some (Not out of my Medicare Taxdollars!), but on the whole, you have to suffer.
On the other, concerning the recreational use, or more specifically, it's psycho-activity, the Drug lobby is just downplaying the issue. It's no big deal, addicts need treatment, it's no big deal to treat them, we can stop punishment, because it's no big deal. The problem is that here, the other side is actually correct: the legalization of cannabis is a huge fucking deal. It would be the the event of the century.
Why? You are what you eat, you are what you use. Along with the drug, come cultural modes or styles. It's been argued the heated arguments and the fierce resistance against the church of the 17th century Enlightenment was made possible by Widespread use of coffee. Before, people basically walked around drunk 24/7, because beer was the only thing to drink.
Coffee, by the way, is the only drug that is now legalized as a right. You can sue your employer if he refuses to give you a coffee break. Basically, Coffee culture is so dominant right now, we stop seeing its edges. Arguably, through the sciences, coffee engineers, coffee programs and coffee launches satellites into orbit. I also think that's why some much stuff is made with hasty decisions nowadays. Combined with the ego-boost red meat gives, managers ramp up the production, and make sure the pack stays hunting together. The cocaine driven CEO sees his profits expand while he budgets on the outsourced workers, wondering why the food made by his cousin tastes like cardboard nowadays. I admire Steve Jobs for his LSD inspired vision, but boy, was he hard to take.
"Oh, so all I have to do is take psychedelics and I'll be brilliant."
If you can take it. I can't drink a bottle of vodka and stay standing. Some people can. Everyone's in distress about guys like that, but while piss drunk, he's having the time of his life. People like that are hard to be around. Nobody takes this guys seriously:
"Oh, so all I have to do is drink shot's every night, and I'll be guaranteed some great times"
Sure. And then what?
"Oh, so all we have to do is smoke weed and get along"
It's not that simple, and you know it. It's not about laziness, it's about education. High in a classroom, you're the equal of that professor, that teacher. You're the equal of the boss, the motherfucking president. Not in the sense that you are elevated to their level, which they would like as flattery, (Oh, I love the english language sometimes) but the sense of relating as one collection of cells to another. And people can't handle that. We are dependent for our survival on the notion that someone somewhere knows. We walk around saying "Well, I don't really understand quantum physics, because I haven't studied it, and it's too hard and nobody really gets it anyway" Then suddenly, when you smoke some dank shit in the tub and this equation comes to mind and it there, and it's real, and it's as complete as anyone's with 20 years tenure in research. He might write it down with more rigor. But really, if you never experience that, or if your private revelation is incomplete or inconsistent, what good is his understanding doing you if you can't talk to him like a human being?
People talk about disrespect for authority. Well, since we've hopefully eliminated the people who don't know how to spell it, I'll proceed by eliminating those that don't know its meaning.
The word is derived from author. Highest Author-ity is given to those writers who can quote the most and the furthest back. This is in fact a theological means of ranking scripture. Opposed to Authority is Originality, which means to come from the Origin. In it's monastic context, this is divinely inspired prophecy. Presumed is, in any case, that the Ultimate Authority of the Bible, and thus the world, is God.
Ending Authority means calling an end to a 1000 years of tradition which preserved the knowledge of the Greeks and Roman. It's as hard to make an accurate appraisal of that accomplishment, as it is for a fish to write a paper on fluid dynamics. On the other hand, as we go along absorbing the material, we incorporate the scaffolding as part of the building. It's been so short a while that we evaluate law etsi Deus non daratur. Even if God didn't exist, these laws are binding to us. Is that enough for you?
Legalizing cannabis means gradual reintroduction of equality. It means making the University universal. It means the end of measuring truth by dick-waving. It means that we demolish a structure which is now providing a steady stream of concented reality top-down in order to destribute it amongst the poor. Are the poor willing to educate themselves?
What would it look like if the Authorative voice of the TV presenter were suddenly equal to You? Tube? Informative? Superficial? Pornographic? That is what was set in motion in the 60's. The parents of those kinds literally saw society break down. But they had no internet.
So, the basic question before the United Nations is: Can we trust humanity with its own destiny?
I'm only against mind-altering products. For me, do whatever the hell you want, we're gonna have a problem if it affects others. I really don't give a f about legality, economy.
Smoking? Well, you still function normally in mental sense. Over eating? Same. Drugs? This I disagree. Especially those highly addictive ones. You won't know what the person might do, he isn't himself. He might hurt himself or worst others. It affects his mind to do whatever it takes to just get the same high. He becomes an annoyance to other people. Drinking? People act stupid when they are intoxicated.
Ok, let's stipulate that drug addicts are a "minority".
If so, are there any other minorities that share the characteristic "untrustworthy"?
It's prejudice, sure - against the few exceptions, but have you ever met a junkie you can trust? They live in a different world to the rest of us. Things we value, they don't - they'd sell off almost anything to fuel their addiction.
I'm not talking about recreational users, i'm talking about the group of people you've mentioned here - active habitual drug users.
Sentimental affection, appreciation of the little things, profound love and mutual attraction. All things that define our very humanity. For a junkie all of that is great, but to them the beauty of life is diminished in comparison to chasing the total stimulation of the ultimate high.
Btw OP, do you discriminate against members of cults? Like, religious sects? Mao called religion 'an opium for the people' and in many ways i agree. If the state religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism) in their most common forms are the Alcohol and Tobacco of the religious world, heavy drug use (Heroin, Crack, Meth) would equal fanatical religious extremism.
Would you not discriminate against fundamentalists, even if their beliefs had no "victims" other than the practitioners themselves?
On October 17 2011 11:34 Antoine wrote: people don't choose to be black or female. they choose to use drugs/smoke/drink etc
this is the critical difference.
to address your above post, at some point the person made the choice to start.
Prejudice mean to pre-judge. It doesn't matter whether the characteristic is chosen or not, you can still judge someone for it.
Personally, I don't find anything wrong with any kind of prejudice. Most prejudices have quite a lot of truth to them, which is why they exist in the first place. Prejudice doesn't say that 100% of X people are a certain way, just that statistically they tend to be a certain way according to a criteria.
For example, science has firmly established that there are distinct advantages that each sex has over the other. To be prejudiced, or "sexist" as it is incorrectly called, is absolutely rational, and in many cases prejudice is necessary for survival. Are you going to assume that berry is going to make you sick just because a similar looking berry made you sick in the past? I sure hope so, otherwise political correctness has completely eradicated common sense.
I like the opinion I quotted. I have prejudice against drug users. I think they can be more likely dangerous (aggressive etc.) because their perception or thinking is somehow influenced by drugs. I automatically dislike mariujana users like any smoker out there who forces me to breathe their smoke.
The most common recreational drugs (weed,tobacco and alcohol) are as much of a "victimless crime" today as homosexuality was half a century ago, meaning the existence of a prejudice against the former now is no better than the massive and socially destructive prejudice that existed against the later then...
On October 17 2011 22:31 theSkareqro wrote: I'm only against mind-altering products. For me, do whatever the hell you want, we're gonna have a problem if it affects others. I really don't give a f about legality, economy.
Smoking? Well, you still function normally in mental sense. Over eating? Same. Drugs? This I disagree. Especially those highly addictive ones. You won't know what the person might do, he isn't himself. He might hurt himself or worst others. It affects his mind to do whatever it takes to just get the same high. He becomes an annoyance to other people. Drinking? People act stupid when they are intoxicated.
36 people died due to meth abuse in Scotland from 1990-2000 there were 10 times more deaths from Tylenol than meth
people see the newspaper stories and watch tv shows and movies where the junkies are almost dead and distort the statistics to be greater than they really are. the truth is for every junkie homeless on the street there are 10 recreational users who are functioning in society. the truth is that alcohol and nicotine take more lives than most illegal drugs put together. don't even get me started on prescription -related deaths.
On October 17 2011 22:21 Tincuradan wrote: I wanna ask: Why are the best drugs still illegal by international treaty? I mean, yes, some profits from alcohol companies. . But that can't be the whole truth, tobacco got what was coming to it with powerful lobbies and government on it's side. They know that if the economy as a whole would improve (and it would) they would profit. Yes, incompetence of legislators. But the people get the government it deserves. Even in an absolute monarchy, the King was the country incarnate. In fractal geometry you'd say the country was self-similar across scale. So making sure the people prospered was good for the kings health, and informing the king would keep the country safe in Nash's equillibrium.
There are so many theories out on this one question, most are throwing up our shoulders and shouting conspiracy. But that's a non-explanation. Every social gathering is a conspiracy against the rest.
The economy stuff is easy, if you don't mind me quoting myself: + Show Spoiler +
On October 17 2011 21:18 Setev wrote: Show nested quote +
Yes, I will say to you, why smoke at all if you know full well that you are funding criminals? And you said that you need to back up on stuff like buying new clothes and not taking airplanes? Clothes are a necessity of life. Travel by air is a necessity for people who do business or work overseas. They are necessary evils, from what you describe them.
But you smoking weed or not is totally not a necessity. And you chose to smoke weed. And you said you are forced to help criminals because the state made weed illegal (ie, not your fault, its the law's fault).
And I noticed that you said you buy your weed from your friend who grows his own weed from home. No ties to criminal elements. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I have no problem with that. I just don't agree with the concept that buying drugs = flying in aeroplanes to SEA countries = buying clothes = equal amounts of sin. No, buying and using drugs is disproportionately more sinful compared to the other two, and can be totally avoided if you choose to.
Ok, I'll make it simple for you. 1. You want to eat potatoes. You grow more than you eat. You sell some at low price to some friends.
2. Oh, shit, gangs took your potatoes.
3.Fortunately, you live in a civilized courty, potatoes are legal, the gang is arrested, and you get your potatoes back.
Endresult after iteration: You get money, you don't mind a little tax, everybody gets potatoes, the economy is booming.
1. So, you grow you own weed. It's not that hard. It's a weed, nature made it resilient.
2. So you're not a criminal, you don't own guns, you're a rational human being who smokes G sometimes and sells at low cost to some friends.
3. Oh sorry, gangs just took your weed. At gunpoint. Now, in a civilized county, a small business can count on the cops to help him out. Not so if you grow.
So you 4.A)Go out of business B)hide yourself real good C)get guns yourself. After Iteration you have: Smokers who have trouble finding weed, because the good guys are hiding, and a thriving black economy that doesn't pay taxes and gets people shot.
Now, to make growing weed even better, the cops are the most dangerous gang around. Get the picture?
I think the problem is one in argumentation by the Legalization lobby. On the one hand is the medical argument, which has had some success in at least decriminalizing the stuff. But I don't see it going beyond some pity-weed for sick people. Maybe it'll showcase some of the positive sides to the public. I'll help, but there's a knee jerk reaction: Just anyone can get the stuff for minor complaints! If you're really sick, you can get some (Not out of my Medicare Taxdollars!), but on the whole, you have to suffer.
On the other, concerning the recreational use, or more specifically, it's psycho-activity, the Drug lobby is just downplaying the issue. It's no big deal, addicts need treatment, it's no big deal to treat them, we can stop punishment, because it's no big deal. The problem is that here, the other side is actually correct: the legalization of cannabis is a huge fucking deal. It would be the the event of the century.
Why? You are what you eat, you are what you use. Along with the drug, come cultural modes or styles. It's been argued the heated arguments and the fierce resistance against the church of the 17th century Enlightenment was made possible by Widespread use of coffee. Before, people basically walked around drunk 24/7, because beer was the only thing to drink.
Coffee, by the way, is the only drug that is now legalized as a right. You can sue your employer if he refuses to give you a coffee break. Basically, Coffee culture is so dominant right now, we stop seeing its edges. Arguably, through the sciences, coffee engineers, coffee programs and coffee launches satellites into orbit. I also think that's why some much stuff is made with hasty decisions nowadays. Combined with the ego-boost red meat gives, managers ramp up the production, and make sure the pack stays hunting together. The cocaine driven CEO sees his profits expand while he budgets on the outsourced workers, wondering why the food made by his cousin tastes like cardboard nowadays. I admire Steve Jobs for his LSD inspired vision, but boy, was he hard to take.
"Oh, so all I have to do is take psychedelics and I'll be brilliant."
If you can take it. I can't drink a bottle of vodka and stay standing. Some people can. Everyone's in distress about guys like that, but while piss drunk, he's having the time of his life. People like that are hard to be around. Nobody takes this guys seriously:
"Oh, so all I have to do is drink shot's every night, and I'll be guaranteed some great times"
Sure. And then what?
"Oh, so all we have to do is smoke weed and get along"
It's not that simple, and you know it. It's not about laziness, it's about education. High in a classroom, you're the equal of that professor, that teacher. You're the equal of the boss, the motherfucking president. Not in the sense that you are elevated to their level, which they would like as flattery, (Oh, I love the english language sometimes) but the sense of relating as one collection of cells to another. And people can't handle that. We are dependent for our survival on the notion that someone somewhere knows. We walk around saying "Well, I don't really understand quantum physics, because I haven't studied it, and it's too hard and nobody really gets it anyway" Then suddenly, when you smoke some dank shit in the tub and this equation comes to mind and it there, and it's real, and it's as complete as anyone's with 20 years tenure in research. He might write it down with more rigor. But really, if you never experience that, or if your private revelation is incomplete or inconsistent, what good is his understanding doing you if you can't talk to him like a human being?
People talk about disrespect for authority. Well, since we've hopefully eliminated the people who don't know how to spell it, I'll proceed by eliminating those that don't know its meaning.
The word is derived from author. Highest Author-ity is given to those writers who can quote the most and the furthest back. This is in fact a theological means of ranking scripture. Opposed to Authority is Originality, which means to come from the Origin. In it's monastic context, this is divinely inspired prophecy. Presumed is, in any case, that the Ultimate Authority of the Bible, and thus the world, is God.
Ending Authority means calling an end to a 1000 years of tradition which preserved the knowledge of the Greeks and Roman. It's as hard to make an accurate appraisal of that accomplishment, as it is for a fish to write a paper on fluid dynamics. On the other hand, as we go along absorbing the material, we incorporate the scaffolding as part of the building. It's been so short a while that we evaluate law etsi Deus non daratur. Even if God didn't exist, these laws are binding to us. Is that enough for you?
Legalizing cannabis means gradual reintroduction of equality. It means making the University universal. It means the end of measuring truth by dick-waving. It means that we demolish a structure which is now providing a steady stream of concented reality top-down in order to destribute it amongst the poor. Are the poor willing to educate themselves?
What would it look like if the Authorative voice of the TV presenter were suddenly equal to You? Tube? Informative? Superficial? Pornographic? That is what was set in motion in the 60's. The parents of those kinds literally saw society break down. But they had no internet.
So, the basic question before the United Nations is: Can we trust humanity with its own destiny?
Dude, whatever you're smoking I want some
I get the economic part about legalizing drugs. It gave me a new perspective, thanks. Legalizing drugs was never discussed seriously here in SEA.
Man you guys all seem to know some pretty messed up people.
I smoke weed every now and then (ok I use a vaporiser because tobacco smoke makes me feel ill), I go to the pub every now and then with my friends to try new ales and whiskeys, occasionally I even get drunk. In the past I've done ketamine, ecstasy and other club drugs but that was in my 'reckless youth', the whole point of which is to make mistakes to turn you into a fully functioning adult who can make educated decisions (and no I dont think taking drugs was a mistake, I just took too much because I was too young to know better).
I'm also doing a masters degree in physics, my project is modelling collisions from CERN, I also go climbing 3 times a week with friends and enjoy cooking, I know my films and used to play in a band so have a nice social circle there, I have a wide group of friends and I honestly cant think of many people who dont think I'm a nice, sociable guy.
I've met people who sit there telling me that all drugs are bad and they look down on people who do them (whilst they're getting drunk on some god aweful cheap vodka), every single one I've spoken to hasnt tried drugs, at all, they just spout the same nonsense again and again about it killing your brain and turning into a loser or becoming addicted and ruining your life, I even point out the hypocrisy of them drinking to them but they just say the most unbelievably condescending things about alcohol being easy to control and other drugs (which they havent tried) being dangerous and snaring you in the blink of an eye, the best is when they go out for a smoke after the conversation and I just sit there face palming.
The most well rounded people I know have all tried drugs, some still do them from time to time, others dont, thats not the point though, the point is people with overly negative opinions on drugs are the ones who have had no exposure to them directly, its exactly the same as 'violent video games' as gamers we all know games are fine, if you play too much you do turn a bit anitsocial and get a bit angry at life.
On October 17 2011 22:34 Thrill wrote: Ok, let's stipulate that drug addicts are a "minority".
If so, are there any other minorities that share the characteristic "untrustworthy"?
It's prejudice, sure - against the few exceptions, but have you ever met a junkie you can trust? They live in a different world to the rest of us. Things we value, they don't - they'd sell off almost anything to fuel their addiction.
I'm not talking about recreational users, i'm talking about the group of people you've mentioned here - active habitual drug users.
Sentimental affection, appreciation of the little things, profound love and mutual attraction. All things that define our very humanity. For a junkie all of that is great, but to them the beauty of life is diminished in comparison to chasing the total stimulation of the ultimate high.
Btw OP, do you discriminate against members of cults? Like, religious sects? Mao called religion 'an opium for the people' and in many ways i agree. If the state religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism) in their most common forms are the Alcohol and Tobacco of the religious world, heavy drug use (Heroin, Crack, Meth) would equal fanatical religious extremism.
Would you not discriminate against fundamentalists, even if their beliefs had no "victims" other than the practitioners themselves?
Meh,.. Stupid and doomed thread.
Karl Marx: "Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man—state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo." Emphasis mine.
If religion is the opium of the people, then philosophy is the marijuana of the lunatic fringe.
On October 17 2011 22:21 Tincuradan wrote: So, the basic question before the United Nations is: Can we trust humanity with its own destiny?
Aside from everything else in your post, which was thought provoking cause it was all arguments I've never heard, though I'm still trying to figure it out because you were pretty rambling, I'm looking at this line and wondering.
Did you just beat Dues Ex Human Revolution?
Edit:
On October 17 2011 22:51 adwodon wrote:
I smoke weed every now and then (ok I use a vaporiser because tobacco smoke makes me feel ill), I go to the pub every now and then with my friends to try new ales and whiskeys, occasionally I even get drunk. In the past I've done ketamine, ecstasy and other club drugs but that was in my 'reckless youth', the whole point of which is to make mistakes to turn you into a fully functioning adult who can make educated decisions (and no I dont think taking drugs was a mistake, I just took too much because I was too young to know better).
So I've been wondering about this as well. In the US ketamine is pretty commonly accepted as a very dangerous drug on almost the level of heroin, or at least on the level of heavy perscription opiate abuse (though they are different drugs in many ways, they are liked and used by the same groups). But in a lot of posts here (mostly from the UK) it has been referred to as a party drug. I've been around K and it wasn't pretty - do Americans have a much higher accepted dose or something? Or does the UK party that much harder? Seeing it compared to ecstasy is really confusing for me.
If one of my friends tells me they use illegal drugs, I would try to convince them to stop before they got addicted. If they are already addicted, It would really depend on how much of a friend this person is. If they are a friend that I have a long history with etc, then I will take helping them a step further, but if it is just a friend I met at school less than a year ago, I will just ignore it
The only problem I have with people having prejudice is that the majority think that,if you are a recreational pot smoker,you're bound to switch to Heroin some day. When I hear something like that my face expression turns into a reditt rage comic figure.
People on both sides of this "argument" are speaking far too absolutely about how people should adopt their world view. Why not just own the fact that you have your own world view? I don't partake in drugs or smoking. I do drink. I'm not going to want to be friends with people that are heavy smokers or that do drugs. Why? Because I don't want to be in the situations where I have to deal with that to hang out with them. It's not necessarily because of what those substances do to the person or because of what the Government says or does not say about those substances, but it's a personal preference.
So, if I find out that someone is using drugs or smokes, then I do automatically think less of them. Not so much in a judgmental "ugh you're not a good person" kind of way, but in a "meh, I don't really want to hang out with you a lot" kind of way. Same way that if I meet someone who says they hate video games but adores hunting and fishing, then I am instantly a little more turned off by that person, even in a friendship. I think that's natural and fair.
Of course, this doesn't apply to people that you have an existing relationship with. Obviously I'm not disowning my family members that smoke or don't like video games. But with friends and acquaintances? Why not? Like so many people have said in this thread "who does it hurt?" I'm who I am. I have preferences and deal-breakers just as you have preferences and deal-breakers. Just as we preach to our children that they shouldn't change who they are to make people like them, we shouldn't tell ourselves to change ourselves to make ourselves like other people.
On October 17 2011 22:21 Tincuradan wrote: So, the basic question before the United Nations is: Can we trust humanity with its own destiny?
Aside from everything else in your post, which was thought provoking cause it was all arguments I've never heard, though I'm still trying to figure it out because you were pretty rambling, I'm looking at this line and wondering.
Did you just beat Dues Ex Human Revolution?
A a matter of fact I haven't, but I have a similar beard. I was into transhumanism before it was cool...
Now that I think about it, it has always been cool.
I do keep editing, it should be a little clearer. Rambling is sometimes the most accurate way to approximate the complexity of the situation. Also, it's so much fun :D
Yes, I will say to you, why smoke at all if you know full well that you are funding criminals? And you said that you need to back up on stuff like buying new clothes and not taking airplanes? Clothes are a necessity of life. Travel by air is a necessity for people who do business or work overseas. They are necessary evils, from what you describe them.
Because i believe that even though im funding criminals (not anymore since i found the local dealer) its still not worse than what other people are doing. Clothes are a necessity of life? Sure, but honestly, does the average joe really need six pairs of pants? Does ANY girl need three pairs of shoes? Is there any legit reason why someone should own 10 different T-shirts?
If people really only bought clothes because they are a necessity of life, i'd agree with you, but thats not the situation. People but clothes to look good, to fit in, and because we live in an extremely materialistic culture. The harm done by marijuana isn't even remotely close to the damage and suffering caused by our greedy lust for cheap products we dont really need. So with 80% of the world being completely oblivious to this, why the hell should i feel bad for "funding" criminals by ocassionally purchasing a couple of grams of weed from someone?
But you smoking weed or not is totally not a necessity. And you chose to smoke weed. And you said you are forced to help criminals because the state made weed illegal (ie, not your fault, its the law's fault).
Nope, people smoking tobacco costs society millions each year because of the health problems caused by tobacco. With alcohol its even worse and add to that all the violence, crime and abuse caused by alcohol. But these two substances are most certainly not a necessity of life. People could choose to not smoke or drink, but they dont. Do you think these people are better than marijuana smokers?
And I noticed that you said you buy your weed from your friend who grows his own weed from home. No ties to criminal elements. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I have no problem with that. I just don't agree with the concept that buying drugs = flying in aeroplanes to SEA countries = buying clothes = equal amounts of sin. No, buying and using drugs is disproportionately more sinful compared to the other two, and can be totally avoided if you choose to.
Sorry but you're wrong, when you're flying to for example Thailand to spend a week on vacation with your family you are supporting the exploitation of the locals and their land as well as using a means of transport that causes great damage to the ecosystem. I have no idea how this seems more harmless than buying and smoking some weed every now and then to you but anyone with isn't biased would immediately recognise the sooner to be more inhuman than the latter.
On October 17 2011 23:12 Arctocod wrote: I think it's perfectly fine to discriminate against people who break the law.
And I'd never hire a drug user, even if very qualified for the job.
About a 100 years ago it was illegal for women to vote in Sweden, so a women attempting to vote was basically commiting an act of crime. Would you say the men who discriminated women back then did something that was justified? I mean according to your logic, seeing as it was written in the law, what they did was perfectly fine.
On October 17 2011 23:12 Arctocod wrote: I think it's perfectly fine to discriminate against people who break the law.
And I'd never hire a drug user, even if very qualified for the job.
About a 100 years ago it was illegal for women to vote in Sweden, so a women attempting to vote was basically commiting an act of crime. Would you say the men who discriminated women back then did something that was justified? I mean according to your logic, seeing as it was written in the law, what they did was perfectly fine.
Also you're a narrowminded, discriminating jerk.
yes, I would absolutely attempt to stop the woman voting. I have no problem with people fighting to legalize drugs, as I am very glad women fought to gain their voting rights.
If you think drugs should be legalized, you should fight for it, I respect you for that. Until drugs are legal, you should not use them. If drug use became legal, I would consider hiring a drug user.
I am very offended by you calling me a jerk for being against breaking the law.
Drug use as in casual use shouldn't sway your opinion of a person, drug abuse should as it is almost always accompanied by psychological problems. As far as hiring goes, what someone does on their weekend is their own business as far as I am concerned. If they come in completely fucked up though, or have a history of doing so then yeah I can see why people wouldn't hire them, but the same is true for alcohol use.
As far as people who smoke pot breaking the law, its not actually true, its illegal to have marijuana in your possession (1 gram and over in Canada, so a single .5 joint is legal) and it is illegal to distribute it, but not illegal to use it.
yes, I would absolutely attempt to stop the woman voting. I have no problem with people fighting to legalize drugs, as I am very glad women fought to gain their voting rights.
If you think drugs should be legalized, you should fight for it, I respect you for that. Until drugs are legal, you should not use them. If drug use became legal, I would consider hiring a drug user.
You're basically saying that no matter how wrong something is, you would follow it if it was the law.
Have you ever considered actually thinking on your own?
I am very offended by you calling me a jerk for being against breaking the law.
And im offended by you ruling out so many people you have never met because of something someone decided over 80 years ago. If you would do some thinking for yourself, you would realize that there's nothing wrong with most people who smoke weed, its the law thats wrong.
On October 17 2011 23:22 Hipsv wrote: Drug use as in casual use shouldn't sway your opinion of a person, drug abuse should as it is almost always accompanied by psychological problems. As far as hiring goes, what someone does on their weekend is their own business as far as I am concerned. If they come in completely fucked up though, or have a history of doing so then yeah I can see why people wouldn't hire them, but the same is true for alcohol use.
As far as people who smoke pot breaking the law, its not actually true, its illegal to have marijuana in your possession (1 gram and over in Canada, so a single .5 joint is legal) and it is illegal to distribute it, but not illegal to use it.
Seeing as how you can't use something if you don't have it (at least, that logic is pretty much solid in the United States, I don't know how it works in Canada), it's pretty much illegal to possess pot.
(I don't like the fact that it's illegal, but it's illegal.)
On October 17 2011 23:12 Arctocod wrote: I think it's perfectly fine to discriminate against people who break the law.
And I'd never hire a drug user, even if very qualified for the job.
About a 100 years ago it was illegal for women to vote in Sweden, so a women attempting to vote was basically commiting an act of crime. Would you say the men who discriminated women back then did something that was justified? I mean according to your logic, seeing as it was written in the law, what they did was perfectly fine.
Also you're a narrowminded, discriminating jerk.
yes, I would absolutely attempt to stop the woman voting. I have no problem with people fighting to legalize drugs, as I am very glad women fought to gain their voting rights.
If you think drugs should be legalized, you should fight for it, I respect you for that. Until drugs are legal, you should not use them. If drug use became legal, I would consider hiring a drug user.
I am very offended by you calling me a jerk for being against breaking the law.
wat
As if you don't know it's wrong for women to be suppressed? By that same logic you would have staunchly supported slavery. Might be an extreme but it's logically consistent with what you're saying here
as many have said before me in this thread recreational use of pot is totally different than a serious drug addiction. I don't think we should be prejudice, or look down on people because of anything. That being said it is up to every individual to want to be around those type of people or not. There choice. But I think serious drugs, ie cocain, heroin, pcp, meth etc etc should be treated like a health issue. You are addicted to something that can kill you at some point if you keep using it on a regular basis. yes there are people who are addicted to weed I think, but it's a psycological addiction that could have been anything from alchohol to cocaine that they cling to. So be glad it's only weed. Yes people who SELL weed can get you into bad places, or being reckless when having it in public can get you into trouble because it's illegal. but there aren't any effects that a normal addiction has, like withdrawl symptoms.
I feel like we shouldn't look down on people because they have a drug issue. Now I don't like to surround myself with heroin addicts, but I know a few of them and I always am willing to help them in any way I can as long as it's something that is going to benefit them, like staying at my house because they don't want to be around there normal friends because they are heroin junkies and my friend is trying to get clean. Or help with a ride to look for a job, or to a clinic.
Just don't judge people on there problems, as a lot of us have issues quite severe we do not want to talk or think about. Most junkies I know are good people. Great and talented people, who made a few wrong choices and have a REALLY hard time correcting those choices. I've seen people going through heroin withdrawl, and it is fucking insane.
The problem with laws is that they make the world black and white. This is why we have judges to evaluate things on a case-by-case basis.
Like, if I got a new job and one week down the line a coworker tells me, "Me and Derp love to smoke a joint at his house every other Friday night", I wouldn't have any problem with that because they do it in private (assuming there is nobody in his house at the time) and it wouldn't make them worse workers because they do it over the weekend.
im honestly kinda ashamed at the response to this thread it does seem like there is bigotry against drug users of all types whether or not it affects there usefulness to society. As a occasional cannabis nicotine and alcohol user who is also a functioning member of society. (graduated college working full time since im 21 own my own home etc at 24) I think people should really take a better look at what drug they are "abusing" and how it is affecting them. Like most normal people il steer well away from pill or meth-heads but in my opinion smoking pot is probably less detrimental then say an INTERNET or GAMING ADICTION....
On October 17 2011 23:12 Arctocod wrote: I think it's perfectly fine to discriminate against people who break the law.
And I'd never hire a drug user, even if very qualified for the job.
About a 100 years ago it was illegal for women to vote in Sweden, so a women attempting to vote was basically commiting an act of crime. Would you say the men who discriminated women back then did something that was justified? I mean according to your logic, seeing as it was written in the law, what they did was perfectly fine.
Also you're a narrowminded, discriminating jerk.
yes, I would absolutely attempt to stop the woman voting. I have no problem with people fighting to legalize drugs, as I am very glad women fought to gain their voting rights.
If you think drugs should be legalized, you should fight for it, I respect you for that. Until drugs are legal, you should not use them. If drug use became legal, I would consider hiring a drug user.
I am very offended by you calling me a jerk for being against breaking the law.
I have never used drugs but i think it's a sign of good character.
Shows a person isn't a slave to tradition and can make up his own mind.
They type of drug user that I'd run into and associate with that I would prefer avoid would be a grower/dealer. I'm paranoid of the extra attention they would attract compared to a casual user.
I don't really buy the victimless crime thing. I mean, I suppose they are likely not hurting anyone physically, but even the 'lightest' drugs do damage to relationships.
I had a friend who I used to hang out with regularly start smoking pot and eventually it got to the point where we would plan to hang out and he would say,"Yeah, I'll call you when I'm off work." and never call. I knew some of the guys he worked with and he was basically getting high with them after work. This happened every week during that summer and now we've only seen each other on the bus three or four times in almost 2 years. He recently told me that he felt bad about ignoring me all that time, but we've still never hung out.
The same thing happened to a friend I graduated with. She started smoking pot and all she would do for a while is smoke and hang out with people who did too. She kind of just stopped trying to hang out with me and now I haven't seen her in a few months.
As much as people who smoke pot want to rant about how it isn't addictive and it isn't bad for you at all, it sure seemed to addict them. Also, I wasn't being judgmental to them at all. I never confronted them harshly about it. I only politely refused to smoke with them once or twice, and since then they were just uninterested in me at all and I've known them for years.
I don't have a problem with people who use drugs (I'm a stoner after all)... I have a problem with people who can't handle their drugs. Those folks are welcome targets for ridicule. When a friend of mine who claims to have done most drugs known to man starts tripping balls in my basement off half a joint, I'm going to call him a pussy for it. Discrimination or not, some stuff just begs for social mockery.
As for the whole "pot addiction" thing: Physically, no, it's not. Habitually, yes, it is. I smoke pot when I get bored, not because I "get the shakes" or anything like that. It's an addiction based on how fun it is. Pot addicts are about as unadjusted as people who masturbate... which I'm pretty sure is 99% of the population. They do it because it feels good.
first off, i dont like to be around ppl who are prejudiced against recreational druguse because it gives me bad trips. furthermore i would opine that ppl who would stop women voting because it is against the law should not be allowed to vote. in the following text when i refer to drugs i talk about any substance that will influence your mind and body beyond just simple food or water intake. i think one of the problems of the whole discussion is that what you hear about drugs growing up is mostly negative and hardly ever will someone be sincere with you about the potential pleasures and risks. the risks are frequently exagerated (except for maybe alcohol, where sometimes ppl understate the dangers) and the positive effects of drugs (yes, most do have positive effects as well) are not talked about if the drug is not allowed by the state. so most ppl grow up do be prejudiced against drug and hardly ever educate themselves about them. this is all good and fine as long as you want to be abstinent for your whole life and only surround yourself with ppl who are the same, but chances are you will meet recreational drug users and like some of them so educating oneself about drugs is a very good idea. if you know people who u like use drugs you should most definetly know a little about them, so you can judge wether the person needs help or if you are even capable of helping. most drug users are not addicts and are not immediately in danger to become addicts (except for maybe chrystal or heroin, but even with these drugs there are mentally healthy recreational users). if you know a little bit about how various drugs work, you know longer have to be prejudiced against ppl and can possibly help people who you like and who seem to be falling into bad habits.
Why can't it be my choice whether or not I choose to associate with people who drink alcohol/do drugs? I don't do either of those things, and I don't care to be around people that do. Does that make me a bad person?
Listen, there are lots of people out there that have a substance abuse problem (consider it a disease, whatever, it's an addiction that's beyond an addiction). The word prejudice is wrong in this situation. Pity and words related are what you want to feel for these people.
On the flip side, there are plenty of people who can function in society while frequently using/abusing drugs.
Addiction is a warped, baffling and powerful thing, and it doesn't just apply to drugs. Don't 'judge' someone based on their drug use alone because that's always a very small part of who they are.
On October 18 2011 00:01 RoosterSamurai wrote: Why can't it be my choice whether or not I choose to associate with people who drink alcohol/do drugs? I don't do either of those things, and I don't care to be around people that do. Does that make me a bad person?
On October 17 2011 23:54 stimdm4 wrote: first off, i dont like to be around ppl who are prejudiced against recreational druguse because it gives me bad trips. furthermore i would opine that ppl who would stop women voting because it is against the law should not be allowed to vote. in the following text when i refer to drugs i talk about any substance that will influence your mind and body beyond just simple food or water intake. i think one of the problems of the whole discussion is that what you hear about drugs growing up is mostly negative and hardly ever will someone be sincere with you about the potential pleasures and risks. the risks are frequently exagerated (except for maybe alcohol, where sometimes ppl understate the dangers) and the positive effects of drugs (yes, most do have positive effects as well) are not talked about if the drug is not allowed by the state. so most ppl grow up do be prejudiced against drug and hardly ever educate themselves about them. this is all good and fine as long as you want to be abstinent for your whole life and only surround yourself with ppl who are the same, but chances are you will meet recreational drug users and like some of them so educating oneself about drugs is a very good idea. if you know people who u like use drugs you should most definetly know a little about them, so you can judge wether the person needs help or if you are even capable of helping. most drug users are not addicts and are not immediately in danger to become addicts (except for maybe chrystal or heroin, but even with these drugs there are mentally healthy recreational users). if you know a little bit about how various drugs work, you know longer have to be prejudiced against ppl and can possibly help people who you like and who seem to be falling into bad habits.
word! whats wrong popping some mdma on fridays when its only 5 times a year ? anyone who has everbeen inlove like headoverheels knows the feeling u will have when popping mdma! all natural. im am addicted to sc2, it gives me a rush and i love it. second edit dont think pot would not lead to an (dont know the english term) addiction that affects ure body. everyone who smokes pot can feel it on the day after, when u feel kind of tired. its not the mind that feels tired but ure body. everyone who smokes pot on a daylie base and stops will have sleepless nights sweating like shit for the next 3 weeks.
Yes, I will say to you, why smoke at all if you know full well that you are funding criminals? And you said that you need to back up on stuff like buying new clothes and not taking airplanes? Clothes are a necessity of life. Travel by air is a necessity for people who do business or work overseas. They are necessary evils, from what you describe them.
Because i believe that even though im funding criminals (not anymore since i found the local dealer) its still not worse than what other people are doing. Clothes are a necessity of life? Sure, but honestly, does the average joe really need six pairs of pants? Does ANY girl need three pairs of shoes? Is there any legit reason why someone should own 10 different T-shirts?
If people really only bought clothes because they are a necessity of life, i'd agree with you, but thats not the situation. People but clothes to look good, to fit in, and because we live in an extremely materialistic culture. The harm done by marijuana isn't even remotely close to the damage and suffering caused by our greedy lust for cheap products we dont really need. So with 80% of the world being completely oblivious to this, why the hell should i feel bad for "funding" criminals by ocassionally purchasing a couple of grams of weed from someone?
But you smoking weed or not is totally not a necessity. And you chose to smoke weed. And you said you are forced to help criminals because the state made weed illegal (ie, not your fault, its the law's fault).
Nope, people smoking tobacco costs society millions each year because of the health problems caused by tobacco. With alcohol its even worse and add to that all the violence, crime and abuse caused by alcohol. But these two substances are most certainly not a necessity of life. People could choose to not smoke or drink, but they dont. Do you think these people are better than marijuana smokers?
And I noticed that you said you buy your weed from your friend who grows his own weed from home. No ties to criminal elements. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I have no problem with that. I just don't agree with the concept that buying drugs = flying in aeroplanes to SEA countries = buying clothes = equal amounts of sin. No, buying and using drugs is disproportionately more sinful compared to the other two, and can be totally avoided if you choose to.
Sorry but you're wrong, when you're flying to for example Thailand to spend a week on vacation with your family you are supporting the exploitation of the locals and their land as well as using a means of transport that causes great damage to the ecosystem. I have no idea how this seems more harmless than buying and smoking some weed every now and then to you but anyone with isn't biased would immediately recognise the sooner to be more inhuman than the latter.
Let's not be sidetracked here. I did not say alcoholics and smokers are better than marijuana users.
To be clear, all I'm saying: Person A: Buys new clothes, takes airplane to Thailand, drives cars. Person B: Buys new clothes, takes airplane to Thailand, drives cars, smokes weed.
And you are claiming that person A is as bad as person B. That's where I disagree. I think that person B is worse than person A when it comes to damage done to society. If I were person B, I will strive to be person A and drop the weed habit. Does that make sense?
And don't talk about Tincurandan's opinion here (his reply to me only). He is talking about the issue of legalizing weed, and he has a valid point. Not relevant here though.
People on both sides of this "argument" are speaking far too absolutely about how people should adopt their world view. Why not just own the fact that you have your own world view? I don't partake in drugs or smoking. I do drink. I'm not going to want to be friends with people that are heavy smokers or that do drugs. Why? Because I don't want to be in the situations where I have to deal with that to hang out with them. It's not necessarily because of what those substances do to the person or because of what the Government says or does not say about those substances, but it's a personal preference.
Basically this is my opinion on this prejudice issue.
On October 17 2011 23:22 Hipsv wrote: Drug use as in casual use shouldn't sway your opinion of a person, drug abuse should as it is almost always accompanied by psychological problems. As far as hiring goes, what someone does on their weekend is their own business as far as I am concerned. If they come in completely fucked up though, or have a history of doing so then yeah I can see why people wouldn't hire them, but the same is true for alcohol use.
As far as people who smoke pot breaking the law, its not actually true, its illegal to have marijuana in your possession (1 gram and over in Canada, so a single .5 joint is legal) and it is illegal to distribute it, but not illegal to use it.
Seeing as how you can't use something if you don't have it (at least, that logic is pretty much solid in the United States, I don't know how it works in Canada), it's pretty much illegal to possess pot.
(I don't like the fact that it's illegal, but it's illegal.)
Nah you can have under a gram in Canada which is plenty for a non regular user to get high if the solo smoke it. Especially if they are skinny.
well when studies say 46% of usa people (and rest of world is like 10-20%) used weed, this would make half of usa unliked
for me i think it often makes it more positive in case of weed etc since they are not that "steril" guys but if its like heroin kokain etc it rly makes my oppinion so bad i not wanna be in tuch with them
so soft drugs HEY and hard drugs MEH xD
for me personal, the persons i know who consume like weed normaly are more relaxed
I didn't read all 20 pages here. I'm a terrible person.
I have absolutely no problem with people who smoke weed. I have absolutely no problem with people who drink. But when it becomes part of who you are, rather than what you do occasionally, then I'll pre-judge the SHIT out of you... And the tricky part with drugs and alcohol is that it's pretty much impossible to tell when that happens yourself.
On October 17 2011 23:22 Hipsv wrote: Drug use as in casual use shouldn't sway your opinion of a person, drug abuse should as it is almost always accompanied by psychological problems. As far as hiring goes, what someone does on their weekend is their own business as far as I am concerned. If they come in completely fucked up though, or have a history of doing so then yeah I can see why people wouldn't hire them, but the same is true for alcohol use.
As far as people who smoke pot breaking the law, its not actually true, its illegal to have marijuana in your possession (1 gram and over in Canada, so a single .5 joint is legal) and it is illegal to distribute it, but not illegal to use it.
Seeing as how you can't use something if you don't have it (at least, that logic is pretty much solid in the United States, I don't know how it works in Canada), it's pretty much illegal to possess pot.
(I don't like the fact that it's illegal, but it's illegal.)
Nah you can have under a gram in Canada which is plenty for a non regular user to get high if the solo smoke it. Especially if they are skinny.
Regular user or no, if you smoke a gram and don't get high, something is wrong.
On October 17 2011 23:50 Virtue wrote: I don't really buy the victimless crime thing. I mean, I suppose they are likely not hurting anyone physically, but even the 'lightest' drugs do damage to relationships.
I had a friend who I used to hang out with regularly start smoking pot and eventually it got to the point where we would plan to hang out and he would say,"Yeah, I'll call you when I'm off work." and never call. I knew some of the guys he worked with and he was basically getting high with them after work. This happened every week during that summer and now we've only seen each other on the bus three or four times in almost 2 years. He recently told me that he felt bad about ignoring me all that time, but we've still never hung out.
The same thing happened to a friend I graduated with. She started smoking pot and all she would do for a while is smoke and hang out with people who did too. She kind of just stopped trying to hang out with me and now I haven't seen her in a few months.
As much as people who smoke pot want to rant about how it isn't addictive and it isn't bad for you at all, it sure seemed to addict them. Also, I wasn't being judgmental to them at all. I never confronted them harshly about it. I only politely refused to smoke with them once or twice, and since then they were just uninterested in me at all and I've known them for years.
Damn right it addicts. But scratching your head addicts. Playing a game addicts, being around special people addicts. A diet addicts. Excercise addicts. Sex addicts.
Addiction is more normal than asceticism. Most animals have one foodsource, and they're addicted to it, they can't even process something else. Addiction to behaviour pattern is called learing, and when it's usefull it's called skill.
And being sad addicts. being angry addicts. Having new ideas addicts. Being lazy addicts. Even moderation addicts.
It's simply a property of the brain, the more some structure is used, the more powerful it becomes.
We have the power to change our life, to snap out of it and go be who we "really" wanted to be. But that doesn't mean we should all drop everything, head up onto the mountain and eat berries and water.
I do drugs, dont care if you do drugs. if you have problems however drugs arent usually going to help you fix them, having addictions at rough times of life is actually not fun Balance is the key I believe, its stupid to get high all day long just like its stupid to munch on food all day long. I try to make up for some of my bad habits by having some good ones like I dont eat rubbish and try to keep as active as I can with sports and consider myself reasonably fit
On October 18 2011 00:01 RoosterSamurai wrote: Why can't it be my choice whether or not I choose to associate with people who drink alcohol/do drugs? I don't do either of those things, and I don't care to be around people that do. Does that make me a bad person?
of course it's your choice. this thread is about how it may be an unnecessary choice, based on much misinformation.
On October 17 2011 23:50 Virtue wrote: I don't really buy the victimless crime thing. I mean, I suppose they are likely not hurting anyone physically, but even the 'lightest' drugs do damage to relationships.
I had a friend who I used to hang out with regularly start smoking pot and eventually it got to the point where we would plan to hang out and he would say,"Yeah, I'll call you when I'm off work." and never call. I knew some of the guys he worked with and he was basically getting high with them after work. This happened every week during that summer and now we've only seen each other on the bus three or four times in almost 2 years. He recently told me that he felt bad about ignoring me all that time, but we've still never hung out.
The same thing happened to a friend I graduated with. She started smoking pot and all she would do for a while is smoke and hang out with people who did too. She kind of just stopped trying to hang out with me and now I haven't seen her in a few months.
As much as people who smoke pot want to rant about how it isn't addictive and it isn't bad for you at all, it sure seemed to addict them. Also, I wasn't being judgmental to them at all. I never confronted them harshly about it. I only politely refused to smoke with them once or twice, and since then they were just uninterested in me at all and I've known them for years.
your relationship with these people was damaged, but it seems that they each have an enjoyable group of friends now. you can see look at it is two people you thought of highly thinking highly of weed, too (no pun intended). i am cool with people who don't smoke because they don't like it (best reason to not smoke), but in general it's just kind of weird to have someone who just sits there and watches you during a group bonding activity, like getting high. have you ever considered trying it?
I lives in a country which forces schoolchildren to take Ritalin if they bounce in their chairs, pushes Zoloft on them if they get a piece of dust in their eye and shed a momentary tear, routinely kills its senior citizens by overprescribing drugs until the fucking side effects KO them, spends millions of dollars convincing you to ask your doctor for cholesterol-lowering drugs that will eat your liver and yet have no proven value in extending your life, gives teenagers meds that make them kill themselves, has prescribed antiobiotics like candy until lethal flesh-eating bacteria are evolving like a 21st century plague, has a Starbucks on every fucking corner, sells more Viagra than books, is dumping chemicals in the water and food until you can grow breasts from drinking tap water or eating a hamburger there are so many hormones and yet - yet it has a fucking hissy fit if someone with incurable fucking cancer smokes a goddamn joint! And so on and so forth. Hopefully that was suitably outraged.
Let's not be sidetracked here. I did not say alcoholics and smokers are better than marijuana users.
To be clear, all I'm saying: Person A: Buys new clothes, takes airplane to Thailand, drives cars. Person B: Buys new clothes, takes airplane to Thailand, drives cars, smokes weed.
And you are claiming that person A is as bad as person B. That's where I disagree. I think that person B is worse than person A when it comes to damage done to society. If I were person B, I will strive to be person A and drop the weed habit. Does that make sense?
Im person C, i dont take airplanes to thailand, i go by bus or train as often as i can and i very rarely drink. I do smoke weed. Am i still worse than person A? If you were person B, why do you drop the weed habbit instead of avoiding unnecessary trips to SEA? If its just a personal preference sure do whatever you please, but you cant use the argument "they're funding drug dealers" to justify your criticism against people who smoke weed because then you'd have to critisize so many other things to avoid being a hypocrite.
How is it normal that anyone can go see a doctor tell them they hate life and that gives them and instant access to drugs which are acceptable by societly? those same drugs they can later on sell to their friends who are too lazy to get their own prescriptions.
On October 18 2011 00:20 Valentine wrote: Almost all of my best friends are druggies. Funny how they ended up being more genuine than most other people I know.
same. i'm constantly astounded by how every pot user i meet is very honest and unapologetic. of course like in the general population we have shady ass potheads, but most i would say embrace really positive but sometimes stupid hippie values.
On October 18 2011 00:25 QuackPocketDuck wrote: How is it normal that anyone can go see a doctor tell them they hate life and that gives them and instant access to drugs which are acceptable by societly? those same drugs they can later on sell to their friends who are too lazy to get their own prescriptions.
i wrote this whole long thing about how i agree, and how extremely popular drugs have side effects hilariously worse than weed (advil, alcohol, nicotine, adderall). then i remembered that evangelizing marijuana still carries a stigma and people won't believe me anyway. these kinds of things you sorta have to find out for yourself, people! google that shit
I used to be an asshole to smokers in high school, but now that I'm in college I don't really give a damn. I'd rather hangout with someone who doesn't though, because if I'm hanging out with them I don't want to wait for them for a smoke break/I dislike the smell.
Im scared of drug users since i was kid they always looked dangerous ;(I remember as a kid after handshake with drug addict running home and washing hands like crazy to not get aids or somethink lol
On October 18 2011 00:20 Valentine wrote: Almost all of my best friends are druggies. Funny how they ended up being more genuine than most other people I know.
same. i'm constantly astounded by how every pot user i meet is very honest and unapologetic. of course like in the general population we have shady ass potheads, but most i would say embrace really positive but sometimes stupid hippie values.
When you're high (I'll speak to pot specifically) you generally don't care to deal with the bullshitting that comes with most of every day life.
I myself have gotten over some pretty heavy drug issues, and for most people it is almost never as cut and dry as 'X shouldn't do it. X should just stop."
I don't condone daily speedballs or getting to the point where you're smoking crack in a public washroom; but I think it's excessively immature to judge someone for trying/using drugs; especially ones that do not interfere with their day to day life (ie cigarettes, casual marijuana or alcohol consumption)
Depends on what drug - yeah I'll look down on a meth or heroine user.
Somewhat on etards, although I've done e once myself for the experience, although I had a really weak effect.
Weed? That's laughable. If you have a stigma against weed you're either still in high school, are super super sheltered, or have been exposed to a LOT of deadbeats and associate weed with why they are deadbeats.
Everyone has prejudice against everything. Everyone judges people before they know the people. There are positive prejudice (prejudices?) and negative as well. You can't get away from it, it's something that has helped us survive all of the thousands of years that we as a species has existed.
Being able to quickly judge how dangerous something/someone is just by their appearances has been something useful. I fully understand that today it's something bad, something that hinders more than helps but I don't understand why people just fully ignore it. Accept your prejudice because you will always have it.
I am not saying that racists, homophobes, sexists and the like should just keep on doing what they're doing but it's hard to near impossible to immediately change your perception of people.
Instead, when you meet a new person, think about what your thoughts about the person are. Does the way (s)he dresses impact your first impression somewhat? His way of talking? His way of moving? If so, why?
I am the first to admit that I have tons of racist tendencies that pop up when I first see someone new. Mostly about people with other skin color than I but I have them for white people as well. I also have prejudice against old people, girls with a lot of make-up, guys with shaved heads, girls with shaved heads, people with tattoos, people with piercings.
I have all of that prejudice but since I am very much aware of them I can ignore them more easily. People keep talking about racism and other kinds of prejudice like you can just ignore it. As if it's something that's not programmed into our very primitive parts of the brain. It irritates me greatly.
I could go on about this much longer but I'd just wish people calmed the fuck down about all this prejudice. It's there, it's going to be there for many years to come and it will probably never go away. Prejudice has kept us alive thus far and it will keep us alive in the future as well.
It can be good and it can be bad. I guess it's mostly bad these days but it's there. Deal with it and stop whining.
On October 17 2011 11:28 TheLOLas wrote: I suppose that if someone tells me that they use drugs ( such as pot, meth, crack, or anything else ) i wouldn't want to be around them. and therefore I would be prejudiced.
Do you think it's prejudice? Or do you somehow justify not wanting to be around them?
If I said "I don't want to be around Mike because he's black," that's wrong. If I say "I don't want to be around Mike because he smokes pot," is that just as bad?
He can change being a pot head.
What about in the case of psychological or even physiological dependence on a drug? He sure can't stop then. Still not prejudice?
Please be aware I'm just curious what people think, not arguing one way or another.
On October 17 2011 11:32 Kingsp4de20 wrote: Yet to meet some one I respect or look up to who is a serious user...The people I have known who were addicts were pretty flaky and untrustworthy.
That's interesting. Does your history with flaky and untrustworthy addicts give you ground on which it's okay to judge other users?
I feel that it does, I knew them before they decided to become users and after. I can say from my own experience that it definitively changers a person.
Let me ask you this would you rather befriend a person who is powerless over a substance and will do whatever it takes to get high, or a person who doesn't have that issue and their actions are not unpredictable.
All depends on how they go about using. If they're the sort to go out after a few lines/whatever and cause shit, or to steal/harm others to feed an addiction then sure. They're dicks who deserve none of anyones time.
The sort of person who goes home after a long day at work/college/whatever and has a quiet spliff on their own/with a couple friends? Well whats so wrong with that?
I've grown up around drugs and drug users, all at varying levels and I can honestly say it all comes down to the person and how they go about it. So really, no. I don't think there should be a default go-to prejudice against drug users. I know people who smoke weed, enjoy their chemicals and are still hard working, respectible members of society who are great to be around and, if it wasn't for knowing them, wouldn't suspect of using at all. Just as how I know people who's only experience with drugs is alchohol, who're complete arseholes.
On October 18 2011 00:36 FabledIntegral wrote: Depends on what drug - yeah I'll look down on a meth or heroine user.
Somewhat on etards, although I've done e once myself for the experience, although I had a really weak effect.
Weed? That's laughable. If you have a stigma against weed you're either still in high school, are super super sheltered, or have been exposed to a LOT of deadbeats and associate weed with why they are deadbeats.
and on this thread this is very true, obviously depends what we are talking about here...
On October 17 2011 23:50 Virtue wrote: I don't really buy the victimless crime thing. I mean, I suppose they are likely not hurting anyone physically, but even the 'lightest' drugs do damage to relationships.
I had a friend who I used to hang out with regularly start smoking pot and eventually it got to the point where we would plan to hang out and he would say,"Yeah, I'll call you when I'm off work." and never call. I knew some of the guys he worked with and he was basically getting high with them after work. This happened every week during that summer and now we've only seen each other on the bus three or four times in almost 2 years. He recently told me that he felt bad about ignoring me all that time, but we've still never hung out.
The same thing happened to a friend I graduated with. She started smoking pot and all she would do for a while is smoke and hang out with people who did too. She kind of just stopped trying to hang out with me and now I haven't seen her in a few months.
As much as people who smoke pot want to rant about how it isn't addictive and it isn't bad for you at all, it sure seemed to addict them. Also, I wasn't being judgmental to them at all. I never confronted them harshly about it. I only politely refused to smoke with them once or twice, and since then they were just uninterested in me at all and I've known them for years.
Hallucinogens are freaking great. Very eye opening and spiritual. Amphetamines are also fantastic. I'm never as efficient as I am on Dexedrine. Need to clean my room, do math homework, and then run a marathon while smiling like a giddy 4 year old? Take amphetamines. Pot is fun to smoke with friends every once in a while.
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.
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.
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.
I think the shock is coming from the high number of posters with minimal experience with drugs/users putting everything onto the same plate as child killers.
Has made for both an amusing and rage inducing thread though. Suprised I haven't spotted the copypasta about the guys brother overdosing after injecting weed tbh.
I don't use anything anymore, but I can't really look down on anyone who uses any sort of drug. I guess I have a somewhat extensive list, but I never really changed from any of it. Looking back, a lot of it was stupid, but a lot of it also helped me learn a lot about life and myself.
Salvia, marijuana, shrooms, cocaine, amphetamines, mdma, 2c-i, dextromethorphan, diphenhydramine and n2o helped me learn a lot about myself. Who I really am deep down without inhibitions (stimulants, psychedelics) and understanding of reality, taking the steps 1 by 1 to re-learn how existence works (mostly focusing on DXM and salvia here)
Valium (and related benzos), alcohol, marijuana, helped me learn a lot about the world and people around me. Of course my regularly prescribed medications fall under this category as well.
Opiates, methamphetamine, cocaine, and n2o helped me a learn a lot about my weaknesses and highlight the worst aspects of my life, and everyone else's lives.
I guess I don't really have much of a message here other than some people can use, learn, understand, and move on. Drugs don't have to be a lifetime crutch, and my experiences have taught me a lot. I understand why someone would look down on me if I told them what I have done, but I also feel sympathy for them, as I know they will never understand what I have learned from my usage.
It's easy for an individual person to say that "My smoking/drinking/pot doesn't harm anyone", but in reality the costs to society are actually incredibly high.
Take smoking for example. Smoking is one of the leading causes for lung cancer. And treating cancer is seriously expensive. Same goes for alcohol of drugs. A month in rehab costs a lot, and that doesn't even account for the psychological damage for families, relatives and so on.
Personally for me, I will be prejudiced against a drug user, but that doesn't mean that that person can't convince me otherwise.
I have prejudice against people who are abstinent. Most of them are moralist bores who becrittle everything. Is this right? No, because I know enough people who are not like this, but most.
On October 18 2011 01:07 JPP wrote: It's easy for an individual person to say that "My smoking/drinking/pot doesn't harm anyone", but in reality the costs to society are actually incredibly high.
Take smoking for example. Smoking is one of the leading causes for lung cancer. And treating cancer is seriously expensive. Same goes for alcohol of drugs. A month in rehab costs a lot, and that doesn't even account for the psychological damage for families, relatives and so on.
Personally for me, I will be prejudiced against a drug user, but that doesn't mean that that person can't convince me otherwise.
That's like saying that people who eat fast food a lot and are obese have extremely high costs to society because they get heart attacks, etc. While it might be true, I can't really see it as a valid argument. And it's not like you aren't required to disclose that you're a smoker on your health insurance.
What people need to keep in mind when thinking of how they approach drug users (such as myself), is that drug use doesn't mean you're using it at every possible time you can. I smoke pot a couple times a month, enough that I'm definitely under the category of a drug user, but I feel safe in doing so because Massachusetts law has decriminalized pot to the point that it's an equal fine as littering. I know it's bad for my health to smoke, but moderation is the name of my game. I don't drink or smoke tobacco, and keep a relatively normal lifestyle. I'm not a stoner with constant bloodshot eyes, but I'm grouped together with one (and have many friends who are) if we're talking about drug users.
The big difference is highly functioning drug users, and hopelessly addicted drug users. I very much belong to the first one, and there's a ton of us out there who are. I'd feel pretty shitty if I were prejudiced against because what I choose to smoke was randomly decided by the government to be illegal, while not being significantly more detrimental to my health than tobacco would be.
I kind of see it as if the drug a person uses, whether it's alcohol, marijuana, whatever, is kind of like their favorite kind of soda. I'm not gonna think less of you if you prefer Pepsi over Coke (hehe), unless each time you take a sip of pepsi you turn to me and say "Hey, you're stupid-looking."
It's who a person is and how they act that makes them who they are, no matter what kind of drug they're on. I bet everyone here has interacted with someone that was technically on a drug or had just smoked a bunch of pot, and you walked away thinking only, "Hey, that kid was really nice, what a cool person." Who cares what they're on, if it doesn't matter.
On October 18 2011 01:07 JPP wrote: It's easy for an individual person to say that "My smoking/drinking/pot doesn't harm anyone", but in reality the costs to society are actually incredibly high.
Take smoking for example. Smoking is one of the leading causes for lung cancer. And treating cancer is seriously expensive. Same goes for alcohol of drugs. A month in rehab costs a lot, and that doesn't even account for the psychological damage for families, relatives and so on.
Personally for me, I will be prejudiced against a drug user, but that doesn't mean that that person can't convince me otherwise.
That's like saying that people who eat fast food a lot and are obese have extremely high costs to society because they get heart attacks, etc. While it might be true, I can't really see it as a valid argument. And it's not like you aren't required to disclose that you're a smoker on your health insurance.
It is a problem in countries with public health services. It's not like smokers pay more taxes than other people.
As for the obesity part, yes that is a problem as well. Over here it was actually being considered that people with lifestyle-caused diseases would be placed father back in the queue for medical attention.
On October 18 2011 01:07 JPP wrote: It's easy for an individual person to say that "My smoking/drinking/pot doesn't harm anyone", but in reality the costs to society are actually incredibly high.
Take smoking for example. Smoking is one of the leading causes for lung cancer. And treating cancer is seriously expensive. Same goes for alcohol of drugs. A month in rehab costs a lot, and that doesn't even account for the psychological damage for families, relatives and so on.
Personally for me, I will be prejudiced against a drug user, but that doesn't mean that that person can't convince me otherwise.
That's like saying that people who eat fast food a lot and are obese have extremely high costs to society because they get heart attacks, etc. While it might be true, I can't really see it as a valid argument. And it's not like you aren't required to disclose that you're a smoker on your health insurance.
It is a problem in countries with public health services. It's not like smokers pay more taxes than other people.
As for the obesity part, yes that is a problem as well. Over here it was actually being considered that people with lifestyle-caused diseases would be placed father back in the queue for medical attention.
At least around here, cigarettes are taxed an insane amount.
On October 18 2011 01:07 JPP wrote: It's easy for an individual person to say that "My smoking/drinking/pot doesn't harm anyone", but in reality the costs to society are actually incredibly high.
Take smoking for example. Smoking is one of the leading causes for lung cancer. And treating cancer is seriously expensive. Same goes for alcohol of drugs. A month in rehab costs a lot, and that doesn't even account for the psychological damage for families, relatives and so on.
Personally for me, I will be prejudiced against a drug user, but that doesn't mean that that person can't convince me otherwise.
That's like saying that people who eat fast food a lot and are obese have extremely high costs to society because they get heart attacks, etc. While it might be true, I can't really see it as a valid argument. And it's not like you aren't required to disclose that you're a smoker on your health insurance.
It is a problem in countries with public health services. It's not like smokers pay more taxes than other people.
As for the obesity part, yes that is a problem as well. Over here it was actually being considered that people with lifestyle-caused diseases would be placed father back in the queue for medical attention.
On October 17 2011 11:28 TheLOLas wrote: I suppose that if someone tells me that they use drugs ( such as pot, meth, crack, or anything else ) i wouldn't want to be around them. and therefore I would be prejudiced.
lol iv never heard of pot so casually compared to crack and meth. does caffeine count?
On October 18 2011 01:03 Valentine wrote: I don't use anything anymore, but I can't really look down on anyone who uses any sort of drug. I guess I have a somewhat extensive list, but I never really changed from any of it. Looking back, a lot of it was stupid, but a lot of it also helped me learn a lot about life and myself.
Salvia, marijuana, shrooms, cocaine, amphetamines, mdma, 2c-i, dextromethorphan, diphenhydramine and n2o helped me learn a lot about myself. Who I really am deep down without inhibitions (stimulants, psychedelics) and understanding of reality, taking the steps 1 by 1 to re-learn how existence works (mostly focusing on DXM and salvia here)
Valium (and related benzos), alcohol, marijuana, helped me learn a lot about the world and people around me. Of course my regularly prescribed medications fall under this category as well.
Opiates, methamphetamine, cocaine, and n2o helped me a learn a lot about my weaknesses and highlight the worst aspects of my life, and everyone else's lives.
I guess I don't really have much of a message here other than some people can use, learn, understand, and move on. Drugs don't have to be a lifetime crutch, and my experiences have taught me a lot. I understand why someone would look down on me if I told them what I have done, but I also feel sympathy for them, as I know they will never understand what I have learned from my usage.
Actually you shouldnt judge a person by their actions. You should judge them by their thoughts. Two people can perform the exact same action for very different reasons. Cant stand that cliche!
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. An intelligent person will be intelligent and a stupid person will be stupid, no drug will change that. My ex flew through college while doing oxycodone. No problem, she would drop some of that shit and ace anything. Every drug ive done has had a far more positive affect on me and my life in general than negatives... but im not going to bother trying to explain that here. I just dont get the senseless hate. Not even wanting to associate with someone because they smoke? REALLY!!? What exactly are you so scared of?
Just because of the drugs ive done without even saying hello to me im already hated and stereo typed.
Dont judge someone for their actions. Judge them for the reason they executed said action, the consequences of said action, Not simply weather or not the action was performed.
On October 18 2011 01:03 Valentine wrote: I don't use anything anymore, but I can't really look down on anyone who uses any sort of drug. I guess I have a somewhat extensive list, but I never really changed from any of it. Looking back, a lot of it was stupid, but a lot of it also helped me learn a lot about life and myself.
Salvia, marijuana, shrooms, cocaine, amphetamines, mdma, 2c-i, dextromethorphan, diphenhydramine and n2o helped me learn a lot about myself. Who I really am deep down without inhibitions (stimulants, psychedelics) and understanding of reality, taking the steps 1 by 1 to re-learn how existence works (mostly focusing on DXM and salvia here)
Valium (and related benzos), alcohol, marijuana, helped me learn a lot about the world and people around me. Of course my regularly prescribed medications fall under this category as well.
Opiates, methamphetamine, cocaine, and n2o helped me a learn a lot about my weaknesses and highlight the worst aspects of my life, and everyone else's lives.
I guess I don't really have much of a message here other than some people can use, learn, understand, and move on. Drugs don't have to be a lifetime crutch, and my experiences have taught me a lot. I understand why someone would look down on me if I told them what I have done, but I also feel sympathy for them, as I know they will never understand what I have learned from my usage.
Not sure if I missed any on the list.. lol.
DXM is amazing.
It was and is my favorite drug of all time. There isn't even a real pleasure to it, more of an aura of discomfort and a complete obliteration of thought process, while sprinkling in some hallucinations. That and I take 200mg Bupropion so it potentiates the trip quite a bit, while making it last 10-12 hours, with a solid 24 hour afterglow.
I don't use anymore, but the memories are quite nice That and pretty much always being able to bring myself back to that state mentally, and remind myself that the way we all see our lives is such an illusion.
On October 18 2011 01:36 CounterOrder wrote: Actually you shouldnt judge a person by their actions. You should judge them by their thoughts. Two people can perform the exact same action for very different reasons. Cant stand that cliche!
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. An intelligent person will be intelligent and a stupid person will be stupid, no drug will change that. My ex flew through college while doing oxycodone. No problem, she would drop some of that shit and ace anything. Every drug ive done has had a far more positive affect on me and my life in general than negatives... but im not going to bother trying to explain that here. I just dont get the senseless hate. Not even wanting to associate with someone because they smoke? REALLY!!? What exactly are you so scared of?
Just because of the drugs ive done without even saying hello to me im already hated and stereo typed.
Dont judge someone for their actions. Judge them for the reason they executed said action, the consequences of said action, Not simply weather or not the action was performed.
Live and let live. Why the fuck not?
.
Better yet, why bother judging them in the first place? I guess it's just human nature to look down upon anything you don't understand, unfortunately =[
I guess overall the only negative thing I can bring from my using was the monetary cost in the end.
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.
On October 18 2011 01:07 JPP wrote: It's easy for an individual person to say that "My smoking/drinking/pot doesn't harm anyone", but in reality the costs to society are actually incredibly high.
Take smoking for example. Smoking is one of the leading causes for lung cancer. And treating cancer is seriously expensive. Same goes for alcohol of drugs. A month in rehab costs a lot, and that doesn't even account for the psychological damage for families, relatives and so on.
Personally for me, I will be prejudiced against a drug user, but that doesn't mean that that person can't convince me otherwise.
Don't forget all the young soccer players and people who are skiing! They often break bones, have stuff with their knee (that takes veeery long to heal properly). Those are really high costs because the operations are expensive, they can't go to work, work less effective because they might have pain etc. But in the end, they live a long life because their organs are healthy through all the sport, but their body is damaged which means they are getting pension a long time, and because they live so long they gotta often see doctors.
Also there are studies that say that fat smokers are the cheapest to society because all the smoking health problems come when they are older, and until then the work normally and pay into the pension funds. But then they die statistically 10 years earlier than "healthy" people, which means that they get MUCH less pension and in medicinal costs are propably the same because they have a short time of high medical attention while the "healthy" ones have a long time of lower medical attention (which goes up with age).
On October 18 2011 01:07 JPP wrote: It's easy for an individual person to say that "My smoking/drinking/pot doesn't harm anyone", but in reality the costs to society are actually incredibly high.
Take smoking for example. Smoking is one of the leading causes for lung cancer. And treating cancer is seriously expensive. Same goes for alcohol of drugs. A month in rehab costs a lot, and that doesn't even account for the psychological damage for families, relatives and so on.
Personally for me, I will be prejudiced against a drug user, but that doesn't mean that that person can't convince me otherwise.
That's like saying that people who eat fast food a lot and are obese have extremely high costs to society because they get heart attacks, etc. While it might be true, I can't really see it as a valid argument. And it's not like you aren't required to disclose that you're a smoker on your health insurance.
It is a problem in countries with public health services. It's not like smokers pay more taxes than other people.
As for the obesity part, yes that is a problem as well. Over here it was actually being considered that people with lifestyle-caused diseases would be placed father back in the queue for medical attention.
I hate it. It's the first step into fascism that wants to make people into lifeless work-drones who only live to work, reproduce, then die. fuck this shit.
On October 18 2011 01:07 randomKo_Orean wrote: Just curious, do drug users really need validation for their habits? I've seen too many lives ruined 'cause of drugs. Hell, my lung went to shit when I was smoking, but it was something I choose to do. Yeah, I didn't like people giving me the holier-than-thou attitude, but I dealt with it because I choose to smoke.
My lungs went to shit because my roommate smoked in the other room while the university just sat idle and watched. Something like smoking being looked down upon is reasonable because it has observable and real damaging effects on others. Something like drinking might not necessarily have the same effect, but there is the probability that they will go out and drive and get into a crash. You might also look at how the killing of brain cells from drinking will in small amounts reduce the overall condition of the community/society through your own deficiencies. Something like weed: does it have the same lung damaging effects as cigarettes? You must also consider if they're using it for medical purposes, of which there are many including fighting cancer.
So overall I have a reasonable prejudice against drug users: drugs can help in some cases but cause some overall damage to the individuals life and the lives of others.
On October 18 2011 01:07 JPP wrote: It's easy for an individual person to say that "My smoking/drinking/pot doesn't harm anyone", but in reality the costs to society are actually incredibly high.
Take smoking for example. Smoking is one of the leading causes for lung cancer. And treating cancer is seriously expensive. Same goes for alcohol of drugs. A month in rehab costs a lot, and that doesn't even account for the psychological damage for families, relatives and so on.
Personally for me, I will be prejudiced against a drug user, but that doesn't mean that that person can't convince me otherwise.
That's like saying that people who eat fast food a lot and are obese have extremely high costs to society because they get heart attacks, etc. While it might be true, I can't really see it as a valid argument. And it's not like you aren't required to disclose that you're a smoker on your health insurance.
It is a problem in countries with public health services. It's not like smokers pay more taxes than other people.
As for the obesity part, yes that is a problem as well. Over here it was actually being considered that people with lifestyle-caused diseases would be placed father back in the queue for medical attention.
I hate it. It's the first step into fascism that wants to make people into lifeless work-drones who only live to work, reproduce, then die. fuck this shit.
Maybe I'm not understanding your post, but what gives you the right to harm me? Your freedom?
On October 18 2011 01:07 JPP wrote: It's easy for an individual person to say that "My smoking/drinking/pot doesn't harm anyone", but in reality the costs to society are actually incredibly high.
Take smoking for example. Smoking is one of the leading causes for lung cancer. And treating cancer is seriously expensive. Same goes for alcohol of drugs. A month in rehab costs a lot, and that doesn't even account for the psychological damage for families, relatives and so on.
Personally for me, I will be prejudiced against a drug user, but that doesn't mean that that person can't convince me otherwise.
That's like saying that people who eat fast food a lot and are obese have extremely high costs to society because they get heart attacks, etc. While it might be true, I can't really see it as a valid argument. And it's not like you aren't required to disclose that you're a smoker on your health insurance.
It is a problem in countries with public health services. It's not like smokers pay more taxes than other people.
As for the obesity part, yes that is a problem as well. Over here it was actually being considered that people with lifestyle-caused diseases would be placed father back in the queue for medical attention.
At least around here, cigarettes are taxed an insane amount.
Of course cigarettes are taxed, but that doesn't NEARLY cover the costs
definitely wrong. a person whose life and head is in proper order and who is knowledgeable about various drugs and the risks involved can take most of them in moderation without there really being much risk involved. the two most important factors in one becoming a drug abuser is state of one's mental wellbeing and one's social status. if you're out of work and depressed, it's almost as easy to become a junkie as it is to become a drunk. especially when your stupid dick of a friend shuns you for smoking pot or sniffing a line of coke, fuck him.
circumstancially i'd steer clear of people i reckon are addicts, but i've come to know drug users as dozens of responsible, productive people to a couple going-nowhere potheads to a few junkies. the last mentioned are a statistical minority as a person involved in a sensible drug subculture (such as clubbers) would know.
On October 18 2011 01:07 JPP wrote: It's easy for an individual person to say that "My smoking/drinking/pot doesn't harm anyone", but in reality the costs to society are actually incredibly high.
Take smoking for example. Smoking is one of the leading causes for lung cancer. And treating cancer is seriously expensive. Same goes for alcohol of drugs. A month in rehab costs a lot, and that doesn't even account for the psychological damage for families, relatives and so on.
Personally for me, I will be prejudiced against a drug user, but that doesn't mean that that person can't convince me otherwise.
That's like saying that people who eat fast food a lot and are obese have extremely high costs to society because they get heart attacks, etc. While it might be true, I can't really see it as a valid argument. And it's not like you aren't required to disclose that you're a smoker on your health insurance.
It is a problem in countries with public health services. It's not like smokers pay more taxes than other people.
As for the obesity part, yes that is a problem as well. Over here it was actually being considered that people with lifestyle-caused diseases would be placed father back in the queue for medical attention.
At least around here, cigarettes are taxed an insane amount.
Of course cigarettes are taxed, but that doesn't NEARLY cover the costs
ahhh not this again ...
A person dying of lung cancer is expensive but more cheap than to pay for his life
smoker cost 300.000 less on average need to search for source again i thought this is common knowlege.
On October 18 2011 01:07 JPP wrote: It's easy for an individual person to say that "My smoking/drinking/pot doesn't harm anyone", but in reality the costs to society are actually incredibly high.
Take smoking for example. Smoking is one of the leading causes for lung cancer. And treating cancer is seriously expensive. Same goes for alcohol of drugs. A month in rehab costs a lot, and that doesn't even account for the psychological damage for families, relatives and so on.
Personally for me, I will be prejudiced against a drug user, but that doesn't mean that that person can't convince me otherwise.
That's like saying that people who eat fast food a lot and are obese have extremely high costs to society because they get heart attacks, etc. While it might be true, I can't really see it as a valid argument. And it's not like you aren't required to disclose that you're a smoker on your health insurance.
It is a problem in countries with public health services. It's not like smokers pay more taxes than other people.
As for the obesity part, yes that is a problem as well. Over here it was actually being considered that people with lifestyle-caused diseases would be placed father back in the queue for medical attention.
At least around here, cigarettes are taxed an insane amount.
Of course cigarettes are taxed, but that doesn't NEARLY cover the costs
Taxed + Health insurance here is more expensive for smokers^^.
On October 18 2011 01:56 JustPassingBy wrote: easy thing: you cannot chose your race, but you can chose not to take drugs.
yeah, only that looking for various ways to get intoxicated is a trait that most intelligent life on earth share, and using ways "alternative" to alcohol to do that became something the public consider wrong only since the church&state decided it is. why would that be, is there something inherently immoral or unethical in using intoxicants we call drugs?
On October 18 2011 01:07 JPP wrote: It's easy for an individual person to say that "My smoking/drinking/pot doesn't harm anyone", but in reality the costs to society are actually incredibly high.
Take smoking for example. Smoking is one of the leading causes for lung cancer. And treating cancer is seriously expensive. Same goes for alcohol of drugs. A month in rehab costs a lot, and that doesn't even account for the psychological damage for families, relatives and so on.
Personally for me, I will be prejudiced against a drug user, but that doesn't mean that that person can't convince me otherwise.
Don't forget all the young soccer players and people who are skiing! They often break bones, have stuff with their knee (that takes veeery long to heal properly). Those are really high costs because the operations are expensive, they can't go to work, work less effective because they might have pain etc. But in the end, they live a long life because their organs are healthy through all the sport, but their body is damaged which means they are getting pension a long time, and because they live so long they gotta often see doctors.
Also there are studies that say that fat smokers are the cheapest to society because all the smoking health problems come when they are older, and until then the work normally and pay into the pension funds. But then they die statistically 10 years earlier than "healthy" people, which means that they get MUCH less pension and in medicinal costs are propably the same because they have a short time of high medical attention while the "healthy" ones have a long time of lower medical attention (which goes up with age).
So you say it's a bad thing that people who do sports live longer? Physical exercise is essential to the physical and mental well-being of a person. The positives far outweigh the negatives.
As for the second part, I would like to see the source.
There some hughe corelletions between smoking weed and having ADHS (if not medikated with retalin) Those people for example are all feeling much better stoned becouse its like a natural medikation retalin works much different and could be considered dangerous as well...
Those people most likely drink less to nothing alcohol...
In my opinion it should be easy like getting retalin to get weed for those people and i would love to see it respected as retalin when it comes to society...
"drug use is a quantifiable phenomenon that causes a noticeable decrease of perception, critical thought, and the like, making discrimination against drug users justified."
False : /
Ever heard of cocaine? LSD? Does LSD decrease your perception? QUITE the opposite. It will always depend on the person, and the drug of choice, and how they choose to use it.
On October 18 2011 01:07 JPP wrote: It's easy for an individual person to say that "My smoking/drinking/pot doesn't harm anyone", but in reality the costs to society are actually incredibly high.
Take smoking for example. Smoking is one of the leading causes for lung cancer. And treating cancer is seriously expensive. Same goes for alcohol of drugs. A month in rehab costs a lot, and that doesn't even account for the psychological damage for families, relatives and so on.
Personally for me, I will be prejudiced against a drug user, but that doesn't mean that that person can't convince me otherwise.
Don't forget all the young soccer players and people who are skiing! They often break bones, have stuff with their knee (that takes veeery long to heal properly). Those are really high costs because the operations are expensive, they can't go to work, work less effective because they might have pain etc. But in the end, they live a long life because their organs are healthy through all the sport, but their body is damaged which means they are getting pension a long time, and because they live so long they gotta often see doctors.
Also there are studies that say that fat smokers are the cheapest to society because all the smoking health problems come when they are older, and until then the work normally and pay into the pension funds. But then they die statistically 10 years earlier than "healthy" people, which means that they get MUCH less pension and in medicinal costs are propably the same because they have a short time of high medical attention while the "healthy" ones have a long time of lower medical attention (which goes up with age).
So you say it's a bad thing that people who do sports live longer? Physical exercise is essential to the physical and mental well-being of a person. The positives far outweigh the negatives.
As for the second part, I would like to see the source.
for you its a good thing only you are more likely to cost more over time...
And probably you die on cancer anyway there are a lot of cancer cases if you get older even if you havent smoked at all...
On October 18 2011 02:17 Moldwood wrote: "drug use is a quantifiable phenomenon that causes a noticeable decrease of perception, critical thought, and the like, making discrimination against drug users justified."
False : /
Ever heard of cocaine? LSD? Does LSD decrease your perception? QUITE the opposite. It will always depend on the person, and the drug of choice, and how they choose to use it.
tl;dr scientists claiming psilocybin (the hallucinogen you can generally expect to find in psychedelic mushrooms) is deemed to cause the exact opposite as to what moldwood's quoted text claims. what is that information based on?
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.
My perception of people who use drugs depends on the sort of drugs they use and the frequency they do them. For the most part, I don't mind people experimenting with nearly any drug, but if somebody uses a drug on a regular basis, then my opinion of the person is severely negatively impacted due to the fact that basicaly every addiction has negative effects ranging from bad to disastrous.
Drugs are bad in most cases, I've tried different types of drugs just because I think each different drug is a type of experience. That being said I disrespect people in school who abuse stimulants, because I've tried them and seen how powerful they are.
Its funny how many people are saying they wouldnt want to be around people who smoke pot, because I guarantee you, if you live in the US at least, we all are every day. Its just because they read things like this OP and dont want to disclose it to anybody that youd never know.
Depends. In the USA Marijuana is technically "illegal" in most of the country and I wouldn't really freak out too much if someone told me they toked up once in awhile. Not my thing, but hey, w/e.
Harder drugs thought...that's a whole new ball game. Fuck that shit.
On October 18 2011 02:17 Moldwood wrote: "drug use is a quantifiable phenomenon that causes a noticeable decrease of perception, critical thought, and the like, making discrimination against drug users justified."
False : /
Ever heard of cocaine? LSD? Does LSD decrease your perception? QUITE the opposite. It will always depend on the person, and the drug of choice, and how they choose to use it.
tl;dr scientists claiming psilocybin (the hallucinogen you can generally expect to find in psychedelic mushrooms) is deemed to cause the exact opposite as to what moldwood's quoted text claims. what is that information based on?
My quoted text came from the OP dood O . O was trying to argue against it. The point of my post was basically this: The fundamental failure of the war on drugs was the fact that for a looooong time, the government simply slumped EVERY drug we had yet discovered into the "Drugs are bad, mm,'kay?" column. Leading people to believe that things like hallucinogenics, marijuana, and many others are equally detrimental to your mind and your health as say alcohol, opiates, cocaine, tobacco, etc. The general population simply believed all of this because, hey -- its the government -- they MUST know a lot of stuff about stuff!
What changes have been made in modern day? People are beginning to actually UNDERSTAND how drugs effect the mind, body, and the people around you.
In short, yes, the viewpoint that "A drug user is BY DEFINITION a slower, less efficient, less mentally stable, less healthy individual who is a complete drag on our society." IS false and is always going to change from person to person, drug to drug.
The sooner we learn to take EACH AND EVERY drug for what it ACTUALLY is the sooner our drug laws can make sense and we can stop wasting thousands of dollars keeping non-violent offenders behind bars.
Drugs aren't by necessity bad. Drug users aren't by necessity bad. It's like anything else: what matters is what you do with them. Some people, like myself, use drugs like marijuana or alcohol to help themselves relax or relieve some stress. Or they use drugs like ecstasy or cocaine to make social occasions more fun. Or they use drugs like mushrooms or LSD to experience other states of consciousness, and to broaden their perspective.
Other people abuse drugs. It's abuse when there are severe negative consequences for themselves or others due to their use, but they continue to use anyway.
Other people are ADDICTS, and these people are psychologically ill. As for drug addicts, if they don't desire to change and they don't directly harm anyone other than themselves, they should be left alone to use drugs as they please. But professional medical help should be available, just like with any other illness, to see them cured when they wish to fight their addiction. All addictions are harmful, however, not just drug addictions.
My father was a drug abuser and a first class addict. For years my family crumbled under the crushing weight of his alcohol, cocaine, and crack addictions. My sisters and I saw and dealt with things that no child should ever have to. It was not his only addiction, however. He was also addicted to money, status, and success. He fueled his drug addiction from money he earned as a partner at a prestigious international law firm. His addiction to his career meant he was never around when he was sober, and his addiction to drugs meant was never sober when he was around.
Today he is finally clean. But it wasn't the years and years and years of hitting rock bottom again and again and again. It wasn't finally losing his license to practice law, nor was it spending years in prisons. It was a desire to change his outlook on the world, professional medical help, and diligently following through on his recovery, despite many slips. Addiction is a sickness. It's victims should not be looked down upon, nor reviled. They should be pitied, and treated.
On October 17 2011 11:26 Alay wrote: No. my mother and father were both big alcoholics. My best friend went completely wacked out on pot and almost got me in some bad places. I've seen drug use and abuse do nothing but hurt the people around me, and I certainly think very little of people who cannot find any other coping mechanism than to resort to warping their perception.
Your mom, dad, friend obviously had greater problems than the alcohol/pot that people ignored, probably putting blame on the drugs instead.
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.
Short Answer: Its Both, depending on how you treat it.
Also, you can't make such a 'broad' statement. I smoke pot pretty recreationally on a day to day basis. I have a 2 year old son that i raise well, i work 40 hours a week, i afford all my bills as well as any other american. Because i smoke pot quite regularly i should be looked down upon?
What if i told you i live in missorui. I smoke pot because I have Crohns disease and i believe its a better alternative.
There are just way to many variables to make a blanket statement on that.
While there are plenty of people I know who clearly do drugs and are going nowhere in life, amongst those who go to school, work progressive jobs, or are otherwise being successful in life, drug use is quite prevalent. I know pothead chemical engineers, k-head research coordinators, and cokehead lawyers, and although they all may live their lives in a fairly questionable manner, they are incredibly reliable, intelligent, resourceful people, and are some of the best people I know. On the other hand, I know some straight-edge kids that are just as awesome, so its difficult to say. All in all, drug use a poor indicator when it comes to passing judgement on a person, and it indeed does end up boiling down to a convenient prejudice in most cases.
On October 18 2011 03:35 ohampatu wrote: Short Answer: Its Both, depending on how you treat it.
Also, you can't make such a 'broad' statement. I smoke pot pretty recreationally on a day to day basis. I have a 2 year old son that i raise well, i work 40 hours a week, i afford all my bills as well as any other american. Because i smoke pot quite regularly i should be looked down upon?
What if i told you i live in missorui. I smoke pot because I have Crohns disease and i believe its a better alternative.
There are just way to many variables to make a blanket statement on that.
Yea I have a friend that smokes weed daily because he has Ulcerative Colotis. There is no discovered cure or treatment for this disease. My friend went online and saw that many people with the same condition turned to weed for lack of an alternative. He said it helps him eat and lessens the pain in his stomach. He smokes EVERY day but I would never call him a drug abuser.
Honestly, this whole thread is pointless, the research done on drugs world wide has been very poor and very biased. Almost every one in here has a skewed view on drugs and their effects (probably never done much besides drink) so of course they are going to be heavily biased against drugs which they have been spoon fed since birth to think are harmful.
Woah a lot of squares on teamliquid...guess I shouldn't be suprised.
Usually, if I know someone does drugs from the safe group {MDMA, THC, DMT, LSD, whatever} It positively affects my opinion of them because they can see through the lies and bullshit they get force-fed through their life, AND they can look stuff up on their own. They tend to be more outgoing and less easily manipulated. Obviously, there's always just idiots, but yeah.
From the other group, though... they're either rich or have some severe character flaws and so it probably would negatively effect my opinion of them (depending on what, and how frequent)
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.
On October 18 2011 03:18 Laurence wrote: Taking drugs is a "victimless crime?" How naive is that statement!
Its a case by case basis. Sometimes the only direct victim is the user, and I believe people should be free to "victimize" themselves in anyway they wish to. Only when drug use directly causes harm or danger to others (i.e. using certain drugs around children, being intoxicated while driving, blowing crack smoke into another persons face) should there be intervention.
Alcohol and nicotine cause at least ten times as much death as all other drugs combined, period. Alcohol is also involved far more cases of domestic abuse and other violent crimes than all other drugs combined. Does that mean you shouldn't be allowed to drink yourself silly at a Barcraft?
On October 18 2011 03:45 Twistacles wrote: Woah a lot of squares on teamliquid...guess I shouldn't be suprised.
Usually, if I know someone does drugs from the safe group {MDMA, THC, DMT, LSD, whatever} It positively affects my opinion of them because they can see through the lies and bullshit they get force-fed through their life, AND they can look stuff up on their own. They tend to be more outgoing and less easily manipulated. Obviously, there's always just idiots, but yeah.
From the other group, though... they're either rich or have some severe character flaws and so it probably would negatively effect my opinion of them (depending on what, and how frequent)
I'd be ever so careful with this outlook, and this is coming from a guy who has done way more in terms of psychedelics then he'd care to admit. In general, LSD/shrooms/mescaline/2c's can provide an individual with interesting glimpses of what reality looks like through the gaze of an affected mind, but they must be regarded as such, lest the perspective they grant become as controlling as the one they seem to fight. A fair number of psychedelic users I've known have become too self-assured in their consideration of "tripping", and they end up trumping waking life with the relatively brief periods of hallucinations. Ego-centrism as brought on by over-indulgent manipulations of the consciousness can be a terribly frightening thing to behold (think Inception but less dramatic.)
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.
i'm against breaking the law. i'm not sure drug use is victimless. i see how you get there though.
but to my point, i'm a big fan of democracy, and if we've decided as a society that some drugs are illegal, i think we should abide by that law. are all laws created equal? no. but i'd rather we continue to vote and such on what we want and what we don't want, and then live by those rules.
On October 18 2011 03:45 Twistacles wrote: Woah a lot of squares on teamliquid...guess I shouldn't be suprised.
Usually, if I know someone does drugs from the safe group {MDMA, THC, DMT, LSD, whatever} It positively affects my opinion of them because they can see through the lies and bullshit they get force-fed through their life, AND they can look stuff up on their own. They tend to be more outgoing and less easily manipulated. Obviously, there's always just idiots, but yeah.
From the other group, though... they're either rich or have some severe character flaws and so it probably would negatively effect my opinion of them (depending on what, and how frequent)
Yeah, this is the reason i negatively look at drug users, implying that the world is "lies and bullshit, and that existentialism can only be reached through taking pills or smoking, or drinking for that matter." I don't care if you fuck up your life with weed, don't look down on me because you think you're superior for reaching a higher sense of the world. It's a lot like religion now that I come to think of it, everything through moderation.
plus your 'squares' statement is prejuduce as it is, oh boy forgive us for not liking drugs, lets all go hold hands and jerk off to teletubbies and sunday school.
On October 18 2011 03:59 redwingxviii wrote: i'm against breaking the law. i'm not sure drug use is victimless. i see how you get there though.
but to my point, i'm a big fan of democracy, and if we've decided as a society that some drugs are illegal, i think we should abide by that law. are all laws created equal? no. but i'd rather we continue to vote and such on what we want and what we don't want, and then live by those rules.
Too bad you don't live in a democracy. There was no national referendum on marijuana, correct me if I'm wrong.
So some people (elected officials) definitely decided that some drugs (including marijuana) should be illegal but it's very misleading to label them "society".
I would only look down on them as much as I look down upon people who go out every friday and get plastered off Tequila. That is to say, I probably wouldn't change my opinion of the person at all.
If you can go out and get wasted with friends and still love them and the next day get your panties in a knot about a friend smoking some pot or taking some mdma you're a very foolish person.
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.
On October 18 2011 03:45 Twistacles wrote: Woah a lot of squares on teamliquid...guess I shouldn't be suprised.
Usually, if I know someone does drugs from the safe group {MDMA, THC, DMT, LSD, whatever} It positively affects my opinion of them because they can see through the lies and bullshit they get force-fed through their life, AND they can look stuff up on their own. They tend to be more outgoing and less easily manipulated. Obviously, there's always just idiots, but yeah.
From the other group, though... they're either rich or have some severe character flaws and so it probably would negatively effect my opinion of them (depending on what, and how frequent)
Yeah, this is the reason i negatively look at drug users, implying that the world is "lies and bullshit, and that existentialism can only be reached through taking pills or smoking, or drinking for that matter." I don't care if you fuck up your life with weed, don't look down on me because you think you're superior for reaching a higher sense of the world. It's a lot like religion now that I come to think of it, everything through moderation.
plus your 'squares' statement is prejuduce as it is, oh boy forgive us for not liking drugs, lets all go hold hands and jerk off to teletubbies and sunday school.
I think you misunderstand his post... I think he is more referring to the people who look at weed as a harmful drug while they drink away their brain cells and livers. All recent research has shown that drugs like those he listed, MDMA, THC, DMT, LSD, etc. are much less harmful socially and physically to a person than commonly used drugs such as alcohol, caffeine and cigarettes.
It is mostly politics and money that keeps regulated but much more harmful drugs legal while the mostly harmless ones are strictly illegal. He is right, it is bullshit, and it is propaganda. You'd probably be surprised to know that the reason marijuana was illegalized in the US in the first place had nothing to do with medical health, it was to give the government a clear way to arrest protesters (since protesting is completely legal) in the 70s. I don't think he is trying to imply that by using drugs you will reach enlightenment or a higher state of being. There is just a clear distinction between those who choose to do their own research, believe what they want and those that listen to unsubstantiated ANTIDRUG commercials.
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.
It's not semantics.. the negative effects on many prescription pills far outweigh the negative effects of illegal drugs. Honestly, anyone who doesn't see huge glaring problems with drug enforcement and drug litigation in the US is blind or just brainwashed.
On October 18 2011 03:45 Twistacles wrote: Woah a lot of squares on teamliquid...guess I shouldn't be suprised.
Usually, if I know someone does drugs from the safe group {MDMA, THC, DMT, LSD, whatever} It positively affects my opinion of them because they can see through the lies and bullshit they get force-fed through their life, AND they can look stuff up on their own. They tend to be more outgoing and less easily manipulated. Obviously, there's always just idiots, but yeah.
From the other group, though... they're either rich or have some severe character flaws and so it probably would negatively effect my opinion of them (depending on what, and how frequent)
Yeah, this is the reason i negatively look at drug users, implying that the world is "lies and bullshit, and that existentialism can only be reached through taking pills or smoking, or drinking for that matter." I don't care if you fuck up your life with weed, don't look down on me because you think you're superior for reaching a higher sense of the world. It's a lot like religion now that I come to think of it, everything through moderation.
plus your 'squares' statement is prejuduce as it is, oh boy forgive us for not liking drugs, lets all go hold hands and jerk off to teletubbies and sunday school.
Wow so much anger... you need a joint, man!
Seriously though! Not everyone who uses drugs 'fucks up their life.' In fact, the vast majority people who use drugs don't fuck up their life. Chill out. Do what you want to do, its your life and I respect your decision to not use drugs.
All drug users want is for everyone else to let us do what we want to do, without spitting in our faces or throwing us in prison just for toking up or tripping balls in the safety our own homes.
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.
Nobody can figure out any more whether it's important or not, so society and its lawmakers are basically just letting disagreement play itself out. There are worse things that could happen actually. Eventually, we will arrive at something more or less like the correct answer and Social Hypocrisy will not be necessary. About 200 years from now.
On October 18 2011 03:45 Twistacles wrote: Woah a lot of squares on teamliquid...guess I shouldn't be suprised.
Usually, if I know someone does drugs from the safe group {MDMA, THC, DMT, LSD, whatever} It positively affects my opinion of them because they can see through the lies and bullshit they get force-fed through their life, AND they can look stuff up on their own. They tend to be more outgoing and less easily manipulated. Obviously, there's always just idiots, but yeah.
From the other group, though... they're either rich or have some severe character flaws and so it probably would negatively effect my opinion of them (depending on what, and how frequent)
Yeah, this is the reason i negatively look at drug users, implying that the world is "lies and bullshit, and that existentialism can only be reached through taking pills or smoking, or drinking for that matter." I don't care if you fuck up your life with weed, don't look down on me because you think you're superior for reaching a higher sense of the world. It's a lot like religion now that I come to think of it, everything through moderation.
plus your 'squares' statement is prejuduce as it is, oh boy forgive us for not liking drugs, lets all go hold hands and jerk off to teletubbies and sunday school.
Wow so much anger... you need a joint, man!
Seriously though! Not everyone who uses drugs 'fucks up their life.' In fact, the vast majority people who use drugs don't fuck up their life. Chill out. Do what you want to do, its your life and I respect your decision to not use drugs.
All drug users want is for everyone else to let us do what we want to do, without spitting in our faces or throwing us in prison just for toking up or tripping balls in the safety our own homes.
it's all a sliding scale of 'fucking up your life.' and no, what some drug users want is to push their beliefs that i'm ignorant for not using drugs onto me, which is why i equate it to religion. some people are fine, others are annoying as fuck.
On October 18 2011 04:13 N3rV[Green] wrote: Is a person who has crippling chronic pain that takes pain medication every day a drug user who would be looked down upon?
Honestly the ignorance and lack of any real information makes this thread kinda silly.....
This is the blight of the whole 'war on drugs' debate.
Ignorance and lack of any real information is the reason drugs like marijuana are illegal in the first place (that and the early 1900s timber industry.)
On October 18 2011 04:16 beachbeachy wrote: There's honestly NO CORRECT ANSWER for drug use.
Nobody can figure out any more whether it's important or not, so society and its lawmakers are basically just letting disagreement play itself out. There are worse things that could happen actually. Eventually, we will arrive at something more or less like the correct answer and Social Hypocrisy will not be necessary. About 200 years from now.
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.
to the 500+ people voted no on this poll; are you aware coffee/energydrinks/cigarets/alchool are all behaviour changing drugs? personally all those drugs bring a more invading behaviour then weed for example.
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.
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."
On October 18 2011 03:45 Twistacles wrote: Woah a lot of squares on teamliquid...guess I shouldn't be suprised.
Usually, if I know someone does drugs from the safe group {MDMA, THC, DMT, LSD, whatever} It positively affects my opinion of them because they can see through the lies and bullshit they get force-fed through their life, AND they can look stuff up on their own. They tend to be more outgoing and less easily manipulated. Obviously, there's always just idiots, but yeah.
From the other group, though... they're either rich or have some severe character flaws and so it probably would negatively effect my opinion of them (depending on what, and how frequent)
Yeah, this is the reason i negatively look at drug users, implying that the world is "lies and bullshit, and that existentialism can only be reached through taking pills or smoking, or drinking for that matter." I don't care if you fuck up your life with weed, don't look down on me because you think you're superior for reaching a higher sense of the world. It's a lot like religion now that I come to think of it, everything through moderation.
plus your 'squares' statement is prejuduce as it is, oh boy forgive us for not liking drugs, lets all go hold hands and jerk off to teletubbies and sunday school.
Wow so much anger... you need a joint, man!
Seriously though! Not everyone who uses drugs 'fucks up their life.' In fact, the vast majority people who use drugs don't fuck up their life. Chill out. Do what you want to do, its your life and I respect your decision to not use drugs.
All drug users want is for everyone else to let us do what we want to do, without spitting in our faces or throwing us in prison just for toking up or tripping balls in the safety our own homes.
it's all a sliding scale of 'fucking up your life.' and no, what some drug users want is to push their beliefs that i'm ignorant for not using drugs onto me, which is why i equate it to religion. some people are fine, others are annoying as fuck.
By that reasoning, everything is a sliding scale of fucking up your life. Posting on teamliquid isn't as productive as tending a food-bearing garden. Guess I'm fucking up my life right now. Guess you are too.
Yeah, some people are annoying as fuck. Get used to it. There are infinitely more non-drug users who try to push their beliefs on drug users. Many would have all of us locked away indefinitely or even executed. Some of them are fine, but others are outright destructive to the lives of we who choose to use.
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.
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.
You fail to address that one also can't choose in which socio-economic class or geographical area they grow up in. By being trapped in an environment with prevalent drug use, it is often tempting to engage in the often lucrative industry which is that of drugs and other 'black' markets. I can also say with a high level of certainty that engaging in the drug distribution market, contains the highest amount of potential income for someone without education, etc. Sometimes even well-educated and high-esteemed individuals participate in drug distribution because it can make them even richer.
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.
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."
How about Gabor Mate, a physician and addiction specialist. Or Robert Sapolsky, a world-renowned neuroendocrinologist from Stanford?
inb4: "Lol Zeitgeist propaganda" or "Gursh Durn liberal yahoo!"
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.
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."
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.
Member question: I have smoked pot for a number of years as an antistressor. Currently I'm having thick sinus congestion and very bad headaches and sore throat. I also have ulcerative colitis. What treatments can help me regain my health as I am very tired and in a lot of discomfort? I want to quit the smoke altogether.
Dr. Drew: You no longer use marijuana as a stress reducer. You are an addict and this addiction will not stop without treatment. I would suggest you look into Marijuana Anonymous. You need careful supervision when you stop this drug. There is an extraordinarily high incident of suicide in the first six months of marijuana abstinence.
The syndrome of marijuana addiction is always the same: A profound euphoria is experienced, usually after the second or third exposure to it, and from that moment on the addict pursues, preoccupies, or uses that drug every day. Somewhere down the line, exactly what you are experiencing develops; the addict gets depressed, has trouble sleeping and being motivated. Of course, the addict's response is to smoke more or better pot to deal with "the stress," which only accelerates the decline into depression.
woa... terrible source. so much wrong in so many ways; all i see his "dr drew" trying to convince people to read his books and go to weed anonymous.
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.
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.
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."
Pretty 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 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.
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."
Pretty 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 04:20 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 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 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.
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."
Pretty 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 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.
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."
Pretty 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 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...
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.
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."
Pretty 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 04:38 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 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 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.
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.
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."
Pretty 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?
As far as I know that determines each substances respective addictive property. I am trying to find the article I read for class but I am too disorganize :\. I'll try to find it soon.
On October 18 2011 03:18 Laurence wrote: Taking drugs is a "victimless crime?" How naive is that statement!
if i smoked pot right now. Who am i hurting? i suppose some of my family members might hurt cause my room will smell like pot for some time. but thats fine. We will get over it.
On October 18 2011 05:00 Microsloth wrote: 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~
You sound like an uptight prick to me. Just my two cents.
Especially with the "what people think" line. You've got an overly aggitated view of users and it shows. I'd be willing to bet you have no first hand knowledge of what these chemicals do and/or been exposed to them. You're willing to write off an entirely too large section of the populace over a clash of views. It's childish and shows lack of tolerance, at the very least.
I see this a lot with people, especially those who tend to favor drinking over everything due to legality issues.
From first hand experience here, alcohol is easily the most intoxicating, dangerous and unhealthy thing for you.
I have never felt more out of control, more not myself, more dangerous and sick than on alcohol.
Being straight edge is fine, doing drugs is fine. Once again, the *person* and their *mind* should be all that matters. 9/10 times, you won't even know the person is on something.
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!
Where's that Jackie Chan meme when you need it? Or is the confused psychologist one better?
You don't choose to start your sexual orientation. You choose to take your first harmful drug. You don't come out of the womb with the fate that you're going to become a heroin addict, and that your life will be over no matter what. You still make the conscious decision to start heroin, and that is the reason why it's your fault you went down that path to destruction, and why your analogy makes zero sense.
Maybe you get addicted, and the effect that drugs have on your body can't be helped by you. But you're still the idiot who tried them in the first place. You can't be a heroin addict if you never try heroin. If you're stupid enough to take the risk and try harmful drugs even once, be prepared to deal with the worst possible consequences (which include addiction). This isn't even remotely close to being gay, and I can't believe that you're saying "addiction and sexual orientation both have genetic components, so therefore addicts and gays can be equated." Worst. Non sequitur. Ever.
(And I'm not saying that it's impossible for there to be benefits of drugs. I'm merely saying that if you're going to take the risk in doing drugs, you need to be prepared to deal with any consequences, including addiction. You're making the conscious decision to take part in this experimentation. On the other hand, you're the still gay, regardless of whether or not you do anything about it.)
On October 18 2011 03:18 Laurence wrote: Taking drugs is a "victimless crime?" How naive is that statement!
if i smoked pot right now. Who am i hurting? i suppose some of my family members might hurt cause my room will smell like pot for some time. but thats fine. We will get over it.
Your post:
"Who am I hurting" ::names people:: "We'll get over it."
Oh okay then?
But yes, pot is probably the least harmful drug (although any short-term effects that would alter your mind or body could harm others if you're dumb enough to drive a car while under the influence, just like driving drunk).
Also, isn't doing drugs not a victimless crime because *you're* a victim? You're destroying your body (certainly with the harder drugs over a long period of time, ignoring milder things like marijuana)?
Of course it's wrong to be prejudiced against drug users. It is no different than being prejudiced against people that slur speech or walk funny. Now, it is wholly their choice to use drugs, but you are judging them all the same. Would I let my kid play with other kids that used drugs? No, because that is a lifestyle that I do not want my child falling into, but, I am not judging them and perhaps do not even dislike them; they just cannot hang out with my child because I do not agree with what they believe to be good choices.
The conclusion you come to in the OP is not quite right. I love that you realized you were prejudiced against drug users and have been looking at them in an unfair light, perhaps because of your past. But, to conclude that you should not even try to talk them out of changing is missing the mark. No more should we encourage drug use than we should encourage sticking our heads in the sand.
On October 18 2011 03:18 Laurence wrote: Taking drugs is a "victimless crime?" How naive is that statement!
if i smoked pot right now. Who am i hurting? i suppose some of my family members might hurt cause my room will smell like pot for some time. but thats fine. We will get over it.
Your post:
"Who am I hurting" ::names people:: "We'll get over it."
Oh okay then?
But yes, pot is probably the least harmful drug (although any short-term effects that would alter your mind or body could harm others if you're dumb enough to drive a car while under the influence, just like driving drunk).
Also, isn't doing drugs not a victimless crime because *you're* a victim? You're destroying your body (certainly with the harder drugs over a long period of time, ignoring milder things like marijuana)?
As a lot of other people have already mentioned, and it really doesn't take a huge leap of common sense to see it... There are tons of legal ways to destroy your body, in must faster and more severe ways than ANY of the illegal drugs. Fatty Foods/Heart Disease, Cigarettes/Cancer. Obviously the government and general populace isn't against weed because it destroys your body.... herp derp
Its probably already been said but my view is Im not going to do them, and if you want to go for it. Don't try to force me into doing it and i won't say anything to you about it
On October 18 2011 03:18 Laurence wrote: Taking drugs is a "victimless crime?" How naive is that statement!
if i smoked pot right now. Who am i hurting? i suppose some of my family members might hurt cause my room will smell like pot for some time. but thats fine. We will get over it.
I would think that the reason some people say that is not a victimless crime is because many many people die in countries that produce the drugs, also the people that sell the drugs and so on. The only way to solve that problem is to legalize it. not for all hard substances. but for Weed.
And also start using LCD inn psychology again. just as a side note
[QUOTE]On October 18 2011 05:05 TheGlassface wrote: [QUOTE]On October 18 2011 05:00 Microsloth wrote: 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~
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ [quote]You sound like an uptight prick to me. Just my two cents.
Especially with the "what people think" line. You've got an overly aggitated view of users and it shows. I'd be willing to bet you have no first hand knowledge of what these chemicals do and/or been exposed to them. You're willing to write off an entirely too large section of the populace over a clash of views. It's childish and shows lack of tolerance, at the very least.
I see this a lot with people, especially those who tend to favor drinking over everything due to legality issues.
From first hand experience here, alcohol is easily the most intoxicating, dangerous and unhealthy thing for you.
I have never felt more out of control, more not myself, more dangerous and sick than on alcohol.
Being straight edge is fine, doing drugs is fine. Once again, the *person* and their *mind* should be all that matters. 9/10 times, you won't even know the person is on something. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I've smoked pot before, and I won't deny it was a damn good time, however, to me, it wasn't worth it. Not worth the taste, the smell, the money, the social stigma.. not worth it at all. I respect your opinion, however, your "bet" isn't a good one. And yes, I'm definatly willing to write off that section of the populace. I'm cool with co-workers and other people not close to me doing it. All the power to them, but my choice is to avoid that lifestyle.
I'm not saying people are bad if they do drugs, but why would I surround myself with people that do them if I don't??? You can call me childish and tell me I have a lack of tolerance all you want. I'll admit I refuse to tolerate habitual drug users in my life. Alcohol is in there too. Have a few drinks, get a buzz, cool, np. But don't fucking drive, and if you're gonna get so shittered you can;t stand up..... what's the point???
See how I said all that without calling anyone a prick or childish? I can't spell for shit, but I'm pretty far from childish. Although, I love me some SC2.
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!
Where's that Jackie Chan meme when you need it? Or is the confused psychologist one better?
You don't choose to start your sexual orientation. You choose to take your first harmful drug. You don't come out of the womb with the fate that you're going to become a heroin addict, and that your life will be over no matter what. You still make the conscious decision to start heroin, and that is the reason why it's your fault you went down that path to destruction, and why your analogy makes zero sense.
Maybe you get addicted, and the effect that drugs have on your body can't be helped by you. But you're still the idiot who tried them in the first place. You can't be a heroin addict if you never try heroin. If you're stupid enough to take the risk and try harmful drugs even once, be prepared to deal with the worst possible consequences (which include addiction). This isn't even remotely close to being gay, and I can't believe that you're saying "addiction and sexual orientation both have genetic components, so therefore addicts and gays can be equated." Worst. Non sequitur. Ever.
(And I'm not saying that it's impossible for there to be benefits of drugs. I'm merely saying that if you're going to take the risk in doing drugs, you need to be prepared to deal with any consequences, including addiction. You're making the conscious decision to take part in this experimentation. On the other hand, you're the still gay, regardless of whether or not you do anything about it.)
You clearly don't know anything about the science of addiction. It is a predetermined condition. It isn't a choice. And you don't find out until you are already addicted to something.
Very few people try heroin, because its widely known that it can be extremely dangerous. Those that are willing to take the risk for the possible effect aren't "stupid." They desire the described effect for a reason.
Heroin doesn't have a profound effect, really. It's far more subtle than alcohol. It makes one feel comfortable, the most comfortable you can imagine. Like, Christmas morning with the whole family by the fire in a blanket with hot chocolate level of comfort. Potential users seek the effect despite the threat that the use of the drug poses to their life because they are psychologically ill, not because they are 'stupid.' They are prepared to deal with the worst possible consequences because they don't care about them. They don't care about ruining their lives. All they care about is not feeling like shit anymore.
Happy, stable, healthy people almost never try heroin. In fact, most hardcore addicts are usually victims of severe child abuse or childhood trauma. Most addicts suffered from depression long before they even began using, and pursued drugs because of that depression.
And really, are you such an asshole that you would think someone is trash just because of one mistake? Trying a drug once and BAM their lives are fucked? Or would you hate them because they continue to use, even though overcoming addiction is one of the most difficult struggles a human can go through?
If so, you're a worse human being than any addict I've ever met.
On October 18 2011 05:00 Microsloth wrote: 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~
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ [quote]You sound like an uptight prick to me. Just my two cents.
Especially with the "what people think" line. You've got an overly aggitated view of users and it shows. I'd be willing to bet you have no first hand knowledge of what these chemicals do and/or been exposed to them. You're willing to write off an entirely too large section of the populace over a clash of views. It's childish and shows lack of tolerance, at the very least.
I see this a lot with people, especially those who tend to favor drinking over everything due to legality issues.
From first hand experience here, alcohol is easily the most intoxicating, dangerous and unhealthy thing for you.
I have never felt more out of control, more not myself, more dangerous and sick than on alcohol.
Being straight edge is fine, doing drugs is fine. Once again, the *person* and their *mind* should be all that matters. 9/10 times, you won't even know the person is on something. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I've smoked pot before, and I won't deny it was a damn good time, however, to me, it wasn't worth it. Not worth the taste, the smell, the money, the social stigma.. not worth it at all. I respect your opinion, however, your "bet" isn't a good one. And yes, I'm definatly willing to write off that section of the populace. I'm cool with co-workers and other people not close to me doing it. All the power to them, but my choice is to avoid that lifestyle.
I'm not saying people are bad if they do drugs, but why would I surround myself with people that do them if I don't??? You can call me childish and tell me I have a lack of tolerance all you want. I'll admit I refuse to tolerate habitual drug users in my life. Alcohol is in there too. Have a few drinks, get a buzz, cool, np. But don't fucking drive, and if you're gonna get so shittered you can;t stand up..... what's the point???
See how I said all that without calling anyone a prick or childish? I can't spell for shit, but I'm pretty far from childish. Although, I love me some SC2.
~More cents~
Well, I'll be... I'll say this, from this post here, you seem like a reasonable person. Albeit a bit (IMO) needlessly anti-drugs, but then again you clearly have a legit mindset.
These types of threads always get out of control because at the end of it all, it's personal preference and it can be argued either way into the ground. That makes the poll irrelevant because 1 person could be 100% against it, others could say A and B are ok but not the rest, etc.
Well, I'll be... I'll say this, from this post here, you seem like a reasonable person. Albeit a bit (IMO) needlessly anti-drugs, but then again you clearly have a legit mindset.
More power to you my man, GL HF.
...except on the SCII lol ;P
See, these are the type of posts that don't happen on other forums Go go gadget TL
We're cool, but if I see you on the ladder, to steal a line from MC, " I keel you "
On October 17 2011 11:28 TheLOLas wrote: I suppose that if someone tells me that they use drugs ( such as pot, meth, crack, or anything else ) i wouldn't want to be around them. and therefore I would be prejudiced.
Do you think it's prejudice? Or do you somehow justify not wanting to be around them?
If I said "I don't want to be around Mike because he's black," that's wrong. If I say "I don't want to be around Mike because he smokes pot," is that just as bad?
He can change being a pot head.
I think this post sums up the entire argument. One cannot change race, cannot easily change gender, generally cannot change sexual orientation, cannot change ethnic background, and generally cannot change physical or mental disability. Someone can change whether or not they use drugs.
Is it judging the person? Yes. Is it discrimination? No. Discrimination involves treating someone different based on things they likely cannot change.
On October 18 2011 05:33 Trentelshark wrote: These types of threads always get out of control because at the end of it all, it's personal preference and it can be argued either way into the ground. That makes the poll irrelevant because 1 person could be 100% against it, others could say A and B are ok but not the rest, etc.
Yeah it's personal choice but there are so many misinformed people in here going on long rants on things they couldn't be more wrong about..half this thread is incredibly inaccurate about weed, no wonder it can't be legalized when you've got massive retards who listen to what the news and their parents tell them, let alone real facts.
On October 17 2011 11:28 TheLOLas wrote: I suppose that if someone tells me that they use drugs ( such as pot, meth, crack, or anything else ) i wouldn't want to be around them. and therefore I would be prejudiced.
Do you think it's prejudice? Or do you somehow justify not wanting to be around them?
If I said "I don't want to be around Mike because he's black," that's wrong. If I say "I don't want to be around Mike because he smokes pot," is that just as bad?
He can change being a pot head.
Smoking pot isn't an inherently bad thing. Why should he change it? Just to make judgmental shitheads like you happy?
Yes, it is a prejudice, it's application of a negative stereotype to someone without any knowledge of their actual behaviors.
Personally I avoid contact with people associated with drug use. Although that doesnt mean that I would quit my job because I work with a pothead coworker.
I think that drug use is the same as drinking or playing starcraft. As long as you don't do it much to the point where it negatively affects your life, its no problem. Judging people based on that habit is the same as judging gamers for spending hours laddering.
On October 18 2011 03:18 Laurence wrote: Taking drugs is a "victimless crime?" How naive is that statement!
if i smoked pot right now. Who am i hurting? i suppose some of my family members might hurt cause my room will smell like pot for some time. but thats fine. We will get over it.
Your post:
"Who am I hurting" ::names people:: "We'll get over it."
Oh okay then?
But yes, pot is probably the least harmful drug (although any short-term effects that would alter your mind or body could harm others if you're dumb enough to drive a car while under the influence, just like driving drunk).
Also, isn't doing drugs not a victimless crime because *you're* a victim? You're destroying your body (certainly with the harder drugs over a long period of time, ignoring milder things like marijuana)?
As a lot of other people have already mentioned, and it really doesn't take a huge leap of common sense to see it... There are tons of legal ways to destroy your body, in must faster and more severe ways than ANY of the illegal drugs. Fatty Foods/Heart Disease, Cigarettes/Cancer. Obviously the government and general populace isn't against weed because it destroys your body.... herp derp
Of course there are tons of legal ways to slowly destroy your body too. That's not what the topic is, so I don't appreciate the red herring. Let's try staying on topic now, thanks. What we're talking about here is illegal drugs. Doing illegal drugs harms your body as well, and so to say the crime is victimless is just wrong because you're a victim. That's merely the point I was making. You comparing legal and illegal ways to destroy your body doesn't make illegal drugs "victimless crimes".
And I was careful to separate pot from other, more harmful drugs, so please note that eating a cheeseburger or smoking a cigarette and then getting behind the wheel of a car is not worthy of being arrested, because your mind isn't altered, whereas smoking pot (or doing something worse) is. herp derp yourself, try paying attention please.
On October 17 2011 11:26 Alay wrote: No. my mother and father were both big alcoholics. My best friend went completely wacked out on pot and almost got me in some bad places. I've seen drug use and abuse do nothing but hurt the people around me, and I certainly think very little of people who cannot find any other coping mechanism than to resort to warping their perception.
Completely whacked out on pot? Oh please, your friend could have gotten an addiction to fucking cheeseburgers and still would have been whacked out, but you wouldn't blame the cheeseburgers, right? You'd blame him, weed isn't addictive, stop being an idiot.
On October 18 2011 03:18 Laurence wrote: Taking drugs is a "victimless crime?" How naive is that statement!
if i smoked pot right now. Who am i hurting? i suppose some of my family members might hurt cause my room will smell like pot for some time. but thats fine. We will get over it.
Your post:
"Who am I hurting" ::names people:: "We'll get over it."
Oh okay then?
But yes, pot is probably the least harmful drug (although any short-term effects that would alter your mind or body could harm others if you're dumb enough to drive a car while under the influence, just like driving drunk).
Also, isn't doing drugs not a victimless crime because *you're* a victim? You're destroying your body (certainly with the harder drugs over a long period of time, ignoring milder things like marijuana)?
As a lot of other people have already mentioned, and it really doesn't take a huge leap of common sense to see it... There are tons of legal ways to destroy your body, in must faster and more severe ways than ANY of the illegal drugs. Fatty Foods/Heart Disease, Cigarettes/Cancer. Obviously the government and general populace isn't against weed because it destroys your body.... herp derp
Of course there are tons of legal ways to slowly destroy your body too. That's not what the topic is, so I don't appreciate the red herring. Let's try staying on topic now, thanks. What we're talking about here is illegal drugs. Doing illegal drugs harms your body as well, and so to say the crime is victimless is just wrong because you're a victim. That's merely the point I was making. You comparing legal and illegal ways to destroy your body doesn't make illegal drugs "victimless crimes".
And I was careful to separate pot from other, more harmful drugs, so please note that eating a cheeseburger or smoking a cigarette and then getting behind the wheel of a car is not worthy of being arrested, because your mind isn't altered, whereas smoking pot (or doing something worse) is. herp derp yourself, try paying attention please.
And you would know first hand at how dangerous it is to drive under the influence of weed, right?
Well, I'll be... I'll say this, from this post here, you seem like a reasonable person. Albeit a bit (IMO) needlessly anti-drugs, but then again you clearly have a legit mindset.
More power to you my man, GL HF.
...except on the SCII lol ;P
See, these are the type of posts that don't happen on other forums Go go gadget TL
We're cool, but if I see you on the ladder, to steal a line from MC, " I keel you "
Haha, fair deal! See you in The Abyss sometime son.
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.
On October 18 2011 03:18 Laurence wrote: Taking drugs is a "victimless crime?" How naive is that statement!
if i smoked pot right now. Who am i hurting? i suppose some of my family members might hurt cause my room will smell like pot for some time. but thats fine. We will get over it.
Your post:
"Who am I hurting" ::names people:: "We'll get over it."
Oh okay then?
But yes, pot is probably the least harmful drug (although any short-term effects that would alter your mind or body could harm others if you're dumb enough to drive a car while under the influence, just like driving drunk).
Also, isn't doing drugs not a victimless crime because *you're* a victim? You're destroying your body (certainly with the harder drugs over a long period of time, ignoring milder things like marijuana)?
As a lot of other people have already mentioned, and it really doesn't take a huge leap of common sense to see it... There are tons of legal ways to destroy your body, in must faster and more severe ways than ANY of the illegal drugs. Fatty Foods/Heart Disease, Cigarettes/Cancer. Obviously the government and general populace isn't against weed because it destroys your body.... herp derp
Of course there are tons of legal ways to slowly destroy your body too. That's not what the topic is, so I don't appreciate the red herring. Let's try staying on topic now, thanks. What we're talking about here is illegal drugs. Doing illegal drugs harms your body as well, and so to say the crime is victimless is just wrong because you're a victim. That's merely the point I was making. You comparing legal and illegal ways to destroy your body doesn't make illegal drugs "victimless crimes".
And I was careful to separate pot from other, more harmful drugs, so please note that eating a cheeseburger or smoking a cigarette and then getting behind the wheel of a car is not worthy of being arrested, because your mind isn't altered, whereas smoking pot (or doing something worse) is. herp derp yourself, try paying attention please.
If you had the presence of mind to do any amount of research before making outrageous claims, you'd realize that of all things that negatively impact your ability to drive, consumption of marijuana is one of the least detrimental.
So first off since I think it's reasonable to not want to be around people who use drugs which can make a person dangerous, so instead I'll focus on the prejudice against pot users since I think most people can agree whether you approve of pot users or not that they aren't really dangerous so if you disapprove of them it's probably for reasons other than your personal safety.
So it seems a lot of people that are prejudiced against pot users are using the reason that it's a choice and they believe it's a unhealthy lifestyle choice. Therefore you can make assumptions about the person that are negative and not want to hang around them.
So do these same people also feel the same way about people who are fat / over weight and choose not to hang out with them? Do they consider people who are over weight, overweight by choice? Because overweight people "choose" to eat too much food or unhealthy food and not exercise enough. Do you make similar assumptions about them as many here seem to do about drug users? That they are lazy, rely on artificial happiness through food, don't care about their appearance to others and live an unhealthy lifestyle that doesn't involve being active?
Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the US so it's not as if it doesn't hurt anyone, obviously the person who is over weight but also the stress placed on healthcare.
I'm not saying these are my views I'm just wondering how/if people can reconcile being prejudiced against someone that uses marijuana but not be the same for overweight people assuming the same reasoning for their prejudice could be applied(disapproval of a unhealthy lifestyle so therefore do not want to be around them).Things like hanging out with meth users is obviously dangerous / scary for good reasons so I'm focusing on the prejudice based upon what is seen as a chosen unhealthy life style.
I still think this whole argument is stupid. Even though judging a person on one aspect alone is pretty much always bad, people are always going to be prejudiced about everything. Hell, for an average person, saying "I play this computer game five hours a day" is just as bad as"I smoke pot once a week".
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.
Wow. Just wow. Let me try that as well.
"Are elephants like potatoes?" Are made up of matter, like potatoes? Check. Are they subject to gravity? Check. Are they rough on the outside? Check. Do their names contain letters? Check.
I guess that proves that elephants are exactly like potatoes, then.
/sarcasm.
If you're just going to willfully ignore the actual point of my post and make some bullshit comparison based on traits I never even argued about, this is me checking out for the day.
On October 18 2011 06:02 Nibbler89 wrote: So first off since I think it's reasonable to not want to be around people who use drugs which can make a person dangerous, so instead I'll focus on the prejudice against pot users since I think most people can agree whether you approve of pot users or not that they aren't really dangerous so if you disapprove of them it's probably for reasons other than your personal safety.
So it seems a lot of people that are prejudiced against pot users are using the reason that it's a choice and they believe it's a unhealthy lifestyle choice. Therefore you can make assumptions about the person that are negative and not want to hang around them.
So do these same people also feel the same way about people who are fat / over weight and choose not to hang out with them? I'd think most people would say food isn't as addictive of a substance as drugs yet there is still a huge obesity problem in western nations. Do they consider people who are over weight, overweight by choice? Because overweight people "choose" to eat too much food or unhealthy food and not exercise enough. Do you make the similar assumptions about them as many here seem to do about drug users? That they are lazy, rely on artificial happiness through food, don't care about their appearance to others and live an unhealthy lifestyle that doesn't involve being active?
Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the US so it's not as if it doesn't hurt anyone, obviously the person who is over weight but also the stress placed on healthcare.
I'm not saying these are my views I'm just wondering how/if people can reconcile being prejudiced against someone that uses marijuana but not be the same for overweight people when the same reasoning for their prejudice could be applied(disapproval of a unhealthy lifestyle so therefore do not want to be around them).Things like hanging out with meth users is obviously dangerous / scary for good reasons so I'm focusing on the prejudice based upon what is seen as a chosen unhealthy life style.
Eh.. this topic should definitely stay on the subject of drugs.. but yes the same people who share the ignorance of believing people who smoke pot are ruining them selves usually show the same attitude towards overweight people. While a majority of the cases in people being overweight has to do with personal choice, everyone lives different lives and most over weight people (especially younger ones) tend to be poor, because shitty food is cheap, it's more than a personal choice issue.. and until people get the head out of their asses and stop paying attention to what their redneck father and fox news has to tell them, the world will not change.
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.
Wow. Just wow. Let me try that as well.
"Are elephants like potatoes?" Are made up of matter, like potatoes? Check. Are they subject to gravity? Check. Are they rough on the outside? Check. Do their names contain letters? Check.
I guess that proves that elephants are exactly like potatoes, then.
/sarcasm.
If you're just going to willfully ignore the actual point of my post and make some bullshit comparison based on traits I never even argued about, this is me checking out for the day.
Based on your piss poor arguments, I'd guess you've been "checked out" for a while.
The illegal use of drug is quite rampant in most countries of the world, and it is disconcerting to see how people waste away their lives by something as pathetic as drugs. I have quite a few friends who use drugs in some form or another be it alcohol, weed, cocaine, etc. Now I am not saying that I have never consumed alcohol, but by using worse drugs than that is just looking for trouble. I believe that people should not mess with drugs, as it destroys lives. How many of a friend have I not seen administered into rehabilitation programs because of substance abuse. We need to take care of ourselves, and not systematically cause our own demise.
On October 18 2011 03:18 Laurence wrote: Taking drugs is a "victimless crime?" How naive is that statement!
if i smoked pot right now. Who am i hurting? i suppose some of my family members might hurt cause my room will smell like pot for some time. but thats fine. We will get over it.
Your post:
"Who am I hurting" ::names people:: "We'll get over it."
Oh okay then?
But yes, pot is probably the least harmful drug (although any short-term effects that would alter your mind or body could harm others if you're dumb enough to drive a car while under the influence, just like driving drunk).
Also, isn't doing drugs not a victimless crime because *you're* a victim? You're destroying your body (certainly with the harder drugs over a long period of time, ignoring milder things like marijuana)?
As a lot of other people have already mentioned, and it really doesn't take a huge leap of common sense to see it... There are tons of legal ways to destroy your body, in must faster and more severe ways than ANY of the illegal drugs. Fatty Foods/Heart Disease, Cigarettes/Cancer. Obviously the government and general populace isn't against weed because it destroys your body.... herp derp
Of course there are tons of legal ways to slowly destroy your body too. That's not what the topic is, so I don't appreciate the red herring. Let's try staying on topic now, thanks. What we're talking about here is illegal drugs. Doing illegal drugs harms your body as well, and so to say the crime is victimless is just wrong because you're a victim. That's merely the point I was making. You comparing legal and illegal ways to destroy your body doesn't make illegal drugs "victimless crimes".
And I was careful to separate pot from other, more harmful drugs, so please note that eating a cheeseburger or smoking a cigarette and then getting behind the wheel of a car is not worthy of being arrested, because your mind isn't altered, whereas smoking pot (or doing something worse) is. herp derp yourself, try paying attention please.
So please enlighten me. What negative effects does THC have on a user's body? I'm not talking about smoking, I'm talking about THC. No biased BS, scientific evidence, proven through research and the scientific method. Because I think it would have to harm you in order for you to be a victim. Or provide me with one example of someone who has died from marijuana.
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!
Where's that Jackie Chan meme when you need it? Or is the confused psychologist one better?
You don't choose to start your sexual orientation. You choose to take your first harmful drug. You don't come out of the womb with the fate that you're going to become a heroin addict, and that your life will be over no matter what. You still make the conscious decision to start heroin, and that is the reason why it's your fault you went down that path to destruction, and why your analogy makes zero sense.
Maybe you get addicted, and the effect that drugs have on your body can't be helped by you. But you're still the idiot who tried them in the first place. You can't be a heroin addict if you never try heroin. If you're stupid enough to take the risk and try harmful drugs even once, be prepared to deal with the worst possible consequences (which include addiction). This isn't even remotely close to being gay, and I can't believe that you're saying "addiction and sexual orientation both have genetic components, so therefore addicts and gays can be equated." Worst. Non sequitur. Ever.
(And I'm not saying that it's impossible for there to be benefits of drugs. I'm merely saying that if you're going to take the risk in doing drugs, you need to be prepared to deal with any consequences, including addiction. You're making the conscious decision to take part in this experimentation. On the other hand, you're the still gay, regardless of whether or not you do anything about it.)
You clearly don't know anything about the science of addiction. It is a predetermined condition. It isn't a choice. And you don't find out until you are already addicted to something.
Very few people try heroin, because its widely known that it can be extremely dangerous. Those that are willing to take the risk for the possible effect aren't "stupid." They desire the described effect for a reason.
Heroin doesn't have a profound effect, really. It's far more subtle than alcohol. It makes one feel comfortable, the most comfortable you can imagine. Like, Christmas morning with the whole family by the fire in a blanket with hot chocolate level of comfort. Potential users seek the effect despite the threat that the use of the drug poses to their life because they are psychologically ill, not because they are 'stupid.' They are prepared to deal with the worst possible consequences because they don't care about them. They don't care about ruining their lives. All they care about is not feeling like shit anymore.
Happy, stable, healthy people almost never try heroin. In fact, most hardcore addicts are usually victims of severe child abuse or childhood trauma. Most addicts suffered from depression long before they even began using, and pursued drugs because of that depression.
And really, are you such an asshole that you would think someone is trash just because of one mistake? Trying a drug once and BAM their lives are fucked? Or would you hate them because they continue to use, even though overcoming addiction is one of the most difficult struggles a human can go through?
If so, you're a worse human being than any addict I've ever met.
This is such a hypocritical post, compared to everyone else's thoughts, I just need to point this out. Everyone else is talking about how great drugs are, and I personally don't mind if drugs are legalized, because I don't think the government should have any say in what a person should or shouldn't do with their body, as long as they pay the consequences if they commit a crime under the influence.
But now all of a sudden, drug users are all victims, and the only release they can get are drugs (which are apparently mistakes), and now I should feel compassion for those who are addicted to their solution (which they wanted anyway)?
I certainly never said anything about thinking of them as trash, but they certainly made the decision to try something bad. If anything, you made it more clear that drug users are unintelligent people, if I'm supposed to take anything out of your post (although I don't know if I'm going to believe you or not, as plenty of people on TL seem to be rather smart, and have no problem with bragging about doing drugs).
So I'll just say what I said before, in different words: Those of us who are well-educated know that certain drugs can be addictive and incredibly harmful. If you want to take them (for whatever reason), you do that, and hopefully that works out well for you and you don't end up addicted or hurt or dead. Do what you want, but people are going to judge you based on the decisions you make. That doesn't make them "assholes".
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.
Wow. Just wow. Let me try that as well.
"Are elephants like potatoes?" Are made up of matter, like potatoes? Check. Are they subject to gravity? Check. Are they rough on the outside? Check. Do their names contain letters? Check.
I guess that proves that elephants are exactly like potatoes, then.
/sarcasm.
If you're just going to willfully ignore the actual point of my post and make some bullshit comparison based on traits I never even argued about, this is me checking out for the day.
Based on your piss poor arguments, I'd guess you've been "checked out" for a while.
Either that or he is one of those people who is against drugs because it is a social/cultural stigma and has never even considered why from a logical standpoint. I think your simple logic is blowing his mind. Think Dave Chapelle in the White KKK member skit.
On October 18 2011 06:02 Nibbler89 wrote: So first off since I think it's reasonable to not want to be around people who use drugs which can make a person dangerous, so instead I'll focus on the prejudice against pot users since I think most people can agree whether you approve of pot users or not that they aren't really dangerous so if you disapprove of them it's probably for reasons other than your personal safety.
So it seems a lot of people that are prejudiced against pot users are using the reason that it's a choice and they believe it's a unhealthy lifestyle choice. Therefore you can make assumptions about the person that are negative and not want to hang around them.
So do these same people also feel the same way about people who are fat / over weight and choose not to hang out with them? I'd think most people would say food isn't as addictive of a substance as drugs yet there is still a huge obesity problem in western nations. Do they consider people who are over weight, overweight by choice? Because overweight people "choose" to eat too much food or unhealthy food and not exercise enough. Do you make similar assumptions about them as many here seem to do about drug users? That they are lazy, rely on artificial happiness through food, don't care about their appearance to others and live an unhealthy lifestyle that doesn't involve being active?
Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the US so it's not as if it doesn't hurt anyone, obviously the person who is over weight but also the stress placed on healthcare.
I'm not saying these are my views I'm just wondering how/if people can reconcile being prejudiced against someone that uses marijuana but not be the same for overweight people assuming the same reasoning for their prejudice could be applied(disapproval of a unhealthy lifestyle so therefore do not want to be around them).Things like hanging out with meth users is obviously dangerous / scary for good reasons so I'm focusing on the prejudice based upon what is seen as a chosen unhealthy life style.
On October 18 2011 06:07 NeThZOR wrote: The illegal use of drug is quite rampant in most countries of the world, and it is disconcerting to see how people waste away their lives by something as pathetic as drugs. I have quite a few friends who use drugs in some form or another be it alcohol, weed, cocaine, etc. Now I am not saying that I have never consumed alcohol, but by using worse drugs than that is just looking for trouble. I believe that people should not mess with drugs, as it destroys lives. How many of a friend have I not seen administered into rehabilitation programs because of substance abuse. We need to take care of ourselves, and not systematically cause our own demise.
News flash man, alcohol is the worst drug out there, for your health as well as for society.
I don't have any problem with people who smoke pot or anything relatively natural. However seeing posts about drug users "seeing through the bullshit" is just a load of self admiring crap.
On October 18 2011 03:18 Laurence wrote: Taking drugs is a "victimless crime?" How naive is that statement!
if i smoked pot right now. Who am i hurting? i suppose some of my family members might hurt cause my room will smell like pot for some time. but thats fine. We will get over it.
Your post:
"Who am I hurting" ::names people:: "We'll get over it."
Oh okay then?
But yes, pot is probably the least harmful drug (although any short-term effects that would alter your mind or body could harm others if you're dumb enough to drive a car while under the influence, just like driving drunk).
Also, isn't doing drugs not a victimless crime because *you're* a victim? You're destroying your body (certainly with the harder drugs over a long period of time, ignoring milder things like marijuana)?
As a lot of other people have already mentioned, and it really doesn't take a huge leap of common sense to see it... There are tons of legal ways to destroy your body, in must faster and more severe ways than ANY of the illegal drugs. Fatty Foods/Heart Disease, Cigarettes/Cancer. Obviously the government and general populace isn't against weed because it destroys your body.... herp derp
Of course there are tons of legal ways to slowly destroy your body too. That's not what the topic is, so I don't appreciate the red herring. Let's try staying on topic now, thanks. What we're talking about here is illegal drugs. Doing illegal drugs harms your body as well, and so to say the crime is victimless is just wrong because you're a victim. That's merely the point I was making. You comparing legal and illegal ways to destroy your body doesn't make illegal drugs "victimless crimes".
And I was careful to separate pot from other, more harmful drugs, so please note that eating a cheeseburger or smoking a cigarette and then getting behind the wheel of a car is not worthy of being arrested, because your mind isn't altered, whereas smoking pot (or doing something worse) is. herp derp yourself, try paying attention please.
And you would know first hand at how dangerous it is to drive under the influence of weed, right?
Because that's an argument.
And I'm going to down a bottle of scotch before I know that driving drunk is bad too, right?
On October 18 2011 06:01 ryanAnger wrote: If you had the presence of mind to do any amount of research before making outrageous claims, you'd realize that of all things that negatively impact your ability to drive, consumption of marijuana is one of the least detrimental.
It's called research, my friend. I never said that marijuana hurts your chances of driving moreso than any other illegal drug. But it absolutely hinders your driving ability.
"A 2001 study by the United Kingdom Transit Research Laboratory (TRL) specifically focuses on the effects of cannabis use on driving,[37] and is one of the most recent and commonly quoted studies on the subject. The report summarizes current knowledge about the effects of cannabis on driving and accident risk based on a review of available literature published since 1994 and the effects of cannabis on laboratory based tasks.
The study identified young males, amongst whom cannabis consumption is frequent and increasing, and in whom alcohol consumption is also common, as a risk group for traffic accidents. This is due to driving inexperience and factors associated with youth relating to risk taking, delinquency and motivation. These demographic and psychosocial variables may relate to both drug use and accident risk, thereby presenting an artificial relationship between use of drugs and accident involvement.
The effects of cannabis on laboratory-based tasks show clear impairment with respect to tracking ability, attention, and other tasks depending on the dose administered. Both simulation and road trials generally find that driving behavior shortly after consumption of larger doses of cannabis results in:
increased variability in lane position (such as taking a curve too tightly or too loosely). longer decision times, leading to slower responses to driving situations Kelly, Darke and Ross[38] show similar results, with laboratory studies examining the effects of cannabis on skills utilised while driving showing impairments in tracking, attention, reaction time, short-term memory, hand-eye coordination, vigilance, time and distance perception, and decision making and concentration. An EMCDDA[39] review concluded that "the acute effect of moderate or higher doses of cannabis impairs the skills related to safe driving and injury risk", specifically "attention, tracking and psychomotor skills".[39] In their review of driving simulator studies, Kelly et al.[38] conclude that there is evidence of dose-dependent impairments in cannabis-affected drivers' ability to control a vehicle in the areas of steering, headway control, speed variability, car following, reaction time and lane positioning. The researchers note that "even in those who learn to compensate for a drug's impairing effects, substantial impairment in performance can still be observed under conditions of general task performance (i.e. when no contingencies are present to maintain compensated performance)."[39]" ~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_cannabis#Effects_on_driving
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!
Where's that Jackie Chan meme when you need it? Or is the confused psychologist one better?
You don't choose to start your sexual orientation. You choose to take your first harmful drug. You don't come out of the womb with the fate that you're going to become a heroin addict, and that your life will be over no matter what. You still make the conscious decision to start heroin, and that is the reason why it's your fault you went down that path to destruction, and why your analogy makes zero sense.
Maybe you get addicted, and the effect that drugs have on your body can't be helped by you. But you're still the idiot who tried them in the first place. You can't be a heroin addict if you never try heroin. If you're stupid enough to take the risk and try harmful drugs even once, be prepared to deal with the worst possible consequences (which include addiction). This isn't even remotely close to being gay, and I can't believe that you're saying "addiction and sexual orientation both have genetic components, so therefore addicts and gays can be equated." Worst. Non sequitur. Ever.
(And I'm not saying that it's impossible for there to be benefits of drugs. I'm merely saying that if you're going to take the risk in doing drugs, you need to be prepared to deal with any consequences, including addiction. You're making the conscious decision to take part in this experimentation. On the other hand, you're the still gay, regardless of whether or not you do anything about it.)
You clearly don't know anything about the science of addiction. It is a predetermined condition. It isn't a choice. And you don't find out until you are already addicted to something.
Very few people try heroin, because its widely known that it can be extremely dangerous. Those that are willing to take the risk for the possible effect aren't "stupid." They desire the described effect for a reason.
Heroin doesn't have a profound effect, really. It's far more subtle than alcohol. It makes one feel comfortable, the most comfortable you can imagine. Like, Christmas morning with the whole family by the fire in a blanket with hot chocolate level of comfort. Potential users seek the effect despite the threat that the use of the drug poses to their life because they are psychologically ill, not because they are 'stupid.' They are prepared to deal with the worst possible consequences because they don't care about them. They don't care about ruining their lives. All they care about is not feeling like shit anymore.
Happy, stable, healthy people almost never try heroin. In fact, most hardcore addicts are usually victims of severe child abuse or childhood trauma. Most addicts suffered from depression long before they even began using, and pursued drugs because of that depression.
And really, are you such an asshole that you would think someone is trash just because of one mistake? Trying a drug once and BAM their lives are fucked? Or would you hate them because they continue to use, even though overcoming addiction is one of the most difficult struggles a human can go through?
If so, you're a worse human being than any addict I've ever met.
This is such a hypocritical post, compared to everyone else's thoughts, I just need to point this out. Everyone else is talking about how great drugs are, and I personally don't mind if drugs are legalized, because I don't think the government should have any say in what a person should or shouldn't do with their body, as long as they pay the consequences if they commit a crime under the influence.
But now all of a sudden, drug users are all victims, and the only release they can get are drugs (which are apparently mistakes), and now I should feel compassion for those who are addicted to their solution (which they wanted anyway)?
I certainly never said anything about thinking of them as trash, but they certainly made the decision to try something bad. If anything, you made it more clear that drug users are unintelligent people, if I'm supposed to take anything out of your post (although I don't know if I'm going to believe you or not, as plenty of people on TL seem to be rather smart, and have no problem with bragging about doing drugs).
So I'll just say what I said before, in different words: Those of us who are well-educated know that certain drugs can be addictive and incredibly harmful. If you want to take them (for whatever reason), you do that, and hopefully that works out well for you and you don't end up addicted or hurt or dead. Do what you want, but people are going to judge you based on the decisions you make. That doesn't make them "assholes".
How did I at all say that drug users were unintelligent? I was talking about why addicts pursue drugs. I said twice that it doesn't make them stupid. Stop being fucking retarded.
Addicts are victims. Not users, addicts. Big, big, big difference.
And people who hate addicts for being addicts are judgmental assholes.
Basically my stance on this is kinda hard to explain, but more or less it boils down to me not really caring. I know that I will probably never (I don't want to say never, because that is so final) use drugs, but it doesn't really affect my opinion in a negative way. I just know the person a little bit better now and learned something about them that I didn't know before. The best way I can explain my position is with an example. So there was this really quiet and shy girl that I have known since like first grade. Last year I found out she smokes pot. Never saw it coming-she is the kinda person you would never expect to do anything illegal. Like at all. Up until that point I think that I would have begun to avoid that person, but for some reason I was just kinda like "Ok whatever." And now I just know her a little bit better and that was the end of it.
On October 18 2011 03:18 Laurence wrote: Taking drugs is a "victimless crime?" How naive is that statement!
if i smoked pot right now. Who am i hurting? i suppose some of my family members might hurt cause my room will smell like pot for some time. but thats fine. We will get over it.
Your post:
"Who am I hurting" ::names people:: "We'll get over it."
Oh okay then?
But yes, pot is probably the least harmful drug (although any short-term effects that would alter your mind or body could harm others if you're dumb enough to drive a car while under the influence, just like driving drunk).
Also, isn't doing drugs not a victimless crime because *you're* a victim? You're destroying your body (certainly with the harder drugs over a long period of time, ignoring milder things like marijuana)?
As a lot of other people have already mentioned, and it really doesn't take a huge leap of common sense to see it... There are tons of legal ways to destroy your body, in must faster and more severe ways than ANY of the illegal drugs. Fatty Foods/Heart Disease, Cigarettes/Cancer. Obviously the government and general populace isn't against weed because it destroys your body.... herp derp
Of course there are tons of legal ways to slowly destroy your body too. That's not what the topic is, so I don't appreciate the red herring. Let's try staying on topic now, thanks. What we're talking about here is illegal drugs. Doing illegal drugs harms your body as well, and so to say the crime is victimless is just wrong because you're a victim. That's merely the point I was making. You comparing legal and illegal ways to destroy your body doesn't make illegal drugs "victimless crimes".
And I was careful to separate pot from other, more harmful drugs, so please note that eating a cheeseburger or smoking a cigarette and then getting behind the wheel of a car is not worthy of being arrested, because your mind isn't altered, whereas smoking pot (or doing something worse) is. herp derp yourself, try paying attention please.
And you would know first hand at how dangerous it is to drive under the influence of weed, right?
Because that's an argument.
And I'm going to down a bottle of scotch before I know that driving drunk is bad too, right?
On October 18 2011 06:01 ryanAnger wrote: If you had the presence of mind to do any amount of research before making outrageous claims, you'd realize that of all things that negatively impact your ability to drive, consumption of marijuana is one of the least detrimental.
It's called research, my friend. I never said that marijuana hurts your chances of driving moreso than any other illegal drug. But it absolutely hinders your driving ability.
"A 2001 study by the United Kingdom Transit Research Laboratory (TRL) specifically focuses on the effects of cannabis use on driving,[37] and is one of the most recent and commonly quoted studies on the subject. The report summarizes current knowledge about the effects of cannabis on driving and accident risk based on a review of available literature published since 1994 and the effects of cannabis on laboratory based tasks.
The study identified young males, amongst whom cannabis consumption is frequent and increasing, and in whom alcohol consumption is also common, as a risk group for traffic accidents. This is due to driving inexperience and factors associated with youth relating to risk taking, delinquency and motivation. These demographic and psychosocial variables may relate to both drug use and accident risk, thereby presenting an artificial relationship between use of drugs and accident involvement.
The effects of cannabis on laboratory-based tasks show clear impairment with respect to tracking ability, attention, and other tasks depending on the dose administered. Both simulation and road trials generally find that driving behavior shortly after consumption of larger doses of cannabis results in:
increased variability in lane position (such as taking a curve too tightly or too loosely). longer decision times, leading to slower responses to driving situations Kelly, Darke and Ross[38] show similar results, with laboratory studies examining the effects of cannabis on skills utilised while driving showing impairments in tracking, attention, reaction time, short-term memory, hand-eye coordination, vigilance, time and distance perception, and decision making and concentration. An EMCDDA[39] review concluded that "the acute effect of moderate or higher doses of cannabis impairs the skills related to safe driving and injury risk", specifically "attention, tracking and psychomotor skills".[39] In their review of driving simulator studies, Kelly et al.[38] conclude that there is evidence of dose-dependent impairments in cannabis-affected drivers' ability to control a vehicle in the areas of steering, headway control, speed variability, car following, reaction time and lane positioning. The researchers note that "even in those who learn to compensate for a drug's impairing effects, substantial impairment in performance can still be observed under conditions of general task performance (i.e. when no contingencies are present to maintain compensated performance)."[39]" ~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_cannabis#Effects_on_driving
It's sooo nice to see that people know what they're talking about -.-'
Yes.. it is an argument, you have no clue what you're talking about and for someone so "highly educated" you're pretty stupid. You ACTUALLY think wikipedia is a legitimate source for information? ... try again
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!
Where's that Jackie Chan meme when you need it? Or is the confused psychologist one better?
You don't choose to start your sexual orientation. You choose to take your first harmful drug. You don't come out of the womb with the fate that you're going to become a heroin addict, and that your life will be over no matter what. You still make the conscious decision to start heroin, and that is the reason why it's your fault you went down that path to destruction, and why your analogy makes zero sense.
Maybe you get addicted, and the effect that drugs have on your body can't be helped by you. But you're still the idiot who tried them in the first place. You can't be a heroin addict if you never try heroin. If you're stupid enough to take the risk and try harmful drugs even once, be prepared to deal with the worst possible consequences (which include addiction). This isn't even remotely close to being gay, and I can't believe that you're saying "addiction and sexual orientation both have genetic components, so therefore addicts and gays can be equated." Worst. Non sequitur. Ever.
(And I'm not saying that it's impossible for there to be benefits of drugs. I'm merely saying that if you're going to take the risk in doing drugs, you need to be prepared to deal with any consequences, including addiction. You're making the conscious decision to take part in this experimentation. On the other hand, you're the still gay, regardless of whether or not you do anything about it.)
You clearly don't know anything about the science of addiction. It is a predetermined condition. It isn't a choice. And you don't find out until you are already addicted to something.
Very few people try heroin, because its widely known that it can be extremely dangerous. Those that are willing to take the risk for the possible effect aren't "stupid." They desire the described effect for a reason.
Heroin doesn't have a profound effect, really. It's far more subtle than alcohol. It makes one feel comfortable, the most comfortable you can imagine. Like, Christmas morning with the whole family by the fire in a blanket with hot chocolate level of comfort. Potential users seek the effect despite the threat that the use of the drug poses to their life because they are psychologically ill, not because they are 'stupid.' They are prepared to deal with the worst possible consequences because they don't care about them. They don't care about ruining their lives. All they care about is not feeling like shit anymore.
Happy, stable, healthy people almost never try heroin. In fact, most hardcore addicts are usually victims of severe child abuse or childhood trauma. Most addicts suffered from depression long before they even began using, and pursued drugs because of that depression.
And really, are you such an asshole that you would think someone is trash just because of one mistake? Trying a drug once and BAM their lives are fucked? Or would you hate them because they continue to use, even though overcoming addiction is one of the most difficult struggles a human can go through?
If so, you're a worse human being than any addict I've ever met.
This is such a hypocritical post, compared to everyone else's thoughts, I just need to point this out. Everyone else is talking about how great drugs are, and I personally don't mind if drugs are legalized, because I don't think the government should have any say in what a person should or shouldn't do with their body, as long as they pay the consequences if they commit a crime under the influence.
But now all of a sudden, drug users are all victims, and the only release they can get are drugs (which are apparently mistakes), and now I should feel compassion for those who are addicted to their solution (which they wanted anyway)?
I certainly never said anything about thinking of them as trash, but they certainly made the decision to try something bad. If anything, you made it more clear that drug users are unintelligent people, if I'm supposed to take anything out of your post (although I don't know if I'm going to believe you or not, as plenty of people on TL seem to be rather smart, and have no problem with bragging about doing drugs).
So I'll just say what I said before, in different words: Those of us who are well-educated know that certain drugs can be addictive and incredibly harmful. If you want to take them (for whatever reason), you do that, and hopefully that works out well for you and you don't end up addicted or hurt or dead. Do what you want, but people are going to judge you based on the decisions you make. That doesn't make them "assholes".
what makes people assholes is that they assume a person is addicted to drugs, because they make "bad choices" without reasoning why those bad choices are made. Same way some people are like "LOL wtf, why dont you get a job you homeless bum" without realizing the person they are talking to most likley has mental imbalances that prevent him, or blind him, from making the "correct" choice.
Sometimes its better not to say anything, then to give out your 2cents without any reason.
On October 18 2011 06:11 SupLilSon wrote: Either that or he is one of those people who is against drugs because it is a social/cultural stigma and has never even considered why from a logical standpoint. I think your simple logic is blowing his mind. Think Dave Chapelle in the White KKK member skit.
Shocking, people have negative opinions of things that violate cultural norms.
Anyone is welcome to judge others how they want as long as they're at least respectful.
My only gripe is the parsing between legal drugs and illegal drugs. Someone who drinks even a single beer regularly is consuming, regularly, one of the most inebriating, intoxicating and personally-destructive drugs on the planet. Which is fine, it's also a drug which can be enjoyed in moderation, at least by some people. But it is a drug, and a serious one at that.
I've smoked and drank and seen my fair share of all types. Frankly, I really do think alcohol is insanely underrated to how much it actually does to a person. I look at someone who is properly drunk, and they're quite simply less in control of themselves than most people are on other drugs.
The withdrawal from alcohol, should you become addicted, can outright kill you like no other drug can. It doesn't just damage brain cells, it destroys your liver too.
It's pretty much the oldest, easiest to make drug make. That's the real difference.
For the second poll I chose "it depends". I don't really care if they use drugs on and off, like smoking pot at a party, but as soon as they start falling into stoner culture, I lose all respect for them.
For instance, whenever I see an Xbox Live tag with 420, or any other reference to pot, I immediately assume they completely lack any value as a human being.
On October 18 2011 03:18 Laurence wrote: Taking drugs is a "victimless crime?" How naive is that statement!
if i smoked pot right now. Who am i hurting? i suppose some of my family members might hurt cause my room will smell like pot for some time. but thats fine. We will get over it.
Your post:
"Who am I hurting" ::names people:: "We'll get over it."
Oh okay then?
But yes, pot is probably the least harmful drug (although any short-term effects that would alter your mind or body could harm others if you're dumb enough to drive a car while under the influence, just like driving drunk).
Also, isn't doing drugs not a victimless crime because *you're* a victim? You're destroying your body (certainly with the harder drugs over a long period of time, ignoring milder things like marijuana)?
As a lot of other people have already mentioned, and it really doesn't take a huge leap of common sense to see it... There are tons of legal ways to destroy your body, in must faster and more severe ways than ANY of the illegal drugs. Fatty Foods/Heart Disease, Cigarettes/Cancer. Obviously the government and general populace isn't against weed because it destroys your body.... herp derp
Of course there are tons of legal ways to slowly destroy your body too. That's not what the topic is, so I don't appreciate the red herring. Let's try staying on topic now, thanks. What we're talking about here is illegal drugs. Doing illegal drugs harms your body as well, and so to say the crime is victimless is just wrong because you're a victim. That's merely the point I was making. You comparing legal and illegal ways to destroy your body doesn't make illegal drugs "victimless crimes".
And I was careful to separate pot from other, more harmful drugs, so please note that eating a cheeseburger or smoking a cigarette and then getting behind the wheel of a car is not worthy of being arrested, because your mind isn't altered, whereas smoking pot (or doing something worse) is. herp derp yourself, try paying attention please.
And you would know first hand at how dangerous it is to drive under the influence of weed, right?
Because that's an argument.
And I'm going to down a bottle of scotch before I know that driving drunk is bad too, right?
On October 18 2011 06:01 ryanAnger wrote: If you had the presence of mind to do any amount of research before making outrageous claims, you'd realize that of all things that negatively impact your ability to drive, consumption of marijuana is one of the least detrimental.
It's called research, my friend. I never said that marijuana hurts your chances of driving moreso than any other illegal drug. But it absolutely hinders your driving ability.
"A 2001 study by the United Kingdom Transit Research Laboratory (TRL) specifically focuses on the effects of cannabis use on driving,[37] and is one of the most recent and commonly quoted studies on the subject. The report summarizes current knowledge about the effects of cannabis on driving and accident risk based on a review of available literature published since 1994 and the effects of cannabis on laboratory based tasks.
The study identified young males, amongst whom cannabis consumption is frequent and increasing, and in whom alcohol consumption is also common, as a risk group for traffic accidents. This is due to driving inexperience and factors associated with youth relating to risk taking, delinquency and motivation. These demographic and psychosocial variables may relate to both drug use and accident risk, thereby presenting an artificial relationship between use of drugs and accident involvement.
The effects of cannabis on laboratory-based tasks show clear impairment with respect to tracking ability, attention, and other tasks depending on the dose administered. Both simulation and road trials generally find that driving behavior shortly after consumption of larger doses of cannabis results in:
increased variability in lane position (such as taking a curve too tightly or too loosely). longer decision times, leading to slower responses to driving situations Kelly, Darke and Ross[38] show similar results, with laboratory studies examining the effects of cannabis on skills utilised while driving showing impairments in tracking, attention, reaction time, short-term memory, hand-eye coordination, vigilance, time and distance perception, and decision making and concentration. An EMCDDA[39] review concluded that "the acute effect of moderate or higher doses of cannabis impairs the skills related to safe driving and injury risk", specifically "attention, tracking and psychomotor skills".[39] In their review of driving simulator studies, Kelly et al.[38] conclude that there is evidence of dose-dependent impairments in cannabis-affected drivers' ability to control a vehicle in the areas of steering, headway control, speed variability, car following, reaction time and lane positioning. The researchers note that "even in those who learn to compensate for a drug's impairing effects, substantial impairment in performance can still be observed under conditions of general task performance (i.e. when no contingencies are present to maintain compensated performance)."[39]" ~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_cannabis#Effects_on_driving
It's sooo nice to see that people know what they're talking about -.-'
Yes.. it is an argument, you have no clue what you're talking about and for someone so "highly educated" you're pretty stupid. You ACTUALLY think wikipedia is a legitimate source for information? ... try again
LOL Yes, please dismiss all the cited references, including The National Archives, Drug and Alcohol Review, and European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.
This is really too much. Tons of documented evidence on that source (73 references on the entire page, to be exact), and that's not enough for you.
Fine, not credible, should have had 74 or 75. Darn it.
Here's another:
"Effects on Driving: The drug manufacturer suggests that patients receiving treatment with Marinol® should be specifically warned not to drive until it is established that they are able to tolerate the drug and perform such tasks safely. Epidemiology data from road traffic arrests and fatalities indicate that after alcohol, marijuana is the most frequently detected psychoactive substance among driving populations. Marijuana has been shown to impair performance on driving simulator tasks and on open and closed driving courses for up to approximately 3 hours. Decreased car handling performance, increased reaction times, impaired time and distance estimation, inability to maintain headway, lateral travel, subjective sleepiness, motor incoordination, and impaired sustained vigilance have all been reported. Some drivers may actually be able to improve performance for brief periods by overcompensating for self-perceived impairment. The greater the demands placed on the driver, however, the more critical the likely impairment. Marijuana may particularly impair monotonous and prolonged driving. Decision times to evaluate situations and determine appropriate responses increase. Mixing alcohol and marijuana may dramatically produce effects greater than either drug on its own." ~http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/job185drugs/cannabis.htm
And another:
"Laboratory studies have shown that cannabis compromises reaction time, attention, decision making, time and distance perception, short-term memory, hand-eye coordination, and concentration. These studies have the advantage of being able to test the effects of large doses of cannabis under controlled conditions, but it is unclear to what extent these results apply to real- world driving." ~http://ncpic.org.au/ncpic/publications/factsheets/article/cannabis-and-driving
But now I'm just text-walling, and you guys aren't even reading any of this evidence anyway. It's really intellectually dishonest of you, actually.
I don't mind people smoking pot. I hear it's fun. Just please don't smoke and drive
On October 18 2011 06:22 Millitron wrote: For the second poll I chose "it depends". I don't really care if they use drugs on and off, like smoking pot at a party, but as soon as they start falling into stoner culture, I lose all respect for them.
For instance, whenever I see an Xbox Live tag with 420, or any other reference to pot, I immediately assume they completely lack any value as a human being.
How is that any different than old people thinking anyone who plays video games or is immersed in gamer culture is brainwashed?
On October 18 2011 06:11 SupLilSon wrote: Either that or he is one of those people who is against drugs because it is a social/cultural stigma and has never even considered why from a logical standpoint. I think your simple logic is blowing his mind. Think Dave Chapelle in the White KKK member skit.
Shocking, people have negative opinions of things that violate cultural norms.
It really is shocking that people blindly accept cultural norms without ever thinking for themselves. If you don't see a problem with this then you would have loved Nazi Germany.
On October 18 2011 06:02 Nibbler89 wrote: So first off since I think it's reasonable to not want to be around people who use drugs which can make a person dangerous, so instead I'll focus on the prejudice against pot users since I think most people can agree whether you approve of pot users or not that they aren't really dangerous so if you disapprove of them it's probably for reasons other than your personal safety.
So it seems a lot of people that are prejudiced against pot users are using the reason that it's a choice and they believe it's a unhealthy lifestyle choice. Therefore you can make assumptions about the person that are negative and not want to hang around them.
So do these same people also feel the same way about people who are fat / over weight and choose not to hang out with them? I'd think most people would say food isn't as addictive of a substance as drugs yet there is still a huge obesity problem in western nations. Do they consider people who are over weight, overweight by choice? Because overweight people "choose" to eat too much food or unhealthy food and not exercise enough. Do you make similar assumptions about them as many here seem to do about drug users? That they are lazy, rely on artificial happiness through food, don't care about their appearance to others and live an unhealthy lifestyle that doesn't involve being active?
Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the US so it's not as if it doesn't hurt anyone, obviously the person who is over weight but also the stress placed on healthcare.
I'm not saying these are my views I'm just wondering how/if people can reconcile being prejudiced against someone that uses marijuana but not be the same for overweight people when the same reasoning for their prejudice could be applied(disapproval of a unhealthy lifestyle so therefore do not want to be around them).Things like hanging out with meth users is obviously dangerous / scary for good reasons so I'm focusing on the prejudice based upon what is seen as a chosen unhealthy life style.
I'm a fat guy myself and I don't hang out with a bunch of body builders and health enthusiasts. Is that prejudice? Yeah, that's a form of prejudice because I believe I can't relate with them because our hobbies might be different. People prioritize who they want to associate with what they value, for some people substance use is a no go. I'm fine with certain substance use but no form of substance abuse personally. Does that mean that a substance abuser can't be an awesome person? No. But because I value x, I choose not to associate with y.
Prejudice is a part of life and as long as that prejudice doesn't manifest itself in a form that violates the rights of individuals or the law, then there is no problem. This opinion poll is silly, I think time posting here would be better spent discussing social changes and the legalization of certain drugs.
On October 18 2011 06:02 Nibbler89 wrote: So first off since I think it's reasonable to not want to be around people who use drugs which can make a person dangerous, so instead I'll focus on the prejudice against pot users since I think most people can agree whether you approve of pot users or not that they aren't really dangerous so if you disapprove of them it's probably for reasons other than your personal safety.
So it seems a lot of people that are prejudiced against pot users are using the reason that it's a choice and they believe it's a unhealthy lifestyle choice. Therefore you can make assumptions about the person that are negative and not want to hang around them.
So do these same people also feel the same way about people who are fat / over weight and choose not to hang out with them? I'd think most people would say food isn't as addictive of a substance as drugs yet there is still a huge obesity problem in western nations. Do they consider people who are over weight, overweight by choice? Because overweight people "choose" to eat too much food or unhealthy food and not exercise enough. Do you make similar assumptions about them as many here seem to do about drug users? That they are lazy, rely on artificial happiness through food, don't care about their appearance to others and live an unhealthy lifestyle that doesn't involve being active?
Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the US so it's not as if it doesn't hurt anyone, obviously the person who is over weight but also the stress placed on healthcare.
I'm not saying these are my views I'm just wondering how/if people can reconcile being prejudiced against someone that uses marijuana but not be the same for overweight people assuming the same reasoning for their prejudice could be applied(disapproval of a unhealthy lifestyle so therefore do not want to be around them).Things like hanging out with meth users is obviously dangerous / scary for good reasons so I'm focusing on the prejudice based upon what is seen as a chosen unhealthy life style.
He said "AS addictive". Obviously anything can be addictive, from drugs to exercise to chocolate.
The crucial difference between fatty foods and alcohol compared to hard drugs is that when used in moderation, they aren't detrimental to a person's health. Drugs on the other hand are always harmful. (I won't comment about marihuana because I really don't want to get into the "is marihuana bad" argument) Obesity is a massive problem in public health, but it's a very hard problem to solve, because you can't exactly ban fast food. A better solution is trying to make healthier food an easier and cheaper choice.
Smoking is a hard issue though. Smoking, even in moderation, has strong negative effects. The reason why it's legal is it became so widespread before it's negative effects were realized that it would not be feasible to ban it right now. However, with the amount of people smoking going down, someday in the future it might be banned with other drugs.
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!
Where's that Jackie Chan meme when you need it? Or is the confused psychologist one better?
You don't choose to start your sexual orientation. You choose to take your first harmful drug. You don't come out of the womb with the fate that you're going to become a heroin addict, and that your life will be over no matter what. You still make the conscious decision to start heroin, and that is the reason why it's your fault you went down that path to destruction, and why your analogy makes zero sense.
Maybe you get addicted, and the effect that drugs have on your body can't be helped by you. But you're still the idiot who tried them in the first place. You can't be a heroin addict if you never try heroin. If you're stupid enough to take the risk and try harmful drugs even once, be prepared to deal with the worst possible consequences (which include addiction). This isn't even remotely close to being gay, and I can't believe that you're saying "addiction and sexual orientation both have genetic components, so therefore addicts and gays can be equated." Worst. Non sequitur. Ever.
(And I'm not saying that it's impossible for there to be benefits of drugs. I'm merely saying that if you're going to take the risk in doing drugs, you need to be prepared to deal with any consequences, including addiction. You're making the conscious decision to take part in this experimentation. On the other hand, you're the still gay, regardless of whether or not you do anything about it.)
You clearly don't know anything about the science of addiction. It is a predetermined condition. It isn't a choice. And you don't find out until you are already addicted to something.
Very few people try heroin, because its widely known that it can be extremely dangerous. Those that are willing to take the risk for the possible effect aren't "stupid." They desire the described effect for a reason.
Heroin doesn't have a profound effect, really. It's far more subtle than alcohol. It makes one feel comfortable, the most comfortable you can imagine. Like, Christmas morning with the whole family by the fire in a blanket with hot chocolate level of comfort. Potential users seek the effect despite the threat that the use of the drug poses to their life because they are psychologically ill, not because they are 'stupid.' They are prepared to deal with the worst possible consequences because they don't care about them. They don't care about ruining their lives. All they care about is not feeling like shit anymore.
Happy, stable, healthy people almost never try heroin. In fact, most hardcore addicts are usually victims of severe child abuse or childhood trauma. Most addicts suffered from depression long before they even began using, and pursued drugs because of that depression.
And really, are you such an asshole that you would think someone is trash just because of one mistake? Trying a drug once and BAM their lives are fucked? Or would you hate them because they continue to use, even though overcoming addiction is one of the most difficult struggles a human can go through?
If so, you're a worse human being than any addict I've ever met.
This is such a hypocritical post, compared to everyone else's thoughts, I just need to point this out. Everyone else is talking about how great drugs are, and I personally don't mind if drugs are legalized, because I don't think the government should have any say in what a person should or shouldn't do with their body, as long as they pay the consequences if they commit a crime under the influence.
But now all of a sudden, drug users are all victims, and the only release they can get are drugs (which are apparently mistakes), and now I should feel compassion for those who are addicted to their solution (which they wanted anyway)?
I certainly never said anything about thinking of them as trash, but they certainly made the decision to try something bad. If anything, you made it more clear that drug users are unintelligent people, if I'm supposed to take anything out of your post (although I don't know if I'm going to believe you or not, as plenty of people on TL seem to be rather smart, and have no problem with bragging about doing drugs).
So I'll just say what I said before, in different words: Those of us who are well-educated know that certain drugs can be addictive and incredibly harmful. If you want to take them (for whatever reason), you do that, and hopefully that works out well for you and you don't end up addicted or hurt or dead. Do what you want, but people are going to judge you based on the decisions you make. That doesn't make them "assholes".
what makes people assholes is that they assume a person is addicted to drugs, because they make "bad choices" without reasoning why those bad choices are made. Same way some people are like "LOL wtf, why dont you get a job you homeless bum" without realizing the person they are talking to most likley has mental imbalances that prevent him, or blind him, from making the "correct" choice.
Sometimes its better not to say anything, then to give out your 2cents without any reason.
I think that's a good point. It's important to understand the background and circumstances surrounding people's decisions and lifestyles before formulating opinions about them.
On October 18 2011 03:18 Laurence wrote: Taking drugs is a "victimless crime?" How naive is that statement!
if i smoked pot right now. Who am i hurting? i suppose some of my family members might hurt cause my room will smell like pot for some time. but thats fine. We will get over it.
Your post:
"Who am I hurting" ::names people:: "We'll get over it."
Oh okay then?
But yes, pot is probably the least harmful drug (although any short-term effects that would alter your mind or body could harm others if you're dumb enough to drive a car while under the influence, just like driving drunk).
Also, isn't doing drugs not a victimless crime because *you're* a victim? You're destroying your body (certainly with the harder drugs over a long period of time, ignoring milder things like marijuana)?
As a lot of other people have already mentioned, and it really doesn't take a huge leap of common sense to see it... There are tons of legal ways to destroy your body, in must faster and more severe ways than ANY of the illegal drugs. Fatty Foods/Heart Disease, Cigarettes/Cancer. Obviously the government and general populace isn't against weed because it destroys your body.... herp derp
Of course there are tons of legal ways to slowly destroy your body too. That's not what the topic is, so I don't appreciate the red herring. Let's try staying on topic now, thanks. What we're talking about here is illegal drugs. Doing illegal drugs harms your body as well, and so to say the crime is victimless is just wrong because you're a victim. That's merely the point I was making. You comparing legal and illegal ways to destroy your body doesn't make illegal drugs "victimless crimes".
And I was careful to separate pot from other, more harmful drugs, so please note that eating a cheeseburger or smoking a cigarette and then getting behind the wheel of a car is not worthy of being arrested, because your mind isn't altered, whereas smoking pot (or doing something worse) is. herp derp yourself, try paying attention please.
And you would know first hand at how dangerous it is to drive under the influence of weed, right?
Because that's an argument.
And I'm going to down a bottle of scotch before I know that driving drunk is bad too, right?
On October 18 2011 06:01 ryanAnger wrote: If you had the presence of mind to do any amount of research before making outrageous claims, you'd realize that of all things that negatively impact your ability to drive, consumption of marijuana is one of the least detrimental.
It's called research, my friend. I never said that marijuana hurts your chances of driving moreso than any other illegal drug. But it absolutely hinders your driving ability.
"A 2001 study by the United Kingdom Transit Research Laboratory (TRL) specifically focuses on the effects of cannabis use on driving,[37] and is one of the most recent and commonly quoted studies on the subject. The report summarizes current knowledge about the effects of cannabis on driving and accident risk based on a review of available literature published since 1994 and the effects of cannabis on laboratory based tasks.
The study identified young males, amongst whom cannabis consumption is frequent and increasing, and in whom alcohol consumption is also common, as a risk group for traffic accidents. This is due to driving inexperience and factors associated with youth relating to risk taking, delinquency and motivation. These demographic and psychosocial variables may relate to both drug use and accident risk, thereby presenting an artificial relationship between use of drugs and accident involvement.
The effects of cannabis on laboratory-based tasks show clear impairment with respect to tracking ability, attention, and other tasks depending on the dose administered. Both simulation and road trials generally find that driving behavior shortly after consumption of larger doses of cannabis results in:
increased variability in lane position (such as taking a curve too tightly or too loosely). longer decision times, leading to slower responses to driving situations Kelly, Darke and Ross[38] show similar results, with laboratory studies examining the effects of cannabis on skills utilised while driving showing impairments in tracking, attention, reaction time, short-term memory, hand-eye coordination, vigilance, time and distance perception, and decision making and concentration. An EMCDDA[39] review concluded that "the acute effect of moderate or higher doses of cannabis impairs the skills related to safe driving and injury risk", specifically "attention, tracking and psychomotor skills".[39] In their review of driving simulator studies, Kelly et al.[38] conclude that there is evidence of dose-dependent impairments in cannabis-affected drivers' ability to control a vehicle in the areas of steering, headway control, speed variability, car following, reaction time and lane positioning. The researchers note that "even in those who learn to compensate for a drug's impairing effects, substantial impairment in performance can still be observed under conditions of general task performance (i.e. when no contingencies are present to maintain compensated performance)."[39]" ~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_cannabis#Effects_on_driving
It's sooo nice to see that people know what they're talking about -.-'
Yes.. it is an argument, you have no clue what you're talking about and for someone so "highly educated" you're pretty stupid. You ACTUALLY think wikipedia is a legitimate source for information? ... try again
LOL Yes, please dismiss all the cited references, including The National Archives, Drug and Alcohol Review, and European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.
This is really too much. Tons of documented evidence on that source (73 references on the entire page, to be exact), and that's not enough for you.
Fine, not credible, should have had 74 or 75. Darn it.
Here's another:
"Effects on Driving: The drug manufacturer suggests that patients receiving treatment with Marinol® should be specifically warned not to drive until it is established that they are able to tolerate the drug and perform such tasks safely. Epidemiology data from road traffic arrests and fatalities indicate that after alcohol, marijuana is the most frequently detected psychoactive substance among driving populations. Marijuana has been shown to impair performance on driving simulator tasks and on open and closed driving courses for up to approximately 3 hours. Decreased car handling performance, increased reaction times, impaired time and distance estimation, inability to maintain headway, lateral travel, subjective sleepiness, motor incoordination, and impaired sustained vigilance have all been reported. Some drivers may actually be able to improve performance for brief periods by overcompensating for self-perceived impairment. The greater the demands placed on the driver, however, the more critical the likely impairment. Marijuana may particularly impair monotonous and prolonged driving. Decision times to evaluate situations and determine appropriate responses increase. Mixing alcohol and marijuana may dramatically produce effects greater than either drug on its own." ~http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/job185drugs/cannabis.htm
And another:
"Laboratory studies have shown that cannabis compromises reaction time, attention, decision making, time and distance perception, short-term memory, hand-eye coordination, and concentration. These studies have the advantage of being able to test the effects of large doses of cannabis under controlled conditions, but it is unclear to what extent these results apply to real- world driving." ~http://ncpic.org.au/ncpic/publications/factsheets/article/cannabis-and-driving
But now I'm just text-walling, and you guys aren't even reading any of this evidence anyway. It's really intellectually dishonest of you, actually.
I don't mind people smoking pot. I hear it's fun. Just please don't smoke and drive
I'm fairly certain you've never gone to school at all. You are what is wrong with modern society.
On October 18 2011 06:11 SupLilSon wrote: Either that or he is one of those people who is against drugs because it is a social/cultural stigma and has never even considered why from a logical standpoint. I think your simple logic is blowing his mind. Think Dave Chapelle in the White KKK member skit.
Shocking, people have negative opinions of things that violate cultural norms.
It really is shocking that people blindly accept cultural norms without ever thinking for themselves. If you don't see a problem with this then you would have loved Nazi Germany.
Really? Do you really want to compare drug use (which does have negative consequences of varying degrees) to the Holocaust? That comparison doesn't even make any reasonable amount of sense.
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!
Where's that Jackie Chan meme when you need it? Or is the confused psychologist one better?
You don't choose to start your sexual orientation. You choose to take your first harmful drug. You don't come out of the womb with the fate that you're going to become a heroin addict, and that your life will be over no matter what. You still make the conscious decision to start heroin, and that is the reason why it's your fault you went down that path to destruction, and why your analogy makes zero sense.
Maybe you get addicted, and the effect that drugs have on your body can't be helped by you. But you're still the idiot who tried them in the first place. You can't be a heroin addict if you never try heroin. If you're stupid enough to take the risk and try harmful drugs even once, be prepared to deal with the worst possible consequences (which include addiction). This isn't even remotely close to being gay, and I can't believe that you're saying "addiction and sexual orientation both have genetic components, so therefore addicts and gays can be equated." Worst. Non sequitur. Ever.
(And I'm not saying that it's impossible for there to be benefits of drugs. I'm merely saying that if you're going to take the risk in doing drugs, you need to be prepared to deal with any consequences, including addiction. You're making the conscious decision to take part in this experimentation. On the other hand, you're the still gay, regardless of whether or not you do anything about it.)
You clearly don't know anything about the science of addiction. It is a predetermined condition. It isn't a choice. And you don't find out until you are already addicted to something.
Very few people try heroin, because its widely known that it can be extremely dangerous. Those that are willing to take the risk for the possible effect aren't "stupid." They desire the described effect for a reason.
Heroin doesn't have a profound effect, really. It's far more subtle than alcohol. It makes one feel comfortable, the most comfortable you can imagine. Like, Christmas morning with the whole family by the fire in a blanket with hot chocolate level of comfort. Potential users seek the effect despite the threat that the use of the drug poses to their life because they are psychologically ill, not because they are 'stupid.' They are prepared to deal with the worst possible consequences because they don't care about them. They don't care about ruining their lives. All they care about is not feeling like shit anymore.
Happy, stable, healthy people almost never try heroin. In fact, most hardcore addicts are usually victims of severe child abuse or childhood trauma. Most addicts suffered from depression long before they even began using, and pursued drugs because of that depression.
And really, are you such an asshole that you would think someone is trash just because of one mistake? Trying a drug once and BAM their lives are fucked? Or would you hate them because they continue to use, even though overcoming addiction is one of the most difficult struggles a human can go through?
If so, you're a worse human being than any addict I've ever met.
This is such a hypocritical post, compared to everyone else's thoughts, I just need to point this out. Everyone else is talking about how great drugs are, and I personally don't mind if drugs are legalized, because I don't think the government should have any say in what a person should or shouldn't do with their body, as long as they pay the consequences if they commit a crime under the influence.
But now all of a sudden, drug users are all victims, and the only release they can get are drugs (which are apparently mistakes), and now I should feel compassion for those who are addicted to their solution (which they wanted anyway)?
I certainly never said anything about thinking of them as trash, but they certainly made the decision to try something bad. If anything, you made it more clear that drug users are unintelligent people, if I'm supposed to take anything out of your post (although I don't know if I'm going to believe you or not, as plenty of people on TL seem to be rather smart, and have no problem with bragging about doing drugs).
So I'll just say what I said before, in different words: Those of us who are well-educated know that certain drugs can be addictive and incredibly harmful. If you want to take them (for whatever reason), you do that, and hopefully that works out well for you and you don't end up addicted or hurt or dead. Do what you want, but people are going to judge you based on the decisions you make. That doesn't make them "assholes".
what makes people assholes is that they assume a person is addicted to drugs, because they make "bad choices" without reasoning why those bad choices are made. Same way some people are like "LOL wtf, why dont you get a job you homeless bum" without realizing the person they are talking to most likley has mental imbalances that prevent him, or blind him, from making the "correct" choice.
Sometimes its better not to say anything, then to give out your 2cents without any reason.
I think that's a good point. It's important to understand the background and circumstances surrounding people's decisions and lifestyles before formulating opinions about them.
Well if everyone uses that point in their thought process, they would not have to result in expressing themselves with prejudice. Prejudice is exactly that, Pre Judiciary, making assumptions without proper knowledge. And seems like Majority of people here are fine with that kind of "reasoning"; which is really sad, especially when they try and argue their un-knowledgeable assumptions.
On October 18 2011 06:11 SupLilSon wrote: Either that or he is one of those people who is against drugs because it is a social/cultural stigma and has never even considered why from a logical standpoint. I think your simple logic is blowing his mind. Think Dave Chapelle in the White KKK member skit.
Shocking, people have negative opinions of things that violate cultural norms.
It really is shocking that people blindly accept cultural norms without ever thinking for themselves. If you don't see a problem with this then you would have loved Nazi Germany.
Really? Do you really want to compare drug use (which does have negative consequences of varying degrees) to the Holocaust? That comparison doesn't even make any reasonable amount of sense.
Really. How does it not make any reasonable sense? I think you just have reading comprehension problems..
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!
Where's that Jackie Chan meme when you need it? Or is the confused psychologist one better?
You don't choose to start your sexual orientation. You choose to take your first harmful drug. You don't come out of the womb with the fate that you're going to become a heroin addict, and that your life will be over no matter what. You still make the conscious decision to start heroin, and that is the reason why it's your fault you went down that path to destruction, and why your analogy makes zero sense.
Maybe you get addicted, and the effect that drugs have on your body can't be helped by you. But you're still the idiot who tried them in the first place. You can't be a heroin addict if you never try heroin. If you're stupid enough to take the risk and try harmful drugs even once, be prepared to deal with the worst possible consequences (which include addiction). This isn't even remotely close to being gay, and I can't believe that you're saying "addiction and sexual orientation both have genetic components, so therefore addicts and gays can be equated." Worst. Non sequitur. Ever.
(And I'm not saying that it's impossible for there to be benefits of drugs. I'm merely saying that if you're going to take the risk in doing drugs, you need to be prepared to deal with any consequences, including addiction. You're making the conscious decision to take part in this experimentation. On the other hand, you're the still gay, regardless of whether or not you do anything about it.)
You clearly don't know anything about the science of addiction. It is a predetermined condition. It isn't a choice. And you don't find out until you are already addicted to something.
Very few people try heroin, because its widely known that it can be extremely dangerous. Those that are willing to take the risk for the possible effect aren't "stupid." They desire the described effect for a reason.
Heroin doesn't have a profound effect, really. It's far more subtle than alcohol. It makes one feel comfortable, the most comfortable you can imagine. Like, Christmas morning with the whole family by the fire in a blanket with hot chocolate level of comfort. Potential users seek the effect despite the threat that the use of the drug poses to their life because they are psychologically ill, not because they are 'stupid.' They are prepared to deal with the worst possible consequences because they don't care about them. They don't care about ruining their lives. All they care about is not feeling like shit anymore.
Happy, stable, healthy people almost never try heroin. In fact, most hardcore addicts are usually victims of severe child abuse or childhood trauma. Most addicts suffered from depression long before they even began using, and pursued drugs because of that depression.
And really, are you such an asshole that you would think someone is trash just because of one mistake? Trying a drug once and BAM their lives are fucked? Or would you hate them because they continue to use, even though overcoming addiction is one of the most difficult struggles a human can go through?
If so, you're a worse human being than any addict I've ever met.
This is such a hypocritical post, compared to everyone else's thoughts, I just need to point this out. Everyone else is talking about how great drugs are, and I personally don't mind if drugs are legalized, because I don't think the government should have any say in what a person should or shouldn't do with their body, as long as they pay the consequences if they commit a crime under the influence.
But now all of a sudden, drug users are all victims, and the only release they can get are drugs (which are apparently mistakes), and now I should feel compassion for those who are addicted to their solution (which they wanted anyway)?
I certainly never said anything about thinking of them as trash, but they certainly made the decision to try something bad. If anything, you made it more clear that drug users are unintelligent people, if I'm supposed to take anything out of your post (although I don't know if I'm going to believe you or not, as plenty of people on TL seem to be rather smart, and have no problem with bragging about doing drugs).
So I'll just say what I said before, in different words: Those of us who are well-educated know that certain drugs can be addictive and incredibly harmful. If you want to take them (for whatever reason), you do that, and hopefully that works out well for you and you don't end up addicted or hurt or dead. Do what you want, but people are going to judge you based on the decisions you make. That doesn't make them "assholes".
what makes people assholes is that they assume a person is addicted to drugs, because they make "bad choices" without reasoning why those bad choices are made. Same way some people are like "LOL wtf, why dont you get a job you homeless bum" without realizing the person they are talking to most likley has mental imbalances that prevent him, or blind him, from making the "correct" choice.
Sometimes its better not to say anything, then to give out your 2cents without any reason.
I think that's a good point. It's important to understand the background and circumstances surrounding people's decisions and lifestyles before formulating opinions about them.
I smoke (cannabis O.o) and drive all the time. I used to go to work blazed all the time. I'm not gonna say its safer than not smoking and driving, but honestly anybody that smokes just about everyday will tell you that being high is just kind of normal (more normal than not being high) for you at that point, its not like you get drunk and out of control on pot when you have any tolerance to it. I have had people tell me they know when I'm high and when I'm not, they don't have a fucking clue. Everyone is different though, there are plenty of people I would be afraid to ride a long with (in a car) while they were sober, let alone intoxicated.
I'm not gonna say anything else because I have been avoiding this thread as is. I knew the majority of the posts would make me /facepalm.
On October 18 2011 06:11 SupLilSon wrote: Either that or he is one of those people who is against drugs because it is a social/cultural stigma and has never even considered why from a logical standpoint. I think your simple logic is blowing his mind. Think Dave Chapelle in the White KKK member skit.
Shocking, people have negative opinions of things that violate cultural norms.
It really is shocking that people blindly accept cultural norms without ever thinking for themselves. If you don't see a problem with this then you would have loved Nazi Germany.
Really? Do you really want to compare drug use (which does have negative consequences of varying degrees) to the Holocaust? That comparison doesn't even make any reasonable amount of sense.
Really. How does it not make any reasonable sense? I think you just have reading comprehension problems..
In what world is opposing the use of substances that cause massive problems in today's society the same as supporting the killing millions of innocent people? That is not only mind-blowingly stupid, but also hugely offensive.
Caffeine is a drug that people use to overcome being tired and can make people more aggressive, do you judge people who drink coffee? Pot is pretty much the opposite. I would rather be around someone more mellow and less wired.
On October 18 2011 06:11 SupLilSon wrote: Either that or he is one of those people who is against drugs because it is a social/cultural stigma and has never even considered why from a logical standpoint. I think your simple logic is blowing his mind. Think Dave Chapelle in the White KKK member skit.
Shocking, people have negative opinions of things that violate cultural norms.
It really is shocking that people blindly accept cultural norms without ever thinking for themselves. If you don't see a problem with this then you would have loved Nazi Germany.
Really? Do you really want to compare drug use (which does have negative consequences of varying degrees) to the Holocaust? That comparison doesn't even make any reasonable amount of sense.
Really. And how does it not make any reasonable sense? I think you just have reading comprehension problems..
You are essentially saying that "People that generally comply with societal norms that have existed for generations like genocide", which is a statement that doesn't make sense.
To get back to the OP, yes, I generally frown on any form of self-destructive behavior, drug/alcohol abuse included. I see too many idiots at work doing stupid shit or destroying their lives with drugs to not have a negative opinion of them. Obviously not everyone that ever uses any form of illicit substance will mess their life up with it, but the association is there.
There are bad drugs out there, heroin crack other hard stuff. They ruin lives, but if you let weed ruin your life, well your a fucking retard. Your life was probably going nowhere to begin with.
But weed, hardly an addictive life destroying substance.... eating afew mushrooms? big deal at least you wont be hungover. Having a few beers? hardly a "problem" as long as your not downing 2 bottles of spirits a day.
If you judged me cause I take a smoke of a joint after work, and did a load of "class a" drugs when I was younger, well your not really someone I would want to know anyway. Your just ignorant to the wider world.
I think Americans in general have a much more negative outlook on recreational drug use, yes you can use drugs for fun without fucking your life up. People have been doing it for 100,000's of years. Just ask anyone studying anthropology.
On October 18 2011 06:11 SupLilSon wrote: Either that or he is one of those people who is against drugs because it is a social/cultural stigma and has never even considered why from a logical standpoint. I think your simple logic is blowing his mind. Think Dave Chapelle in the White KKK member skit.
Shocking, people have negative opinions of things that violate cultural norms.
It really is shocking that people blindly accept cultural norms without ever thinking for themselves. If you don't see a problem with this then you would have loved Nazi Germany.
Really? Do you really want to compare drug use (which does have negative consequences of varying degrees) to the Holocaust? That comparison doesn't even make any reasonable amount of sense.
Really. And how does it not make any reasonable sense? I think you just have reading comprehension problems..
You are essentially saying that "People that generally comply with societal norms that have existed for generations like genocide", which is a statement that doesn't make sense.
To get back to the OP, yes, I generally frown on any form of self-destructive behavior, drug/alcohol abuse included. I see too many idiots at work doing stupid shit or destroying their lives with drugs to not have a negative opinion of them. Obviously not everyone that ever uses any form of illicit substance will mess their life up with it, but the association is there.
Nope, your reading comprehension skills still aren't shining.
Well for me I just have to wonder why would anybody start taking drugs (even if it is smoking weed) in the first place? Want to feel cool because it is illegal? If this is the case it absolutely has negative impact on my perception of someone. If it is not the case then you had to start because you wanted to feel better. That's kind of sad so again, it negatively affects my view on a person. I know you cant be happy all the time but to take drugs is just running away from the problems and i dont like this kind of weak aspect of the person.
Well you can say that even about alcohol, but despite that its much easier for me to accept somebody who is drinking once a week than if he for example smokes weed. In my opinion there is a big difference between alcohol and drugs. With drugs you dont have any immediate negative effects. If you drink a little too much you will barf, you will feel sick next day and sometimes you wont remember a thing what happened. You hear so many times people say "i wont drink again". But if you overuse marijuana? You gonna feel thirsty and hungry? Oh come one. So its much more dangerous in this way, because it will have affect negatively in long run.
The last thing i would like to point out is that people usually drink while partying or whatever. And I think its perfect. You wanna have fun with friends or other people. But in the case of drugs i think there are much more cases when you take it/smoke it by yourself. There are for sure some people who drink alone and tons of people who smoke weed only with friends.
I dont wanna say that if somebody smokes weed that it makes him automatically terrible person. But I would like to find out what is the reason behind taking drugs? I just dont see the point and I would like to hear some.
this stems from my entire family being users/cooks/growers/dealers and seeing their qualities and the qualities of the people they associate with for my whole life
On October 18 2011 06:11 SupLilSon wrote: Either that or he is one of those people who is against drugs because it is a social/cultural stigma and has never even considered why from a logical standpoint. I think your simple logic is blowing his mind. Think Dave Chapelle in the White KKK member skit.
Shocking, people have negative opinions of things that violate cultural norms.
It really is shocking that people blindly accept cultural norms without ever thinking for themselves. If you don't see a problem with this then you would have loved Nazi Germany.
Really? Do you really want to compare drug use (which does have negative consequences of varying degrees) to the Holocaust? That comparison doesn't even make any reasonable amount of sense.
Really. How does it not make any reasonable sense? I think you just have reading comprehension problems..
In what world is opposing the use of substances that cause massive problems in today's society the same as supporting the killing millions of innocent people? That is not only mind-blowingly stupid, but also hugely offensive.
What massive problems in today's society does marijuana cause? I've been purposely avoiding your posts because they seem to lack any empirical basis. Blindly believing that marijuana is the root of all evil despite scientific research pointing towards the contrary, is similar to Nazi Germany buying into the propaganda that Jews and Non-Aryans were the root of all evil despite what logic would tell you. You are the only one being offensive with your baseless posts.
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.
On October 18 2011 06:11 SupLilSon wrote: Either that or he is one of those people who is against drugs because it is a social/cultural stigma and has never even considered why from a logical standpoint. I think your simple logic is blowing his mind. Think Dave Chapelle in the White KKK member skit.
Shocking, people have negative opinions of things that violate cultural norms.
It really is shocking that people blindly accept cultural norms without ever thinking for themselves. If you don't see a problem with this then you would have loved Nazi Germany.
Really? Do you really want to compare drug use (which does have negative consequences of varying degrees) to the Holocaust? That comparison doesn't even make any reasonable amount of sense.
Really. How does it not make any reasonable sense? I think you just have reading comprehension problems..
In what world is opposing the use of substances that cause massive problems in today's society the same as supporting the killing millions of innocent people? That is not only mind-blowingly stupid, but also hugely offensive.
What massive problems in today's society does marijuana cause? I've been purposely avoiding your posts because they seem to lack any empirical basis. Blindly believing that marijuana is the root of all evil despite scientific research pointing towards the contrary, is similar to Nazi Germany buying into the propaganda that Jews and Non-Aryans were the root of all evil despite what logic would tell you. You are the only one being offensive with your baseless posts.
In your post, you only mentioned drugs, not specifically marihuana. I can admit that I haven't done much research into marihuana, so I won't comment on that. Actually in my previous post I specifically mentioned that I don't want to get into a argument about marihuana just because I don't have facts about it. Something you can't deny though, is that hard drugs cause lots of problems, and being against them is nothing like supporting the holocaust.
On October 18 2011 06:11 SupLilSon wrote: Either that or he is one of those people who is against drugs because it is a social/cultural stigma and has never even considered why from a logical standpoint. I think your simple logic is blowing his mind. Think Dave Chapelle in the White KKK member skit.
Shocking, people have negative opinions of things that violate cultural norms.
It really is shocking that people blindly accept cultural norms without ever thinking for themselves. If you don't see a problem with this then you would have loved Nazi Germany.
Really? Do you really want to compare drug use (which does have negative consequences of varying degrees) to the Holocaust? That comparison doesn't even make any reasonable amount of sense.
Really. How does it not make any reasonable sense? I think you just have reading comprehension problems..
In what world is opposing the use of substances that cause massive problems in today's society the same as supporting the killing millions of innocent people? That is not only mind-blowingly stupid, but also hugely offensive.
What massive problems in today's society does marijuana cause? I've been purposely avoiding your posts because they seem to lack any empirical basis. Blindly believing that marijuana is the root of all evil despite scientific research pointing towards the contrary, is similar to Nazi Germany buying into the propaganda that Jews and Non-Aryans were the root of all evil despite what logic would tell you. You are the only one being offensive with your baseless posts.
In your post, you only mentioned drugs, not specifically marihuana. I can admit that I haven't done much research into marihuana, so I won't comment on that. Actually in my previous post I specifically mentioned that I don't want to get into a argument about marihuana just because of that. Something you can't deny though, is that hard drugs cause lots of problems, and being against them is nothing like supporting the holocaust.
You and that other guy are seriously over thinking my post.
He originally posted, "Shocking, people have negative opinions of things that violate cultural norms." I used Nazi Germany to highlight somewhere where cultural norms were not necessarily based on logic or reason. If the use of Nazi Germany is too mind blowing, I can tone it down. America, early 1900s, Blacks are no longer slaves but interracial marriage is still a SOCIAL STIGMA and eventually banned. Was it wrong for people to challenge that and think logically? Think that maybe white people and black people aren't that different? I guess it was and we should all still own slaves and treat women as second class citizens. We might as well go ahead and ban gay marriage too because that is clearly against the bible. Why on earth would you ever question social norms...? Herpity Derpity.
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.
On October 17 2011 11:28 TheLOLas wrote: I suppose that if someone tells me that they use drugs ( such as pot, meth, crack, or anything else ) i wouldn't want to be around them. and therefore I would be prejudiced.
Do you think it's prejudice? Or do you somehow justify not wanting to be around them?
If I said "I don't want to be around Mike because he's black," that's wrong. If I say "I don't want to be around Mike because he smokes pot," is that just as bad?
He can change being a pot head.
Smoking pot isn't an inherently bad thing. Why should he change it? Just to make judgmental shitheads like you happy?
Yes, it is a prejudice, it's application of a negative stereotype to someone without any knowledge of their actual behaviors.
here's another problem.
Smoking not inherently being a bad thing? Is entirely YOUR opinion. And an entirely flawed one, at that. And then you call someone a judgemental shithead? like...really? irony anywhere in there?
-
while we're here, holy shit.
"well youre against it therefore you're just an idiot with your head in the sand and mannnn you're just throwing it off and calling it bad because it's against the societal norm! you don't even know man! here's some facts man! see man?! god you're an asshole man!"
vs
"well you're for it therefore you're just an idiot with your head in the sand blindly deluding yourself to try to justify destroying your own life. you don't even know what you're doing to yourself or care because you see no problem with it. here are some facts, "man". god you're an asshole"
there. i have now summed up the whole thread. i can leave and attempt to block this out of my memory.
On October 18 2011 06:11 SupLilSon wrote: Either that or he is one of those people who is against drugs because it is a social/cultural stigma and has never even considered why from a logical standpoint. I think your simple logic is blowing his mind. Think Dave Chapelle in the White KKK member skit.
Shocking, people have negative opinions of things that violate cultural norms.
It really is shocking that people blindly accept cultural norms without ever thinking for themselves. If you don't see a problem with this then you would have loved Nazi Germany.
Really? Do you really want to compare drug use (which does have negative consequences of varying degrees) to the Holocaust? That comparison doesn't even make any reasonable amount of sense.
Really. How does it not make any reasonable sense? I think you just have reading comprehension problems..
In what world is opposing the use of substances that cause massive problems in today's society the same as supporting the killing millions of innocent people? That is not only mind-blowingly stupid, but also hugely offensive.
What massive problems in today's society does marijuana cause? I've been purposely avoiding your posts because they seem to lack any empirical basis. Blindly believing that marijuana is the root of all evil despite scientific research pointing towards the contrary, is similar to Nazi Germany buying into the propaganda that Jews and Non-Aryans were the root of all evil despite what logic would tell you. You are the only one being offensive with your baseless posts.
In your post, you only mentioned drugs, not specifically marihuana. I can admit that I haven't done much research into marihuana, so I won't comment on that. Actually in my previous post I specifically mentioned that I don't want to get into a argument about marihuana just because of that. Something you can't deny though, is that hard drugs cause lots of problems, and being against them is nothing like supporting the holocaust.
You and that other guy are seriously over thinking my post.
He originally posted, "Shocking, people have negative opinions of things that violate cultural norms." I used Nazi Germany to highlight somewhere where cultural norms were not necessarily based on logic or reason. If the use of Nazi Germany is too mind blowing, I can tone it down. America, early 1900s, Blacks are no longer slaves but interracial marriage is still a SOCIAL STIGMA and eventually banned. Was it wrong for people to challenge that and think logically? Think that maybe white people and black people aren't that different? I guess it was and we should all still own slaves and treat women as second class citizens. Why on earth would you ever question social norms...? Herpity Derpity.
Alright, I maybe worded my response a little too strongly and I apologize for that. However my point is that hard drugs cause problems. That is not an opinion or something that someone wants to you to believe. That is a fact and it's something that seems like you won't admit.
On October 18 2011 06:55 Bruky wrote: Well for me I just have to wonder why would anybody start taking drugs (even if it is smoking weed) in the first place? Want to feel cool because it is illegal? If this is the case it absolutely has negative impact on my perception of someone. If it is not the case then you had to start because you wanted to feel better. That's kind of sad so again, it negatively affects my view on a person. I know you cant be happy all the time but to take drugs is just running away from the problems and i dont like this kind of weak aspect of the person.
Well you can say that even about alcohol, but despite that its much easier for me to accept somebody who is drinking once a week than if he for example smokes weed. In my opinion there is a big difference between alcohol and drugs. With drugs you dont have any immediate negative effects. If you drink a little too much you will barf, you will feel sick next day and sometimes you wont remember a thing what happened. You hear so many times people say "i wont drink again". But if you overuse marijuana? You gonna feel thirsty and hungry? Oh come one. So its much more dangerous in this way, because it will have affect negatively in long run.
The last thing i would like to point out is that people usually drink while partying or whatever. And I think its perfect. You wanna have fun with friends or other people. But in the case of drugs i think there are much more cases when you take it/smoke it by yourself. There are for sure some people who drink alone and tons of people who smoke weed only with friends.
I dont wanna say that if somebody smokes weed that it makes him automatically terrible person. But I would like to find out what is the reason behind taking drugs? I just dont see the point and I would like to hear some.
so drinking to party is good, but a joint to relax after work is bad?
alcohol is not a drug?
oh boy...
and i do not feel any negative effects of drinking 5 beers, yet am pretty pissed.
ps: drinking to have fun. can't have fun without? weak character, obviously.
nah, seriously, get it in your head: alcohol is a drug. you ask for reasons why to take drugs... ask yourself, why do you drink? it's the answer.
if your definition of a drug is "gives you negative effects too", ecstacy is not a drug, cause it gives you a hangover. dude. think about it. you're spewing what propaganda has taught you. really. the only reason why you believe in the ways you do, is because television always makes a difference between drugs and alcohol.
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.
On October 18 2011 06:55 Bruky wrote: Well for me I just have to wonder why would anybody start taking drugs (even if it is smoking weed) in the first place? Want to feel cool because it is illegal? If this is the case it absolutely has negative impact on my perception of someone. If it is not the case then you had to start because you wanted to feel better. That's kind of sad so again, it negatively affects my view on a person. I know you cant be happy all the time but to take drugs is just running away from the problems and i dont like this kind of weak aspect of the person.
Well you can say that even about alcohol, but despite that its much easier for me to accept somebody who is drinking once a week than if he for example smokes weed. In my opinion there is a big difference between alcohol and drugs. With drugs you dont have any immediate negative effects. If you drink a little too much you will barf, you will feel sick next day and sometimes you wont remember a thing what happened. You hear so many times people say "i wont drink again". But if you overuse marijuana? You gonna feel thirsty and hungry? Oh come one. So its much more dangerous in this way, because it will have affect negatively in long run.
The last thing i would like to point out is that people usually drink while partying or whatever. And I think its perfect. You wanna have fun with friends or other people. But in the case of drugs i think there are much more cases when you take it/smoke it by yourself. There are for sure some people who drink alone and tons of people who smoke weed only with friends.
I dont wanna say that if somebody smokes weed that it makes him automatically terrible person. But I would like to find out what is the reason behind taking drugs? I just dont see the point and I would like to hear some.
The reason you barf after drinking too much is because it is literally poison.. Your body is having a natural reaction to a large intake of toxins, which is to expel them ASAP. Which is more dangerous again?
On October 18 2011 06:11 SupLilSon wrote: Either that or he is one of those people who is against drugs because it is a social/cultural stigma and has never even considered why from a logical standpoint. I think your simple logic is blowing his mind. Think Dave Chapelle in the White KKK member skit.
Shocking, people have negative opinions of things that violate cultural norms.
It really is shocking that people blindly accept cultural norms without ever thinking for themselves. If you don't see a problem with this then you would have loved Nazi Germany.
Really? Do you really want to compare drug use (which does have negative consequences of varying degrees) to the Holocaust? That comparison doesn't even make any reasonable amount of sense.
Really. How does it not make any reasonable sense? I think you just have reading comprehension problems..
In what world is opposing the use of substances that cause massive problems in today's society the same as supporting the killing millions of innocent people? That is not only mind-blowingly stupid, but also hugely offensive.
What massive problems in today's society does marijuana cause? I've been purposely avoiding your posts because they seem to lack any empirical basis. Blindly believing that marijuana is the root of all evil despite scientific research pointing towards the contrary, is similar to Nazi Germany buying into the propaganda that Jews and Non-Aryans were the root of all evil despite what logic would tell you. You are the only one being offensive with your baseless posts.
Godwin's Law. It only too 31 pages! :D
On topic, I feel like marijuana causing problems in society isn't the issue here. I feel that just because something's not bad for society doesn't mean it's not okay to discriminate against users. Take, for example, people who don't have the mental fortitude to stop a video game in the middle even for relative emergencies. I certainly don't want to put my trust in that kind of person, but they're not actually causing problems for society.
I think we can stop with the "you're offensive," "no you're offensive" talk because this is a forum not a battleground. Calm yourselves!
On October 18 2011 06:11 SupLilSon wrote: Either that or he is one of those people who is against drugs because it is a social/cultural stigma and has never even considered why from a logical standpoint. I think your simple logic is blowing his mind. Think Dave Chapelle in the White KKK member skit.
Shocking, people have negative opinions of things that violate cultural norms.
It really is shocking that people blindly accept cultural norms without ever thinking for themselves. If you don't see a problem with this then you would have loved Nazi Germany.
Really? Do you really want to compare drug use (which does have negative consequences of varying degrees) to the Holocaust? That comparison doesn't even make any reasonable amount of sense.
Really. How does it not make any reasonable sense? I think you just have reading comprehension problems..
In what world is opposing the use of substances that cause massive problems in today's society the same as supporting the killing millions of innocent people? That is not only mind-blowingly stupid, but also hugely offensive.
What massive problems in today's society does marijuana cause? I've been purposely avoiding your posts because they seem to lack any empirical basis. Blindly believing that marijuana is the root of all evil despite scientific research pointing towards the contrary, is similar to Nazi Germany buying into the propaganda that Jews and Non-Aryans were the root of all evil despite what logic would tell you. You are the only one being offensive with your baseless posts.
Godwin's Law. It only too 31 pages! :D
On topic, I feel like marijuana causing problems in society isn't the issue here. I feel that just because something's not bad for society doesn't mean it's not okay to discriminate against users. Take, for example, people who don't have the mental fortitude to stop a video game in the middle even for relative emergencies. I certainly don't want to put my trust in that kind of person, but they're not actually causing problems for society.
I think we can stop with the "you're offensive," "no you're offensive" talk because this is a forum not a battleground. Calm yourselves!
Then what would your reason be for discriminating against someone who comes home at the end of the day and smokes a joint?
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.
Wow. I am surprised at how judgmental so many TL users are.
I smoke cannabis every day. I have been for the past eleven months or so. I'm very open about it. I'm also very offended when people discriminate against me for it. People do it all the time; they'll assume I'm stupid or they'll try to manipulate me as if I'm a young child. Why judge someone over a lifestyle choice that has no effect on you?
Judging someone for the drugs they use is no different than judging someone for the food they eat. So what if it's unhealthy? If someone is made happy by eating nothing by McDonalds, why should you care?
On October 18 2011 06:55 Bruky wrote: Well for me I just have to wonder why would anybody start taking drugs (even if it is smoking weed) in the first place? Want to feel cool because it is illegal? If this is the case it absolutely has negative impact on my perception of someone. If it is not the case then you had to start because you wanted to feel better. That's kind of sad so again, it negatively affects my view on a person. I know you cant be happy all the time but to take drugs is just running away from the problems and i dont like this kind of weak aspect of the person.
Well you can say that even about alcohol, but despite that its much easier for me to accept somebody who is drinking once a week than if he for example smokes weed. In my opinion there is a big difference between alcohol and drugs. With drugs you dont have any immediate negative effects. If you drink a little too much you will barf, you will feel sick next day and sometimes you wont remember a thing what happened. You hear so many times people say "i wont drink again". But if you overuse marijuana? You gonna feel thirsty and hungry? Oh come one. So its much more dangerous in this way, because it will have affect negatively in long run.
The last thing i would like to point out is that people usually drink while partying or whatever. And I think its perfect. You wanna have fun with friends or other people. But in the case of drugs i think there are much more cases when you take it/smoke it by yourself. There are for sure some people who drink alone and tons of people who smoke weed only with friends.
I dont wanna say that if somebody smokes weed that it makes him automatically terrible person. But I would like to find out what is the reason behind taking drugs? I just dont see the point and I would like to hear some.
so drinking to party is good, but a joint to relax after work is bad?
alcohol is not a drug?
oh boy...
and i do not feel any negative effects of drinking 5 beers, yet am pretty pissed.
ps: drinking to have fun. can't have fun without? weak character, obviously.
nah, seriously, get it in your head: alcohol is a drug. you ask for reasons why to take drugs... ask yourself, why do you drink? it's the answer.
if your definition of a drug is "gives you negative effects too", ecstacy is not a drug, cause it gives you a hangover. dude. think about it. you're spewing what propaganda has taught you. really. the only reason why you believe in the ways you do, is because television always makes a difference between drugs and alcohol.
there's no difference, trust me. i've tried both.
Yeah, drinking at party is good at the sense that it actually improves your social relationship with people. On the other hand smoking weed leads to a solitude. If you smoke it, you will feel fine and you wont need to interact with other people, cause you gonna feel good by yourself. Alcohol doesnt work this way. You wont feel better after drinking by yourself. Thats the main difference at least for me.
I dont wanna talk about what is drug or what isnt. Its pointless anyway. The important part is how it affects you.
ps: drinking to have fun. can't have fun without? weak character, obviously.
Not rly. As stated before. Alcohol doesnt work as drugs do. Alcohol is not a way how to have fun but how to have more fun. But drugs satisfy you just by taking it.
I dont need to ask myself why i drink, because i dont :o) I dont drink, smoke or take drugs. I just dont see the reason. But people drink to have "more fun", but drug users take it to "feel fine".
I would like to belive my view on alcohol and drugs is based on observation and experience. Maybe i am wrong, but nobody could prove me wrong yet.
On October 18 2011 07:36 Voltaire wrote: Wow. I am surprised at how judgmental so many TL users are.
I smoke cannabis every day. I have been for the past eleven months or so. I'm very open about it. I'm also very offended when people discriminate against me for it. People do it all the time; they'll assume I'm stupid or they'll try to manipulate me as if I'm a young child. Why judge someone over a lifestyle choice that has no effect on you?
Judging someone for the drugs they use is no different than judging someone for the food they eat. So what if it's unhealthy? If someone is made happy by eating nothing by McDonalds, why should you care?
I also "discriminate" against those who dress like annoying hipsters?
I'm not terribly for or against the legalization of cannabis. But as the laws are now, it is illegal. Do you like it's illegal: hell no. Should it be illegal? Debatable. But as the laws are now, it is illegal, and it is every right of the populace, especially an employer, to take into account your decision to break the law.
Damn I never thought TL would of been so conservative...
Alcohol doesnt work as drugs do. Alcohol is not a way how to have fun but how to have more fun. But drugs satisfy you just by taking it.
Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about. There's a lot of alcoholics in the world. There's also a lot of weed smokers who smoke to 'have more fun'. Everything is more fun when you're high, if it's already fun. Things that bore me are even more boring. I smoke quite a bit, and I really feel it enhances the situation you are in. If I have an evening off my pile of school (university) work, I'll smoke a joint and relax like I wouldn't be able to otherwise. You described alcohol as a way to have more fun. So it's like weed really. Except you're not fucked up the next morning if you smoke WAY too much xD.
On October 18 2011 06:55 Bruky wrote: Well for me I just have to wonder why would anybody start taking drugs (even if it is smoking weed) in the first place? Want to feel cool because it is illegal? If this is the case it absolutely has negative impact on my perception of someone. If it is not the case then you had to start because you wanted to feel better. That's kind of sad so again, it negatively affects my view on a person. I know you cant be happy all the time but to take drugs is just running away from the problems and i dont like this kind of weak aspect of the person.
Well you can say that even about alcohol, but despite that its much easier for me to accept somebody who is drinking once a week than if he for example smokes weed. In my opinion there is a big difference between alcohol and drugs. With drugs you dont have any immediate negative effects. If you drink a little too much you will barf, you will feel sick next day and sometimes you wont remember a thing what happened. You hear so many times people say "i wont drink again". But if you overuse marijuana? You gonna feel thirsty and hungry? Oh come one. So its much more dangerous in this way, because it will have affect negatively in long run.
The last thing i would like to point out is that people usually drink while partying or whatever. And I think its perfect. You wanna have fun with friends or other people. But in the case of drugs i think there are much more cases when you take it/smoke it by yourself. There are for sure some people who drink alone and tons of people who smoke weed only with friends.
I dont wanna say that if somebody smokes weed that it makes him automatically terrible person. But I would like to find out what is the reason behind taking drugs? I just dont see the point and I would like to hear some.
so drinking to party is good, but a joint to relax after work is bad?
alcohol is not a drug?
oh boy...
and i do not feel any negative effects of drinking 5 beers, yet am pretty pissed.
ps: drinking to have fun. can't have fun without? weak character, obviously.
nah, seriously, get it in your head: alcohol is a drug. you ask for reasons why to take drugs... ask yourself, why do you drink? it's the answer.
if your definition of a drug is "gives you negative effects too", ecstacy is not a drug, cause it gives you a hangover. dude. think about it. you're spewing what propaganda has taught you. really. the only reason why you believe in the ways you do, is because television always makes a difference between drugs and alcohol.
there's no difference, trust me. i've tried both.
Yeah, drinking at party is good at the sense that it actually improves your social relationship with people. On the other hand smoking weed leads to a solitude. If you smoke it, you will feel fine and you wont need to interact with other people, cause you gonna feel good by yourself. Alcohol doesnt work this way. You wont feel better after drinking by yourself. Thats the main difference at least for me.
I dont wanna talk about what is drug or what isnt. Its pointless anyway. The important part is how it affects you.
ps: drinking to have fun. can't have fun without? weak character, obviously.
Not rly. As stated before. Alcohol doesnt work as drugs do. Alcohol is not a way how to have fun but how to have more fun. But drugs satisfy you just by taking it.
I dont need to ask myself why i drink, because i dont :o) I dont drink, smoke or take drugs. I just dont see the reason. But people drink to have "more fun", but drug users take it to "feel fine".
I would like to belive my view on alcohol and drugs is based on observation and experience. Maybe i am wrong, but nobody could prove me wrong yet.
On October 18 2011 06:14 Little-Chimp wrote: I don't have any problem with people who smoke pot or anything relatively natural. However seeing posts about drug users "seeing through the bullshit" is just a load of self admiring crap.
Also, people being born an addict? Seriously?
Well, there are such things as crack babies, babies that had drugs in their system while in the uterus and are now going through withdrawal since being born (this is why doing drugs while pregnant is a terrible idea), but other than that, no, addicts are made not born.
On October 18 2011 07:51 Steel wrote: Damn I never thought TL would of been so conservative...
I don't think people are conservative per se. I think people are just pointing out that it does not fit the definition of "Preconceived opinion not based on reason or experience"
I think that in general, from most of the interactions I have had, those who make their weed consumption a big part of their lives and their idenitities do hurt those who do not. They promote it in such a way, and act in such a way, people correlate their actions to others like them. This is based on reason and experience. Furthermore, although it may not seem rational to you, to some employers their reasoning is sound. They think "this kid broke the law and smoked weed, he will commit other crimes" Is this necessarily true? No. Is this possibly a misconception? Yeah.
But my question is is it without reason or experience? If not, what is it?
To me clearly, it is on reason, not experience. But reason need not be correct for you, but only for the man who uses it.
The clear counterargument to this is those who argued for social darwinism: Africans were weak and hence put into place. However, this type of discrimination dealt with how somebody was born, and not what choices they made. No matter how good smoking pot is, there is a cost and a benefit to it, and there are costs which must be weighed by anyone who partakes in it.
On October 18 2011 07:36 Voltaire wrote: Wow. I am surprised at how judgmental so many TL users are.
I smoke cannabis every day. I have been for the past eleven months or so. I'm very open about it. I'm also very offended when people discriminate against me for it. People do it all the time; they'll assume I'm stupid or they'll try to manipulate me as if I'm a young child. Why judge someone over a lifestyle choice that has no effect on you?
Judging someone for the drugs they use is no different than judging someone for the food they eat. So what if it's unhealthy? If someone is made happy by eating nothing by McDonalds, why should you care?
I also "discriminate" against those who dress like annoying hipsters?
I'm not terribly for or against the legalization of cannabis. But as the laws are now, it is illegal. Do you like it's illegal: hell no. Should it be illegal? Debatable. But as the laws are now, it is illegal, and it is every right of the populace, especially an employer, to take into account your decision to break the law.
I'm not arguing with you. It's illegal. Helping slaves escape used to be illegal, too. The issue at hand isn't whether or not discrimination is legal or whether employers should be able to take that into account; it's about whether it's morally right to discriminate against someone solely because you know them to be using illegal drugs.
So the question lies here: Is it moral to discriminate against someone for breaking the law without taking the morality of the law itself into account? I say no.
So if someone is going to discriminate against me for smoking cannabis, they better damn know something about the drug and how it affects people. It is so frustrating to have people who have never smoked it before tell me what I can and cannot do while high solely based off of what they've seen in the media. It's just sheer ignorance.
On October 18 2011 06:55 Bruky wrote: Well for me I just have to wonder why would anybody start taking drugs (even if it is smoking weed) in the first place? Want to feel cool because it is illegal? If this is the case it absolutely has negative impact on my perception of someone. If it is not the case then you had to start because you wanted to feel better. That's kind of sad so again, it negatively affects my view on a person. I know you cant be happy all the time but to take drugs is just running away from the problems and i dont like this kind of weak aspect of the person.
Well you can say that even about alcohol, but despite that its much easier for me to accept somebody who is drinking once a week than if he for example smokes weed. In my opinion there is a big difference between alcohol and drugs. With drugs you dont have any immediate negative effects. If you drink a little too much you will barf, you will feel sick next day and sometimes you wont remember a thing what happened. You hear so many times people say "i wont drink again". But if you overuse marijuana? You gonna feel thirsty and hungry? Oh come one. So its much more dangerous in this way, because it will have affect negatively in long run.
The last thing i would like to point out is that people usually drink while partying or whatever. And I think its perfect. You wanna have fun with friends or other people. But in the case of drugs i think there are much more cases when you take it/smoke it by yourself. There are for sure some people who drink alone and tons of people who smoke weed only with friends.
I dont wanna say that if somebody smokes weed that it makes him automatically terrible person. But I would like to find out what is the reason behind taking drugs? I just dont see the point and I would like to hear some.
so drinking to party is good, but a joint to relax after work is bad?
alcohol is not a drug?
oh boy...
and i do not feel any negative effects of drinking 5 beers, yet am pretty pissed.
ps: drinking to have fun. can't have fun without? weak character, obviously.
nah, seriously, get it in your head: alcohol is a drug. you ask for reasons why to take drugs... ask yourself, why do you drink? it's the answer.
if your definition of a drug is "gives you negative effects too", ecstacy is not a drug, cause it gives you a hangover. dude. think about it. you're spewing what propaganda has taught you. really. the only reason why you believe in the ways you do, is because television always makes a difference between drugs and alcohol.
there's no difference, trust me. i've tried both.
Yeah, drinking at party is good at the sense that it actually improves your social relationship with people. On the other hand smoking weed leads to a solitude. If you smoke it, you will feel fine and you wont need to interact with other people, cause you gonna feel good by yourself. Alcohol doesnt work this way. You wont feel better after drinking by yourself. Thats the main difference at least for me.
I dont wanna talk about what is drug or what isnt. Its pointless anyway. The important part is how it affects you.
ps: drinking to have fun. can't have fun without? weak character, obviously.
Not rly. As stated before. Alcohol doesnt work as drugs do. Alcohol is not a way how to have fun but how to have more fun. But drugs satisfy you just by taking it.
I dont need to ask myself why i drink, because i dont :o) I dont drink, smoke or take drugs. I just dont see the reason. But people drink to have "more fun", but drug users take it to "feel fine".
I would like to belive my view on alcohol and drugs is based on observation and experience. Maybe i am wrong, but nobody could prove me wrong yet.
you say drugs are substances that you take to just "feel fine", but look at cocaine, ecstacy, mushrooms, amphetamines... none of these just make you "feel fine". you use cocaine to grow balls on a party, ecstacy and amphetamines to dance all night, mushrooms to introspect, weed to be creative...
none of these substances are used to make you "feel fine". except for weed and alcohol. yes, alcohol, cause a shitload of people do drink alcohol just to feel fine. it's called drowning your sorrow. it is very very common.
On October 18 2011 06:14 Little-Chimp wrote: I don't have any problem with people who smoke pot or anything relatively natural. However seeing posts about drug users "seeing through the bullshit" is just a load of self admiring crap.
Also, people being born an addict? Seriously?
Well, there are such things as crack babies, babies that had drugs in their system while in the uterus and are now going through withdrawal since being born (this is why doing drugs while pregnant is a terrible idea), but other than that, no, addicts are made not born.
false, genes play big role in the level of vulnerability of addiction.
On October 18 2011 06:55 Bruky wrote: Well for me I just have to wonder why would anybody start taking drugs (even if it is smoking weed) in the first place? Want to feel cool because it is illegal? If this is the case it absolutely has negative impact on my perception of someone. If it is not the case then you had to start because you wanted to feel better. That's kind of sad so again, it negatively affects my view on a person. I know you cant be happy all the time but to take drugs is just running away from the problems and i dont like this kind of weak aspect of the person.
Well you can say that even about alcohol, but despite that its much easier for me to accept somebody who is drinking once a week than if he for example smokes weed. In my opinion there is a big difference between alcohol and drugs. With drugs you dont have any immediate negative effects. If you drink a little too much you will barf, you will feel sick next day and sometimes you wont remember a thing what happened. You hear so many times people say "i wont drink again". But if you overuse marijuana? You gonna feel thirsty and hungry? Oh come one. So its much more dangerous in this way, because it will have affect negatively in long run.
The last thing i would like to point out is that people usually drink while partying or whatever. And I think its perfect. You wanna have fun with friends or other people. But in the case of drugs i think there are much more cases when you take it/smoke it by yourself. There are for sure some people who drink alone and tons of people who smoke weed only with friends.
I dont wanna say that if somebody smokes weed that it makes him automatically terrible person. But I would like to find out what is the reason behind taking drugs? I just dont see the point and I would like to hear some.
The reason you barf after drinking too much is because it is literally poison.. Your body is having a natural reaction to a large intake of toxins, which is to expel them ASAP. Which is more dangerous again?
Drugs of course. By barfing and so on EVERYONE can understand that its really bad for you health. Thats the main reason why so many wise up as they get older and stop with drinking too much. But in the case of drugs people feel GOOD and next day they dont see any negative reaction. They dont understand its bad for them. And they want to feel amazing AGAIN and AGAIN. Their mindset is not that they feel bad AFTER taking it, but WITHOUT taking it. So there is no relationship like "i took drugs -> i feel bad" like with alcohol, but instead "i didnt take drugs -> i feel bad". And thats only because there are no bad immediate afteraffects like with alcohol. So in my opinion, thats what makes drugs much more dangerous.
Of course i dont think that everyone who starts with marihuana will end up like that. But it is a reason why SOME people end up like that
On October 18 2011 06:55 Bruky wrote: Well for me I just have to wonder why would anybody start taking drugs (even if it is smoking weed) in the first place? Want to feel cool because it is illegal? If this is the case it absolutely has negative impact on my perception of someone. If it is not the case then you had to start because you wanted to feel better. That's kind of sad so again, it negatively affects my view on a person. I know you cant be happy all the time but to take drugs is just running away from the problems and i dont like this kind of weak aspect of the person.
Well you can say that even about alcohol, but despite that its much easier for me to accept somebody who is drinking once a week than if he for example smokes weed. In my opinion there is a big difference between alcohol and drugs. With drugs you dont have any immediate negative effects. If you drink a little too much you will barf, you will feel sick next day and sometimes you wont remember a thing what happened. You hear so many times people say "i wont drink again". But if you overuse marijuana? You gonna feel thirsty and hungry? Oh come one. So its much more dangerous in this way, because it will have affect negatively in long run.
The last thing i would like to point out is that people usually drink while partying or whatever. And I think its perfect. You wanna have fun with friends or other people. But in the case of drugs i think there are much more cases when you take it/smoke it by yourself. There are for sure some people who drink alone and tons of people who smoke weed only with friends.
I dont wanna say that if somebody smokes weed that it makes him automatically terrible person. But I would like to find out what is the reason behind taking drugs? I just dont see the point and I would like to hear some.
The reason you barf after drinking too much is because it is literally poison.. Your body is having a natural reaction to a large intake of toxins, which is to expel them ASAP. Which is more dangerous again?
Drugs of course. By barfing and so on EVERYONE can understand that its really bad for you health. Thats the main reason why so many wise up as they get older and stop with drinking too much. But in the case of drugs people feel GOOD and next day they dont see any negative reaction. They dont understand its bad for them. And they want to feel amazing AGAIN and AGAIN. Their mindset is not that they feel bad AFTER taking it, but WITHOUT taking it. So there is no relationship like "i took drugs -> i feel bad" like with alcohol, but instead "i didnt take drugs -> i feel bad". And thats only because there are no bad immediate afteraffects like with alcohol. So in my opinion, thats what makes drugs much more dangerous.
Of course i dont think that everyone who starts with marihuana will end up like that. But it is a reason why SOME people end up like that
On October 18 2011 06:55 Bruky wrote: Well for me I just have to wonder why would anybody start taking drugs (even if it is smoking weed) in the first place? Want to feel cool because it is illegal? If this is the case it absolutely has negative impact on my perception of someone. If it is not the case then you had to start because you wanted to feel better. That's kind of sad so again, it negatively affects my view on a person. I know you cant be happy all the time but to take drugs is just running away from the problems and i dont like this kind of weak aspect of the person.
Well you can say that even about alcohol, but despite that its much easier for me to accept somebody who is drinking once a week than if he for example smokes weed. In my opinion there is a big difference between alcohol and drugs. With drugs you dont have any immediate negative effects. If you drink a little too much you will barf, you will feel sick next day and sometimes you wont remember a thing what happened. You hear so many times people say "i wont drink again". But if you overuse marijuana? You gonna feel thirsty and hungry? Oh come one. So its much more dangerous in this way, because it will have affect negatively in long run.
The last thing i would like to point out is that people usually drink while partying or whatever. And I think its perfect. You wanna have fun with friends or other people. But in the case of drugs i think there are much more cases when you take it/smoke it by yourself. There are for sure some people who drink alone and tons of people who smoke weed only with friends.
I dont wanna say that if somebody smokes weed that it makes him automatically terrible person. But I would like to find out what is the reason behind taking drugs? I just dont see the point and I would like to hear some.
The reason you barf after drinking too much is because it is literally poison.. Your body is having a natural reaction to a large intake of toxins, which is to expel them ASAP. Which is more dangerous again?
Drugs of course. By barfing and so on EVERYONE can understand that its really bad for you health. Thats the main reason why so many wise up as they get older and stop with drinking too much. But in the case of drugs people feel GOOD and next day they dont see any negative reaction. They dont understand its bad for them. And they want to feel amazing AGAIN and AGAIN. Their mindset is not that they feel bad AFTER taking it, but WITHOUT taking it. So there is no relationship like "i took drugs -> i feel bad" like with alcohol, but instead "i didnt take drugs -> i feel bad". And thats only because there are no bad immediate afteraffects like with alcohol. So in my opinion, thats what makes drugs much more dangerous.
Of course i dont think that everyone who starts with marihuana will end up like that. But it is a reason why SOME people end up like that
Again, someone talking about the effects of drugs without having the slightest idea of how they actually affect people. People like to group all illegal drugs together as if they a set of core properties. They don't. How can you say there are no bad immediate "afteraffects"? Where did you pull that out of your ass?
there definitely are drugs that give you negative effects the next day, like ecstacy or certain hallucigenics which make you puke too.
personally ive always felt amazing the day after doing some molly
but thats just me
weed has its own hangover. Very negligible, but its there
the only time i ever get a "hangover" from weed is if i fall asleep high and sleep for only a few hours, i'll have a very minor headache behind my eyes when i wake up that goes away after about 5 minutes.
but again thats just me and my body and how it reacts
On October 17 2011 18:59 MooseMasher wrote: I see a lot f people saying that drug use is a choice, thus discrimination against them is ok.
Is this necessarily true? I for one am convinced we are indeed not "free" in some sense of the word. We are born different, and those inherent differences makes us chose differently put in the same situation. We have created society as it is now, and since it is nowadays omnipresent, it can not be avoided, and thus it WILL affect everyone to an extent that is impossible to comprehend.
(It might feel as if I stray off the point here, bare with me tho! )
Who would I be if me, the same person, was born in the stone age? Certainly I would be quite different, aside from what I would do to survive etc. That makes us collectively responsible for each individual that is born in our society. Our society is in many ways better than it's predecessors, but it's FAR from perfect, and as it's citizens it's our responsibility to improve the system so that tomorrows people may have a better world.
As a result, it's universally wrong to judge people based on how they turned out. They would've been different if our world looked different, and casting them out will simply cause our system to converge to some point close to where it is now (but a more extreme one, since it doesn't consider it's flaws). So I'd say: Unless you are convinced our system is near perfection - do not judge.
This of course is quite philosophical, but I think it's true, and important to remember.
As for what I think of the OP's situation.. My experience with pot and pot heads is that it's important to keep the intake down a little bit. It's too easy if you have easy access to drugs, to use them casually, like, I'm bored -> smoke pot. This makes you do less things that gives you natural happiness, so it will probably make you depressed in the long run.
She might need a little help to get there, but I think she might be happier if she smoked less frequently, like once a week tops.
Hope it helped
you are inherently free to do what you want because it was random where you were born. the only way you're not "free" to do something or not is if someone is going to hurt you or kill you if you do or don't do something.
I used to worry about this kind of thing, as i experience it from time to time. Just this weekend I was comming from a friends house with the stink on me from smoking pot. He thought he could get some extra money outa me and added the amount wrong when he gave me back my change. Funny thing is tho im a generous tipper and he actually ended up screwing himself out of a buck when I called him on it.
On October 18 2011 08:15 Voltaire wrote: This has probably already been posted but here is a graph relating the physical harm of a drug to the likelihood of dependence.
Look at alcohol. Now look at tobacco. Now look at cannabis, LSD, and ecstasy.
This is the link to the study made that if anyone's curious/doubting:
This is quite a complicated question. Using drugs causes me to prejudge people. I make special exceptions for medical marijuana as I believe it has a legitimate use. I believe recreational drug use can be ok you are doing drugs on your own time, in your own place, where no one else is affected. However, I have no drive to hang out with people who use illegal substances unless the contact is in a work/educational setting (as most people attend these sober). The possibility of their use outside of those settings makes me decide to avoid their company, even if they wouldn't be using at that time. The idea that drug use is a "victimless crime" is nice, however not very realistic. Of course people can be using drugs in a controlled environment, where people are not affected. This is not often the case though. Even when used in a controlled environment, drugs can cause issues. Fighting in families, shortage of money, physical as well as psychological addiction, etc.
My thoughts on alcohol and cigarettes are similar, even though they are legal.
On October 18 2011 07:51 Steel wrote: Damn I never thought TL would of been so conservative...
I don't think people are conservative per se. I think people are just pointing out that it does not fit the definition of "Preconceived opinion not based on reason or experience"
I think that in general, from most of the interactions I have had, those who make their weed consumption a big part of their lives and their idenitities do hurt those who do not. They promote it in such a way, and act in such a way, people correlate their actions to others like them. This is based on reason and experience. Furthermore, although it may not seem rational to you, to some employers their reasoning is sound. They think "this kid broke the law and smoked weed, he will commit other crimes" Is this necessarily true? No. Is this possibly a misconception? Yeah.
But my question is is it without reason or experience? If not, what is it?
To me clearly, it is on reason, not experience. But reason need not be correct for you, but only for the man who uses it.
The clear counterargument to this is those who argued for social darwinism: Africans were weak and hence put into place. However, this type of discrimination dealt with how somebody was born, and not what choices they made. No matter how good smoking pot is, there is a cost and a benefit to it, and there are costs which must be weighed by anyone who partakes in it.
On October 18 2011 07:51 Steel wrote: Damn I never thought TL would of been so conservative...
I thought that at one point, but that's just old news to me now.
I live in the bay area, and to me it seems fairly liberal.... I guess it's conservative for europeans, and liberal for americans?
Notwithstanding the fact that a majority of tl users are below 40, which makes the average TL member liberal. (according to US voting demographics)
I understand your argument, which entirely made with the assumption that smoking marijuana is illegal because it is wrong. Most users will argue that this is precisely the problem. The whole 'employer' thing...if smoking would be legal my employer wouldn't give a shit about if I smoked or not on friday night, after work. So what your employer really cares about is the fact you are breaking the law. I understand because most laws have a good reason for existence. Not weed though. It should definitely be treated as any other drug. No matter how you put it, alcohol kills more people than weed. Even bringing the whole argument of gangs and selling and addiction and gateway drugs...alcohol will always put more people in the streets. Not enough to make it illegal though. So you're employer won't care that that you spend all weekend drinking...just be functional monday morning.
It's extremely closed-minded to prejudice on a group of people just because they are doing something considered illegal. People don't bother to check what they are actually doing. It's illegal? Then it's bad.
Sure I've seen some people not do well because of drugs, but tbh they didn't go to a state of being A-class students to drug addicts. Come on, a very small percentage of your so-called friends who got addicted to drugs were. They were all wrong-doers, troubled kids...and they found drugs as they grew up and kept being wrong-doers. I'm a student and work for my local city during the summer. The people there, they aren't the smartest around. Many are artists who hold this low-skill jobs because art doesn't pay...many mechanics and people specialized in some type of plants...they pretty much all smoked weed when we go on our annual camping trip. They also are all normal individuals with families and houses and I respect them all. Is it really wrong for them to chill like that? How can you make that argument when such worse drugs are legal?
In the end most people who enjoyed smoking, no matter how smart they were, eventually stopped because of this social prejudice. I think it's disgusting. "It's not a way on drugs it's a war on personal freedoms."
Nobody should have the power to tell me what I can't do inside my home unless I am hurting somebody else. The closest I came to hurting somebody with weed was my parents, who were terrified thinking I would be a failure because of weed. I told them to start worrying when I actually start accumulating failures. I'm doing great in school (doing a double major in math and physics atm, def going to graduate school after) I work part time and I'm in masters league (lol). I also smoke pot more than once a week. I'm really not the only one. I'll have to stop eventually because of drug tests. How the fuck is it fair? NOTHING in the world makes me happier than listening to great music with my friends, chatting. And the feeling is only enhanced because of weed. I also can't sleep when I'm stressed which is not to often but weed really helps me get that good night sleep that permits you to tackle the next day....but I digress. How is it fair for the many like me that such a harmless drug is illegal? Because others are stupid about it? Apply the same rule as alcohol and don't penalize me for other peoples failures!
On October 18 2011 08:22 Kangbao wrote: This is quite a complicated question. Using drugs causes me to prejudge people. I make special exceptions for medical marijuana as I believe it has a legitimate use. I believe recreational drug use can be ok you are doing drugs on your own time, in your own place, where no one else is affected. However, I have no drive to hang out with people who use illegal substances unless the contact is in a work/educational setting (as most people attend these sober). The possibility of their use outside of those settings makes me decide to avoid their company, even if they wouldn't be using at that time. The idea that drug use is a "victimless crime" is nice, however not very realistic. Of course people can be using drugs in a controlled environment, where people are not affected. This is not often the case though. Even when used in a controlled environment, drugs can cause issues. Fighting in families, shortage of money, physical as well as psychological addiction, etc.
My thoughts on alcohol and cigarettes are similar, even though they are legal.
smoking weed isn't a victimless crime, cause your mom gets angry? so not cleaning up your room makes your mom a victim too, right?
come on :/
"shortage of money, physical as well as psychological addiction" .. where's the victims? oh you mean when you ask your mom for more money? yea, that's really what you call a victim. poor mom.
To me, drug use includes alcohol and cigarettes; both are worse alternatives to moderate cannabis.ecstasy, or LSD use. I hate people who judge potheads when they can't get through the day without a cig or multiple drinks.
Why is it so hard for some people to accept cannabis use? It's so widely accepted now and the health concerns are non-existent. If half the people in this thread just smoked a joint with headphones on blasting their favorite music who would still think the same?
On October 18 2011 06:55 Bruky wrote: Well for me I just have to wonder why would anybody start taking drugs (even if it is smoking weed) in the first place? Want to feel cool because it is illegal? If this is the case it absolutely has negative impact on my perception of someone. If it is not the case then you had to start because you wanted to feel better. That's kind of sad so again, it negatively affects my view on a person. I know you cant be happy all the time but to take drugs is just running away from the problems and i dont like this kind of weak aspect of the person.
Well you can say that even about alcohol, but despite that its much easier for me to accept somebody who is drinking once a week than if he for example smokes weed. In my opinion there is a big difference between alcohol and drugs. With drugs you dont have any immediate negative effects. If you drink a little too much you will barf, you will feel sick next day and sometimes you wont remember a thing what happened. You hear so many times people say "i wont drink again". But if you overuse marijuana? You gonna feel thirsty and hungry? Oh come one. So its much more dangerous in this way, because it will have affect negatively in long run.
The last thing i would like to point out is that people usually drink while partying or whatever. And I think its perfect. You wanna have fun with friends or other people. But in the case of drugs i think there are much more cases when you take it/smoke it by yourself. There are for sure some people who drink alone and tons of people who smoke weed only with friends.
I dont wanna say that if somebody smokes weed that it makes him automatically terrible person. But I would like to find out what is the reason behind taking drugs? I just dont see the point and I would like to hear some.
so drinking to party is good, but a joint to relax after work is bad?
alcohol is not a drug?
oh boy...
and i do not feel any negative effects of drinking 5 beers, yet am pretty pissed.
ps: drinking to have fun. can't have fun without? weak character, obviously.
nah, seriously, get it in your head: alcohol is a drug. you ask for reasons why to take drugs... ask yourself, why do you drink? it's the answer.
if your definition of a drug is "gives you negative effects too", ecstacy is not a drug, cause it gives you a hangover. dude. think about it. you're spewing what propaganda has taught you. really. the only reason why you believe in the ways you do, is because television always makes a difference between drugs and alcohol.
there's no difference, trust me. i've tried both.
Yeah, drinking at party is good at the sense that it actually improves your social relationship with people. On the other hand smoking weed leads to a solitude. If you smoke it, you will feel fine and you wont need to interact with other people, cause you gonna feel good by yourself. Alcohol doesnt work this way. You wont feel better after drinking by yourself. Thats the main difference at least for me.
I dont wanna talk about what is drug or what isnt. Its pointless anyway. The important part is how it affects you.
ps: drinking to have fun. can't have fun without? weak character, obviously.
Not rly. As stated before. Alcohol doesnt work as drugs do. Alcohol is not a way how to have fun but how to have more fun. But drugs satisfy you just by taking it.
I dont need to ask myself why i drink, because i dont :o) I dont drink, smoke or take drugs. I just dont see the reason. But people drink to have "more fun", but drug users take it to "feel fine".
I would like to belive my view on alcohol and drugs is based on observation and experience. Maybe i am wrong, but nobody could prove me wrong yet.
you say drugs are substances that you take to just "feel fine", but look at cocaine, ecstacy, mushrooms, amphetamines... none of these just make you "feel fine". you use cocaine to grow balls on a party, ecstacy and amphetamines to dance all night, mushrooms to introspect, weed to be creative...
none of these substances are used to make you "feel fine". except for weed and alcohol. yes, alcohol, cause a shitload of people do drink alcohol just to feel fine. it's called drowning your sorrow. it is very very common.
come on, i have proven you wrong now.
Well yeah, about feeling fine i was talking about marihuana, hasish, heroine and so on.
But there are definately drugs that works different for example extasy or cocaine. I can totally agree that it works similiary like alcohol but again, there is big difference between these drugs and alcohol. And its mainly in afteraffects. If you drink a little too much you gonna barf, your head gonna hurt and you find out through this that alcohol is BAD. And many people gonna say "im never drinking again" But in case of taking drugs you just gonna feel depressed and u can start feeling like you wont be able to feel good without it.
In the case of drowning your sorrow. You are totally right, but the main difference is that you usually wont drink for flong period of time because of bad afteraffects. But if you end up in a state that you must drink to feel good then you suffer from addiction and in this time there is of course no difference if you are addicted to alcohol or to drugs. But the difference is that there are much higher chance to become addicted from taking drugs than from drinking an alcohol. And thats because the nature of drugs is different. The main purpose people take them (and why they wont stop taking them) is to feel fine (even if its not the main reason why they tried it, but it comes to it in near future like with cocaine).
come on, i have proven you wrong now.[/QUOTE] Well yeah, about feeling fine i was talking about marihuana, hasish, heroine and so on.
But there are definately drugs that works different for example extasy or cocaine. I can totally agree that it works similiary like alcohol but again, there is big difference between these drugs and alcohol. And its mainly in afteraffects. If you drink a little too much you gonna barf, your head gonna hurt and you find out through this that alcohol is BAD. And many people gonna say "im never drinking again" But in case of taking drugs you just gonna feel depressed and u can start feeling like you wont be able to feel good without it.
In the case of drowning your sorrow. You are totally right, but the main difference is that you usually wont drink for flong period of time because of bad afteraffects. But if you end up in a state that you must drink to feel good then you suffer from addiction and in this time there is of course no difference if you are addicted to alcohol or to drugs. But the difference is that there are much higher chance to become addicted from taking drugs than from drinking an alcohol. And thats because the nature of drugs is different. The main purpose people take them (and why they wont stop taking them) is to feel fine (even if its not the main reason why they tried it, but it comes to it in near future like with cocaine).[/QUOTE]
This is completely wrong. Alcoholics don't stop drinking because of their hangovers they just drink more to stop them. What you said maybe applies to people under 20 who just party, but alcohol abuse is a real thing and cannabis/ecstasy/LSD abuse isn't because you can't become physically dependent on it. If I went out and got black drunk tonight the effect would be much more noticeable then if I smoked a few blunts with my buddies or popped some ecstasy.
On October 18 2011 08:26 beg wrote: smoking weed isn't a victimless crime, cause your mom gets angry? so not cleaning up your room makes your mom a victim too, right?
come on :/
"shortage of money, physical as well as psychological addiction" .. where's the victims? oh you mean when you ask your mom for more money? yea, that's really what you call a victim. poor mom.
People always assume "drugs" means weed. Weed is a drug, however it is not the only drug. I didn't say that drugs in controlled environments ALWAYS cause issues. I said it is a possibility. Your family issues and physical addiction often comes from harder drugs. Psychological addiction can accompany weed, making it detrimental to yourself, however that's not what I care about. With that can come stealing from your mother (since you seemed so attached to her as an example) for the cash to buy. This does not ALWAYS happen, but it CAN. The possibility is the issue for me and the reason I avoid those who use drugs of any kind.
Weed, when used in a controlled environment is much better than others. I will completely admit that. However, like some other drugs, it often time is not used in a controlled environment. I know multiple people who have and continue to drive under the influence of weed. Perhaps it doesn't affect you as much as others, perhaps it affects your more than others, but it does affect the driving. Maybe you drive slower, but your reaction time is also slower.
My main problem is the possibility of negative effects. I'm not saying they should be completely illegal, I'm stating why I choose to avoid association with users.
Thinking less of somebody with an addiction seems silly to me. People get sick all the time, physically and psychologically, for all sorts of reasons. We all make stupid decisions that put us in a rough spot. Im not saying people should befriend every hopped up meth head but when you see an addict you should realize that the person they are is as valuable as anybody else, its just that their neutral state has been altered somewhat.
On October 18 2011 08:49 acgFork wrote: Anyone with prejudice against drug use should watch Requiem for a Dream.
You mean without prejudice, right? Because it'll change their minds?
That movie is far more helpful than America's Drug and Alcohol Resistance Education (DARE) program if the point is to teach children that doing drugs can ruin your life.
(Not to say drugs will necessarily ruin your life... but holy crap is the imagery graphic...)
On October 18 2011 08:49 acgFork wrote: Anyone with prejudice against drug use should watch Requiem for a Dream.
You mean without prejudice, right? Because it'll change their minds?
That movie is far more helpful than America's Drug and Alcohol Resistance Education (DARE) program if the point is to teach children that doing drugs can ruin your life.
(Not to say drugs will necessarily ruin your life... but holy crap is the imagery graphic...)
Those are all hard drugs in Requim for a Dream, though. Heroin, Cocaine, Crack, Methamphetamine are the main hard drugs I believe. People apply the stigmas that these hard drugs have to other drugs like cannabis and psychedelics. They are completely different substances, just like salt is to sugar. To say they have some inherent similar effect on people because they are illegal is ridiculous. The health effects of each substance needs to be examined closely individually; society tends to group them all together.
On October 18 2011 08:49 acgFork wrote: Anyone with prejudice against drug use should watch Requiem for a Dream.
You mean without prejudice, right? Because it'll change their minds?
That movie is far more helpful than America's Drug and Alcohol Resistance Education (DARE) program if the point is to teach children that doing drugs can ruin your life.
(Not to say that's true... but holy crap is the imagery graphic...)
"drugs can ruin your life" is not the point of the movie, rather that substance abuse shows itself in many forms, and to precisely humanify addicts as actual people.
i do agree with you on the latter as a separate statement though. that's because i believe DARE has done more harm than good to the american youth by lying to them. due to being perceived ineffective and unscientific, the DARE program has been ineligible for federal grant money since the late 1990's.
On October 18 2011 08:49 acgFork wrote: Anyone with prejudice against drug use should watch Requiem for a Dream.
You mean without prejudice, right? Because it'll change their minds?
That movie is far more helpful than America's Drug and Alcohol Resistance Education (DARE) program if the point is to teach children that doing drugs can ruin your life.
(Not to say drugs will necessarily ruin your life... but holy crap is the imagery graphic...)
Those are all hard drugs in Requim for a Dream, though. Heroin, Cocaine, Crack, Methamphetamine are the main hard drugs I believe. People apply the stigmas that these hard drugs have to other drugs like cannabis and psychedelics. They are completely different substances, just like salt is to sugar. To say they have some inherent similar effect on people because they are illegal is ridiculous. The health effects of each substance needs to be examined closely individually; society tends to group them all together.
I agree with you completely. They certainly aren't the same as marijuana (even though nearly every time "illegal drugs" are mentioned in this thread, everyone seems to ignore nearly every drug but pot lol).
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?
On October 18 2011 08:49 acgFork wrote: Anyone with prejudice against drug use should watch Requiem for a Dream.
You mean without prejudice, right? Because it'll change their minds?
That movie is far more helpful than America's Drug and Alcohol Resistance Education (DARE) program if the point is to teach children that doing drugs can ruin your life.
(Not to say that's true... but holy crap is the imagery graphic...)
"drugs can ruin your life" is not the point of the movie, rather that substance abuse shows itself in many forms, and to precisely humanify addicts as actual people.
i do agree with you on the latter as a separate statement though. that's because i believe DARE has done more harm than good to the american youth by lying to them. due to being perceived ineffective and unscientific, the DARE program has been ineligible for federal grant money since the late 1990's.
Yeah, it's a government program... it has to keep up its agenda, but it can't even do that well. (The war on drugs is just silly as a whole, but that's a whole other can of worms.)
what i'd like to make a point on by the way, is that comparing different drugs' addiction potential and health risks is very difficult even for people who know way more about them than anyone in this thread. meth and coke cause barely any socioeconomic problems in finland for example, and i can't remember ever hearing about anyone here being addicted to either.
buprenorphine on the other hand, situated smack in the middle in the david nutt graph in terms of addiction potential and health risks, is the most abused drug in finland, and in most of scandinavia i believe. it replaces heroin in the area due to heroin's tough availability (which results in poor quality and high prices). both are very strong opiates but ironically bupe was designed as a drug to wean people off H - and arguably for big medical companies to get the H addicts' money off criminal organizations and in their pockets. amphetamine comes second in harm due to plenty of it flowing through from russia and the baltic states. i believe the most imporant factor in determining addiction potential of a drug is its status and supply in a certain group or area.
On October 18 2011 09:26 PraetorialGamer wrote: Drugs are harmful, and I have seen people hollowed out, and physically sick, due to drug addiction. If a friend came up to me and told me that they were on drugs, I would either try to convince them to quit, or if that failed, report them to the campus police.
... which would do much more to ruin his life than any drug alone likely would since you're not going to control his life nor is the police, but he is. either a) you'll lose a friend who confided in you something you likely wouldn't have noticed at that moment b) you'll get him in trouble with the law c) both none of those options are even remotely likely to change his opinion on drug use, responsible or not. which one of the three would end up with you having acted like someone's friend instead of enemy?
Drugs are harmful, and I have seen people hollowed out, and physically sick, due to drug addiction. If a friend came up to me and told me that they were on drugs, I would either try to convince them to quit, or if that failed, report them to the campus police.
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'
On October 18 2011 08:49 acgFork wrote: Anyone with prejudice against drug use should watch Requiem for a Dream.
You mean without prejudice, right? Because it'll change their minds?
That movie is far more helpful than America's Drug and Alcohol Resistance Education (DARE) program if the point is to teach children that doing drugs can ruin your life.
(Not to say drugs will necessarily ruin your life... but holy crap is the imagery graphic...)
Those are all hard drugs in Requim for a Dream, though. Heroin, Cocaine, Crack, Methamphetamine are the main hard drugs I believe. People apply the stigmas that these hard drugs have to other drugs like cannabis and psychedelics. They are completely different substances, just like salt is to sugar. To say they have some inherent similar effect on people because they are illegal is ridiculous. The health effects of each substance needs to be examined closely individually; society tends to group them all together.
I agree with you completely. They certainly aren't the same as marijuana (even though nearly every time "illegal drugs" are mentioned in this thread, everyone seems to ignore nearly every drug but pot lol).
Well most people in jail in the USA for drug related crimes are there for marijuana possession..
I think it all depends on how responsible the user is with the drug they are about to use. For example, marijuana. I consider it mostly a recreational drug, but I've met a few douchebags who treat it like cocaine and do some really dumb shit while high, like start a fight. If the person is smart and isn't an ignorant ass, then I have no problem with people using it. However, I think there are just certain drugs that I would definitely choose to not hang around while people are using them such as cocaine, crack, pain killers or any kind of pills, and all that other serious shit.
You're entitled to whatever prejudice or opinion you have, though hopefully it's a somewhat rational and logical one.
Personally I couldn't care less what substances anyone puts into their body and I think it's abhorrent that the government (or any other body) has any influence on restricting this in any way at all.
Drug use does indeed negatively shade my opinion of a given person, but as with most others who have posted in this thread, it's more based on my personal experiences with drug users than anything else.
Of the four or five drug users I've met in my life, I've only continued talking to one of them. The rest are incredibly mean-spirited and cynical people; and if that's the kind of person drug use creates I don't want to be involved in that myself or those who choose to involve themselves with it. I understand that for many drug usage is a lifestyle choice, and I won't bother to stop any of them if they choose to do so, but from my own experiences I've only seen drug usage cause problems and therefore I am highly judgmental of their usage.
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.
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?
On October 18 2011 09:54 Kraidio wrote: Drug use does indeed negatively shade my opinion of a given person, but as with most others who have posted in this thread, it's more based on my personal experiences with drug users than anything else.
Of the four or five drug users I've met in my life, I've only continued talking to one of them. The rest are incredibly mean-spirited and cynical people; and if that's the kind of person drug use creates I don't want to be involved in that myself or those who choose to involve themselves with it. I understand that for many drug usage is a lifestyle choice, and I won't bother to stop any of them if they choose to do so, but from my own experiences I've only seen drug usage cause problems and therefore I am highly judgmental of their usage.
That's the thing about stereotypes and prejudice. They may seem true the majority of the time, but there are always exceptions. It's not fair to the exceptions to be automatically assumed to be things they aren't.
A perfect situation analogous to yours would be someone who, as I did, lived in an area with very few people of African heritage. I hear a lot of people say "I don't mean to be racist, but all the black people I meet are just like the stereotype" around here. It may seem true a lot of the time, BUT there are exceptions, there always are. It's not fair for them to be stigmatized.
In the end it's pretty simple. It comes down to whether you want to give everyone a chance to prove to you who they are, or if you want to make presumptions about people based on what groups you perceive them to belong to.
Interesting results in the second poll; I didn't expect so many people's opinions of others to take such a nosedive once they find out about their "drug use."
That said, I don't think harboring personal prejudice against someone who uses/does ANYTHING (doesn't even need to be substance abuse, repeated annoying or singularly fixated behavior pisses me off just as much, if not more) in excessive amounts or frequency is the worst thing in the world. Most people I've met who meet this criteria use alcohol or pot. I'm inclined to say the hardcore stoners are more annoying, but I'm biased because I smoke myself, and meet more stoners than booze hounds in general. But unless the person is loud/actively annoying when they're "intoxicated," or talking about their awesome experiences, I don't really care. I mean, as long as it doesn't affect me, I believe in live and let live. Certain people just should NOT ever get drunk though, lol...
In fact, OP, I think you should've included alcohol in the 2nd poll; just because it's legal doesn't make obsessive behavior stemming from its (ab)use any less egregious.
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?
It should really be noted that alcohol is essentially harmless if taken in moderation. You can drink 3 drinks a day until the end of time and unless you have some odd genetic condition it isn't going to harm you physically, mentally, or emotionally. You can smoke three bowls of weed a day and it's the same amount of risk, if not less, than smoking cigarettes. You can't do 3 lines of cocaine or 3 stamp bags of heroin a day, it will wreck you sooner or later.
I smoke weed every day and I love the various hallucinogenics and MDMA, but you're never going to convince me that cocaine, heroin, and the various amphetamines and smorgasbord of research chemicals can be safely legalized.
If you want to see what would probably happen if all drugs were legal, look at how prescription drug abuse has soared ever since opiate painkillers started being widely prescribed again in the early and mid-90s.
There are substances that are more powerful than your body and your mind, I don't think they should be legalized beyond prescriptions from a legit doctor. There is a distinction between a drug that has been used and studied for decades or centuries or millenia; there's a difference between chewing a coca leaf and snorting cocaine or smoking crack, created by a chemical process to make the drug infinitely more concentrated and addictive. I don't think that research chemicals whose only "research" is a few entries in Pikhal or Tikhal should be legalized. LSD-25 was studied for almost a decade before it started to be prescribed, for example.
It warms my heart to see Voltaire is still fighting the good fight.
Although personal experiences are understandably influential in your opinions, please try to remain open minded to the idea that there are people out there who can use drugs and still maintain happy and healthy lives. Unhappy people often use drugs and drugs can make a bad situation worse, but drugs do not necessarily create unhappy and unhealthy people. Add that reality to the incredible waste that is first world drug policy and you begin to realize that it may not be morally unjust to judge people for drug use, but there really aren't any logically sound arguments justifying it either. I am friends with people who don't use drugs at all, and they have developed much more liberal views on drug use using my lifestyle as an example. I'm rather proud of that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think it's unfair to prejudice people for using drugs. Drugs are not always bad and often people have good reasons for using them. For example, I used to smoke every single night an hour or so before bed, that way when I did decide to go to sleep I was asleep instantly.
And it depends on the circumstances: when and how often they use which drug.
On October 18 2011 06:22 Millitron wrote: For the second poll I chose "it depends". I don't really care if they use drugs on and off, like smoking pot at a party, but as soon as they start falling into stoner culture, I lose all respect for them.
For instance, whenever I see an Xbox Live tag with 420, or any other reference to pot, I immediately assume they completely lack any value as a human being.
How is that any different than old people thinking anyone who plays video games or is immersed in gamer culture is brainwashed?
I can't even believe this guy. So now he's prejudice against anyone that even makes a reference to pot? It's people like Millitron that make the world a shitty place.
Also, I don't think it's hypocritical to be judgmental of others for providing evidence that they are judgmental of others at first glance.
I'm the kind of individual who waits a bit to get to know someone before I decide if they "completely lack any value as a human being." Granted, I was raised in an atheist household, so I might be more inclined to think things through more often than others.
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.
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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
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"
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.
^^this right here
Any form of prejudice is wrong. It is stupid. It makes the world arrogant and ignorant.
"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.
Hoo boy! I could talk for hours about this, but I have work to do today, so I'll just keep it short and throw in my two cents by saying I honestly think it's situational. Depends not only on the person, but on the drugs. Basically I have a problem with obnoxious or stupid people and I have a HUGE problem with people who take prescription drugs illegally because there are some people, like me for instance, who actually need those; but aside from that I don't have much of a problem. Yes I'd worry about them - if I liked them; other times I consider these people weak-willed - but it doesn't mean I hate them. -shrugs-
TL;DR - I don't like irresponsible, obnoxious, or weak-willed people. But drug users aren't necessarily any of those things. So there you go.
all the people that click "No" are closed minded bigots. stereotypes always have true examples but that doesn't mean that the stereotypes are true for the entire demographics its being directed towards. so on this particular one, you're going to say "its okay for me to be prejudice against these people, just no one else." the fact is that people are selfish, people assume anything they'd like, and most people believe whatever they're told, until one or all of these things change for the people who choose to be bigots, i offer them no respect, and even less recognition than i'd give a heroine addict on the streets. whether its casual pot smokers or straight up junkies, they're people too. prejudicing them is just as wrong as saying all black people are niggers or all gay people should die.
also
On October 17 2011 11:26 Alay wrote: No. my mother and father were both big alcoholics. My best friend went completely wacked out on pot and almost got me in some bad places. I've seen drug use and abuse do nothing but hurt the people around me, and I certainly think very little of people who cannot find any other coping mechanism than to resort to warping their perception.
And yet their are hundreds of thousands of people who can drink every day or smoke put every day and function just fine in society. Just because your friends fucked up doesn't mean it was all the drugs fault. Why do you just assume its a coping method? Lots of people do it simply because they enjoy it! Some people like to spend their spare time playing sports, some video games and other like to drink or smoke? Why hold it against them?
props to you good sir, at least some people don't look at things blindly and assume what they're told by mass media etc is correct.
People ITT confuse prejudice & stereotyping with the initial rebuttable presumption of opinion one forms after learning a specific fact about someone else in the absence of any other information.
Well if you buy cocain and weed you are actually fueling wast crime imperium,and for example,drug war in mexico.(i know they are "just" mexicans but still(sarkasm here))That is not exactly "victimless crime" anymore.
Most shit is legal here in Soddom(=Belgium) , so no. I`m supposed to head out to a party thursday where there will be massive drug use (Be strong pirate :D). For us it`s just the norm, you won`t be looked at differently by anyone else than old ladies.
Well technically its the law, if your willing to go against the laws set by the country that uses its power to protect your rights, there's something a little out of line even in that regard.
On October 19 2011 04:54 Dbla08 wrote: all the people that click "No" are closed minded bigots. stereotypes always have true examples but that doesn't mean that the stereotypes are true for the entire demographics its being directed towards. so on this particular one, you're going to say "its okay for me to be prejudice against these people, just no one else." the fact is that people are selfish, people assume anything they'd like, and most people believe whatever they're told, until one or all of these things change for the people who choose to be bigots, i offer them no respect, and even less recognition than i'd give a heroine addict on the streets. whether its casual pot smokers or straight up junkies, they're people too. prejudicing them is just as wrong as saying all black people are niggers or all gay people should die.
On October 17 2011 11:26 Alay wrote: No. my mother and father were both big alcoholics. My best friend went completely wacked out on pot and almost got me in some bad places. I've seen drug use and abuse do nothing but hurt the people around me, and I certainly think very little of people who cannot find any other coping mechanism than to resort to warping their perception.
And yet their are hundreds of thousands of people who can drink every day or smoke put every day and function just fine in society. Just because your friends fucked up doesn't mean it was all the drugs fault. Why do you just assume its a coping method? Lots of people do it simply because they enjoy it! Some people like to spend their spare time playing sports, some video games and other like to drink or smoke? Why hold it against them?
props to you good sir, at least some people don't look at things blindly and assume what they're told by mass media etc is correct.
You're comparing two entirely different things. Looking negatively upon someone for something they can't change, like being born black or being born homosexual, is completely different than looking negatively upon someone who chooses to break the law.
I think that there is way too much people that are misinformed about drugs and what they actually do to you. I also think that if the government wants to help "stopping" drug use they should inform people about true facts of what its doing to you and what the dangers are. (because kids will do it anyways ) I'm talking about low "danger level"* drugs from like weed, mdma, 2c's, shrooms, lsd, lsa. I'm not talking about crack or heroin of whatever.
*in moderation, obviously.
Also, to anyone thinking about doing drugs, I strongly advise you just to get as much informed as possible of it. 420chan.org and taimapedia.org are generaly good for that.
After reading through this rapidly declining thread. I'll summarize my previously stated opinion:
I smoked pot twice. Got a good high. Hated the smell, taste, coughing, and don't enjoy the prospect of getting a criminal record.
Because of my first hand experience, I avoid becoming close with habitual users.. and yes, I suppose I hold some level of prejudice toward pot smokers.
But I don't go around telling them that. To each their own, if it doesn't affect me, toke'r up bud. I'm in the military now and my choice is made even easier since I have no interest is losing my career. It baffles me that members at my posting give zero fucks and smoke up all the time.
Hard drugs are different. I avoid them and people who have them, sell them or use them at all costs.
this thread is really sad; i would have expected better from team liquid users because i thought this was a pretty smart community. i'd like to see the outrage if the same people who put down drug users saw a poll where the majority voted that they thought less of people who played video games (this is a very common attitude, by the way). my guess is that that opinion would be ripped apart by the same posters who are claiming drug use is immoral.
just because something is illegal does not mean it is immoral, despite what those in power would like you to believe. in fact, morality directly opposes legality in many instances, and it is important to actually think critically about such issues. i think a lot of you need to grow the hell up.
On October 19 2011 06:07 rycho wrote: this thread is really sad; i would have expected better from team liquid users because i thought this was a pretty smart community. i'd like to see the outrage if the same people who put down drug users saw a poll where the majority voted that they thought less of people who played video games (this is a very common attitude, by the way). my guess is that that opinion would be ripped apart by the same posters who are claiming drug use is immoral.
So? People view guys who work out at the gym a lot in a certain way, they view women who shop at a mall in a certain way, etc. It is a general conception often leading to subject matter for late night comedy and stand-up artists. It is not a prejudice. Who the fuck cares.
On October 19 2011 06:07 rycho wrote: this thread is really sad; i would have expected better from team liquid users because i thought this was a pretty smart community. i'd like to see the outrage if the same people who put down drug users saw a poll where the majority voted that they thought less of people who played video games (this is a very common attitude, by the way). my guess is that that opinion would be ripped apart by the same posters who are claiming drug use is immoral.
just because something is illegal does not mean it is immoral, despite what those in power would like you to believe. in fact, morality directly opposes legality in many instances, and it is important to actually think critically about such issues. i think a lot of you need to grow the hell up.
sad man... you're really trying to justify your use aren't you?
On October 19 2011 06:07 rycho wrote: this thread is really sad; i would have expected better from team liquid users because i thought this was a pretty smart community. i'd like to see the outrage if the same people who put down drug users saw a poll where the majority voted that they thought less of people who played video games (this is a very common attitude, by the way). my guess is that that opinion would be ripped apart by the same posters who are claiming drug use is immoral.
just because something is illegal does not mean it is immoral, despite what those in power would like you to believe. in fact, morality directly opposes legality in many instances, and it is important to actually think critically about such issues. i think a lot of you need to grow the hell up.
sad man... you're really trying to justify your use aren't you?
Did he ever say he even uses? your resorting to ad hominems to try and negate the logic in the post?
On October 19 2011 04:54 Dbla08 wrote: all the people that click "No" are closed minded bigots. stereotypes always have true examples but that doesn't mean that the stereotypes are true for the entire demographics its being directed towards. so on this particular one, you're going to say "its okay for me to be prejudice against these people, just no one else." the fact is that people are selfish, people assume anything they'd like, and most people believe whatever they're told, until one or all of these things change for the people who choose to be bigots, i offer them no respect, and even less recognition than i'd give a heroine addict on the streets. whether its casual pot smokers or straight up junkies, they're people too. prejudicing them is just as wrong as saying all black people are niggers or all gay people should die.
There's a large difference between drawing an opinion on someone based on a choice they make (drug use) and something they can't control (race).
On October 19 2011 04:54 Dbla08 wrote: all the people that click "No" are closed minded bigots. stereotypes always have true examples but that doesn't mean that the stereotypes are true for the entire demographics its being directed towards. so on this particular one, you're going to say "its okay for me to be prejudice against these people, just no one else." the fact is that people are selfish, people assume anything they'd like, and most people believe whatever they're told, until one or all of these things change for the people who choose to be bigots, i offer them no respect, and even less recognition than i'd give a heroine addict on the streets. whether its casual pot smokers or straight up junkies, they're people too. prejudicing them is just as wrong as saying all black people are niggers or all gay people should die.
There's a large difference between drawing an opinion on someone based on a choice they make (drug use) and something they can't control (race).
Especially a choice they know will affect other people's impression of them.
On October 19 2011 06:22 AudionovA wrote: I find it very interesting, i would like to see if this same prejudice applies to other mental and physiognomical substances namely alcohol
Poll: When an acquaintance tells you that he/ she drinks you?
Does not affect you opinion. (4)
67%
Proves inimical to your opinion on him/her (1)
17%
Ameliorates your opinion of him/her? (1)
17%
6 total votes
Your vote: When an acquaintance tells you that he/ she drinks you?
(Vote): Proves inimical to your opinion on him/her (Vote): Ameliorates your opinion of him/her? (Vote): Does not affect you opinion.
depends on the severity. there's a huge gap between someone who only drinks at parties compared to someone who drinks a carton every few days.
Yeah or even someone who just has a beer with a meal. I don't get plastered... ever. It doesn't bother me much if someone does once in a rare while by being careless... but folks who go out to "get drunk" every weekend bother me. I can respect the person anyways for other reasons, but this attribute takes it away.
On October 17 2011 11:30 Chargelot wrote: I have an inherent fear of people who are actively high on PCP and Cocaine. Something about a man who can steamroll me into a bloody mess AFTER I shoot him in the chest 12 times just doesn't sit right with me.
Clearly I'm a bigot.
I don't really know where you interpret this yeti like strength and power from cocaine especially.
From personal experience smoked, snort, inject, I get so blown back in my chair with the taste of kerosine, and the feeling that my heart may explode at any moment. Now that's just me.
Aside from that, I wasn't aware of the sheer tunnel vision of average liquid posters. To suggest that you're opinion of all drug users is negatively effected because someone else chooses to use drugs is painting with a broad brush.
It's true, a quantifiable amount of drug users have stepped into a dimension beyond their control. Even so, if they aren't directly affecting the lives of others I've never discovered a problem.
Some people can control their drug use, even keep it in the closet. Others are full tilt junkies lacking the ability to pull the jammy out of their vein. I fall into the category of the latter.
But if their is one thing that I have learned from years of use, it's best to stay in your lane while others are in their lane.
Conclusion: Must add alcohol poll, because alcohol is a drug along with cigarettes and caffeine.
Don't even bother quoting and question my prior statement, because I don't know any pot heads or heroin addicts who go home and beat their wives.
On October 19 2011 04:54 Dbla08 wrote: all the people that click "No" are closed minded bigots. stereotypes always have true examples but that doesn't mean that the stereotypes are true for the entire demographics its being directed towards. so on this particular one, you're going to say "its okay for me to be prejudice against these people, just no one else." the fact is that people are selfish, people assume anything they'd like, and most people believe whatever they're told, until one or all of these things change for the people who choose to be bigots, i offer them no respect, and even less recognition than i'd give a heroine addict on the streets. whether its casual pot smokers or straight up junkies, they're people too. prejudicing them is just as wrong as saying all black people are niggers or all gay people should die.
There's a large difference between drawing an opinion on someone based on a choice they make (drug use) and something they can't control (race).
Not really. The fact that someone likes to smoke a little on a friday night while watching a movie means nothing for your relationship with him/her, until you get to a very intimate point. Half the world is running around on anti-depressants, another part is just plain unhappy, more drink, others turn to a strong believe in a god. What matters is the way they behave towards you, nothing else really.
Unless you're at a point in a relationship where you need to be relied upon during certain hours (professional, personal, whatever) you don't get to make that judgement upfront.
On October 19 2011 06:22 AudionovA wrote: I find it very interesting, i would like to see if this same prejudice applies to other mental and physiognomical substances namely alcohol
Poll: When an acquaintance tells you that he/ she drinks you?
Does not affect you opinion. (4)
67%
Proves inimical to your opinion on him/her (1)
17%
Ameliorates your opinion of him/her? (1)
17%
6 total votes
Your vote: When an acquaintance tells you that he/ she drinks you?
(Vote): Proves inimical to your opinion on him/her (Vote): Ameliorates your opinion of him/her? (Vote): Does not affect you opinion.
depends on the severity. there's a huge gap between someone who only drinks at parties compared to someone who drinks a carton every few days.
On October 19 2011 05:28 Luepert wrote: Well technically its the law, if your willing to go against the laws set by the country that uses its power to protect your rights, there's something a little out of line even in that regard.
You really think the US government gives a shit about protecting you?
On October 19 2011 06:59 Derez wrote: Not really. The fact that someone likes to smoke a little on a friday night while watching a movie means nothing for your relationship with him/her, until you get to a very intimate point. Half the world is running around on anti-depressants, another part is just plain unhappy, more drink, others turn to a strong believe in a god. What matters is the way they behave towards you, nothing else really.
Not really. I view anyone who relies on self-medication to 'get him through a rough patch' the exact same. Also, I could care less about someone who does something in moderation from time to time. Furthermore, I will view any addict, any alcoholic, any persistent, consistent user the same regardless of what drug they use. That includes caffeine: a weak-willed and willing slave.
On October 19 2011 06:59 Derez wrote: Not really. The fact that someone likes to smoke a little on a friday night while watching a movie means nothing for your relationship with him/her, until you get to a very intimate point. Half the world is running around on anti-depressants, another part is just plain unhappy, more drink, others turn to a strong believe in a god. What matters is the way they behave towards you, nothing else really.
Not really. I view anyone who relies on self-medication to 'get him through a rough patch' the exact same. Also, I could care less about someone who does something in moderation from time to time. Furthermore, I will view any addict, any alcoholic, any persistent, consistent user the same regardless of what drug they use. That includes caffeine: a weak-willed and willing slave.
That Steve Jobs guy sure was weak-willed and a willing slave, eh?
Not to mention the dozens of other successful people who had positive experiences with psychedelics, and a plethora of people who used amphetamines to be more productive, for example Paul Erdos and The Beatles.
On October 19 2011 04:54 Dbla08 wrote: all the people that click "No" are closed minded bigots. stereotypes always have true examples but that doesn't mean that the stereotypes are true for the entire demographics its being directed towards. so on this particular one, you're going to say "its okay for me to be prejudice against these people, just no one else." the fact is that people are selfish, people assume anything they'd like, and most people believe whatever they're told, until one or all of these things change for the people who choose to be bigots, i offer them no respect, and even less recognition than i'd give a heroine addict on the streets. whether its casual pot smokers or straight up junkies, they're people too. prejudicing them is just as wrong as saying all black people are niggers or all gay people should die.
There's a large difference between drawing an opinion on someone based on a choice they make (drug use) and something they can't control (race).
Not really. The fact that someone likes to smoke a little on a friday night while watching a movie means nothing for your relationship with him/her, until you get to a very intimate point. Half the world is running around on anti-depressants, another part is just plain unhappy, more drink, others turn to a strong believe in a god. What matters is the way they behave towards you, nothing else really.
Unless you're at a point in a relationship where you need to be relied upon during certain hours (professional, personal, whatever) you don't get to make that judgement upfront.
It means something to your relationship with that at whatever point it begins to effect it. That threshold and degree of change varies from person to person and situation to situation.
Every piece of information we have about someone changes our opinion of them to some degree based our our associations with it. If you know someone goes to the gym every day, that has some effect on your opinion of them. If they use a lot of profanity, another effect. This is simply human nature and how we categorize and evaluate things. Those individual changes aren't generally huge changes, but they occur daily and continually. Why should drug use be exempt from this process?
On October 19 2011 06:59 Derez wrote: Not really. The fact that someone likes to smoke a little on a friday night while watching a movie means nothing for your relationship with him/her, until you get to a very intimate point. Half the world is running around on anti-depressants, another part is just plain unhappy, more drink, others turn to a strong believe in a god. What matters is the way they behave towards you, nothing else really.
Not really. I view anyone who relies on self-medication to 'get him through a rough patch' the exact same. Also, I could care less about someone who does something in moderation from time to time. Furthermore, I will view any addict, any alcoholic, any persistent, consistent user the same regardless of what drug they use. That includes caffeine: a weak-willed and willing slave.
Does this also include other obsessive behaviour, like eating a lot? Or play a lot of SC2 games to 'get him through a rough patch'?
On October 19 2011 06:59 Derez wrote: Not really. The fact that someone likes to smoke a little on a friday night while watching a movie means nothing for your relationship with him/her, until you get to a very intimate point. Half the world is running around on anti-depressants, another part is just plain unhappy, more drink, others turn to a strong believe in a god. What matters is the way they behave towards you, nothing else really.
Not really. I view anyone who relies on self-medication to 'get him through a rough patch' the exact same. Also, I could care less about someone who does something in moderation from time to time. Furthermore, I will view any addict, any alcoholic, any persistent, consistent user the same regardless of what drug they use. That includes caffeine: a weak-willed and willing slave.
So you are boring boring boring who has absolutly no life experience (which is shown by your disregard of having a hard time). I think people who are afraid of expanding their mind and experience new things are weak willed and willing slaves to societies conventions.
On October 19 2011 06:59 Derez wrote: Not really. The fact that someone likes to smoke a little on a friday night while watching a movie means nothing for your relationship with him/her, until you get to a very intimate point. Half the world is running around on anti-depressants, another part is just plain unhappy, more drink, others turn to a strong believe in a god. What matters is the way they behave towards you, nothing else really.
Not really. I view anyone who relies on self-medication to 'get him through a rough patch' the exact same. Also, I could care less about someone who does something in moderation from time to time. Furthermore, I will view any addict, any alcoholic, any persistent, consistent user the same regardless of what drug they use. That includes caffeine: a weak-willed and willing slave.
So you are boring boring boring who has absolutly no life experience (which is shown by your disregard of having a hard time). I think people who are afraid of expanding their mind and experience new things are weak willed and willing slaves to societies conventions.
Holy shit american's are so righteous. The thing that kills me about this....the majority of the people who hate pot cause its illegal took part in shit like underage drinking. Why aren't you so righteous about that? Isn't that "illegal"?
On October 19 2011 07:13 iSTime wrote: That Steve Jobs guy sure was weak-willed and a willing slave, eh?
I'm confused as to how medically prescribed medication by a medical profession is 'self-medication'
Not to mention the dozens of other successful people who had positive experiences with psychedelics, and a plethora of people who used amphetamines to be more productive, for example Paul Erdos and The Beatles.
Did you completely ignore my entire sentence stating that I do not care if someone does something in moderation? Are you illiterate?
On October 19 2011 07:20 BlackFlag wrote: So you are boring boring boring who has absolutly no life experience (which is shown by your disregard of having a hard time). I think people who are afraid of expanding their mind and experience new things are weak willed and willing slaves to societies conventions.
On October 19 2011 07:26 BandonBanshee wrote: Holy shit american's are so righteous. The thing that kills me about this....the majority of the people who hate pot cause its illegal took part in shit like underage drinking. Why aren't you so righteous about that? Isn't that "illegal"?
Where do you get the idea that people who hate pot b/c it is illegal also drank underage? Make assumptions much? Do you even have any poll data supporting this correlation?
On October 19 2011 07:17 Timmsh wrote: Does this also include other obsessive behaviour, like eating a lot?
Yes.
Or play a lot of SC2 games to 'get him through a rough patch'?
Depends. If the person plays sc2 games to escape from his reality because he thinks his life sucks, then yes. However, doing something else momentarily to break away from stress is shown to decrease levels of stress and improve happiness overall. So if he is playing sc2 for that purpose then good for him to recognize it. By the way drug use does not decrease stress or alleviate depression, it makes it worse and that is a medical fact. If you self-medicate to get through a rough patch and you are doing this on a consistent basis not only are you weak willed but you are also just stupid.
On October 19 2011 07:26 BandonBanshee wrote: Holy shit american's are so righteous. The thing that kills me about this....the majority of the people who hate pot cause its illegal took part in shit like underage drinking. Why aren't you so righteous about that? Isn't that "illegal"?
Where do you get the idea that people who hate pot b/c it is illegal also drank underage? Make assumptions much? Do you even have any poll data supporting this correlation?
The point of this thread is about making assumptions.
On October 19 2011 07:26 BandonBanshee wrote: Holy shit american's are so righteous. The thing that kills me about this....the majority of the people who hate pot cause its illegal took part in shit like underage drinking. Why aren't you so righteous about that? Isn't that "illegal"?
Where do you get the idea that people who hate pot b/c it is illegal also drank underage? Make assumptions much? Do you even have any poll data supporting this correlation?
The point of this thread is about making assumptions.
Not really assumptions since most of those 'assumptions' are true. Is it prejudicial to ask someone from Hawaii if he knows how to surf? To ask someone from Colorado if she knows how to ski? To ask someone from Canada if he knows how to skate? If a certain characteristic accurately describes over 50% of a certain class of individuals why is it bad to assume a random person from that class has the characteristic? Is that even 'prejudice'? It's called making informed decisions, is the choice of car insurers to charge lower rates to college graduates prejudicial against stupid people? Get real.
On October 19 2011 05:28 Luepert wrote: Well technically its the law, if your willing to go against the laws set by the country that uses its power to protect your rights, there's something a little out of line even in that regard.
Who cares if it is the law, it is the duty of the righteous citizen to break unjust laws which are tyrannical and immoral.
If someone takes illegal drugs it really depends on which one... Weed is really weak and is condiserred illegal but so is crack making it an inconsistant survey. Someone who does crack will be looked at more negatively in general than someone that does weed. IMO anyways.
On October 19 2011 08:21 Taesis wrote: If someone takes illegal drugs it really depends on which one... Weed is really weak and is condiserred illegal but so is crack making it an inconsistant survey. Someone who does crack will be looked at more negatively in general than someone that does weed. IMO anyways.
Why does an investment banker who snorts cocaine more deserving of scorn than an unemployed hippy who takes bong hits 4 jesus?
On October 18 2011 08:15 Voltaire wrote: This has probably already been posted but here is a graph relating the physical harm of a drug to the likelihood of dependence.
Look at alcohol. Now look at tobacco. Now look at cannabis, LSD, and ecstasy.
This is the link to the study made that if anyone's curious/doubting:
Excellent! Nope I dont think anyone has posted this yet. Graphs like this are SO NECESSARY when having any debate on drugs.
Also, people should check out a documentary called "Grass" made in 1999.
It documents the history of the illegalization of Marijuana in the USA, its very interesting indeed.
This chart is completely inaccurate. They state heroin is the most harmful drug on the board, but I don't think anyone has ever died from PURE heroin. The problem is a chart like this is completely skewed, and unable to deliver accurate truths.
Heroin was sold over the counter in America in the early 1900, where you could even buy the original metal syringes. The effects of it were, and are non-existent. Heroin doesn't do near the long term damage to your liver, kidneys, or stomach unlike over the counter pain relievers tylenol, ibuprofen, and aspirin. Look into the history of heroin, or even the present. Some countries in Europe use prescribe Heroin for chronic pain.
What is being sold on the street for the most part in America, although advertised as Heroin is more quinine or fetnyal. What the news suggests is a heroin overdose is truly a quinine overdose.
In the same token, to suggest that Ecstasy is a 1 is ludicrous. It's manufactured by biker gangs or chemists, or simply people who don't really know what they are doing. Ecstasy can be produced with ANYTHING made into pill form and stamped with a logo. It means nothing.
I agree that data is necessary and beneficial for a discussion, but there is nothing objective about that graph.
On October 19 2011 08:21 Taesis wrote: If someone takes illegal drugs it really depends on which one... Weed is really weak and is condiserred illegal but so is crack making it an inconsistant survey. Someone who does crack will be looked at more negatively in general than someone that does weed. IMO anyways.
Both of them impare judgement, right? As far as I can see, anyone who uses any of them around me or anyone I care about could be dangerous. Is that biased? It scares me to think that my girlfriend or friend or son or daughter could be put at the mercy of someone too high to see straight, and whether they're high on pot or crack doesn't seem important.
I know people say pot doesn't impare their judgement and blah blah blah, but it's a plain and simple fact that it negatively affects reaction time and memory. Those could really hurt someone in the wrong situation.
On October 17 2011 11:22 UmiNotsuki wrote: This comes from a little personal realization of mine, and I'm wondering what you fine people of TL think about it. Is being uncomfortable around people who use drugs just because they use drugs just as bad as racism or sexism?
No. You can't choose your race. You can't choose your sex. You can't choose your height. Nor, despite what some want to believe, can you choose your sexual orientation.
Drug use is a choice, and choices have consequences. One of those consequences can be ostracism if society deems that choice to be repugnant.
Society is wrong to punish people for things that they can't control. But punishing them for things that can control, for the choices that they make, is at least defensible.
On October 19 2011 08:29 UmiNotsuki wrote: I know people say pot doesn't impare their judgement and blah blah blah, but it's a plain and simple fact that it negatively affects reaction time and memory. Those could really hurt someone in the wrong situation.
So is being sleepy, so let's outlaw driving while deprived of sleep (it's worse than driving simultaneously drunk and high). If I had to choose between driving sleepy and driving while chain smoking blunts I would drive high 100 times out of 100.
I could care less about illegal drug use unless its something like meth, heroin, pcp, solvents etc. Basically the stuff that ruins your life. That being said, if all you do is smoke pot, order pizza and watch movies I'm not going to want to hang out with you.
Id also like to add that its idiotic how some people treat pot smokers like lepers but welcome alcoholics into their family.
Illegal drug use is far from a victimless crime. Just look at what's happening in Mexico (and many other countries) right now. It would be fair to say that by helping the biz, you're directly contributing to the deaths of innocents.
Most people that I know who take drugs take them for more abusive purposes because they feel that their lives suck, and to that I've always told others, as I have told myself throughout life thus far, "go fucking fix it".
Although when we learned about the nervous system in school we learned about how the much harder drugs take hits on people's capabilities to produce Dopamine. With that, I do feel sad for other people addicted to drugs because even if they try to stop, they'll be returning to the miserable lives that they were initially running away from in addition to suffering withdrawals. I suppose I'm sympathetic about an individual's case, but I do think it is a prejudice that I carry around because for the most part I think people are capable of fixing their problems.
On October 19 2011 08:49 KickerPics wrote: Illegal drug use is far from a victimless crime. Just look at what's happening in Mexico (and many other countries) right now. It would be fair to say that by helping the biz, you're directly contributing to the deaths of innocents.
I would say fucked up laws is directly contributing to the deaths of innocents. Let's cut to the chase here and get to the cause of the problem.
On October 19 2011 08:49 KickerPics wrote: Illegal drug use is far from a victimless crime. Just look at what's happening in Mexico (and many other countries) right now. It would be fair to say that by helping the biz, you're directly contributing to the deaths of innocents.
you realize that during alcohol prohibition the same thing happened.... its not the substance its the laws surrounding them. The only reason innoncents are dying is because criminals control the supply and distribution of drugs. Legal drugs are regulated by the government, laws enforced by POLICE, instead of criminals, and potency regulated by FDA rather than (again) criminals. Its common sense really
if you knew what half these drugs actually did (not the shit they are mixed with) you would really struggle to find a point why they are illeagle compared to some of the legal stuff out there now.. the whole system is flawed and no goverment has the balls to look into it
a few years ago a top drug expert in the UK got sacked because he said some drugs where less dangerous than alchol
On October 19 2011 04:54 Dbla08 wrote: all the people that click "No" are closed minded bigots. stereotypes always have true examples but that doesn't mean that the stereotypes are true for the entire demographics its being directed towards. so on this particular one, you're going to say "its okay for me to be prejudice against these people, just no one else." the fact is that people are selfish, people assume anything they'd like, and most people believe whatever they're told, until one or all of these things change for the people who choose to be bigots, i offer them no respect, and even less recognition than i'd give a heroine addict on the streets. whether its casual pot smokers or straight up junkies, they're people too. prejudicing them is just as wrong as saying all black people are niggers or all gay people should die.
There's a large difference between drawing an opinion on someone based on a choice they make (drug use) and something they can't control (race).
Not really. The fact that someone likes to smoke a little on a friday night while watching a movie means nothing for your relationship with him/her, until you get to a very intimate point. Half the world is running around on anti-depressants, another part is just plain unhappy, more drink, others turn to a strong believe in a god. What matters is the way they behave towards you, nothing else really.
Unless you're at a point in a relationship where you need to be relied upon during certain hours (professional, personal, whatever) you don't get to make that judgement upfront.
Two things about the bolded points.
First, how someone behaves towards you is NOT the only thing that matters. I refuse to be friends with someone who is nice to me but is a jackass to my friends and/or family. I dont care if someone seems like a fun person if he/she is a complete tool to others. Theres a lot of opportunistic ass-kissers who will act nice to anyone they think they can get them something, but who will turn their backs on people who they think are below them. What matters is how the person is as a whole. Judging someone based solely on how they act towards you is an incredibly shallow and selfish way to look at people.
Second, I can make any judgment I want. Personally, I dont choose to judge people harshly based on whether they use drugs or not. However, if it is someones belief that people who feel a need to spend loads of money on drugs just to feel good arent worthwhile people to get to know, that is completely that guys right to do so. If a professional feels that a person who deliberately goes against the law to use drugs because he or she feels that it should be ok cannot be relied upon in a professional setting to comply with company policies, that is a completely logical judgment (even if the guy only uses drugs in his free time). Anyone can make whatever judgements they want.
I know plenty of people who smoke weed but who are extremely adept at what they do and in fact are probably even role models to their peers. I don't think weed and getting drunk makes you a worse person and I certainly think you have a right to do them without interfering with others.
But if you choose to spend your weekends getting drunk and getting high, yes that diminishes you in my eyes. That's ok. I don't think that's prejudice. Hell, sometimes I'm actually impressed that people can be so competent at what they do the next day after a night of binge-drinking.
Can't I say "recreational drugs are bad" without being a close-minded asshole? Can't we agree to disagree?
I suggest everyone that comes here to watch this whole video. There is some serious stuff that a lot of people really need to hear in it.
Its a podcast lead by Joe Rogan with special guest graham hancock. They talk about history, our perception of things in the academic world, drugs, the human race and ancient things.
On October 19 2011 09:21 DoubleReed wrote: I know plenty of people who smoke weed but who are extremely adept at what they do and in fact are probably even role models to their peers. I don't think weed and getting drunk makes you a worse person and I certainly think you have a right to do them without interfering with others.
But if you choose to spend your weekends getting drunk and getting high, yes that diminishes you in my eyes. That's ok. I don't think that's prejudice. Hell, sometimes I'm actually impressed that people can be so competent at what they do the next day after a night of binge-drinking.
Can't I say "recreational drugs are bad" without being a close-minded asshole? Can't we agree to disagree?
On October 19 2011 09:21 DoubleReed wrote: I know plenty of people who smoke weed but who are extremely adept at what they do and in fact are probably even role models to their peers. I don't think weed and getting drunk makes you a worse person and I certainly think you have a right to do them without interfering with others.
But if you choose to spend your weekends getting drunk and getting high, yes that diminishes you in my eyes. That's ok. I don't think that's prejudice. Hell, sometimes I'm actually impressed that people can be so competent at what they do the next day after a night of binge-drinking.
Can't I say "recreational drugs are bad" without being a close-minded asshole? Can't we agree to disagree?
My thoughts exactly
I wonder if the two of you in this quote tree would trust someone very close to you with someone who drinks or gets high often?
On October 19 2011 09:21 DoubleReed wrote: I know plenty of people who smoke weed but who are extremely adept at what they do and in fact are probably even role models to their peers. I don't think weed and getting drunk makes you a worse person and I certainly think you have a right to do them without interfering with others.
But if you choose to spend your weekends getting drunk and getting high, yes that diminishes you in my eyes. That's ok. I don't think that's prejudice. Hell, sometimes I'm actually impressed that people can be so competent at what they do the next day after a night of binge-drinking.
Can't I say "recreational drugs are bad" without being a close-minded asshole? Can't we agree to disagree?
My thoughts exactly
I wonder if the two of you in this quote tree would trust someone very close to you with someone who drinks or gets high often?
I would trust them if they smoked pot habitually...numerous times daily even. But any sort of habitual drinking loses my trust immediately. Alcoholism has no place in my life.
On October 19 2011 09:21 DoubleReed wrote: I know plenty of people who smoke weed but who are extremely adept at what they do and in fact are probably even role models to their peers. I don't think weed and getting drunk makes you a worse person and I certainly think you have a right to do them without interfering with others.
But if you choose to spend your weekends getting drunk and getting high, yes that diminishes you in my eyes. That's ok. I don't think that's prejudice. Hell, sometimes I'm actually impressed that people can be so competent at what they do the next day after a night of binge-drinking.
Can't I say "recreational drugs are bad" without being a close-minded asshole? Can't we agree to disagree?
My thoughts exactly
I wonder if the two of you in this quote tree would trust someone very close to you with someone who drinks or gets high often?
Trust in what way? That's not exactly a binary question. You mean like babysitting?
And as long as he isn't high or drunk at that point in time, why wouldn't I trust them? I just said that they were adept at what they do. Role models even. They do have a sense of responsibility.
I mean come on, I wouldn't trust anyone like that unless I knew them well enough, regardless of whether they do drugs or alcohol. It's not like "No drugs or alcohol? Here look after my son."
On October 19 2011 09:21 DoubleReed wrote: I know plenty of people who smoke weed but who are extremely adept at what they do and in fact are probably even role models to their peers. I don't think weed and getting drunk makes you a worse person and I certainly think you have a right to do them without interfering with others.
But if you choose to spend your weekends getting drunk and getting high, yes that diminishes you in my eyes. That's ok. I don't think that's prejudice. Hell, sometimes I'm actually impressed that people can be so competent at what they do the next day after a night of binge-drinking.
Can't I say "recreational drugs are bad" without being a close-minded asshole? Can't we agree to disagree?
My thoughts exactly
I wonder if the two of you in this quote tree would trust someone very close to you with someone who drinks or gets high often?
Trust in what way? That's not exactly a binary question. You mean like babysitting?
And as long as he isn't high or drunk at that point in time, why wouldn't I trust them? I just said that they were adept at what they do. Role models even. They do have a sense of responsibility.
I mean come on, I wouldn't trust anyone like that unless I knew them well enough, regardless of whether they do drugs or alcohol. It's not like "No drugs or alcohol? Here look after my son."
That's fair. I meant babysitting and such, sure, but also in the case I referred to in the OP where my best friend began dating a pothead. They could be high at any time, without you being able to know when they will and will not be, and they might do it around your loved one.
It's also fair that you wouldn't trust them without knowing them in the first place, but I wonder if the only thing you knew about them was their drug and/or alcohol use, wouldn't you be more inclined not to trust them?
There's nothing wrong with responsible, recreational drug use. With that said, I'd probably get a bad impression of someone for being a crack addict, a pothead, an alcoholic, or some other type of drug addict. But a bit of recreational drug usage during the weekend to kick back and relax after a week of hard work is perfectly fine.
"we already have laws to stop and deter bad behavior, we don't need additional laws about drugs to prevent the behavior we already have laws in place to handle"
Seriously, go watch http://vimeo.com/30715947 and see if that doesn't change your mind about "drug abusers"
On October 18 2011 07:36 Voltaire wrote: Wow. I am surprised at how judgmental so many TL users are.
I smoke cannabis every day. I have been for the past eleven months or so. I'm very open about it. I'm also very offended when people discriminate against me for it. People do it all the time; they'll assume I'm stupid or they'll try to manipulate me as if I'm a young child. Why judge someone over a lifestyle choice that has no effect on you?
Judging someone for the drugs they use is no different than judging someone for the food they eat. So what if it's unhealthy? If someone is made happy by eating nothing by McDonalds, why should you care?
I also "discriminate" against those who dress like annoying hipsters?
I'm not terribly for or against the legalization of cannabis. But as the laws are now, it is illegal. Do you like it's illegal: hell no. Should it be illegal? Debatable. But as the laws are now, it is illegal, and it is every right of the populace, especially an employer, to take into account your decision to break the law.
I'm not arguing with you. It's illegal. Helping slaves escape used to be illegal, too. The issue at hand isn't whether or not discrimination is legal or whether employers should be able to take that into account; it's about whether it's morally right to discriminate against someone solely because you know them to be using illegal drugs.
So the question lies here: Is it moral to discriminate against someone for breaking the law without taking the morality of the law itself into account? I say no.
So if someone is going to discriminate against me for smoking cannabis, they better damn know something about the drug and how it affects people. It is so frustrating to have people who have never smoked it before tell me what I can and cannot do while high solely based off of what they've seen in the media. It's just sheer ignorance.
Yeah, this is where opinions differ. Breaking the law is breaking the law, and although I don't think they should hold the usage of marijuana to the same standard as a felony, it makes sense to take it into account. It's not discrimination.
On October 18 2011 07:36 Voltaire wrote: Wow. I am surprised at how judgmental so many TL users are.
I smoke cannabis every day. I have been for the past eleven months or so. I'm very open about it. I'm also very offended when people discriminate against me for it. People do it all the time; they'll assume I'm stupid or they'll try to manipulate me as if I'm a young child. Why judge someone over a lifestyle choice that has no effect on you?
Judging someone for the drugs they use is no different than judging someone for the food they eat. So what if it's unhealthy? If someone is made happy by eating nothing by McDonalds, why should you care?
I also "discriminate" against those who dress like annoying hipsters?
I'm not terribly for or against the legalization of cannabis. But as the laws are now, it is illegal. Do you like it's illegal: hell no. Should it be illegal? Debatable. But as the laws are now, it is illegal, and it is every right of the populace, especially an employer, to take into account your decision to break the law.
I'm not arguing with you. It's illegal. Helping slaves escape used to be illegal, too. The issue at hand isn't whether or not discrimination is legal or whether employers should be able to take that into account; it's about whether it's morally right to discriminate against someone solely because you know them to be using illegal drugs.
So the question lies here: Is it moral to discriminate against someone for breaking the law without taking the morality of the law itself into account? I say no.
So if someone is going to discriminate against me for smoking cannabis, they better damn know something about the drug and how it affects people. It is so frustrating to have people who have never smoked it before tell me what I can and cannot do while high solely based off of what they've seen in the media. It's just sheer ignorance.
Yeah, this is where opinions differ. Breaking the law is breaking the law, and although I don't think they should hold the usage of marijuana to the same standard as a felony, it makes sense to take it into account. It's not discrimination.
That's true, that the very nature of drug use as law breaking is reason enough to discriminate in some cases, whether you agree with the law or not. But I wonder, in a world where all drugs were legal, what would you think?
On October 17 2011 11:22 UmiNotsuki wrote: People who are on drugs are committing what some call a "victimless crime," which some people may argue isn't a crime at all; the only one they are hurting are themselves. Assuming we only consider drugs which don't cause people to become more violent, such as marijuana or tobacco (which is a drug,) then there is no damage done to others around the drug user due to his or her drug use.
The crime is not victimless. Drug users are less productive members of society therefore they are hurting economy(which is kinda serious business, if you are reading newspapers).
On October 17 2011 11:22 UmiNotsuki wrote: People who are on drugs are committing what some call a "victimless crime," which some people may argue isn't a crime at all; the only one they are hurting are themselves. Assuming we only consider drugs which don't cause people to become more violent, such as marijuana or tobacco (which is a drug,) then there is no damage done to others around the drug user due to his or her drug use.
The crime is not victimless. Drug users are less productive members of society therefore they are hurting economy(which is kinda serious business, if you are reading newspapers).
Oh. So do you think drug users hurt the economy more than the $42 billion a year that we spend prosecuting them?
Another question: Do you think a drug user in jail is either a more or a less productive member of society than one that isn't?
On October 17 2011 11:22 UmiNotsuki wrote: People who are on drugs are committing what some call a "victimless crime," which some people may argue isn't a crime at all; the only one they are hurting are themselves. Assuming we only consider drugs which don't cause people to become more violent, such as marijuana or tobacco (which is a drug,) then there is no damage done to others around the drug user due to his or her drug use.
The crime is not victimless. Drug users are less productive members of society therefore they are hurting economy(which is kinda serious business, if you are reading newspapers).
Oh. So do you think drug users hurt the economy more than the $42 billion a year that we spend prosecuting them?
Another question: Do you think a drug user in jail is either a more or a less productive member of society than one that isn't?
Well, if they didn't do drugs we wouldn't have to prosecute them. And they'd be more effective workers.
Yeah, half-ass logic, I know. Can't resist. Pull. Of fallacies.+ Show Spoiler +
but really, when you think about it, it's a member of society engaging in behavior that society has deemed against the rules for whatever reason, so the statement kinda floats
after reading the entire thread the only conclusion i have for certain is that this mozzarella poster guy is a complete troll, has zero point zero points to make, and frankly should have been banned years ago
other than that. good reads fellas for the most part. its always good for one such as myself to take a step back and realize my place in my various communities, TL just being one of many.
On October 17 2011 11:22 UmiNotsuki wrote: People who are on drugs are committing what some call a "victimless crime," which some people may argue isn't a crime at all; the only one they are hurting are themselves. Assuming we only consider drugs which don't cause people to become more violent, such as marijuana or tobacco (which is a drug,) then there is no damage done to others around the drug user due to his or her drug use.
The crime is not victimless. Drug users are less productive members of society therefore they are hurting economy(which is kinda serious business, if you are reading newspapers).
"drug users are less productive members of society" ? there is a lot you dont know about society.
big business is known for its cocaine habit, especially brokers and bankers and especially on wall street.
academics are known for their pot smoking, especially among university professors.
read newspapers, but don't believe everything you read !
Drug users are not hurting the economy, they are helping it. (Or rather, the alcohol industry more specifically.)
As an absolutist I can't help but to question the consumption of drugs for recreational purposes. It defies logic and my personal philosophy. Why would I consume something odd to alter the way I feel and operate because I want to have fun? I have fun, I don't need fun-enhancers.
And of course, I want to think that I don't think differently of people who drink/use, but in reality it's hard being the sober person at the party. Wanting conversations and comfortable conversations over drinking competitions and very loud music. (Which people don't seem to listen to anyway?) My sad experiences at parties is that on every occasion, everything will become less and less interesting for me in terms of social interaction and in discussions on overall, andeveryone else (who is drinking) seems to have fun over things I only can laugh at when I'm really tired. It makes me bid good bye to the party and walk home. And on later years I usually hesitate on going to parties, and skip them usually. I am the dull guy who seems to have less fun at parties, but is fun to hang around with during daytime, when the social groups are smaller and you're actually talking to people for the sake of.. talking.
I think it's a behaviour that has persisted with humanity for ages, that we want it all and want to try it all. And in parties you want to be off-edged and overall nice. And drugs really help that, and music really takes the uncomfortable silences away.
But I don't really like conforming to traditions and behaviour which I feel might be uncessary and unhealthy. And while people directly don't have anything against my non-drug use, there seems to be other things that they want to adress on why I'm not happy.
I don't have anything against drug users, but I sure do get a lot of questions being a non-user. That's for sure.
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.
IMO there is only one answer to Poll: When an acquaintance tells you that he/ she uses illegal drugs... and that is It does not affect your opinion of him/ her.. If you already disliked the person because he isn't a well functioning part of society and later you find out he uses drugs than that's 100% fine but if you need to know first whether he/she uses drugs to form you opinion, than your mind is clouded and this will restrain you from getting to know a lot of great people.
On October 17 2011 11:22 UmiNotsuki wrote: People who are on drugs are committing what some call a "victimless crime," which some people may argue isn't a crime at all; the only one they are hurting are themselves. Assuming we only consider drugs which don't cause people to become more violent, such as marijuana or tobacco (which is a drug,) then there is no damage done to others around the drug user due to his or her drug use.
The crime is not victimless. Drug users are less productive members of society therefore they are hurting economy(which is kinda serious business, if you are reading newspapers).
ok troll. have some evidence to back your claims ? try harder.
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.
IMO there is only one answer to Poll: When an acquaintance tells you that he/ she uses illegal drugs... and that is It does not affect your opinion of him/ her.. If you already disliked the person because he isn't a well functioning part of society and later you find out he uses drugs than that's 100% fine but if you need to know first whether he/she uses drugs to form you opinion, than your mind is clouded and this will restrain you from getting to know a lot of great people.
kinda shows how stupid ppl can be. Nerds are too pussy to try it themselves, would rather form a false opinion based on 50y old hear-say.
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.
IMO there is only one answer to Poll: When an acquaintance tells you that he/ she uses illegal drugs... and that is It does not affect your opinion of him/ her.. If you already disliked the person because he isn't a well functioning part of society and later you find out he uses drugs than that's 100% fine but if you need to know first whether he/she uses drugs to form you opinion, than your mind is clouded and this will restrain you from getting to know a lot of great people.
So when one of your buddies walks up to you, telling you he started shooting up, that would not affect your opinion of him?
It's not a matter of black and white here.
It all depends on the drugs, the person, the quantity and the situation. To give a definite "Yes it will affect my opinion regardless of drugs, person, quantity or situation." makes you in my eyes as blind as someone who says it will definitely not affect your opinion regardless of drugs, person, quantity or situation.
Pretending drugs are never relevant to a person's behaviour/what a person is like is straight up idiotic. Have you ever met a serious drug addict? (Im not talking about people who smoke their occasional joint)
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.
IMO there is only one answer to Poll: When an acquaintance tells you that he/ she uses illegal drugs... and that is It does not affect your opinion of him/ her.. If you already disliked the person because he isn't a well functioning part of society and later you find out he uses drugs than that's 100% fine but if you need to know first whether he/she uses drugs to form you opinion, than your mind is clouded and this will restrain you from getting to know a lot of great people.
So when one of your buddies walks up to you, telling you he started shooting up, that would not affect your opinion of him?
It's not a matter of black and white here.
It all depends on the drugs, the person, the quantity and the situation. To give a definite "Yes it will affect my opinion regardless of drugs, person, quantity or situation." makes you in my eyes as blind as someone who says it will definitely not affect your opinion regardless of drugs, person, quantity or situation.
Pretending drugs are never relevant to a person's behaviour/what a person is like is straight up idiotic. Have you ever met a serious drug addict? (Im not talking about people who smoke their occasional joint)
i know people who drink about 5 litres of beer everyday and smoke weed all day long... still good people.
and why should your opinion of your friend change when he tells you that he's using heroine? he's still the same person. i'd be worried about him, sure. but other than that? he's not a worse person at all...
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.
IMO there is only one answer to Poll: When an acquaintance tells you that he/ she uses illegal drugs... and that is It does not affect your opinion of him/ her.. If you already disliked the person because he isn't a well functioning part of society and later you find out he uses drugs than that's 100% fine but if you need to know first whether he/she uses drugs to form you opinion, than your mind is clouded and this will restrain you from getting to know a lot of great people.
So when one of your buddies walks up to you, telling you he started shooting up, that would not affect your opinion of him?
It's not a matter of black and white here.
It all depends on the drugs, the person, the quantity and the situation. To give a definite "Yes it will affect my opinion regardless of drugs, person, quantity or situation." makes you in my eyes as blind as someone who says it will definitely not affect your opinion regardless of drugs, person, quantity or situation.
Pretending drugs are never relevant to a person's behaviour/what a person is like is straight up idiotic. Have you ever met a serious drug addict? (Im not talking about people who smoke their occasional joint)
You said he "started" shooting up. That makes a big difference to me. If a friend i've known for a long time says he's been on crack for the past 5 years I would admire him because he doesn't look like a crackhead to me. Your hypothetical situation is very off by the way because you imply that it is possible for people I am friends start "shooting up", I think you can agree your friends will resemble you in character/personality/upbringing/social background/(and many more) at least a little bit and these factors hugely affect your choices in life concerning drug use.
A lot of my friends smoke often and some of them experiment with other stuff but it shows how alienated you are to this world that you can see someone coming to you who says "yo, i think i'm gonna take up heroin". Not many people have hard drugs addicted friends to begin with unless they are themselves related to them. There is no changing of opinion in that neither.
The OP doesn't specify addicts by the way, only drug users in general so stick to the topic please.
On October 19 2011 17:11 Kaonis wrote: but really, when you think about it, it's a member of society engaging in behavior that society has deemed against the rules for whatever reason, so the statement kinda floats
Well last time I checked, most Americans was for legalizing marijuana. So your logic is very flawed.
I hate the term "victimless crime" if somebody is hurting themselves then it hurts anybody close to them deeply. Sometimes the worst part of drug abuse is watching somebody you care about systematically destroy themselves. Drug abuse is far from a victimless crime.
On October 19 2011 05:28 Luepert wrote: Well technically its the law, if your willing to go against the laws set by the country that uses its power to protect your rights, there's something a little out of line even in that regard.
How about a country that uses it power to depress your rights. Have you Americans learned nothing in history class? Did you think the American revolution was following the British law?
Thats why the law is in a constant change. The law may not always be in the best interest of the people. The government is lot always correct or "right". Thats why you should always challenge that, and not settle for easy answers.
When something is unjust, it is your duty to fight it! Imo, that is the American spirit and lost legacy.
On October 19 2011 21:27 acidfreak wrote: When I found out djWheat is a stoner my respect for him went up from "good" to "OMG I WANT TO MEET HIM AND SHAKE HIS HAND". Need I say more?
Really? o.O Why?
I mean, I'm for legalization of marijuana and I don't see a problem with pot in general, but I think it's a little odd that you would go from "I like this SC2 personality" to "He is now a legendary icon in my life" just because he does drugs.
Out of everything djWheat has done for our community, smoking pot is the thing that's made you most impressed? When you meet him, are you gonna be like "I smoke pot too!" (assuming you do, sorry if I'm wrong... otherwise I don't see why you'd care).
On a sidenote, he's a very cool guy in person. I met him (and Day[9], Artosis, and Tasteless) at MLG Columbus.
This all depends on if this would be a person that if you had no idea they use drugs you would hang around or not. If you met them on the street, had a conversation and thought they were someone you could get along with but later found out they smoke weed and decided not to hang out with them because of that fact alone of course that is wrong. Is it the same a racial prejudice? Not at all, but it would still be wrong if nothing about their behavior made you not like them other than the fact they do drugs which you may not have been aware of by having a conversation with them.
On October 19 2011 12:28 N3rV[Green] wrote: I recently heard something along the lines of
"we already have laws to stop and deter bad behavior, we don't need additional laws about drugs to prevent the behavior we already have laws in place to handle"
Seriously, go watch http://vimeo.com/30715947 and see if that doesn't change your mind about "drug abusers"
Can i just say these podcasts are amazing, listing to #142 now, are they on itunes? I am going to follow this guy
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.
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.
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.
It really depends of the drug that you are talking about. If my friend were to tell me that he smoked weed than all I would do is ask him if he has any on him, if he told me he was into heroin on the other hand I would probably think a little less of him. + Show Spoiler +
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..
Maybe some of the people voted that way because they have previously had friends who have spiralled out of control and ended up killing themselves with drugs or ruining their lives. So they dont want to see another person that they care about and are close to spiral out of control while feeling helpless and feeling theres nothing they can do. Sometimes its just easier to not run the risk of a relationship/friendship that could end up that painful.
Dont read that as me saying every "drug user" is going to end up that way and i hope they dont. But its sometimes hard to see why it would be worth the risk of a relationship that could end up with you watching someone self destruct.
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.
Thank you, at least your reasoning is sound, but the obvious flaw in your logic is that you can't wrap your brain around a well-functioning drug using individual.
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.
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Taking drugs does not automatically makes you an non-functioning members of society. Doing so much drugs you become a non-functioning members of society, is bad. Good for us that is a very very low percentage of the drug users.
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..
Maybe some of the people voted that way because they have previously had friends who have spiralled out of control and ended up killing themselves with drugs or ruining their lives. So they dont want to see another person that they care about and are close to spiral out of control while feeling helpless and feeling theres nothing they can do. Sometimes its just easier to not run the risk of a relationship/friendship that could end up that painful.
Dont read that as me saying every "drug user" is going to end up that way and i hope they dont. But its sometimes hard to see why it would be worth the risk of a relationship that could end up with you watching someone self destruct.
I've seen my share of people going down on drugs, don't misunderstand me, drugs cause problems, I wont argue on that.
The issue with prejudice in general is that it eats out room for thinking and results in automatic decision making. We should not focus on recognizing and condemning every user, but we should focus on filtering out the people who are going to end up in trouble, so we can help those.
To be honest it's not that hard to recognize an addict from an occasional user compared to telling the difference between an occasional user and someone who hasn't touched anything all his life long.
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.
Thank you, at least your reasoning is sound, but the obvious flaw in your logic is that you can't wrap your brain around a well-functioning drug using individual.
Actually I can.
I never said that all drug users become non-functioning members of society, did I? I merely said that if my friend started acting that way because of drugs, I wouldn't be too happy about it. My opinion of him would obviously change. Different people are affected differently by drugs. You can't generalize all drug users in one particular way.
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.
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Taking drugs does not automatically makes you an non-functioning members of society. Doing so much drugs you become a non-functioning members of society, is bad. Good for us that is a very very low percentage of the drug users.
Never said it did. I'd appreciate it if you didn't make strawman arguments.
Thanks.
Feel free to see my above response to the other guy. You both seem to love jumping to conclusions.
Note that your opinion of someone is allowed to change for pretty much any justifiable reason, not just because they happen to become a non-functioning member of society (which *can* happen if they start taking drugs or for many other reasons). You guys are the ones who are uptight, attempting to defend something you think is black and white.
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.
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Taking drugs does not automatically makes you an non-functioning members of society. Doing so much drugs you become a non-functioning members of society, is bad. Good for us that is a very very low percentage of the drug users.
Never said it did. I'd appreciate it if you didn't make strawman arguments.
Thanks.
Feel free to see my above response to the other guy. You both seem to love jumping to conclusions.
Note that your opinion of someone is allowed to change for pretty much any justifiable reason, not just because they happen to become a non-functioning member of society (which *can* happen if they start taking drugs or for many other reasons). You guys are the ones who are uptight, attempting to defend something you think is black and white.
I totally agree with your last statement. I would not say it is a strawman argument. I would criticizes your lack of precision in your language. It is very unclear what you mean or are trying to say.
If we didn't understand your post at first, why didn't you post your response the first time? It is very spot on and hard to misinterpret. Your first comment, was in my opinion, not.
It seems our views are quite like. But unclarity gives room for major misinterpretations.
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.
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Taking drugs does not automatically makes you an non-functioning members of society. Doing so much drugs you become a non-functioning members of society, is bad. Good for us that is a very very low percentage of the drug users.
Never said it did. I'd appreciate it if you didn't make strawman arguments.
Thanks.
Feel free to see my above response to the other guy. You both seem to love jumping to conclusions.
Note that your opinion of someone is allowed to change for pretty much any justifiable reason, not just because they happen to become a non-functioning member of society (which *can* happen if they start taking drugs or for many other reasons). You guys are the ones who are uptight, attempting to defend something you think is black and white.
I totally agree with your last statement. I would not say it is a strawman argument. I would criticizes your lack of precision in your language. It is very unclear what you mean or are trying to say.
If we didn't understand your post at first, why didn't you post your response the first time? It is very spot on and hard to misinterpret. Your first comment, was in my opinion, not.
It seems our views are quite like. But unclarity gives room for major misinterpretations.
I don't really see how it's ambiguous.
If I told you that I had a friend who started doing drugs and it made him a non-functioning member of society, I don't really see how you could think that I actually said "All people that do drugs are non-functioning members of society". You're making a sweeping generalization that I never made, and for you to attack your own generalization instead of what I explicitly said about my friend (which is what you and the other guy did) is to fallaciously create a strawman argument.
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.
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Taking drugs does not automatically makes you an non-functioning members of society. Doing so much drugs you become a non-functioning members of society, is bad. Good for us that is a very very low percentage of the drug users.
Never said it did. I'd appreciate it if you didn't make strawman arguments.
Thanks.
Feel free to see my above response to the other guy. You both seem to love jumping to conclusions.
Note that your opinion of someone is allowed to change for pretty much any justifiable reason, not just because they happen to become a non-functioning member of society (which *can* happen if they start taking drugs or for many other reasons). You guys are the ones who are uptight, attempting to defend something you think is black and white.
I totally agree with your last statement. I would not say it is a strawman argument. I would criticizes your lack of precision in your language. It is very unclear what you mean or are trying to say.
If we didn't understand your post at first, why didn't you post your response the first time? It is very spot on and hard to misinterpret. Your first comment, was in my opinion, not.
It seems our views are quite like. But unclarity gives room for major misinterpretations.
I don't really see how it's ambiguous.
If I told you that I had a friend who started doing drugs and it made him a non-functioning member of society, I don't really see how you could think that I actually said "All people that do drugs are non-functioning members of society". You're making a sweeping generalization that I never made, and for you to attack your own generalization instead of what I explicitly said about my friend (which is what you and the other guy did) is to fallaciously create a strawman argument.
But regardless, I'm glad we agree
As the 'above guy' I would like to point that we misunderstood you because you used 'magical bread' or whatever which we thought stood for drugs in general, you probably meant it as a kind of drug.
Everything else you've since then said was either repetition or saying that we generalise/black n white stuff/etcetc or you getting worked up because we misunderstood you.
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.
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Taking drugs does not automatically makes you an non-functioning members of society. Doing so much drugs you become a non-functioning members of society, is bad. Good for us that is a very very low percentage of the drug users.
Never said it did. I'd appreciate it if you didn't make strawman arguments.
Thanks.
Feel free to see my above response to the other guy. You both seem to love jumping to conclusions.
Note that your opinion of someone is allowed to change for pretty much any justifiable reason, not just because they happen to become a non-functioning member of society (which *can* happen if they start taking drugs or for many other reasons). You guys are the ones who are uptight, attempting to defend something you think is black and white.
I totally agree with your last statement. I would not say it is a strawman argument. I would criticizes your lack of precision in your language. It is very unclear what you mean or are trying to say.
If we didn't understand your post at first, why didn't you post your response the first time? It is very spot on and hard to misinterpret. Your first comment, was in my opinion, not.
It seems our views are quite like. But unclarity gives room for major misinterpretations.
I don't really see how it's ambiguous.
If I told you that I had a friend who started doing drugs and it made him a non-functioning member of society, I don't really see how you could think that I actually said "All people that do drugs are non-functioning members of society". You're making a sweeping generalization that I never made, and for you to attack your own generalization instead of what I explicitly said about my friend (which is what you and the other guy did) is to fallaciously create a strawman argument.
But regardless, I'm glad we agree
Here is the quote:
On October 20 2011 01:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: If they started eating illegal bread that somehow makes them non-functioning members of society, then my opinion of them would be changed.
You say they, that reflects plural. What I get from it is they as in everyone who does drugs, as that is what we are talking about. And your comment seems to come out of no-where and adding no value to the discussion. Of course everyone would change their opinion about someone else in that matter.
Then with dirt throwing as they are all non-function members of society. I cant see it as nothing but an ignorant statement that generalizing everyone who is they as something highly negative.
That is my interpretation of your post. As of now with your later clarification of your post, it seems to me that it was clearly not your intent.
But this is obviously not the point of this thread, so I will drop this discussion now.
On October 19 2011 21:27 acidfreak wrote: When I found out djWheat is a stoner my respect for him went up from "good" to "OMG I WANT TO MEET HIM AND SHAKE HIS HAND". Need I say more?
Really? o.O Why?
I mean, I'm for legalization of marijuana and I don't see a problem with pot in general, but I think it's a little odd that you would go from "I like this SC2 personality" to "He is now a legendary icon in my life" just because he does drugs.
Out of everything djWheat has done for our community, smoking pot is the thing that's made you most impressed? When you meet him, are you gonna be like "I smoke pot too!" (assuming you do, sorry if I'm wrong... otherwise I don't see why you'd care).
On a sidenote, he's a very cool guy in person. I met him (and Day[9], Artosis, and Tasteless) at MLG Columbus.
I don't think it's the whole "smoking pot" thing that is impressive about Wheat (I'm sure a large number of people on the SC2 proscene are closet pot smokers), it's the balls he has to admit it, nay, embrace it as part of who he is. I have mad respect for public figures who don't feel they must keep parts of their lives hidden.
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.
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Taking drugs does not automatically makes you an non-functioning members of society. Doing so much drugs you become a non-functioning members of society, is bad. Good for us that is a very very low percentage of the drug users.
Never said it did. I'd appreciate it if you didn't make strawman arguments.
Thanks.
Feel free to see my above response to the other guy. You both seem to love jumping to conclusions.
Note that your opinion of someone is allowed to change for pretty much any justifiable reason, not just because they happen to become a non-functioning member of society (which *can* happen if they start taking drugs or for many other reasons). You guys are the ones who are uptight, attempting to defend something you think is black and white.
I totally agree with your last statement. I would not say it is a strawman argument. I would criticizes your lack of precision in your language. It is very unclear what you mean or are trying to say.
If we didn't understand your post at first, why didn't you post your response the first time? It is very spot on and hard to misinterpret. Your first comment, was in my opinion, not.
It seems our views are quite like. But unclarity gives room for major misinterpretations.
I don't really see how it's ambiguous.
If I told you that I had a friend who started doing drugs and it made him a non-functioning member of society, I don't really see how you could think that I actually said "All people that do drugs are non-functioning members of society". You're making a sweeping generalization that I never made, and for you to attack your own generalization instead of what I explicitly said about my friend (which is what you and the other guy did) is to fallaciously create a strawman argument.
On October 20 2011 01:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: If they started eating illegal bread that somehow makes them non-functioning members of society, then my opinion of them would be changed.
You say they, that reflects plural. What I get from it is they as in everyone who does drugs, as that is what we are talking about. And your comment seems to come out of no-where and adding no value to the discussion. Of course everyone would change their opinion about someone else in that matter.
Then with dirt throwing as they are all non-function members of society. I cant see it as nothing but an ignorant statement that generalizing everyone who is they as something highly negative.
That is my interpretation of your post. As of now with your later clarification of your post, it seems to me that it was clearly not your intent.
But this is obviously not the point of this thread, so I will drop this discussion now.
I love this arguement that you shouldn't judge people on the basis that they use drugs. Someone compared it to judging someone on eating bread? Uh, no, not even close.
Let me start by saying that I have nothing wrong with people that want to use drugs, that's their choice. I've been there, done that too. However, the idea that drug use isn't an action to judge a man on, well that's just stupid. Everyone has different ideas on what drugs do, their effects, their harms, their benefits; everyone agrees about the "effects" of bread, it nourishes. When people have positive views on drugs, they're going to look fondly on those that use them. When people have negative outlooks on them, they're going to judge negatively upon those that use them. Someone of you may think that using drugs is just a normal thing, but what about those whose family members ODed, or who's friends dropped out of college to sustain a drug habit. Quit being such self centered whiny people, and think critically for once, outside of your own little worlds.
´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?
On October 20 2011 03:18 forgotten0ne wrote: I love this arguement that you shouldn't judge people on the basis that they use drugs. Someone compared it to judging someone on eating bread? Uh, no, not even close.
Let me start by saying that I have nothing wrong with people that want to use drugs, that's their choice. I've been there, done that too. However, the idea that drug use isn't an action to judge a man on, well that's just stupid. Everyone has different ideas on what drugs do, their effects, their harms, their benefits; everyone agrees about the "effects" of bread, it nourishes. When people have positive views on drugs, they're going to look fondly on those that use them. When people have negative outlooks on them, they're going to judge negatively upon those that use them. Someone of you may think that using drugs is just a normal thing, but what about those whose family members ODed, or who's friends dropped out of college to sustain a drug habit. Quit being such self centered whiny people, and think critically for once, outside of your own little worlds.
I don't take drugs when i'm in the lab now do I? I absolutely love this:
However, the idea that drug use isn't an action to judge a man on, well that's just stupid.
´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 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.
´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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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 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?
EPT
You don't have to abuse legal drugs to use them (unless you're addicted). 
![[image loading]](http://montanabiotech.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/cannabinoids-pie-chart.png?w=450&h=326)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_%28mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence%29.svg)
