posted
Daily use of DXM (month on, month off, month on) caused problems for me.
Daily use of marijuana (two months on) solved them.
I do not deny your experiences, but they are not the case for everyone. As for changing the laws, I said nothing about that part because I agree with it. What I disagree with is you calling something "justice" because it currently is the law.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think I probably have more perspective on the whole drug use issue and who it hurts than 99% of you.
Respectfully, I will have to disagree.
Now, wait for the rest of it.
My disagreement with that statement in no way diminishes my respect for your opinion or the profundity of your experiences. And, as I said before, I don't think drugs are a good idea. My issue is really only with your word choice.
See, perspective means being able to step outside of one's own circumstances and see the bigger picture, see both sides of a situation. And while you certainly seem to have been around the block a few times, I would still say that your experiences have left you with a completely warranted emotional association.
No matter how awful drugs and drug users can be, saying that they are destructive without qualification is just not true. In order to show a statement to be false you need only find one counterexample (but this is not the same as saying that one counterexample proves the opposite statement).
Darn it, I don't want to be on this side of the argument. Because drugs can be horribly bad. I just want there to be some honesty in the discussion. Darn darn darn.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you for your unwavering impartiality on this topic saxon. believe it or not it is nice to see at the least a semi-neutral perspective. This is one of those topics like religion or polotics where opposing sides are generally polarized. Saxon rules.
Posts: 143 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I have to agree with saxon. Experience, sure. Perspective, frankly it seems saxon has shown the most of it.
I doubt I have seen as much as you, but I have seen a few things. I just see no reason to bring them up, as they are not really about me.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
saxon - His wording may have been slightly egotistical, but I would not invalidate his post based on it.
He has had experience not only being a user, but also receiving pain from other users. He's had first-hand experience with what drug abuse can do to an entire family unit.
While he may have a very emotional connection to all of these experiences, that does not mean he cannot also look at them without a measure of objectivity. In fact, I'd say someone who wanted to prevent repeating the mistakes that cause such tremendous pain to their heart WOULD take a step back to see how they got there, gain some perspective, so that they could prevent reoccurance.
I know you were simply objecting to his taking a stance of expertise, which can be off-putting, but that doesn't mean he isn't an expert on it.
posted
I did like the bottmless pit one better though. I used to think of things like that but not with the mathematics included. How staggering. His brain must be the size of comic guys rear.
Posts: 143 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Saxon, the problem with your equivocation is just that: it's equivocation.
"Drugs can be awesomely bad," you say, "but some people avoid bad effects." This is apparently not grounds to say that it's UNIVERSALLY bad to do drugs, in the same way that one could claim that it's not universally bad to go without wearing a seat belt.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the contrary, Toni, I was in no way objecting to his stance of expertise. He certainly seems to be an expert in the negative consequences of drugs, drug use, and drug culture. And I was not at all disagreeing with what his conclusions were. Drugs are bad for you, and they can ruin your life and the lives of those around you.
My only point was that a claim of perspective should be accompanied by an honest look at both sides of the argument, with an acknowledgement of the truth and falsehood of both sides.
See, this is why I don't like where I am in this thread, because even people with whom I normally communicate very well will misunderstand me and think that I'm saying things I don't intend to say.
posted
Oh, I'm sorry Mike. I didn't mean to misunderstand your post.
I feared that Chade's personal experience would be invalidated by nit-picking a choice of wording, and I may have jumped the gun. (My fears not necessarily being true.)
You're right - perspective is gained through objectivity, and I know you agree with the sentiments in his post. I was simply worried that your post would strip Chade of any semblance of objectivity which, I know for a fact, he very much has.
posted
Tom, the difference is that I am NOT saying that drugs aren't bad for you. I'm merely asking people to honestly evaluate the truth of the statements they make.
See, there's a huge difference between facts and conclusions. I have not disagreed with any of your conclusions. I have merely pointed out that some people seem to be unaware of or dismissive of some of all of the facts, and that this has led them to make blanket statements that I find offensive.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can say I'm equivocating, and maybe I am, but how is that any intellectually worse than using hyperbole?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not using hyperbole. I quite firmly believe that drug use is universally bad, not least because it constitutes a deliberate rejection of conscious self.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:it constitutes a deliberate rejection of conscious self.
First, how so? I seem to recall being conscious on every occasion I have ever used drugs. With one unintentional exception (alcohol black out) I was conscious the entire time.
Even if you are right, why is this alleged "deliberate rejection of conscious self" a bad thing? Whatever drug use constitutes, it is not permanent.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Even if you are right, why is this alleged 'deliberate rejection of conscious self' a bad thing?"
Because our conscious self is what makes us human. While I wasn't directly addressing the specific issue of drug use when I said that abrogating responsibility made someone less of a man (which started this whole subplot, actually), I believe deliberately turning one's back on human awareness -- even temporarily -- does exactly that: it makes you less human.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
When teaching kids about drugs, I think it is very important to be absolutely straight with them.
You can make blanket statements such as "drugs are always destructive." Then they always come upon one person who has done drugs with no ill effects, which can put the lie to everything else that you have said to them. It is better to say "most people will find that drug use ultimately screws up their lives. Of course, there are those few who don't get screwed up. Do you know for certain that you are one of those people? If not, why take the chance?"
"Some drugs can help your performance at different things at first. Cocaine might give you more energy. Steroids probably can give you bigger muscles. It's only down the road when your health is ruined by steroids, or when you need cocaine just to feel normal (forget any extra energy) that you realize that the initial buzz just wasn't worth it."
If drugs were 100% awful and destructive from the get go with no payoff, we wouldn't have a drug problem. Initially, there is something that people get from drugs. Something that brings them back and gets them to keep using until they get addicted. We have to acknowledge that that something exists, but getting it doesn't make up for the suffering at the end.
Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:aside the thefts, deceits, and casual cruelties that are part and parcel of the drug user's experience
Tom, saying that drug users are cruel, deceitful thieves without qualifying that statement in the slightest is hyperbole. Honestly, how much would it have hurt your argument to put a "typically" into that statement?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Makes us human? I can infer that from your original statement; it is nothing more than a paraphrasing of such. Why is being "less human" so bad, how is one "less human" after the drug wears off, and do you have any response to my first (and in my opinion more relevant) question?
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Your mileage may vary. If you have no problem being subhuman, that's fine.
As to your first question, it's largely a semantic quibble. By "conscious self," I'm not referring solely to situational awareness. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you have no problem being subhuman, that's fine.
Okay, that was a bit snotty (IMHO), and believe me, I am the king of snotty.
I think what Danzig might have meant was: "What is so bad about getting somewhere outside of normal human experience from time to time."
Response to my self-constructed straw man: Nothing, I guess. I just think that the long-term "payback" doesn't justify the short-term "payoff."
Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sweet William, that is what I meant, but I was willing to phrase it in his terms. And Tom was being snotty, but through (non-current) use of drugs I have learned that that is ok.
posted
Whoa sorry folks. Ralphie can stop defending me and everyone else can stop cutting down my poor word choice (I hate using smilies, but I felt that this situation needed one or else people would think I was trying to be mean)
Anyhow, my word choice was bad on a few things, for that I apologize. I wrote quickly and said what was on my mind without thinking of how it might read. I didn't mean to come off as some sort of snot because I have had experience on both sides, I merely said it to stop the "dont knock it if you haven't tried it" guys from saying that my case was irrelevent because of my experiences. Looks like it actually worked the other way around.
As for perspective, yes saxon I do believe I have alot of it on this subject. In fact, I think this is one of the very few subjects where I am an expert. I've been on both sides and I know what both are like. It has had a lot of emotional things for me along the way, but I do feel like at this point I can step back and look at it objectively to see how everything worked. It's been long enough for that sort of self-reflection without letting the emotions cloud my view of things.
I am sorry that I said drugs were always always destructive. Yes, there are some cases where the users may not experience any sort of negative effect from the drugs. However, this is not the case most of the time. Some people are immune to pepper spray, but that doesn't make using pepper spray a non-effective form of self defense.
Bad analogies aside, the main points of my post still stand. And by the way Tom, I agree with nearly everything you've said. Shirking responsibility does indeed make you less of a man, as does drug use.
Posts: 155 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, Chade. I hope I did not come off as smug or dismissive; I definitely did not mean to belittle your experience in any way.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I might, might, be willing to buy that it makes you less human while you are using. Maybe. Probably not. After it is over? Assuming no permanent brain damage, how?
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which is why teenage years are the only times in your life when you can get away with drug experimentation/use . No responsibilities very little reprecussions.
Posts: 143 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
[/Preface] After reading this thread, it's made me think of my own attitude towards drugs. I have to talk for a few paragraphs before I get to it, but there is something illogical about my thinking that nonetheless governs my approach to it. This is off-topic and very long on an already long thread. But anyway... [/endPreface]
For some reason, I draw a line at alcohol. I drink. I don't smoke or do anything else. I barely even take other legal drugs like advil and cold medicine. I don't drink coffee, either.
As far as not taking something if I have a headache or a stuffy nose, I just don't because I'm not a freakin' wuss.
With smoking cigarettes, I don't do it because my dad does. We were always strongly warned against smoking cigarettes as kids. To my surprise, my brother and sister have actually tried it once or twice. I just never wanted to. It might be partially because of something I saw as a young, impressionable kid. There's a scene in Pinocchio where he smokes a cigar and turns green. I remember remembering that scene as a kid. So maybe that is in my subconscious. It might also be because I'm not compelled to be accepted socially (not that many of my friends ever smoked).
Coffee. My friends were never big coffee drinkers, and I just don't need it right now. Something about drinking coffee makes me think of middle aged people who've lost their youthful spark. Every now and then I have to pull an all-nighter, or drive when I'm sleepy. Coffee has been a friend at these times.
Alcohol. Maybe I just grew up in an environment where it was okay to drink it. Maybe I'm just comfortable with my ability to handle it. It's also a social thing. If my friends watched a lot of movies, I'd probably watch a lot of movies. My friends drink, so I drink with them. Shared experience is what friendships are based on. There are people who hang out with us regularly that don't drink like we do. I do not feel as close to these people. Drinking is also a test of manhood. It says, "Look at me. I'm so strong, I can poison myself." I guess it's for these reasons that I feel that drinking is an okay way for me to alter my state of consciousness.
For some reason, smoking pot is a lot different. Not to mention the others that have been brought up in this discussion. I said that my friends drink alcohol, and so I drink with them. Well, my friends smoke pot, and I've been offered numerous times, but I've never once been even close to accepting. There've been times when I didn't want to drink, but was talked into drinking anyway (many, many times). But it's as if I've set up some kind of invisible barrier between alcohol and pot that I simply won't cross. I don't feel that smoking is any worse (morally, physically, legally) than drinking, but it's different enough to keep me away from it. I'm pretty sure it all stems back to how I was raised and my personality in general (i.e., I'm familiar with some of the effects, and I think that I don't need any help in experiencing those).
(edit: this is so long I just got tired of writing it and hit reply)
posted
Nothing wrong with that. I do not smoke cigarettes (although I have tried them) even though many of my friends do, and I did not smoke pot until I felt like it.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, there's certainly nothing wrong with resisting peer pressure. But it's just that I feel it would be wrong if ever I smoked pot, whereas having a drink is not only acceptable, it's a good, healthy thing to do.
Posts: 3056 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But you stated yourself that people would go out of their way to get you to poison yourself with alcohol...Peer Pressure... now did your pothead friends press the issue? I think not. But courtesy has them ask before they smoke around you whereas the drinkers are pressuring you into being like them. just a thought.
Posts: 143 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
(I hate using smilies, but I felt that this situation needed one or else people would think I was trying to be mean)
