posted
Who said I use (tobacco) cigarettes? While I have done nicotine before, I am not a regular user. The high is boring. If I want to smoke something, there is marijuana and occasionally opium. If I want stimulants, there are caffeine, ephedrine, amphetamine, and cocaine, although I use only caffeine with any frequency.
Your three year old is not a legal adult. Legal adults have the right to flush as much toilet paper down the drain as they wish, as long as they paid for it. Or perhaps you meant that I am doing it to rebel. I am not; hence the not using DXM (anymore) or PCP whether they are legal or not and using cannabis and MDMA regardless.
Well, perhaps you might think that voting for mandatory minimum sentencing first time users of alcohol or cannabis or cocaine to ten years in prison is a bit excessive if it was your kid. Also, the more people who use drugs, the more likely the laws will grow more lax.
Personally, I would not horribly mind if alcohol or pornography were illegal either, but it would still be wrong to outlaw them. I do not base what is right and wrong on whether I benefit from it or not.
What negative effect(s) do(es) intoxication intrinsically have? I have never gotten violent on any drug, including alcohol. I worked full time all summer (I will work 36 hours this weekend) and pay my taxes. I pay my rent, have lent money to my parents before, and in general am a reasonably upstanding citizen. Sure, there are lots of areas for personal improvement, but no more than someone who is completely straight-edge.
If it spills over into the lives of others, generally it is one of two things. Either it is the person, and not the drug, or the others are asking something they have no right to ask. My parents are not happy that I use, but they would not be happy if I were gay either. In neither case is it their choice, nor does their pain give them a right to legislate against drugs. Hell, my mother takes recreational drugs of her own - caffeine, some sort of anti-depressant, and alprazolam. The first and especially the last are enjoyable enough that I occasionally buy them to get high. (not from her)
You do not want me using it. That is what it boils down to, is it not? You seem to realize that homosexuality is too prevalent to make that many laws against, but you would if you thought it would work. No marriage for gays, because you do not want them marrying. Your side has the power to oppress the drug users, and still hurt the gays, but that is not an acceptable moral reason to do so. Just admit that you hate us if you will not leave us in peace.
Money? Tobacco and alcohol companies are some of the main donors to anti-drug campaigns. The thing is, they really are the two worst drugs for society. Cocaine and PCP might come close, but marijuana, narcotics, psychedelics, and MDMA are all significantly safer physically as well as just making the user more pleasant to be around than the legal drugs. As for seduction, do you not trust your own judgment? That of your loved ones? Drugs do not remove your inhibitions. That is just an excuse used by people who did something they do not want to accept responsibility for. Luckily, lots of people believe them. I will have to remember that the next time I say something hurtful.
I have seen too many people slowly kill themselves with cigarettes, and sure, it sucks. But their self-determination is more important. Something has to get you, and while personally I choose drugs that are more fun, lots of people enjoy it. I can understand why too, although if pot were legal people could smoke Marlboro Greens instead.
The drugs I take harm only me. Well, some people will claim they support terrorism, but even if I believed that the solution would be to take the profit out of the drugs for the terrorists, and grow poppies and coca here. Benefits? I am happy, what other benefit is necessary? I refuse to enslave myself to "society", especially a society that wants me thrown in jail. Also, some drugs (MDMA, psychedelics) arguably encourage positive personal development. I know that the only time I ever feel unconditional love for others is when I am rolling hard. Marijuana showed me exactly what money was worth.
The only justification for my habits is that I enjoy them. What other reason is there to use drugs? Apparently you place little value in happiness, but I do not. That said, I can tell you a decent amount about most aspects of most recreational drugs, which is sometimes useful and usually interesting, at least to me and some others. Chemistry, sociology, neurology/biology are a few subjects touched on by drugs.
What possible punishment would work for drug users? The only thing I can think of is execution. Fines would be treated like speeding tickets. Rehab I would just attend high. Community service might actually be fun, and I would attend it high. On the other hand, if drugs were legal and regulated, the money made from the taxes could be used to improve the community in various ways. Most drugs are dirt cheap to produce. If they were sold for 20% of what they are now, that would still be a lot of revenue to be used for the betterment of society. Not that I care about society, but if it was not trying to hurt me I would have no reason to mind supporting it.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can anyone name a drug that they think I would not be able to obtain with one month's time? The only ones I can think of are possibly LSD and peyote (although not mescaline in general), but then again either might turn up tomorrow.
I am not a person with many "connections" either. I could get drugs that people who do not currently use cannot, but anyone who wants to spend six months using pot would be in the position I am in, if not better.
Edit: not makes a difference. As does subject-verb agreement.
quote:Let's say man X shoots person Y. X goes to jail. In jail, he doesn't get chocloate chip cookies. His mom feels horrible! Now she has to send him packages of chocolate chip cookies.
Ergo, X shooting Y impacts his mom.
That's the exact same relationship here, where person X screws himself over then you decide that because someone else is kind enough to take care of him, that its now a crime to not wear seatbelts.
The logic extends to this:
It's a crime to not wear seat belts because you're going to cause your friends and family to feel bad or have to take care of you. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And that is a disgusting abuse of logic to provide a specious answer to a very real issue.
SOMEONE whaled have to care for him, or he would die. It isn't HIS choice any more, because he can't choose.
I understand that she is choosing to help feed her son (I think I have all the genders mixed up here, but you know what I mean... ), but that doesn't alive the suffering his family feels, even if they choose to let him die....which would be criminal neglect in most cases...
We are all interconnected, and it is absurd to say otherwise if you have ever cared for another person. I don't think that i like the government telling me what to do in my own car, but considering all the other things they allow/disallow me to do that is a minor point.
BTW, what else would be the WELFARE of the country in this instance? Isn't it in the welfare of the country to regulate their roads in a fashion to prevent a major number of deaths?
Driving isn't mentioned in the Constitution (along with many other things... ), so it isn't a right, and the government has the right to place whatever restrictions it wants on it.
posted
Well, presumably he could just be left to die. The drugs I do are not nearly as damaging as most people think, but if I do cause permanent damage I do not expect anyone to take care of me.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So move to the wilderness, where all civilivation is absent. You hate the US, remember?
You ae callous (or you want us to think so), and not half as original as you obviously think you are.
Or as cool, that is painfully obvious.
These issuse matters a lot more to people who aren't always stoned. Particularily to those of us who have lost people to the damn "recreational" drugs you boast of taking.
It isn't a joke when you find someone you love in a piss smelling pile, dead at the age of 20, because some arrogant asshole like yourself gave him E and told him no one had ever died from it.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I have more incentive to get your kids smoking pot (or using any other drug) now than I would were they legal.
You wouldn't be able to get near them, I would probably smell you coming.
And prison would be the least of your worries.
Actually prison probably is the least of them now...
I have always felt that drugs are their own punishment. They make you even dumber than before you take them, and that isn't something most of us can afford. I know I get stupid enough without them...
But most of your arguments are just absurd....your attitude is the best argument for keeping them illegal I have seen for a long time....
quote: Drugs do not remove your inhibitions.
Any proof other than your word? If I cared I would post proof, but most of us have been drunk before, so would disagree....
quote: If there were no prison rape, I would seriously consider committing a crime and going there on purpose. Drugs are availabe in prisons, and room and board are free. I still do not feel that prison (or anything else) is an appropriate punishment, but freeloading is freeloading, and I would jump at the chance to have the government buy my drugs
Well, not that any of us would have considered you a role model before that... Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Your three year old is not a legal adult. Legal adults have the right to flush as much toilet paper down the drain as they wish, as long as they paid for it. Or perhaps you meant that I am doing it to rebel. I am not; hence the not using DXM (anymore) or PCP whether they are legal or not and using cannabis and MDMA regardless.
Yeah, the rebellion aspect was probably what made me think of it. I actually wonder if she does it just to upset me. I was not saying you are a rebel, I was just thinking aloud, saying the first thing that came to my mind when I heard the phrase "I do break the law as often as I can afford to..." You know, it *sounds* rebellious.
quote: Well, perhaps you might think that voting for mandatory minimum sentencing first time users of alcohol or cannabis or cocaine to ten years in prison is a bit excessive if it was your kid. Also, the more people who use drugs, the more likely the laws will grow more lax.
It may be excessive. I don't know enough about the facts to have an opinion at this point.
quote: What negative effect(s) do(es) intoxication intrinsically have? I have never gotten violent on any drug, including alcohol.
I am glad that alcohol does not make you violent or keep you from fulfilling many of your responsibilities. But it causes a lot of problems for a lot of people. Enough, IMO, to justify it being illegal because the negative outweighs the positive by quite a bit. Of course, they tried that once, and things got really ugly. Which is one reason why I would hesitate to support such a movement again.
quote: If it spills over into the lives of others, generally it is one of two things. Either it is the person, and not the drug, or the others are asking something they have no right to ask.
I think I presented some other ways it spills over. You do address them, and I will respond.
quote: You do not want me using it. That is what it boils down to, is it not? You seem to realize that homosexuality is too prevalent to make that many laws against, but you would if you thought it would work. No marriage for gays, because you do not want them marrying. Your side has the power to oppress the drug users, and still hurt the gays, but that is not an acceptable moral reason to do so. Just admit that you hate us if you will not leave us in peace.
Actually, homosexuality's prevailance is not what makes me hesitate to vote against gay marriage. It is the innateness of it. Drug use is not an innate part of you. It is something you can choose to do or not do. If homosexuality were just as much a choice, I would be all for keeping gay marriage illegal.
Do I hate you? I do wish you to give up something that I believe harms you and others. I am in favor of laws remaining in place that oppose your drug-use. I suppose indirectly I am not leaving you "at peace". I don't understand how that implies hate.
quote: The thing is, they really are the two worst drugs for society.
I dunno about the *worst*, but they are bad, I will agree with you there. Again, my concern about making them illegal is the sheer power they hold. I think their funding of anti-drug campaigns is an effort to get people to not hate them or sue them so much. I seriously doubt it is out of the goodness of their hearts. ::cynical grin::
quote: As for seduction, do you not trust your own judgment?
You know, I was just thinking about this the other day. I don't think any of us should think we are above seduction. If we think we are above it, we are more likely to be seduced.
quote: That of your loved ones?
Let's just say my concern for them causes me to want to err on the side of safety.
quote: Drugs do not remove your inhibitions. That is just an excuse used by people who did something they do not want to accept responsibility for. Luckily, lots of people believe them. I will have to remember that the next time I say something hurtful.
I am skeptical. How often do people not remember what they did the night before because they were to stoned/drunk? And even if mind-altering drugs do not remove inhibitions entirely, they certainly loosen them. That is one of the reasons people enjoy them.
quote: Benefits? I am happy, what other benefit is necessary?
This is a hedonist attitude, IMO. Whether or not you think that is bad depends on whether or not you think hedonism is bad. Is it enough to justify the negative?
quote: I refuse to enslave myself to "society", especially a society that wants me thrown in jail.
And this sounds very anarchist. I believe in being a law-abiding citizen. I think by doing so I contribute to something larger than myself. So I don't get to drive 100 mph down the highway even if there is no one else for miles around and the only person I would be harming is myself. If a cop pulled me over and gave me a ticket, he would be justified because I broke the law.
quote: Also, some drugs (MDMA, psychedelics) arguably encourage positive personal development. I know that the only time I ever feel unconditional love for others is when I am rolling hard.
If you are only improved while under the influence of the drug, have you really improved? Might a person neglect true personal improvement because they have the drug to do it for them?
quote: The only justification for my habits is that I enjoy them. What other reason is there to use drugs?
Some mind-altering, addictive drugs have medicinal purposes. I personally wouldn't have a problem with a doctor prescribing marajuana for justified medical purposes. But I think it should definitely be prescription-only.
quote: Apparently you place little value in happiness, but I do not.
O_o Wow. That is quite a leap. Perhaps I care a great deal about lasting happiness and am perfectly willing to sacrifice thrills that could endanger it for myself and others? Example: If I spend all spare my time on Hatrack (or playing video games, or watching TV, or eating bon bons, fill in the blank) I would enjoy it a great deal. But I would be neglecting other parts of my life. Even if it is my favorite thing to do, it is not wise for me to let other parts of my life suffer.
quote: What possible punishment would work for drug users? The only thing I can think of is execution. Fines would be treated like speeding tickets. Rehab I would just attend high. Community service might actually be fun, and I would attend it high.
Keeping a person from having access to their addiction seems like a punishment in and of itself. I don't know if it is possible, though.
quote: On the other hand, if drugs were legal and regulated, the money made from the taxes could be used to improve the community in various ways. Most drugs are dirt cheap to produce. If they were sold for 20% of what they are now, that would still be a lot of revenue to be used for the betterment of society. Not that I care about society, but if it was not trying to hurt me I would have no reason to mind supporting it.
Are cigarettes and alcohol already taxed above and beyond other products? If they aren't, perhaps they should be. Anything someone is addicted to the government could make lots of money off of. Would there be an outcry? I think so. I'm not sure if they would be able to "get away" with it.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: These issuse matters a lot more to people who aren't always stoned. Particularily to those of us who have lost people to the damn "recreational" drugs you boast of taking.
Oh yeah, I forgot. Those who use these sorts of drugs seem to stop caring about anything else. It's really freaky. I have seen it myself.
quote: It isn't a joke when you find someone you love in a piss smelling pile, dead at the age of 20, because some arrogant asshole like yourself gave him E and told him no one had ever died from it.
<=== is reminded of the serpent in the Garden of Eden
"You won't *surely die* but shall be as the Gods knowing good and evil"
posted
Why would I tell anyone that no one had ever died from ecstacy? People have died from MDMA and the other stuff that is sold as ecstacy. Were MDMA legal, then the dosage and content of each pill would be known, and it would be treated like alcohol... which even though it is legal and the contents and dosage are known, kills lots more people than MDMA or "ecstacy" every year. (I put ecstacy in quotes because while it is supposed to be MDMA, there are lots of pills sold as ecstacy that do not contain only MDMA.) Furthermore, depending on when this death happened it might have even been true. (Probably not if it happened within the last ten years though.) Three years ago no one had ever died from 2C-T-21; now at least one person has. I will say MDMA is less damaging than alcohol, because it is true. No one is claiming it is a good idea to roll every weekend, but I am claiming that if you want to, you should be allowed to without going to prison for it.
You will just have to take my word that I do not and have never considered myself cool. Cool kids only do alcohol and maybe a little pot. I am callous in the sense that I do not expect that which is unreasonable... so I do not expect anyone to take care of me should I damage myself. I would like it if someone was nice enough to do so anyway, but I recognize they are not obligated to do so. As for boasting, not really. I do mention it quite a bit, because I feel it is important to keep in people's minds that drugs are used in all levels of society, by anyone you can imagine.
The point is that I should not have to move to the wilderness, because dropping MDMA does not hurt you.
Do not worry for your kids. I said I have more incentive, which is true, but I do have ethical problems with encouraging anyone to try an illegal drug in today's climate. None of the legal ones are drugs I would encourage anyway. If your kids were interested in trying drugs, you had better hope they come to someone like me rather than someone who tried pot once but drinks like a fish on Friday and Saturday nights.
As for the inhibitions... well, not really, but if I have managed to control myself while incredibly drunk I fail to see why it is asking so much of anyone else to do so. If one finds it absolutely impossible, perhaps they should not be doing that drug. Obviously they rearrange one's priorities while under the influence, but that is why one sets limits before they use.
I am a reason to keep drugs illegal? If you say so, but I would be much more willing to help out a society that is not trying to put me away. I suppose I should have used a smiley, but I was not serious about going to prison. I do not believe in welfare or freeloading, and even if I did regular welfare would be better. However, as I said before I am a responsible person who works full time (when not in school) and pays taxes so that other people can go to prison or on welfare.
Prison is my only worry, really. Once I cross of every drug (and experience) on my list, I doubt I will use regularly if at all. However, it is easier to find other drugs when one smokes pot every day. Certainly I am slower than when I was not an everyday user, but oh well. I have gained more than I lost, especially as most of what I have lost will come back should I decide to quit. Not that I expect that day to come for another year or two, but unless I meet a girl who likes all the same drugs I do it will have to come eventually. On the other hand, if I get sent to prison then I would probably have to use drugs for the rest of my life to deal with the emotional pain.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And now beverly... this will not be as long as the other post, because some things I put in my response to Kwea.
It sounds rebellious, but if the drugs were legal I would not break the law. Actually, I probably follow more traffic laws now than I did before I started using illegal drugs.
Alcohol prohibition was ugly. Are you saying the prohibition of other drugs is not? It would be one thing if these drugs were actually stopped, but they are not stopped at all or slowed much. The choice is not between making drugs disappear and having kids shoot up in class; it is between having marijuana easier to get in high school than alcohol and all drugs being availabe only to adults.
Drug use is innate. There are many who believe that all humans have the desire to intoxicate themselves. Some people do not use chemicals, but television, gambling, sex, and the internet all release the same neurotransmitters than drugs do. As long as there is prison rape, then either you hate me or you might as well. And really, why should I have to pay a fine or go to a prison where rape does not exist? So I guess I believe you when you say that you do not hate me, but if anything I would rather you did than claim it is for my own good. Me quitting drugs is not an option until I complete my list.
Well, perhaps no one is above seduction, but drugs are not all bad. Like it or not, drugs are fun, and while I can think of better things to do than using them all the time for the rest of my life, I can think of worse things as well.
I have blacked out once. It was not enjoyable, so I did not repeat the experience. Reconstructing what happened; nothing that I wish had not did. I always remember what I did when I was smoking marijuana, or for that matter using any other drug. It does fade with time, of course, but so do activities that did not involve drugs.
As for the benefit, were you asking about to the user or to others? If it is to the user, then hedonism is good. If the negatives of a drug outweigh the positives; I either quit entirely or cut back extensively. I would probably be an alcoholic if it were not for marijuana, so right there that is a huge positive.
I am close to an anarchist at times, or at least a hard-core libertarian, although neither of those really fits exactly. I do not believe in obeying laws that are wrong. Should Rosa Parks have sat on the back of the bus? Should gay men in Texas not had sex? If murder became legal tomorrow, would you start killing people? I would argue that the policeman would let you go if you knew for an absolute fact that you were endangering only yourself.
As for the improvements... they are more intense while on the drug, but they persist after it is gone. Back to the whole being responsible for what you do on drugs, your actions come from within you, both the good and the evil. At least now I have proof that under some circumstances, I can love unconditionally. Perhaps not everyone in the entire world, but the really important ones. If it can happen with the drug, then it can happen without it if I work hard enough. (Not that I have done so yet, but it is nice to know I could.) I should make it clear that I do not really use drugs for personal improvement. My only goal is recreation. However, if it happens anyway, I am not going to try to stop it.
This really applies only to narcotics, but if you have happiness constantly then what else is left? As near as they know, our "happiness" neurotransmitters are the endomorphins, or endogenous morphinans, which are emulated by the narcotics. If your happiness receptors are set to on, you are happy. That is not a bad thing, and I reject utterly the premise that people should have to suffer or work any harder than necessary before being happy. Assuming everyone else has all the narcotics they want, then they too are happy.
Keeping users from addictions? The only drug I know I am addicted to is caffeine, and that would be a favor. I probably qualify for a marijuana addiction, and I would miss it, but it is hardly something I worry excessively about when I know it is impossible to get. Not that I think one could keep the users from their drugs; if that actually worked I might not be against prohibition. I do not believe it is possible, however. Assuming it is not, how should you torture me for the crime of being happy?
I agree that cocaine and alcohol users are (generally) selfish, but not (generally) pot or MDMA users. I care lots about people who are not trying to fix me up with Bubba or otherwise hurt me, few as they are.
quote: Are you saying the prohibition of other drugs is not?
I am saying that we are not going from something being legal to then making it illegal. It is an issue of keeping it illegal. If alcohol had always been illegal, there wouldn't have been such ugliness, IMO.
quote: Drug use is innate. There are many who believe that all humans have the desire to intoxicate themselves.
I am not one of those people. I have never used any drug recreationally. I try to keep other habits in check. Sugar, sleep, Hatrack....
quote: As long as there is prison rape, then either you hate me or you might as well.
You will just have to take my word for it. Danzig, I do not hate you.
quote: Me quitting drugs is not an option until I complete my list.
Why? What is the compulsion to try every drug out there? This reminds me of my husband's desire to taste the flesh of every critter except humans. I kinda look at him funny and wonder why he cares.
quote: but drugs are not all bad. Like it or not, drugs are fun
I do not doubt they are fun. In fact, I imagine they are terribly fun. Perhaps even too fun, to the point of being too difficult to resist. That is just what I find so "bad" about them.
quote: I can think of worse things as well.
Hmmm, that is a handy rationalization for almost anything....
quote: hedonism is good
I think it is a matter of opinion. My personal opinion is that hedonism runs opposite to wisdom. Not that I don't enjoy life and the pleasures it has to offer, but I try to remember moderation and I steer clear of things that I believe to be danger zones. I look at recreational drugs as one of those danger zones.
I actually have noticed that many who use recreational drugs habitually find life without drugs to be dull, boring, worthless. Because I am free of those addictions I feel I can better appreciate what life has to offer.
quote: I am close to an anarchist at times, or at least a hard-core libertarian, although neither of those really fits exactly. I do not believe in obeying laws that are wrong. Should Rosa Parks have sat on the back of the bus? Should gay men in Texas not had sex? If murder became legal tomorrow, would you start killing people? I would argue that the policeman would let you go if you knew for an absolute fact that you were endangering only yourself.
I believe in upholding the law of the country you live in. If that law runs contrary to your moral code, that is a problem. But as long as it doesn't, I believe in being a law-abider. If I disagree with the law, I would work to try and change it.
quote: At least now I have proof that under some circumstances, I can love unconditionally.
But if I understand correctly, no proof that you can do it without the drug (yet).
quote: This really applies only to narcotics, but if you have happiness constantly then what else is left? As near as they know, our "happiness" neurotransmitters are the endomorphins, or endogenous morphinans, which are emulated by the narcotics. If your happiness receptors are set to on, you are happy. That is not a bad thing, and I reject utterly the premise that people should have to suffer or work any harder than necessary before being happy. Assuming everyone else has all the narcotics they want, then they too are happy.
This is an excellent opportunity to discuss an important difference between temporary bliss and lasting joy. I would rather have lasting joy that comes from a sense of accomplishment and overcoming through hardwork and sacrifice than the bliss that comes from being hooked up to an electrode in the pleasure center of my brain. They are vastly different things, one being of far greater worth than the other.
quote: Keeping users from addictions? The only drug I know I am addicted to is caffeine, and that would be a favor. I probably qualify for a marijuana addiction, and I would miss it, but it is hardly something I worry excessively about when I know it is impossible to get. Not that I think one could keep the users from their drugs; if that actually worked I might not be against prohibition. I do not believe it is possible, however. Assuming it is not, how should you torture me for the crime of being happy?
It might be impossible to keep a user from all drugs. They would seek at all costs to get *something*. I know you don't believe you are addicted to much, but imagine tomorrow never having access to a recreation drug again. Ever. How would you feel about that?
Being happy is not a crime. I think I have made several important points about this. Do you need drugs to be happy?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not claim to have extensive knowledge on drugs, but from my limited experience I would have to agree with Beverly about the “happiness” caused by drug use. I see a big difference between the happiness I get from alcohol or marijuana, and the happiness from doing something I am proud of. Once you sober up you are exactly where you were before, but if you have done something worthwhile that is never taken away from you.
Posts: 1015 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
IO spent years as an EMT, so pardon me if you randian concepts of freedom don't impress me compared to seeing the suffering of many, many people who were unable to control their addictions.
Any claims that it is the goverment that makes drugs dangerous if facietious at best. Regulated or not, their are miriad reasons for keeping controled substances from the populous.
Doing them, particularily to excess, harms yourself as well as others in ways that are hard to see from inside the problem but are all too obvious form the outside.
Society as a whole has the right to regulate behavior...that is it's primary duty, actually.
If individual actions cause harm to the whole society, then they place restrictions on the behavior to minimize the damage.
posted
Marijuana, opium, and cocaine were not always illegal either. MDMA was legal until the mid-80's, and nothing really bad happened except that people enjoyed it. Besides, making them illegal has not stopped their popularity. I tried a legal drug first, but there are some people who do try drugs to rebel.
Sugar is a drug. Hatrack releases dopamine just as amphetamines do. If you take anti-depressants, you are no better morally than I am. If you take any type of benzo, you are exactly the same as me. Sugar was likely the first drug I used; caffeine the second. I was using caffeine to get high since I was about eight years old. If you ever whirled around in a circle for a while, you were altering your mental state, you just did not use chemicals. If I concentrate, I can "think" myself high without drugs. Unfortunately the high is not particularly portable. I do try (and usually succeed) to get eight hours of sleep a night.
Fine, you do not hate me, but you might as well.
I do not want to try every drug out there; only the fun ones. As for why, because I am curious. Why do I want to read every book ever written by certain authors? Sure, I could not, but why? Drugs are just books written by God.
What is the point of resisting something because you can? I know I can resist alcohol and marijuana, but usually I say no to the first and yes to the second because one is not that great and one is. I think of being high as a good thing in most instances. There is nothing I can think of doing that I would rather not be high for, and for most activities there is a drug that one can be on while doing them just as well. (Or good enough. I have always believed in doing good enough long before I ever used drugs. Anything else is wasted effort.) When I say I can think of worse things, I can think of very many worse things. Drug use may not be the best thing in the entire world, but it is up there in the top ten or twenty.
I am certainly one of those people, at least if you count the internet as a drug. Is that a reason to put me in jail? Well, I guess books are interesting, although I would not be surprised to learn they release dopamine as well. Still, books and the internet are not portable; a chemical high is. Life is not more boring since I started drugs, however. Of course, I tend to actually get up and do things when I am high, or read books. I do see the people who think of using drugs as an activity in itself and wonder sometimes...
My moral code says that I have the right to think as I please, ingest what I please, and sell what I please to adults, and that incorrect laws are morally irrelevant. I do plan to try to change the drug laws if at all possible, even if I quit using drugs myself.
I do have proof. There is nothing any drug brings out in you that was not already there. Perhaps alcohol lets out violent tendencies of those who have them, but those tendencies were already there. It did not create them. The same for MDMA and loving everyone.
Temporary bliss? First of all, if you have never tried narcotics you have no idea how good it is, which is very. Second, I was talking about permanent bliss. And happiness is happiness. The only thing that matters is how much for how long. I can agree that a lower but still fairly high level of happiness for forty years is better than intense happiness for five years, but forty years of intense happiness is better still.
I cannot imagine never having access to any recreational drug, because it will never happen. If all the ones I enjoy were to disappear, it would suck, but life would go on. Occasionally I run out of marijuana for a few days even now. First I will make sure it is unavailable to me, and find out how long. Then I pretty much do not think about it until I have the opportunity to get more. If all drugs were gone, I would regret not trying LSD, mescaline, salvia, and a few others, but it would be pointless to worry about it. I can still treasure the experiences I have had.
What if I do need drugs to be happy? Is that so wrong? As it happens, the reason I use marijuana as often as I do is because of depression. I looked into the legal antidepressants, and they scare me. Marijuana has no withdrawal symptoms. Paxil withdrawal will make you suicidal. MAOIs are even worse. I have read too many stories about people on various SSRIs to even think about trying them. If I was lucky, one of them would work, but some people are not. No one I know who is on an antidepressant looks happier than I am on marijuana. I think I will stick with something that has been used for thousands of years if I use anything at all. Well, opioids really would make me happy, but unfortunately I cannot afford to use them daily.
Actually, I can be happy without drugs, but in any given situation (AFAIK) I would be happier with drugs. Laser tag is fun sober. Sunsets are beautiful sober. Music sounds good sober. Laser tag and sunsets are more fun and beautiful on hallucinogens, and music sounds better on cannabis or MDMA. If I am sad, drugs will not make me happy, but they will make me less sad, and possibly (depending on the drug, not all are useful for this) might help me deal with the sadness even after the drug wears off.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the happiness is temporary, then the accomplishment probably is better. However, the sense of accomplishment is nothing like a narcotic high, and if I had to choose between accomplishing lots of things or being stoned on opioids for the rest of my life, it would be the opioids all the way. Neither alcohol nor marijuana directly affect our happiness centers, so there I would choose accomplishment over being perpetually drunk or stoned on pot. Psychedelics do not really make one "happy", but those experiences are also with me forever.
Oh yes, other people do bad things so I get in trouble. It figures.
If it was possible to keep drugs from the populace, I might actually agree that they should be illegal. However, it is not, and drugs being illegal causes more damage than drugs being legal.
How do they harm me or others? I would like a few concrete examples. People who care about the user worrying about them does not count; my parents would worry about me if I was a homosexual or joined a cult. Neither do people stealing or murdering because of their habits; theft and murder are already illegal and I certainly do not believe drugs are a valid excuse.
Even if drug use harms society in a valid way, I still do not believe that making drugs illegal hurts society less. Of course, I did not choose to join society, and while you can tell me to run away there is actually nowhere to go. I have thought about it. Other countries have equally barbaric laws, so I might as well stay in this one. Drugs are not the only thing I care about; they are merely the worst problem in this country. Countries with more liberal drug laws (most of them are still illegal even there) usually have unacceptable restrictions on free speech or weapon ownership. Besides, I sincerely believe society would be a better place with more liberal drug laws, so even if I cared about it I would still be working to legalize them.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: What is the point of resisting something because you can?
Perhaps because you should.
quote: What if I do need drugs to be happy? Is that so wrong?
I think so. But of course, my thoughts and feelings on this matter delve into my religious beliefs at this point and what I believe the purpose of life is. I believe part of the purpose of life is to make something of ourselves and master our passions and desires as one masters a powerful horse with a bridle. I look at drugs as being too intense, too addictive to allow someone to remain free and in control.
It is true that chemicals in our brain cause the sensation of "happiness". And I believe that when you are chemically altering your brain *with chemicals*, it changes the way your brain works. Natural highs don't have this effect. I have to be careful with sugar because it has a bad effect on me. It changes the way my brain works and can actually cause depression because of it. I am a happier person when I don't try to use sugar for my highs. I am willing to give up the mild high of sugar for the deeper satisfaction of independance from the substance and better control over my thoughts and emotions.
God has given me the gift of a wonderful natural high in exchange for my sacrifice of commiting my life to a spouse and family. It's called sex. I'm sure you are familiar with it. I think it is interesting how many drug users lose interest in sex because their drug highs appeal to them more.
I also think that happiness is far more complex than the chemical process. I believe very strongly in the value difference between lasting joy and stimulated bliss. The lasting joy has meaning, purpose, fulfillment, that the other can never have. Someone who has spent all their lives trying to stimulate the pleasure center of their brain as much as they can afford to will end this life not having made much of it. I think that is tragic. Becoming something incredible and meaningful is so much better than seeking fun and thrills. Life is to short to dedicate to both.
But to each his own.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Familiar with sex? Only through descriptions. I hold very old-fashioned morals in some areas. Sex is pleasurable because of endorphins though, and physically narcotics are as good or better and last longer. The only reason to choose it over drugs is for someone who matters. Commitment and/or marriage are one thing, but I highly believe that it is much more wrong to have meaningless sex than it is to use drugs. As far as intimacy and drugs go, I have heard many good things about taking MDMA with a lover.
If drugs are not fulfilling you then you are doing them wrongly. As for accomplishments, what good are they after I am dead? The whole "do something with your life" and "you owe something to society" routines are the same lines kings, priests, and other elites have used to justify why they get to make the rules since the beginning of time, and I do not buy them. Sorry guys, but my happiness is more important to me personally than yours is.
Happiness is happiness. The same receptors are affected whether you win first place in the race or pay $17.50 for 25 mg of hydrocodone. There is nothing that says I cannot accomplish any goals I have while constantly narced up, or using other drugs less frequently. The thing is, my goals are still not to help society or better the world. All of them are basically other ways of having fun that are not from drugs, but no better (or worse) morally. What could possibly be more important than being as happy as you possibly can on average? What do you feel is incredible and meaningful that cannot be accomplished on drugs? Why is it important? Remember, I do not particularly want kids, nor do I accept breeding a new generation to rape the earth and hurt each other as necessarily good. (Drugs have made me much more open to the idea of kids than I previously was, though. This scares me.)
I realize there are many drug users who fit the stereotype of lazy people who accomplish nothing, but there are lots who do not as well. Freud used cocaine, Halsted (a founder of Johns Hopkins) cured his cocaine addiction with morphine addiction; lots of our presidents and other officials used all sorts of legal drugs. Housewives still use lots of benzos, and now they have SSRI's as well. Our wonderful President George W. Bush probably used cocaine and certainly abused alcohol. He fits the stereotypes of those users. Anything you can name has been accomplished by a drug user. Half of classic rock was about or influenced by drugs. Kubla Khan is from an opium dream.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
It's not enslavement, Danzig. It's the price of membership.
You refuse to pay the price necessary to BELONG to society, and resent -- rightfully, IMO -- that our society criminalizes your refusal to pay that price.
However, surely you also recognize that society -- ALL societies -- have the right to criminalize behaviors that they believe are harmful to that society. When you rail against drug laws, or I fight for gay marriage, we're not really arguing that society doesn't have the RIGHT to ban these things; we're arguing that society should just NOT ban these things, because they're not as harmful as the bans themselves.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Danzig, I hope someday that you'll use this brain of yours -- which you've devoted to justifying your own self-destructive and ultimately empty pursuit of endorphins -- for something more useful.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Possibly not, but sex is not one of those drugs you want to rush and try the first possible time, you know? I always thought it was the emotions that made it so enjoyable.
I do not recognize society's right. In my opinion, there are certain freedoms which must (well, should) be respected, and if a society's well-being should conflict with the preserving of those freedoms, that society deserves to be altered and/or destroyed. Theft is wrong and personal freedom is good, no matter what society says. Society has no right to ban drugs, gay marriage, prostitution, consensual cannabalism, or even the vast majority of religious practices. I am sure all of those are harmful to at least some types of societies.
Edit: More useful? Useful to whom? Emptiness is in the eye of the beholder.
posted
Point. But then again, I see lots of my peers having sex that is meaningless and likely to be ultimately hurtful to them, and I have the common human decency not to attempt to get it banned. And while I will give my opinion if asked, I do not devote my time to telling them how much they suck, or really let it enter my speech much at all.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*nod* That's why, ultimately, I support the legalization of most recreational drugs, as well.
That said, however, I think it's worth noting that your whole "why can't society just leave me alone; they should let me kill myself if I want" is difficult to morally justify. You're actually asking people to look the other way when someone drives himself off a cliff -- which is almost exactly contrary to the definition of a "good person." A "good person" might not throw you in jail for ruining your life on drugs, but neither would they turn their head and pretend not to see you as you do it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not asking them to look the other way; they are free to stare at the car and watch it hit the ground. Actually any decent (not good) person would try to stop the car if they thought it was an accident... but as soon as they learned it was intentional, they should back off.
Besides, I know you are honest enough to admit that not everyone ruins their life on drugs, including some people who use for most of their lives.
Most recreational drugs? Just out of curiosity, which do you think would really cause less overall damage if they were illegal? I can think of a few that I wish did not exist, but as long as they do they should be legal.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Danzig, I respect your choice to abstain from sex. So few people make this decision any more, that I am often genuinely surprised when I encounter it. Kudos to you for that. I agree with you that sex should never be meaningless, and in fact I believe God desires it only be shared between husband and wife. I wouldn't be surprised if participating in drugs makes it far easier to abstain because it provides the thrills and pleasure that sex would provide otherwise. (See my comment about drug users often not being as interested in sex as a non drug user.)
quote: If drugs are not fulfilling you then you are doing them wrongly.
We may have very different perspectives on the word "fulfilling".
quote: As for accomplishments, what good are they after I am dead?
This is where religion comes in for me. Were I not religious, I might agree with you. Were I not religious, I might define "living life to the fullest" as experiencing every thrill that is available to me. But I have a very different take on "living life to the fullest." If you followed my thread where I spoke of my faith, you will know just what I am talking about.
quote: Sorry guys, but my happiness is more important to me personally than yours is.
I find this to be an ultimately selfish attitude, especially considering I believe the course of actions you are taking will *not* lead you to lasting happiness but lasting regret.
quote: There is nothing that says I cannot accomplish any goals I have while constantly narced up, or using other drugs less frequently.
Depends on the goals.
quote: The thing is, my goals are still not to help society or better the world. All of them are basically other ways of having fun that are not from drugs, but no better (or worse) morally.
This is a matter of opinion. I disagree.
quote: What could possibly be more important than being as happy as you possibly can on average? What do you feel is incredible and meaningful that cannot be accomplished on drugs? Why is it important? Remember, I do not particularly want kids, nor do I accept breeding a new generation to rape the earth and hurt each other as necessarily good. (Drugs have made me much more open to the idea of kids than I previously was, though. This scares me.)
This is a highly religious question for me and just because the answer is meaningful to me does not mean that it will be meaningful to you. All I can say is that I would much rather be someone who blesses the lives of all those I come in contact with than to have personal gratification. I think of my children. If I spoil them, always let them have gratification, they will become shallow, empty, selfish adults. If I teach them self-discipline, respect for things greater than themselves, I believe they can accomplish much good in the world--building rather than destroying. I want them to be the sort of people who make the world a better place. And I believe this has a significance far beyond this mortal life. (I believe that not-building is a form of destroying--principle of entropy.)
quote: I realize there are many drug users who fit the stereotype of lazy people who accomplish nothing, but there are lots who do not as well.
Perhaps. But I think they could have been better people without their addictions. If they were marvelous with the addiction, what would they have been like without?
quote: Freud used cocaine
I personally think Freud was a crack-pot. (Actually, no pun intended.)
quote: Halsted (a founder of Johns Hopkins) cured his cocaine addiction with morphine addiction
Still an addiction. But perhaps it is a good way to gradually overcome addiction--by downsizing to less and less severe addictions. I commend his efforts in trying to overcome a strong addiction.
quote: lots of our presidents and other officials used all sorts of legal drugs.
And "used" is past tense. They got over their addiction. Kudos to them. They got over it and made something of their lives.
quote: Housewives still use lots of benzos, and now they have SSRI's as well.
I don't know much about these substances, but I am not going to commend drug addiction here either.
quote: Our wonderful President George W. Bush probably used cocaine and certainly abused alcohol.
Another past tense. I am glad he overcame those things and I am not going to hold it against him.
quote: Half of classic rock was about or influenced by drugs. Kubla Khan is from an opium dream.
I am well aware of this. And I do not approve of it. Actually, it is a running joke with me whenever I come across really random or bizarre lyrics, "They must have been on something when they wrote that."
I don't see any examples here of drugs making their lives better.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I do have proof. There is nothing any drug brings out in you that was not already there. Perhaps alcohol lets out violent tendencies of those who have them, but those tendencies were already there. It did not create them. The same for MDMA and loving everyone
That isn't proof. And it isn't true at all.
You can cause a lot of damage to yourrself and others under the influence of drugs because they affect the way your brain process information. If they didn't you wouldn't want to take them.
You could hurt someone accidentally while high because you don't realize they are your friends while you are tripping. You don't mean to, and it isn't because it it "something already in you" or any such nonsense. It's because you don't know them while high....
or you think they are hurting you not helping you....
or you think you are fine to drive but aren't, and kill someone on the way home...
Inhibitions aren't always a bad thing. Often they are a good thing. We have all sorts of inhibitions presenting ourselves from fighting amongst ourselves, or hurting each other, or stealing.....
They are called morals.
Not all of us agree on what is moral and what isn't, but there are some things we pretty much do agree on, and those things become laws.
You can apply the same arguments to driving that you applied to doing drugs...that they don't affect YOU that way, (yet) so it isn't your problem. Does that mean that you are the only one who doesn't have to drive the speed limit (or close enough )? Are you the only one who can drive 200 mph, but everyone else has to drive 40?
The laws are applicable to all, not to a select few. There are people (such as yourselves) that disobey, but then bitch and moan when they got caught. Then it is SOCIETIES fault that they are in jail, not their fault, even though the penalties have been made clear to all.
There is a difference between you and people taking prescription drugs....they have a consult (at least) with a Doctor, who has a lot more knowledge that you ever will on the effect and contraindication's of drugs. They aren't "self medicating", as you seem to be, so they have societies sanction to take them. You don't.
As far as you not caring about societies views, I imagine you would have a different outlook on it if your parents, of daughter, or...well, you get the pic....were killed by someone stoned behind the wheel, or by someone looking for drug money robbing a convenience store.
Let me guess, that would be the fault of society for making illegal drugs too expensive...
If a man was breaking into your home, don't you call the police? That is society acting..
Or if your house catches on fire...if society didn't matter the firemen wouldn't have jobs, or show up at your house.
You can't have all the benifits of living in a caring society without following the rules set as conditions for belonging to it. That isn't the way it works.
posted
Why would I hurt anyone while high? I have never been so intoxicated on anything as to not be aware of what was going on, or not recognize people. You are assigning way too much power to the drug.
I have those inhibitions about fighting, stealing, etc. Drugs do not take them away. I think I and everyone else should drive about ten miles over the posted limit, whatever that may be. I am not asking for only the drugs I use to be legalized. Meth is a horrible idea, and I have never intentionally done it, but I believe it too should be legal. (For all I know there may have been some in the ecstacy pills I took, but they did not feel particularly speedy.)
So far, I have been lucky and avoided being caught. I am bitching and moaning anyway, because drug laws are wrong. I also believe that gay marriage should be legal, and that is useless to me. It is society's fault that users are put in jail. They had the option to live and let live, or to be bullies, and they chose to be bullies. If drug use intrinsically led to jail, our prisons would be even more overcrowded.
The difference between me and someone who only does legal drugs is that they are less likely to get caught. That is it. If it is wrong to take a drug to alter your thought process, it is wrong, no matter who gives the ok. If it is not wrong, then perhaps they should have doctors and/or pharmacists who only deal with recreational drugs. Besides, half the drugs I use are legal.
If a loved one got killed by an impaired driver, I would be mad whether they were stoned, drunk, or talking on their cell phone while yelling at the brats in the back seat. It is society's fault that drugs are expensive, although that would not excuse theft or murder. Theft and murder are already illegal, however, and I have never argued that it should be otherwise. I could care less if you steal from me to feed your family or you steal to feed your habit. I am out the cash either way.
If a man is breaking into my home, I do not call the police unless by some miracle all contraband was gone, and I would use a knife, gun, or taser. When my truck stereo was stolen, the police did all of nothing for me. I would love to live in a society without police, thank you very much. I at least appreciate firemen, but one good aspect of society does not mean I am willing to accept all of it. I would easily choose a society with civilized drug laws over a society with fire departments.
Not that anyone is authorized to speak for all of society, but I would love to trade off a few of the "benefits" to get them off my back. I am not asking for all the benefits.
You cannot ask me to support a society that is trying to put me in prison for something that intrinsically harms no one (edit: besides possibly myself). That is not the way it works either. Somehow society functioned just fine when MDMA, opium, and cannabis were legal. Yes, I am well aware that what I am doing is illegal. So was gay sex and being black. Laws and morals are not all that related to one another. I am trying to change the laws, because all of the problems you list are worse when drugs are illegal than when they are legal. Not to mention the whole cognitive freedom thing... of course, that has rarely mattered to anyone.
quote: The difference between me and someone who only does legal drugs is that they are less likely to get caught.
If a powerful and potentially dangerous drug has legitimate medical uses, it should be legal but prescription-only, IMO. If a drug has no medical value and is only recreational, there isn't enough justification.
There are a few over-the-counter drugs that are abused. The extremely harmful ones have important legitimate uses, and the others are milder. While I do not condone any addictive behavior as healthy or positive, making these things illegal does not make sense when the usefulness of the item is weighed against the harm caused.
If someone is abusing a prescription drug, either the doctor is at fault, or the person is breaking the law.
I can't remember if I have said this already, but I think if marajuana has legitimate medical uses, then doctors should be able to prescribe it as they are able to prescribe many other potentially harmful or addictive drugs.
But making it as legal as, say, cigarettes or alcohol, is not something I am actively in favor of.
Danzig and others, if you want to convince me that legalizing the currently illegal recreational drugs is a good idea, tell me more about why you think it is. "I want to use it and not have to be breaking the law because using it isn't bad", the main thrust of our exchange so far, isn't likely to convince me.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
How much do you want to keep drugs out of the hands of children? I am 20 years old, and have an easier time in the summer obtaining pot than alcohol. Dealers do not ID. High schoolers have a much easier time obtaining pot than alcohol, because less people are willing to break the law for them. Dealers break the law either way, so they have less reason to care.
Do you care about the health of users? Pure substances of known strength would go a long way in reducing overdose deaths. Not that people who use recreational drugs do not deserve to die horrible deaths, of course.
Sorry I did not answer this earlier, but some (all?) states do tax and regulate alcohol and tobacco. Why not do the same for other drugs?
If we are to believe our government, drugs support terrorism. If drugs were legal, terrorists would lose a large revenue source. Personally I think terrorist is anyone our government dislikes, but the cocaine cartels are not nice people by any means. They want cocaine illegal too; they like their profits.
Also, you will never be able to stop all drugs. The first drug I did that was not remotely socially acceptable was DXM, because it was legal. Other people use drugs that are a bit worse, such as diphenhydramine. Some use drugs that are downright dangerous, such as solvents. If you make the safe drugs illegal, people will switch to dangerous ones. Perhaps you think the users deserve it, but remember that your kids may be the users someday. If not your kids, then their friends.
Marijuana is not dangerous. Even the DEA admits that it is one of the safest substances known to man. Opioids do less damage than alcohol or cigarettes. GHB and DMT are found in your body already, which is two counts of possessing a controlled substance. Besides, automobiles are dangerous and we let basically anyone who is close to an adult drive them.
Why is it ok for housewives to take Xanax or Prozac but not for me to take cannabis? (or Xanax for that matter, unless I wanted to fake the symptoms) I am waiting for an answer to that one.
Why was MDMA made illegal? You can die from it, just as you can from most chemicals, including water, but it is not all that common an occurence. Oh, I know- it got people high. That is the only reason. It was not particularly dangerous; there were no MDMA cartels. What danger does DMT pose to the public? No cartels, and your brain wants it enough to make some of its own. It gets one high, of course. To my knowledge, no one has died from DMT. What of psilocybin mushrooms? You have to eat your body weight in dried shrooms to overdose. You could eat the much more dangerous but perfectly legal Amanita muscaria.
Those are a few, off the top of my head.
Posts: 281 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've lived in Anchorage, Alaska my entire life.
Hey, me too! I didn't know I had any fellow Alaskan Hatrackers.
quote:There are so many people here against legalizing it that I don't think it will happen any time soon.
I have to agree. And I also want to point out that this is hardly the first time it's come up. We've had this issue on the ballot before, and, obviously, it's always been voted down. I consider this thread to be much ado about nothing, frankly.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"as soon as they learned it was intentional, they should back off."
Are you arguing that people should permit other people to hurt -- or kill -- themselves? Is there a line you'd draw, here, or is this a blanket judgement?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Driving isn't mentioned in the Constitution (along with many other things... ), so it isn't a right, and the government has the right to place whatever restrictions it wants on it.
Actually, not so. It's a pretty important point, too.
quote:Amendment IX of the US Constitution
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The point of the US Constitution was not the granting of rights but the limiting of the powers of a federal government. The Bill of Rights was an explicit clarification of a few rights thought to be especially worthy of noting, but it was not intended to exhaustively list those rights properly held. At least, as I understand it.
Certainly the government places restrictions on things all the time, but I don't think it's a good idea to think of the Constitution as limiting the extent of our rights, that's all.
[ August 22, 2004, 10:17 PM: Message edited by: Thomas Paus ]
Posts: 2 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, Danzig, that was more along the lines of what I was looking for.
I can see that there may be benefits to legalizing drugs. But I still need to decide within myself how they weigh against the negatives.
Example: Because alcohol and cigarettes are legal, they are fairly mainstream and accepted by society. Illegal drugs are not mainstream or accepted by society. Because they are illegal, they remain on the fringes of society. I would prefer to keep it that way.
Youth may be carded for buying alcohol and cigarettes, but they still seem to have no trouble getting their hands on them if they really want them.
Alcohol and cigarettes provide a great deal of money in taxes to the government because they are addictive and they are widely accepted by society. I would rather less people use addictive substances even if it means less money goes to the government. I am assuming, of course, that legalizing drugs would mean more people using them more often, and I think that is a pretty sound assumption.
I would rather trust in my abilities to teach my children not to use any of these addictive substances (alcohol and cigarettes included) than trust to the whole carding issue. I don't think the age limits on cigarettes and alcohol have nearly so good an effect of keeping these substances out of the hands of youngsters as a good parent does.
As for the health of the users, they have their choice. I will not be one to say they deserve it any more than I think a prisoner deserves to be raped. I am saying that a wise person will avoid harming themselves as much as is in their power. Improving the quality of drugs used is not worth the cost of legalization to our society, not nearly.
As for people using anti-depressants (I have no knowledge of housewives using them any more or less than any other person) society has decided that depression is a medical condition and prescribes drugs accordingly. Sometimes it may be, but I think that depression and a host of other mental illnesses get over-diagnosed. I do not agree with that. I feel it is often an attempt to treat the symptom rather than the disease. But sometimes the disease can't be treated by society. But these are big issues that I don't understand well enough to know what I think of them.
If "the powers that be" thought marajuana or MDMX treated depression just as well without more serious side effects, they might prescribe decide to prescribe those too. I could see it happening. And if it worked well, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But when something is prescribed, it is controlled. It is not just being used "for fun", it is being used with a purpose.
I and others feel that "getting high" for recreation is damaging behavior, enough so to justify control. How that control happens depends on the substance and its benefits to mankind. Substances that have no other benefit than just "getting high" tend to be illegal. (Note, alcohol and tobacco are two major exceptions, alas.)
quote: If "the powers that be" thought marajuana or MDMX treated depression just as well without more serious side effects, they might prescribe decide to prescribe those too. I could see it happening. And if it worked well, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But when something is prescribed, it is controlled. It is not just being used "for fun", it is being used with a purpose.
What about until then? If it's going to improve the quality of life for someone who is chronically depressed or chemically imbalanced and improve the quality of life for those people around said person, why should they all be penalized while government takes their own sweet time getting it done?
Here's a question for all of you...
Name ONE person who's died because of marijuana use. Not because of driving under the influence, that's a separate issue. I'm talking dying directly related to marijuana use.
If you can't do that, perhaps ONE case of violence associated solely to marijuana use. No alcohol or other drug related.
It's really scary when people try to fix the behaviors of everyone else--make everyone the same--for the GOOD of the community--for everybody! Can't let you hurt yourself so we mustn't let you do anything. Take it to its logical conclusion and we'd end up in some scary futuristic utopia we saw written about so much in the 70s.
Many activities can be deadly to someone with a heart condition that wouldn't normally be deadly to anyone. Like playing volleyball.
A lot of things can be said to destroy ambition in some people.
The key is responsible, adult use. If you find your inhibitions are lowered when taking drugs, if you still want to do them, do them at home in a safe environment. If you find that pot affects your ambition, stop doing it! If you have no self-control, don't do it! If you're that kind of person, don't do it in the first place.
Why should person #1 have to pay for person #2's weaknesses?
quote: What about until then? If it's going to improve the quality of life for someone who is chronically depressed or chemically imbalanced and improve the quality of life for those people around said person, why should they all be penalized while government takes their own sweet time getting it done?
I seriously doubt marijuana can do miracles where other drugs fail. But I still believe in keeping the law, even if you disagree with it.
I personally disagree with the speed limit on the highway between my house and my parent's house in Oregon. The road doesn't get a lot of traffic, and I feel the lower speed limit is a result of over-concern. I don't think it makes sense. But that doesn't mean I blatantly break the speed limit.
If I want a law changed, breaking it isn't the way to go about doing it. Changing people's minds by making a stink about and encouraging others to make a stink about it it is a far better method.
I don't know a lot about marijuana. It may be that it would be an excellent medicinal drug and it only is not so due to stigma. But even if that is true it still shouldn't be over-the-counter. It still should be controlled. It still should be prescribed. I still shouldn't be using it "just for fun". And there are other prescription drugs out there that serve similar purposes well.
Perhaps, though, this is a good reason for it not to be made legal-yet-prescription-only. It is so incredibly easy to grow and prepare in the privacy of your own home, it could never be prescription-controlled the way others are.
posted
I will respond in more detail later, but one thing - breaking laws was pretty much how civil rights for minorities were instituted.
Posts: 281 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: breaking laws was pretty much how civil rights for minorities were instituted.
Yeah, I have been thinking about that, actually. Two thoughts. First, I think that they had a *lot* more irrational mindsets to break through. Racism vs. drug stigma. I think racism tends to be more fanatical and irrational than drug stigma (I could be wrong though). Secondly, this really was a very important and crucial issue. Something worth breaking the law for. Breaking the law so you can get high just doesn't even seem in the same league.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:There were an estimated 6,356,000 car accidents in the US in 2000. There were about 3.2 million injuries and 41,821 people were killed in auto accidents in 2000 based on data collected by the Federal Highway Administration.
quote:More than 100,000 deaths are caused by excessive alcohol consumption each year in the U.S. Direct and indirect causes of death include drunk driving, cirrhosis of the liver, falls, cancer, and stroke.
quote:Illegal Drug Use (All figures are for U.S.) There Were 19,102 Deaths From Drug-Induced Causes in 1999 (legal and illegal drugs) Source: [http://www.cdc.gov/nchswww/fastats/druguse.htm] Statistical Rolodex - Illegal Drug Use. Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 49, No. 8. [http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr49/nvsr49_08.pdf] CDC September 21, 2001
quote: "There are no confirmed cases of human deaths from cannabis poisoning in the world medical literature." A "lethal dose in humans could not be very easily achieved by smoking or ingesting the drug." Hall, W., Room, R. & Bondy, S., WHO Project on Health Implications of Cannabis Use: A Comparative Appraisal of the Health and Psychological Consequences of Alcohol, Cannabis, Nicotine and Opiate Use, August 28, 1995, Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization (1998, March). [http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/general/who-index.htm] World Health Organization - Health Implications of Cannabis
....why are we arguing about drugs when they are OBVIOUSLY the least of our worries? We should just ban cars, cigarettes, and alcohol.
EDIT: forgot cig. statistics...
quote: Cigarette smoking has been the most popular method of taking nicotine since the beginning of the 20th century. In 1989, the U.S. Surgeon General issued a report that concluded that cigarettes and other forms of tobacco, such as cigars, pipe tobacco, and chewing tobacco, are addictive and that nicotine is the drug in tobacco that causes addiction. The report also determined that smoking was a major cause of stroke and the third leading cause of death in the United States. Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that tobacco use remains the leading preventable cause of death in the United States, causing more than 440,000 deaths each year and resulting in an annual cost of more than $75 billion in direct medical costs. (See www.cdc.gov/tobacco/issue.htm).
posted
Um, Anti-Christ, I hate the argument of "this is the least of our worries. We should be worrying about this, and this, and this..." as though I am doing nothing about those other things because I happen to be discussing this particular topic at the moment.
I am all for alcohol and tobacco being banned, trust me. And cars usefulness justify their existance, IMO.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, so you don't think just getting high is a good enough reason for it to be legal, but what about alcohol? The only reason to consume alcohol is to get a kind of high, right? I know, I know--you don't think alcohol should be legal either, but it IS. It's a double-standard that should be rectified.
I hate when other illegal drugs get put into the legalization conversation with marijuana. They're completely separate issues.
quote:I am all for alcohol and tobacco being banned, trust me. And cars usefulness justify their existance, IMO.
Well, therein lies the problem. I don't support banning alcohol -- and who are you to declare whether or not I may drink?
I'm kinda sorta playing Devil's Advocate here, since drug regulation is one of the very few areas which I renounce my vaguely libertarian consistency on (proper grammar's another), but that's a key argument behind the argument for legalizing marijuana. If it lacks the addictive qualities of hard-line drugs like cocaine or heroine, is relatively difficult to create long-term damage with (believe me, I know more than my share of burnouts, but I'm fairly sure marijuana doesn't hold a higher percentage for long-term damage than most other drugs, legal or otherwise), and is something I'd like to partake in, what determines your competence or right to decide whether or not I do so?
I don't take drugs beyond responsible drinking, if only because I know enough users to know real life is crappy enough without having to compare twenty-three hours of sobriety to one hour of bliss, and if a measure to legalize marijuana came up on the ballot tomorrow I probably wouldn't vote for it (though possibly not against it, either), but the argument that we need to ban marijuana because it's tradition and if we don't society will collapse smacks too strongly of the truly idiotic arguments against homosexual marriage. I can respect research that can show marijuana's truly dangerous, either as a drug or as a gateway to harder drugs, but I've yet to see convincing substantiation of either argument. And if marijuana doesn't handicap my ability to choose to use it (i.e. addictive), I'm not sure you have the right or the credence to deny me my freedom.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, we disagree, but at least we agree about medical marijuana. Hopefully it can be an acceptable alternative for the antidepressive drugs that are really harmful to your body. I know it's effective, I just hope it's accepted.
By the way, I felt this way BEFORE I had any experience with the drug and _I_ don't have any medical reason for it and I wouldn't care a bit if I never had it again. But it sure does make life happier for me and those I love. I think it should be legal all around, but at the very least, I hope it's made legal everywhere for medicine.
When you understand what adverse effects other legal drugs have on people who have mental diseases and what good effect pot has without the awful side effects, you can't help but believe it's better.
posted
You ask me what right I have and who am I to decide. I am certainly not Queen of the US of A. I don't have the right to decide. But I *do* have the right to opinion and I have a vote which counts.
A more appropriate question would be why do I feel as I do. If you have read my previous posts, that should be more clear.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
), but that doesn't alive the suffering his family feels, even if they choose to let him die....which would be criminal neglect in most cases...![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
I have seen it myself. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I am callous in the sense that I do not expect that which is unreasonable... so I do not expect anyone to take care of me should I damage myself. I would like it if someone was nice enough to do so anyway, but I recognize they are not obligated to do so. As for boasting, not really. I do mention it quite a bit, because I feel it is important to keep in people's minds that drugs are used in all levels of society, by anyone you can imagine. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I do try (and usually succeed) to get eight hours of sleep a night.![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
