Opinions on recreational drug use?

[RedMenace]

I'm pretty much against using narcotics such as nicotine, alcohol, cocaine, heroin, and the like. But other drugs I'm not so against, I have no problem with people smoking pot, dropping LSD, or tripping on mescaline or peyote. These drugs are unaddictive, are relatively harmless (although still capable of abuse), and do not damage the physical or mental health of the user.

I just don't understand why some of the safe and non-addictive substances such as marijuana and acid are highly illegal, while extremely addictive and body-destroying substances such as tobacco and alcohol is allowed for consumption.

Makes no sense to me.:shifty:

Any opinions?

[JSLTIGER]

Please tell me that this is a joke...LSD is one of the most dangerous drugs that you can possibly do, because it never really leaves your system. You can have flashbacks to your trip years after you've taken the drug. Marijuana is just as, if not more dangerous than cigarettes as, b/c of their illegality, filters are not a part of the marijuana cigarette. Tripping on anything can make you do things you would not ordinarily do, and can be extremely hazardous to others around you if you are stupid enough to use such things, for example, while operating a motor vehicle.

[Enigma]

Marijuana is just as, if not more dangerous than cigarettes

This is completely false.

[RedMenace]

Please tell me that this is a joke...LSD is one of the most dangerous drugs that you can possibly do, because it never really leaves your system. You can have flashbacks to your trip years after you've taken the drug. Marijuana is just as, if not more dangerous than cigarettes as, b/c of their illegality, filters are not a part of the marijuana cigarette. Tripping on anything can make you do things you would not ordinarily do, and can be extremely hazardous to others around you if you are stupid enough to use such things, for example, while operating a motor vehicle.
Wow, okay, you should read up a little.

I have no idea how marijuana could be more dangerous than cigarettes, considering, you know, marijuana has no physically addictive properties while cigarettes are supposed to be on par with heroin in terms of addiction strength. If you mean that marijuana is more harmful to your lungs, that's untrue. A large percentage of smokers smoke one to two packs of cigarettes a day. I'd say the average pothead smokes a joint a day, probablly much less. Also, marijuana does not need to be smoked. It can ingested orally too, mixed with food or otherwise.

Driving? Sure, driving under the influence of anything should be heavily heavily discouraged, but you should read up, because pot doesn't really present a cause for worry on the roads. Unlike alcohol, cannabis doesn't inhibit risk-taking in an individual, and actually causes them to drive more cautiously, causing them to overcompensate for their intoxication.

LSD is not physically harmful nor is it an addictive substance. Although there are some studies that say that it may worsen your case if you already have a history of mental illnesses, it otherwise presents no risk to yourself, except if you do something stupid while "tripping." Also, the part about LSD staying in your system for the rest of your life is complete and utter BS.

[kiwi_2005]

I would say LSD is harmful the user can become psychotic in longterm use. Cannibis, well i think the worse thing to come out of cannibis is to end up like a type of Cheech & Chong, short term memory, bouts of daydreaming with a strong desire to eat alot :rotfl:

[Chock]

When I was at art college many years ago, I was into grass and LSD for a while (what a surprise - art college), and I can tell you this, I got into them because I believed all that bull**** about it making you more creative and thought it would help me with ideas and stuff . But the truth is, it does nothing of the kind, you are either creative, or you are not, and drugs will certainly not assist you in becoming any moreso.

You can test this theory for yourself (relatively) harmlessly if you play a musical instrument. If you smoke a spliff or two and mess around on your guitar/piano whatever, what you play will sound really cool, and I'm willing to bet you'll think you've come up with a really good riff, but if you tape it and listen to it the next day when straight, it will sound like a load of old crap. This is because of your heightened perception making you think things are there when they are not, which is why people like listening to albums while stoned.

Now this all might seem like harmless fun, but anything that messes with your perception can be dangerous, and this is certainly true of hallucinogens such as LSD, and even plain old dope is often laced with more dangerous opiates deliberately, to foster an addiction for it in users. Several people I was at college with, who also got into that stuff, were not quite so fortunate as me, and they really flipped their lids and never came back after taking hallucinogens, and I'm talking about some bright people here, not that taking the drugs was such a bright thing to do, but they literally 'blew a mental fuse' and that was it, game over. They ended up as real basket cases, and as far as I know, still are, and that was well over twenty years ago now. So I consider myself lucky to have not had that happen to me, and that's the truth.

You can trust me on this one, they don't call it dope for nothing.

:D Chock

[antikristuseke]

While LSD isnt addictive i would call it safe by no means, though i have no problem with alcohol, nicotine or marihuanause.

[Letum]

"Drugs are a health risk."

However, there are some drugs that carry less risk of physical or mental injury than rugby does.

I find it hard to condemn drugs on the basis that they cause physical and /or mental damage
with out condemning rugby, rock climbing, DIY or extreme sports.

"Drugs are linked to crime."

However, just because one takes drugs does not mean that you will commit crime.
The vast majority of drug users are not criminals.
There is also a link between being male and committing crime.

I find it hard to condemn drugs on the basis that they are linked to crime with out
condemning my gender.

"Drugs may cause you to sit at home all day, unwashed doing no work."

Well, yes, I have seen that often enough. However, you can do that with or
without drugs.
I'm told the Internet has similar effects.

"Drugs can be enjoyable."

Can't really argue with that, that's why they are so popular.

"Drugs can be very un-enjoyable."

Can't argue with that either!



___________________________



I don't take drugs for the same reason I don't take part in extreme sports; for me the
benefits do not out weigh the risks.

If someone else wishes to take drugs then I don't see any logical reason to condemn or stop them.

[Skybird]

Talking as an ex-psychologist here. Marihuana can get you into problems if used too much. It is not justified to call it allout safe, just becasue it does not create damage so quickly like heroin. whereas the occasional glas of beer, wine or even hard stuff like whisky does you no harm if not being turned into a regular habit. Fanatic teetotallers for ideologic reasons are doing more harm to their mind. The ideology of totally rejecting alcohol. So the problem is too excessive use, and that is a criteria different for every drug.

The state obviously supports alcohol and tobacco, since he creates a not small tax income by these two. Both also have a very strong industrial lobby.

LSD is not unaddicitve, btw. It can lead you into serious psychological craving, and derange your mind for the rest of your life. "Not damaging physical or mental health of the user" - that is simply wrong, Red Menace. I agree only in so far that with the assessement of such drugs a subtle approach is needed. But always and under all circumstances harmless is none of them. It is a very good idea to make regular consummation of them not a socially agreed norm of life. They should remain to be exceptions.

concerning the often heared argument that things like LSD eventually can "free your mind", I have almost a policy on that, as a former meditation teacher. Even Stanislav Grof, who experimented a lot with LSD and according visions, has replaced the drug with relaxation meditation based on excessive ventilating techniques. No drug ever frees your mind. It may show you things, and you may regard them to be of more or less value, but never does a drug free your mind. For that, you need to choose the other path, so to speak. Granted, it is not as easy as taking a pill, but that is due to lacking knowledge. In truth, it is even easier than swallowing a pill, becasue there is nothing that is to be acchieved. Well, this only as a rejection of that "spiritual" argument on certain drugs, in case it would show up here. There is nothing like a "holiness-pill."

I leave out social context issues of drug consummation, that play an important rule especially amongst young people, and nthat could lead from soft drugs to hard drugs so easily. Which also is a danger factor, of course.

[baggygreen]

Oh yeh, marijuana is perfectly safe. Just ask a friend of mine from back in my school days. Oh thats right, you cant, he's locked away for his and everyone elses safety. Cos marijuana is saaaafe.

He believed all the hype about it being so cool and awesome and no risk whatsoever. problem was he didnt look at the facts. He hasnt socialised with 'normal' society for years because one joint has screwed him up for life.

You want my opinions on recreational drug use... it took the life of a good mate away. I cant express the disgust i feel towards that rubbish. LSD safe??? Mescaline safe??? No friggin drug is "safe". that includes alcohol!

There are risks associated with using anything, just like there are risks associated with doing anything at all in life. But there are genuine reasons why so many governments ban "recreational" drugs, why they go to such lengths to catch the criminals who traffic them and sell them.

Redmenace, as far as driving while using cannabis not presenting a worry, of course its a worry - driving too slowly can be just as likely to cause a smash as driving too fast!

Im afraid i really dont see where you're coming from with this whole topic... saying marijuana and acid dont destroy your mind and body??:down:

[Skybird]

BTW, the drug that turns you into an addict the fastest, and for which your body has even physically specialised in enjoying, but which nevertheless does the most severe health damage in Western societies and costs the system more money than aclohol or tobacco - is refined white sugar, and sweets. Think about food habits, and civilisational diseases, to see the danger and hidden costs. They rank in the x dozens of billions.

[DeepSix]

I had a friend in college who smoked a lot of weed. He's probably there still....

[Uber Gruber]

I smoke pot occasionaly, its not great quality unfortunately, I think "soap bar" is the term for it, softish brown block of cannabis resin. When I play the Piano after taking it I definately enjoy the music I produce, i've never recorded it to hear the next day cos I never record myself, its an outlet and I enjoy playing it more when stonned than not.

I also enjoy playing poker when stonned, I'm definately a better player at that time. Sex is better when stonned, as the sensations are enhanced.

Whats not so good is socialising, its easier to lie on the couch getting "into" a movie than trying to negotiate the tribes in a local pub.

Because a few good friends are Psychologists i'm aware of cannabis phsychosis, which tends to affect the adolescent more than say someone of my age....but i'm aware of it none the less. I'm also aware of the effects of the tobacco I injest when smoking a joint.

But, you know, in all honesty, man has spent all its existance finding ways to get out of its mind occasionaly, be they shamanic rituals, licking the slime of the back of bull frogs, injesting ground nutmeg for hallucinational effects, fermenting wine, chewing gnat, harvesting tobbacco...even monkeys get high from eating certain rotting , and hence fermented, fruit from the forest floor and sharks like to get high on the richer oxygen content to be found where fresh water meets the sea.

So I get high, I drink beer, I sip wine and i have no guilt, doubts, concerns or worries about it. Why? Because of a thing called "moderation"....personally, you should be free to do what ever you like as long as its in moderation...and thats your responsibility to yourself.

Anyone for a spliff ?

[SUBMAN1]

I would say LSD is harmful the user can become psychotic in longterm use. Cannibis, well i think the worse thing to come out of cannibis is to end up like a type of Cheech & Chong, short term memory, bouts of daydreaming with a strong desire to eat alot Not exactly what one would call a productive member of society.

LSD is terrible, causing people to jump from skyscrappers, so I can't believe this was even brought up. It makes me question the intentions of the original poster.

Cannibis is also bad. I swear it screws up people minds permanantly. I've seen smart people go dumb on that stuff (no better way to describe it), and it never gets any better, even when they are off of it. Some sort of permanent change in their memory storage. Bad stuff. You could never get me to even try it after what I've seen. As for medical use, I have a different opinion. ANy drug that can help a serious medical condition, regardless of its possible negative effects, should not be banned from doctors prescribing it to treat that condition, period. With this banning mentality, they should ban morphine.

Alc, well, alc has some redeeming properties if you drink beer or wine, but nothing good comes of hard alc. FOr beer and wine, these include restoritive qualities for your colon and longer life! Move on the hard alc, and they can do away with it in my opnion. Seen too many people get screwed up and addicted to the hard stuff.

ANyway, just my 2 cents again, for what it's worth.

-S

[RedMenace]

LSD is terrible, causing people to jump from skyscrappers, so I can't believe this was even brought up. It makes me question the intentions of the original poster.

-S

What are my intentions then?:roll:

While I have heard some gnarly stories about bad LSD trips, including suicides, one must remember that alcohol is responsible for an almost unfathomable amount of death and destruction. Suicide, fatal falls, fights, overdoses. Compared to alcohol, I'd say LSD sounds pretty darn safe.

[Skybird]

Compared to alcohol, I'd say LSD sounds pretty darn safe.
What is your professional qualification to assess that? You see, I have a huge problem with such statements, for I have seen in a clinical context people who had so-called horror-trips, or were suffering longterm mental problems after having consumed LSD and/or according drugs. not my main interest at that time, admitted, but I couldn't avoid to come into touch with this theme as well when working in hospital. Not every trip is a bad trip, and not every consumer turns into a zombie. But there is a risk. and it is greater than just drinking half a bottle of whiskey. Some people are haunted by just one bad trip for the rest of their lives. That is no panic-making, but a medical fact.

[PeriscopeDepth]

I think the harder drugs should be regulated by the government. But for everything else, people should follow their own guidance. It seems pretty silly that alcohol and tobacco are perfectly legal, though other drugs aren't. The really big problem is: where do you draw the line on what kinds of drugs should be and shouldn't be legal. It seems to be different for every person.

PD

[Sailor Steve]

"Drugs are a health risk."

However, there are some drugs that carry less risk of physical or mental injury than rugby does.

I find it hard to condemn drugs on the basis that they cause physical and /or mental damage
with out condemning rugby, rock climbing, DIY or extreme sports.

"Drugs are linked to crime."

However, just because one takes drugs does not mean that you will commit crime.
The vast majority of drug users are not criminals.
There is also a link between being male and committing crime.

I find it hard to condemn drugs on the basis that they are linked to crime with out
condemning my gender.

"Drugs may cause you to sit at home all day, unwashed doing no work."

Well, yes, I have seen that often enough. However, you can do that with or
without drugs.
I'm told the Internet has similar effects.

"Drugs can be enjoyable."

Can't really argue with that, that's why they are so popular.

"Drugs can be very un-enjoyable."

Can't argue with that either!



___________________________



I don't take drugs for the same reason I don't take part in extreme sports; for me the
benefits do not out weigh the risks.

If someone else wishes to take drugs then I don't see any logical reason to condemn or stop them.
Hey Letum, we agree on something!

I'm not as up on arguments for or against drugs as I'd like to be, but I completely agree that any argument that can be made against marijuana can be made against alcohol and tobacco as well. More safe? Less safe? Nice to argue, but making something illegal because it's dangerous to the user is a fool's game.

[Hitman]

I might be a bit radical in this, but IMO anyone who needs drugs to have fun ("recreational use") has a psychological/psychiatric problem. Drugs are just that, drugs, i.e. "soft" poison that doesn't kill you but intoxicates your brain and nerves, changing your perception of joy, risk, pleasure and pain. If you need drugs to really really enjoy being with friends, having sex with your wife/girlfirend/whoever, or simply stop being shy, you have a BIG problem. Sport -though not in excess- and healthy diet as care for the body, and meditation/philosophy, plus intense, non-egoist and sincere family and friendship relations plus mental games for the mind are what will provide you the best balance and more intense satisfaction. Drugs are just the easy way, the way for cowards or subjects with a lack of personality and will. A bad remedy to enjoy life during their effects and just feel miserable later.

As for the difference between "legalized" drugs and "illegal" drugs, I must say that I personally don't smoke and hate cigarretes, while I drink only in weekends beer and ocasionally wine. Rarely, a glass of whisky or preferably Armagnac. Those drinks I enjoy for their taste and not for the alcohol effect, which is very mild if taken with moderation. In turn, it is well documented that beer and wine have healthy properties (A daily glass of Red wine reduces your chances of heart attacks) and help your stomach make the digestion of the meals (Also the Cognac/Armagnac). Plus beer has lots of nutritive elements.

Thus, taken with moderation, beer, wine and some spirits are a healthy thing that comes with a small non-healthy part (The alcohol), which is not different than some meal (F.e. you can eat things that have good properties but come with some cholesterol). Moderation is the key to enjoy their benefits while not suffering from their drawbacks.

That is WAY different than smoking ordinary tobacco or Marihuana, not to mention LSD and harder things. All those substances do anything good for your body but instead just produce an intoxication. The joy of that intoxication is artificial and temporary, and produces no benefit. Instead, it will just leave you with a stronger desire to have it back, as you body gest used to feeling well and relaxed only by using them.

I know I'm preaching in the desert, but everybody should experience at least once in his life what a healthy body and mind feels like. I know it's a hard way, but if you persevere and discover it, you will never like anything else.

My 2 cents

[Letum]

I might be a bit radical in this, but IMO anyone who needs drugs to have fun ("recreational use") has a psychological/psychiatric problem

[...]

never like anything else.

My 2 cents

whilst much of that may be true to some extent, for some people it is worth the price.


Like the extreme sportsman who risks his life for the feeling of achievement, the drug user
risks his sanity for the dizzying highs of intoxication.

[Jimbuna]

I smoke tobacco and and enjoy alcoholic drinks from time to time. I AM ALSO TOTALLY ANTI DRUGS, so I guess in some peoples eyes that would make me a hypocrite.
I maintain my belief based solely upon the totally unnecessary destruction and human carnage I often see it cause.

[Uber Gruber]

Drugs are just the easy way, the way for cowards or subjects with a lack of personality and will.

Mmmmm.....worrying oppinion that, I think I detect an element of extremism in you old man. i suggest a good spliff to calm your radicalism. :know:

[Penelope_Grey]

Marijuana is just as, if not more dangerous than cigarettes
This is completely false.

No it isn't completely false.

Marijuana or whatever handle you wish to give it, with enough usage can, and does, eventually clog up the pathways in your brain. Effectively turning you into a hapless clod eventually.

It intereferes with the natural chemical orders inside ones brain, and as a consequence requires that the user will have to take it in order to feel good, because there will be no other way else he can feel good.

Marijuana in its raw form is still something that when inhaled causes you harm. No matter how you dress it up.

[bigboywooly]

Marijuana in its raw form is still something that when inhaled causes you harm. No matter how you dress it up.

:hmm: What if you eat it

:rotfl:

[Tchocky]

I maintain my belief based solely upon the totally unnecessary destruction and human carnage I often see it cause.
Whether this is a function of the drugs themselves or the social effects of their illegality is something I can't decide.
Probably a combination of the two.

[Jimbuna]

Whatever the function, the outcome is usually always the same :yep:

[Sailor Steve]

Marijuana in its raw form is still something that when inhaled causes you harm. No matter how you dress it up.

:hmm: What if you eat it

:rotfl:
I love you, Alice B. Toklas.

[waste gate]

The modifier 'recreational' is the canard. Its like saying someone is a 'recreational' thief, or child molester, murderer. After all its only done occasionally and for the ejoyment of the one partaking in it.

[Onkel Neal]

I'm against it. Never saw any positive use for drugs, but as we all know, there are many, many negative effects. I've never had someone tell me, "Neal, my life is totally screwed up because I don't use drugs." I've heard the opposite many times. It's a shame human nature has not progressed beyond the urge to twist one's brain patterns with toxic substances.

[Sailor Steve]

I agree; I'm against it too. I also always wear a helmet on a motorcyle, but I don't think other folks should be making laws to save me from myself. I say legalize now.

[Enigma]

No it isn't completely false.

Marijuana or whatever handle you wish to give it, with enough usage can, and does, eventually clog up the pathways in your brain. Effectively turning you into a hapless clod eventually.

Yes, it is completely false.

"Clog up the pathways to your brain"?! :roll: :lol:

[Letum]

Never saw any positive use for drugs

I told some people enjoy them a lot, that's gotta be a positive use, however much it is
outweighed by the negative.

[fatty]

I smoke tobacco and and enjoy alcoholic drinks from time to time. I AM ALSO TOTALLY ANTI DRUGS, so I guess in some peoples eyes that would make me a hypocrite.
I maintain my belief based solely upon the totally unnecessary destruction and human carnage I often see it cause.

I'm in line with you, mostly. I casually drink and smoke (rarely) but am vehemently against drugs. There are lots of 'pro' drug arguments I just can't defeat, like benefits of medicinal marijuana for cancer patients or whatever, that marijuana is really not a violently harmful drug, and that legalizing it would probably be a good idea. But there is just a social stigma about it that I can't get over. It's illogical, perhaps, but I am still really conservative when it comes to recreational drug use.

[Mikey_Wolf]

Yes, it is completely false.

"Clog up the pathways to your brain"?! :roll: :lol:
Are you a user yourself or something? Cause if you then that process may have already began.:lol::lol:

One of the harmful effects of otherwise "harmless" marijuana is impaired thinking.

Marijuana is not good for ones ticker (heart) either.

---------------------------

Generally speaking, my line on illegal drugs is the people who rely on them are to be pitied and helped to get over their problems. People like that need our support and understanding, not a green light to take as much as they can handle.

[Skybird]

There is also strong evidence that the chemical active agents of cannabis prevent neural signal transportation in the brain of younger people to such a degree, that they start to lack behind in their physcial and neural developement - a damage that can prevail and leave you for example with a brain of 16 year inside the body of 28 year old. That's why Cannabis is even more dangerous for physically still developing young people.

In other words, on a neurochemical basis it can make you dumb. And the time you lose in mental and intellectual developement will not be given back later. Eventually, you stay dumb.

If you constantly try to chemically alter your brain's activity processes, you should not expect that this does go without changing your brain's neurons. Even things like simply learning new stuff, or being intellectually active, already alters the hardware in your brain's neural structure, and makes neurons "reconnect" in a new fashion. The result is affecting both intellect and memory, and speed of reflexes as well, also: body coordination. Neural signal processing speed also is negatively affected. All this also is scientific information, not just imgination.

By chance they just had a report about this again today, in the news. But the information is older.

Moral of the story: drugs do never enhance your mind, and never develope your brain. they just influence your brain activity in such a way, that much of the usual signal processing on neural level is being left out, or is massively slowed down. This is for the most what is perceived as the relaxing effect. You do not gain something - you are giving up something. If eventually happiness hormons get produced by your body under the influence of a given drug, it still does not chnage the fact that the signals causing that are reuslting from an information deficit in your neural system, and recpetors being blocked, and neurotransmitters in your synapses do no deliver correct signals anymore, if any. This qualifies for the description of damage.

[P_Funk]

That's why Cannabis is even more dangerous for physically still developing young people. Thats not isolated to drugs of course. The balance of diet and vitamin and mineral intake for a developing body is essential to health throughout life. The idea of seperating drugs from the rest of the pantheon of injestable things makes appreciating them more difficult. Drugs are seperated from the rest of things by their perceived negativity. But a lack of this or an abundance of that, all of which may be legal, can have far worse consequences for developing bodies and minds. Frankly the absense of an intelligent influence in ones life, ie. dullard moron parents, can lead to extremely small minds unable to appreciate deep critical thought, or are completely uninterested in it. Physically not eating healthily means you won't be big and strong or as mentally acute.

So the harm of drugs to developing bodies shouldn't be looked on as anything other than an issue relating to the general health of young people. If I eat nothing but egg whites without the yoke its said to be bad for my health. Perhaps we ought to criminalize egg white omelettes?

[Skybird]

Though in principle I get what you mean, nevertheless this is disolving the context of the issue so far that no problem called "drugs" exists anymore, but the consequences of drugs are suddenly only an educational problem anymore.

Also, receiving damage from eating poison (doing something negative) , and receiving damage from not eating something healty (not doing something positive), are not exactly the same thing.

And finally, consequences of drug consummation remain dangerous, no matter if you have a good family background and eat healthy, or not.

Cocain for example is not a drug being used that much by the poor, uneducated, lower class worker's kids, but very much is consumed exactly by the opposite type of social group.

The discussion was about the immediate gains and losses of consuming drugs. I suggest we leave it in that context. Else we eventually end with discussing wether using contraceptions influences parent's behavior towards their already born children for the better or the worse, what this kind of family life means for the morals and social values of a society, and if legalizing abortion eventually lowers or rises drug consummation amongst teenagers.

[P_Funk]

The discussion was about the immediate gains and losses of consuming drugs. I suggest we leave it in that context. Else we eventually end with discussing wether using contraceptions influences parent's behavior towards their already born children for the better or the worse, what this kind of family life means for the morals and social values of a society, and if legalizing abortion eventually lowers or rises drug consummation amongst teenagers. That was my point for bringing it up actually. This is about the effects of drugs but we can't isolate such an argument from other realities. This is very much an argument about the validity of drug use and or abuse and the way we seperate these drugs into a category which is different from other things which may have similar effects. This is significant when discussing specific drugs and whether their effects are to be considered comparable to others.

The context of an argument about many different substances thrown into one category is bound to shift its context, not to mention the truth of an idea in one context can be altered when considered in another. I think that most people here are bright enough to be able to hold a few contexts at once, so long as we don't digress too much.

But to contribute to the specific subject at hand, when it comes to the confirmed or perceived effects of drugs I don't think it matters much what you can prove scientifically happens when you take a drug. We are talking about the conscious psychological effects of drug use while many here want to dismiss them through scientific theory. The fact is that recreational drug use is motivated by a desire to shift one's mind into a different state. Whether the drugs truly do what they are advertised to do, if someone can enjoy the effects however they perceive them then the relative harm they may suffer seems irrelavent since the harm is proven to be negligible in many cases. Too much sugar can be as bad as too much dope, and nobody who bakes cakes sells them by saying "My cake will make your recent breakup more bearable." People use things and these things exude a certain effect, and often the effect is psycho-somatic or it is perceived to be attributed to the thing used.

So my point is that if moderate drug use does not create any lasting significant damage (I've smoked some weed and I'm smarter today than I was when I smoked it first) and that the effect is pleasing then drugs themselves are not a bad thing. Yes I can achieve similar effects through meditation or other methods native to the human body, but thats my choice. There are reputed to be ways to relieve headache through the subtle manipulation of pressure points, yet I wouldn't be looked down on for using an Advil instead.

[FIREWALL]

I'm still trying to figure out how that guy on the other thread screwed that bicycle. :o He musta been on some kinda drug. :p

[RedMenace]

So my point is that if moderate drug use does not create any lasting significant damage (I've smoked some weed and I'm smarter today than I was when I smoked it first) and that the effect is pleasing then drugs themselves are not a bad thing. Yes I can achieve similar effects through meditation or other methods native to the human body, but thats my choice. There are reputed to be ways to relieve headache through the subtle manipulation of pressure points, yet I wouldn't be looked down on for using an Advil instead.

Thank you, exactly my point.

It isn't your buisness how others entertain themselves, if it doesn't affect you or others. Different strokes for different folks.

[kurtz]

Well I'm against legalising Marijuana, had a friend I don't bother speaking to now as it made him stupid.

On a broader note this seems to be being touted as a personal freedom thing, the fact is regular users (perhaps not all , granted) can become psycotic. Now in England we don't, generally put dangerous lunatics away until it's too late (then sometimes we let them out again), so the upshot of this libertarianism is someone gets murdered, now in my book that's a pretty big denial of rights.

Even without the extremeresults there is still the cost to society of caring for these people or just the waste of them sitting on the dole when they could be contributing to society.

p.s. I love subsim I spend all my time disagreeing with people then suddenly find I agree with them, makes me want to change my mind sometimes:D

[kurtz]

[quote=Skybird]
(I've smoked some weed and I'm smarter today than I was when I smoked it first) and that the effect is pleasing then drugs themselves are not a bad thing. Yes I

Erm...How do you know your smarter perhaps you just think you are because the dope's rotted your brain:hmm:

[kiwi_2005]

Well i know alot of ppl into their late 50's onwards that have smoke cannibis all there lifes and are hard working men with families, good fathers, husbands and they're not some doppy dropout lying around on the couch like ppl make out cannibis users are. Thats a MYTH. Its really up to the user, if you smoke and want to lay about doing nothing dope will help you achieve that, but if you want to be active in whatever you do dope also will help you along. These ppl that ly around all day lookign all dopy cannot handle the effects of cannibis they will most likely become peace activist or simular they shouldn't smoke it if thats all it does to them.

Ive seen many lifes destroyed through alchohol. I haven't seen one through cannibis.

[P_Funk]

Erm...How do you know your smarter perhaps you just think you are because the dope's rotted your brain:hmm:
Cause I'm getting better marks in school. :p And I don't smoke it very often. Alcohol taken in massive amounts creates liver disease, damages brain cells to the point of metal disability, mental and emotional problems, and can take away the moderation of mostly controlled people to be extremely violent (not excusing actions there but explaining that alcohol can exaggerate rage greatly), broken families, abused children and therefore more dependant people with problems. However many many many people drink without destroying their livers, lives, families, or brains. Why would marijuana be any different?

Like I said, moderation is the key to anything because an excess of just about anything can hurt you. Too much sunlight, too much sugar, hell human beings are like 80% water and you can die from drinking too much water! You can't police the behavior of society as a whole on the theory of worst case scenario.

[RedMenace]

Ive seen many lifes destroyed through alchohol. I haven't seen one through cannibis.

Ditto.

[P_Funk]

Well i know alot of ppl into their late 50's onwards that have smoke cannibis all there lifes and are hard working men with families, good fathers, husbands and they're not some doppy dropout lying around on the couch like ppl make out cannibis users are. Thats a MYTH. Its really up to the user, if you smoke and want to lay about doing nothing dope will help you achieve that, but if you want to be active in whatever you do dope also will help you along. These ppl that ly around all day lookign all dopy cannot handle the effects of cannibis they will most likely become peace activist or simular they shouldn't smoke it if thats all it does to them.

Ive seen many lifes destroyed through alchohol. I haven't seen one through cannibis.Thats exactly the point. Most truly recreational drugs do not create an alien reaction in people but instead magnify, focus, or exude things in a person which are not normally so prominant (or not prominant) under the sober circumstances. This is where clinical use of LSD to cure alcoholism (the original use of the drug before Timothy Leary popularized the acid culture) comes from, and it showed great success before the wholesale criminalization of it. The higher awareness of ones own neurosies helped to force people to accept a fact that they refused to, as accepting a truth or a necessity of change is often denied by addicts.

Who really cares whether the effect can be measured as beneficial by today's standards, often very conservative mainstream standards. Being drunk makes you giddy or stupid or horny or emotionally loose, but its my right to want to be obnoxious. The effects only matter when they are prohibitively and statistically unacceptable. Driving is probably more hazardous statistically as smoking weed responsibly is. Having unprotected sex is probably statistically more likely to create a physical dependance on the systems of the government (STD treatment) than weed is for cancer or addiction.

Good post kiwi.

[Sea Demon]

Well, just what the heck does pot do for you anyway? I don't know how anybody can think there is no serious health consequences in smoking that stuff. I mean, OK. You want to smoke it, fine. Maybe we should decriminalize it. But you're fooling yourself if you think the stuff has no health degradation consequences. Or societal impacts. But yeah, I agree with one point. Alcohol abuse ain't a bed of roses either.

[RedMenace]

Great post, P_Funk.

Unlike alcohol, LSD can't be used to escape your problems. LSD will only magnify and push them down onto your psyche. (Which is why it was useful to help alcoholics)

[RedMenace]

Well, just what the heck does pot do for you anyway? I don't know how anybody can think there is no serious health consequences in smoking that stuff. I mean, OK. You want to smoke it, fine. Maybe we should decriminalize it. But you're fooling yourself if you think the stuff has no health degradation consequences. Or societal impacts. But yeah, I agree with one point. Alcohol abuse ain't a bed of roses either.

We take risks everyday. It isn't up to you to decide which risks I should be allowed to take.

[P_Funk]

Well, just what the heck does pot do for you anyway? I don't know how anybody can think there is no serious health consequences in smoking that stuff. I mean, OK. You want to smoke it, fine. Maybe we should decriminalize it. But you're fooling yourself if you think the stuff has no health degradation consequences. Or societal impacts. But yeah, I agree with one point. Alcohol abuse ain't a bed of roses either.
Which drugs do you do and why do they work for you? What kind of sexual kinks do you have? What kind of things turn you on and why? Does it have to make sense to me? Do I need to experience it the same way you do to justify it?

I know there are health concerns for weed, just like there are health risks for eating transfats. Using weed as a crutch for enjoying life or for relieving the stresses of my life is bad, but occasionally using it recreationally for fun isn't very dangerous. Walking down the street of some cities is like smoking a pack of ciggies a day. Jaywalking instead of crossing in a crosswalk is more dangerous. The personal choice for the value of the risk taken is mine. Most people say a drug is bad and as the conversation goes you can wittle them down to them saying there exists a potential danger. But much of the potential danger is a result of already reckless people making the same bad choices they make. Women can be dangerous in their choice of sexual partners, and this can lead to many social issues since a rape or an unhealthy dangerous sex life is bad if it becomes a common thing in our society, but we don't believe in telling people how to conduct their sex lives. Drugs are called something different because of their assigned danger above other things, but saying that they're barely dangerous like many legal things then makes it irrational to insist they stay in that same category.

[Sea Demon]

Well, just what the heck does pot do for you anyway? I don't know how anybody can think there is no serious health consequences in smoking that stuff. I mean, OK. You want to smoke it, fine. Maybe we should decriminalize it. But you're fooling yourself if you think the stuff has no health degradation consequences. Or societal impacts. But yeah, I agree with one point. Alcohol abuse ain't a bed of roses either.

We take risks everyday. It isn't up to you to decide which risks I should be allowed to take.

Actually, I agree with you here. As long as there is no significant data to show any direct correlation to rising crime through nominal usage. I've actually become much more libertarian style thinking on this issue. Seems like the costs of going after those who do the stuff in the privacy of their own home is not cost effective. Hey, I'm all for people to be free to do what they want. Even if harmful to themselves. The only caveat is that it is not used to usurp the liberty of others. And that means have your pot, but don't expect to burden the tax-payers to clean up your problems which may result. Of course, I'm not sure that recreational pot usage would do that. I myself would never touch the stuff.

[Sea Demon]

I know there are health concerns for weed, just like there are health risks for eating transfats. Using weed as a crutch for enjoying life or for relieving the stresses of my life is bad, but occasionally using it recreationally for fun isn't very dangerous.

You know what...I can accept that. It makes sense to me. Just make sure there is no undue burden on the taxpayers later and I think it truly is your business and freedom to do it.

[DeepSix]

We take risks everyday. It isn't up to you to decide which risks I should be allowed to take.

The risks you take should not present a risk to me or mine, though. Your "rights" as you may see them stop where mine start, and vice-versa. I don't tell you what to believe, or what to wear, or anything else, great or small. But if through your drug use you harm others, directly or indirectly, then you have no right to say your risks are yours alone. Where do you think the money you blow on dope goes anyhow? Mother Teresa's mission? The Red Cross?

I wish druggies would spend more time thinking about how they could take risks to help others instead of withdrawing from the real world into their own private pharmaceutical sanctuary with the flimsy excuse of "hey I'm not hurting anybody.":nope:

[RedMenace]

We take risks everyday. It isn't up to you to decide which risks I should be allowed to take.

I wish druggies would spend more time thinking about how they could take risks to help others instead of withdrawing from the real world into their own private pharmaceutical sanctuary with the flimsy excuse of "hey I'm not hurting anybody.":nope:
I wish people like you would quit trying to jump to their moral sanctuary of "hey why arn't you hurting anybody." *rolls eyes*

Me, or anyone else for that matter, smoking pot, hurts no one. Directly, and as far as I'm aware, indirectly. I've never commited a single crime high, I've never driven high, and I'm a hard-working person. Get off your moral-highground and get off my back.

[DeepSix]

Yeah, where does that money go, anyway? You must deal with some really exceptional ones to have a conscience so clear....

I'll stand on my moral highground and sleep comfortably. As for being on your back - hey, you put that monkey there.

[RedMenace]

Yeah, where does that money go, anyway? You must deal with some really exceptional ones to have a conscience so clear....

I'll stand on my moral highground and sleep comfortably. As for being on your back - hey, you put that monkey there.
Where does my money go? To my friends, the ones with the supply. Where does that money end up? In the hands of their friends, who grow it. Where does that money go? On cheeseburgers and videogames. GASP?! Awful!:shifty:

Jesus Christ, it's like you think I'm dealing with Detroit smack dealers to buy my pot.

[P_Funk]

I know there are health concerns for weed, just like there are health risks for eating transfats. Using weed as a crutch for enjoying life or for relieving the stresses of my life is bad, but occasionally using it recreationally for fun isn't very dangerous.
You know what...I can accept that. It makes sense to me. Just make sure there is no undue burden on the taxpayers later and I think it truly is your business and freedom to do it. Well the whole burden argument seems a bit strange to me anyway because nobody is making these laws to keep people from being a burden. If anything the stigma and the ensuing jailtime and of course the sting on your resume of being a convict all make someone more likely to be a burden. Jails cost money, as do prison time for dealing weed or something. The approach of criminalization has actually made many people a burden. The costs of incarceration are in the tens of thousands. Treatment while also expensive can be cheaper in some cases.

Point is that the growth of the drug industry is related to the way the so called war on it has been prosecuted. If anything the policies which comprise the war on drugs have contributed to the wealth of those who these policies are directed to fight. So the burden on the taxpayers goes beyond the use of the addict and also into the realm of how we attack the issues. Basically if we make a fire bigger in the process of extinguishing it then we're to blame partly for the increased burden of fighting it, even if someone else lit that fire. This is where those radical progressive ideas come from that people don't like. So what I'm saying is that the burden of the drug war will get greater because of more than just the poor choices of the people who use.

I wish druggies would spend more time thinking about how they could take risks to help others instead of withdrawing from the real world into their own private pharmaceutical sanctuary with the flimsy excuse of "hey I'm not hurting anybody.":nope: This leads to the other point about drugs that I feel that most people reject or don't think about. Drug abuse (different from use) is often a symptom of something else. Attacking the symptom isn't likely to lead to direct results in prevention or elimination. Drugs are used as a coping mechanism to, as you say, withdraw from the real world. However this desire or drive to withdraw often isn't the result of sloth or avoidance of responsibility but of a dysfunction in their life or psychology. Abused people often use drugs to deal with pain that others don't see or that they have a hard time coping with. There are other reason like this. This isn't a universal admonishment of responsibility for someone's problems but often a lack of support or a tauma cause people to fall into these things, and often as a result of their living conditions anyway which might be a factor in their trauma (say a dysfunctional family where someone is abused and then that same family is poor at helping someone in need of support) incline people to make some decisions, where some make the right one and others the wrong. Many drug users are lost people who were abandoned or left in a bad position at a young age or are coping with problems stemming from childhood or adolescance. Whatever your take on whether these people are sympathetic or not is really relavent I think. The fact is that they're a burden whether we approve of their excuse or not and so one doesn't ignore a fire just because we loathe the person who started it, to use that metaphor again.

These people are hurting others but often they are hurt themselves. This is a fact that you can take however you want but it is true. They call it dysfunction for a reason. Once people are addicted they feed their addiction by committing crime, therefore hurting others. In some cities that have tried giving the junkie a steady supply of drugs crime went down. So it isn't all just a dark crime war to be fought by police but there are other options.

But the topic here is about the use of drugs in a way that is NOT like the above described cases. So the distinction should be made that there are two ways to use drugs, safely and unsafely. I believe that there are many safe ways that are made illegal, and already there are many acknowledged healthy or at least accepted ways to use drugs, be it through prescription or at the pub. The real thing I think is that we need to reset the markers which define use and abuse.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

I have no idea how marijuana could be more dangerous than cigarettes, considering, you know, marijuana has no physically addictive properties while cigarettes are supposed to be on par with heroin in terms of addiction strength. If you mean that marijuana is more harmful to your lungs, that's untrue. A large percentage of smokers smoke one to two packs of cigarettes a day. I'd say the average pothead smokes a joint a day, probablly much less. Also, marijuana does not need to be smoked. It can ingested orally too, mixed with food or otherwise.

Driving? Sure, driving under the influence of anything should be heavily heavily discouraged, but you should read up, because pot doesn't really present a cause for worry on the roads. Unlike alcohol, cannabis doesn't inhibit risk-taking in an individual, and actually causes them to drive more cautiously, causing them to overcompensate for their intoxication.


Much like alcohol, marijuana inhibits the functions of short term memory and attention. So regardless, these people should stay the hell of the roads.

[RedMenace]

I have no idea how marijuana could be more dangerous than cigarettes, considering, you know, marijuana has no physically addictive properties while cigarettes are supposed to be on par with heroin in terms of addiction strength. If you mean that marijuana is more harmful to your lungs, that's untrue. A large percentage of smokers smoke one to two packs of cigarettes a day. I'd say the average pothead smokes a joint a day, probablly much less. Also, marijuana does not need to be smoked. It can ingested orally too, mixed with food or otherwise.

Driving? Sure, driving under the influence of anything should be heavily heavily discouraged, but you should read up, because pot doesn't really present a cause for worry on the roads. Unlike alcohol, cannabis doesn't inhibit risk-taking in an individual, and actually causes them to drive more cautiously, causing them to overcompensate for their intoxication.

Much like alcohol, marijuana inhibits the functions of short term memory and attention. So regardless, these people should stay the hell of the roads.

Which is what I said.

[DeepSix]

...you think I'm dealing with Detroit smack dealers to buy my pot.

How do you know you aren't?

By the way, is this a five-minute argument or do you want the full half-hour?:p

[Kapitan_Phillips]

I have no idea how marijuana could be more dangerous than cigarettes, considering, you know, marijuana has no physically addictive properties while cigarettes are supposed to be on par with heroin in terms of addiction strength. If you mean that marijuana is more harmful to your lungs, that's untrue. A large percentage of smokers smoke one to two packs of cigarettes a day. I'd say the average pothead smokes a joint a day, probablly much less. Also, marijuana does not need to be smoked. It can ingested orally too, mixed with food or otherwise.

Driving? Sure, driving under the influence of anything should be heavily heavily discouraged, but you should read up, because pot doesn't really present a cause for worry on the roads. Unlike alcohol, cannabis doesn't inhibit risk-taking in an individual, and actually causes them to drive more cautiously, causing them to overcompensate for their intoxication.

Much like alcohol, marijuana inhibits the functions of short term memory and attention. So regardless, these people should stay the hell of the roads.
Which is what I said.

Yes, but you also said "Pot doesnt really present a cause for worry on the roads". Intoxication of any kind is potentially lethal when driving, however much or little is taken, from whatever source. Inhibiting attention doesnt lead to over-cautious driving.

[Sailor Steve]

I smoke tobacco and and enjoy alcoholic drinks from time to time. I AM ALSO TOTALLY ANTI DRUGS, so I guess in some peoples eyes that would make me a hypocrite.
I maintain my belief based solely upon the totally unnecessary destruction and human carnage I often see it cause.
You use the most dangerous drugs available, but are against some drugs that are less harmful but illegal. Not a hypocrite, but maybe confused.

The risks you take should not present a risk to me or mine, though. Your "rights" as you may see them stop where mine start, and vice-versa. I don't tell you what to believe, or what to wear, or anything else, great or small. But if through your drug use you harm others, directly or indirectly, then you have no right to say your risks are yours alone. Where do you think the money you blow on dope goes anyhow? Mother Teresa's mission? The Red Cross?

I wish druggies would spend more time thinking about how they could take risks to help others instead of withdrawing from the real world into their own private pharmaceutical sanctuary with the flimsy excuse of "hey I'm not hurting anybody.":nope:
If you actually believe what you just wrote, I expect you to be campaigning to outlaw all alcoholic beverages immediately.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/drving.htm

Alcohol: Published studies suggest that as many as 86% of homicide offenders, 37% of assault offenders, 60% of sexual offenders, up to 57% of men and 27% of women involved in marital violence, and 13% of child abusers were drinking at the time of the offense.
http://www.vpcla.org/factAlcohol.htm

Marijuana: There are many articles citing rising violence associated with marijuana use, but curiously none of them quote cases of users being violent while under the influence; every single case concerns violence between rival gangs in the production, promotion and transportation of the drug, similar the rise of gangs in the '20s when alcohol was illegal.

In other words, your arguments against are much more applicable to the legal drug that you probably use than the illegal one you rage against.

[Jimbuna]

[quote=jimbuna]I smoke tobacco and and enjoy alcoholic drinks from time to time. I AM ALSO TOTALLY ANTI DRUGS, so I guess in some peoples eyes that would make me a hypocrite.
I maintain my belief based solely upon the totally unnecessary destruction and human carnage I often see it cause.
You use the most dangerous drugs available, but are against some drugs that are less harmful but illegal. Not a hypocrite, but maybe confused.

quote]

'Confused'....no chance :nope:

In my line of work I think 'Hypocrite' is more apt/fitting :yep:

:lol:

[Skybird]

[quote=Skybird]
(I've smoked some weed and I'm smarter today than I was when I smoked it first) and that the effect is pleasing then drugs themselves are not a bad thing. Yes I

Erm...How do you know your smarter perhaps you just think you are because the dope's rotted your brain:hmm:
that quote is not from me.

some good pionts had been made on the importance of the situation in which to take drugs. I was not aware that LSd was used in therapy of alcoholism, but I habe my problems with imagining it to be successful. However, I know the context in which Stanislaww Grof used LSD. He no longer does that, which does not make his theory of a peri-natale matrix less interesting. It is fascinating - and a hopbby of your ego.

Also, the point is that cannabis may have less developement and mind-paralysing effects on older people than younger people. but that can only be an argument in favour of NOT legalizing it, because younger people have even less affect-control, and are accepting greater risks, nicetalking the consequences.

Using mushroom poisons for spiritual rites and self-induced trances is a very old thing. But here again: it was given great care to use it in a ritualised, carfefully arranged situational context, well, mostly it was like that, not always.

If somebdoy wants to check these "spiritual" aspects of usin drugs in an according context, okay, then it maybe should be made possible to do so in a well-guarded, empathic and mecially monitored context, especially with not so soft drugs like LSD. As a meditation teacher I of course can only warn of mistaken that with any kind of "freeing your mind". A LSD-fantasy is not the same like an enlightenment experience in meditation, and both quantities are of very different qualities. and to have visions that give you - maybe even valuable - intellectual information - still are not what is meant with enlightenment, or a free mind.

reading these arguments, I still see no reason why drugs being mentioned here should be legalized. And the health-endangering effects of cannabis on young ones, Kiwi, P_Funk, are a medical fact that you cannot just ignore. One of you said that he has so far never seen victims from cannabis, only victims from alcohol., Maybe that is becasue you have not come around wide enough. but I have seen such victims sometimes - at hospitals, in psychiatric ambulances and long term caretaking asylums.

I admit that for certain kinds of social institutions and rules, for systems and hierarchies representing any kind of leadership by some, social rule of communal life for others, the thioughts being thought by a mind after haviong consummed drugs could be a thread, a subversive rebellious elemnt putting key assumptions of such a society at risk. Some people argue that this is the reason why certain drugs are supressed by our society. And still, this is only one small part of the truth, and still cannot neutralize other valid arguments in favour of banning drugs.

If you want freedom of mind, first learn to become somebody so that you can loose yourself when realizing the emptiness in your imgination of yourself. If you want transcendence, first you need to construct. If you want to pass thorugh the illusion of your ego, first you mujst raise and have an ego. If you want enlightenment, you must overlook yourself, forget your self. Only then you relaize that you always have been what you are yearning to become, and that you must not go anywhere, since you are already there.

Drugs do not give you that. they motivate your neurons to fire hectically, they make you replacing one false image of yourself with another one, like a fever dream. they make you not construct and transcendent, but to simply imagine something. You are the director, cameraman and the audience of your own movie running inside your head. You are not being make to oversee yourself. Instead you strongly, fanatically focus and stick to your self which wears latest fantasy picture fashion to deceive you, and to make you think itself is real.

You think you have won freedom - and that makes you giving up, since you think you already gained freedom, and you lay back in captivity and do no longer try to escape.

The same what I wrote about false prophets, could be said about drugs, just exchange the words.



Just don’t let yourself get deceived that easily! You already have all what you need, always and omnipresent inside of you! Why don’t you have more self-confidence? Why do you mistrustyourself, and turn to the outside, chasing for twinkling phantoms, and falling for blind men who wants to have power over you, and darken your life so that you are equal in your blindness? Just don’t let yourself get deceived that easily! Just leave behind their false beliefs! Just stop it! Let it be! Then the Absolute will start shining again in bright clearness all by itself, and you will realize that you are whom you always have been, and always will be, forever.

[Tchocky]

The quote system seems to be having fun with this thread :)

As regards marijuana, I grow wary of discussions that compare it and alcohol. The legalisation of weed is possible, the criminalisation of alcohol is impossible, at least in our society. Saying that if alcohol/cigs are legal, then so should marijuana be, is spurious.

[Skybird]

at least we could do stop selling alcohol and tobacco to under 20 year old, and stop advertizing for it in open of hidden form. Statistics show very clearly that the probability to turn a person beyond the age of 18, 19, 20, into a smoker if he/she has not smoked before, falls dramatically, the risk is less than a fifth, compared to teenagers. If that is for physiological or changed social-cultural variables, is unimportant. This is also the reason why the young ones are so heavily targetted by advertizing for smoking, and why they are given so many smoking idols in adverts. the industry knows very well that it must have turned them into addicts before reaching that critical age, if it wants to secure them as customers for a lifetime.

I call it brutal and inhumane child abuse, and cigarette companies are criminals and dealers, hurting and killing our families. How else could you call turning youngsters into addicts, selling them poison and making them becoming ill and dying earlier than necessary for profit?

[P_Funk]

some good pionts had been made on the importance of the situation in which to take drugs. I was not aware that LSd was used in therapy of alcoholism, but I habe my problems with imagining it to be successful. However, I know the context in which Stanislaww Grof used LSD. He no longer does that, which does not make his theory of a peri-natale matrix less interesting. It is fascinating - and a hopbby of your ego. Yes I wasn't aware of this either until I saw a very good documentary on the history of LSD. It was invented by accident by some German pharmaceutical or chemical company (if I recall correctly). The effects of LSD seem to have been to allow a person to have very clear perception of his own memories and beahvior and apparently, with a counselor at his side guiding him, appreciate in a way that was very difficult before, the reasons why he abuses alcohol and other such enlightening things. The enlightenment was merely a result of his conscious mind being able to see past the neurotic blocks that make such people dysfunctional. Once fully aware of the brutal reality of their life and choices then they are better able to address the solution and change themselves. Its no mystical vision quest but really a radical introspective experience. Skybird you are right that it is all about finding yourself within yourself and that such things can be achieved as effectively without drugs but the fact is that a healthy mind cannot be used as the basis for comparison. That would be like saying I don't need a gold cart to go to all 18 holes cause I can walk... but what if I have a limp? People that benefitted from LSD treatment basically had a limp and were daunted far worse than any healthy person at facing their problems. The story behind it is quite fascinating and it really makes you question the motivation behind the complete banning of it (no leeway for clinical use).



Also, the point is that cannabis may have less developement and mind-paralysing effects on older people than younger people. but that can only be an argument in favour of NOT legalizing it, because younger people have even less affect-control, and are accepting greater risks, nicetalking the consequences. Skybird I hope you, being as smart and aware as you are, would know that the wholesale prohibition of something does a better job of advertising and encouraging use than the healthy responsible control of it. It is especially true that young people who are at a stage where they may rebel against society would want to use a drug which is illegal for the very reason that it is illegal. This is not a hard and fast rule but there is also something to be said for taking away the taboo character of the drug so that it won't be as attractive in such a way. I'll refer to Denis Leary for my support on this. In one interview I heard him talk about what it was like as a Catholic when he was young. He said, and I paraphrase, that his church would send out a newsletter every month and in it there would be a list of things that parents should guard their children against. He said "Me and my freinds had never heard of George Carlin before but when we read it in the newsletter we said we've gotta get that record."

So lets face the facts of how we handle prohibition in our societies. When we ban something like a substance from the whole public then we also make it taboo. With that we add the stigma of the thing so we react to it in a very negative way. We don't educate people about it because we're trying to pretend it doesn't exist and we spread around lots of exaggerated or incorrect information about it. Those old Reefer Madness movies are one kind of proof of this. And if we legalize it then it becomes a socially acceptable thing to use as an adult, responsibly, and so then we'd still make it unavailable to minors. So then we should educate people about it like we would with alcohol or tobacco. You can't keep kids who will use these things from using them, but you will dimish the cultural power of something if it turns into something available at the corner store. Weed is a big deal in high school, while ciggarettes are less common at least in mention. People that smoke smoke, and so they will no matter the legality of it. Prohibition however encourages illegal behavior and regardless of teh potential risks if they are no different than other legal drugs then it is damaging to the integrity of our laws and freedoms to make such double standards. Besides education leads to less abuse than pretending something is evil, which will happen regardless of what we really know when you prohibit it. As they say, prohibition in the depression only accomplished the goal of bringing the majority of the public in contact with the criminal element. You're much better off making it an acceptable topic in society than demonizing it as if children cannot be made aware. Treating them like kids is always disrespectful and more likely to drive them to rebel and of course why should we control the bulk of the population for the obvious immaturity of a minority of the population? Prevention of drug abuse comes only from education and awareness to the reasons why its pursued. Actual control of the drug itself doesn't accomplish much.

Using mushroom poisons for spiritual rites and self-induced trances is a very old thing. But here again: it was given great care to use it in a ritualised, carfefully arranged situational context, well, mostly it was like that, not always. Yes and driving when regulated by the government with liscensing and police on the roads is very acceptable, however driving recklessly is not. The fact is that there are safe and unsafe ways to act in regard to most things. Fear of the worst possibility only clouds judgement. That more primitive cultures could use such drugs in a way that actually held their culture together, rather than tore it apart, says that it isn't a particularly difficult concept (moderation and responsibility) to hold in your mind. Building a culture of responsibility around something leads to smarter use ultimately. Its been seen that building a culture of feer and oppressive prohibition only encourages curiosity and rebellion. Just saying no to drugs seems to make many people say yes!

[Skybird]

Tobacco and Alcohol are also not prohibited. Which does not make their consuming less attractive. I do not buy the argument that if drugs remain illegal they remain to be attractive. It is not that simple and one-sided. Making marijuana f.e. legal would only cause this: a rise in juveniles consuming it. If something activates the reward centre in your brain, and all those happiness hormones get produced and flood your mind and body, and you can have it legally, it is no point to assume that people would shy away from it. Exactly the opposite.

I have rejected the use of drugs as a "cheat" in general before, so I also do not accept that comparison of a golf cart on a golf course when you miss a limb. There is no such thing like a happiness pill that is your free ride into Nirvana and enlightenment becasue you are handicapped, or lazy. Drugs maybe give people a timeout in which they flee the fate of their regular lifes for a limited time, but they need to return sooner or later - and then they still are where they left.

One thing also is different. If not drinking regularly, or excessively, but with modesty, the occasional red vine, alcohol most likely will not damage your body. with tobacco you already are in different terrain, even a low rate smoker who smokes regularly will see the ammount of poisen in his body raising over the years. With drugs, you always run a risk of ending offside or receiving serious deficits if not damages in the way your neural system behaves, f.e. what I said about yoluth's developement being slowed down or stopped when using cannabis: they become dumb in that their intellectual level, and level of general activity, is not up to what would be expected of their age some years later. their is a damage in their neural hardware. It does not make sense to ignore this.

And to end my participation in this thread: I must say that I find modern society's example to raise young people in a culture or responsibility - not really convincing by results, because manners and behavior are in free fall, egoism is on the jump-rise, and short-sighted day-to-day pragmatism and self-deception about unpleasant grim truths are the rule.

[DeepSix]

If you actually believe what you just wrote, I expect you to be campaigning to outlaw all alcoholic beverages immediately. ... In other words, your arguments against are much more applicable to the legal drug that you probably use than the illegal one you rage against.

How exactly does what I said compel me to campaign for or against anything? I do believe it and I think you misunderstood it. I really wouldn't care whether alcohol or tobacco were legal or not because the legality of this or that is beside the point. We all know that alcohol and tobacco are more or less addictive or dangerous depending on the hands they're in. For some, alcohol might be the worst drug. For others, it might be cocaine. But all that is irrelevant. "Your rights end where mine begin, and vice-versa" is a philosophy that applies equally to drugs (legal or otherwise), firearms ownership, motor vehicle ownership, etc. Believe me, if there's one thing I support, it's the second amendment. But I'm also an advocate of acknowledging one's personal responsibilities. But drug users, whether they use alcohol, marijuana, or submarine sims, nearly always seem to be the ones who feel they owe society nothing.

Not often that I agree with Skybird, but here I do. That's all from me.

[P_Funk]

If something activates the reward centre in your brain, and all those happiness hormones get produced and flood your mind and body, and you can have it legally, it is no point to assume that people would shy away from it. Exactly the opposite. But why do you want to use a drug? The motivation for usage is different for people. Some use it for a type of escape or for numbing pain, while others do it out of irrational rebellion. Making something legal when the thing itself is proliferated already to every corner of society (really most every row of lockers had one guy selling it in my high school) doesn't seem like it'll have much negative effect. Like I said you can't ignore the nature of a taboo. Are you actually saying that there aren't alot of people that do things because they're taboo? Sex is a taboo in conservative culture and as a result being ignorant of it leads many people to experiment, and then unsafely. Denying something raises curiosity, especially in immature teens.

I have rejected the use of drugs as a "cheat" in general before, so I also do not accept that comparison of a golf cart on a golf course when you miss a limb. There is no such thing like a happiness pill that is your free ride into Nirvana and enlightenment becasue you are handicapped, or lazy. And many scientists, therapists, and cases of success disagree with you. What you seem to be expounding here isn't a scientific reality but more of a moral disagreement. Whats a cheat? If it works it works. And I never said it was a miracle drug. What I said was that under correct circumstances an individual is aided in facing himself, but that its still about that individual taking action with what he learns of himself. You in this case I think are simplifying what I and others are saying, and perhaps on purpose out of disdain for the argument.



And to end my participation in this thread: I must say that I find modern society's example to raise young people in a culture or responsibility - not really convincing by results, because manners and behavior are in free fall, egoism is on the jump-rise, and short-sighted day-to-day pragmatism and self-deception about unpleasant grim truths are the rule. If we make laws to match the attitudes of our time then we'll just reinforce this. But then you will deny freedoms to those who are capable of this because of a minority who are not responsible. It doesn't add up in a free society to rule by the worst case. Whatever the cumulative effects of smoking or drinking or eating too much food that is my job to regulate it. The government isn't here to tell me whether my interest in somethig is acceptable unless it directly infringes on the interests or rights of others. Children offer a difficult compromise in this since they are considered to not have the ability to make their own decisions. But babying the population because parents don't do a good job these days is not an answer.

BTW I don't find it acceptable to detail 3 paragraphs of arguments and rebuff other people's points of view then declare you're out of the discussion. You either argue or you leave, you don't get to do both. I just think thats disrespectful.

[Skybird]

P_Funk,

I have started to repeat my arguments. No need to do so. So I said I wish to leave it here. You and me will not agree on the vital points here anyway. I would also reject very many of your claims you have just made in your latest posting again. But for what? you would not change your opinion, and still would ignore much of what I said - while I think that some of your reasoning is simply very much twisted. Last but not least, though I have not specialised in anti-drug therapy, I had to deal with it occasionally, and so see it from a professional's (psychotherapist's) perspective, having been in exchange with medical staff and doctors as well. Some of the claims you are making are simply wrong, on the level of hard facts.

So, I could repeat my posiiton and arguments again, and criticise yours again, but it would lead to nothing.

So I leave. that is not an issue of respect or lack of it, but simply avoiding fruitless repetition. I have said what i have to say on the issues, and I named the reaosns for my position repeatedly. You may say that I leave it now is disrespectful, but to me it seems you do not wish to accept that you have not the arguments to convince me of your position.

Again, I have said all what I have to say on these things, and i explained why I think like I do. Take it like that, or don't. ;)

[P_Funk]

Well I don't think anybody posts in the GT to change anyone's mind, or at least expects to. Theres too much ego at stake to say "I'm wrong and you're right". ;)

But you're not entirely repeating your arguments either. That last point, the one you went out on ironically, is not repeated but something of a new comment. So I understand your meaning, but I still think laying your departure down with that much accompanying verbiage is gonna leave people a bit miffed. If I were to leave a discussion I'd either say it and not repeat anything said before or just not post at all.

[Reaves]

Beer and grass is all I need thanks.


Oh and anyone against weed should do the following:

Throw out most of the music you have because most of it was written while influenced by at least pot.

[RedMenace]

Beer and grass is all I need thanks.


Oh and anyone against weed should do the following:

Throw out most of the music you have because most of it was written while influenced by at least pot.


Bill Hicks!:cool:

[nikimcbee]

[quote=kiwi_2005]Not exactly what one would call a productive member of society.

LSD is terrible, causing people to jump from skyscrappers, so I can't believe this was even brought up. It makes me question the intentions of the original poster.

Cannibis is also bad. I swear it screws up people minds permanantly. I've seen smart people go dumb on that stuff (no better way to describe it), and it never gets any better, even when they are off of it.


-S

See Paulie Shore:rotfl: :dead:

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Beer and grass is all I need thanks.


Oh and anyone against weed should do the following:

Throw out most of the music you have because most of it was written while influenced by at least pot.


You sure about that?

http://www.domingoyu.com/media/Image/kraftwerk.jpg


:hmm::hmm:

[SUBMAN1]

See Paulie Shore:rotfl: :dead:Yep.

Check this - Seems some cops thing the pot laws are a little outrageous these days. Heard about this DVD on the news this morning:

http://www.nevergetbusted.com/

This guy used to be Texas's best narcotics cop. Problem is, he moved from West Texas to East Texas and busted the wrong people. One time he busted the Mayors son for meth - mistake #1, and then he busted a city councilman who had a bag of pot and a gun. They in turn started making his life unlivable apparently. Arrested him for theft for returning DVD's late. Tried to take his daughters away from him for missing a day of school - this was dropped when the daughters fought back. So now he is fighting back against the city - he made a DVD on how not to get busted. Nice huh? Crazy.

-S

[Jimbuna]

See Paulie Shore:rotfl: :dead:Yep.

Check this - Seems some cops thing the pot laws are a little outrageous these days. Heard about this DVD on the news this morning:

http://www.nevergetbusted.com/

This guy used to be Texas's best narcotics cop. Problem is, he moved from West Texas to East Texas and busted the wrong people. One time he busted the Mayors son for meth - mistake #1, and then he busted a city councilman who had a bag of pot and a gun. They in turn started making his life unlivable apparently. Arrested him for theft for returning DVD's late. Tried to take his daughters away from him for missing a day of school - this was dropped when the daughters fought back. So now he is fighting back against the city - he made a DVD on how not to get busted. Nice huh? Crazy.

-S

Nothing beats a vendetta taken in the form of changing sides ;)

[The Munster]

The quote system seems to be having fun with this thread :)



I've noticed that as well. OOPS :roll:

[SUBMAN1]

Nothing beats a vendetta taken in the form of changing sides ;)Nothing! :up:

Bet their drug arrest record falls off the deep end too.

-S

[Jimbuna]

http://imgcash1.imageshack.us/img144/9549/dope3rfnk4.gif http://imgcash3.imageshack.us/img239/2504/snortht3.gif = http://imgcash1.imageshack.us/img152/5258/policetj6.gif