Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
(whisper) drugs?
Options
Comments
-
How very perceptive of you. However I should correct you. Its very far from the most ignorant argument.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">i am going to do something controversial now.
paladin is out of line. he has behaved like an idiot.
"You are talking through the cakehole as it were, and from every standpoint you are wrong."
"Did you ever crawl out of that deep deep hole you dug and fart?"
"Looks more like you are out argued "
out argued by wit like that pal? i don't think so. these are not the posts of a topic that has been shot, or a good game. these are the posts of someone so confident in their intellectual dominance that they revert to the laziest and most ignorant of arguments to back up opinions that have cemented in their heads. i can hear his internal monologue coming up with something ingenius right now.</font>
Getting slightly tired of the "Why cant you see MY argument and see that I am right" argument of Neuro's, while hypocritically not taking that advice herself, I did stoop to using the F-word (omg no not THAT F-word).
I would however agree that having no experience does not mean that you cant argue, and I never implied that I ever believed such a thing. It probably DOES help in certain cases, but not essential.
Also when it comes to intellectual arrogence I am certainly getting a lecture from the right person eh? (right couple even).
Also there is no point in suggesting that everybody is influenced by Castor. I have never met him and know f all about him.
As for the actual argument (which as in most long threads seems to have ended in flaming), it seems quite apparent to me that Neuros argument is fueled by the need for some sort of self justification without any real backbone to the argument. It seems she made the argument because it is what she believes. Perhaps if she hadnt emphasised so strongly on her own morals as evidence. Or on flawed medical evidence. Still.
And I *should* apologise for that fart thing I said
I was actually pretty ****ed off thursday nite, and I think Im usually pretty consistant in the non-insulting nature of posting. It was stupid. Je suis desolé.
And just for the record, I am not a hash smoker. Experience in the area, well you'd have to be locked in a basement to not have some experience wouldnt you.
I am not terrible bothered by the legality of hash, but even without that motivation I can still weigh up the arguments with relative ease.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
I think neuro and her boyfriend should try and live outside the little shell that they both seem to live in. Their comments are based completely on what they have read or heard and not from experience.
On the up-side, we are all saved from becoming morally corrupt and brain damaged. Thanx neuro for showing me that glimmer of light, "I'M SAVED"
"Roll up, roll up and eat the fat tutkey"0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by darthmise:
...the only thing both those rather long posts prove is that you can talk about drugs and what they do till the cows come home. You have to experience a little bit of everything for yourself in this world.(imo anyway)
Great posts though!</font>
A very good point darth...and one I emphasized in my post. As it happens, I have taken (and still do take) cannabis, as and when I can get it, and so do *many* of the so-called "model citizens" of most nations where it is banned.
My dad was an international lawyer for several years...I only mention this because the International Court of Justice is located at Den Hague (The Hague), just a stone's throw from....you guessed it...Amsterdam! Having visited regularly since I was 10, and living there for a few months, I became interested in soft drugs, their medical implications, etc. Cannabis, hashish, and to a lesser extent "E", are all soft drugs which could be legalized with few complications. In fact, after legalization in the Netherlands, drug-related crime has been reduced almost to a stand-still. If it's legal, you can regulate it strictly- if not...then you're dealing with the black market, and history shows (Prohibition, tea-tariffs, salt-tax) that people are going to get it anyway, and crime will sink its ugly fingers into the illicit trade. Once its legalized- you can put statutory warnings on the packets, monitor the industry, and tax the *hell* out of them if you need a bit of cash. It'd save a lot of heartache for governments in the long run, imho.
Oh btw...thx Canniboid
Remember though...we're all smart folks here, otherwise we would avoid any topic forums marked "Humanities" like the plague- we're all smart, but articulating yourself well is like anything else- just practise
Well, let's hope excelsior posts a reply soon
Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=L'homme est prisonnier de son oeuvre - JP Sartres=0 -
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
bring your moneys and adnans will sort you out *wink*wink*
adnans
</font>
I hope your not advertising what I think your advertising. It's good to have a forum like this where people can openly talk about what is pretty much a taboo subject still. We don't need it exploited by little "Gilligans".0 -
-
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 29920
Believe me I have seen more drugs consumed then most, but credentials are not whats key here.
I will make these "declarations"
1. Cocaine turns you into an arrgoant *******.
2. Acid can really REALLY fúck with you over an extended period and at least one person I know has had complete mental breakdown primarily as a result of LSD consumption. Of all drugs I rate LSD as the most harmful and least recognised.
3. Cannabis should be legalised just like cigarettes. That said, I wouldnt encourage someone to take it up, as while it is not physically addictive it is socially and psychologically addictive. Its harm comes not directly but as a result of long term usage (sloth, lack of get up and go, mental facility slowdown). Why do you think they call it dope?
4.Heroin is for losers. Even the friends I have who ardantly take drugs admit that.
5. All my friends who were 5-10 E per weekend headcases are now generally off E. All of them report serious depression soon after stopping. None of them ever got as "high" as they did the first few times and most took to increasing the dosage to try and recapture that feeling.
6. E come downs look really *really* unpleasant. I've never taken E and I never will from what I have seen previous flatmates look like both during and after taking it.
7. Speed is dangerous if you have any cardio-vascular problems which you might not know about. Never done it myself.
8. Ketamine is a horse tranquiliser. Nuff said really!
9. The greatest single bad thing you can say about cannabis is that it leads to cigarette smoking.
DeV.
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
I disagree for a number of reasons CC.
1) You *assume* that black-market goods are *always* cheaper than market goods. Not true. The tobacco example you use is one of misleading cause and effect. From the Financial Times 29/3/00, a Europe-wide survey showed that 91% of *all* tobacco smuggled was bought duty free somewhere in the EU in excess amounts (+200 cigarettes) and then "smuggled" into the country of sale. The same is unlikely to happen with cannabis because of the enormous infrastructure (that will still be in place after legalization) currently used to fight drug smuggling. These include airport customs patrols(sniffer dogs, treated X-rays, etc.), intelligence, and ground-roots policing.
2) The reasoning behind legalization is that black-market sales are treated as a Class A possession offence. This can be seen in other substance markets as well. Even software is not exempt. Piracy is rife in China because law enforcement pays no attention. This makes it profitable to pirate software by bringing down production costs. On the other hand, software piracy is hardly ever seen in the Western world, because the cost of secrecy, protection, and avoidance of the authorities out-weighs any profit that might be made. And before you say that law enforcement is already cracking down hard, driving up production costs...
a) The law *isn't* cracking down on cannabis. Lord MacDonald's report on police protocol drug enforcement brings it out into the open(at least in the UK).
b) There is little competition to drive down prices in all the illicit drug markets. Frequently 1-4 cartels control drugs trade. This allows them to set their prices prohibitively high, forcing knock-on crime effects, much like OPEC's cartel in the early 70's.
2) Another reason I disagree with your argument, is that there are two working models already in existence: Holland and Belgium. Both nations have experienced massive drops in criminal offences related to hard drugs, and surrounding nations are experiencing heightened drug wars (especially Belgium-bordered nations). Not a coincidence. With legalization will come competition, competition that will drive the price of cannabis down. In the short term, even assuming 45% taxation (ridiculously high), the enormous demand would more than offset any initial cost. This is exactly what has happened in Belgium, and in Holland when the scheme was first introduced. Therefore, official prices would remain low, and black-market prices would be prohibitively higher in comparison, due to the expense of working outside the law.
3) Consumer confidence. As brand-names are established (as has happened in Holland), and reputation is established, and a client-business relationship is built upon, people will not trust black-market goods. Just as you wouldn't buy black-market stereos, fruit or any commodity for that matter, so would you avoid black-market dope. Why? Because the legal equivalent carries certain guarantees. And the power of the brand-name would return to haunt the black-marketeer.
4) Lastly: There is no need to assume that cannabis would attract the same level of tobacco taxation. Governments tax commodities like these based on the relative harm caused (usually). Alcohol is taxed less than cigarettes. Using this logical premise, cannabis would be taxed *less* than alcohol *and* less than cigarettes. Legalization would bring several benefits- what CC has alluded to are the specious arguments of recalcitrant governments everywhere. Let's start thinking for ourselves for a change
Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Veni Vidi Vici=0 -
Join Date:Posts: 29920
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">3) The long-term effects of cannabis use are vague at best. They are mostly psychosomatic or placebo in nature, with little long-term physiological impact. The sloth is due to the combination with alcohol, as is the dulling of mental function. If you drink to excess while smoking cannabis, this will happen. If you don't exceed the 5-units rule this shouldn't happen. </font>
Ah come on now, I didnt come down in the last shower. Most smokers are not particularly keen on drink. The general wisdom amongst joint smokers is that alcohol is a dirty drug.
It may be scientifically hard to prove but noone is going to tell me that persistent exposure to cannabis has no effect whatsoever. The question remains, do you want to pay that effect. In my opinion people should be allowed choose in an informed way.
But its not the perfect drug by any means.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
7) The cardiovascular response happen with several over-the-counter drugs, especially paracetemol, alka-seltzer and the soon to be over-the-counter Viagra. </font>
Alkaselzerdoesntmakeyourunaroundlikeajackrabbitandholdthreeconversationsatonce
andphoneafriendandmakecoffeeforeveryoneallatthesametime!!!!
Have you ever seen someone on speed? press fast forward on a video sometime.
You cant tell me you can get that sort of effect off over the counter medicines.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
8) Ketamine is a horse tranquilizer. But Vicks is an evolved insectiside, aspirin was used to cure animals of constipation.
<snip> Many drugs have zoological effects as well as human impact. </font>
No you misunderstand me.
Ketamine IS a horse tranquiliser.
Thats where is comes from. Its sold as such to vets etc. Its then sidelined into the drug trade. Its intended purpose is to knock horse out cold!
In small doses it seems to have the same effect as about 10-15 pints and people have told me that thats a pretty accurate analogy.
I mean, if you do Ketamine you really need your head examined. You are really clutching at straws for a high.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
9) This is only true if you smoke cannabis with tobacco...something I do not recommend. </font>
Yes, unfortunately thats the way most hash is consumed.
Amsterdam has become remarkably safer and nicer in the last 5 years. The on-street hard drugs scene which was pervasive 5 years ago is almost completely unseen. 5 years ago I was offered cocaine 29 time while walking around town in one hour. Last year I wasnt offered cocaine once in my entire trip.
Which drugs and which we disallow will always be a problem. If we legalise canabis, the speed/acid heads will complain...
Personally I would legalise canabis because its so ridiculously widespread now that there is no point in maintaining the farcical charade of law enforcement.
Oh yes, and people who talk about canabis dealers like they are trying to hook you onto harder drugs need to really get a reality check. There ARENT any dealers. No boogy men in the background waiting to tempt you off the path.
What there is is a 'mate' who will sort you out for the weekend as favour. "Pushers" is such a ridiculous image for canabis that its a source of some considerable humour.
Canabis doesnt lead to hard drugs, it leads to making imaginative bongs out of the pipettes your mate nicked from his chemistry labs.
DeVore.
[This message has been edited by DeVore (edited 20-03-2001).]0 -
Just in reply to Devor:
3) It's not just scientifically hard to prove, but *impossible*. The vast majority of the body of evidence currently available points to the fact that cannabis does a lot more good than harm. As for it not being a perfect drug...there is no such thing as a perfect drug- all drugs have side-effects, it's just a question of what degree. The side-effects of cannabis are minute compared to the accrued benefits. Long-term use does no permanent damage, it's just a question of responsibility. Think of coffee-drinkers here...coffee drinkers are frequently out-of-sorts due to the *physical* addiction response propagated by caffeine. The pyscological need for cannabis is actually less quantitatively speaking, than that for tea or chocolate...certainly not a reason to legislate against it.
7) You took this out of context. You said originally..."Speed is dangerous if you have any cardio-vascular problems which you might not know about"...I'm merely stating that over-the-counter medications can exacerbate these problems just as easily as speed. I'm not questioning the obvious increase in thryoid activity(leading to hyperactivity) that you allude to. Again, a question of responsibility- no significant long-term damage question here either, merely a lifestyle choice (although I don't recommend or condone its use)
8)No, no...you misunderstand me(ping-pong argumentation). The original uses of the drugs I mentioned were as stated. Aspirin *was* originally used as a vetinary medication as well. Again, I wouldn't condone its use, but the fact that many accepted medicaments were studied for their zoological activity is unquestionable. As it happens- we in the medical profession *do* use ketamine for concious-patient procedures- as a contact anasthetic for cataracts for example. As for recreational use- not recommended, but there's little contraindication against long-term use. The addiction can be potent, but this is often not the case. Probably not a good idea anyway tho
9) You misunderstand me. Of course hash is consumed with tobacco. But if done in the correct proportion, nicotine addiction certainly wouldn't occur. As for the speed/acid-heads complaining- those are harder drugs, acid certainly is a hard drug. There should be no cause for complaint- selfish vicarious priniciples don't constitute an argument for legalization. As for the notion that there are no soft drug-pushers...totally and utterly wrong I'm afraid. All the leading studies show that end-users obtain their cannabis from 3rd-party sources that also supply hard drugs. The "friend" who sorts you out from the week-end certainly won't have a store of hard drugs to hand. The supplier he got it from though...? Most of the anecdotal cases I've seen in rehabilitation clinic (many of whom I've treated in person) report that their 3rd-party supplier offered to supply hard drugs as well. There *is* a filtering-down effect, whether cannabis users wish to accept this or not, is another matter entirely. I don't think legalization should be driven by the wide-spread use of cannabis. Rather, it should be a considered policy, based on the arguments I(and several others) have articulated in earlier posts. I agree with you Devor- cannabis doesn't lead to hard drugs- not directly at least. But as long as it remains a black-market product, third-party escalation of drug usage will remain a huge problem. Your experiences in Amsterdam (a city I know well), illustrates this. Let's just hope northern European governments realize this soon.
Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Alea Jacta Est=
[This message has been edited by Bob the Unlucky Octopus (edited 21-03-2001).]0 -
Join Date:Posts: 29920
Bob you are picking holes to suit your argument. Read what I am saying rather then alighting on minutiae.
If the mate you get hash from *doesnt* have hard drugs to sell and wouldnt normally get them, then HE'S HARDLY LIKELY TO EXERT PEER PRESSURE FOR YOU TO BUY THEM. That was my whole point about dealers of sort drugs. How you misunderstood that I dunno.
Also, Aspirin and other drugs may have STARTED OUT in use for animals, but Ketamine IS CURRENTLY USED FOR HORSES IN ITS CURRENT STATE.
Any further back and forth between us is going to end up in point scoring (something you are already needlessly indulging in, I might add) and reduces the value of this discussion.
We are in broad agreement regarding legalisation but you cant tell me that doing canabis is ok because noone can PROVE the long term effects. Noone has scientifically PROVEN that smoking increases the risk of cancer etc. I dont need someone in a white coat to tell me that smoking canabis is bad for me. I've seen people doing it for 10 years now and I've seen its effect. All the smart arguments in the world with all the backup research isnt change my mind. Thats the reason I merely posted my "declarations" in the first place, I didnt offer any argument I just presented them as my view.
If more people here stopped trying to justify their stance and merely declared it, we'd be better off. I mean, has ANYONE changed their views as a result of reading this thread? I highly (no pun intended ) doubt that anyone bare the main protagonists have bothered to read past the first page.
Canabis is not good for you, but then just about everything has bad points. I'm curious about one thing though, you say its bad points out weigh its "accrued benefits". I know of the short term benefits but what are the accrued benefits of long term canabis usage?
DeVore.
[This message has been edited by DeVore (edited 20-03-2001).]0 -
-
Hello again.
This is going to be a long post. I don’t intend this as an act of "intellectual arrogance," (Paladin), or as an attempt to show my own "intelectual brilliance," (Smelly Socks), but simply to fully respond to the reaction to my previous posting. Skip along if you please.
I apologise for not having responded. In the interests of objectivity I have tried to stay away from this thread. The distance offered by time is always a good idea if you want to stay on topic and cast off any petty and childish annoyances prompted by a web discussion. I only examined this thread on Saturday, and I haven’t gone online since then. Back in college now, I am responding.
In another thread Bob (Bob the Unlucky Octopus) states "Not to be confrontational or pedantic...but excelsior hasn't replied"
You know, no doubt, that you are not being in the least pedantic there. It is no small point. But primarily the reason that I haven’t come back before now is that I like to access the Boards.ie in lull periods at college.
And you have been far from confrontational. If anything, you have been as measured and as courteous as one could possibly hope for.
And this is my first point, Bob’s post here has been, without a doubt’s proverbial shadow, the most impressive piece of writing the Boards.ie have seen in a long time. It may seem trivial, but I mean it as a great compliment when I say you have mastered the medium.
It was refreshing to see such skill and knowledge, and I have no fear in admitting, considerable more knowledge than I.
(I am aware that I have lambasted others last week for, as I saw it, hollow complimenting of each other, but I doubt anyone has much qualms with saying we should all aspire to posts like that.)
But I have a lot to respond to.
My primary argument has been that direct experience is not a requirement for the forming of a valid opinion.
I stand by this.
I do not argue that one can hold judgement about a personal experience that they haven’t shared. But they certainly can hold an opinion on the phenomenon greater than that experience. I can not claim to understand the feeling of scoring the winning basket in the 7th game of an NBA final, but as a former player, coach and a referee in Basketball, and as a fan, I can hold opinions about baskets scored, about 7th games of the NBA finals and just about everything that you could discuss about that fine sport.
In the same way, Person A can have a faith in a god.
Person B is an atheist.
Person B can not attempt to approximate Person A’s personal experience of this god in their life, but they can hold an opinion as valid as A’s on faith in general.
I shared no opinions about any individual’s experience of drugs. I merely shared my opinions about drugs and tried to argue that though I have stated:
"i do not drink. i do not smoke. i do not do any illegal drugs.",
my opinion is as valid as any other persons.
My right to an opinion shouldn’t be interrupted.
Bob, claims that the 1st 4 of my 5 arguments to back this up suffer from "fallacies of logic".
Here they are to remind you:
"1) I have no experience of the Pyramids.
2) I have not murdered humans
3) I have no experience of the Irish Civil War
4) I have no experience of the holocaust
5) I have no experience of the design of computer hardware.
1) Can I not talk about the great pyrmaid of Chepos?
2) can i not say murder is wrong?
3) can i keep writing my essays on the war in the hope that someday they can be published?
4) do you mean i have to stop writing about that too?
5) should i stop arguing with classmates when they have the inevitable amd-intel fight?"
In terms of the pyramids, Bob, due to his greater age than myself, and situation, has had an opportunity to see the 3 Great Pyramids on two separate occasions. He claims that, "The emotions expressed in myself and others that have seen them cannot be encapsulated in textbooks". This demonstrates no logical fallacy on my behalf. I don’t argue your emotionality. I have felt similar things at Newgrange. I have had the same kind of quickening of the heart at the Via Sacra. Your experience of emotion leads you to no advantage. The medieval scholar CS Lewis has said of literature, "The accomplishment of a generation’s literature has as much to do with the quality of its readers as with the brilliance of its writers." He means here that when you approach them with the correct attitude, one can experience emotion through the reading of good books. That is what makes books so worthwhile. I can read extensively about Ancient Egypt and about the Pyramids and I can enjoy an emotional experience. Now you get down to the question, which of us has had the more worthwhile emotional experience? That is inherently rhetorical. So as long as I have referenced "authority" and educated myself on the topic, my opinion is as valid as one with direct experience of the Pyramids.
On my historical points, 3 and 4, Bob argues that the evidence frame we have of history is not a complete one. "Holocaust survivors can communicate facts with amazing clarity" but they can not hope to tell the full story, not least because "Their emotional experienes cannot be recorded". History is not a universal fact, is the essence of these statements as I see them. It is at best vague and indefinite, at worst approaching mythology. This only goes to serve an opinion a greater relevance. If history could be sealed in a glass case and put on display as the unique and identifiable truth, then opinion would have no space to breathe. It is the incompleteness of the Holocaust survivor’s stories, it is the lingering resentment between de Valera’s Anti Treaty side and the Pro-Treaty fighters that allow opinions to exist. Where there is grey, postulates thrive. If it was black and white we would have fact and no need for further "essays on the war in the hope that someday they can be published". My opinions here remain valid without first hand experience.
And onto point 2, murder. My point, admittedly, centers on a difference between Right and Wrong. This is a philosophical question we could debate. You can take Hume and the Authenticists and I will take Lewis, Descartes and Aristotle. We could have lots of fun. But for that adventure, it was Aristotle, long before Kipling, who taught us the formula, "That is another story."
Bob points out the difference in perspective before and after the committal of a murder.
"Knowing murder is wrong, and having committed murder yourself bring two *very* different experiences to the fore"
After the event, one could conceivably be in such a mindset as to not concern himself or herself whatsoever with the tenuous distinction between good and bad. But that takes a step beyond my scenario, and a fatal one at that. I am not considering the difficulty in recognising the rightness/wrongness of an action after the affair, but I am stating that in the rational mind before the event, one can clearly state that it is wrong. If you dislike that, if it is contrary to your perspective on life and how we live it, you can modify with little harm to the statement that you can clearly see that humanity perceives it as wrong.
This all goes to defend my initial point. Experience does not lend you authority. Lack of experience is no hindrance once ground work is done in familiarising yourself with the subject at hand.
There are many things that go on behind your back and in your face that you will never dream of experiencing. But the wonder of our species is the inherited knowledge of generations passed and living.
(For me it raises one of the Most Interesting Points Of All, that of information in our age and its relation to time, but with that, I digress.)
Keynes was referring to anecdotal evidence but that is as closely related to the subjectivity of personal experience as perpetuates the validity of the post. (And are you sure it was Keynes?)
Now on to the second point. I shared no opinion on the widespread use of soft drugs. At all. It appears we have made presumptions here that are not applicable. I offered no specifics on "soft" drugs.
So the medicinal advantages or disadvantages of a large populace taking a soft drug, such as tobacco or cannabis is of suspect relevance.
That isn’t to say that I don’t respect and didn’t enjoy your writing about the medicinal aspects. And I would ask you to "detail these for" me "in later posts". I have become fascinated by this argument, this dilemma, and I would savour all the data or information I can get. I am sure my "better half" as Kharn accurately described it, would eat them up too.
You see, I fear you have to an extent second guessed me. The opinion that I share on drugs in my previous post is this one:
"i feel that the threat posed by "harder" drugs is about as massive as any to personal freedom."
There is a lack of lucidity, upon rereading that paragraph (18), that I regret. The sentence beforehand, should be behind the one I just quoted. That having been said, your concentration on soft drugs, directed at me, leads me to think that you feel I have come out against them. You write "Medically speaking excelsior, soft drugs have a very high tolerance level, and several accrue numerous medical benefits." But I argued not, the dangers to health of soft drugs. I argued the despicable danger of "harder" drugs. I would come out more generally against soft drugs but it would be hesitantly and based entirely on a philosophical, moral and sociological grounding. I am not qualified to argue a medicinal point.
In response to "there is no liberty in leaving people free to be enslaved by chemicals," you elaborate with some skill on the effects of chocolate and other such substances. While one can feel a need to eat more chocolate, you can not be enslaved to it. You can eat as much as you like and still be capable of driving. People do not die from a chocolate addiction and people do not steal to support a habit. You can argue this is because of its legality, its monitored production etc., but in truth the reason is that chocolate is benign. Red meat will increase your likelihood of coronary disease, but only in the very long term, only with excesses that our Western society has somehow deemed normal and only then it is increased possibility, moving towards probability. Not certainty. The use of red meat requires far less responsibility and consideration than the use of heroin. Red meat does not enslave you, except perhaps to a cardiologist’s fitness regime.
And this nicely leads on to my central bone of contention with your arguments Bob. You question my personal reasons for not taking drugs. At first glance I was going to dismiss this out of hand as out of line questioning of my own choices. But that is not in the spirit of your respectful and informed enquiries.
I fear you fall prey to a flaw here. Would it be fair to say that you question the rationality of the following statement?:
"the primary reason i don't do drugs is a complex one that centers, rather obtusely i will admit, on philosophy. my rationality is what defines me. i think therefore i am. to pollute my brain with drugs, and to dilute my rationality is to dilute my essence of self."
If so, I feel a need to defend it.
You claim that the medicinal benefits of soft drugs rather than distort my sense of self, will increase my rationality. You claim that my consciousness is polluted, in fact it would be fair to say, bombarded, day in, day out by "free radicals, oxidizing agents, radiation, and the like." The point I have to make here is that I would have to go to quite dramatic lengths to avoid free radicals. Fatal, ridiculous lengths. And I would have to go out on a limb to avoid microwaves, presuming those foil helmets don’t work. These things offer me no choice. I have to ingest them. I have to suffer them. But for the intake of cannabis, I, personally make a conscious decision. And while you may argue that it could well be of medicinal benefit to me, that is irrelevant. Completely so. My concern is not with the physiology of my brain, with the actual state of the physical grey matter, but with the condition of Me, of my sense of self and who I am. The situation of, for want of a better word, "inebriation" undoubtedly affects my personal identity. Points of medical science, or points of what Canaboid referred to as a "general sense of well being" have nothing to do with this. My personal priority is my personal sense of who I am. The term "dilution" is very accurate then.
Modern Educated Man (TM) might argue that my ideal sense of self is relative and subject to change. "Who is to say who are you?" might be a question they would confront me with. They may be right. But to me that is terrifically woolly. The sense of self is a reality, simply encapsulated by the formula Descartes borrowed from St. Thomas of Aquinas. That is, "I think therefore I am."
I define who I am.
And I define that I am diluted beyond myself when subjected to the influence of soft drugs. I could put it this way, if I can’t drive afterwards, I am not interested. Or I could choose not to facilitate you and leave the decision to me, myself and I, based on the circumstances I find myself in.
So if you still see it as an irrational perspective, elaborate for me. I am interested. But don’t confuse it to be a medicinal argument. It isn’t. Medicine has its place but I hope to leave it there until I get sick. I am not generally sick, thank God.
My mood of course is altered by many things. And my identification of self is, like all other (wo)men, based in part on mood. Chocolate increases my happiness. Tickling might do the same. Kind words might gladden me and aggression on the road might disappoint me. These are the things of life. Unfettered. I am training as a Computer Scientist so if I can, I will use a computing analogy. If these are the variables of life, soft drugs are out of "scope". They are not identifiable within my class of existence. And as the programmer of my own existence, their scope are defined entirely, and rightly, by me.
They affect too dramatic a mood change. Some substances affect me dramatically at times too. But I won’t get addicted to sex, or to love, or to water, or if it can be described as an addiction, then it was there from the beginning and is right.
Thank you for enlightening me about Copenhagen. But more generally, to all who have participated in this argument, what of Christiania? Is their dispute on-going. Is the utopia becoming dystopian? The dramatic failure of the Danish Ny Glypotek experiment leads me to fear a widespread legalisation. The problems that you describe, facing the scientific team running it, will unquestionably be faced in many urban areas in every city or provincial town around the world.
This is a personal interest. It has no part to play in my specific argument about drugs.
You also state the impossibility of my claim:
"i must treat all people like a brother. i must take responsibility for their poverty, and take pleasure in their success"
It also applies to "sisters". But you surely grasp that my basis for this is in the Christian commandment and Kant’s Golden Rule, "Treat your neighbour, as you yourself, wish to be treated." And a great misunderstanding of Christians is that when they declare this, they do not declare that they succeed. That would be a false and sinful claim, but rather that they believe this, and that they intend to do their utmost to maintain it. It is inherent in the fallibility of humankind that they will fail. That I will fail. That doesn’t demean the striving. No doubt blind or inappropriate love can be detrimental and counter productive to one’s intentions, but there is no evidence that I suffer from that, or my argument leads to it. And again, "That is another story" which I am happy to take up at another time.
Bob- "stating the obligation of citizens to obey the law even the unjust or politically colored ones...I must disagree"
Where did I state that Bob? I in fact state, "i follow the laws of this country." Note the I. There is no obligation for "citizens" in general. There is nary a trace of anything so broad as "unjust" laws. The only other time I mention law is with respect to morality. If you break the law, you create a morally relevant situation. I put no emphasis on the responsibility of the individual to follow law. Just for an individual to recognise that morality is not the domain of Catholic Priests, and if you break the law you must accept it to be an issue where morality can be discussed.
For the record, I follow the laws of this country, or any other, only under the condition that they are just. I wholeheartedly would support the rights of citizens to rise against a law they felt was prejudiced or wrong. Be that a law concerned with soft drugs or with apartheid. That is the nature of democracy.
So that is my response. I needed to clear up these things.
I would request that Bob would share with us, and with me all that he can with regards the scientific and medicinal aspects of soft drugs.
I want to again say how refreshing his approach is.
And I also have to say that Bob misappropriated comments that I made, no doubt with the best of intentions. The fact of the matter is that I did not make general statements against soft drugs, and still haven’t. That isn’t to say I am not against cannabis legalisation. It is just to say that I want to find out as much as I can as amicably as I can from someone who clearly has his **** together on this issue.
It is just to say that I haven’t made any statements against it, so directing your arguments towards me on medicinal grounds in that respect is inappropriate.
I would argue very strongly that experience offers no advantage to the validity of an opinion.
And I would state that I make no assumptions on the responsibilities of others to follow law.
Bob, I look forward to you furnishing me with more information. Take as long as you like. And write as much as you please. I sure have.
I would also like to know in detail what Bob thinks about the argument that legalising cannabis will close than the police’s route to hard drug dealers?
And I thank you for your time. Though I suspect the only people who read this far are Neuro, El Presidente and Bob.
0 -
-
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Greenbean:
About taking dope without tobbaco, what are the options. Grass is rare. Yogurts are the only other thing I can think of.</font>
Brownies are nice - as is Toast What about a bong or a pipe? I don't smoke tobbaco and so I don't like joints, so a bong is the way to go for me (and it can get you really wrecked if you want it to 
). So, I guess I don't need to worry too much about the nicotine and other associated i;;s with tobbaco<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Greenbean:
About the friend who gets you some gear my experience is if they don't have hard drugs to give to you as well then they are just really a friend who knows someone else. But the primary source definitely has access to all the drugs. Oh and you'd be surprised at how thin the hierarchy is. It's not 10 middle-men from going on the street to coming from your friend. More like 2 or 3.
</font>
This is true - if it's a case of a mate sorting you out for the weekend as DeV said, then it's more than likely he know's someone who can, if necessary, sort you out with whatever you need.
Because of it's widespread use, it may seem like there's a big hierarchy of organisation, but it most definitely isn't the case and a lot of the time, someone may buy several ounces (or maybe bars), but they're maybe not a part of the bigger picture at all.
On another note, I'm interested to know what's most likely mixed in with resin to earn the dealer his profits?
All the best,
Dav
@B^)<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Prepare yourself - The Beefy King stirs from his slumber...</font>
[honey i] violated [the kids]0 -
Advertisement
-
I would like to begin by thanking Excel for his kind words. He says that "...I have no fear in admitting, considerable more knowledge than I." Hmmmmmm....perhaps. But the ability to apply knowledge is far more important than the knowledge itself, a skill you have in abundance excelsior. In your last post, you applied knowledge to a structured line of argumentation as well as I have *ever* seen. And that's a transferrable skill- knowledge simply takes time and dedication, qualities you don't seem to lack in the slightest. I don't mean it to sound shallow, just an honest expression of the structure of your post- it was very well elucidated indeed.
And now on to the meat of the post- all those who don't wish to read the arguments written from here on in...the "trolls" board is merely 2 clicks away. For those interested in a (hopefully good) debate, read on...
Excelsior states that the lack of direct experience is not a requirement for stating an opinion. I agree- it's not a requirement as such...but it certainly helps. It honestly depends on the type of opinion one states- philosophical opinions hardly ever require practical experience in order to be expressed correctly. The same is true of history, and numerous other disciplines. However, this is certainly *not* true of scientific opinion- without experience in the field, a good scientific opinion cannot be articulated properly. That is the thrust of my argument, and I apologize for the ambiguous nature of the way it is expressed in my last post. I must admit, my beef with judgement from distance comes, in part, from the high-brow, presumptive attitude that is exuded by critics, particularly art and literature critics. It must be said, that philosophical and/or historical judgements cannot be integrated into the topic of this thread. I wholly agree with your assertion that direct experience isn't needed to form a point of view. But what Karn was referring to as "direct experience" was almost certainly alluding to the direct experiences provided by drug use, particularly soft drug use. Using the examples of the Great Pyramids, murder and the Holocaust to contrast personal experience with distant opinion doesn't collate with practical experience versus literature concerning soft drugs. (I do believe it was Keynes if I remember my high school economics correctly...but it was you who quoted him first, so you confirm)
I understand your basketball example all too well, having played point-guard for my High-school varsity team, and supporting basketball as well. Unfortunately the thrill of watching my team scoring a basket is somewhat diminished by the fact that being from Seattle, I support the 'Sonics(always have done). As such, these thrills have been few and far between over the last 10 years (at least in play-off games that matter).
The point you make about history not having a set frame of reference is absolutely correct- in fact, the day that the concept of history becomes an irrefutable truth, I fully intend to contact the mothership to transport me off this rock.
On to the issue of drugs- your original post was a bit ambiguous unfortunately. You stated that your were against "drugs in general", that you didn't take any "drugs" and that taking "drugs" diluted your sense of self. You *then* went on to mention hard drugs. I (reasonably, I thought at the time), assumed that the first few references were to all drugs and that the latter reference targeted hard drugs.
If it's only hard drugs that trouble you, I couldn't agree with you more. It is my firm conviction that the medical, social, and psycological harm caused by hard drugs threatens the very fabric of the world we live in. One of my residences in medicine was a rehab clinic in Potomac, Wisconsin, and just a few weeks there did nothing to lessen my convictions about hard substance use or abuse.
You are quite right that chocolate and red meat don't enslave your personality. And of course it's not because "they are legalized and controlled". Even *I* can figure out that's stretching an argument to levels of ludicrosity-I may be a tad loquacious, but I'm not stupid . I thought you were referring to soft, not hard drugs when you made that statement. Now that you've clarified that- neither do soft drugs....they do *not* cause you to steal money to support the habit (even on the black market they're reasonably priced), and do not cause the fabric of society to fold. And as for red meat enslaving you to a cardiologist's exercise regime- so true, but if only (if ONLY) patients actually *followed* the regime....patient compliance is notoriously difficult to achieve at the best of times, much more so when an action such as "exercise" (cue 3-chord horror theme...*dun dun dunnnnnnnn*) is brought into the equation- which is why I'm studying for an FRCSII instead of a systemic specialty like cardiology.
Now on to the central bone of contention, as you put it...I fear I have caused offence here
That was not my intention in any of the remarks in that post. I was merely stating that *medically* speaking, rationality is not diluted when taking soft drugs. Of course mood and behavior change, but not drastically or detrimentally. I don't question your reasons for not taking drugs of any kind- and I never will. I was merely challenging the logical and scientific veracity of that statement. If you feel on a personal level that sense of self is diminished by consuming any form of drug, then who am I to question that?
However, I do have a problem with the issue of *absolute* self-recognition. While not exactly a selfish point of view as such, it is certainly insular and non-communicative. French philosophers as a whole (with Rousseau, Molliere and Hugo as notable exceptions), take self-recognition and individual cognition to extremes, I feel. From Descarte's first principles, to the existentialist ideals of the 20th century philosophers (Camus, Sartres, et. al.), these points of view have come and gone. I would just like to point out, that this insular view contrasts remarkably with the empathic arguments you made about your fellow man (/woman), and utopian ideals those statements encapsulate. "Saying that we define ourselves in terms of consciousness and motive, somewhat precludes one's ability to empathize with our fellow man"- Rousseau,(Man in Chains) I sense that this empathic contrast is borne out of religion- unfortunately, self-determination and religion have always clashed, almost always unpleasently None of the self-determinist philosophers were vocal about religion- how could they be? Their quasi-existential views often have no place for the kind of empathy offerred by religion- unfortunate, that.
Now on to those empathic arguments. I'd like to begin by pointing out that Kants golden rule was preceded by centuries of philosophical elucidation on the same subject by Confucious, Dao, Kalidasa, and Chanakya. "Treat others as you would have them treat you" as a moral and philosophical ideal, has been around a lot longer than Christianity.
Of course the fact that fraternity is doomed to failure doesn't demean the striving. However, the unspeakable depths of its failure should lead us to question the *manner* in which we strive. I'll detail more on this in later posts/another thread as and when I can-it's a subject that interests me a great deal, but I digress... Organized, particularly *centralized* religion has failed to achieve a level of moral well-being in modern society. This is largely due to two things
a) The past(and current) involvement of religion in politics, which has often led to harm, even genocide caused in the name of belief.
b) The ambiguity and illogic which propagates much of organized religion as a whole.
I realize that these are extreme arguments, but I do not intend to cause offence. I am merely trying to consider a better paradigm for societal harmony, than the flawed utopian ideal propagated by several major religions. I am not an atheist. In fact, I'm a devout Hindu, as is my family. Hinduisim is not an organized religion, and neither are the philosophy-based faiths of the Far East. These faiths, while far from perfect, offer a more complete philosophical view than the narrow, simplistic view that "absolute-truth" religions adhere to. Perhaps an amalgamation of truths would better serve us, rather than clinging to beliefs to give us identity.
There are several comments in your post worded in a way that suggest you are a religious person, and a Christian. Again, I wish to reiterate that I do not wish to cause offense- merely to try and look at the situation from a different angle- I don't want to demean any particular religion, person or beliefs by doing this.
On to the issue of law (something I have more than a passing familiarity with
On reading your post again....you're quite right about not mentioning dragging citizens and society into an obligatory position, and I apologize for that...However, you must concede that the vast majority of people who treat the law as an absolute *personal* ideal, often expect the same of others as well. I assumed that you were the same...all I can say is that I'm sorry...and happy to be mistaken- it's refreshing to see a disciplined, yet tolerant point of view on these forums.
I apologize sincerely for any misappropriation of your statements....they were unintentional though, and not intended to cause offense-just an innocent misunderstanding, nothing more. I'll post more info on the medical properties of cannabis in a week or so, when I have a bit more time- I'm preparing for a conference in Dublin atm, so I'm quite busy.
To conclude: Personal experience isn't just important, it's *crucial* when assessing the impact of drugs, particularly soft drugs. For practically everything else- excelsior is spot-on...my prejudices against critics in the art disciplines aside.
I'm running out of time in my lunch break here (I only took 5 mins to write a post, thinking it would be a short one....doh!), so I'll address the other points in Excelsior's post when I have time- feel free to reply to this post though Excel- whenever it suits you
I don't know about the rest of the people reading this...but I'm thoroughly enjoying myself here- as I suspect Excel is too
Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Recta Non Compos Mentis=
[This message has been edited by Bob the Unlucky Octopus (edited 20-03-2001).]0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement