Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Concerning Naked Lunch Part 4: Drugs and Addicts

By Egil Skallagrimson in Culture
Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 09:09:24 AM EST
Tags: Books (all tags)
Books

This is the 4th in a series of essays about the novel Naked Lunch.  This essay will deal with the issue of Drugs and their portrayal in the novel.


Perhaps the least understood area in the Burroughs story is the issue of drugs. In one sense, Naked Lunch is entirely a story about drugs and drug use, the life of the addict and the struggles of overcoming addiction, but this only on the surface. In another sense it is not about drugs at all. Drugs only become the medium to portray a repetitious essay about the dangers of unchecked organizational power. At the same time, though, the fact cannot be ignored that many of the events in the book are only embellished tales from Burroughs own personal experience. So, Naked Lunch treats the issue of drugs as a cautionary tale of pleasure and pain, and attempts to cut away the layers of dogmatic thinking that surrounded the world of drugs in the 1950's (as well as the present world) by presenting it as it was, at least for him. He neither glorifies nor completely demonizes the junkie, but presents him as a sick individual in need of a cure if he is to find relief.

What makes the issue of drugs in Naked Lunch confusing, or misunderstood, though, is not the detailed descriptions of the drug use, but the issue of Burroughs' constantly shifting morals about the problem. Burroughs never really makes a statement that the reader can take as a stance about the issue. In Naked Lunch the reader sees the junkie in action, and the picture shows both the comforts and the disadvantages of drug use, and in particular heroin use. But, in interviews and novels later on, drugs are deemed dangerous or useless, though they continue to play a part in the novels.

So, why the constantly shifting viewpoint?

It's not as if he suddenly became an advocate for anti-drug laws. He certainly didn't speak out against them in an overly aggressive way.  His 'Deposition: Testimony Concerning a Sickness', which was included as an Introduction in the first American edition of Naked Lunch (by Grove Press in 1962), spends quite a bit of time on the drug issue, but (as this essay notes) equates the issue of addiction to government control and not as an inherent quality of the drugs themselves. In interviews he seems almost subdued, or trying to avoid the subject, knowing that legions of drug-using counter-culture thinkers would be reading the underground press-type magazines he usually gave interviews to.  As with nearly all things in Burroughs life, there is strong evidence of a serious inner conflict over the issue of drug use and expanded consciousness. He seems to have seriously doubted the merits of using drugs for any purpose but to feel different, often commenting that any experience a person had while under the influence of drugs could be replicated without them, if the person knew how. While this has the feeling of an attempt to deter people from drugs through a slightly falsified statement, it certainly shows an aversion to the idea that a chemical has the power to make the mind more open to new ideas. His views on Timothy Leary's experiments with LSD are a case in point.

Burroughs tended to skirt the issues of saying what he really thought about Leary's experiments, though the question was often put to him during interviews in the 1960's. Usually he hinted at finding them silly, but more often than not just assumed them to be pointless. His own experiments, though never detailed in any elaborate way (certainly not in the way that Leary's experiments were written about by Tom Wolfe in "The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test"), were included as evidence in the essay Letter From a Master Addict to Dangerous Drugs, written in 1956, before Naked Lunch, and published in the British Journal of Addiction. In it, Burroughs details all of his experiences thus far, which is fairly extensive if ones remembers he wrote the essay when he was 42. However, he was still using drugs on and off in the years immediately after writing the essay. Perhaps it is best to say that his view on drugs was that they were fun, but only offering limited means to ends for the user.

The issue of drugs could easily have been dealt with under the subject of societal control, since Burroughs often commented that drugs were just another control mechanism used by governments and underground governments to maintain a money-making system over uneducated, easy prey. In some senses, he seems to have certainly been right. He would not be the first to suggest that government agencies in America used illegal as well as legal drugs as a tool to maintain a status quo among both the rich and the poor. Civil rights leaders in the 1960's hinted that the abundance of liquor stores and easy access to illegal drugs in black neighborhoods in the United States was not going unnoticed by legislators and lawmakers. Perhaps the abundance of access to addictive substances was a ploy to keep people focused on drinking or shooting up rather than gaining positions of power and prominence. This idea would definitely have appealed to Burroughs' acute sense of distrust with the American government and its power-elite.

So, in Naked Lunch we see an endless parade of junkies, pushers and police officers devoted to maintaining and profiting from drug abuse. Burroughs' equation for this idea was called the Algebra of Need, a symbiotic relationship whereby the junkie, pusher/dealer and cop all work in unison to make sure that the other exists. Each part relies on the other for its own existence. If the junkie stops using, then the cop has nothing to do, so laws are created that will put people in situations to find themselves disposed to using drugs. For instance, arresting someone of suspicion of drug possession and then putting them in jail where they are likely to encounter drugs. Once they are out on the street again, they have experienced drug use and crave it, giving the police added incentive to maintain a situation where their work is required.  

The equation is both simple and paranoid. It runs throughout Naked Lunch (and much of Burroughs' work of the 1960's) as a common theme that is returned to again and again. As has been mentioned, most of the characters in the book are junkies, addicted to one type of drug or another. Some, like Lee, use heroin or heroin/morphine derivatives, while others use imaginary drugs, such as the Black Meat or Mugwump Fluid, which Burroughs invents as an illustration of issues concerning control. Sometimes, the opiates and imaginary drugs are required by the agent to complete his mission. Marijuana is present, but Burroughs' opinion of marijuana was that it was not much of a drug, and much closer to alcohol in its effectiveness. Because of this, it does not take a prominent place among the drug anecdotes in the book.

The opening chapter of the book is a narrative from Lee's point of view as a junkie in New York, running from the law and relating 'trade' stories from the lifestyle of a heroin addict. The early section of the novel has a few different anecdotes from an anthropological perspective about how drug addicts live. It reads like a disjointed monograph on a foreign race, interspersed with bracketed mini anecdotes to clarify certain points. The tone is ironic, the narrator relating how a junkie caught in jail will often prepare for such a mishap by always squeezing one drop of heroin into his shirt pocket every time he administers the drug, over and over, just in case he finds himself in such a situation. In the event that he does find himself in jail, the junkie is able to add water to the pocket and get a fix that can tide him over until he is released. The narrator also describes the way a junkie will use a pin hidden in his shoe to make a small hole in his calf, just large enough to drip the reinvigorated heroin into.

Provident junkies, known as squirrels, keep stashes against a bust. Every time I take a shot I let a few drops fall into my vest pocket, the lining is stiff with stuff. I had a plastic dropper in my shoe and a safety pin stuck in my belt. You know how this pin and dropper routine is put down: "She seized a safety pin caked with blood and rust, gouged a great hole in her leg which seemed to hang open like an obscene, festering mouth waiting for unspeakable congress with the dropper which she now plunged out of sight into the gaping wound. But her hideous galvanized need (hunger of insects in dry places) has broken the dropper off deep in the flesh of her ravaged thigh (looking rather like a poster on soil erosion). But what does she care? She does not even bother to remove the splintered glass, looking down at her bloody haunch with the cold blank eyes of a meat trader. What does she care for the atom bomb, the bedbugs, the cancer rent, Friendly Finance waiting to repossess her delinquent flesh...Sweet Dreams, Pantopon Rose."

The real scene you pinch up some leg flesh and make a quick stab hole with a pin. Then fit the dropper over, not in the hole and feed the solution slow and careful so it doesn't squirt out the sides...(NL, 10)

In this instance, the description of the way to administer the shot without a needle while stuck in jail (or any other equally indisposed situation) is repeated so that the reader sees both sides of the story. First Burroughs delivers a typical ironic speech of the type usually heard in lurid stories from crime magazines or government 'testimonials' in propaganda films designed to frighten the potential user. The second description is of the actual method, which seems less exciting following the lie. This kind of dual description method follows Burroughs' idea that the problem of drug addiction does not begin and end with the junkie, but encompasses the authorities in a situation that forces a junkie to hide a dropper in his shoe and stab his leg with a pin just to take his drug. His correction of false information, the type that is more likely to be heard by the public at large, paints a less gruesome, less interesting picture.

The purpose of this 'shop talk' is to build the illusion of the junkie lifestyle, to force the reader into the place of the `square' from the opening page of the novel, pulling the reader into the lifestyle, but always keeping them at a safe distance on purpose. As well, the narrator is always mocking the reader just a little bit, hinting at how much the reader doesn't know and does not really want to know about Lee's lifestyle. Lee/Burroughs is just a like an animal in the zoo for the reader, at least in the opening sections of the novel.

I can feel the heat closing in, feel them out there making their moves, setting up their devil doll stool pigeons, crooning over my spoon and dropper I throw away Washington Square Station, vault a turnstile and two flights down the iron stairs, catch uptown A train...Young, good looking, crew cut, Ivy League, advertising executive type fruit holds the door back for me.  I am evidently his idea of a character.  You know the type: comes on with bartenders and cab drivers, talking about right hooks and the Dodgers, calls the counterman in Nedick's by his first name.  A real asshole.  (NL, 3)

This is one of the better tricks in Naked Lunch, taking the reader and setting him/her at odds with the book itself. The author purposely creates a situation that mimics the opening passage, knowing that most readers would not know any more than the 'square' in the subway that holds the door open for Lee. As the book progresses, they are more likely to become part of the world that is evolving on the page, now that they have come into contact with the drugs and the lives of the seedy characters of Interzone. This shows the complexity at which Burroughs was operating in writing the novel, and hints at his ability to create a far more layered work than the average narrative. He was not simply detailing pornographic elements and glorifying drug use, but purposely inventing a very self-reflective world of drugs and secrecy: the world of agents and addicts that is Naked Lunch.

The imaginary drugs in the book are the most colorful, as they introduce a unique science fiction-like element to the story. They are almost asides in the novel, not exactly serving a specific purpose, but they add to the tone of the world surrounding Interzone. They add texture and allow for different views of drugs as tools to control, though they don't actually exist. (It should be mentioned here that these element are the kind Burroughs most likely took from the pulp Science-Fiction he loved and always read, as well as being the elements most influential to later Science-Fiction writers and film-makers.) The Black Meat is one of these drugs, though its effect is not explicitly stated, other than to say that it causes sickness in the users.  

All streets of the city slope down between deepening canyons to a vast kidney-shaped plaza full of darkness. Walls of streets and plaza are perforated by dwelling cubicles and cafés, some a few feet deep, others extending out of sight in a network of rooms and corridors.

At all levels, criss-cross of bridges, cat walks, cable cars. Catatonic youths dressed as women in gowns of burlap and rotten rags, faces heavily and crudely painted in bright colors over stratum of beatings, arabesques of broken, suppurating scars to the pearly bone, push against the passer-by in silent clinging insistence.

Traffickers in the Black Meat, flesh of the giant aquatic black centipede - sometimes attaining a length of six feet - found in a lane of black rocks and iridescent, brown lagoons, exhibit paralyzed crustaceans in camouflaged pockets of the Plaza visible only to the Meat Eaters...

Several Meat Eaters lay in vomit, too weak to move. (The Black Meat is like a tainted cheese, overpoweringly delicious and nauseating so that the eaters eat and vomit and eat again until they fall exhausted.) (NL, 45, 47)

Though the actual effect and attraction of the Black Meat seems to be more taste than biological changes or euphoric feelings, it is never actually stated. Only the fact that this substance produces cravings to ingest it over and over again makes it a drug, despite making the user violently ill and causing vomiting. The drug seems to be an image of desire and craving more than anything else. It foregrounds the idea that drug use is more about desire and the fear of not having something than it is about the effects the drug has on the body. The Meat Eaters only want to eat over and over again, even though they know that they will feel worse after eating the Black Meat. But, desire holds them in check and they have little ability to refuse because of the effects of the drug. This is an example of Burroughs' concept of Total Need, the desire that takes over a body entirely when constant drug use is introduced. No adverse effect caused by the drug can turn the user off of finding more. Obviously the associations to be made between the Black Meat and actual opiates are obvious, but Burroughs uses many devices such as this to illustrate the idea.

The picture he paints of a world totally in service to the substance that the Meat Eaters (and the other types of addicts in the scene, as well) crave is meant to mimic our world. In some ways, it is meant to be a model of Tangiers at the time he lived there, where, in the wake of WWII, the rule of law seems almost to have been eliminated in the bustle and confusion of country coming back into its own sense of self after decades of French rule. On the other hand, this is also an alternate universe, the world of the junkie, so not everything is strictly a metaphor for real life. However, as is the case for everything in Naked Lunch, it can be used as an example of what not to do. Interzone is the end result of a world held in check by the Algebra of Need. People are utterly controlled by substance abuse and the economic conditions. The residents can do little except sit back and be taken in by its equation.

Of course, the Algebra of Need goes beyond the issue of drugs and runs over into all areas of control and dominance. The need for laws to control people, though there were no issues to control previously, is a continuous storyline in Naked Lunch. The desire to be sure of total dominance, or the illusion of total dominance by a ruling power is also present. Ultimately, the Algebra of Need describes the futility of laws and control that have gone beyond the most basic human functional society. As Burroughs saw it, people need only a modicum of rule-making and supervisory control to operate perfectly well as a society. The novels he would write in the latter half of his career would always revolve around fantasies of near-anarchic societies that don't require a massive organizational complex for their success. Naked Lunch is a demonstration of the world when it has gone the other way, when the rules and laws have multiplied to such an extreme that no one is guiltless of breaking a law, as all laws have been created solely to put people in a position of guilt. Yet, there is no one to maintain these laws, so everything is a legal stasis. There are only random arrests and secret meetings to determine punishment.

Again, Benway is the best character in the book to use in examining the issue of control, specifically through the use of consciousness-altering narcotics. His work in the Reconditioning Centre uses drugs as a main ingredient in the control regimen he has designed to 'recondition' those interred there.

I digress as usual. Pending more precise knowledge of brain electronics, drugs remain an essential tool of the interrogator in his assault on the subject's personal identity. The barbiturates are, of course, virtually useless. That is, anyone who can be broken down by such means would succumb to the puerile methods used in an American precinct. Scopolamine is often effective in dissolving resistance, but it impairs the memory: an agent might be prepared to reveal his secrets but quite unable to remember them, or cover story and secret life info might be inextricably garbled...

There are other procedures. The subject can be reduced to deep depression by administering large doses of Benzedrine for several days. Psychosis can be induced by continual large doses of cocaine or Demerol or by the abrupt withdrawal of barbiturates after prolonged administration. He can be addicted by dihydro-oxy-heroin and subjected to withdrawal (this compound should be five times as addicting as heroin, and the proportionately severe.) (NL, 23)

This passage highlights the more institutionalized use of drugs as a tool for control, though the theme is the same throughout the book. Benway hints at the fact that many of the people in the Reconditioning Center are agents that have been caught and must now be interrogated for useful information. The use of drugs to extract that information is a key element in the procedures of the R.C. Benway is complacent about the torture and talks about the patients in terms of lifeless objects. They are merely tools to practice on. Burroughs pointedly uses a control figure as the initiator of drug use with the specific purpose of confusing and emotionally tearing down the patient. He has very little concern for the feelings of those he works on and the use of drugs fascinates him, so he tries as many different methods as he can. This is all done, purportedly, in the name of science. The presentation of a doctor figure as completely callous and disinterested in the patients is interesting, as Burroughs seems to have had great respect for doctors, in general, especially since he trained to be a doctor at one time. Yet, in Naked Lunch, doctors are often presented as cold, and more interested in the scientific results of experiments than in the condition of the patient.

The Algebra of Need is Benway's weapon of choice. He provides the drugs and punishes the addict for becoming addicted. In the case of Benway, the equation is much smaller than the scale of junkie, cop and pusher, but it is still evident. For Burroughs, this was a logical situation that any control-minded government would be sure to maintain as a device to keep resistance to a minimum through scare tactics and skewed media stories. To ensure the public at large that the government has a plan to eliminate the junkie on the street, though, unbeknownst to the public, they themselves are the main cause of the problem, keeps the faith of the people firmly placed in the hands of the government.

In "Deposition: A Testimony Concerning a Sickness" Burroughs writes extensively about the Algebra of Need. When he wrote the "Deposition" article he was currently elaborating on the subject of the Algebra of Need at the time, as he was in middle of forming his next book, The Soft Machine. So, though he was including the essay as an appendix to Naked Lunch, the ideas found in The Soft Machine were present in his mind.

Junk yields a basic formula of 'evil' virus: The Algebra of Need. The face of 'evil' is always the face of total need. A dope fiend is a man in total need of dope. Beyond a certain frequency need knows absolutely no limit or control...

If you wish to alter or annihilate a pyramid of numbers in a serial relation, you alter or remove the bottom number. If we wish to annihilate the junk pyramid, we must start with the bottom of the pyramid: the Addict in the Street, and stop tilting quixotically for the 'higher-ups' so called, all of whom are immediately replaceable. The addict in the street who must have junk to live is the one irreplaceable factor in the junk equation. When there are no more addicts to but junk there will be no junk traffic. As long as junk need exists, someone will service it. (NL, 201 - 202)

He outlines the simplicity of the equation here, but also hints at the nearly impossible mission of eliminating the need, Total Need. Burroughs suggestion that the junkie's need be eliminated, thus breaking the chain or crumbling the pyramid from below, is an overwhelming proposition. As he mentions, as long as there is a product to be had and a profit to be made, there will be those who will use them. Essentially, in the quote above, Burroughs more or less proves that there is no way to eliminate the Algebra of Need, showing the concept to be essentially defeatist at its core. By the 1970's, Burroughs would realize that there is very little anyone can do to resist such overwhelming opposition, and he turned his attention to other issues. Yet, at the time, he felt what that what he was writing in Naked Lunch was an active stance against the futile systems being established to punish addicts by those who clearly didn't even understand the problem.

Drug addiction in the late 1950's and early 1960's was always treated as a moral problem, rather than recognizing the legitimate chemical imbalances in the individuals that often used the drugs most heavily. Typical of the time, Burroughs did not necessarily ascribe to the idea of drug addiction as a chemical imbalance, but saw it as a disease to be treated. Yet, the causes of drug addiction to him seemed mostly to be an issue of supply and demand rather than medical. If there was a supply, more people would be likely to use it. Cut off the bottom rung of users and the supply runs out. Nonetheless, he was ahead of his time in indicating that addiction was a disease and should be treated as such, instead of being punished as a moral issue to be despised.

Burroughs' Algebra of Need is an interesting concept and provides insight into the message of his early novels, but in the wake of the 20th century it seems somewhat trite. In essence, it is true, and there are many possible demonstrations of the reality of it, but even he knew that the ability to turn the control mechanisms of the world around had been lost long ago. He also knew that there was no stopping the use of drugs or the control they had/have over people. As Naked Lunch grew in popularity throughout the 1960's, more and more people began to use drugs recreationally. It is as if the dispersion of the idea also signaled the increase of the problem, or at least coincided with it. So, it seems both consistent with Burroughs' character and inconsistent with reality for him to maintain the idea that governments used drug-addicts to simply further their purposes. Yet, this is not an uncommon conclusion for Burroughs, whose paranoia was legendary, and his self-insulated views colored these kinds of accusations.

What is probably closer to the truth is that governments looked the other way for quite a long time and employed a small amount of police officers to do enough to say that they are attempting to tackle an issue that the public was becoming more and more conscious of as the century went by. In the intervening years between the publishing of Naked Lunch and the present day, drug control and issues surrounding the enforcing of drug laws have become huge in North America, and especially in the United States. It is no wonder that Burroughs tended to target the U.S. in his novels, as the reality of the life of a drug user has actually gotten worse in the U.S. than when Burroughs was writing. Since authorities no longer look the other way, the problem has been increasingly confronted with jail sentences, which Burroughs noticed in later years, and commented on repeatedly.

The problem of drugs, then, is always made into an essentially legal one by Burroughs, and is pushed back into the hands of those who make the laws. The actual users of the substances are victims, in a sense, and they can only follow the option they are given and which has been constructed for them by the law-makers with the power to control drug use in the Western world. This is somewhat afar-fetched, almost an allegory for abuse, rather than a logical indictment of an obviously more complex problem. However, Burroughs generally points to the ultimate decision makers when he seeks a guilty party, and that person has the ability to create and enforce the law when it comes to the issue of drugs. For early readers of Naked Lunch the concept of a power-structure that was nearly untouchable and unbending was not foreign. It was becoming clear enough to the youth of the early 1960's in the Western world that their governments were not necessarily representative of their views for the future. To make the connection between a government policy to allow the problem of addiction to increase while publicly countering it in official literature was simple enough. The disconnect seems to come in that many readers of Burroughs' book also identified with the misunderstood notion that he was advocating drugs as a way to see the world differently. Though he may have acknowledged the use of drugs as way to see the world in a different way, the idea more describes his desire to dismantle old notions of 'proper' living than it does his prescription for lifestyle. To experience something and to live it as a lifestyle are two very different paths.

So, in the end, Naked Lunch is basically a warning against drugs and using any truly addictive substance on a continual basis, though its depiction are not meant as propaganda, but as satire. This is usually missed, it seems, and for that reason Naked Lunch has been praised or criticized for its rampant drug use ever since it was first published, focusing all attention on the fact that Burroughs himself was an addict, rather than the message of the book. This is unfortunate, since Burroughs was clearly not in favor of people beginning an addictive drug habit. Nor was he an addict for most of life as a writer. He constantly stressed that a writer cannot write well on heroin. The reason many have missed this fact seems to come from the nature of Burroughs protest against drugs. He is not evangelical or dogmatic in his approach to warding people off. While he is content to rail against the dangers and abuses of controlling elements in society, he does not take the same approach to drugs. Instead, he demonstrates the danger and futility of the lifestyle in an anthropological way (if allowances can be made for artistic merit), and perhaps even a somewhat nostalgic way. Yet, he is not advocating the use of heroin as a habit, and certainly paints a picture of the dangers inherent in any addiction, whether it be narcotics or something else. How could he when the entire novel describes the drug addict as a figure of slave-like mentality, without the ability to function by his own will?

Nonetheless, the aspect of control through drug use and addiction is the most tangible of all the messages Burroughs tries to convey in the book, though the issue of drugs in the book is not. There is no denying the control a substance can have over an individual. For Burroughs, as this experience was first-hand knowledge (and fresh in his mind, as he published the book only months after kicking his recurring heroin habit), it was very real and powerful. That any substance can render a person so incoherent as to desire to stare at the end of their shoe for eight hours in a daze, only to come out of it and then run out to find more of the substance is to be put in a prison. The only real question, then, despite Burroughs claims, is whether or not this situation was a result of too much or too little government intervention.


Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Also by Egil Skallagrimson


Display: Sort:
Concerning Naked Lunch Part 4: Drugs and Addicts | 409 comments (379 topical, 30 editorial, 0 hidden)
Did you (none / 1) (#3)
by trane on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 05:55:54 PM EST

mention anything about the "junk frequency" and how Burroughs talks about telepathy and the control issues involved with that?

Why Not Check The Text Yourself? (2.33 / 3) (#4)
by CheeseburgerBrown on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 06:00:15 PM EST

You can even cheat and use some kind of "Find" command.


_____
I am from a small, unknown country in the north called Ca-na-da. We are a simple, grease-loving people who enjoy le weeke
[
Parent ]
Er (none / 1) (#58)
by trane on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 02:23:05 PM EST

Remember: when you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U amd ME.

I know the text pretty well. Upon a first, quick, read-through of the article, the author didn't seem to mention what I consider a very important part of the book, connected intimately with drug use. So I asked. Maybe I should have said "why didn't you mention..." but I wasn't sure if he had or not on my first reading. Hence the question.

Understand now?

[ Parent ]

Or (none / 1) (#61)
by trane on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 02:42:52 PM EST

you were probably talking about searching the article. I could have phrased my question better, I guess. I was in a hurry, I had about 30 seconds before the public library computer i was on cut me off.

[ Parent ]
You shouldn't waste your time on me (none / 0) (#66)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 03:03:04 PM EST

when you have to use the public library.  But, thanks.

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

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

Well (none / 1) (#69)
by trane on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 03:21:10 PM EST

I was just using your article as a vehicle to push my radical agenda, as usual :)

[ Parent ]
Fight the power, Brutha [nt] (none / 0) (#71)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 03:24:36 PM EST


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

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

No, I didn't (none / 1) (#5)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 06:53:11 PM EST

Might have been a good idea, but it was a relatively minor facet of the overall picture.  Maybe I will later.

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

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

Disagree (none / 1) (#57)
by trane on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 02:18:43 PM EST

Maybe you just have to do a lot of drugs to see it from my point of view though.

The stuff about finding your dealer by radar, and tuning in to the "junk frequency", and the Senders and the control they exert. The narcs sniffing out his trail using a kind of esp. Sending messages to someone in his room to go. The psychiatrist who said he got more knowledge about his patient by talking all the time than by listening to the patient talk...

When I first read Burroughs' treatment of telepathy I was astounded that he'd had the guts to put it in. It's something that most drug users in the drug game experience, but find very hard to talk about like Burroughs did.

But I'm sure your learned opinion of what's important in the text far outweighs mine, a mere reader, and a shameless druggie at that.

[ Parent ]

No, I think it's a very good point you make (none / 0) (#64)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 03:00:40 PM EST

just don't think it's a consistent theme as much as it is a constant idea, if you know what I mean. I was looking at more thematic elements, rather than the specifcs of something I couldn't possibly know about.

However, I think that it is a valid point.  email me with some details of some kind.  This is a work in progress, so i'd like to hear more.

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

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

Christ (2.77 / 9) (#10)
by loteck on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 08:23:36 PM EST

fine, i will read the fucking book. are you happy now?
--
"You're in tune to the musical sound of loteck hi-fi, the musical sound that moves right round. Keep on moving ya'll." -Mylakovich
"WHAT AN ETERNAL MOBIUS STRIP OF FELLATIATIC BANALITY THIS IS." -Harry B Otch

My prayers have been answered. (none / 1) (#12)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 08:43:20 PM EST

But, I'm gonna keep writing anyway.

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

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test (3.00 / 5) (#21)
by benna on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 11:22:34 PM EST

The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test by Tom Wolfe was about Ken Kesey and his marry pranksters on the west coast, not Leary on the east. Leary did write extensivly about his experiments, in High Priest, the Politics of Ecstasy, The Psychedelic Experience, and a number of other books though.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
That's a good point. I should have (none / 0) (#29)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 11:54:18 PM EST

clarified the whole Keasy/Leary rip-off of ideas deal.

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

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

Huh? (none / 0) (#106)
by kcidx on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 12:27:20 PM EST


clarified the whole Keasy/Leary rip-off of ideas deal.

???

Please do.

I was going to let the Acid Test/Leary comment stand just because there was a part of the book when the two groups met.

But I fail to see any ideas being ripped off from each other, barring the whole "LSD is cool, man" ideas both groups shared. Other than that, they were pretty much night and day...explaining why they didn't really get along very well for very long. Leary was very clinical about the whole thing, Kesey was more into going totally crazy in public and doing weird shit.

[ Parent ]

Yeah, I know (none / 0) (#107)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 12:37:12 PM EST

but if i remember correctly, Keasy was introduced to it all when he was at Harvard studying and then took the ideas for himself out West and goofed around a bunch.

Anyway, I should just rewrite the thing to clarify.  Mostly, I just didn't clarify very well.

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

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

good luck getting an answer (none / 0) (#180)
by bankind on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 11:22:30 PM EST

he draws his sources from a small, shallow and brackish pool.

Based on what he has said, I imagine he has read Acid Dreams, and thinks that the Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test is about the same thing.

But really you shouldn't waste your time challenging this guy, all he'll do is say he KNOWS "drug politics" and constantly demand references where obvious facts exists.

Again, Burroughs is no longer a Beat and a precursor to deconstruction in Egil's alternative reality.

"Insurgents are blowing up pipelines and police stations, geysers of sewage are erupting from the streets, and the electricity is off most of the time -- but we've given Iraq the gift of supply-side economics." -Krugman
[ Parent ]

You constantly attempt to pick away (none / 0) (#395)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 08:27:04 PM EST

but you have nothing to back you up.

Don't you notice that no one agrees with you?

Does the Marines teach a system of total ignorance by which to win over people?

Please, I beg you, just try to come up with one lucid point and any matierial to refute what I say.

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

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

How in YE CAN DO? (3.00 / 12) (#22)
by Egil Skallagrimsons Mother on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 11:33:46 PM EST

Took aged Skor'vik the mule I did, 12 DAYS I took, upon poor Skor'vic to the BIG CITY to puttie these worden on the internets!

OOH how I WEEP to think sadly of the crops, with the bugs and crowes and weeden munching onny. But I came, to see what hath mine OWNFLESH writing, some BIG IDEA, I hope, to tell to the niceums. And the folk in the Bigtowne, they sit in the metal box that go like the land-bird! Wearing themselves in the sheep skin, without hair onny? Some red like the berrie! "Ehhh," I think, "maybe not red teh bearskin and horny helm, but warm at night."

And point they do, and stare, and some try to PINCH THE NOSEN and WRINKLE THEE BROW when I'ma near, with Skor'vic. Babyskin, thee city folk have, with no wear of working the field? To see them, sit straight as a CHAIR, without a prettie hump. Aye and, one tellen me to take a bathe! Why I took o bath not two moons since. Tall as the world-tree I see the prettie hut in the sky! The council woulde burn my poor tongue to hear me speak it, but TRULY tis like no other tree- I've noddy seen the like.

Then, with great noise, BRAAAAAAA! Say the metal boxen, and they UPSET poor Skor'vic teh mule. Why they did BLAST THE BATTLE CRY of the METALY BOX! And so I capture the rider, I did, and beat him with the rok-club. BAP! Only one smack with the rok-club, from a tired old fishy, and down he go. Why, I think, mayhap the bravemens take some of these berrie-red furs someday! And the folk nearby gasp and yell, and run they do. Oh, Egil, twould please your dear Daddie's greatly, to see the look opon Skor'vic the mule. And a tired old Fishyhole was pleased as well.

And offen I go, for two nights and days, and in the Big Town the path is all the same! All this path made of One Rock, and a black one with yellow arroe at that. Andem finde a little blue stickman with a TINY club, and he looken me all up and down and hunch he shoulders and say that theree INTERNETS(!) in a "CAFFAY" around the corner. So I go, where thereen a boy whoe skinnier then a white chicken Boney, and he sais that it costen coins to use the internets. FEH! I seys. STFU! And he look at the rok-club and my horny cap, and seys OK, but be quickly. I sey aye, I sey, Onny a Onemoon. Confused as your gimpy brother, when he try to count hay-bales, is what it did to the lad. Seeme they teach not time to these city folk.

And so I set to work, and its hard on teh skullbucket, to look at so many a letter and so many worden. When I make the cooking fire, teh boney man complains muchly. But here I sit, and It's DONE. And a little more then the fortnight, but by now teh Skinny Boney is notten make more noises about et. And for what? SO I CAN FIND YE, LAZY BONE, SPRAYEN YOOUR CREAMY LONGFILTH OVER TER INTERNETS!! GET YE HOME, DEMON, AND PATCH TEH WATTLE AS I BADE YE FORE!

Theis is whatt happenns to thoos who aske abøt mie anachronism.

Ma, this is America, guldurnit!!!! (none / 1) (#27)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 11:52:29 PM EST

Spikka da frikkin Inglish, why doncha?

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

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

Spikka yorself Our Owntongue, foul pest! (3.00 / 2) (#36)
by Egil Skallagrimsons Mother on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 12:59:34 AM EST

Your poor dear Daddie, how he would beat ye WELL with the RIGHTING STICK if he were here today. Alas, his ghost encourageth myself to act in his place. I know not how to find you in this great City, or I would set opon the task TO BEAT YUOR LAZY BONE FORTHWITH! But with heavy heart ye understand.

Theis is whatt happenns to thoos who aske abøt mie anachronism.
[ Parent ]

This thread alone (2.40 / 5) (#50)
by killmepleez on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 11:38:00 AM EST

makes the article +1-worthy.

__
"I instantly realized that everything in my life that I thought was unfixable was totally fixable - except for having just jumped."
--from "J
[ Parent ]
Just keep watching [nt] (none / 0) (#51)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 11:57:03 AM EST


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

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

What have I done? (none / 1) (#63)
by shinnin on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 02:55:37 PM EST

I guess your good mother Gryla makes up for me +1ing your article a million times.

[ Parent ]
Well, someone's got to be in my corner. (none / 1) (#65)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 03:01:58 PM EST

If it's just you and CBB (who does it strictly on principle, cause we's good ol' boys), then I'd be sunk.

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

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

You know it's nothing personal (2.00 / 2) (#67)
by shinnin on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 03:06:59 PM EST

I do it strictly to piss other people off, you know.

[ Parent ]
I like your style. (none / 1) (#70)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 03:24:01 PM EST

Let's keep it business and bring down this idiot farm strictly for kicks.

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

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

You know (none / 1) (#73)
by shinnin on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 04:01:57 PM EST

we can always go have a drink after the work is done.

[ Parent ]
Yes, many many flagons of mead!!! [nt] (3.00 / 2) (#76)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 05:12:24 PM EST


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

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

NAY! BY YOOR DADDIE'S GHOST, NAY! (none / 1) (#79)
by Egil Skallagrimsons Mother on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 05:49:08 PM EST

I'LL NOT BE HAVVIN YE PRANCE AROUND LIKE THE LITTILEST FAIRY AS YUO DID 'FORE THE COUNCIL OPON PLANTING FEAST!

Bad enough thet yoe finde ways to play with yorself all over the internets, when thereen WORKE TO DO. Now yoe willt shirke yoor poor mothers yoke and harness for mead in teh daylighte time@! I'll NOTTEN hear of it. I've fillt many seed holes for ye, now pen yor uncle's cocks and bull as I seyd a'fore!

Theis is whatt happenns to thoos who aske abøt mie anachronism.
[ Parent ]

BTW (none / 0) (#68)
by shinnin on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 03:09:23 PM EST

my English copies of the Interzone trilogy arrived today. I'll be on a loong business trip soon so I'll be able to read them pretty fast - hopefully soon enough for your next installment.

[ Parent ]
LGURRRRRRRAAAAHH!!!! Filth! (3.00 / 2) (#78)
by Egil Skallagrimsons Mother on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 05:21:32 PM EST

Familiar!! DARK Spirit! Corrupt not teh eyen andie skullymind off mine Own-Son! I will be pleased to drive your foul spirit from theen stinking K5 meat wagon, withe the RIGHTING-STICK OPON YOORE HIDE, BE YE MINE OWNFLESHE OR NOT!

Theis is whatt happenns to thoos who aske abøt mie anachronism.
[ Parent ]

Mooooom, I'm trying to write here!!![nt] (none / 0) (#81)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:12:59 PM EST


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

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

So I SEE you have wrote (none / 1) (#84)
by Egil Skallagrimsons Mother on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:34:52 PM EST

How indeed coulde I forget yuor naughtie WORDEN? I see yuo splashe them all on internets. Simple WORDEN IS NOT LONGE ENOUGH TO SAY HOW MANIE, for to point with finger upon so many a letter to make such a LONGFILTHE will take teh FULL HARVEST! Oh! How I weep, at teh waye you wounde yorr poor Mother. I tell my Mum and Daddie, that I TRY TO SET YE RIGHT AWAY, EVERIE TIME YE SPRAY SUCH A NAUGHTIE LONGFILTHE, but still yoe willt point with finger at teh lettern to make such words. *SIGH* I will tell yuor foolish gimpie twin to mend teh thatch. SEE WHAT USE HE WILL BE! And YOUER wolf-pup will't have to pull with firm buttocke upon my yoke. The Bull o your uncle can take but One Side! So that I might fill my holen with teh seed.

Theis is whatt happenns to thoos who aske abøt mie anachronism.
[ Parent ]

Can it, you old hag [nt] (none / 0) (#85)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:55:29 PM EST


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

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

ROR "stinking K5 meat wagon" (3.00 / 2) (#86)
by BottleRocket on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 08:58:40 PM EST

That's fucking great.

$ . . . . . $ . . . . . $ . . . . . $
. ₩ . . . . . ¥ . . . . . € . . . . . § . . . . . £
. . . . * . . . . . * . . . . . * . . . . . * . . . . . *
$ . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Yes I do download [child pornography], but I don't keep it any longer than I need to, so it can yield insight as to how to find more. --MDC
$ . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
. . . . * . . . . . * . . . . . * . . . . . * . . . . . *
. ₩ . . . . . ¥ . . . . . € . . . . . § . . . . . £
$ . . . . . $ . . . . . $ . . . . . $
$B R Σ III$

[ Parent ]

Ma's always been one with words. (none / 1) (#87)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 09:08:41 PM EST

Where do you thinks I gets it from, right?

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

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

lol @ ESM's 0-modding (none / 0) (#80)
by killmepleez on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 05:49:58 PM EST



__
"I instantly realized that everything in my life that I thought was unfixable was totally fixable - except for having just jumped."
--from "J
[ Parent ]
You're crazy. (3.00 / 2) (#23)
by mtrisk on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 11:49:25 PM EST

You voted against your own story.

And, like a previous poster stated, I think I'll have to read the book now. You're very persistent.

______
"If you don't like our country, why don't you get out?"
"What, and become a victim of your foreign policy?"

My bad! (2.00 / 2) (#24)
by mtrisk on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 11:50:07 PM EST

It was your mother who voted you down.

Keep on writing.

______
"If you don't like our country, why don't you get out?"
"What, and become a victim of your foreign policy?"
[ Parent ]

Thanks. Matricide it is [nt] (none / 0) (#26)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 11:51:34 PM EST


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

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

Aye. And I wouldst do it again (3.00 / 2) (#38)
by Egil Skallagrimsons Mother on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 01:46:49 AM EST

...If I hed yet an other Nullo Dupe accounte. The LAZYBONE must learne the pains of daily toil in the crop field! Notten make such WORDY NOISE, when theree chores about.

CHORES FOR THE LAAD

  • Take egge frome teh chicken holes
  • Mend the thatch and wattle
  • Yoke a front the plow and pull by firm butt cheeke
  • Fetch milk from the breasts o thee goaten
  • Repair the pens o the cocke and bull
  • Collect medicines for the gimpy twin
Aft the choren are done, he may put hes limp worden anywhere he whants.

Theis is whatt happenns to thoos who aske abøt mie anachronism.
[ Parent ]

Thnks. I can't vote against myself, or (none / 0) (#25)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 11:50:55 PM EST

I'd try just to see if i could.  That was Ma, the foul harpy.

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

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

Huh? (none / 0) (#28)
by benna on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 11:53:58 PM EST

Burroughs says: When there are no more addicts to but junk there will be no junk traffic. As long as junk need exists, someone will service it. You say: As he mentions, as long as there is a product to be had and a profit to be made, there will be those who will use them. It seems to me you misinterpreted the quote. Burroughs is saying that, if, in theory, one could get rid of all the junkies (which as a practical matter is impossible, but not in principle), there would be no junk trade. This would kill the suppliers. Borroughs is saying that as long as there are junkies there will be junk. You have turned it around to say that as long as there is junk there will be junkies. This is not what Burroughs said.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
must...select....plain text (none / 0) (#30)
by benna on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 11:55:00 PM EST

Burroughs says:
When there are no more addicts to but junk there will be no junk traffic. As long as junk need exists, someone will service it.

You say:
As he mentions, as long as there is a product to be had and a profit to be made, there will be those who will use them.

It seems to me you misinterpreted the quote.  Burroughs is saying that, if, in theory, one could get rid of all the junkies (which as a practical matter is impossible, but not in principle), there would be no junk trade.  This would kill the suppliers.  Borroughs is saying that as long as there are junkies there will be junk.  You have turned it around to say that as long as there is junk there will be junkies.  This is not what Burroughs said.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]

Please see above. I disagree [nt] (none / 0) (#32)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 11:56:56 PM EST


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

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

I don't think that's what I said at all. (none / 0) (#31)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 11:55:48 PM EST

I said that Burroughs says take the junkies away and the pyramid falls.

however, ultimately, he didn't believe that, either.

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

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

Thats probobly true (none / 1) (#35)
by benna on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 12:06:13 AM EST

I just don't see that in that perticular quote, and it seemed to me you were saying it was.  Perhaps I was wrong.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
More crap (3.00 / 4) (#40)
by bankind on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 04:48:16 AM EST

This is usually missed, it seems, and for that reason Naked Lunch has been praised or criticized for its rampant drug use ever since it was first published, focusing all attention on the fact that Burroughs himself was an addict, rather than the message of the book.

Or the fact that Burroughs celebrated the fact that he did so many drugs. This is a guy that proclaimed he had "shot over a million dollars into his arms."

You once again miss the obvious. All the beats glorified themselves in this mystical ethos based on their drug usage, and that this experience gave them greater insight into reality than the "squares." Burroughs is simply capitalizing on his drug use and simply doesn't excerpt the effort for any decisive message. If he wasn't then drugs would not have been the dominating theme of nearly all of his works. Plenty of writers have used drugs and not been "drug writers." He is just his periods Irving Welsh, being both derivative and writing for the "counter-culture" demographic.

You also miss the nature of drug addiction between class. The type of traveling addiction that Burroughs kept was an upper class affair--like the hippy back packers we have in Southeast Asia. Primarily sourcing by buying prescription drugs off doctors. You also seem to lack any understanding of how drug addictions in the US shaped post the return of US vets from Vietnam, the rise of Mexican black tar heroin, crystal meth, and of course crack cocaine.

In comparison, Burroughs is writing about a happy little "leave it to beaver" addiction compared to the type of stuff you see in your average modern drug rehab center. You take the modern drug addiction climate and mis-apply it to Burrough's vague writing and then act like he was predicting the situation.

Your hero worship has once again clouded your ability to perform analysis.

"Insurgents are blowing up pipelines and police stations, geysers of sewage are erupting from the streets, and the electricity is off most of the time -- but we've given Iraq the gift of supply-side economics." -Krugman

Thanks for reading. (2.00 / 2) (#42)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 08:08:49 AM EST

I still haven't seen your essay.

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

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

I don't dance (3.00 / 3) (#52)
by bankind on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 11:57:27 AM EST

to the drums laid down on me by conventional society, man.

But anyway, how is that relevant? I'm not interested in Burroughs as much as I am interested in criticizing your pop-lit-crit. If I wrote an essay even remotely on the subject it would only conclude that "the bums lost."

"Insurgents are blowing up pipelines and police stations, geysers of sewage are erupting from the streets, and the electricity is off most of the time -- but we've given Iraq the gift of supply-side economics." -Krugman
[ Parent ]

Thanks for the insight [nt] (none / 0) (#54)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 12:43:19 PM EST


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

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

What's this bullshit? (3.00 / 1) (#55)
by bankind on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 01:45:16 PM EST

I don't fuckin' care! It don't matter to Jesus. But you're not foolin' me, man. You might fool the fucks in the league office, but you don't fool Jesus. This bush league psyche-out stuff. Laughable, man - ha ha! I would have fucked you in the ass Saturday. I fuck you in the ass next Wednesday instead. Wooo!

You got a date Wednesday, baby!

"Insurgents are blowing up pipelines and police stations, geysers of sewage are erupting from the streets, and the electricity is off most of the time -- but we've given Iraq the gift of supply-side economics." -Krugman
[ Parent ]

Sounds like a plan. (none / 0) (#56)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 01:52:55 PM EST

Please bring all inflatables and that Vietnamese robot you've been going on about.

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

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

Although I disagree (none / 1) (#60)
by trane on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 02:35:26 PM EST

with the GP's assertion that:

Burroughs is writing about a happy little "leave it to beaver" addiction compared to the type of stuff you see in your average modern drug rehab center.

(And I've been in a few rehab centers...)

However, I think he's right that you don't fully understand the way Burroughs treats drugs in the book.

[ Parent ]

I probably don't, but that's (none / 0) (#62)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 02:46:39 PM EST

the main point, something I state at the very beginning: most people don't.  Anyway, I am not trying to explain the experience of taking or using drugs, which I cannot, and which I know is essential to a total understanding of the work.

I am only trying to point out the use of drugs as a metaphor and as a message in Naked Lunch.  Both those aspects do not require the experience of being an addict.  

As for BK, he's just trolling.  the guy only feeds the typical answers that most people who have only heard of Burroughs but not read the work will give.  He's just bored in some server farm somewheres.

As for your experiences, I would appreciate any insight into the book specifically that you could give.  That would be both valuable and new to burroughs work, since no other writers have ever adequately covered this aspect in the history of his work.  Email me with anything you've got.

Thanks.

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

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

You certainly have done a very close reading (none / 1) (#72)
by trane on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 03:50:22 PM EST

of the book in question. And of course you're right that it's unnecessary to have first-hand experience with drugs to understand the book - there's a lot more to it than drugs, and you've brought that out quite well, and quite thoroughly.

I remember wandering around in the fiction stacks during my early undergraduate years and discovering "Naked Lunch" and trying to read it then; I didn't get very far. It was incomprehensible to me. Then some 20 years later, after having been put through the meatgrinder of crack addiction, I picked it up again, and found a lot of it made sense to me. I guess certain shared druggie experiences that Burroughs describes with great mastery gave me a handle on the rest of the book that I didn't have before...

Anyway, the way he talks about non-verbal communication, especially between drug addicts, was really pleasurable for me to read. And there is a very strong issue of control there too, which seems to be one of your major thematic explorations in this series of articles.

As I say, talking about telepathy and telepathic experiences is something that, in my experience, is taboo among drug users (though I'm convinced the experience - hallucination? - of communication beyond sight distance, without using words, is commonplace). Burroughs broke that taboo, and I thank him for it.

I wrote a whole lot of embarrassing and ranting shit when I was going through my heavy crack use period. It's still in my journal at slashdot. Here's something dealing explicitly with telepathy: http://slashdot.org/~blue%20trane/journal/42179. There's more, but I don't really want to go through it right now. Judge its quality accordingly :)

[ Parent ]

I'll take a look [nt] (none / 0) (#77)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 05:13:29 PM EST


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

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

It is totally true (none / 0) (#93)
by bankind on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 01:20:48 AM EST

Burroughs presents these little fictional hardcore drug cultures where everyone feeds off the junkie's habit. What an incredibly self-serving load of bullshit. It is like saying hookers control the sex industry. Maybe at the high profile whore level where they can be independent, but on the street the pimp is king. Just like in the drug business the dealer runs the show.

Burroughs misses all the really gruesome aspects of drugs, the robbing, stealing, and betrayal; and instead focuses on imaginary societal constraints. Why? Because he is a great big fraud. I don't buy his little faux working class street level drug addiction fiction, it is all phoney.

Compare his stuff to the well researched "addictions" described in David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest and you'll see what I mean. Or any real drug habit, street culture memoir, Iceberg Slim's books come to mind. Even Bukowski does a better job showing what it means to be working class and have a vice, which means WORKING.

The fact is Burroughs is this upper class junkie who blames society for his "sickness." Anyone that believes in personal responsibility should rightfully be disgusted.

"Insurgents are blowing up pipelines and police stations, geysers of sewage are erupting from the streets, and the electricity is off most of the time -- but we've given Iraq the gift of supply-side economics." -Krugman
[ Parent ]

Re: this statement (2.00 / 2) (#97)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 08:04:41 AM EST

Burroughs misses all the really gruesome aspects of drugs, the robbing, stealing, and betrayal

Actually, he doesn't.  He writes about all of that. Maybe you should read the book (pick one, any one) before delivering your grand thesis.

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

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

no (none / 0) (#99)
by bankind on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 09:14:04 AM EST

he writes about "ass rape" and "space drugs" not drug cons and the drug game. As I said before I read his stuff when I was about 16 and uninformed about the world and certainly before I read any real lit with real street cred like Robert Beck.

His whole basis for street life is bad detective novels cause he was living it up on mommy and daddy's tab, separate from any real desperation. Incoherent pulp is still just pulp.

"Insurgents are blowing up pipelines and police stations, geysers of sewage are erupting from the streets, and the electricity is off most of the time -- but we've given Iraq the gift of supply-side economics." -Krugman
[ Parent ]

Well, you've obviously forgotten a lot of it. (none / 0) (#102)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 09:39:03 AM EST

Should we compare my memory of reading it for millionth time last week to your's, having never finished a novel by him way back when?

Sorry, cat, yous just wrong.

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

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

There is some stuff in there (none / 0) (#116)
by trane on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 04:08:59 PM EST

about cutting the dope, ripping people off with sugar or whatever, trading sex for drugs, etc. And he does acknowledge that the dealer is king; there are several passages describing the addict as supplicant, the waiting for deals to go through, etc. I think he had a sort of "inside" experience of the drug game.

I know what you mean about the street working addict. One of the things that shocked me in the crack game was what I call "the crackhead work ethic" which dictates that you are shit unless you "bring something back" to the game: you have to sell drugs, or your ass, or steal shit, or SOMETHING otherwise they don't respect you and will rip you off blind. They hated me because I do not have a criminal mind and couldn't do the things they do (they tried to train me to "fish" bills out of parking lot boxes, they kept pushing me to try to sell, etc., but I just couldn't do it.) I got "racially profiled" (as one guy said to me) and excluded from their little game.

Of course the best solution is to legalize the shit. The drug and the "life" are separate things. I just want the drug; fuck their game.

[ Parent ]

I was thinking of Wallace... (none / 1) (#182)
by rusty on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 12:07:47 AM EST

...just before you laid down that pointer. Eerie.

But I agree and disagree with you. Yeah, personal responsibility, and yeah, Burroughs was kind of a rich-boy dillettante. But I do think he's right that the "drug problem" is basically a problem of laws and sickness, not a problem of morals and punishment.

The fact is that heroin (of a known quality and purity) doesn't kill anyone. The conditions surrounding the illegal use of heroin, on the other hand, are more dangerous than crab fishing bare-ass naked and covered in Vaseline. And the conditions of illegal drug use are created not by drugs, but by laws. For example, simply providing addicts their drug of choice for free would immediately cut crime in the US enormously, considering how much crime is associated with getting money for drugs. It would be the best law-enforcement dollar we ever spent. It would also drop our prison population by at least half right off the bat.

Is it wrong to blame society for this situation? An increasingly shrill and all-encompassing enforcement regime that is really obviously not working even a little bit? This is where saying "it's a moral issue" inevitably leads. If you approach drug use as an illness, suddenly there are an awful lot of options that don't inherently involve turning every drug addict into a petty criminal and free-range AIDS vector.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

I'm not sure how the idea (none / 0) (#190)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 08:24:18 AM EST

that Burroughs is trying not to be exactly what he is - upper-class twit of the year - even entered into this argument.  Is there some kind of nobel truth to be a working-class drug addict, rather an upper-middle class one using the language of working-class addicts by way of pulp fiction? I can't think of anything less workong-class.

As far as his evaluation of the drug issue goes, we all have to remember that Burroughs was not a law-maker, so his idea of what would work or not work could very easily be skewed by his experience.

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

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

WHY SHOULD THEY BE FREE FOR ANYONE (none / 0) (#197)
by cathouse on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 06:48:55 PM EST

I always had to work for mine.

-

pity this busy monster manunkind not

progress is a comfortable disease


[ Parent ]

Now Rusty (none / 1) (#361)
by bankind on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:37:15 PM EST

You're really asking me to take off my troll hat and get into some public good failures from pure market economies. Maybe after I finish my current project...

Anyway, I know for certain one initial tragedy of the commons from legalized drugs would be a rampant spread of incoherent drug literature chasing out decent reading. If the 60's and 70's American literature is any example, thems was some dark days for Pulitzers between to Kill a Mockingbird (`61) and Confederacy of Dunces (`81).

But at least music would get better.

"Insurgents are blowing up pipelines and police stations, geysers of sewage are erupting from the streets, and the electricity is off most of the time -- but we've given Iraq the gift of supply-side economics." -Krugman
[ Parent ]

Well, at least you own it. (none / 0) (#368)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 02:06:21 PM EST

We appreciate your patronage.

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

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

That would be unfortunate (none / 0) (#376)
by rusty on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 02:38:58 PM EST

On the other hand, maybe legalization (or strictly speaking, decriminalization, which is what I'm talking about) might just strip most of the glamour from being a drug addict, in the same way that most people don't read a lot of books about the reduced-price school lunch program.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
That would really be a Naked Lunch. (none / 0) (#379)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 03:12:19 PM EST

HHHAAAAHHAAAAHHAAAA.

Good one.

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

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

Yeah (none / 0) (#396)
by bankind on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 10:06:09 PM EST

But we'd get lots of "daddy loved his medical cocaine more than me" memoirs, but maybe that would just chase out all the "daddy loved drinking his old fashion cocktails more than me" memoirs.

"Insurgents are blowing up pipelines and police stations, geysers of sewage are erupting from the streets, and the electricity is off most of the time -- but we've given Iraq the gift of supply-side economics." -Krugman
[ Parent ]

When really (none / 1) (#397)
by rusty on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 10:10:59 PM EST

...what the world needs is a lot more "Daddy pranced around the house in a cape and killed spiders with his rapier" memoirs.

I think we can all agree on that.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

that's ah good'un <nt> (none / 0) (#398)
by bankind on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 02:23:03 AM EST


"Insurgents are blowing up pipelines and police stations, geysers of sewage are erupting from the streets, and the electricity is off most of the time -- but we've given Iraq the gift of supply-side economics." -Krugman
[ Parent ]

When did you sneak this into the queue? (3.00 / 3) (#41)
by shinnin on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 05:29:52 AM EST

Great article, once again. Is it my subjective impression or are they getting longer and longer? The article is very helpful in understanding what is most likely the central theme of interest to most Burroughs newbs and goes a long way to rectify predominant misrepresentations. It becomes apparent in the article that Burroughs thoughts on drug use and the power structures inherent in the societal manifestation were rather complex and not at all times completely rational.

used illegal as well as legal drugs as a tool to maintain a status quo among both the rich and the poor.

This sounds like allegations the Black Panthers were fixed up with heroin by the CIA. What was Burroughs opinion, if any, with regards to that?

the junkie, pusher/dealer and cop all work in unison to make sure that the other exists

Did that equation originate with Burroughs? I'd be interested to know, because it has become quite widely accepted.

The addict in the street who must have junk to live is the one irreplaceable factor in the junk equation.

So consequently Burroughs rationale toward combating drug addiction in society would be to penalise/cure the user, not dismantle the production and logistics? Interesting.

the problem has been increasingly confronted with jail sentences, which Burroughs noticed in later years

Looks like penalisation was not his preferred approach to removing the foundation of the pyramid.

The actual users of the substances are victims

This is convoluted, is it not? The bottom of the pyramid, the users, are seen by Burroughs to be the victims, but also the sole essential part of the pyramid of his Algebra of Need?

Thanks (none / 1) (#43)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 08:16:13 AM EST

As a Known Troll we have to do our best.

This sounds like allegations the Black Panthers were fixed up with heroin by the CIA. What was Burroughs opinion, if any, with regards to that?

He wasn't exactly the most socially concious individual, but he mentioned that in a few interviews that he saw a problem with the way drugs and cheap booze always found their way to the poorest part of any society.

Did that equation originate with Burroughs? I'd be interested to know, because it has become quite widely accepted.

I'm not sure if he was the first to bring the idea up, but he certainly coined the mst memorable phrase for the idea.

Looks like penalisation was not his preferred approach to removing the foundation of the pyramid.

In this idea he was definitely ahead of his time.  He constantly repeated over and over that the addict was a sick person needing treatment, not punishment and a trip to a place with easier access to drugs than the street.

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

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

Yes, and I feel guilty (none / 1) (#46)
by shinnin on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:02:18 AM EST

that I did not take my role as a member of this community seriously and voted your behemoth troll of an article +1. Shame on me. Let me zero-bomb your comments to atone.

He wasn't exactly the most socially concious individual

All in all, Burroughs was obviously a very contradictory person. Concerned about control on a meta-level, but not socially conscious; concerned about drug abuse and proliferation, but a junkie, etc. The more you expose his personality in your articles, the less coherent he appears to be.

To be polemic about it, could it be Burroughs exhibited many facets of what is colloquially called junkie personality?

Then again, it's just the usual contradiction between literary ideals and practical implementation in the artist's life.

He constantly repeated over and over that the addict was a sick person needing treatment,

But again, this contradicts his opinion that the base of the pyramid, i.e. the victim, is the sole necessary factor in the control structure, and thus essentially the cause for their own sickness?

[ Parent ]

Yeah, it's true (none / 1) (#47)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:22:29 AM EST

he didn't always think everything out so well.  But, mosly, I would say, he was an artist, a writer, and generally given to emotionally impractical choices.  Also, i'd say he was somewhat imbalanced, and a solid remnant of the Victorian era.  He was so Romantic in his ideas, and perfectly content with being generally contradictory all in the same sentence.

I think it's what makes him fun, though.  Talk about an unreliable narrator: you can't trust him whether he is narrator or interviewee.

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

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

K5 (3.00 / 7) (#48)
by pHatidic on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:44:40 AM EST

You know you're on K5 when the average person reads one book a year and they spend the next six months bragging about it.

Funny cause it's true. (3.00 / 3) (#49)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:52:21 AM EST

Actually, I don't know why I hang around here.  Maybe the real metaphor for addiction is me and writing for all yous folks.

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

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

that's why we call it "Gay-5" ROFLAMO nt (2.25 / 4) (#53)
by Pat Chalmers on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 12:41:39 PM EST



[ Parent ]
why do people take opiates and stimulants? (2.00 / 5) (#82)
by circletimessquare on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:25:42 PM EST

a nice psychedelic is a wonderful thing, and it is not addictive

the whole addiction issue: people dance around it too much and don't give it the respect it deserves

it's a matter of free will and willpower being defeated by chemistry

none of us are mightier than a well-established biochemical pathway

none of us

you can dance with the devil, but her feet are quicksilver and she makes yours into mud


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

Burroughs always had a very (3.00 / 3) (#83)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:30:03 PM EST

low opinion of psychadelics, on the whole.  I'm up on my drug culture politics, but it really set him in opposition to the hippies.

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

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

people shouldn't take opiates or stimulants. (3.00 / 6) (#94)
by Linux or FreeBSD on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 02:43:32 AM EST

they should give them to me so i can take both at the same time. the best parts of both drugs with none of the worst. until it's over, that is.

[ Parent ]
We are nothing but biochemical pathways (none / 1) (#95)
by benna on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 04:13:01 AM EST

The will of the pathway is the will of the person.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
uh yeah (none / 1) (#101)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 09:38:46 AM EST

but you haven't countered what i have said, you've just obfuscated it under semantics


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
no (none / 1) (#113)
by benna on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 03:19:00 PM EST

Who are you to say they are slaves to themselves? If they want their heroin, then they want their heroin. Just because its a chemical pathway doesn't change that. If anything anyone does as a result of a chemical pathway is slavery, then you are a slave to the anti-drug biochemical pathway.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
more obfuscation (none / 1) (#118)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 04:15:43 PM EST

of course everyone is a slave to themselves

being a slave to heroin is not being a slave to oneself

duh

in fact, when you become an addict you are now controlled by whomever supplies your heroin, right?

what does that point mean to you?

the funniest thing about people like you who insist upon people's freedoms to the absurd point of letting them remove their own freedoms (which is what heroin use is) is that if heroin were legal, you would be the first to cry and the loudest to cry about how the government uses heroin to keep us in control and sedated

you're the same kind of moron who talks about television being an opiate of the masses, but because the government outlaws real opiates... well that's wrong

wtf? seriously? you can understand the rules of oppression and sedation and removing free will one way but not another? LOL ;-)

so you can't even talk about free will, because if you truly understood what drug addiction is, you would be fighting it the loudest if free will is your utmost concern

should people have the right to commit suicide?

well, if one is of very sick body and sound mind, then yes

what if one is of sound body but very sick mind?

can you say they should have the righ tto commit suicide?

if a 15 year old gets a bad grade and jumps out a window, would that be an issue of free will? or would agree that their judgment is clouded?

how about a 15 year old taking an opiate then?

is it an issue of free will? or poor judgment?

because if you say it's an issue of free will, did you not just see in my words above how drug addiction removes free will and renders any respect for them to choose drugs as contradictory to your self-stated concern?

all the lessons about suicide apply the same to drug addiction, it's exactly the same, because drug addiction IS suicide of the free will

furthemore we have one more idealistic fallacy we can nail you on: that even if i could agree with you on this philosohical question of choosing to remove your free will, reality still intervenes on my side: their zombification doesn't happen in a vacuum

my neighbor's drug use effects me

really!

if my neighbor chooses zombification, and stops paying his bills and tries to steal my tv, that effects me

not to mention the zombie's children, wife, parents, friends, etc.

what do these people get to say about what the drug addict does to their lives?

do i have the right to spit on your face?

then why are you saying a drug addict has a righ tot intrude upon my life as a drug addict as always does, because they are a DRUG ADDICT

do you really understand the concept of addiciton and what it does to people?

do you REALLY?

the point is very simple: you would win this argument if drug addiction happened in a vacuum

but it doesn't

so you lose

the most amazing thing to me about naive and oversimplifying free will advocates like yourself is, and it gets me every kind, is that they wind up arguing for the greatest destroyer of free will that humankind has ever known: drug addiction, stronger than any form of oppressive government that has ever existed in its ability to destroy your free will

people like you really blows my mind, how you can be utterly blind on this issue


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

over 18 should have the right to commit suicide (none / 1) (#141)
by benna on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 07:05:03 PM EST

Most of your other arguments are with a straw man.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
wrong (1.00 / 3) (#143)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 08:33:57 PM EST

suicide of sick body and sound mind is fine

suicide of sick mind and sound body is not

it is ok to kill yourself because you have terminal bone cancer

it is not ok to kill yourself because you lost your job


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

finally, the heart of the matter! (none / 1) (#147)
by endymion on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 08:54:44 PM EST

you have finally reduced your argument down to it's basic axioms.

All of the theories of drug use, and many other potentially self-destructive activities come down to this central point: "Do you have the right to kill youself?"

You claim there is a difference between Physical pain and Mental pain. Why? Can you elaborate on this distinction? I'm really curious about the defining boundary between the two, as it's definatly not obvious to me.

And regardless of that potential distinction, there is the point that the government has the authority to stop you from killing yourself.

So I ask you another question: Do you have soverign ownership over your own body, or does somebody else (the government in this case) own it?

Because that's a key issue here. If you own it, you have the authority to do with it what you want. Convenience to others doesn't enter into it, regardless of how offensive it may be. That's the definition of ownership.

If the government owns it instead, that does give them the moral authority to protect it's own property, and therefor to stop you from killing yourself, regardless of the means.

I certanly hope you want to own your own body - if you let the government have it, you have sold yourself into slavery. Do you really want the gov to have the authority to do what it wants with your body? Like send it off to die in a war? To sell it for spare organs, as is happening in parts of china?

Freedom starts at your own body!
- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

dancing bones, i got them dancing bones... (none / 1) (#154)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 09:45:17 PM EST

i do want to own my own body

free from the oppression of drug addiction

"You claim there is a difference between Physical pain and Mental pain. Why?"

gee, i dunno fuckwad, why don't you educate me on the finer points of subdividing simple obvious truths into oblivion


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

obvious truth? (none / 0) (#161)
by endymion on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 10:03:50 PM EST

what obvious truth?

you use that statement a lot. I don't think it means what you think it means.

again, asshat, if it's sooooo damn obvious, why do you have a hard time coming up with an answer?

watching trolls sweat from not being able to answer things is entertaining...

- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

heroin (none / 1) (#164)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 10:07:53 PM EST

is a highly addictive dangerous drug

obviosu truth

read the story above this thread?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

which is totally not relavant (none / 0) (#169)
by endymion on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 10:21:16 PM EST

to the question of if Physical pain and Mental pain have a distinction to them.

way to completely ignore the question.

you seem to be getting confused here - perhaps you should up your ADHD medication?

(see? we can play at ad hominem attacks too!)

- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

creationists (none / 1) (#173)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 10:26:29 PM EST

and heroin addicts

you can't argue with with them


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

wow (none / 0) (#177)
by endymion on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 10:50:11 PM EST

heroin addics, eh?

I wouldn't know, not knowing any myself.

Oh, you meant ME?

That's funny... I've only ever had heroin once, and it was about eight years ago. Kindof hard to be an addict to something, when you have only ever done it once.

Someone is acting like a creationist here, and it isn't me. You are the one who refuses to justify any of you arguments.

- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

read the story above (none / 1) (#179)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 11:05:10 PM EST

or read the book

learn about heroin addiction

although i don't think it will do any good

you seem to be emotionally autistic, you seem to be incapable of appreciating exactly what heroin addiction is really like

it doesn't figure into your opinions

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

And that is not something which you can prove (none / 1) (#150)
by benna on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 09:04:26 PM EST

That is an absolute moral opinion, which your are entitled to hold, but which the government should not legislate.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
except that it does (none / 1) (#155)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 09:47:13 PM EST

because unlike you, most people understand what the fuck i am talking about

becuase it's really fucking simple moron

go tell the child of the dad who blew his brains out because he lost is job why it's ok

please, i beg of you, let's hear the speech your going to give this kid, we're all ears...


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I think its a cruel thing for the father to do. (none / 1) (#158)
by benna on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 09:56:42 PM EST

But I also think it is his right to do it.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
your opinion (none / 1) (#160)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 10:01:21 PM EST

contains a lack of empathy that makes it difficult to for me to understand how you empathize with the plight of a drug addict ;-P

are you autistic?

are you able to feel the emotions of others?

is your selfishness that profound?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

HA! (none / 1) (#162)
by endymion on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 10:05:00 PM EST

you?! Talking about a lack of empathy?!

the one who likes to put non-violent peaceful people in jail because "it's for their own good"?

that's rich...

- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

so you agree? (none / 1) (#163)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 10:06:48 PM EST

is it ok for the father to blow his brains out because he lost his job?

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
of course asshat! (2.00 / 2) (#168)
by endymion on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 10:19:22 PM EST

that's what we've been saying all along!

it may not be nice to the kid, it may not be nice to the family, but it's his right.

and you better hope you have that right.

it's the entire foundation of "live free or die".

sometimes, death really is the best way out.

now, I'd hope, that in many cases, they choose a different path. I'd hope that society could provide options to people in pain, so they don't choose to kill themself. But the freedom to carry that out is one of the most fundamental ones out there.

and besides, how are you going to stop them? a person bent on killing themself will find a way, with guns, drugs, or other methods. I mean, what are you going to do, arrest them?

"Sir, we had to destroy the city to save it!"

idiocy
- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

you're emotionally autistic (none / 1) (#170)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 10:22:16 PM EST

your selfishness is so profound that you can't even understand how something like suicide or drug addiciton affects the people around you


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
wow (none / 0) (#184)
by benna on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 02:21:47 AM EST

Is it really that difficult to understand. If it were up to me, I'd want people to find another way. I don't WANT them to kill themselves. But the thing is, it's NOT up to me. Its up to them. They have the right to do that to themselves, and their family, if they want to. Why can you not seperate out my desire to preserve people's right to do what is wrong in my opinion, and my opinion.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
at some point (none / 1) (#210)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:29:23 AM EST

you oppose someone doing bad behavior that hurts them, and hurts you

the point with suicide is to demonstrate that concept to you

but you want to go out into the absurd and say suicide for reasons like losing your job should be respected

at which point, there's no more talking to you, you've gone beyond the bounds simple care for another human being's welfare, therefore negating any other point you could possibly make on the topic at hand, and a whole other range of topics

you don't win an argument by breaking your initial assumptions


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

you mean YOUR initial assumptions (none / 0) (#217)
by benna on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 02:14:06 AM EST


-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
are you telling me (none / 1) (#219)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 02:23:49 AM EST

that your initial assumptions do not include the welfare of your fellow human beings?

ok

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

no (none / 0) (#229)
by benna on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 03:59:08 AM EST

I took you to mean the assumption that suicide in that circumstance is bad. I think at times rights are more important that feelings, because in the long run it is more important to preserve the rights.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
you're getting there ;-) (none / 1) (#233)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 04:22:24 AM EST

you can't preserve someone's right by negating the person

suicide or addiction are ways of negating the person

what is the point of preserving someone's rights to the extent of allowing the person to destroy themselves?

you say "in the long run it is more important to preserve the rights"

exactly

emphasis on "in the long run"

what "long run" are you talking about if someone is dead or addicted?

are you beginning to see?

you have a naive, idealistic, unnuanced approach to rights, that doesn't take into accout the complexity of the real world, where sometimes you do things which on the surface seem to contradict your allegiance to preserving someone's rights, but which, in reality, lead to more rights... in the long run

keep that in mind:

"in the long run"

;-)

then things that seem like a paradox aren't so, when you look at the bigger picture, the longer time scale

you're getting there ;-)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

haha, I'm the one who has trouble with nuance? (none / 0) (#241)
by benna on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 04:53:22 AM EST

When I say in the long run, I mean governments which preserve rights are better than those that don't (unless you like a police state, perhaps you do). Suicide is a decision made DURING life, so your point about the person being dead is irrelevent. Addiction, while bad, does not rob people completly of their free will as you assert. You keep telling me to look at Burroughs. Well lets do that then. He kicked his habbit many times, only to choose to go back. Does that sound like a slave to you? So, you see, the rights of addicts remain important. What you really fail to understand is that locking someone up does not solve any problems. You say addiction is bad. It is. But what is gained by locking up the junkies? Very little. This, if you read the article, Burroughs also agrees with. But getting back to rights, I wonder, if you don't think they are worth preserving in some circumstances, why you believe anyone should have any rights at all. What is the dividing line?
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
i don't know whether to laugh or cry (none / 1) (#245)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 05:03:31 AM EST

"Suicide is a decision made DURING life, so your point about the person being dead is irrelevent."

so being dead doesn't negate your free will? i did not know that!

"You keep telling me to look at Burroughs. Well lets do that then. He kicked his habbit many times, only to choose to go back. Does that sound like a slave to you?"

um... kicked the habit many times, only choosing to go back

um... uh...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

"But what is gained by locking up the junkies?"

my television, free from theft

"But getting back to rights, I wonder, if you don't think they are worth preserving in some circumstances, why you believe anyone should have any rights at all. What is the dividing line?"

dude: i'm a greater champion of freedom than you

simply put: the restrictions on your freedoms that heroin addiction places is greater than the restrictions of any prison mankind could imagine... save injecting prisoners with heroin, addicting them ;-P

what am i thinking about now? many things

what would i be thinking about as a heroin addict? getting more heroin

do you see?

there is no dividing line: freedom above all other concerns, i am a greater champion of freedom than you!

it's just that i'm smarter than you: i can understand something you can't:

why being dead is not being free

why being addicted is not being free

jesus christ! THINK motherfucker

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Stealing is an argument for legalization (none / 0) (#191)
by meatsandwich on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 11:59:18 AM EST

> if my neighbor chooses zombification, and stops paying his bills and tries to steal my tv, that effects me

The neighbor is forced to steal tv's because the drug is illegal in the first place and hence is worth black-market prices. Cigarettes and alcohol are cheap because they are legal. Society doesn't view alcoholics or cigarette smokers stealing their neighbor's TV as a problem because it doesn't exist.

Your stealing argument is an argument for the legalization of drugs, not an argument for prohibition.

[ Parent ]

oh yeah (none / 1) (#208)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:25:15 AM EST

the only reason a pedophile would have to kill a child after abducting and having sex with them is because pedophilia is illegal

if we just make pedophilia legal, they would return the child after having sex with them


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

by FAR the stupidist analogy i have ever heard (none / 0) (#216)
by benna on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 02:13:10 AM EST

wtf?
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
the analogy holds (none / 1) (#220)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 02:24:52 AM EST

behavior which has bad effects is not negated by legalizing the bad effects

duh


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Its not that they are negated (none / 0) (#226)
by benna on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 03:57:34 AM EST

Its that they are outweighed. This is clearly not the case in your example, but it is the case with drug prohibition.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
with alcohol, this is true (none / 1) (#232)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 04:15:40 AM EST

however, the addictive effects of heroin means that there is another force on the scale

with heroin, there is a proliferation of addicts that you don't get with alcohol, simply because alcohol isn't as addictive as heroin

so:

you understand the lessons of prohibition, as do i

i understand the lessons of addiction

you don't


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You say this over and over (none / 0) (#238)
by benna on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 04:44:20 AM EST

But you don't really say why, because you aren't into details, and so I don't believe you. If you gave me a compelling case, perhaps you could persuade me.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
what do you mean "compelling case"? nt (none / 1) (#240)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 04:52:20 AM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
I mean one which is reasoned and persuasive (none / 0) (#242)
by benna on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 04:55:09 AM EST

and includes evidence and *gasp* details.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
ok (none / 1) (#246)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 05:05:10 AM EST

http://www.gober.net/victorian/reports/opium.html#soc

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
So heroin should be banned, others not? (none / 0) (#267)
by meatsandwich on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 08:32:29 AM EST

So, by your argument, those drugs that are only highly addictive (heroin, cocaine/crack, and possibly some of the amphetamines) should be illegal, but you are fine with legalizing those that are not (marijuana, lsd, ecstasy, ... etc)?

[ Parent ]
exactly! (nt) (none / 1) (#280)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 09:58:11 AM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Circle's argument summed up (none / 0) (#269)
by meatsandwich on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 09:11:30 AM EST

Here's what I get from reading your posts here. Heroin (I'm not sure your position on other drugs) should be banned because:

1) The damage it causes to society. Here you break it down into two groups:
a) The heroin addict commits crime to pay for his habit. As mentioned earlier you're on the wrong side of this argument. Legalization of drugs makes them cheap so there is no need to steal. It is the criminalization that means the addict can't afford it and resorts to crime.
b) Emotional damage to those that are close to the addict. If this is a valid reason for throwing people in jail then you need to also throw those that adulterate, divorce, name-call, over-eat, ... etc into prison because these also can cause emotional damage to loved ones. Not only that but the emotional damage of having a loved one imprisoned would in my opinion be greater than the emotional damage due to a loved-one being addicted in most cases.

2) It should be illegal because of the potential for self-destruction of the addict. This gets down to the question of "who owns your body? who owns your existence?". Your argument is that the government has the final say what you can and can't do with your own body, not you. You're entitled to your opinion, but I think most people would disagree with you.

Your point 1 argument above fails completely. Your point 2 two argument is subjective and the majority of people will disagree with.

Nobody is arguing with you that heroin and some of the others are not addictive. As benna mentioned it's the pros and cons of legalization and prohibition that's important, neither is perfect.

Your only argument can be "you can potentially harm yourself with drugs and the government has final say on what you do with your own body" and compared with the number of people wasting away in jail, the number of dollars we spend on policing these laws, the criminal activity that occurs because of the prohibition, and the potential income for the government lost in the taxation of legal recreational drugs it's a fairly one-sided case.


[ Parent ]

nope, not accurate (none / 1) (#283)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 10:16:35 AM EST

This gets down to the question of "who owns your body? who owns your existence?".

you do, no one else

Your argument is that the government has the final say what you can and can't do with your own body, not you.

nope, not what i said. what i am saying is you own your body, not heroin. or do you understand what addiction is?

you can't preserve someone's right by negating the person

suicide or addiction are ways of negating the person

what is the point of preserving someone's rights to the extent of allowing the person to destroy themselves?

would you say that in the long run it is more important to preserve the rights?  

well, that is exactly what i am saying

emphasis on "in the long run"

what "long run" are you talking about if someone is dead or addicted?

are you beginning to see?

you have a naive, idealistic, unnuanced approach to rights, that doesn't take into accout the complexity of the real world, where sometimes you do things which on the surface seem to contradict your allegiance to preserving someone's rights, but which, in reality, lead to more rights... in the long run

keep that in mind:

"in the long run"

you say my argument boils down to:

"the government has the final say what you can and can't do with your own body, not you."

that's completely false. if you become addicted ro you kill yourself, the question of who owns your body has been settled far more completely than ANYTHING an oppressive regime you can devise in the furthest reaches of your imagination can devise

  1. death: obvious
  2. addiciton: bars in the very mind
you don't have free will when all you think about is how to get your next hit... what kind of oppressive regime can compete with that? at least under stalin or pol pot you still own your own thoughts, right?

so how can you tell me i am destroying rights?

it is YOUR position that more certainly destroys rights than mine

i say: "the govt has a right to prevent people from committing suicide" (you CAN commit suicide if you are of sound mind and sick body... a terminal bone cancer patient for example... sick mind but sound body is what i'm talking about: suicide due to bad grade,s losing a job, divorce, etc.) "and using addictive drugs" (drugs in which it is highly probably you will become a slave to wanting and doing nothing else but them, so that there is no more free will: heroin is all you care about... no sex, no socializing, not even EATING (do you REALLY know what heroin addiction is like?))

then things that seem like a paradox aren't so, when you look at the bigger picture, the longer time scale

I am the one who is MAXIMIZING PERSONAL FREEDOMS

you are the one who thinks death, and addiction, somehow are not worse than an oppressive govt

what freedom do you have when you are dead?

what freedom do you have when you have become an automaton whose only motivation is maximizing opiate intake?

i say "govt can prevent you from committing suicide when you are sick in the head and prevent you from abusing opiates"... FOR THE SAKE OF PRESERVING YOUR FREE WILL

and oyu hear "the government owns your body"

where did i say that again??????????????

you are NOT accurately representing what i am saying, try again

as for the rest of your points, let me help you evaluate the realtive costs to society of incarceration versus legality:

you understand the costs of prohibition, as do i

why don't you understand the costs of addiction?

http://www.gober.net/victorian/reports/opium.html#soc

http://www.talesofoldchina.com/shanghai/business/t-opium.htm


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You have a point (none / 0) (#309)
by meatsandwich on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 11:40:22 AM EST

I agree with you that heroin is extremely addictive and dangerous. You've got to remember that the old societies you point to were probably very limited educationally to heroin's effects. Education is key.

I'm actually agreeing with you (*shudder*) that Heroin should not be freely available. However I take great issue with making it criminal. I'm more inclined to make it available by prescription and people caught buying it or holding it without prescription should be only fined. It should be treated as a health and education issue not a criminal issue. Dealing heroin illegally should however should still be criminal and treated like selling any prescription medicine illegally (i.e. the punishment should be significantly less than it is now).

All non-addictive drugs (marijuana, lsd, ecstasy, ... etc) should be legalized completely, sold over the counter to anyone of age, and taxed by the government.

I do disagree with your point that "before addiction = free will, after addiction = none" point however. I'd argue that you do not have free will before, your decisions are preordained by the chemicals (natural, but still chemicals) that make up your body. But this is a bigger "is there free will?" discussion that should be discussed elsewhere.

Also, if someone chooses to take drugs and potentially change their life (potentially for the worse) and in some extreme cases resulting in possible earlier death I think we should allow them that choice, no matter what chemicals are in their body when they make that decision. Who are you or I to say who is of sound mind? Where do you draw the line on who is of sound mind and who is not? What is your test?

[ Parent ]

shades do not indicate absence of state (none / 0) (#326)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 12:05:53 PM EST

where do i draw the line?

i don't know, but the point is, the line still exists

we can argue about where the line between "sound mind" and "unsound mind" exists, but there is such a state of being as "unsound mind" and because you can't find the exact demarcation point doesn't mean you can negate the existence of that state of being

so then you change the argument: where is the line?

previously the argument was: does the line exist?

and so you've agreed with me the line does exist, and i thank you for that, your intellectual honesty is refreshing

and i agree: all nonaddictive drugs: utterly legal, no questions

marijuana, lsd, psilocybin: legal, legal legal

all the laws about alcohol apply (drunk driving: asshole go to jail... trip driving: asshole go to jail, etc...)

"I agree with you that heroin is extremely addictive and dangerous. You've got to remember that the old societies you point to were probably very limited educationally to heroin's effects. Education is key.
I'm actually agreeing with you (shudder) that Heroin should not be freely available. However I take great issue with making it criminal. I'm more inclined to make it available by prescription and people caught buying it or holding it without prescription should be only fined."

i take umbrage with you here: look at oxycontin use in the rural usa... we know all about it's ill effects, but abuse still happens, with all of your safeguards: where thereis a will, there is a way

furthermore, look at this:

http://www.opiates.com/media/heroin-belleville.html

Hays, formerly a family practice physician in the Southern Illinois town of Herrin, first took OxyContin three years ago when a patient turned in a bottle containing some leftover pills.
Hays, 42, at the time had been suffering excruciating back pain from a car accident, preventing a decent night of sleep. The much weaker painkillers he had been given weren't doing the trick.

Hays knew that ingesting the OxyContin was wrong. But he also believed the claims of sales representatives that OxyContin is safe and nonaddictive.

Within a few minutes of consuming that first OxyContin tablet, Hays said, "I felt like Superman. I could work all day, be happy, go home, play with the kids. Do everything that I wanted to do.... I just felt like a million bucks."

The addiction advanced rapidly. Within six weeks, he was stealing OxyContin from patients, crushing up the pills to mix in a saline solution, loading it into a hypodermic needle and plunging it into his arm. He also bought OxyContin from local pharmacies under false names.

Terrified of what he had fallen into, Hays tried to wean himself off OxyContin on the weekends while keeping his addiction a secret from his wife and two small children. It was a prescription for utter misery.

"You're bedridden," Hays said. "Your bones feel like they're on fire and they're melting flesh."

The worst moment occurred when his daughter, who was 4 years old at the time, walked into the bathroom of his house just as he was about to shoot up some OxyContin, Hays said.

"Her eyes get very big, of course," Hays recalled. "And she asks me, `Dad, what are you doing?'"
Hays shut his eyes for a moment.

"Addicts are very clever people --- clever to get it, clever with excuses," he said. "I said, `Dad's sick and he's giving himself a shot of vitamins.'"

smart, educated, social support, wealth

and still an addict

what was the deciding factor?: EASE OF ACCESS

the lesson is: addiciton is stronger than willpower

that point can not be belittled

ACCESS itself must be dramatically controlled

because exposure simply leads to addiction, educaiton is powerless against it: such is human weakness

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

what lengths do you go to to control it? (none / 0) (#332)
by meatsandwich on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 12:19:54 PM EST

> "But he also believed the claims of sales representatives that OxyContin is safe and nonaddictive."
> ...
> smart, educated, social support, wealth

He believed that it wasn't addictive when it obviously was? How educated was he then? Not a wise move to get your education from the guy selling the product.

> ACCESS itself must be dramatically controlled
For heroin, controlled yes. Dramatic to the point where you are throwing people behind bars no. How does that give the addict freedom? Who wins with that decision? Is the addict thankful for it?  Rarely I'd think. Controlled with prescription and education yes.

Anybody can come up with individual stories to backup an argument. I'm sure I could list a whole bunch of "heroin addicts who recovered without spending years wasting away in a jail cell" too.

[ Parent ]

a medical doctor? (none / 0) (#334)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 12:25:31 PM EST

that ignorant of opiate's effects on the body?

also in the excerpt:

""Addicts are very clever people --- clever to get it, clever with excuses," he said."

sure, it's only one anecdote, so i'll abstract:

we're all human, we're all weak, we're all frail, we all fall off the bandwagon

the problem is, with heroin, once you fall there, you don't get up: the only deciding factor is exposure, the rest is ineivtable

so: you limit exposure as much as you can, the only sound policy since exposure is the only deciding factor in number heroin addicts in society

"what lengths do you go to to control it?"

as much as you can, all the time, forever

such is the wages of maintaining civilization

if you legalize potholes, do potholes go away? no: for society's sake, you're always filling in potholes, forever

poor analogy to drug use, but a sound analogy i want to make to some efforts just being so: some problems never go away, they are just the wages we pay to live in civil society

the war on drugs, the war on terror: these are permanent states of society

there will always be another timothy mcveigh around the corner, we must always be vigilant for such characters

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

problems problems problems (none / 0) (#339)
by meatsandwich on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 12:43:43 PM EST

> some problems never go away
Some solutions produce worse effects than the problems they attempt to solve:
1) Thalidomide
2) Introducing Cane Toads in Australia to kill the dung beetle.
3) The War on Drugs

> the war on drugs, the war on terror: these are permanent states of society
Both of these are fairly recent inventions and were decisions that were made. They didn't have to be. Both of these can end, and the former definitely should end and be replaced with something that causes significantly less damage than the current policy does.

[ Parent ]

fairly recent inventions? (none / 0) (#341)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 12:48:45 PM EST

what was 1800s china doing about opium?

what does the quran try tell us about using alcohol?

maybe you can say the heioghts of the war are unprecedented today

pray tell, what could you tell me about the purity of opiates today as well?

some solutions DO produce worse effects than the problem

if you understood the viral nature of addiciton when combined with easy access, you wouldn't think the war on drugs was one of those problems


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Sound mind? (none / 0) (#336)
by meatsandwich on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 12:33:50 PM EST

I forgot to comment on your:

> and so you've agreed with me the line (for "sound mind") does exist, and i thank you for that

"sound mind" is totally subjective. I believe it should be up to the individual to decide on their own state of mind with regards to decisions that effect them and nobody else. You may say "well everyone will always say that they are of a sound state of mind, even if you and I think they are absolutely bonkers" and I will say "true, but why is what we think is correct and what they think wrong?". There is no test for "sound mind" and nor can there ever be one that everyone agrees with, so for all intents and purposes it doesn't exist*.

*Note: this "sound mind doesn't exist" should only work in the area where people make decisions about themselves (e.g drug taking, suicide, ... etc). For areas that directly effect others (crime with third-party victims) there needs to be an objective legally defined "sound mind" definition because society is involved, not just the individual.


[ Parent ]

totally over your head (none / 0) (#338)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 12:38:40 PM EST

i steal a loaf of bread to feed my family

am i a criminal?

i steal another one

still not criminal

my family has money again, but i kind of enjoyed the ease of sneaking into people's apartments, i keep stealing...

criminal yet?

one day some one catches me in their house and i stab them so i am not caught

ok, now i think everyone would agree we're talking about a criminal here, right?

now: when did i become a criminal? what day? what hour? what second?

who knows

BUT IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT I AM NOW A CRIMINAL

do you appreacite me now when i say "shades do not indicate absence of state"

no one knows WHERE the line is drawn, but the line STILL EXISTS


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

my head is totally around it thank you (none / 0) (#342)
by meatsandwich on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 12:52:27 PM EST

> no one knows WHERE the line is drawn, but the line STILL EXISTS

It is up to the individual to say where the line is for themselves. I am the only one who should be able to say "I can take drugs" or "I can commit suicide" or "I can eat this bowl of cheerios", not you, society, or anybody else.

The policy you seem to be advocating is "since we don't know where to draw a line we'll assume everybody is out of control and not in a position to make a decision". That's fucked up.


[ Parent ]

back to square one (none / 0) (#346)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:01:15 PM EST

negating your ability to have free will is not an increase in your free will

if government prevents you from committing suicide (because you lost your job, etc.) then your free will has increased

because you're still drawing breath

if government forcefully prevents you from being an addict your free will has increased: you're still taking your orders from your cerebellum, rather than a heated spoon

see?

what you are doing is being an idealist

i am being a realist

and in fact, my approach leads to an INCREASE in free will

if you appreciate how being a dead person or a drug zombie is a decrease in free will


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

We agree to disagree (none / 0) (#351)
by meatsandwich on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:14:34 PM EST

a) I don't believe in free will in the first place, we are all slaves to our chemical and biological urges and every decision we make is controlled by it 100%. Drug addiction just alters it somewhat.

b) If I chose to take drugs, or die now, or have a bowl of cheerios I do so with the knowledge that it may have repurcussions and make the decision based on my values (which maybe different from yours or society's). If it means death to me and the end of my "free will" then that is my choice to make. My values are for me to decide. If I choose death or being a drug taker as higher valued than "free will" then that's my decision not yours.

You're saying, here's your values from highest to lowest whether you like it or not:
 ...
 "free will"
 ...
 addictive drug taking
 death, and whatever you believe may come after

I'm saying "fuck off, I'll decide my values and their priorities thank you".

[ Parent ]

idealism (none / 0) (#356)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:24:06 PM EST

"I don't believe in free will in the first place"

ok, whatever, nice way to completely mean everything you say means nothing...

"I'm saying "fuck off, I'll decide my values and their priorities thank you"."

now you're decalring yourself outside the boundaries of human empathy: don't empathize me, i won't empathize with you

ok, then fine:

don't have children, don't have a girlfriend, sever all ties with family and friends, speak to no one

because involving other people in your lives means their feelings become a concern of yours

and if oyu understand that, then you understand why you can't be so idealistic as you claim to be

work out the contradictions


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

which is why.... (none / 0) (#359)
by kcidx on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:35:06 PM EST

don't have children, don't have a girlfriend, sever all ties with family and friends, speak to no one

because involving other people in your lives means their feelings become a concern of yours

....if you get addicted to drugs, we'll lock you in prison and destroy your life without really giving you a chance to get better.

Work out the contradictions.

[ Parent ]

ok, i worked it out (none / 0) (#360)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:37:02 PM EST

do your utmost to prevent people from ever getting addicted in the first place by limiting exposure

and if they get addicted, getting them cold turkey in prison is less gut wrenching for the family than seeing them waste away and steal your television and otherwise demonstrate how drug addiction make someone think nothing of their loved ones


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Why prison? (none / 0) (#366)
by meatsandwich on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:58:28 PM EST

> steal your television
You yourself have admited in a previous post that this happens because of prohibition. Stop using it in your arguments, or I'll think you're cheating.

> and if they get addicted, getting them cold turkey in prison is less gut wrenching for the family
Why should it be a prison? Why not a rehab center? The goal here is to get him off the drugs right? Why take away all the addicts rights in doing so? And when he comes out of rehab he won't have a criminal record. i.e. he can get a job and won't have to steal your precious television ;-)

[ Parent ]

well, now we're getting into semantics (none / 0) (#369)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 02:06:35 PM EST

the point is: restraint

whatever sort of governmental restraint that represents a break from drug addiciton for the addict

i'm just not so sure of the effectiveness of rehab, but perhaps you have a program in mind that is more effective than cold turkey prison, and if you can prove it works, go for it

the point is to increase free will: therefore, whatever SERIOUS and EFFECTIVE governmental restraint that minimizes relaapse the most is wha ti am for

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

It's not "just" semantics (none / 0) (#378)
by meatsandwich on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 03:11:33 PM EST

rehab v. prison is not just semantics my friend.

It's:

health/education
 versus
crime

It's:
 personal educated choice & rehabilitation
   versus
 wasted years rotting away, a criminal record you carry around haunting you forever, and the whole criminal industry that results from prohibition.

It's the solution to the tragedy that is the war on drugs.


[ Parent ]

Semantics my ass. (none / 0) (#381)
by kcidx on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 04:13:04 PM EST

but perhaps you have a program in mind that is more effective than cold turkey prison, and if you can prove it works, go for it Any rehab program is more effective than prison. Prison is a school in criminality. Have you ever been to jail, or much worse prison? How about just been inside a prison? Your mind is so convoluted it's amazing you can actually find your way to the computer to post your drivel. It's like this. People go in prison with a drug problem, which according to you is a "human weakness", they come out ACTUAL CRIMINALS. They learn things from other criminals while in there, they also learn a strong dislike for society, since fuckwads like yourself put them in there for having a disease. You take someone in need of medical help, and put them in with rapists, murders, any a whole host of unsavory characters. I know I've said I'll never do heroin, but if I was about to be pounded in the ass by 5 huge prison dudes, I think I'd probably shoot up if the opportunity was available. Not to mention drugs flow through prisons just like they do anywhere else...so your little cold-turkey prison paradise is bullshit...just like everything else you talk about.

[ Parent ]
I have when autoformat gets turned off [n/t] (none / 0) (#382)
by kcidx on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 04:13:33 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Yes, we have come full circle (none / 0) (#364)
by meatsandwich on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:43:53 PM EST

>> "I don't believe in free will in the first place"
> ok, whatever, nice way to completely mean everything you say means nothing...

Yes, but it also means that everything you say means nothing too ;-)

> because involving other people in your lives means their feelings become a concern of yours

I debunked this argument in an earlier post:
b) Emotional damage to those that are close to the addict. If this is a valid reason for throwing people in jail then you need to also throw those that adulterate, divorce, name-call, over-eat, ... etc into prison because these also can cause emotional damage to loved ones. Not only that but the emotional damage of having a loved one imprisoned would in my opinion be greater than the emotional damage due to a loved-one being addicted in most cases.


[ Parent ]

yeah but (none / 0) (#367)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 02:03:16 PM EST

">> "I don't believe in free will in the first place"
> ok, whatever, nice way to completely mean everything you say means nothing...

Yes, but it also means that everything you say means nothing too ;-)"

no: this only applies to you, as i am not the one who believes that

if you truly are fatalistic, you wouldn't even be talking to me: what's the point?

but you're talking to me, so therefore you don't even believe the words you are saying ;-P

"Emotional damage to those that are close to the addict. If this is a valid reason for throwing people in jail then you need to also throw those that adulterate, divorce, name-call, over-eat, ... etc into prison because these also can cause emotional damage to loved ones. Not only that but the emotional damage of having a loved one imprisoned would in my opinion be greater than the emotional damage due to a loved-one being addicted in most cases."

oh man... back to the bullshit slippery slope

it's like i said gay marriage was ok to you and you were a religious fundamentalist

a common reply to gay marriage being ok from a religious fundamentalist would be: "then you mean that pedophilia, bestiality, incest, etc is ok too!"

no, i didn't, and i don't, and i can appreciate the diference... really

i'm sure you can to

so why can't you appreciate the same sor tof bullshit slippery slope here?

so don't be a fundamentalist, an idealist: when i say that suicide/ drug addiction are states of destruction of free will such that governmental intervention actually indicates an INCREASE in free will...

how the hell can you conclude i am saying we should jail someone for overeating?

the logic you are using is the same as the religious fundamentalist's argument about gay marriage and the bullshit slippery slope

there's no slippery slope

really and for true


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You're saying jail people who mentally hurt others (none / 0) (#371)
by meatsandwich on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 02:11:01 PM EST

> how the hell can you conclude i am saying we should jail someone for overeating?

If I can summarize, your are saying: "part of the reason addictive drugs should be criminal is because of the emotional hurt it causes loved ones".

You assume that drug taking will always cause emotional hurt to loved ones in 100% of cases. Look, if causing emotional hurt to loved ones is a crime then criminilize it. But in doing so you must draw a line again.

If I'm a heroin user I maybe causing less emotional hurt to loved ones than the guy down the road that is not a drug addict but a real asshole. So why am I going to jail for potential hurt to loved ones when the non-drug-using asshole down the road is not?

[ Parent ]

his own undoing (none / 0) (#377)
by endymion on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 02:39:00 PM EST

I think he's setting himself up for his own fall here...

I mean, CTS sure seems to be going out of his way to hurt people mentally, and by his logic, that means he can be jailed.

sigh...

- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

Stop already... (none / 1) (#98)
by kcidx on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 08:53:22 AM EST

Here we go again...

Typical of any CTS post about drugs, we have a usage of his favorite word "biochemical" and a reference to "opiates and stimulants" as though any use of any opiate or any stimulant is going to turn you into a raving maniac.

And what the hell does this mean?

the whole addiction issue: people dance around it too much and don't give it the respect it deserves

it's a matter of free will and willpower being defeated by chemistry

Free will and willpower IS chemistry at some level. And I hardly think one can say that people just dance around the issue of addiction and don't respect it. Anyone who knows anything about the subject, especially if it's due to being close to people with addiction problems, most likely respects it a great deal.

In other words, CTS is at it once again, proven ignorance of the topic at hand be damned. I think I can see where this is going...

[ Parent ]

dance, fool, dance! ;-) (none / 1) (#100)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 09:37:06 AM EST

the whole addiction issue: people dance around it too much and don't give it the respect it deserves

it's a matter of free will and willpower being defeated by chemistry

i will rephrase: when you introduce an opiate or stimulant in your system, you are sublimating your free will, you are relinquishing control of your life to a chemical and the need for it

your will power, no one's will power, is as strong as what an opiate or a stimulant does to your brain

do you understand? do you deny this truth?

why does this bother you so?

let's put it this way: someday i'm going to die

that bothers me, but i'm smart enough to know i shouldn't waste my time fighting that inevitable truth

addiction to an opiate or a stimulant is such an inevitable truth

so i don't fight that, i just avoid stimulants and opiates: i respect the power they have over my brain chemistry, just like i repsect the fact that i will someday die

i could spend my entire life addicted to an opiate or a stimulant, i could spend my entire life fighting the fact i will die

but i'm still addicted, and i'm still going to die

nothing has changed about the truth of addiciton or death

if you understand what i am saying about death, why can't you understand what i am  saying about the simple, undeniable rules of addiction? the way it work biocehmically is STRONGER THAN YOUR WILL POWER IS BIOCHEMICALLY

why do you deny this? why do you fight the inevitable? what do you hope to gain?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Simply put, you are wrong. (3.00 / 2) (#103)
by kcidx on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 10:57:44 AM EST

addiction to an opiate or a stimulant is such an inevitable truth

No, it's not. Many people can use cocaine occasionally and not develop an addiction.

Many people use MDMA without developing an addiction.

Many people use opiates for pain control and don't develop addictions.

Some people can even smoke or shoot heroin numerous times and not develop an addiction.

Coffee is a stimulant, which many people use without developing an addiction.

My problem is with your inability to recognize any shades of grey in the area you paint with your huge brush of ignorance. You then always toss "biochemical" into the discussion thinking that it gives you a more educated sound. Yet it doesn't, because your ideas simply don't match up with reality.

[ Parent ]

i don't understand people like you (none / 1) (#104)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 11:42:26 AM EST

do you know what an ld50 is?

the dose at which half the animal population is dead

what's my point?

what does something like heroin do to people?

it addicts them, at a high rate

what does something like thc do to people?

it addicts them, at a MUCH LOWER RATE

do you fucking understand the point?

an ld50 is a wonderful way to develop an understanding of the toxicity of a substance, right?

so if someone were to show you that an ld50 test shows that methanol were deadlier than ethanol, would you attach any value or meaning to that measurement?

you would?

ok then, if i show you that a test shows that thc is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE lower in addiction than heroin, what the FUCK does that mean to you?

sure, there are people who can remain unaddicted, as you say "Many people can use cocaine occasionally and not develop an addiction."

well, i'm a really good driver. i can drive 150 mph down the highway for months and never get in an accident.

therefore, speed limits should be repealed?

do you see where i am coming from?

there is a cut off point, a speed limit, pardon the pun, across which you should not go if there is any reaosnability or appreciation of what you are dealing with

if a FUCKING chemical is FUCKING proven to ADDICT people at a HIGH rate, it should be AVOIDED

fucking unmoveable ironclad TRUTH

what exactly is the fucking point of your position?

i truly and completely cannot even beign to fathom people like you

i truly and completely don't understand the point of messing with opiates and stimulants

to treat them as casually as you do in your words

and COMPLETELY ignore the FUCKING PROVEN ADDICTIVE PROFILE OF THESE DRUGS

it completely blows my mind!

this complete and utter willful disregard of the painfully obvious

i cannot even conceive of how someone like you thinks, to be so utterly cavalier about this sort of danger

and of course, with all of the painfully obvious victims of cocaine and heroin in all societies, throughout all time, staring you in the face, who pays for that?

with your cavalier attiude towards these drugs, leading to MORE morons addicted to chemicals- who pays for that? who do you expect to pay for that?

it just doesn't happen? no one gets addicted to drugs? we shouldn't oppose the use of these chemicals because addiciton just doens't happen?

you're fucking incredible

a goddamn impenetrable edifice of stupidity about the painfully obvious


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You can't understand me because you're ignorant. (none / 1) (#105)
by kcidx on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 12:06:05 PM EST

Here's the problem exactly laid out for you.

These were your words: "addiction to an opiate or a stimulant is such an inevitable truth"

That statement, your statement, is not a true statement.

For one, it's incredibly vauge. So vauge in fact, it contains virtually no meaning whatsoever.

You didn't say "addiction to heroin or cocain is such an inevitable truth" which would have still been wrong, but at least much more understandable.

Then in reply, you throw a little hissy fit jumping all over the place not even remotely touching the original contention.

Ignorance. Don't worry, you were probably born with it.


[ Parent ]

hilarious ;-) (none / 1) (#108)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 12:48:54 PM EST

Here's the problem exactly laid out for you.

These were your words: "driving really fast will lead to you crashing is an inevitable truth"

That statement, your statement, is not a true statement.

For one, it's incredibly vauge. So vauge in fact, it contains virtually no meaning whatsoever.

You didn't say "driving a lambourgini or a ford pickup really fast and crashing is such an inevitable truth" which would have still been wrong, but at least much more understandable.

Then in reply, you throw a little hissy fit jumping all over the place not even remotely touching the original contention.

Ignorance. Don't worry, you were probably born with it.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ;-)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I love it... (none / 1) (#109)
by kcidx on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 12:54:26 PM EST

Is your writing actually a representation of what takes place inside your head?

Do you sit in dark rooms jabberring and arguing with yourself?

Can you bite your own ear? Have you tried?

I've never seen anyone more in need of ritalin than yourself.

[ Parent ]

is your post an example of (none / 1) (#110)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 01:06:40 PM EST

"Then in reply, you throw a little hissy fit jumping all over the place not even remotely touching the original contention."

keep going, it just gets better and better ;-)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

No... (none / 1) (#111)
by kcidx on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 01:28:17 PM EST

...my post was just me musing on what it must be like to live caught in a trap of convuluted circular logic like you do.

You can't take a step forward in a discussion until we're both on the same page. Your little car analogy is obviously flawed, but I'll leave it up to you to discover how.

Either way, my original contention that it is not inevitable that use of "opiates or stimulants" leads to addiction stands. It will always stand, regardless of what you say, because of the HUGE categories you are generalizing about.

Ginseng for instance, is a non addictive stimulant, thus your statement is false.

The only similarity between the statement "addiction to an opiate or a stimulant is such an inevitable truth" and the statement "driving really fast will lead to you crashing is an inevitable truth" share is that they are both false. For many reasons...but primarily because being more likely than something else doesn't make something inevitable.

[ Parent ]

obfuscation is not refutation (none / 1) (#112)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 01:42:30 PM EST

"all toxins will kill you"

anything wrong you can find with that statement is pretty much just like everything you have found wrong with my statements

except that it still true that all toxins will kill you ;-P

do you understand?

you can throw all the pebbles you like, but you haven't refuted the essential truth of what i am saying

dig?

so what exactly is your point in trying to obfuscate my statements about addictiveness and opiates/ stimulants?

besides smash your head into a brick wall ;-P


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

wrong (none / 0) (#117)
by benna on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 04:09:58 PM EST

You should have said, and I think this is indicative of the flaw in your previous arguments, "All toxins CAN kill you." However, at a low enough dose, many will not. Alcohol is a toxin. Not everyone who has a beer dies, therefore, though it COULD kill someone, you cannot say that it WILL kill them.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
BWAHAHA fucking hilarous ;-) (none / 1) (#122)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 04:28:37 PM EST

"dude i totally knew this guy who took some rat poinson and lived, you should take some!"

what's worng with that statement?

if you understand that, you understand what is worng with what you are saying ;-P

morons who don't understand addicition, it's fucking hilarious

it's like telling a little kid that someday they are oging to die

sorry dorothy, but there is no santa claus

and opiate addiciton is stronger than your willpower

so sorry you had to learn the fucking obvious in a thread on kuor5hin

addiction: it's a strange weird odd word, do you understand it?

you guys are fucking gold

BWAHAHAHAHA ;-P

http://www.taima.org/jp/risks.htm


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

why do you keep saying i dont understand addiction (none / 0) (#140)
by benna on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 06:49:19 PM EST

I admit addiction is bad thing, when it occurs. I just think that addiction doesn't necessarily occur on the first (or second or third) time. If one is really stringent about only doing heroin once a month (or realistically once every two weeks), he will not become addicted. But if addiction does occur, it is BAD.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
why do you think (none / 1) (#144)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 08:37:02 PM EST

that your cavalier attitude towards a highly addictive substance is acceptable

use does not occur in a vaccuum

you will hurt others besides yourself if you crash

"I admit accidents are a bad thing, when they occur. I just think that speeding doesn't necessarily risk life on the first (or second or third) time. If one is really stringent about only speeding once a month (or realistically once every two weeks), he will not get in an accident. But if an accident does occur, it is BAD."

uh huh


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Bad analogy. (none / 0) (#149)
by benna on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 09:02:03 PM EST

The reason you wouldn't get addicted to heroin if you only used it once every 2 weeks is not that there would be less chances for addiction to occur, but that biochemically speaking (and I know you are an experert at this so I don't really need to explain this to you), you need to do heroin for a number of days, or possibly even week, in a row before you become addicted. This is not the case with car crashes. They can happen on any given day, independent of all the other days.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (none / 1) (#153)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 09:41:57 PM EST

dance fucker dance!

"the preceding day in which the moon was in its final quarter is not the time heroin use would be comparable to a biannual car crash quota if you truly understood the allegorical inferences of the timescales you are discussing"... tap tappity tap tap tap

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Just because you are to stupid to understand it... (none / 0) (#157)
by benna on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 09:53:53 PM EST

doesn't make it untrue.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
but i understand you perfectly (none / 1) (#165)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 10:11:15 PM EST

you're emotionally autistic

your selfishness is so profound it eclipses your ability to understand the effect addiction has on others


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

get this through your fucking head (none / 0) (#115)
by benna on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 04:05:44 PM EST

Speed limits are there to prevent people from hurting OTHER people. If you get in a car crash going 150mph you are likely to kill someone. If you get adicted to heroin, you are likely to fuck up your own life. If YOU chose not to shoot heroin, then great, thats probobly the right decision. But DO NOT choose for other people.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
drug addiciton doesn't happen in a vacuum ;-P (none / 1) (#120)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 04:21:46 PM EST

do you really know what real life drug addiction is like?

it effects neighbors, loved ones, etc. dramatically

are you just trying to troll me?

you seem unable to graps the hilariously obvious ;-P


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

really? how?! (none / 0) (#125)
by endymion on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 04:43:36 PM EST

can you detail that claim?

and sorry, medicare doesn't count, unless you are preposing to ban all risky behavior.

open heart surgery for that bypass you need, from eating at Mickey-D's all those years, costs much more than simple rehab...

and most users don't even need that.

- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

it's like arguing with creationists (none / 1) (#127)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 04:46:02 PM EST

i can't be right unless i bury you under the quantity of words you bury me under

quantity of words does not equal quality

right?

here, listen carefully:

"me oog

oog say addiction bad for you

avoid highly addictive chemicals

oog out"

teehee ;-)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

you're right... (none / 0) (#129)
by endymion on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 04:53:18 PM EST

I have these same problems when I argue against ID as a biologist, too.

I post lots of evidence (see the previous thread), and it is completely ignored by the non-rational, non-observing, non-scientist freaks in the thread.

You do realise you are the one making a faith-based, dogmatic argument here?

That everybody else has show rational arguments and evidence for their side?

You really should go take a class in the scientific method, and logic... I'd think a college graduate would have already, but I'm apparently wrong.

- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

addiction is a matter of faith? (none / 1) (#131)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 05:02:07 PM EST

you mean when i talk about the reality of easy addiction to opiates, i'm pulling that out of my dogmatic ass?

you really blow my mind

i can't even fathom how i live in the same world as you

it's stupefying

so, dear genius, talking to the dogmatic, reeducate me, i'm listening:

addiction, opiates

describe to me, blindly dogmatic me who is looking very hard at trying to understand where you are coming from, how a rational person understands these two words

this should be interesting...

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

yes, it is faith (none / 0) (#134)
by endymion on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 05:10:24 PM EST

because you havn't show EVIDENCE

and I wasn't saying that addiction to opiates doesn't happen. That has never been my thesis.

Apparently you have reading comprehension problems, too.

The statement, ONCE AGAIN: "Why does Use always become Abuse?"

You take this statement on faith. Faith, by definition, is an irrational belief without evidence. Show me that it's a rational belief instead, please! If it's sooooo fucking obvious, why can't you answer this question?

Of course, you are probably going to reply to this with some technicality, and ignore the question once again...

- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

ld50 (none / 1) (#136)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 05:26:11 PM EST

the dose at which 50% of the population is killed

for ethanol that dose has one value, for methanol, that dose has another

we can draw MEANINGFUL conclusions about ethanol and methanol use based on those numbers, right?

based on the way you speak, we cannot

if someone eats rat poinson and survives, according to you, everyone should feel free to take rat poison! ;-P

i mean, what is the ld50 for warfarin?

whatever it is, it means i can take warfarin and survive, right?

but whatever it is, when i say "taking rat poison is stupid, it's toxic, dont' take it, it always kills you"

what is the point of you coming along when i say that and going "nauh! it has an ld50! you can take it and live!"

no really, what's the fucking point? because that's the way you react ot my words about heroin! ;-P

semantics

meaning

do you understand the difference inthose words?

you seem ore focused on my semantics, and you are missing the obvious meaning

you seem to be rather brittle in your ability to argue concepts... are you autisitc/ asperger's?

because you think that the point you are making somehow counteracts what i am saying?

it doesn't

but you for you, i will try an experiment: i will modify my words, iwll sublimate my semantics to yours, because it is the meaning i care about, and it is the semantics you care about, ok?

so let's do an exercise

since my words offend you, let's say what i want to say, which is all i care about, in words that don't offend your autstic idealism, how about that?

so i won't say "using heroin makes you an addict" because it makes you whine,m right?

i'll change it, ok? for your asperger's sake, how is that?

i don't care about the semantics, as you seem to, i care about the meaning: avoid heroin use at all costs

so, i'll say this, and i want YOU to modify my word choice until your anal retentive ass is happy, ok?

does that work for you moron?

ok:

"the addiction profile of heroin is of such ease for the average human being that sound social policy is usch that heroin use should be avoided at all costs and punsiehd when found for the leath of the individual and society"

ok, now get at it, modify my words to your heart's content

it's the meaning i care about


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

what does ld50 have to do with anything? (none / 0) (#139)
by endymion on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 06:00:58 PM EST

I have never mentioned ld50s anytime here - how is it relavant?

Of course you shouldn't take the LD50 of heroin, or any other substance - it'd probably kill you.

If that is your intention, go for it, but you are against suicide as well, it seems.

"the addiction profile of heroin is of such ease for the average human being that sound social policy is usch that heroin use should be avoided at all costs and punsiehd when found for the leath of the individual and society"

That's great. You stated a thesis. I have no problems with any of the wording of it. I argue semantics when it's relavant.

Like the difference between "Addiction" and "Dependency" - you throw those words around like they are interchangeable, but they have extreemly difference meanings. But this is besides the point.

To address your thesis:

This point is where we disagree. Would you agree that it is a pre-condidtion to your thesis, that all Users must become Abusers?

This is an important point - you talk of an "addiction profile". Could you elaborate on that? I would assume (possibly incorrectly!) that what you mean by that is that anybody that uses must become a dangerous Abuser.

Is there anything wrong with this statement? Please clarify, if I'm wrong in my interpretation here!

Now, assuming I have interpreted correctly, I have this to say:

If that Axiom ("Use always leads to Abuse"), I could accept a much tighter policy here, though I still feel people should have the right to kill themselves if they wanted to.

I disagree with it, though, and would like to know why you take this Axiom as a given. You simply take it on faith that its true. Why?

- The Code Nazi
[ Parent ]

wow, right over your head (none / 1) (#146)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 08:48:45 PM EST

you ARE autistic

"Like the difference between "Addiction" and "Dependency" - you throw those words around like they are interchangeable, but they have extreemly difference meanings. But this is besides the point."

well yes, it is besides the point, but you keep bringing shit like that up!

they have extremely different meanings?

wtf?

EITHER FUCKING WORD STILL FALLS WITHIN THE UMBRELLA OF THE MEANING I AM GETTING AT MORON

this is the sum total of my conversation with you:

me: "the sun is very hot"

you: "no, you mean the sun at times is of a high temperature, relative to it's surroundings, and in fact, there are sunspots on the surface of the sun which are extremely lower in temperature at times, so what are you trying to say in your unfounded leap of faith?"

me: "whatever you fucking autistic freak!"

you: "ah, you are avoiding my fine intellgient points, you can't clarify or provide evidence for your absolutist position. and so when you say 'the sun is hot' i disagree with it, and would like to know why you take this axiom as a given. You simply take it on faith that its true. why?"

you should be a fucking lawyer, you have a wonderful way of obfuscating essential truth under a mountain of bullshit

ALL OF YOUR OBSERVATIONS FALL SECONDARY TO MY PRIMARY OBSERVATION

how's that fuckwad?

do i need citations?

my MEANING is stronger than your SEMANTICS

it's not a fucking leap of faith, it's BLANTANTLY FUCKING OBVIOUS TRUTH

jesus, you could argue yourself out of thinking the sky is blue

HEROIN IS FUCKING HIGHLY ADDICTIVE AND TOO DANGEROUS FOR SOCIETY AND MUST BE FOUGHT

there, now go dance around the rock of gibraltar fool

dance for me!


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Lets take a look at your thesis (none / 0) (#148)
by benna on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 08:58:33 PM EST

"HEROIN IS FUCKING HIGHLY ADDICTIVE..." This is true. Its also true that some people who are careful can manage to avoid getting addicted dispite that fact. "...AND TOO DANGEROUS FOR SOCIETY AND MUST BE FOUGHT" This is where you lose me. Why is it to dangerous for society? What about the people who manage to use it without consequence? And even those that do not, why should we prevent them from harming themselves? Sure, it might have SOME effect on society, but so do alot of things we don't ban. I'd be willing to bet that if heroin were legal, meaning people could get it at a consistant purity for a reasonable price, the effect on society would be less severe than cigarette smoking.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
wow (none / 1) (#159)
by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 09:59:07 PM EST

you're truly dumbfounding to me

you really and utterly blow my mind

"I'd be willing to bet that if heroin were legal, meaning people could get it at a consistant purity for a reasonable price, the effect on society would be less severe than cigarette smoking."

what exactly does one say to something like that?

you don't even understand what you are talking about

no, you really and truly don't have the faintest fucking clue

i ask you to do this: read about the opium wars, read about oxycontin use in rural contemporary usa

do you REALLY understand what heroin addiction is REALLY like?

christ! start with the FUCKING STORY this thread falls under!

where doe ssuch utter delusion and ignorance come from?

never mind what drugs are you snorting... what propaganda are oyu snorting?

fuck!

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Most of the problems come form prohibition (none / 0) (#183)
by benna on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 02:17:13 AM EST

The opium wars analogy just does not apply in contemperary society, and if drugs are easily available, at low prices, with guarentees of purity, and addicts are able to get their fix, there is that much of a problem. Sure, its certainly not a good situation to be in, but its not as devistating as it is under prohibition, when drugs are so expensive you have to steal to afford your habbit, you can't judge the dose accuratly because the purity varies, you could get poisen, and you have to enter the criminal underworld to buy your smack. If it were available on the regular market all of these problems would be averted.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
Most of the problems come form bomb prohibition (none / 1) (#185)
by circletimessquare on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 03:01:00 AM EST

The war analogy just does not apply in contemperary society, and if bombs are easily available, at low prices, with guarentees of purity, and bombers are able to get their bomb off, there is that much of a problem. Sure, its certainly not a good situation to be in, but its not as devistating as it is under bomb prohibition, when bombs are so expensive you have to steal to afford your bombing habbit, you can't judge the bomb ingredients accuratly because the purity varies, you could get a blow up in your face, and you have to enter the criminal underworld to buy your bombs. If it were available on the regular market all of these problems would be averted.


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Except... (none / 0) (#188)
by benna on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 03:29:33 AM EST

That analogy doesn't work at all.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
except... (none / 1) (#189)
by circletimessquare on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 03:31:33 AM EST

it does

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
what exactly does one say to something like that? (none / 0) (#192)
by kcidx on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 12:07:20 PM EST

If they were anything except ignorant, they would say "quite possibly, as cigarette smoking is highly poisonous, whereas controled pure heroin use doesn't cause phsyiological harm."

[ Parent ]
no harm? (none / 1) (#211)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:31:07 AM EST

that magic word that escapes everyone here

"addiction"

what is wrong with you?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I believe he said phsiological (none / 0) (#215)
by benna on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 02:12:03 AM EST

In reality it does cause some physiological harm. Its not good for the liver. But I think the harm that comes from cigarettes is probobly worse, lung cancer, heart disease and all that. Heroin withdrawl is clearly worse though.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
more getting lost in the details (none / 1) (#221)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 02:26:59 AM EST

and not being able to hold them all together, and appreciate the big picture


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
The big picture is made up of details n/t (none / 0) (#225)
by benna on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 03:56:09 AM EST


-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
beautiful! ;-) (none / 1) (#231)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 04:10:15 AM EST

i'm so proud of you! progress at last!

now put all those little pieces together, and come join me up here in the big picture!

jesus, it's like fucking intellectual charity...


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

but (none / 0) (#236)
by benna on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 04:41:55 AM EST

You refuse to look at any details, because you have already made up your mind about the big picture. Isn't it possible that the details you initially based your big-picture assesment on were false? Isn't it at least worth looking at the details, debating the details, to see if they really do produce the whole you say they do? Civilized debates rely on detailed evidence.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
ok, then hit me with it the details (none / 1) (#239)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 04:50:51 AM EST

the negative effects of heroin being illegal are many: financing the criminal underworld, addicts taking the drug at dangerous doses and unsafe conditions, addicts turning to crime, etc.: i recognize and acknowledge every single one

the negative effects of heroin being easier to access are primarily: rapid increase in addicts

therefore, heroin should stay illegal, as the negatives of easy access are greater than the the negatives of illegality

or more succinctly, the lessons of prohibition teach us why alcohol should be legal, but they don't teach us why heroin should be legal since with heroin, the lessons of addiction outweigh the lessons of prohibition: alcohol is not saddled with the lessons of addiction as much as heroin is

ok, that's the big picture as i see it in my blind dogmatic way as you say

now, hit me with the magical details which demolish my view


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Closer (none / 0) (#243)
by benna on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 04:57:24 AM EST

Unfortunatly, you only gave the details for the anti-prohibition side. I want details about addiction.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
ok (none / 1) (#247)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 05:14:18 AM EST

http://www.gober.net/victorian/reports/opium.html#soc

http://www.talesofoldchina.com/shanghai/business/t-opium.htm


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Anything more recent? n/t (none / 0) (#250)
by benna on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 05:35:22 AM EST


-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
hilarious (none / 1) (#252)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 05:38:14 AM EST

so you dismiss the evidence?

gee, i did not know that 19th century british and chinese biochemistry was so radically different from ours today ;-P

i better make a note of that:

"human biochemistry's reaction to opiates has radically changed in 150 years time"

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
 

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Again...dumbass (none / 0) (#268)
by kcidx on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 09:10:41 AM EST

"i did not know that 19th century british and chinese biochemistry was so radically different from ours today"

Some of us, yourself clearly not included, actually learn various things over time. In 150 years time, some people learn a lot of things. Especially in fields such as "biochemistry." I figured you would know that, it being your favorite field and all...anyway..

So it's really important, when trying to make an argument based on evidence (not that that is really what you are trying to do), that you use current information when, and if, it's available. It makes you sound more credible, and also makes it seem like you actually read and keep up on what you're talking about, instead of just spouting a preconception you came up with at some point that you've kept despite all information and logical argument to the contrary.

[ Parent ]

oh, ok got it (none / 1) (#271)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 09:29:10 AM EST

right, because i forgot, the average person in shanghai in 1850 didn't have a biochemistry degree

and they do now... got it, i did not know that

oh wait! i almost forgot...

also, if you have an education in biochemistry, that makes you immune from the effects of heroin addiction!

cool!

i'm going to go study the physics of gravity!

maybe if i study gravity long enough, i'll become immune to it!

yeah!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

The powers of your mind are staggering. (none / 1) (#275)
by kcidx on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 09:47:02 AM EST

Ever consider that perhaps biochemistry in the last 150 years has advanced more than simply making a piece of paper with that word written on it? (Which isn't really applicable, since I don't think they give "biochemistry" degrees.)

also, if you have an education in biochemistry, that makes you immune from the effects of heroin addiction!

Right, because it's clear to everyone that that is exactly what I meant. Thanks for clarifying that for me.

You can't really study biochemistry, or physics for that matter, without reading ability in at least one language. So I recommend reading comprehension being your starting place for your burgeoning education career.

[ Parent ]

and your point is? (none / 1) (#277)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 09:54:18 AM EST

also, if you have an education in biochemistry, that makes you immune from the effects of heroin addiction!

"Right, because it's clear to everyone that that is exactly what I meant. Thanks for clarifying that for me"

ok, clarify for me then

i'm obviously a complete moron

i await your eternal wisdom on what you really meant

(snicker)

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

What I meant... (none / 0) (#281)
by kcidx on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 10:00:57 AM EST

Was that I never said that, and you were putting words in my mouth.

Do you ever notice how sometimes when reading through these threads, it hard to tell if a particular quote is you, or you putting words in other peoples mouths? Some people reading probably get the idea that you are totally conflicted and make no sense at all.

But anyway...in my last post, I used a liguistic form called sarcasm in order to highlight your lack of coherence and conversational ability. You fell for it pretty much hook, line and sinker.

[ Parent ]

we're still waiting to hear (none / 1) (#289)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 10:29:23 AM EST

about how what we know about biochemistry now that makes heorin addiction any different since the 1850s

that is what you said isn't it? i wouldn't want to misrepresent you now...

we're waiting...


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Yes you would. (none / 1) (#298)
by kcidx on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 11:05:06 AM EST

i wouldn't want to misrepresent you now...

Sure you would. It's one of your most favored tactics.

You weren't, and aren't, waiting to hear about anything. In fact, you don't even know what my side of this argument consists of. All I've been doing is pointing out your logical inconsistancies, and you misconstrue that into something completely different.

The ways we differ are as follows.

  • I've had friends addicted to heroin and seen exactly what happens. I've also had friends who can snort cocaine once in a while and not get addicted, and I've known people to shoot heroin a handful of times with no real problems. I guess by your lack of empathy and total lack of understanding of the processes of addiction that you have not.

  • I know the dangers of addiction, to anything including heroin. You say you do, but it's quite a bit of hysterical D.A.R.E style "the junkies are going to get you!" rhetoric, which portreys that most likely you don't know the real dangers, only the Time Life version. As exemplified by the statements "alcohol and marijuana are approximiately equivalent drugs", or "addiction to an opiate or a stimulant is such an inevitable truth". The first being totally wrong and well proven as such, and the second being so broad to actually mean nothing.

  • I, based on research and experience, think that legalizing drugs and continuing drug education and treatment, is a better course than locking people in prison. You, based on nothing but some notion probably drilled into you in D.A.R.E in elementary school, do not.

    That's really as simple as this can get.

    [ Parent ]

  • what does easy access (none / 0) (#322)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 11:55:21 AM EST

    to a highly addictive substance mean about the number of addicts in society?

    now where is your superior compassion than mine?


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    It would probobly increase addiction somewhat (none / 0) (#393)
    by benna on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 07:57:37 PM EST

    But not as much as it did during the opium wars, because we live in a more educated society. Also, the increase in addiction would be outweighed by the fact that all the negatives of prohibition would cease to exist. You have to understand that addiction is not the root of all evil, and therefore some increase in addiction does not necessarily outweigh all other good. Addiction is a bad thing, but not the worst thing.
    -
    "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    [ Parent ]
    BTW (none / 0) (#392)
    by benna on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 07:53:06 PM EST

    Are you willing to admit you don't have a degree in biochemistry yet?
    -
    "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    [ Parent ]
    Its not the biochemistry that changed (none / 0) (#391)
    by benna on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 07:51:29 PM EST

    Its the society. But I know you can't be bothered with such complexities.
    -
    "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    [ Parent ]
    Here is why you are an idiot. (none / 0) (#266)
    by kcidx on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 08:26:34 AM EST

    alcohol is not saddled with the lessons of addiction as much as heroin is

    There are both more alcohol addicts, as well as more people dying due to their alcohol addictions than there are heroin addicts.

    So once again, you utterly fail to make any sense as your ideas simply do not line up with reality, you ignorant fool.

    [ Parent ]

    wow (none / 1) (#270)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 09:26:37 AM EST

    hmmm...

    maybe because alcohol is legal so there are more users of alcohol?

    hmmm...

    fascinating, this thing called iq


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Yep (none / 0) (#273)
    by kcidx on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 09:40:29 AM EST

    fascinating, this thing called iq

    Keep reading up about it, and maybe someday you'll have one.

    Here's you: "alcohol is not saddled with the lessons of addiction as much as heroin is"

    Me: Actually, it is.

    You: Yeah, but here's the reason why.

    See how you contradict your original premise? You both erode your original point, and fail to make a new one of any value to the conversation.

    Fascinating, this thing called logical thought.

    [ Parent ]

    a thought experiment for you (none / 1) (#278)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 09:56:43 AM EST

    1000 people in a room

    heroin is illegal, so there is only 50 users of heroin

    40 of them become addicted

    that's 40 heroin addicts in a room of 1000 people

    but an addiction rate of 80%

    meanwhile, there are 600 drinkers in the room

    60 of them become addicted

    so, lo and behold: there are more alcoholics than heroin addicts in the room

    i leave it to your boundless iq to figure out the addiction rates between alcohol and heroin

    take home quiz: if heroin were legal, with a higher addiction rate than alcohol, what would happen to that roomful of people?

    c'mon dorothy! catch up with the rest of the class! ;-)

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    What? (none / 0) (#282)
    by kcidx on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 10:04:12 AM EST

    i leave it to your boundless iq to figure out the addiction rates between alcohol and heroin

    Why would I waste my time? There's this thing called google...and if you used it more, your arguments might have an air of education behind them.

    What good would figuring out fake addiction rates based on numbers you pulled out of your ass do us? Really CTS, you're making this all too easy.

    [ Parent ]

    easy, again (none / 1) (#285)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 10:22:58 AM EST

    heroin has a much higher addiction rate than alcohol

    that's the point of the thought exercise moron

    you said "there are more alcoholics than heroin addicts!"

    so i showed you why that means shit

    again: HEROIN HAS A MUCH HIGHER ADDICTION RATE THAN ALCOHOL

    isn't that fascinating? based on that fact i can say all sort sof wonderful logical things!

    wait, what's this i hear from you?: "What good would figuring out fake addiction rates based on numbers you pulled out of your ass do us?"

    oh i see... it's NOT useful to know heroin addiction rates are much higher than alcohol... you are asserting what? i have to know that heroin's addiciton rate is 67.88775% and alcohol's addiction rate is 11.3342 befor ei can make meaningful conclusions?

    BWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    maybe if that is what you are syaing to me, i can reply to you that "Why would I waste my time? There's this thing called google"

    logic: you only need to know heroin's addiciton rates ar ehigher than alcohol to make meaningful deductions

    fascinating, isn't it?

    ;-P

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly. (none / 0) (#297)
    by kcidx on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 11:00:09 AM EST

    logic: you only need to know heroin's addiciton rates ar ehigher than alcohol to make meaningful deductions

    And to actually KNOW that, you have to do something besides simply pull numbers out of your ass. You have to do research, and I think if you had, you would have a somewhat different "understanding", based on actual information, instead of numbers you make up to support your preconceptions.

    [ Parent ]

    google it (none / 0) (#321)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 11:54:06 AM EST

    show me something that says alcohol is more addictive or just as addictive than heroin

    go, look, shoot me down

    and so your education begins...


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    wow... your ignorance is astounding (none / 0) (#151)
    by endymion on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 09:11:16 PM EST

    Allow me to educate you:

    You see, words have meaning. Their specific meaning is very important. If they did not, we would not have the different words.

    The definitions:

    DEPENDENCE:
    A tolerance of a drug combined with a physical need of the drug to function. Abrupt cessation causes negative physical withdrawl symptoms.

    ADDICTION:
    It's now narrowly defined as "uncontrolled, compulsive use despite harm".

    This is a very important distinction.

    A person who takes Thyroid for hypothyroidism is dependant on the drug for normal functioning. If they stop taking it, they suffer withdrawl, and other bad effects. While they are taking it, though, they are fine.

    A person who eats opiates to excess can become addicted. They no longer get a benefit from it, and very often recognise that fact. They receive harm from the drug use. The usually wish to not receive that harm, by stoping the drug, but have a compulsive requirement to use it anyway.

    The key distinction here is harm. If someone is not harmed by what they are doing, it, by definition, is not addiction!

    These are the current psycological definitions here, but you should know that, with that college degree you brag about.

    My point, all allong, is that opiate use does not necessarily (using the strict mathematical definition of that term) lead to addiction. I do not disagree that it will lead to physical dependance! Of course it will, that's basic biochem.

    You disagree with this point, obviously. Would you care to explain how people always go from dependence to addiction? Where does this necessitated harm come from? What do you do with the millions of people that use all the time, become dependent, yet never become addicted?

    Or are you going to just keep sticking your fingers in your ears and pretend this distinction doesn't exist?

    - The Code Nazi
    [ Parent ]

    obfuscation (none / 1) (#156)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 09:50:37 PM EST

    interesting word

    look it up

    all of your qualifications of the two words above are fascinating, charming, delightful...

    AND DON'T FUCKING TOUCH WHAT I AM SAYING

    are you a lawyer or something? christ!

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    meaning (none / 0) (#166)
    by endymion on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 10:11:35 PM EST

    this statement by you is very telling...

    your admitted willingness to totally ignore the accepted scientific definiton of basic words betrays your not-so-hidden agenda.

    I love it... someone finally shows how much of an asshat you are, and you run around saying the words they use don't matter.

    I mean, what... they are aren't my qualifications... they are basic dictionary definitions.

    As an admitted biochemist, you should know this. Therefor, I don't belive for a second you have a BS degree. If you do, where is it from? Some non-accredited degree-by-mail mill?

    You ignore basic arguments, and twist meaning of words to fit your axioms.

    What, exactly, do you disagree with about those definitons? Do you have the links to back that up? Or are you just going to go around spouting off unqualified statements again?

    - The Code Nazi
    [ Parent ]

    yup (none / 1) (#172)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 10:25:21 PM EST

    like arguing with a creationist


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    Just for the record, FOOL... (none / 0) (#199)
    by cathouse on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 07:55:35 PM EST

    The chemical which you refer to by the brand name it is sold as a rodenticide *Warfarin*  is a critical lifesaving medicine for human beings.

    It is only a serious toxin for Rodents and Lagomorphs.  That's Rats, Mice and Rabbits to you. However, I must assume that you are aware of your own ancestors, so I accept the assertion that Warfarin is poison to your kind.

    -

    pity this busy monster manunkind not

    progress is a comfortable disease


    [ Parent ]

    Well (none / 1) (#201)
    by benna on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 09:59:10 PM EST

    Its not great for the liver, but it certainly doesn't cause lung cancer and heart disease.
    -
    "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    [ Parent ]
    just for the record (none / 1) (#213)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:44:16 AM EST

    who gives a shit

    stay on target


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm ALWAYS on target (none / 0) (#248)
    by cathouse on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 05:31:22 AM EST

    In fact, the lintels of the room I'm in right now are overcrowded with a mix of trophys from when I was serious about High Power Rifle and a somewhat threadbare mob of rescued Teddybears.

    -

    pity this busy monster manunkind not

    progress is a comfortable disease


    [ Parent ]

    uh... (none / 1) (#251)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 05:35:29 AM EST

    you just went further off target

    we're talking about heroin addiction

    thanks!

    ;-P


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Just because I'm a nosey ###### (none / 0) (#254)
    by cathouse on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 05:59:13 AM EST

    The last time I visited the far from blessed isle of Manhatten, 20+ years ago, Times Square was truely vile and nasty. How many times did you have to circle it in order to become as hysterically pigheaded and obtuse as you are now?

    -

    pity this busy monster manunkind not

    progress is a comfortable disease


    [ Parent ]

    it's been awhile since "midnight cowboy" (none / 1) (#255)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 06:13:52 AM EST

    it's now wholesome disney world, really: giuliani cleaned it all up, kicked out the sex and drugs, and now all you see is fat rural middle american tourists... you would blend right in ;-)

    http://www.gawker.com/news/culture/crime/congrats-you-are-less-likely-to-die-tha n-you-were-a-year-ago-106618.php

    Unless you're nine years old, it's hard to be murdered in New York City. The city released its 2004 crime index numbers today, and crime is down 4 percent from last year. According to the city, New York ranks 221st out of 240 cities nationwide in the crime index. Just to taunt, they point out that the murder rate of 7 per 100,000 people is substantially better than Los Angeles (13.5), Chicago (14.5), Philadelphia (22.1) and Detroit (41.5; apparently in Detroit, they just pop people right at the border). This is all fine and good, of course, because dying is not fun, particularly when it ends with someone holding your wallet and dragging you into an alley. On the other hand, we can't help but think that the lack of death is the reason our rent keeps going up. --WL


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    You can seperate will power out like that (none / 0) (#114)
    by benna on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 04:00:25 PM EST

    There is no single "will power" chemical pathway, or even a group of them. Your will power is the whole of your brain, including all of the chemical pathways in it, and that includes the addiction pathway. It makes little sense to say the addiction pathway overrides free will, when it is part of the decision making process. Now, I am NOT saying that therefore addiction doesn't exist, or that it isn't a bad thing. All i'm saying is, when you really get down to it, its not a matter of free will and imprisonment.
    -
    "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    [ Parent ]
    dude (none / 1) (#119)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 04:20:28 PM EST

    you're troll fails

    you're obfuscating the obvious about what drug addiction is

    throw your pebbles

    the rock of simple unavoidable truth hasn't moved

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Obfuscating? (none / 1) (#121)
    by kcidx on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 04:25:22 PM EST

    Is that your word for today? Much like "biochemical" was the other day? You seem to be using it a lot.

    [ Parent ]
    yes it is (none / 1) (#123)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 04:29:57 PM EST

    my word for tomorrow, since you don't seem to understand the concept, will be "addiction"

    LOL ;-)

    http://www.taima.org/jp/risks.htm


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    and the bowl of petunias said as it fell... (none / 0) (#124)
    by endymion on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 04:39:31 PM EST

    "Oh no, not again."
      -DNA

    Listen, you uneducated freak.

    We went round and round and round last time. And you never came up with a single piece of evidence on your side.

    You still work with the assumption that all use must equal abuse.

    All of your arguments are dependant on that axiom: "users always affect others", "users always persuing self destruction", "the fall of society", etc.

    Building a house without a foundation is not productive.

    Please, surprise us. Show us that you have the ability to debate properly. You claim a biochem bachelors degree, and I'd hope you learned how to show evidence for things. Or did they not have term-papers at your college?

    Show any evidence, please!

    Cute poetic statements, and emotion-laden rants don't count, unfortunetly...

    - The Code Nazi
    [ Parent ]

    ok (none / 1) (#126)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 04:43:39 PM EST

    http://www.taima.org/jp/risks.htm

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    japan? (none / 0) (#128)
    by endymion on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 04:49:53 PM EST

    you have to find a page from japan for this?

    detail your point here... I'm not going to look through a god-awful font like that until I know what i'm looking for...

    From a brief scan of it, it's all about Marijuana at that link.

    Which is completely not relivant to what I asked: Show evidence for why Use must be Abuse!

    So far, it looks like you just typed a couple random words into google, and posted the first link you got back, without reading it, as it's so far off topic.

    - The Code Nazi
    [ Parent ]

    are you a creationist? (none / 1) (#130)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 04:57:45 PM EST

    they use the same tactics you do:

    quantity of words over quality

    i mean jesus christ, you're in a thread under a fucking story about a fucking heroin addict detailing the evil of his addictions, christ, have you know eyes?

    what is the source of your impenetrable stupdity on the issue of addiciton and opiates?

    i mean, say i was completely wrong:

    1. that drug addiction happens in a vacuum and hurts no one else
    2. that addiction to something like heroin is mild and controllable by most anyone
    etc...

    say in this hypothetical universe (where the notion of addiction to opiates doesn't exist) you win all of these arguments and prove me utterly intellectually bankrupt...

    what is your point?

    really, what is your point exactly?

    at least with a creationist i can understand their desperate need to hold onto the old testament as a mental crutch

    but what is YOUR reason for flailing against the fucking obvious?

    this should be interesting...


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    no, actually (none / 0) (#132)
    by endymion on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 05:07:11 PM EST

    you are the one acting like a creationist.

    I've posted evidence. You havn't.

    I've made rational arguments in a variety of ways. You keep repeating the same statement, as if maybe if you repeat it enough, it will become true.

    What's my point?

    I'm an activist.

    Me, and people like me, are being oppressed by people like you. Many are too affraid to speak out, so I speak louder, to all those that will listen.

    You keep repeating your Axiom, as if it is completely obvious.

    And I'm saying, if it's so completely obvious, post one piece of evidence for it. You havn't. I read you link, through it's horrible font, in more detail. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of how Use must become Abuse.

    Really, if it's soooooo obvious, why is is so hard for you to post an argument in favor of it?

    I've had the Evolution vs. ID debate, too... we on the evolution side post evidence all the time, and the ID people just ignore it all.

    Sound similar? It's what I'm facing here, too.

    So until you post some evidence, one can only assume you are trolling. Why do you do that, anyway? Do you need to troll people to have an orgasm or something? They have professional help for that, you know...

    - The Code Nazi
    [ Parent ]

    how am i oppressing you? (none / 1) (#133)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 05:09:10 PM EST

    honest question

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    as has been stated hundreds of times, already (none / 0) (#135)
    by endymion on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 05:15:38 PM EST

    you want to put me, and others like me, in jail.

    really, a political prision.

    "It's for our own good", and all that.

    You declared war on me, and others like me, with that statement. I mean, what would you feal, if somebody wanted you put in jail for something you don't believe should be an issue?

    If I said, "K5 Trolls should be jailed - it's for their own good, they will never be able to stop on their own", how would you feal? Wouldn't you consider that an attack?

    You oppress me every time you vote in somebody who furthers an anti-drug agenda.

    Given that people have declared war on me, (it's a war on drugs, remember?!) I need to fight back.

    Give me liberty to do to my body what I want, or give me death. There is no inbetween.

    - The Code Nazi
    [ Parent ]

    15 year old gets bad grades (none / 1) (#137)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 05:29:00 PM EST

    15 year old decides to jump out window

    i intervene and restrain her

    am i oppressing the 15 year old?

    another scenario:

    15 year old succeeds and kills self

    family is grief stricken

    has the 15 year old only hurt herself?

    honest questions


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    big difference (none / 0) (#138)
    by endymion on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 05:50:48 PM EST

    The 15-yo is a Minor, and under the stewardship of the parents, or other legal guardian.

    I suppose I should clarify that all my comments are for those of the age of Majority.

    Pediatric use of anything is not a topic I'm going to touch, and really is something that should be left to the parents.

    If an adult wants to do that, that's their own business. It's called freedom.

    Now, you also have the freedom to suggest to them that they choose another path, but they don't have to listen.

    - The Code Nazi
    [ Parent ]

    wrong (none / 1) (#142)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 08:32:17 PM EST

    it is ok to commit suicide when you are of sound mind, but sick body

    it is not ok to commit suicide if you are of sick mind, but sound body

    and it all applies the same to opiate use: it's suicide of the free will

    in fact, heroin or suicide for someone with terminal bone cancer is perfectly acceptable: the addiction risks are inconsequential compared to what the person is facing

    "If an adult wants to do that (commit suicide), that's their own business. It's called freedom."

    dad shot himself in the head because he lost his job

    tell your words to his son

    "If an adult wants to do that (take heroin), that's their own business. It's called freedom."

    dad shot some dope in the arm because he lost his job

    tell your words to his son

    and therein lies your problem: you think drug addiciton happens in a vacuum, that nothing is risked expect the person's own life

    you're utterly wrong


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    difference? (none / 0) (#145)
    by endymion on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 08:44:05 PM EST

    you postulate a difference between mind and body

    why?

    the mind is just a set of chemical pathways in the body, so there is no difference.

    forcing such a difference smacks of myths of a "Soul", and other such nonsense.

    but that's not really relavant.

    you say that drug use doesn't happen in a vacuum, such as the father that abandons the son, because he shot dope because he's depressed.

    How is this different from blowing his brains out with a revolver?

    Yet we don't ban revolvers... or any of the other long lists of items you could kill yourself with. (bleach? the kitchen steakknife?) Why are opiates the exception here?

    Double standards are idiotic.

    - The Code Nazi
    [ Parent ]

    dance, fool dance ;-) (none / 1) (#152)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 09:39:55 PM EST

    "you postulate a difference between mind and body"

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    ok, dance some more:

    the negative effects of drug addiction hurt others besides the drug addict

    "you use the word 'hurt' without any cogent reasonability about the suffering that is truly indicated when an addict suffers a negative habituation"... tap tappity tap tap

    dance fucker dance!

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    exactly how am I hurting people? again? once more? (none / 0) (#167)
    by endymion on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 10:14:56 PM EST

    "the negative effects of drug addiction hurt others besides the drug addict"

    yes, it can, I never argued that it couldn't.

    but not in all cases. if you believe this statement to be absolute, prove it.

    Fuck, man... are the words I'm using too big for you? Should I start talking at a junior-high level? Do you have ADHD or something?

    You seem to not be able to remember a conversation longer than one emotional sentence.

    - The Code Nazi
    [ Parent ]

    speeding down the highway (none / 1) (#171)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 10:23:20 PM EST

    same meaning

    so we have speed limits


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    so many times (none / 0) (#174)
    by endymion on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 10:29:39 PM EST

    that has been gone over so many times it's not funny.

    So you just don't get the idea of how some things endanger people immediatly, and how some only have the potential for harm.

    waiting waiting waiting waiting...

    I'm still waiting for you to have a real response to this, troll.

    how, exactly am I harming you, and why does Use of a drug always lead to Abuse?

    Put your money where your mouth is. Put up or shut up.

    - The Code Nazi
    [ Parent ]

    the allegory works (none / 1) (#175)
    by circletimessquare on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 10:38:29 PM EST

    despite your obfuscation

    "i am awaiting your response to my query concerning the difference betwen the words potentiate and actuate which is the axis across which your entire argument is destroyed"

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ;-)


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Bad analogy (none / 1) (#193)
    by meatsandwich on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 12:16:21 PM EST

    Should we throw the suicidal fifteen year old in jail? Would that not hurt the family also?

    Here's another analogy for you:
    1) Young girl eats nothing but McDonalds.
    2) Young girl gets fat
    3) Young girl gets diabetes
    4) Young girl dies

    Surely the family would be effected by said young girl. Should we throw the McDonalds eating young girl in jail? The family would be much happier with that wouldn't they?

    [ Parent ]

    BWAHAHAHAHAA (none / 1) (#198)
    by Polverone on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 06:58:20 PM EST

    you don't reason with children, you spank children

    whenever I see a 15 year girl eating at mcdonald's I turn her over my knee and spank a rosy glow into her bottom: that's tough love winning out over addiction

    sometimes you must turn a 30 year old man over your knee and spank him too

    that is why we have police: to imprison (better, kill) all dealers and users of hard drugs, when those 30 year old children are too lost to spank themselves

    imprisonment is tough love

    execution is the ultimate spanking

    asset forfeiture laws, quasi-military police forces, and paid informants are the special costumes, bindings, and toys needed to deliver a really memorable spanking

    what you stupid fuckers don't realize is that we have drug laws for a provably sound reason

    unfortunately this margin is too small to contain the proof

    love,
    circletimessquare
    --
    It's not a just, good idea; it's the law.
    [ Parent ]

    Imprisonment is tough love? (none / 0) (#200)
    by meatsandwich on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 08:46:00 PM EST

    > imprisonment is tough love
    I'm sure all those people rotting away are overwhelmed with our affection. You sir are a moron.

    Your spanking analogy falls down for anyone who isn't a child.

    Let's throw everyone in jail that has the potential to do something to hurt those close to them. Your logic is quite entertaining.


    [ Parent ]

    I have a global POV (none / 1) (#202)
    by Polverone on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 10:05:47 PM EST

    there is no difference between New York and Bangkok

    there is no difference between a ham sandwich, a trombone, and democracy

    I do not have an American POV: I have a global POV that knows everyone should be American

    you're a racist if you believe otherwise

    you're autistic if you disagree with me about drugs or suicide

    you're a pedophile if you question my wisdom on any other topic

    that's tough love and incontrovertible truth: I am the one spanking underage girls, but you are the pedophile

    love,
    circletimessquare
    --
    It's not a just, good idea; it's the law.
    [ Parent ]

    oops (none / 1) (#203)
    by meatsandwich on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 10:17:11 PM EST

    Touche sir.
    Shame on me for falling for it :-)

    [ Parent ]
    anyone can be circletimessquare (none / 1) (#205)
    by Polverone on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 11:16:31 PM EST

    But only one account on this site is stupid enough to do it all the time.
    --
    It's not a just, good idea; it's the law.
    [ Parent ]
    oh man (none / 1) (#234)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 04:25:31 AM EST

    sycophants are entertaining ;-P


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    Irony? (none / 0) (#209)
    by vhold on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:27:28 AM EST

    "they use the same tactics you do:

    quantity of words over quality"

    .....

    I've said it before and I'll say it again..

    You put out some decent thoughts, but your ability to accept criticism or defend yourself is utterly whacked.  You tend to express in quality originally, but you only have quantity when questioned.  It trips me out, which is the only reason I was willing to go so many rounds with you before.  When I later agreed with you on something in a now lost thread you said something pretty insightful.  Your ability to handle disagreement is.. busted.

    Notice in our last disagreement you did become progressively more civil and the noise to signal ratio was definitely improving.  That gained some respect from me.  I'd guess (meaning, I feel I could be wrong here) you'd say you don't care, but I can only conclude that you started to care about the actual content of what you were saying.  If you blast me with insults and noise again, I couldn't help but feel you'd only do so for some sake of trying to exert your control, or as an easy way to avoid the other points I make, which is really the only usefulness uncivil flaming has.

    However, you kept dodging the fundamental issues by changing the subject and focusing on whatever particular aspect best suited you, through which you even managed to take yourself to a particularly fanciful place where you could totally misinterpret data and try to attack me for that fact. (*)

    That is just weird dude.

    Try simply saying to yourself..

    Where 'X' is the other guy..

    "What if X is right?  Why does X think he is right?"

    The totally counterproductive and uncreative aspect of you will say things like "Because X is a retarded fucking moron who is so dense he should kill himself and be quick about it."

    The part of you that can actually grow or win debates will say things like "Because X got his information from Y" or "Because X may have misintrepreted Y" or "Because.... oh wait.. maybe X is onto something.. hmm" or... well.. it goes on and on, basically your options and effectiveness will explode ten-fold when you explore the infinite world that is yourself maybe being wrong.

    My general point is that you should try on the shoes of those you argue with.  Basic odds are that they aren't all deformed gimp shoes showing massive mental retardation, they are just disagreeing with you.  They are coming from somewhere else.  

    And the second set of odds are... you can't always be right, and that's something a real seeker of truth can accept with zero qualms.

    (*) ( Yes, I'm talking about the fact that you originally misread the matrixes of data you just relinked for this argument as meaning nicotine was the most dangerous drug.. Your only attempt at defense for that was to quote something that was about existing heroin addicts which is a massively tiny subset of nicotine addicts, therefore, it meant nothing.  It even included the data you thought was wrong!  What the .. !?!?!

    The fact you try to reuse the data here in your favor, that you originally tried to discredit me with earlier.. is just.. wow.. that's really something else. ?????

    This is why I trip off you, you put in some effort, but look at the weird corners you paint yourself into.  You don't have the paint thinner that is "Oh, ok, I messed that up."

    Maybe you did basically admit you were wrong earlier.. by giving up and not responding?  You seem to say that when people stop responding to you it means you won.. hmm.. that's an interesting last second thought.. )

    Your attack against the data you just used in this argument: http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2005/6/9/3146/11806/454#454

    [ Parent ]

    ok, lets say heroin is legalized (none / 1) (#212)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:42:10 AM EST

    what is gained in such a world?

    meanwhile, what are the negatives?

    there would be no legions of addicts in such a world?

    heroin now is illegal, and THERE ARE negatives because of that: i recognize every single one

    but i come here saying all of those negatives are SMALLER than the negatives in a world heroin legalization

    that's it, that's my thesis, that's what i'm saying, that's what i represent

    and i'm the madman?

    i'm completely and utterly dumbfounded by all of this

    i don't care about all of your "YOU REFUSE TO LOOK AT GRAPH 67B WHICH SHOWS A 3.25% DIFFERENTIATION FROM YOUR DEPICTION OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADDICTION AND HABITUATION IN CAFFEINE WITHDRAWAL THEREFORE YOU ARE DOGMATIC"

    i'm looking at the big picture

    do you understand?

    if i say to you "illegal logging is bad"

    and you say to me "MOST SPECIES OF CYPRUS TREES NEED SOME DRY WEATHER AS WELL AS WET SOIL TO REACH THE FRUITING STAGE AND YOU REFUSE TO LOOK AT THAT OR DISCUSS IT SO YOU ARE BLIND"

    wtf?

    heroin should stay illegal, that's me, that's my thesis: the negatives of legalized heroin are greater than the negatives of criminalizing it

    there you go, that's what i'm coming at you with

    what a madman i am

    jesus christ


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    you remind me of george bush (none / 0) (#214)
    by benna on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 02:09:22 AM EST

    You can't handle nuance. You make your decision and you stick to it.
    -
    "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    [ Parent ]
    that's hilarious (none / 1) (#218)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 02:20:07 AM EST

    me: "ok that was a very interesting exposition on the varieties of fruit flies in the world you made me sit through, however, we still have to kill them, as they are still eating the oranges"

    you: "you're just like george bush, you can't handle nuance"

    wtf? because i prioritize concerns and can appreciate issues that are more pressing than others you compare me that dumb frat boy?

    nuance huh? that's a big word for you

    here's some big words i wish you would appreciate:

    perspective, scale, context, intent

    anything i can help you with? or is your name calling a sign of your admitting bankruptcy?


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Complete and utter irrelevance. (none / 0) (#223)
    by vhold on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 02:42:04 AM EST

    That had to do with anything I said.. how?

    What I said had almost nothing to do with your current argument.  

    Did I even attempt to argue against you in your current argument?  

    No, I did not, but yet you react as if I did, I can only conclude that you barely even scan the responses people give you, or you don't even care to be relevant.

    Quantity over quality.

    The main connection was that you just reused information as research that you tried to discredit me for using, which was rathing amusing to me.

    And furthermore you tried to describe somebody as "quantity over quality" which was precisely how I described you before.

    Those were the only connections.  

    You are trying to introduce some entirely other thread of thought that is almost entirely unrelated to anything I was talking about whatsoever.

    I suggest you go back and reread my last post.  I think you do have the ability of reading comprehension, but your barrier of ever admitting you are wrong about anything prevents you from using it.

    [ Parent ]

    it's insanity (none / 1) (#224)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 03:40:28 AM EST

    the negatives of heroin being legal are worse than the negatives of heroin being illegal

    prove to me otherwise

    don't give me pretty graphs, don't give me lectures about arguing style, just change my mind, i'm listening

    show me how easy access to a highly addictive substance would do anything except create lots of addicts

    when heroin is illegal, addicts turn to crime to support their habit, the criminal underworld is rewarded financially, users take the drug in unsafe conditions and of unsafe doses: all real negative effects and more of heroin being illegal i readily acknowledge and appreciate

    ... and yet, none of which, when all added up, is of greater negative effect than the addicts you would create if heroin were legally accessible for recreational use!

    that's what i am saying, that's my message

    PROVE TO ME OTHERWISE

    I'M LISTENING

    all this other crap you are writing is TANGENTIAL TO THE ISSUE AT HAND

    do you FUCKING UNDERSTAND?

    it just blows my mind, i can't fathom why you are opposing what i am saying about heroin

    do you dislike how i say it? fine, whatever, what the fuck do i care what you think of my arguing style?

    if i say the sky is blue in an insulting and badly formatted and arrogant way, who gives a shit, the sky is still blue!

    that's all i care about, the fucking truth! i don't give a shit what you think of me

    it's IMPORTANT to me because there are WACKJOBS who honestly believe heroin's proven highly addictive effects are minor considerations

    that bothers me, because i've seen what heorin addiction does to people, and it's not something i want to see multiplied

    do you feel me now?

    or do you want to lecture me on some minor stupid piece of bullshit or critique my style of writing?

    WHO FUCKING GIVES A SHIT

    it's just fucking insanity

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Are you replying to the right person? (none / 0) (#228)
    by vhold on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 03:58:57 AM EST

    Basically you just repeated yourself in terms of total pointlessness.  Please return to http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2005/6/19/17750/5820?pid=212#223 and reply to that in a meaninful way.

    Or if you'd prefer, reply to http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2005/6/19/17750/5820/209#209 in a relevant fashion, something you also have not done.

    Read.
    Research.
    Learn.
    Reply.

    Your argument about heroin is totally unrelated to almost everything I have said.  Why are you replying to me with such things?

    You fight so many fronts, but so fruitlessly.

    Focus.

    [ Parent ]

    cognitive dissonance (none / 1) (#230)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 04:08:30 AM EST

    "Your argument about heroin is totally unrelated to almost everything I have said.  Why are you replying to me with such things?"

    because i don't fucking care about what you are saying

    if i recall correctly, you responded to a post of mine, every single time

    therefore, a better depiction of our problems is so:

    me: "x is y"

    you: "no, a is b"

    me: "whatever, i'm talking about x"

    you: "you've failed to address what i am saying"

    wtf?

    "You fight so many fronts, but so fruitlessly. Focus."

    uh... i think i am? aren't you the one telling me to talk about some other bullshit i don't care about that is tangential to what i am talking about?

    talk about signal to noise!

    LOL ;-P


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    "signal to noise" "lol" (none / 0) (#235)
    by vhold on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 04:27:23 AM EST

    "because i don't fucking care about what you are saying"

    ...

    That is the bottom line.

    I will forever think your ability to form a half way coherent thought exists.

    Your ability to defend your thoughts?

    Nonexistent.

    "lol" is noise.  

    You use it as a defense?  It is meaningless.  It is noise.  
    Personal attacks?  Noise.  
    Changing the topic?  Noise.

    Noise leads to....

    NO CARRIER.

    That is the fate of you and your ideas.

    Until you learn to learn you are a disconnect, you barely exist, try to use your ability to express yourself in real life.

    You can't.

    You are a background warble.  Anonymity is your crutch.

    Your ability to not care about what the people you are arguing with is saying is only granted to you by the freedom from consequence the internet has granted you.

    [ Parent ]

    got it (none / 1) (#237)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 04:43:53 AM EST

    so is it safe to say i will never see your handle in a post under mine ever again?

    i look forward to not being lectured because i refuse to talk about whatever the fuck it is you are talking about, that has nothing to do with what i am saying

    are you replying to me, or am i replying to you?

    look again, sycophant: follow the thread to the top

    do you see?

    fucking hilarious! ;-P

    me: "x is y"

    you: "a is b"

    me: "i don't care, that's tangential to what i am saying, you haven't addressed x"

    you: your words in the post above

    oh dear lord, i feel truly humbled by you, really, you got me so well ;-P


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Let's go circular. (none / 0) (#244)
    by vhold on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 05:02:09 AM EST

    You want to reference the past?

    Why were you unable to address the fact you misinterpreted the data I presented in our previous disagreement?  

    Why did you keep trying to change the subject?

    Nicotine was the worst drug and therefore the available data was incorrect?  I called you on it again and you changed the subject again and again.

    You incorrectly reading the data. "BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA", yea.. really impressive, you are bad at math in your head and then laugh.... ugh.

    Me going through extraordinary effort, that you would never do for anybody else because you fight way too many lost battles, to explain how simplistic grids of data work...

    Your last ditch effort to totally change topics in a completely meaningless way because it dealt with a subset of a subset that actually has nothing to do with the original marijuana vs alcohol debate and had nothing to do with common sense.. oh gawd what a waste it to talk to you.... ugh

    And what you never responded to.. because.. who knows why... maybe it was because the corner you painted yourself into was so thick that it just kept getting worse huh??

    And then.. totally unbelievably.. you took the basic data I included originally here, that you massively tried to discredit, but utterly failed because your entire argument was based on the above complete inability to properly read data, and reposted it here as if it suddenly then supported you.

    Your ability to debate is completely busted.  

    Your ego is holding back your otherwise insightful nature.

    This is all I am trying to say to you.  Do I need to rub your member in order to drill this very simple concept into your head?

    YES.

    YOU ARE A SMART GUY.

    BUT.

    YOU ARE SO EGOTISTICAL YOU HOLD YOURSELF BACK.

    YOUR INABILITY TO ACCEPT CRITICISM OR SEE OTHER PEOPLES' POINT OF VIEWS IS UTTERLY PATHETIC.  IT REMINDS ME OF MYSELF BEFORE MY BALLS DROPPED.

    Does this kind of bluntness have some kind of extra meaning to you?  Is it what you respect?

    [ Parent ]

    say i write: (none / 1) (#249)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 05:33:17 AM EST

    "heroin use is highly addictive"

    and then somewhere else i write:

    "heroin use is extremely addictive"

    and you come screaming at me pointing out the difference, suggesting i'm changing my argument, i'm backing away from a discrepancy, i'm walking away from the discussion, all the other bullshit you've accused me of, etc...

    wtf?

    so the point of the disucssion is no longer "heroin use"?

    the point of the discussion is "disciplining circletimessquare arguing style"?

    wtf?

    YOU'VE PROVEN NOTHING EXCEPT THAT YOU HAVE SOME SORT PERSONALITY DISORDER

    dude, this is the EXACT thinking that goes through my head when i read a post above like the one above:

    "why does this sycophant have his head so far up my ass?"

    and then a few paragraphs later

    "why does he think telling me my ass smells like shit is supposed to mean something to me?"

    seriously!

    many have accused me here of not having a life, arguing all the time

    so, if that makes me a loser, what does that make you?

    the loser's sycophant? ;-P

    please sycophant! follow me around! tell the whole world how much my ass smells!

    because one sure thing about people is that they don't react to bad press, they react to press, period: "there is no such thing as bad press"... the old pr adage

    so when someone like you writes "circletimessquare is an asshole" what do you think people who read that think?

    they don't think "circletimessquare is an asshole"

    no, what they think is "hm, whatever this circletimessquare fellow is doing, he's certainly got this guy all riled up"

    get it? ;-P

    i elicted a STRONG response from you about ME

    that FEEDS MY FAME, FEEDS MY EGO

    so how can you lecture me about my ego by FEEDING IT?!

    FUCK my ego, i don't care about it... but YOU SURE DO

    thus your personality disorder: you display excessive negativity to my ego, not because i have any problems with my ego, but because of your own low ego!

    simply put: if your ego were healthy, YOU WOULDN'T FEEL THE NEED TO DIG SO FAR INTO MINE

    YOU WOULD JUST IGNORE ME

    you wouldn't feel the need to dig so far into mine!

    seriously!

    pathetic and hilarious ;-P

    so please, asshole, keep it coming

    let's hear all about ME! the whole world is listening! and it's not ME they are puzzled about!

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    The key is... (none / 0) (#253)
    by vhold on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 05:57:52 AM EST

    How easy it is..

    "simply put: if your ego were healthy, YOU WOULDN'T FEEL THE NEED TO DIG SO FAR INTO MINE

    YOU WOULD JUST IGNORE ME"

    Basically it's way too easy for me to understand you, I don't have to dig, I don't even have to try.

    Do I need to repeat it again?  (Yes.. I do.)

    The reason I can dig into you so easily is that I used to be you, when I was an immature self absorbed punk.

    Your entire online personality is so transparent to me that I feel like I am playing the low levels of tetris.  

    I can close my eyes and simulate an entire game based on you, and it's fun for me.  There is even a theme song for playing the level that is circletimessquare.

    Your attacks that attempt to inflate your own ego further?  They just reinforce the points I have already made.  Do you think that hurts me in some way?

    You just admitted that I am digging deep into you.

    In case somebody out there needs a frame of reference for why you lose these things so badly...

    All you do is run away.  That's all I used to do.  That's why this is so easy.  I don't need a shovel.

    And.. even you have to admit, you just said that you are basically only worth ignoring.  Why do you even continue fighting?

    It's because you like the attention.

    And why am I giving you attention when I've already said it's all that you care about and yet I seem to only be disagreeing with you?

    Ahh.

    Now that's a question isn't it?  

    That really is the crux of the matter.  Why am I giving you the attention you achieve through absolute garbage expression.. hmm.

    That is also an easy answer for me, and I bet you fundamentally know the answer.  The only respect I have for you is based on the fact that I know you have a nugget of wisdom.

    You cannot hurt me, and I am not trying to hurt you.

    [ Parent ]

    look everybody! (none / 1) (#256)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 06:18:15 AM EST

    he loves me, he really does!

    just let me be man, i ain't changing, and anything you could convince me of with your words is to change even less


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Speaking words of wisdom, let me be. (none / 0) (#257)
    by vhold on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 06:31:37 AM EST

    "When I find myself in times of trouble, mother Mary comes to me,
    speaking words of wisdom, let it be.
    And in my hour of darkness she is standing right in front of me,
    speaking words of wisdom, let it be.

    Let it be, let it be, let it be, let it be.
    Whisper words of wisdom, let it be.

    And when the broken hearted people living in the world agree,
    there will be an answer, let it be.
    For though they may be parted there is still a chance that they will see,
    there will be an answer. let it be.

    Let it be, let it be, .....

    And when the night is cloudy, there is still a light, that shines on me,
    shine until tomorrow, let it be.
    I wake up to the sound of music, mother Mary comes to me,
    speaking words of wisdom, let it be.

    Let it be, let it be, ..... "

    (emphasis mine)

    I wish you were speaking all your words of wisdom.  I have a faith that it will.  This is what gives me persistence.

    [ Parent ]

    what a sycophant (none / 1) (#258)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 06:37:48 AM EST

    http://www.angelfire.com/journal2/caressa/Childrearing/clingybaby.html

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    You must have felt something. <nt> (none / 0) (#259)
    by vhold on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 06:40:17 AM EST



    [ Parent ]
    wtf? (none / 1) (#261)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 07:17:16 AM EST

    are you trying to suck my dick or something?


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    Obviously. (none / 0) (#262)
    by vhold on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 07:37:12 AM EST

    http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2005/6/19/17750/5820/244#244

    I suppose I am beginning to start to lean away from whatever credit I did give you.  Na'h.  What good does that do me?

    I'd find it enjoyable if you responded topically to the above link, or any of the links within, or well.. basically if you defended your ideas on any intellectual level whatsoever beyond trying to make it bizarro personal issues.

    Do you know what a sycophant is?  

    It's somebody who wants to gain something from flattering influential people.  

    You are not an influential person and nobody can gain any power from you whatsoever because you are fundamentally inconsequential to all of us.  I can gain more power from giving street bums stale muffins then from dealing with you.

    Only your own self deception allows you to even begin to fathom such a ridiculous concept.  

    .. Or more likely, your basic selective misunderstanding of the english language.  Since you can't seem to understand basic math when it works against you, I'm sure the english language, when not in your favor, is also incorrect.

    I may have something to gain from you, but it certainly isn't power or influence.  You are not currently capable of understanding what it is.

    It is the fact that you think that people who might respect you in the slightest way must be sychophantic that prevents you from understanding such things.

    You are definitely disabled by your inflamed ego.  If I were a doctor, I'd prescribe Preparation E so that everytime you sat down (at the computer) you would actually be able to read other peoples' thoughts without feeling the blinding pain that is logic.

    [ Parent ]

    wow (none / 1) (#263)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 08:03:35 AM EST

    q: "do you want to suck my dick"

    a: "obviously"

    sorry man, that was in jest, i'm not into that kind of thing

    i think k5 isn't the site you're looking for

    this is the site you want

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    To circletimesquare: (3.00 / 2) (#176)
    by endymion on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 10:47:32 PM EST

    A typical "conversation" with you goes like this:

    CTS: [wild assertion as obvous fact]
    others: "But it's not obvious, and we disagree with it"
    CTS: [personal insult, restatement of assertion, anybody that disagrees is an idiot]
    others: "Umm... that didn't address what we said. What makes it so obvious?"
    CTS: [more restatements of assertion]
    others: "Here's evidence for why that assertion is wrong. Care to refute it?"
    CTS: [ignores evidence, argues against some symantec non-related detail]
    others: "Again, you ignored the point - can you site a reason for your assertion?"
    CTS: [restate assertion again]
    CTS: [add insults]
    CTS: [add accusations of being mentally handicaped]
    CTS: [add other insults not relavant to the original assertion]

    Do you see a pattern here?

    Someone here is acting like a creationist spewing emotionally-based dogma, and it's not me.

    You make a statement, and continue to repeat it, as though if you say it enough, it will be true. It's an opinion that is assumed to be obvious fact, but evidence, references, or other support never shows up.

    When you are backed into a corner, because your hyporcacy has been show to your face, you just ignore all rational arguments, and degrade to personal insults and attacks, not even attempting to stay on topic any more.

    This is the argument techniques of religious fundamentalists everywhere, and many a teenager. No evidence, and quick, change the topic wherever something isn't going 100% your way.

    So.... what are you getting out of this? You aren't convincing anybody of anything. Quite a few people, in this thread and others, have given hundreds of rational arguments against your basic emotinally driven thesis. Yet you persist.

    I'd love to debate things - it's what I do. But for a debate to happen, you have to bring something to the table. The few times you made a slight attempt at that, it furthered the argument, and responses were made, but you ignored them as usual.

    So I'm basicly done with this, then. Bring something to the table; something, any hard fact. Until then, you are just the crazy-on-the-streat, preaching doom, that most just try and ignore.

    My efforts will be directed elsewhere until then.

    - The Code Nazi

    he's just an attention whore nt (none / 0) (#178)
    by trane on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 11:02:18 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    true... any inflamitory thing for attention... nt (none / 0) (#181)
    by endymion on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 11:50:12 PM EST


    - The Code Nazi
    [ Parent ]
    hey crackhead (none / 1) (#186)
    by circletimessquare on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 03:03:06 AM EST

    ain't you dead yet?


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    pwn3d! (nt) (none / 1) (#187)
    by circletimessquare on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 03:05:33 AM EST



    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    Serious question (none / 1) (#194)
    by tinkertux on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 01:12:40 PM EST

    Why do you spend so much time arguing with this seagull? For newcomers, he is fun to watch for a few minutes, but afterwards he is so predictable one can write his responses for him. It's more productive arguing with a bot. A bot, you can have fun making it say silly things. CTS just flies into a conversation, craps all over the topic, and flys away feeling happy with himself. Why not just ask him to play outside until the adults are done talking? I'm really curious.

    [ Parent ]
    it's just one of those things... (none / 0) (#195)
    by endymion on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 03:41:55 PM EST

    I have to argue this topic.

    When people are trying to put you in jail for something you do, it kindof hits hard.

    If we don't make a lot of noise, and make the opinion known, it's easy for the legislators to keep steemrolling us.

    So I argue the topic. Here, other boards, in real life, anywhere I can. Most users are affraid to speak out, for obvious reasons, so I kindof feal I have to make up for them.

    Unfortunetly, the downside to this type of attitude is that it's really really hard to let disinformation stand. I mean, that's how it all got started in the first place, and how it perpetuates today.

    Sigh...

    - The Code Nazi
    [ Parent ]

    sample of misinformation: (none / 1) (#207)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:17:06 AM EST

    heroin isn't a dangerous highly addictive drug


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    pattern of misinformation (none / 0) (#222)
    by Polverone on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 02:38:34 AM EST

    Truths: heroin is addictive. Suicide deeply hurts the people who love you. Bacon cheeseburgers and cigarettes take years off your life.

    Lies: it benefits self-destructive people and the people around them to criminalize such behavior. Imprisoning people who engage in these self-destructive behaviors and seizing their assets without trial is actually a great kindness in disguise. Doing something is always better than doing nothing, no matter how expensively, violently, or hamfistedly you do it.

    Would you torture a heretic to death if you thought it benefitted her soul? Likely not, but you would play K5 cheerleader for the inquisitors.
    --
    It's not a just, good idea; it's the law.
    [ Parent ]

    i can drive drunk (none / 1) (#227)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 03:57:52 AM EST

    and i've done it a number of times, i've made it home just fine

    and if i crash, who gets hurt but me? no one else can get hurt if i drive drunk, right?

    and why would you want to arrest me or imprison me for that?

    ;-P

    "Doing something is always better than doing nothing, no matter how expensively, violently, or hamfistedly you do it."

    actually that's 100% true

    if i saw a woman standing on a ledge and i ran to grab her and she fell off, i would have failed her

    but i TRIED TO DO SOMETHING

    that makes me automatically superior than the guy who sits there watching the woman on the ledge and yawning and doing nothing, even if she eventually stood down on her own

    what would be YOUR reaction of someone reviewing a videotape of that scenario to the guy who sat there and did nothing while the woman almost killed herself?

    mine would be anger at him

    and if i saw the guy try to save, making her stumble and fall? anguish for him

    i knew he INTENDED TO DO GOOD

    trying to do good, and failing, even miserably, is superior in THIS world populated with real human beings, to doing nothing at all

    INTENT

    it's a funny little word, you should try mixing that word into your fables of morality in a world where empathy doesn't exist

    oh but it does

    and therein lies the defeat of your simplemindedness


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm making an outcome-based judgement (none / 0) (#260)
    by Polverone on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 06:42:14 AM EST

    I think that acting with good intentions is morally good. Yet I'm astounded that people can still keep doing the same destructive things (like imprisoning drug users) for decades and claim to be acting with good intentions after all this time. Well-intentioned but impervious to evidence, I guess.

    I don't think you're morally bad for your views, just alien. I think views like yours are bad in the same way that malfunctioning airbags are bad: they cause destruction and suffering, even if they were constructed with concern instead of malice. I loathe the outcomes of the drug war.

    I would intervene to stop a physically healthy loved one from committing suicide. I would not be grateful if the government intervened to imprison a suicidal loved one for 5 years, no matter how much they said/believed "it's for his own good." There aren't good outcomes waiting when the government criminalizes drug use, suicide, overeating, adultery, abortion, and the million other things that can hurt oneself and other people but don't directly pose a risk to others' life and property.

    You've probably seen nearly all the evidence about pros and cons of the drug war that I have and haven't come to the same conclusions, so we must differ on some axiomatic level. There's no solving this by debate: we must each wait for the other to die and hope that demographics favor opinions like ours in the future.
    --
    It's not a just, good idea; it's the law.
    [ Parent ]

    i see every single negative effect of the drug war (none / 1) (#274)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 09:41:19 AM EST

    the funding of criminal organizations, drug users getting bad doses and taking it in unhealthy conditions, drug users turning to crime, etc.

    i recognize and i acknowledge with full cognizance every single negative effect

    ok?

    prohibition and it's lessons: all of it, i understand it completely

    and then i say that the negative effects of legalizing heroin is worse: the dramatic increase in addicts

    got it?

    because we both understand the lessons of prohibition

    but i'm the only one who apparently understands the lessons of addiction

    behold: your glorious world of heroin without legal impediment

    behold, look some more

    prohibition has importan tlessons to teach us

    WHAT ABOUT THE LESSONS OF ADDICTION TO OPIATES?

    some of us have learned

    you clearly haven't

    "There's no solving this by debate: we must each wait for the other to die and hope that demographics favor opinions like ours in the future."

    said the guy in 1830's shanghai worrying about the growing cancer of opium addiction in chinese society

    and lo and behold, society learned

    got it? are you listening? are you learning? you listened to the lessons of prohibition... why not the experiences with opium?

    what in your mind makes you open to one historical lesson, but not the other?

    listen carefully: negatives for legalization, negatives for illegality... THE NEGATIVE OF ILLEGALITY WEIGH LESS

    do you hear?

    that's real life: painful choices

    there is no such thing as a perfect world where no one gets hurt in some choices

    but you are naive, idealistic, simplistic, and you shoot the messenger: i come to you and tell you that someone is going to get hurt one way or another, but making heroin illegal is the way for the LEAST AMOUNT of people to get hurt

    and you hear that i want to hurt people

    como?

    how is that? i am telling you the world is complex, you are telling me it is simple

    and i'm the one who's out of touch with social progress?

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    the opium wars couldn't repeat today (none / 0) (#380)
    by Polverone on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 03:17:33 PM EST

    The Opium Wars came about because Britain controlled the supply of a precious commodity and demanded to permit its sale to achieve trade parity. The same trick couldn't be pulled today, any more than Chinese people can still sell spices for their weight in gold to European merchants. I read your links and even your old standby the Wikipedia entry on opium wars and didn't find much about negative health and social effects.

    I have yet to see medical information (not political information) indicating that clean, predictably-dosed opiates/opioids are markedly more physiologically destructive than alcohol and cigarettes. They more easily induce dependence, but dependence is addiction only if the user continues using despite negative consequences. The worst negative consequences of use in modern industrialized countries are intrinsically linked to prohibition.

    Look, I'm not an unreasonable man: if addicts are like unreasonably suicidal people, why not treat them similarly? Confine them against their will only for the short time needed to head off the immediate threat of self-destruction. Treat them medically instead of locking them up for years. Don't further marginalize and torment them by marking them with criminal convictions, denying them access to education and housing, confiscating their material possessions, etc. Would suicides decrease if suicidal people were hounded by the government?

    You believe that the current drug war is better than full legalization. Do you believe it is better than Netherlands-style medical management or other less punitive alternatives?
    --
    It's not a just, good idea; it's the law.
    [ Parent ]

    Example of CTS being an ignorant douchebag. (none / 0) (#272)
    by kcidx on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 09:34:42 AM EST

    "heroin isn't a dangerous highly addictive drug"

    No one ever said that, and you're pulling that statement out of your ass, where all your ideas come from.

    Other examples of CTS doucheitude:

  • " alcohol and marijuana are approximiately equivalent drugs. with a sound understanding of biochemistry, you will understand that they have ROUGHLY the same inebriating/ incapacitating, addicting, and unhealthy effects." 100% pure, pulled from the ass by CTS' own hand, bull-shit.

  • This entire post, for it's psuedo-scientific hand waving.

  • " alcohol is not saddled with the lessons of addiction as much as heroin is" - Completely disregards the thousands and thousands of alcohol addicts, and their health problems and deaths due to it.

  • "addiction to an opiate or a stimulant is such an inevitable truth" - Again, completely untrue. This statement would imply that despite illegality, despite my attempts not to shoot heroin or smoke crack, that it's inevitable I will become addicted at some point. Also disregards the fact that the vast, vast majority of people who use stimulants and/or opiates will go their entire lives without an addiction problem.

    Well..that's all I can muster for now. It's pretty clear though that circle jerk here has, what do they call that? Oh yeah....ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what he is talking about, as usual. I only continue to engage in these shenanigans because I'm amused at the mental image I get of him sitting in his mothers basement, furiously pounding away at the keyboard in wonder at why no one ever "understands" him.

    [ Parent ]

  • oh man, low iq people (none / 1) (#276)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 09:52:20 AM EST

    here's a thought experiment for you:

    1000 people in a room

    heroin is illegal, so there is only 50 users of heroin

    40 of them become addicted

    that's 40 heroin addicts in a room of 1000 people

    but an addiction rate of 80%

    do you have enough neurons left to continue cretin?

    meanwhile, there are 600 drinkers in the room

    60 of them become addicted

    so, lo and behold: there are more alcoholics than heorin addicts in the room

    but, mr. genius: calculate me the addiction rate for alcohol

    and, take home quiz for my little smart man!:

    if heroin were legal, with a higher addiction rate than alcoholics, what would happen to that roomful of people?

    squeeze hard now! you can figure it out! i got faith in you!

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    SMALL

    FUCKING

    CLUE


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Flex that steaming turd between those ears... (none / 0) (#279)
    by kcidx on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 09:57:53 AM EST

    And explain one way in which your last post had any relevance to my previous one, other than the shared use of the word "heroin."

    I think you might be going into melt down CTS. Everyone else seems to be handling the conversation fairly well, where as you are getting more and more disjointed from reality. I understand you think it's necessary to reply to every single post in every single thread on every story of any interest to you at all, but you should at least try to keep them straight. Sometimes I get the feeling that you are actually replying to someone else...maybe those voices you hear...you know...the ones that actually aren't your parents talking about you upstairs...but sound like that's where they come from?

    [ Parent ]

    I've heard that (none / 0) (#284)
    by Egil Skallagrimson on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 10:18:19 AM EST

    you can either smoke heroin or inject it, but I usually prefer suppositories.  They aren't addicitive, supposedly.

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

    Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
    [ Parent ]

    opiates via ass aren't addictive? (none / 1) (#287)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 10:27:09 AM EST

    i read a story about a guy who recently died because his wife gave him a sherry enema

    i guess he thought you can't get drunk that way either ;-P

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Try it and let us know. (none / 0) (#288)
    by Egil Skallagrimson on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 10:28:42 AM EST

    I am always interested in the pursuit of hard science.  Plus, it would fit the theme of these essays quite well, i think.

    I always have wondered why Burroughs didn't use the enema method of heroin more, given that it had Doublemint-style pleasure factors involved for him...

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

    Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
    [ Parent ]

    ever see "trainspotting?" (none / 1) (#290)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 10:31:42 AM EST

    when he dives into the toilet to get the opiate enema?

    hardcore heroin addict dives into, quote "the worst toilet in scotland" to get to the enema

    tells you something about addiciton right there and delivery via ass, no?


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    A man in need (none / 1) (#291)
    by Egil Skallagrimson on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 10:36:21 AM EST

    is able to endure all obstacles.

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

    Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
    [ Parent ]

    someone in this thread (none / 1) (#292)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 10:37:46 AM EST

    understands the power of addiction

    thank you ;-)

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    But it's not you! [n/t] (none / 0) (#294)
    by kcidx on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 10:42:51 AM EST



    [ Parent ]
    it is me (none / 1) (#295)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 10:51:08 AM EST

    you don't recognize it, your opinion doesn't take it into account


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    For myself, I am an (none / 1) (#296)
    by Egil Skallagrimson on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 10:53:12 AM EST

    addicte of teh Metal.

    Immortal forever!

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

    Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
    [ Parent ]

    I don't recognize it? (none / 0) (#299)
    by kcidx on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 11:07:27 AM EST

    Dude..you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

    You seemed more coherent yesterday. Did your mom remember to give you your meds this morning?

    I'd hate to see you trying to chew your ear off again.

    [ Parent ]

    quote: (none / 1) (#305)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 11:27:47 AM EST

    "The explanation is really simple. People DIDNT KNOW that they were addicted, and they DIDNT KNOW that it was bad for them. They were just taking their "medicine" or "tonic" or what have you. Thus you had a huge amount of addicts, because it was totally socially acceptable to be one.

    Now is totally different. Even if it were legal, most people now know the dangers, and it wouldn't be socially acceptable anyway. Those that would choose to do it anyway, probably already do it, illegal and all."

    http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2005/6/19/17750/5820/301#301

    test: you know all about heroin, right?

    ok, i'm going to inject oyu with some, hold on...

    just a few more...

    ok, now don't use heroin ever again... not when you're depressed, not when you're feeling down, not when life is a little hard

    addiction: stornger than willpower

    educaiton and iq mean nothing against addiciton

    are you really that clueless?


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    ?????huh (none / 0) (#308)
    by kcidx on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 11:38:55 AM EST

    Why do you want to inject me with heroin? I don't see what that would be testing, other than seeing how fast I can beat your ass when you come near me with a needle.

    [ Parent ]
    to prove to you (none / 0) (#311)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 11:42:53 AM EST

    that all of your education all of your iq, all of your money, all of your social support

    would be weaker than your desire for heroin

    forever

    you are naive about this simple obvious truth

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    That's if I were to do heroin.... (none / 0) (#313)
    by kcidx on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 11:43:47 AM EST

    ...which I'm not going to do...because of all my education, and social support. Money doesn't really play into it....but I have plenty anyway, thanks.

    [ Parent ]
    smart, educated, social support, wealth: (none / 0) (#315)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 11:46:20 AM EST

    http://www.opiates.com/media/heroin-belleville.html

    why did he try it? HE WAS A DOCTOR WITH EASY ACCESS

    YOU"RE THE DUMB FUCK THAT WANT STO MAKE IT EASIER FOR PEOPLE TO ACCESS

    THINK NOW RETARD

    THINK HARD

    Hays, formerly a family practice physician in the Southern Illinois town of Herrin, first took OxyContin three years ago when a patient turned in a bottle containing some leftover pills.

    Hays, 42, at the time had been suffering excruciating back pain from a car accident, preventing a decent night of sleep. The much weaker painkillers he had been given weren't doing the trick.

    Hays knew that ingesting the OxyContin was wrong. But he also believed the claims of sales representatives that OxyContin is safe and nonaddictive.

    Within a few minutes of consuming that first OxyContin tablet, Hays said, "I felt like Superman. I could work all day, be happy, go home, play with the kids. Do everything that I wanted to do.... I just felt like a million bucks."

    The addiction advanced rapidly. Within six weeks, he was stealing OxyContin from patients, crushing up the pills to mix in a saline solution, loading it into a hypodermic needle and plunging it into his arm. He also bought OxyContin from local pharmacies under false names.

    Terrified of what he had fallen into, Hays tried to wean himself off OxyContin on the weekends while keeping his addiction a secret from his wife and two small children. It was a prescription for utter misery.

    "You're bedridden," Hays said. "Your bones feel like they're on fire and they're melting flesh."

    The worst moment occurred when his daughter, who was 4 years old at the time, walked into the bathroom of his house just as he was about to shoot up some OxyContin, Hays said.

    "Her eyes get very big, of course," Hays recalled. "And she asks me, `Dad, what are you doing?'"
    Hays shut his eyes for a moment.

    "Addicts are very clever people --- clever to get it, clever with excuses," he said. "I said, `Dad's sick and he's giving himself a shot of vitamins.'"



    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    Here's a key sentence in the article... (none / 0) (#318)
    by kcidx on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 11:50:10 AM EST

    But he also believed the claims of sales representatives that OxyContin is safe and nonaddictive.

    ???? Does that ring any bells for you?

    If Heroin were made legal, and tomorrow your fifth grade class still talked about how dangerous it was, would you go try it anyway? Would you want to try it anymore than you do now?

    You're getting there...soon you will be able to bite that ear...just keep trying.

    [ Parent ]

    said the man (none / 0) (#320)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 11:51:33 AM EST

    who is telling me how safe easy access to heroin would be in society

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

    oh man, you're hilarious ;-)


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Education (none / 0) (#325)
    by kcidx on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 11:59:05 AM EST

    I've repeated it millions of times it seems.

    No one, anywhere in America, thinks heroin is safe or non-addictive...due in large part to education efforts. This will still be the case tomorrow if we legalize heroin today.

    On the other hand there were education efforts in the form of advertising, stating that OC was safe and non-addictive.

    See?

    [ Parent ]

    listen carefully (none / 0) (#327)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 12:08:04 PM EST

    smart, educated, social support, wealth

    and still an addict

    what was the deciding factor?: EASE OF ACCESS

    the lesson is: addiciton is stronger than willpower

    that point can not be belittled

    ACCESS itself must be dramatically controlled

    because exposure simply leads to addiction, educaiton is powerless against it: such is human weakness

    your problem is that you are naive about human nature, human weakness

    we all fall down now and then in our lives, we're HUMAN, no matter how many PhDs we have, understand?

    the porblem with a highly addictive opiate is that if you fall down, YOU STAY DOWN

    do you appreaciate that?

    i don' think you do


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    You are so dense...like a rock a tell you... (none / 0) (#328)
    by kcidx on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 12:12:23 PM EST

    smart, educated, social support, wealth "But he also believed the claims of sales representatives that OxyContin is safe and nonaddictive." That's called MISEDUCATION. So, I suppose we should just toss his ass in prison like all the rest of the scum, huh?

    [ Parent ]
    a medical doctor? (none / 0) (#330)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 12:15:27 PM EST

    so you're telling me a medical doctor is that stupid about addiction?

    ;-)

    a few paragraphs down in the same article:

    "Addicts are very clever people --- clever to get it, clever with excuses," he said."

    ;-)


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Solid...solid as a rock... (none / 0) (#333)
    by kcidx on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 12:24:10 PM EST

    so you're telling me a medical doctor is that stupid about addiction?

    No...I'm pretty sure if the label and advertising had said, "incredibly dangerous and addictive" he probably would have been smart enough to avoid it.

    But when the pharm companies crank out a new product and tell you according to their studies it's safe and non-addictive, you don't have much to go on until you learn otherwise, do you?

    He wasn't the only doctor who made the same mistake...which is why there was all of a sudden a huge BOOM in OC abuse, but not in heroin, or morphine...go figure.

    [ Parent ]

    so by your reasoning (none / 0) (#335)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 12:29:01 PM EST

    we shouldn't prevent people from driving fast

    we should just tell them it's dangerous, and not actually enforce the policy?

    so we should just tell people "um, opiates bad, mmkay?"

    and when the addicts happen, as they always do, just like speeders, that's ok? we never fight that?

    even when people know there are no cops around they speed harder and faster and more of them speed... killing more of themselves and innocent next to them on the road...

    but with addicitve opaites, you're going to expose MORE people them, with their PROVEN effects of addiction, and just saying "that's bad" and addiction isn't going to happen?

    are you so fucking clueless about the essential frailty and weakness of human nature?


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    You have understood nothing I've said, at all. (none / 0) (#337)
    by kcidx on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 12:36:59 PM EST

  • Legalize heroin, and all drugs. This doesn't mean pass out free samples on every corner. I read in another thread you were blabbering in a very good idea of perhaps making the addictive illegal drugs prescription only. Either way, it doesn't matter. Make them legal insofar as you don't go to prison for posessing them. Illicit sale could still be punishable. You could even get a fine for posession, like you would for a speeding ticket, but no jail time. Jail for drug use doesn't help anyone at all. You train of logic I guess would lead to incarcerating people for 10 years manditory minimum for speeding the first time?

  • Continue drug education programs, thus preventing people from being able to claim ignorance, and preventing people with draconian ideas like yourself from rearing their ugly heads.

  • Rehab, Rehab, Rehab. We'd have tons of money for it once we stopped wasting it on the drug war, plus we could have a shit-ton of money from tax revenue on sales of non-addictive drugs. We could actually HELP the addicts, instead of locking them in prison and turning them into hardened criminals.


    [ Parent ]
  • your're certifiably naive about human nature (none / 0) (#340)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 12:44:51 PM EST

    people speed every day

    people die speeding every day

    everyone grows up knowing someone who died in an auto accident

    everyone is educated in driver's ed in high school about the dangers of speeding

    PEOPLE STILL DO IT

    do you understand that fact about humanity?

    about the essential frailty and egotism of us all "ok, ok, but i'm really late for work... ok, ok, but my back really hurts... ok, ok, but i don't see a cop anywhere on this road... ok, ok, but just a little smakc, my gf just broke up with me"

    do you appreciate that human frailty

    DO YOU

    the DOT takes out a billion dollar ad campagin:

    "NEWS FLASH: EXTENSIVE TESTING CONFIRMS THAT SPEEDING WILL INCREASE YOUR CHANCE OF DYING, DO NOT SPEED"

    billions are spent on education programs, dirvers "rehab" etc...

    instantly snap everyone drives under the speed limit

    no need for cops to watch speeders

    right?

    that's the world you're telling me exists? right?

    your problem is very simple: hubris

    it's a teenaged quality: nothing can hurt me, i'm immortal, i'm immune from what weffects everyone else

    human frailty doesn't apply to me

    the same thinking btw, that makes me people take dope despite all the warnings

    dawning on you yet? ;-)


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    No. (none / 0) (#343)
    by kcidx on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 12:52:42 PM EST

    dawning on you yet? ;-)

    No...and it's not going to, because you are wrong.

    Like I said in my last message you failed to read, give people possessing heroin fines if you feel you need to do something to deter them. But it won't stop them, just like jail doesn't stop them. It's all about minimizing damage to society. Your ideas MAXIMIZE the damage done by drugs.

    These last couple messages of yours seem to be making an argument for imprisoning anyone who does anything to endanger their life.

    You are extremely naive as to human nature yourself...or maybe really depressed and a little self-loathing. I mean, do you actually think that normal people say to themselves, "oh man, my girlfriend broke up with me, I think I'll try smack today...i hear it's safe and non-addictive." If so, you probably want to get your head checked out...by a professional.

    [ Parent ]

    "it won't stop them... (none / 0) (#345)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 12:57:08 PM EST

    just like jail won't stop them"

    you're getting there

    nothing will stop them, right?

    so how do you fight it?

    BY NOT EXPOSING PEOPLE TO IT IN THE FIRST PLACE

    can you put all the pieces together yet?

    "I mean, do you actually think that normal people say to themselves, "oh man, my girlfriend broke up with me, I think I'll try smack today...i hear it's safe and non-addictive." If so, you probably want to get your head checked out...by a professional."

    no, normal people don't think that

    addicts do

    you STILL can't get that funny little word "addiction" into how you think about heroin yet, can you?


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    WTF? (none / 0) (#350)
    by kcidx on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:13:52 PM EST

    You are the biggest moron in the entire universe.

    Close your eyes, take a deep breath, let it out slowly. Then open your eyes and read my message again.

    "oh man, my girlfriend broke up with me, I think I'll try smack today...i hear it's safe and non-addictive."

    You aren't an addict until you are addicted. And no one is just going to run out and try heroin simply because it's legal, nor are they going to try it just because their girlfriend broke up with them.

    nothing will stop them, right?

    so how do you fight it?

    BY NOT EXPOSING PEOPLE TO IT IN THE FIRST PLACE

    I'm all about not exposing people to it. If it were legalized in the right fasion, you wouldn't be exposed to it any more than you are right now. However, you support LOCKING USERS IN PRISON, which doesn't help at all. In fact, it makes the problem much worse.

    Let me ask you something. I assume you've done psychedelics because you said at the start of one of these threads that they are ok. How many times have you done them? Are you one them right now? Are you permafried?

    Because your discourse reminds me of a time I was tripping where nothing made sense to me and every thought I had seemed to contradict the previous one. Just like you...you can't stay on a single topic, your contradict yourself, you keep repeating the same tired stuff...and, the most trippy part....you don't even realize it.

    [ Parent ]

    sigh (none / 0) (#354)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:18:28 PM EST

    "You aren't an addict until you are addicted. And no one is just going to run out and try heroin simply because it's legal, nor are they going to try it just because their girlfriend broke up with them."

    oh genius guru on the mountain, why does anyone ever take up heroin for the first time then? because gw bush doesn't like it?

    you're pathetic!

    "I'm all about not exposing people to it. If it were legalized in the right fasion, you wouldn't be exposed to it any more than you are right now."

    legalized in the right fashion? you mean like oxycontin? hillbilly heroin?

    moron listen up: increased exposure to heroin leads to an increase of addicts, period, end of story

    you simply can't grasp that essential fact about addiciton and human frailty

    it's utterly beyond your comprehension skills


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Listen up shit for brains... (none / 0) (#358)
    by kcidx on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:26:54 PM EST

    Does locking people in prison help the situation, yes or no?

    That's the only question.

    We've already established that people will do drugs, regardless of their legality. They will get addicted. Do we help them, or lock them up?

    You say lock them up, I say treat them for the disease they have. I'm sure you probably would have been stoked for leper colonies and sending all the aids patients to an island like castro did, as well...but you're still wrong.

    [ Parent ]

    is an addict free? (none / 0) (#363)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:40:39 PM EST

    there are bars in the mind, do you see them?

    putting them in jail frees them of addiction

    they are physically constrained

    but at least they are mentally free again

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    You can't be your own slave (none / 0) (#390)
    by benna on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 07:02:45 PM EST

    It is government control which is the problem.
    -
    "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    [ Parent ]
    obviously not educated n/t (none / 0) (#389)
    by benna on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 06:53:44 PM EST


    -
    "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    [ Parent ]
    I've smoked opium (none / 0) (#388)
    by benna on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 06:49:52 PM EST

    I even have a bit left in my drawer. I did it probobly 10 times during the course of a month, sometimes multiple days in a row, and a few times twice a day. I haven't used it in months, despite the fact that its in my drawer, because I don't feel like it.
    -
    "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    [ Parent ]
    snore (none / 1) (#286)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 10:25:18 AM EST

    you said: "" alcohol is not saddled with the lessons of addiction as much as heroin is" - Completely disregards the thousands and thousands of alcohol addicts, and their health problems and deaths due to it."

    i refuted it

    anything else i can help you with? you need a lot of hand holding...

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Blah.. (none / 0) (#293)
    by kcidx on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 10:41:58 AM EST

    You didn't refute it at all. You just made some sort of comparison between the addiction rates of alcohol and heroin.

    The question wasn't how addictive each one is. But the statement you were "refuting" was me refuting you saying "alcohol is not saddled with the lessons of addiction as much as heroin is".

    It is saddled with the same lessons. Lots of them. Even more lessons than heroin, due to it's wide usage. You denied that, I refuted it...then you started talking about how much more addictive heroin is than alcohol..and explained WHY there are more alcohol addicts, but that's not the point. The point is that you said alcohol isn't saddled with the lessons of addiction as much as heroin is, when in fact, it is.

    [ Parent ]

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (none / 0) (#317)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 11:48:52 AM EST

    "" alcohol and marijuana are approximiately equivalent drugs. with a sound understanding of biochemistry, you will understand that they have ROUGHLY the same inebriating/ incapacitating, addicting, and unhealthy effects." 100% pure, pulled from the ass by CTS' own hand, bull-shit. "

    now read your post again

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    my point was that alcohol and marijuana were roughly the same addiction wise: low

    heroin is a lot more addictive than alcohol

    how many times do i have ot say it before the simple fucking obvious sinks into your skull?


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Quick Answer (none / 1) (#300)
    by kcidx on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 11:15:04 AM EST

    if heroin were legal, with a higher addiction rate than alcoholics, what would happen to that roomful of people?

    You would have an addiction rate of 80%. Thus, 40 of 50 heroin users in the room would become addicted. What's your point?

    Oh wait...you seem to think that if heroin were legal, everyone would joind the heroin user set, and then you'd have 800 heroin addicts. But that's not how things work in real life.

    Again...your opinions and reality are very disconnected.

    [ Parent ]

    Follow-up (none / 1) (#301)
    by kcidx on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 11:20:14 AM EST

    You love to reference old information, so I'm sure you know all about the rampant addiction to opiates that occurred in this country (the US) before it was made illegal.

    The explanation is really simple. People DIDNT KNOW that they were addicted, and they DIDNT KNOW that it was bad for them. They were just taking their "medicine" or "tonic" or what have you. Thus you had a huge amount of addicts, because it was totally socially acceptable to be one.

    Now is totally different. Even if it were legal, most people now know the dangers, and it wouldn't be socially acceptable anyway. Those that would choose to do it anyway, probably already do it, illegal and all.

    The real lesson of prohibition, is that making something illegal doesn't make people stop doing it. Furthermore, making something legal doesn't make people do it.


    [ Parent ]

    your stupidity about human nature is staggering (none / 1) (#303)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 11:24:39 AM EST

    you're that naive?

    do you know what an addictive substance does to someone?

    you really think it's a matter of education and iq?

    you really thought people in the 1800s didn't know what was going on?

    you think willpower is more powerful than addiciton?

    what is wrong with you? really?

    people know about the dangers of alcohol

    what happens with alcohol?

    i don't even know where to begin with you

    you're staggeringly utterly naive


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Uhmm.. (none / 1) (#306)
    by kcidx on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 11:35:38 AM EST

    do you know what an addictive substance does to someone?

    It addicts them? I'm pretty sure anyway.

    But you have TO ACTUALLY CONSUME THE SUBSTANCE FOR IT TO WORK.

    If heroin were legalized tomorrow, would you go try it? No? I wouldn't either. Would your friends? Mine wouldn't. In fact, I would say that most everyone I know would still avoid it like the plague that it is.

    you really thought people in the 1800s didn't know what was going on?

    It's proven that they didn't. They advertised Heroin as a non-addictive substitute for morphine when it was first released, dumbass. They also called it a "mild sedative for coughs". Sounds to me like they didn't really know what they were doing, eh?

    you think willpower is more powerful than addiciton?

    Yes. Otherwise any addiction would always be a death sentence. Yet people do seem to recover. Interestingly enough, they recover more often in recovery programs than they do in prison.

    what is wrong with you? really?

    I can't stop smiting igornant douchebags on K5 with the truth?

    what happens with alcohol?

    Some drink it, some don't. Some get addicted, some don't. Somebody thought it was a good idea to make it illegal, but that didn't really curb drinking it just made Al Capone really rich. So they wised up and reversed it, and things went pretty much back to the way they were. However, education has sucessfully lowered drinking rates over the years.

    [ Parent ]

    wow, you are naive beyond belief (none / 1) (#310)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 11:41:29 AM EST

    education, support, wealth, willpower, iq

    vs.

    opiates

    ...

    opiates win

    that's addiction moron

    THAT'S ADDICTION TO OPIATES

    it's NOWHERE FUCKING NEAR EHTANOL

    DO YOU FUCKING GET IT IN YOUR THICK FUCKING SKULL???

    is any of opiate's power beginning to dawn on you you fucking retard?

    http://www.opiates.com/media/heroin-belleville.html

    Hays, formerly a family practice physician in the Southern Illinois town of Herrin, first took OxyContin three years ago when a patient turned in a bottle containing some leftover pills.

    Hays, 42, at the time had been suffering excruciating back pain from a car accident, preventing a decent night of sleep. The much weaker painkillers he had been given weren't doing the trick.

    Hays knew that ingesting the OxyContin was wrong. But he also believed the claims of sales representatives that OxyContin is safe and nonaddictive.

    Within a few minutes of consuming that first OxyContin tablet, Hays said, "I felt like Superman. I could work all day, be happy, go home, play with the kids. Do everything that I wanted to do.... I just felt like a million bucks."

    The addiction advanced rapidly. Within six weeks, he was stealing OxyContin from patients, crushing up the pills to mix in a saline solution, loading it into a hypodermic needle and plunging it into his arm. He also bought OxyContin from local pharmacies under false names.

    Terrified of what he had fallen into, Hays tried to wean himself off OxyContin on the weekends while keeping his addiction a secret from his wife and two small children. It was a prescription for utter misery.

    "You're bedridden," Hays said. "Your bones feel like they're on fire and they're melting flesh."

    The worst moment occurred when his daughter, who was 4 years old at the time, walked into the bathroom of his house just as he was about to shoot up some OxyContin, Hays said.

    "Her eyes get very big, of course," Hays recalled. "And she asks me, `Dad, what are you doing?'"
    Hays shut his eyes for a moment.

    "Addicts are very clever people --- clever to get it, clever with excuses," he said. "I said, `Dad's sick and he's giving himself a shot of vitamins.'"



    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    proof (none / 1) (#302)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 11:20:47 AM EST

    http://www.gober.net/victorian/reports/opium.html#soc

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    Not proof. (none / 1) (#304)
    by kcidx on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 11:27:03 AM EST

    The problem with the opium war era was that so many people were already addicted when they realized how terrible it was for you. Heroin was given to children, morphine was in nearly every medical concoction, and thus by the time everyone realized we were a nation of addicts and that was a bad thing, and HUGE number of people had already been addicted.

    Compare that to today, where everyone knows how bad it is. If you legalized it, there would be no huge rush to go try it. There would just be fewer lives destroyed over it.

    See...thats one of those things, perspective that is, that you don't get if you only read old information.

    [ Parent ]

    you're naivete is staggering (none / 0) (#307)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 11:37:56 AM EST

    you readily admit making something illegal doesn't stop people from getting addicted an druining their lives

    but you think SOCIETY SAYING "that's bad" WILL??????????

    what THE FUCK is the source of your colossal idiocy?

    really, i can't even being to fathom the source of your colossal wall of profound stupidity on the matter of what ADDICTION

    A
    D
    D
    I
    C
    T
    I
    O
    N

    does to people

    do you FUCKING understand what EXPOSING someone to a drug like heroin does to them?

    YOU DON'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    MODERN CHINA

    When Lao Xu first tried heroin, he was a 19-year-old country kid blinded by Shanghai's neon. He thought he would get work in one of the city's gleaming skyscrapers, but he ended up dancing for cash in a darkened nightclub. Heroin was another of Shanghai's surprises. He knew it was dangerous, but he tried it anyway. After all, a pale-faced dancer from far-off Gansu province needed something to make him hot in the capital of cool. And Lao Xu liked the social aspect of heroin, a bunch of guys sitting in a room, enjoying the rush and then the drowsy hours that followed. He missed his parents and his grandma, and here was a way to connect--a chemical club for China's displaced. But then one day he didn't need his friends around to enjoy his high. So he fired up the foil alone in the grungy bathroom of his tenement. "I started doing this because I wanted to be with friends," says Lao Xu. "Now I feel so alone."

    Back in Lanzhou, Ah Hui went cold turkey, even attending church for a while to try to keep himself straight. But now he's sitting in room 602 of a grimy hotel, mesmerized as Xiao Jing, a sweet-faced wannabe actress, unloads her groceries. In one hand she holds a bag of fruit. In the other, a bag of heroin. They munch watermelon and watch as another junkie pours the heroin onto a 100-yuan note emblazoned with a portrait of Mao Zedong. The white powder lands smack on the Chairman's face. Ah Hui and Xiao Jing exhale and lean forward for what they say will be just one last hit.

    MODERN USA

    Hays, formerly a family practice physician in the Southern Illinois town of Herrin, first took OxyContin three years ago when a patient turned in a bottle containing some leftover pills.

    Hays, 42, at the time had been suffering excruciating back pain from a car accident, preventing a decent night of sleep. The much weaker painkillers he had been given weren't doing the trick.

    Hays knew that ingesting the OxyContin was wrong. But he also believed the claims of sales representatives that OxyContin is safe and nonaddictive.

    Within a few minutes of consuming that first OxyContin tablet, Hays said, "I felt like Superman. I could work all day, be happy, go home, play with the kids. Do everything that I wanted to do.... I just felt like a million bucks."

    The addiction advanced rapidly. Within six weeks, he was stealing OxyContin from patients, crushing up the pills to mix in a saline solution, loading it into a hypodermic needle and plunging it into his arm. He also bought OxyContin from local pharmacies under false names.

    Terrified of what he had fallen into, Hays tried to wean himself off OxyContin on the weekends while keeping his addiction a secret from his wife and two small children. It was a prescription for utter misery.

    "You're bedridden," Hays said. "Your bones feel like they're on fire and they're melting flesh."

    The worst moment occurred when his daughter, who was 4 years old at the time, walked into the bathroom of his house just as he was about to shoot up some OxyContin, Hays said.

    "Her eyes get very big, of course," Hays recalled. "And she asks me, `Dad, what are you doing?'"
    Hays shut his eyes for a moment.

    "Addicts are very clever people --- clever to get it, clever with excuses," he said. "I said, `Dad's sick and he's giving himself a shot of vitamins.'"

    ALL THE EDUATION

    ALL THE IQ

    ALL THE EXPERIENCE

    VERSUS OPAITE ADDICTION

    ...

    OPIATE ADDICTION WINS YOU FUCKING RETARD

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Calm down little boy, mom is coming with the pills (none / 0) (#312)
    by kcidx on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 11:42:55 AM EST

    do you FUCKING understand what EXPOSING someone to a drug like heroin does to them?

    You do realize there is a difference between "exposing" someone to heroin, and simply making it legal to that people don't go to prison for it, right?

    No? Didn't think so. That's why you're ignorant.

    In response to your two nice little quotes I would offer that you've hit the nail on the head. Whether legal or illegal, people will get addicted. The real question is, should people be locked up, like the kid in china will be when caught, or treated like the OC addict in America will be when found out?

    OPIATE ADDICTION WINS YOU FUCKING RETARD

    Sounds like the words of a junky who's given up trying to quit, to me.


    [ Parent ]

    wow (none / 1) (#314)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 11:44:20 AM EST

    so we make heroin legal

    what will happen to the number of addicts genius?

    would it go UP

    would it go DOWN

    by how much you think wilbur?

    hmmm... think really hard now, you've got a neuron in there...


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    It would... (none / 1) (#316)
    by kcidx on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 11:47:47 AM EST

    ....stay roughly the same.

    It may even go down after a while, considering a country enlightened enough to end the war on drugs would HAVE PILES AND PILES of money to spend on research, treatment and actual HELP for people suffering from the disease of addiction.


    [ Parent ]

    fucking incredible (none / 1) (#319)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 11:50:27 AM EST

    dumbfounding

    it would go up

    WAY UP

    why?

    BECUASE IT'S HIGHLY ADDICTIVE YOU FUCKING BRAINDEAD MORON

    what the fuck is your problem? why do you think willpower is stronger than addiction?


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    One more time... (none / 1) (#323)
    by kcidx on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 11:56:37 AM EST

    Being highly addictive does not make people FLOCK to a substance. In fact, once that information is out there, many smart people avoid it for that very reason. Do you honestly believe that if they legalized heroin, kept up education programs warning about it, and sold it to people over 21 from behind the counter at 7-11, that the doors to 7-11 would get smashed down tomorrow with people rushing to try heroin for the first time now that it was legal? Why? I know its unhealthy while it's illegal, and it would be while legal as well.

    It's a very simple concept.

    You don't understand addiction, or drugs, AT ALL. Not at all. You've obviously done a little reading about the opium wars, but other than that, you're utterly clueless.

    BTW - calm down. It gets even harder to figure out what the hell you're thinking when you go all nuts on us.

    [ Parent ]

    medical doctor (none / 0) (#331)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 12:16:36 PM EST

    smart, educated, wealthy, support

    what was the deciding factor in him becoming addicted?

    ease of access

    try again


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    You fail to understand, yet again. (none / 0) (#344)
    by kcidx on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 12:56:04 PM EST

    Look, dipshit....he was a doctor, he could have just said "my back hurts" and prescribed it to himself.

    The question here is, should he have been locked away in prison after he became addicted, or should he be given treatment and rehabilitation?

    Furthermore, are you trying to say that even doctors shouldn't have access to addictive drugs? Try saying that after have a leg amputated or any kind of massive surgery.

    [ Parent ]

    it's a demonstration (none / 0) (#349)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:10:49 PM EST

    that even the most highly educated are vulnerable

    you're the one telling me education will protect us from addiction, right?

    well then i've just counteracted your supposition now with real world evidence haven't i?

    i've demonstrated something essential about human nature that your teenaged-level hubris fails to understand: we are all weak


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    PRISON YES OR NO? (none / 0) (#352)
    by kcidx on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:16:09 PM EST

    That was the question.

    Should the man be put in prison for becoming addicted the same way a street junky would?

    By extension, should people with a disease be put in prison for having that disease.

    That is the core of this argument, all the rest is window dressing.

    Education and rehabilitation work better than prison at controlling drug use. Or did silly little you think the war on drugs was being "won"?

    [ Parent ]

    Prohibition CREATES young ADDICTS. (none / 0) (#324)
    by procrasti on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 11:57:58 AM EST

    IT GOES UP WHEN ITS ILLEGAL!!!!!

    Simple really... As a herion dealer, I find it much easier to sell to small group of teenaged children for lots of money.  They're impressionable, they think drugs are cool, they'll be addicted for a long time, they will come to me for more because there is no alternative and they are unlikely to be police because they are too young.

    Now, they will provide a good income for me for a long time and I can then recruit more addicts to pay for my lifestyle.

    Make it legal and cheap, and I have no INCENTIVE to spread herion.... I can't profit because its already too cheap.

    Now the children are safe, most adults would have the sense NOT to touch it, and the few people who are addicted (or would become so anyway) can get their fix.

    Also, if its legal... A herion addict REQUIRES heroin perhaps even like you NEED air.  If they get their (pure, controlled) heroin, they will be about as bothered by GETTING heroin as you are about GETTING air.

    Herion ADDICTION is NOT a problem when the heroin is available....  So why MAKE it a problem?

    I also get the feeling that you think all drugs you have taken are fine and the rest are evil incarnate.  

    -------
    if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
    doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
    -------
    Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
    [ Parent ]

    ever see the movie "traffic" (none / 0) (#329)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 12:13:59 PM EST

    michael douglas and that kid from that 70s show are sitting in the car, trying to find his addicted daughter in the ghetto

    stupid white kid says "man, if black people came into rich white neighborhoods and said 'got some blow, got some blow'" all the time like white people do in black neighborhoods then there would be no doctors, no lawyers: everyone would become a dealer"

    and michael douglas just stares at him

    "Herion ADDICTION is NOT a problem when the heroin is available....  So why MAKE it a problem?"

    all i can do i sstare at you

    when a rat in a cage craves heroin because he got addicted to it.... it's because of the drug war?

    when an addict does eat, sleep, have sex, talk to people... all they care about is more smack... it's because of gw bush's drug policy? if he made it legal the addict would go "wow! where'd that urge go?"

    funny me, i thought it was biochemistry

    what a wackadoodle i am

    i didn't know heroin's addiction in the human body was controlled by social policy!

    incredible!

    i'm going to focus real hard and grow muscles and not need to sleep anymore... i can contorl biochemistry with willpower and social policy!

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    "I also get the feeling that you think all drugs you have taken are fine and the rest are evil incarnate. "

    psychedlics, alcohol, marijuana: fine: no addiciton

    stimulant: cocaine, meth, and opaites: high addiciton, should be illegal

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    You really can't hold much... (none / 0) (#347)
    by kcidx on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:02:45 PM EST

    ..information in your head at one time can you?

    You just randomly jump between topics, can't seem to remember what you were just talking about, what you were replying to, WHO you were replying to, or anything.

    You clearly don't understand that just because something is addictive doesn't mean it draws you to it, UNTIL YOU ARE ADDICTED. I can look at the pack of smokes on my coworkers desk all day long...and not have the urge to smoke, because I know it's bad.

    If he had a heroin needle and syringe sitting there instead, the same would hold true. Why can you not understand that?

    The effect of the drug war driving up usage and addiction of drugs are evident to EVERYONE except those wishing to prolong the war, usually because of ignorance of the topic (you) or economic/political reasons (GW).

    [ Parent ]

    silly man ;-) (none / 0) (#348)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:08:37 PM EST

    "If he had a heroin needle and syringe sitting there instead, the same would hold true. Why can you not understand that?"

    hubris: i am always strong

    i'm sure you could not use the syringe for a week

    a month

    even a year

    but ten years?

    and i'm sure in a room of 100 people no one would touch it... for a week, after that i think someone would

    how about a room of 1000 people?

    that owuld last a day

    how about a society?

    we're down to the essential point: EASE OF ACCESS

    ease of access to heroin increases use of heorin

    right?

    use of heroin increases chance for addiction

    right?

    therefore, ease of access leads to increae in number addicts

    rays of sunshine in a muddied brain that doesn't apprecaite essential human frailty...

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    You are weak. (none / 0) (#353)
    by kcidx on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:18:06 PM EST

    You just admitted it.

    But speak for yourself. I've been around heroin, I've been around cocaine. I've ever done cocaine.

    But I'm not addicted, I don't seek it out. And I'll never touch heroin, EVER. It's a decision I made, and I have the willpower to live up to it.

    Just because you lack impulse control doesn't mean you should project your problem on everyone else.

    [ Parent ]

    clap, clap, clap (none / 0) (#355)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:20:37 PM EST

    i can drive 120 mph down the highway and never get in an accident

    can you?

    you can't?

    your weak, and i think they should repeal speed limits

    ;-)


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Once again... (none / 0) (#357)
    by kcidx on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:24:50 PM EST

    Sung to the tune of the Cyndi Lauper song...

    "I see your true dumbness shining through...
    I see your true dumbess, and that's why I love you..
    So don't be afraid...to let it show..."

    Big difference between saying I can control a car at 120mph, and saying I can refrain from taking a drug I'm not addicted to, and am well educated on the dangers of.

    You're the best troll evAR CTS, really. Sometimes it's like you actually are a real person, with your own little disjointed, illogical, unsupportable opinions, and then other times, you are just obviously a troll.

    [ Parent ]

    not a big difference (none / 0) (#362)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:39:19 PM EST

    "Big difference between saying I can control a car at 120mph, and saying I can refrain from taking a drug I'm not addicted to"

    the same human weakness that makes people speed makes them start taking drugs

    feeling of invulnerability

    you say you have no human weakness

    am i supposed to be impressed by this arrogance and hubris about the essential human frailty in all of us?


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    You deliberately misstate me, (none / 0) (#365)
    by procrasti on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:56:53 PM EST

    but I guess you knew that.

    I said that ADDICTION to heroin is not a PROBLEM when constant controlled clean small cheap doses are AVAILABLE.  I did not say that the user wouldn't be addicted... just that they can live their life WITH addiction to heroin.

    Granted, it is better to not be addicted, but people are addicted anyway.  Under the current system addiction is not far from death, in a more tolerant system addiction would be a disadvantage but the user could still be a happy functional human being and a positive contributor to society.

    "when a rat in a cage craves heroin because he got addicted to it...."
    Perhaps people shouldn't be kept in a cages but in Rat Park instead.

    The following is NOT a good way to decide law:
      psychedlics, alcohol, marijuana: Enjoyed by CTS
      stimulant: cocaine, meth, and opaites: Not enjoyed by CTS.

    A better way: Read John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

    -------
    if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
    doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
    -------
    Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
    [ Parent ]

    increased availability (none / 0) (#370)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 02:07:54 PM EST

    leads ot increased addictions

    duh

    or do you not understand how addiction works?

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    wow, challanges to the scientific method? (none / 0) (#375)
    by endymion on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 02:36:58 PM EST

    you challange all the empirical evidence that shows how people with a steady supply aren't a problem?

    How many cities are trying it now, with great success? How it's cut crime, and let them be productive members of society again, even to the point of funding their own treatment?

    You want the references? I mean, it's on google, and any new site talking about this subject for like the last three years, but as someone as "educated" on the subject as you are, you should know that already...

    - The Code Nazi
    [ Parent ]

    But heroin is addictive....real addictive!!! (none / 0) (#383)
    by kcidx on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 04:15:47 PM EST

    Do you not understand how addiction works? :)

    [ Parent ]
    hahaha! (none / 0) (#384)
    by endymion on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 04:29:39 PM EST

    funniest comment yet ^_^
    - The Code Nazi
    [ Parent ]
    i never claimed otherwise - nt (none / 0) (#373)
    by endymion on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 02:11:40 PM EST


    - The Code Nazi
    [ Parent ]
    I understand your need (none / 0) (#385)
    by tinkertux on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 05:34:23 PM EST

    but it still doesn't explain why you argue with CTS. It reminds me of a poster I saw: "Winning an arguement on the internet is like running in the 'special olympics'. Even if you win, you are still a retard". Or the older saying "You shouldn't argue with a fool; it only amuses the fool and passersby can't tell the difference."

    Argueing with CTS is not helping your case. In fact, it is probably hurting your case as he gets to spout a lot of crap and some people may think he actually has a clue. If one continually repeats the same garbage over and over, eventually some people believe it. Do it long enough and the whacko's are running the asylum.

    Look as U.S. politics for concrete proof.

    Just my opinion.

    [ Parent ]

    yah, true (none / 0) (#386)
    by endymion on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 06:10:17 PM EST

    I try different things, though...

    so this one kindof flops...

    meh; at least I'm trying something.

    - The Code Nazi
    [ Parent ]

    thwak thwak thwak... (1.50 / 2) (#206)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:14:55 AM EST

    caCAW caCAW

    -crap- -fart-

    thwak thwak thwak thwak...


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    woah (none / 0) (#372)
    by endymion on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 02:11:07 PM EST

    your most honest post yet!

    - The Code Nazi
    [ Parent ]
    HEY CTS! (none / 0) (#374)
    by endymion on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 02:33:48 PM EST

    I just caught up on this 'thread'...

    And I have only one more question for you.

    You see, people that are as rabidly against opiates like you only really fall into a couple of categories:


    1. They profit from it, directly or indirectly.
    2. They are stuck on the faith-based dogma. (read: propoganda)
    3. They are a rabid lunatic.

    So which are you?

    I'm guessing the lunatic here, but I never put anything past the profit motive. It's too (dare I say it?!) addicting!

    So are you profiting from this drug war somehow? You mentioned something a while back about working in some rehab or clinic? I forgot what.

    Or is it just because this is what you've been told by DARE, NIDA, ONDCP, and others? And you belive them over reason and logic?

    And if it's neither of the above, that leave the lunatic angle... but don't worry. Nurse Ratchet will be by with the Thorazine in a bit. It'll make all the scary voices go away...

    - The Code Nazi
    [ Parent ]

    Praise and a disagreement (none / 1) (#196)
    by cathouse on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 06:26:42 PM EST

    This is by far the best written article I've ever read on kuro5hin.  My highest respect to the writer, but allow me to disagree with a single statement made in the beginning of the article

     

    Perhaps the least understood area in the Burroughs story is the issue of drugs.

    The least understood area in the Burroughs story is:

    How in all the Hells did he get away with shooting two of his wives in the head with the same pistol and never spend a day in jail for either?

    I strongly suspect that the legal costs may well have been the financial blow to the Burroughs Corperation that gave IBM the undisputed lead in computers for the remainder of the Twentieth Century.

    -

    pity this busy monster manunkind not

    progress is a comfortable disease


    Thanks (none / 0) (#264)
    by Egil Skallagrimson on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 08:04:53 AM EST

    Actually, he onl shot one wife and it was in Mexico during the early 1950's, so apparently you could do that kind of thing.

    Anywy, he spent a few days in jail, then his lawyer got him out on a small bail, and he fled the country, returning a few months later.  When he came back, they didn't seem to care anymore, and he could never find out where they had buried her.

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

    Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
    [ Parent ]

    Money (none / 0) (#204)
    by 3454234 on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 11:03:56 PM EST

    "The issue of drugs could easily have been dealt with under the subject of societal control, since Burroughs often commented that drugs were just another control mechanism used by governments and underground governments to maintain a money"

    Sorry, I don't see what you're saying. [nt] (none / 0) (#265)
    by Egil Skallagrimson on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 08:06:00 AM EST


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

    Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
    [ Parent ]

    sounds nifty (none / 1) (#387)
    by blankorangutan on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 06:14:19 PM EST

    what is the jist of this site and where do newbs go?

    Just do whatever HollyHopDrive does [nt] (none / 1) (#394)
    by Egil Skallagrimson on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 08:24:57 PM EST


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

    Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
    [ Parent ]

    No more comments? (none / 0) (#399)
    by Egil Skallagrimson on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 02:53:33 PM EST

    c'mon guys, only one more til 400.  What gives?

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

    Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.

    400! w00t! you're welcome (nt) (none / 0) (#400)
    by circletimessquare on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 03:58:54 PM EST



    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    Chhers. (none / 1) (#401)
    by Egil Skallagrimson on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 04:16:25 PM EST

    I don't know why I wanted that so much.

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

    Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
    [ Parent ]

    drug abuse stats: or, why cts is full of crap (none / 0) (#402)
    by Polverone on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 05:53:42 PM EST

    Alcoholism: Getting the Facts, published by the government's National Institutes of Health:

    Currently, nearly 14 million Americans--1 in every 13 adults--abuse alcohol or are alcoholic.

    This amounts to ~7.7% of the adult population. Let's assume that every adult has tried alcohol, so ~7.7% of people who try alcohol abuse or are dependent on alcohol.

    Drug use numbers from the government's Office of National Drug Control Policy:

    3.7 million Americans have used heroin during their lifetime; only 119,000 used in the month prior to the survey. That means that at most ~3.2% of people who have tried heroin use it regularly enough to be abusers/addicts [1].

    34.9 million Americans have used cocaine during their lifetime, but only 2.3 million used in the month prior to the survey. That means that at most ~6.6% of people who have tried cocaine use it regularly enough to be abusers/addicts.

    12.3 million Americans have used methamphetamine during their lifetime, but only 607,000 used in the month prior to the survey. That means that at most ~4.9% of people who have tried methamphetamine use it regularly enough to be abusers/addicts.

    CTS loudly proclaims that hard drugs need to remain criminalized because people are so much more likely to become addicted to cocaine or heroin than to alcohol when they have the opportunity to try them all. The numbers don't bear this out at all. Heavy/regular use of heroin among people who have already tried heroin is lower than heavy/regular use of alcohol among people who have tried alcohol.

    Bookmark this post so you can play the same copy/paste games that cts enjoys when the topic inevitably comes up again.

    [1]Yes, I know that regularity of use doesn't define addiction, but it would be a very strange sort of addict who was able to use less than once a month, and not at all in line with cts's archetype of the biochemical drug slave with zero free will.
    --
    It's not a just, good idea; it's the law.
    I mostly agree with you but... (none / 0) (#403)
    by benna on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 10:00:39 PM EST

    You really haven't (not that you could) controlled completly for availablity. Not everyone who tries heroin can access it as easily as those who have tried alcohol. Just because someone can get it once doesn't mean they can get it any time they want. Also, cost is a factor. Still, I think you are right in your general message that not everyone, or even close to everyone, who uses heroin becomes addicted, and this would continue to be the case even if it were legalized.
    -
    "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    [ Parent ]
    Aren't drugs generally easier to get (none / 0) (#404)
    by Egil Skallagrimson on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 10:22:59 PM EST

    in the U.S. than alcohol?

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

    Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
    [ Parent ]

    For me, yes (none / 0) (#405)
    by benna on Sat Jun 25, 2005 at 12:30:31 AM EST

    But thats because I'm under 21. For those that can purchase alcohol legally not really.
    -
    "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    [ Parent ]
    See, in Ontario, or Alberta (none / 0) (#406)
    by Egil Skallagrimson on Sat Jun 25, 2005 at 07:07:22 PM EST

    which are places in Canada, you only have to be 19 or 18 respectively.  Most people have to jump through hoops for booze, but can find pot regularily.

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

    Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
    [ Parent ]

    Doesn't help me (none / 0) (#407)
    by benna on Sat Jun 25, 2005 at 09:09:18 PM EST

    I'm 16.
    -
    "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    [ Parent ]
    Then you'd have to find pot. (none / 0) (#408)
    by Egil Skallagrimson on Sat Jun 25, 2005 at 09:39:01 PM EST

    Booze is right out.

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

    Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
    [ Parent ]

    Thats fine, I like it better anyway. [nt] (none / 0) (#409)
    by benna on Sat Jun 25, 2005 at 11:10:00 PM EST


    -
    "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    [ Parent ]
    Concerning Naked Lunch Part 4: Drugs and Addicts | 409 comments (379 topical, 30 editorial, 0 hidden)
    Display: Sort:

    kuro5hin.org

    [XML]
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
    See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
    Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
    Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
    My heart's the long stairs.

    Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!